Skip Navigation
 

Another Nail In The Housing Coffin!

Cliff D'Arcy

By

Cliff D'Arcy

From the Fool blog

How To Bag A Bargain This Christmas

Published in Mortgages on 1 September 2008

The credit crunch is hitting property sales and prices. Now interest-only mortgages are under threat...

What can you do if you find the house of your dreams, only to discover that you can’t stretch to the mortgage that goes with it? One obvious answer is to make an offer below the seller’s asking price. Indeed, according to property-information firm Hometrack, current sales are completing at around a tenth (10%) below asking prices.

Another option is to shop around for a mortgage which better suits your needs. For example, depending on your personal circumstances, some banks and building societies will lend you more than others. In addition, it makes sense to track down the cheapest mortgages available, taking into account both monthly repayments and any associated fees. The best way to do this is by using a whole-of-market broker, such as The Fool’s award-winning, no-fee mortgage service.

Interest-only loans are cheaper

With a repayment mortgage, your monthly repayments consist of interest and repayment of capital. Thus, they chip away at your home loan, leaving you debt-free at the end of your mortgage. However, with an interest-only loan, you pay only the monthly interest on your mortgage, so your debt remains constant.

Therefore, a sure-fire way to bring down your monthly repayments is to opt for an interest-only mortgage. During the UK’s twelve-year housing boom, mortgage lenders were only too happy to provide interest-only loans to homebuyers. After all, with house prices rising year after year after year, even customers with interest-only loans of 100% of the purchase price soon built up substantial equity in their home.

The tide has turned

Of course, interest-only mortgages present more risk to mortgage lenders. Without a proper repayment vehicle in place, homeowners have no clear way of paying off the debt when their mortgage expires, other than selling up and moving to a cheaper property. Nevertheless, in the boom years, mortgage lenders were happy to ignore this extra risk and lend on the same terms for both interest-only and repayment mortgages.

However, with the property market at the beginning of what may well be a prolonged slump, mortgage lenders are rediscovering the basics of risk management. These days, they are unwilling to lend five, six or even seven times an applicant’s income. Likewise, they are demanding higher deposits from homebuyers, and paying closer attention to the affordability of mortgage repayments.

Thus, faced with the possibility of negative equity (when the value of a mortgage is larger than that of the property on which it is secured), lenders are being stricter when it comes to handing out interest-only loans. In response to fears about borrowers’ future ability to repay, some lenders are:

  • carrying out more in-depth credit checks on applicants;
  • reducing the amount they are willing to lend on interest-only loans; and
  • asking borrowers to supply documentary evidence of a capital-repayment vehicle.

A week ago, Barclays subsidiary Woolwich lowered its cap on interest-only borrowing to three-quarters (75%) of a property’s value. Borrowing in excess of this loan-to-value (LTV) level must be accompanied by capital repayments. What’s more, leading lender Abbey now restricts lending on interest-only terms to just half (50%) of the purchase price. Likewise, Intelligent Finance -- owned by number-one mortgage lender HBOS -- limits its LTV for interest-only borrowers to three-fifths (60%).

From easy credit to tough debt

Clearly, when it comes to lending money against residential property, lenders have cleaned up their act and tightened their criteria. Indeed, some brokers claim that this tightening is leading to more mortgage applications being rejected than at any time since the early Nineties. Thus, when it comes to lending to customers on the margins of affordability, lenders are now erring on the side of caution and delving deeper into customers’ personal finances. Today, their motto is: “If in doubt, shoo them out!”

Finally, I should say that I am not opposed in principle to interest-only mortgages. Indeed, while a homeowner between 1992 and 2005, I had an interest-only loan. However, I set up several different stock-market investment plans aimed at paying off my mortgage as soon as possible. I would urge other interest-only borrowers to do the same (or to repay lumps of capital as and when they can, for example, by using annual bonuses). Otherwise, they may not be in a position to repay their debt when their mortgage ends, which would be a nightmare!

More: Find a happier home loan today! | How To Find The Cheapest Mortgage | House Prices Fall By A Tenth

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

meagherp 02 Sep 2008, 8:50am

Nothing wrong with interest free mortgages. You can normally pay up to 10% off each year when you have some spare cash and/or you could pay into a SIPP to maximise tax relief on parallel long term savings.

chasbmw 02 Sep 2008, 9:06am

There are some very negative effects of a general availability of interest only mortgages

Most btl mortgaes have been on an interest only mortgage, this has allowed BTL landlords to outbid FTBs.

The general housing bubble of the last few years has been helped by an acceptance of many purchasors of property that property price inflation will pay off their debts and that there was no 'need' to pay off capital.

A restriction in the availability of interest only mortgages can only help FTBs as it will help property prices reach a more affordable level.

