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.
House prices are the most important element of the current financial situation, and the prices are dropping fast and are showing no sign of stopping any time soon. Because of this drop in value, lenders are having to be extra vigilant when it comes to lending money from now on. This is particularly relevant when it comes to loan to value (LTV), which is the amount lent in relation to the value of the property. For example, in 2007, lenders were giving 95%, 100% and even 125% of the value of properties.
While the market is buoyant most annalists will agree this type of lending is OK. Think about it if you lend on a 100,000 house 125% which results in a loan of 125,000 and the house price rises over the next three years at a rate of 10% per annum, which was not unheard of. Then your LTV in three years time would only be 93% this is alright from a lending point of view and what would be considered an acceptable risk.
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 this mean to the bailout and the future of the market? Well in my opinion, and I may be right or wrong only time will tell, I think that the bailout will have little effect. Yes the lenders are under a commitment to lend at the levels of 2007 during 2009, but if you understand what has been said in my previous paragraphs they cant lend at the high loan to values. Most of the urgent cases for lending are the people coming out of rates that have been arrange in the last five years, these people are going to be pushing the LTVs due to the current house price falls.
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. - 15465
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.
House prices are the most important element of the current financial situation, and the prices are dropping fast and are showing no sign of stopping any time soon. Because of this drop in value, lenders are having to be extra vigilant when it comes to lending money from now on. This is particularly relevant when it comes to loan to value (LTV), which is the amount lent in relation to the value of the property. For example, in 2007, lenders were giving 95%, 100% and even 125% of the value of properties.
While the market is buoyant most annalists will agree this type of lending is OK. Think about it if you lend on a 100,000 house 125% which results in a loan of 125,000 and the house price rises over the next three years at a rate of 10% per annum, which was not unheard of. Then your LTV in three years time would only be 93% this is alright from a lending point of view and what would be considered an acceptable risk.
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 this mean to the bailout and the future of the market? Well in my opinion, and I may be right or wrong only time will tell, I think that the bailout will have little effect. Yes the lenders are under a commitment to lend at the levels of 2007 during 2009, but if you understand what has been said in my previous paragraphs they cant lend at the high loan to values. Most of the urgent cases for lending are the people coming out of rates that have been arrange in the last five years, these people are going to be pushing the LTVs due to the current house price falls.
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. - 15465
About the Author:
Mortgage Route gives information help and mortgage advice from fully trained mortgage brokers along with free mortgage calculators and sourcing tools.
