Will throwing money at the Banks really solve the problem?
With the credit crunch wreaking havoc on the global economy certain governments throughout the world have stepped in with bail out plans involving the injection of money into their individual banking systems. The reason behind this is to stave off the bad or `toxic? debt which they see as crippling to their countries' economies due to unstable institutions and negligible public borrowing.
The burning question now is whether or not this cash injection will have the desired effect so that we are able to borrow money confidently again. At present I am only able to comment on the effect these changes will have on the general public in the United Kingdom, as I am unaware of how other global markets work within their countries, and therefore am unqualified to comment. There may be similarities in how the markets work, but it is best to take my comments here as a rough guide only if outside the UK.
Now the general consensus would be that due to the credit crunch the various financial institutions involved in the lending of money are not at liberty to do so, through a lack of it. So it would then follow on that the way to solve the problem is to supply them with the necessary means, i.e. more money. But this approach does not begin to scratch the surface with regards to the underlying problem. The reality is that the banks have been badly hit by the credit crunch and so are quite unwilling to continue on with lending as if nothing had happened.
The main result and contributory factor to the current financial predicament is that of house prices, and house prices are not only falling but are set to continue to fall for the foreseeable future. Consequently lenders are finding that they have to tighten all their criteria not least in the area of loan to value LTV, that is the amount of money that is lent based on the value of the property. Most lenders during 2007 lent up to 95% LTV some lent 100% LTV and in some cases they went as high as 125%LTV.
Most experts will agree that as long as the market is buoyant, this lending is alright. If you take into account that the market was rising at a rate of 10%, lending 125% on a property of 100,000 means you are lending 125,000, but with that 10% rate of increase in value over just 3 years your LTV has already dropped to around 93%. In a buoyant market, this sort of lending would be considered a calculated profitable risk and was therefore given the o.k..
However house prices are not rising by 10% per annum in fact they are falling by at least 10% and some people think that these falls will be worse. So with that in mind if you now lend to someone 85,000 on a 100,000 house in three years your loan could be as high as 118% LTV. This as I am sure you will agree unacceptable lending in this climate. This therefore clearly explains why lenders are unwilling to lend over 90% LTV and in some cases 85%.
So what does the future hold for the market and will the bailout be the solution to the problem. Well I can only give my own personal professional opinion and nothing is set in stone but realistically I would perceive the bailout as having very little effect. They simply cannot lend at the high loan to values even though they have been committed in 2009 to lend at the levels reached in 2007. You see the majority of loans being agreed at present are dealing with people coming out of rates that had been pre-arranged over the last 5 years. Due to the downward spiral of house prices these people are going to be pushing the LTV up.
In addition you will also have to factor in the situation that a lot of people over the last five years have obtained self certification mortgages. Most of these mortgages are now not available due to the fact that they represent too much of a risk for the lenders, and if they are available they will be at much reduced LTVs, so what are these people going to do?
In conclusion, although the cash injections can only be welcomed as a step in the right direction, I fear that there will be little knock on effect whilst housing prices continue to plummet and lenders fail to meet the level of lending that was rife before 2008. It seems more likely that the money will be stored up for the future. This will unfortunately create a catch-22 situation where the prices continue to fall because of the low LTVs and the tight lending criteria, in turn making the lenders more nervous about lending. It seems to me that the only way out will be for someone to bite the bullet and take the risks again at lending, even taking into account the possible risks involved.
The burning question now is whether or not this cash injection will have the desired effect so that we are able to borrow money confidently again. At present I am only able to comment on the effect these changes will have on the general public in the United Kingdom, as I am unaware of how other global markets work within their countries, and therefore am unqualified to comment. There may be similarities in how the markets work, but it is best to take my comments here as a rough guide only if outside the UK.
Now the general consensus would be that due to the credit crunch the various financial institutions involved in the lending of money are not at liberty to do so, through a lack of it. So it would then follow on that the way to solve the problem is to supply them with the necessary means, i.e. more money. But this approach does not begin to scratch the surface with regards to the underlying problem. The reality is that the banks have been badly hit by the credit crunch and so are quite unwilling to continue on with lending as if nothing had happened.
The main result and contributory factor to the current financial predicament is that of house prices, and house prices are not only falling but are set to continue to fall for the foreseeable future. Consequently lenders are finding that they have to tighten all their criteria not least in the area of loan to value LTV, that is the amount of money that is lent based on the value of the property. Most lenders during 2007 lent up to 95% LTV some lent 100% LTV and in some cases they went as high as 125%LTV.
Most experts will agree that as long as the market is buoyant, this lending is alright. If you take into account that the market was rising at a rate of 10%, lending 125% on a property of 100,000 means you are lending 125,000, but with that 10% rate of increase in value over just 3 years your LTV has already dropped to around 93%. In a buoyant market, this sort of lending would be considered a calculated profitable risk and was therefore given the o.k..
However house prices are not rising by 10% per annum in fact they are falling by at least 10% and some people think that these falls will be worse. So with that in mind if you now lend to someone 85,000 on a 100,000 house in three years your loan could be as high as 118% LTV. This as I am sure you will agree unacceptable lending in this climate. This therefore clearly explains why lenders are unwilling to lend over 90% LTV and in some cases 85%.
So what does the future hold for the market and will the bailout be the solution to the problem. Well I can only give my own personal professional opinion and nothing is set in stone but realistically I would perceive the bailout as having very little effect. They simply cannot lend at the high loan to values even though they have been committed in 2009 to lend at the levels reached in 2007. You see the majority of loans being agreed at present are dealing with people coming out of rates that had been pre-arranged over the last 5 years. Due to the downward spiral of house prices these people are going to be pushing the LTV up.
In addition you will also have to factor in the situation that a lot of people over the last five years have obtained self certification mortgages. Most of these mortgages are now not available due to the fact that they represent too much of a risk for the lenders, and if they are available they will be at much reduced LTVs, so what are these people going to do?
In conclusion, although the cash injections can only be welcomed as a step in the right direction, I fear that there will be little knock on effect whilst housing prices continue to plummet and lenders fail to meet the level of lending that was rife before 2008. It seems more likely that the money will be stored up for the future. This will unfortunately create a catch-22 situation where the prices continue to fall because of the low LTVs and the tight lending criteria, in turn making the lenders more nervous about lending. It seems to me that the only way out will be for someone to bite the bullet and take the risks again at lending, even taking into account the possible risks involved.
About the Author:
Advice on mortgages from qualified Independent Mortgage Advisers help information and free to use mortgage calculators come to Mortgage Route
posted by Debt Consolidation Loan at
1:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home