Low Blows Likely From Low Doc Loans

Low Blows Likely From Low Doc Loans
By Alan Kohler
February 16, 2005

Whenever someone says "it's different this time" while talking about business cycles, I generally look at my watch, make an excuse and wander off. But in at least one interesting respect, the Australian credit cycle is different this time.

This time there are low doc loans, also known as "self-certification" loans. According to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, between 15 and 20 per cent of all mortgage lending at present is low doc (or $3 billion to $4 billion a month).

Regulators are alert, and possibly alarmed: yesterday APRA doubled the capital needed by mortgage insurers to support low doc lending, while both the Reserve Bank and Tax Office are worried about the continuing boom in these type of loans.

Low doc simply means you don't have to prove your income with a group certificate or tax return: you say what it is and the banker believes you, or at least gives you the money, whatever he or she believes.

With interest rates apparently about to start rising, a lot of people are wondering what will happen.

Low doc lending is the most important and the most intriguing manifestation of the sales culture in banking about which RBA governor Ian Macfarlane has been complaining so much and may do so again on Friday.

Since the last time interest rates went up, banking has changed fundamentally. Now when the customer says the words "low doc", a magical transformation comes over the banker: mention an income figure and the smiling salesperson, err, banker, just writes it down - no proof required. Four years ago, when the term low doc snuck into the Australian banking glossary, it came with a big interest rate premium; now there is often no premium at all.

It's hard to generalise because low doc can mean many things: up to 60 per cent loan-to-value ratio may be lent uninsured; up to 80 per cent insured; some carry a rate premium, some don't.

The most aggressive low doc lender in the market at present appears to be a 95 per cent LVR low doc loan from Mobius, which is half owned by Allco and half by GE Capital (it came with Wizard Homes Loans, which GE bought from Mark Bouris and the Packers last year).

The lender doing the highest proportion of them is Adelaide Bank, 40 per cent of whose new loans are low doc.

And there are many different reasons for customers not wanting to provide proof of income: they can't be bothered; they were knocked back for the loan elsewhere because their income was too low and now they're lying; a small business whose takings are down right now but will pick up any minute (I promise!); they are lying on their tax return and want to tell the bank the - higher - truth.

Regulators find many of these reasons distressing. Yesterday, APRA issued new capital guidelines to lenders' mortgage insurers requiring twice the capital support for low doc loans than for normal loans.

A spokesman told me they were concerned about the lack of history with this type of lending and felt it was important to ensure that risk was being priced correctly.

Also, the Tax Office has been looking into the subject for six months and doing some test audits: 70 per cent of low doc loan applications do not tally with the borrower's tax return. This could be fertile ground for ATO auditors, although the consequences of mass audits could be horrible for the economy.

In many cases a low doc housing loan is simply a business loan in another guise - at a lower rate than the 11 or 12 per cent that the banks usually slug small business people.

The reason Angelo Malizis at Mobius is able to offer 95 per cent LVR low doc loans at 6.99 per cent interest (through Wizard and other retailers) is because his 50 per cent shareholder, Allco, has set up its own mortgage insurance company, which is thought in the industry to be preparing an assault on the existing LMI duopoly (which is an interesting development in itself). But Mobius's interest rate may have to rise once APRA's new capital requirements bite.

The general assumption among bankers and economists, which I tend to share, is that as long as unemployment remains low, home loan default rates are unlikely to rise as a result of a half a percentage point or so increase in the cash rate.

But then again things are different this time. Although the average household debt service ratio (interest to disposable income) is only 9.3 per cent, some people are very heavily geared and many of them may have lied about their income or, at best, been unduly optimistic about how their business was travelling.

How much of a rate rise would it take for an uncomfortable number of them to be forced to sell their properties? No one knows.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Alan-Kohler/Low-blows-likely-from-low-doc-loans/2005/02/15/1108230002218.html
 
Hiya

If my experience is anything to go by, APRA have it quite wrong. Id like to see the stats to back this up, in addition to a claim some time ago that loans introduced by brokers are shakier than those brought in at retail level.

