Date:20 October 2008 I Comments: 1 I Views:7,373

One of the key factors that contributed towards the current financial climate was people borrowing more than they could actually afford.

Lenders were confident that house prices would continue to rise so if they had to repossess houses they would be OK. The property market was booming and it wouldn’t be a problem to sell the repossessed house on.

So, that clearly hasn’t quite worked out the way everyone wanted and who is really going to feel the pain? It’s Mr. Joe Public.

Now that mortgage lenders no longer want ‘high risk’ business they are starting to tighten their criteria and reduce the income multiples that define how much a person can borrow.

So the obvious problem arises when someone who was previously offered a mortgage at 5x salary can suddenly only get a mortgage for 4.5x.

If the salary is £20,000 they could have originally borrowed £100,000 but now the maximum would only be £90,000.

So what happens if the mortgage is still above £90,000?

If their existing lender has no offers they can either stay on the ‘standard variable rate’ or try to find a mortgage lender that will offer them the amount they need.

In addition, lenders are also reducing their ‘loan to value’ criteria and another problem is occurring.

If Mr. Public had a mortgage with Northern Rock for 125% of the value of the property but now the maximum any lender will let them have is 90% they have no choice but to stay on the Northern Rock standard variable rate which is currently 7.34%. There just aren’t any lenders offering enough of a ‘loan to value’.

e.g.: £100,000 at 5.5% (interest only) = £458.33 per month.

£100,000 at 7.34% = £611.66 per month.

A difference o £153.33 per month per £100,000.

And people wonder why Northern Rock is repossessing more houses.

This will force people who could easily afford their mortgage at a sensible rate to push the limits of their budget and in some cases lose their house.

People with ‘repayment’ mortgages may be able to increase the term of their mortgage temporarily to bring down the monthly payments but people with interest only mortgages will not have that option.

In a market where even repossessing isn’t very clever because any lender selling off houses now will only lose money, an alternative should be considered.

Why not let the people remain in their homes but just pay less for a while? Like a short term rate reduction?

OK, the mortgage company will probably have to keep the customer but at least they will make a regular income (which looks good on paper) and they will retain an interest in the property that could well increase in value in the future.

The borrower would no longer be stretched and the mortgage will have less chance of defaulting which in turn will make the debt look safer. Also good on paper….

Category: Mortgages

Comments

  1. There’s more to it though isn’t there.

    If a lender respossess, they no longer have a debt on their books, they now have an asset (the property) which looks even better on paper.

    Then, if they ‘rent-back’ the property, not only do they have the asset value of the property on their books but they also continue to make money from the former owner.

    Not surprising therefore the OFT is urging the FSA to look into regulating ‘sale and rent back’ schemes.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/14/realestate-housingmarket