Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is preventing someone from taking out a non investment loan against an investment property to get the better discounted rates that are no longer offered on investment loans?
With all the changes that have mentioned are some banks staying as they were. That is they were already conservative by nature.
I am speaking about Bendigo Bank, Suncorp ect.
Quite a few lenders haven't made any changes to their servicing criteria. ANZ, Suncorp, BankWest, CBA all immediately come to mind, but there's a lot more.
None of these lenders are what I'd call aggressive lenders. For example Suncorp is so conservative that despite having cheap rates, they're not on the radar for investment lending.
I can't comment on Bendigo Bank, but they're funded by Adelaide Bank who are currently reviewing their servicing criteria, so there will probably be some follow through coming.
Quite a few lenders have or are making changes to their policies but they're not advertising it.
Hi All,
With all the changes that have mentioned are some banks staying as they were. That is they were already conservative by nature.
I am speaking about Bendigo Bank, Suncorp ect.
I would be interested in what people views on this are.
Cheers
Peter
This is misleading......if you are an investor CBA, Bankwest, and Westpac have changed their criterion for investors. This will definitely affect serviceability. The reason these changes are being made is due to APRA...they are forced to make these changes.
AS for SunCorp...they are conservative as they have used a rate based on the clients being able to service loans if interest rates go up between 2-3%.
I also disagree that CBA is not agressive...they are you are just not seeing it. Wait till repossessions come through....their reputation is to litigate everything.
Although, break costs on one of my IP's is only $1700.
CBA haven't changed servicing criteria, only pricing.
Try and look at it like this. APRA is concerned about too much systemic risk being caused by too much I/O debt. Those lenders with either
A. A real imbalance of I/O debt v P&I debt or
B. Greater than 10% year on year I/O growth
have attracted APRA's attention.
Westpac and CBA are top of the list, having both grown their I/O business more than 35% in the past year, against APRA's express wishes. You have to understand that APRA has been politely asking the banks to restrain year on year I/O growth to 10% or less, for 12-18 months now. This is not something that just came out of nowhere.
RE Westpac - obviously APRA's "requests" have now become "demands" and you have seen deliberate and immediate action from them around LVR's for non residents (which generates a lot of I/O business for them - they get over 65% of all non resident lending in this land) and also around their servicing calc. Both changes are designed to immediately and significantly slow down their I/O lending.
RE CBA - Amazingly, so far CBA hasn't really done anything much. This appears to me at least, to be waving a red rag at a bull. Wont take long before APRA loses patience. They will simply not tolerate the systemic risk. Either CBA will be agree to toe the line voluntarily - and soon- or APRA will begin to cripple them with regulatory/capital requirements. CBA shareholders - do take note!
ANZ and NAB's I/O lending only grew at @ 13-15% so they havent attracted the same level of ire from APRA. That is reflected in the far more modest adjustments both lenders have introduced. NAB has removed "actuals" from its calc and reduced LVR's for investors to 90%, and ANZ didnt really need to do much at all as they were already kind of close to where APRA wanted them to be. All they have done is remove any pricing discounts for investors
Aside from that, a small number of other lenders have tightened capacity - Macquarie is probably the most notable.
Essentially, anyone who was contributing to systemic risk ( as perceived by APRA at least) by writing too much I/O debt too fast, has been asked to pull their heads in. This isn't really about property prices. This is about risk to the Australian banking sector, and in turn to the ASX and in turn the broader economy.
Some others - ING and Bwest for example- have reduced LVR's . I admit this confuses me, as neither lender could be accused of being investment lenders, per se. Their existing policies were sufficient deterrents for most investors, I would have imagined...
What you are seeing is APRA forcing lenders ( through pricing and policy structure ) to drive more people to P&I, which in turn means APRA starts to see some de-leveraging happening over time , which in turn satisfies APRA that systemic risk (from a deep recession or quick hike to rates) is reduced. That is what they are trying to engineer.
It also has the side effect of allowing the RBA to cut rates ( should they feel the need) without concern of additional borrowing capacity being created, and a housing bubble forming in Sydney - if it hasnt already.
Of course, as discussed here many times the non banks will be the exception to all of this as they aren't regulated directly by APRA so will remain free to lend to investors on whatever terms they choose for the time being. Until of course, APRA gets more direct regulatory authority over them as well and closes that off too.
Some others - ING and Bwest for example- have reduced LVR's . I admit this confuses me, as neither lender could be accused of being investment lenders, per se. Their existing policies were sufficient deterrents for most investors, I would have imagined...
I wore a fee 10x that much on a loan of just over $250k. I was stuck, otherwise.
Doing so allowed me to purchase 2 x 2 bed apartments in Sydney's inner west (Sept 13, May 14).
It was worth it.
What is worrying is how is that you all as Mortgage Brokers have not got a handle on this? Are you BDM's not communicating??
And APRA get to grow their remit after the inevitable expansion of the non-bank lenders becomes a "systemic risk" as a result of all this.
Nice work!
In the meantime, who are looking likely to become the best lenders outside of the current APRA tent?
If you have less than $1m then SunCorp....they will lend at pretty good rates.
Also awesome for House and Land packages.
The are already using the conservative lending parameters...which did cost them business before but now a definite look in.
I'm not so sure I can really agree with Suncorp as a decent lender for investors.
Certainly they've got great rates, their house and land package is fine.
Their problem is they're so conservative that they're almost impossible to deal with as investors. If you ever want to get equity out of them, their servicing calculator is outright brutal unless you've got low debt and a significant income.
If you're just buying a single property (your own home or an IP) they're fine and cheap with a good range of features. If you're looking to build a portfolio over time and will want to eventually do an equity release, you'll probably find yourself moving lenders for that equity release. If you've already got an investment portfolio, then odds are you're already outside their affordability criteria.
There's no real problem with them as a lender, but at the end of the day their servicing calculator is so bad that they're virtually unusable. The reason they haven't come under APRA's radar is because they're just not in the investment lending space in any serious manner.
I think the lenders that are going to be most useful moving forwards are the mortgage managers, but the product, funder and insurer will need to be carefully managed.