The majority of lo doc loans written are based on wholistic lending practices, that is an assumption that if the borrower has aquired x assets, that an income of x/? is ok.

The VAST majority of lo doc lenders have transferred their risk to mortgage insurers, so there is effectively no financial risk to the lender.

The delinquency rate of these types of loans again based on my limited experience is lower than that of the typical "stretched" first home buyer.

95 % lo doc lends for PPORs seem a bit on the risky side dont though, BUT I suspect the lmi provider has done their research better than APRA - HIH anyone ?
ta

rolf
 
My LODOC loans have all been due to self employed clients not having done their tax returns, with almost no exception.

This business about people overstating their income must be being done by other brokers :)
 
Simon said:
My LODOC loans have all been due to self employed clients not having done their tax returns, with almost no exception.
I'm in a situation where I can't borrow from a mainstream lender because I need two years of business trading to prove income (some may allow six months to sneak through)- this despite profits from the existing business being more than double my previous income. If I wanted to borrow now, low doc is the only way I would be able to do so.
 
geoffw said:
I'm in a situation where I can't borrow from a mainstream lender because I need two years of business trading to prove income (some may allow six months to sneak through)- this despite profits from the existing business being more than double my previous income. If I wanted to borrow now, low doc is the only way I would be able to do so.

Funny how an article like this can effect your opinion so easily.

Not familiar with Low Doc Loans myself I read the article and thought "basically just a loan disguise for crooked tax dodgers."

But then I read this by Geoffw and his Subway business and it puts it in a totally different perspective.

Either way I am glad to have learnt something new :)

<KS>
 
yep i am in a similar situation, i am self employed and its fairly lucrative but dont have two years of provable income to get a loan. i still work four or five days a week and have done so for over a year, but still no go. so lodocs provide a real option to people like me.
 
In some ways, lo docs are of value to people who are also clients of wrappers a la Rick Otton- people with a good income, but people who have trouble getting laons through normal channels.
 
most of my current ip loans are low doc as, even tho i've made $1-200,000 for the last few years, it is in improving and selling real estate and comes in lumps sums, so is not considered a regular income - and i have smart accountant who finds every legit paper right-off possible, so the income is "paper" reduced. fortunately several of my loans now have such a good lvr that i am converting to fixed, interest only.

go the low doc - means i can continue to borrow and make more money.
 
I think a lot of the government authorities are genuinely concerned about the "lack of history with this type of lending". They don't have any past data to base their risk assessments on. As the article mentioned, the credit cycle is different this time around and since interest rates last rose, banking has changed fundamentally. Getting access to other people's money has never been so easy. It's going to be interesting in times ahead..


Originally Posted by Rolf Latham
95 % lo doc lends for PPORs seem a bit on the risky side
Yes, it is a higher risk but I don't think there are many people who are able to secure 95% low doc loans for PPORs. I suspect the proportion that have would be insignificant compared to the total number of these loans going towards investment properties.


Originally Posted by Rolf Latham
The VAST majority of lo doc lenders have transferred their risk to mortgage insurers, so there is effectively no financial risk to the lender
It doesn't matter. APRA's new capital guidelines targets lenders' mortgage insurers, not the lenders themselves. Someone has to wear the bankruptcy if things go sour. If my insurance company goes belly up my policy isn't worth the paper that it's written on.


Originally Posted by <KS>
Not familiar with Low Doc Loans myself I read the article and thought "basically just a loan disguise for crooked tax dodgers."
Low doc loans are essentially business loans in another guise but in the past few years a lot of "crooked tax dodgers" and non-business people have also taken advantage of the lax lending criteria of these type of loans. I know of a small business owner who has built up a small portfolio of investment properties who is currently shaking in his boots because of the recent ATO crackdown on low doc mortgagers. He was recently quizzed about his tax returns not matching his income declarations on his loan applications. His response was that he lied to the banks to secure the finance. I'm sure that was enough for the ATO to add him to their list of potential audit targets.