Chas

pamjos 02 Sep 2008, 10:29am

As a professional investor, I can say that I absolutely have not and will not outbid any buyer. It is a basic requirement for me that the relevant figures leave me with an income. In addition to this, my only protection from market fluctuations in the short term is to never pay more than what anyone else in the market is willing to pay. If I was shopping for my own home however, the likelihood of bidding and overpaying would increase due to the emotional element.
I only bid against a first time buyer once and quite reluctantly, after 6 months on the market, I asked my solicitor to offer only to be told he'd offered on behalf of first time buyers earlier in the day on the same property and he couldn't act for me this time. The first time buyers' offer was higher and was accepted - they outbid me! I don't mind as I since bought 3 other properties which work on a financial basis for me. I was happy to buy at the price I offered, but they were happy to pay more. I would have needed to spend money to make the place fit for letting, they could afford to move in and work on one room at a time if they chose. The interest only mortgage makes sense from the point of view of having something left after the mortgage is paid so that costs such as insurance, safety certificates, letting agent etc can be paid. These costs are not relevant to the first time(or any other) homebuyer. House price growth will likely always be the favoured repayment method for an investor if the difference is being out of pocket on a property purchase. Over the long term, house prices will always grow by more than the debt. Interest only is simply the sharpest tool available to the landlord/investor.

Pamela

Jbat001 02 Sep 2008, 12:32pm

Great to have some enlightened comment from pamjos above! There are too many BTL landlords who think they're Nicholas van Hoogstraten, and act accordingly. Running crap properties and treating tenants like scum has caused at least some of the resentment towards the BTL investors, which is at least partially mitigated by the words above!

Vincenzo30 02 Sep 2008, 1:44pm

I recently applied for an interest only mortgage. Once it got to the underwriting stage they wanted me to show that I was saving £833 per month into an invetsment vehicle. This was calculated by dividing the amount of the loan (£250k) by the number of months in the term (300). They told me they disregarded potential growth/interest since this was not guaranteed!

In the end I took a 30 year repayment mortgage to allow me to do a 'hybrid' of the two and hopefully pay it off much sooner.

As far as I could tell the underwriting criteria were there to discourage anyone taking an interest only mortgage. Even those of us who already had a reasonable amount invested towards eventual repayment.

What would be the point of an interest only mortgage with investment vehicle if you had to save the full amount borrowed over the term, disregarding growth/interest? A repayment mortgage would be far cheaper.

ggpessimist 02 Sep 2008, 2:45pm

So Pamjos is a professional investior with 3 properties!A professional investor looks at return on money invested by way of income in relation to out goings but with an expectation that if bought at the right point in the market there might be capital growth. Many of the present market woes have been caused by greedy idiots and their equally rapacious and shortsighted lenders encouraged by the media who believed that property prices always go up.
Over the long term they do but I would take a bet that it will be at least 2012/3 before we reach the peaks of 2007 in most 'ordinary' parts of the country.

Markstuffed 02 Sep 2008, 7:21pm

dont think pamjos said he had 3 houses, he bought 3 since that particular incident...

whether you have one or one hundred houses should follow some fairly basic criteria - shouldnt they? Cashflow - income should at least cover mortgage cost,insuranc and other basic costs. If you are interested in capital growth, or (if you want income or in a time like we are in now) income should be x% over all costs, like any other business. Agree with qqpessimist above - a lot of people thought house prices would go up forever. Any right thinking person would know that was crud, "40 times your earnings on a mortgage sir? No problem". I told loads of people that could not (or would not) remember the 90's crash...i was only a teenager when that happened but i always remember mums house halfing in value. Think it could happen again? Well, why not!!

That said, i've got 3 brand new houses i cant sell on a development. Just caught the beginning of the downturn/media frenzy!! So i certainly am hoping for a swift upturn!!

rowlystravel 03 Sep 2008, 12:52pm

@ Meagherp

using a SIPP is unlikely to be suitable as
1)you cant withdraw until age 50/55 depending when you do it
2) the cash released is still only 25% of the fund, so you would need a fund 4 times the value of the outstanding mortgage to repay it
3) once you have carried out point 2 successfully, you are left without a retirement lump sum fund and everything you have spent years saving for and only left with a what is likely to be an insufficent monthly income by way of drawdown or annuity

normally you would use the fund to pay one off expensesd, clear any lingering debt that may or may not still exist, and use the remaining funds to supplement income by way of annual interest

ISA's can be used, and if you are lucky enough to be in the police you can still but guaranteed, albeit expensive endowments...

at the moment some interest rates are so high that they are better value than an ISA even after tax (if you are a basic rate payer)

RentalBoy 03 Sep 2008, 2:34pm

May I make a suggestion to avoid these so called UK high street mortgage lenders sucking you dry.

Try an international(Europe) based lender that gives loans in the UK. They are much much cheaper and do not employ blood sucking tactics.

Save your blood(finances), we will need them before things start to look up again.

McLeodC 03 Sep 2008, 6:18pm

ChasBMW is correct: all other things being equal, private buyers should normally be able to outbid professional investors - who want to make a profit after covering their costs. But interest-only mortgages (considered too risky for most private buyers) have preserved a tax advantage for BTL investors that was abolished many years ago for private buyers. Far from being bad for the housing market, their demise will help create a level playing field, and can only help the average first-time buyer.

Join the conversation

Instructions

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: <b>bold</b>, <i>quoted text</i>. All other tags will be removed from your post.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.