Changes / tightening on servicing for investors

I was speaking to the FM BDM last week and he was saying they are keeping it in-house as much as possible now - only sending to the insurer if the val comes back with high risk score etc.
 
Correct ....

Ultimately, you can use FM effectively for high quality deals . You cant use them for "near enough is good enough" like the majors often take on.... securitised or not - they will be the best way to save many investors bacon in the time ahead.

Lazy brokers wont enjoy dealing with FM. Good brokers will find it fairly straightforward.
 
According to my broker ING Direct have just announced max 80% LVR on all investment loans on any NSW properties.

As someone who has 2 IP's in Sydney ripe for an equity pull I am spewing:mad::mad:

Mostly fixed rate too, so I can't move my business anywhere else for the foreseeable future.
 
According to my broker ING Direct have just announced max 80% LVR on all investment loans on any NSW properties.

As someone who has 2 IP's in Sydney ripe for an equity pull I am spewing:mad::mad:

Mostly fixed rate too, so I can't move my business anywhere else for the foreseeable future.

Ouch hopefully people see this and realise the risks associated with fixing.

Not only just fixing, but jumping into bed with banks who are forced to close up shop when the going gets tough.

I think back to what MQG did during the GFC, but that was quickly forgotten by a lot with heaps of business going there way.

Going to be interesting to see how everything pans out over the next 3 months.

90% LVR no big deal, 80% is a concern.
 
According to my broker ING Direct have just announced max 80% LVR on all investment loans on any NSW properties.

As someone who has 2 IP's in Sydney ripe for an equity pull I am spewing:mad::mad:

Mostly fixed rate too, so I can't move my business anywhere else for the foreseeable future.

2nd mortgage :)
 
Not only just fixing, but jumping into bed with banks who are forced to close up shop when the going gets tough.

CBAs turn on likely further tightening re serviceability is very likely yet to come.

Lets also be mindful that Bankwest has played a similar game to ING et al, yet BWA isnt just owned by CBA, I believe they share the same licence......

Rumour suggest that APRA wont have a rogue foster child not complying with the serviceability floor that APRA are not introducing.

Because serviceability at CBA has recently been in the middle range ( with exception to high range for some deals) it wont affect most incumbents as much as say AMP or Macquarie borrowers who were stretched there to start with.

As an aside Macq has a primarily different funding source to what their model was Pre gfc, but we all have long memories, long enough to remember that even big 4 banks can get close to going belly up.


ta

rolf
 
Because serviceability at CBA has recently been in the middle range ( with exception to high range for some deals) it wont affect most incumbents as much as say AMP or Macquarie borrowers who were stretched there to start with.


rolf

...and here I was thinking I was rather safe with ING. They have one of the most stringent serviceability policies I or my broker know of, yet they are one of the first to go to 80%.
 
...and here I was thinking I was rather safe with ING. They have one of the most stringent serviceability policies I or my broker know of, yet they are one of the first to go to 80%.

because thats the only real way they can appease the dragon further.

Dumb to make it NSW v a bunch of postcodes that have the growth issues.......... ce la vie

ta

rolf
 
No need for them to be angry - it is only one lender, and not a great one for investors anyways.

I see it as reasonable to try to keep an eye on lending in overheated markets, but this way will have an effect on all other markets:

Ben Kingsley, chair of PIPA, said APRA's approach was not "the sound solution" to cooling the Sydney and Melbourne property markets over the long term.
"While we welcome and endorse a responsible approach to lending, we are concerned about APRA's market intervention and don't believe their lender-by-lender approach is the most effective means to control the property market," he said.
"We recognise that marketplaces like Sydney and Melbourne are posing concerns, as new and existing investors are potentially speculating in trying to capitalise on boom conditions, and we have been active in warning consumers to be careful about this.
"However, there are plenty of other property markets in Australia and these measures are an unfair imposition on investors who want to invest in other parts of the country."
 
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?
 
Does that mean you need to refinance if you ever decide to move out of a PPOR and start renting it out?

Sorry Excess I don't really know.

I think I misread your prior post. I was thinking along the lines of borrowing to buy a PPOR and then doing a shifty on the bank by renting the place out.
 
Sorry Excess I don't really know.

I think I misread your prior post. I was thinking along the lines of borrowing to buy a PPOR and then doing a shifty on the bank by renting the place out.

That is essentially what I was exploring. Of course it is ultimately dishonest, but I expect people will be exploiting it to get the best deal.
 
OK now I get it. I think my brain was a little muddled lol.

I think that when you get the PPOR the bank will explain the terms of the contract to you. If you decide to rent the property then perhaps some kind of restitution will need to be made to the bank.

I'm not sure exactly. But certainly we need to know before signing on the dotted line.
 
Back
Top