He tells me he has a very clever accountant. I told him that the ATO doesn't care and that he's still responsible even if his accountant stuffs up royally. Paying someone to commit a crime on your behalf doesn't give you immunity.
 
G'Day

Well, I've just come back from a very interesting morning with the five major non-conforming lenders hearing all the latest developments in low-doc and no-doc loans.

Let me tell you it is a burgeoning market out there! One of the lenders said that their major growth area was in South Yarra, a fairly well heeled Melbourne inner suburb.

The image of desperados taking out low-doc loans is far from the truth.

All of the lenders have a very sharp sense of where the market is heading, and it is the changing shape of the Australian labour market which is driving this change, not surreptitious tax dodgers.

A great many people now work on a permanent casual basis, on contract work, or have two or three jobs to cobble their income together. Lucky you if you have a well paid salaried position which you have held for more than two years, and after paying rent and living expenses have managed to save 20% plus costs to buy your own home.

The large minority of people find that life happens and their plans have to change. Women leave work to have babies, companies are sold or close or lose contracts, men move to jobs which pay more or are forced to take jobs which pay less. Lots of people simply do not fit the conforming image of borrowers as required by the main banks.

An interesting development which I learnt today was the scenario of a family with a good rental history but who technically do not fit any lending mould. By rights, they can't afford to pay the rent, let alone save towards their own home. A 100% Home Loan from a non-conforming lender who takes the FHOGs as 'Genuine Savings' will be the answer to a prayer for a family in this situation.

Yes, they may be paying a higher interest rate than the major banks, with their huge buying power, can offer, but if the alternative is a lifetime of renting the family must make their own decisions. After a couple of years, and with a good payment history established, they could certainly look at refinancing to a conventional lender but at least they have quite literally got in the door to start with.

At the table of XX Lender, I told them the story of my customer who had put a deposit on one property before selling the other, and after six months and numerous extensions of time was faced with rescission. How would you feel about potentially losing your $100,000 deposit? The miracle they were waiting for was just not going to happen. This non-conforming lender pulled out all stops for this family, who cried tears of gratitude and relief when settlement finally occured. They sold the other property soon after, but on a long settlement, and when the deal was done the lender accepted a reduction of the principal of the loan and reduced their interest rate by 2% without them having to refinance or pay any further fees.

We are all people and one size most certainly does not fit all.

Like most brokers, I write mainly main stream, discounted variable loans, but the non-conforming lenders with their high LVR low-doc and no-doc loans are here to stay.

So next time you see the bargain of a lifetime, or your current loans come up for renewal, don't just ask your broker if you qualify with the Big Five, have a look at the extensive range of non-conforming loan products out there.

You may be pleasantly surprised

Cheers

Kristine

Oh, and now I've got this great collection of branded pens, coffee mugs, folders and stress balls and mouse pads and .....

He he he
 
Geoffw's issue is not that of not being able to prove his income, but of not having stability of income for sufficient time for a mainstream lender.

These days with regular BASs most self-employed people could show proof of income relatively easily as their records are continually being brought up to date. It seems where the low doc lender has transferred the risk to a mortgage insurer, it could be argued that the lender is escaping responsibility. Wonder when the mortgage insurers will fund a case for some lender arguing the low doc lender was negligent in not proving income and ensuring affordability of the loan to the borrower.
 
jrc said:
It seems where the low doc lender has transferred the risk to a mortgage insurer, it could be argued that the lender is escaping responsibility. Wonder when the mortgage insurers will fund a case for some lender arguing the low doc lender was negligent in not proving income and ensuring affordability of the loan to the borrower.


Actually, jrc, that's not the way it works.

Lender's Mortgage Insurance is a specialist form of insurance.

For example, with Landlord's Insurance, let's say your tenant has a party and one of their visitors slips on a spilt drink and breaks a window. No-one is hurt but your window needs replacing. The Insurance pays for this, you get charged the excess, and whether you pass the excess cost on to the tenant is up to you.

Lender's Mortgage Insurance bears more resemblance to Builder's Warranty Insurance.

For example, let's say you buy a house from a family who bought the house from the builder as a 'house and land' package. After finishing the project the builder wound the company up and moved on to the next project with a new company.

The house shows signs of material damage, let's say the foundations appear to be failing and cracks start to appear in an external brick wall. You can't find the builder, so you claim on the Warranty Insurance.

The Warranty Insurance provides the funds for repair of the foundations and the wall, you pay the excess as written in the copy of the insurance which formed part of the vendors disclosure statement when you bought the house, and the Warranty Insurer finds the builder and claims the cost back from him / her.

OK, so Lender's Mortgage Insurance is a two step process.

The Lender assesses the loan application and if it meets their criteria - whatever criteria that may be - they then submit it to the LMI credit assessment team. They make their own decision to accept the deal or not. Often they will counter offer eg lower the LVR, reduce the loan amount etc.

They then make an offer to the customer regarding the state of risk and the amount they will charge as a premium for that risk. This one-off premium then covers the loan for the term of the loan eg 30 years

So, maybe five years down the track the purchaser defaults. In due course - and keep in mind, with foreclosure of a mortgage 'due course' can take a year or more - the property is seized, sold and settled.

The price which the property is sold for, plus the penalty interest which has kept on accruing, the sale costs etc etc may be short of the balance of the loan due to the lender.

The Mortgage Insurer then pays the lender the shortfall. How much is the shortfall? $500, $5,000, whatever, but unlikely to be the full cost of the original loan.

The Mortgage Insurer then 'sues' the borrower for the amount which they have had to pay to the lender. In this instance I use the word 'sue' meaning to bring legitimate suit against the borrower.

Who takes responsibility? Primarily, the purchaser / borrower. The security offered against the loan is property with the loan secured by registered mortgage.

The borrower is responsible for the loan contract and the mortgage insurer has redress against the borrower.

jrc, if you think for one moment that the lender mortgage insurers are babes in the wood, I'm here to invite you to think again.

All lending, whether regulated, unregulated, conforming, low-doc, or whatever, must cross a number of desks before a loan is offered to an applicant. And at the end of the day, it is the applicant who is responsible for their actions.

We have much to thank the mortgage insurance companies for. Without them, there would not be the opportunity to borrow above 80%LVR without very strict savings criteria if at all. With them, there is much more flexibility in mortgage lending but it is not a free lunch and it is very far from open slather.

Cheers

Kristine
 
Hi Kristine

125 % spot on in my view with the LMI providers, imagine a first home buyer saving 20 % deposit..

I have also heard the not unreasonable (but probably statistically invalid) argument that if it werent for LMI house prices would be much lower

ta

rolf
 
Low Docs are a great way to get finance at only a small interest rate premium.

Last year I earned $60K in sales, with $25K being in commissions. As a result regular lenders did not want to lend to me because my income was "not assured", so I was very happy to settle for a Low Doc.

As previous posts have mentioned, the work market is varied these days with people switching jobs, women having children, and flexible working hours, part time, contract and temporary work. It is naive for lenders to expect most people to have full time hours and regular income patterns.

The Low Doc is also great because it is less paperwork.
 
Buzz,

That link is great.

Esp liked his solution

The solution

I have been suggesting to quite a few lenders to look at a simple solution that I came up with, it can keep all parties happy by simply modifying the low-doc declaration form:

1) Lenders will tell the borrower their monthly repayment for their loan, warn the borrowers that if they take up the loan, they can’t come back and say the lender lends them the money that they can’t afford the repayment;

2) Borrowers will acknowledge that they understand the repayment obligation, and they sign and confirm that they can afford it. There is no need for income declaration or serviceability test.

This way, lenders have done their duty of care, no need for the borrowers to make up an income. Borrowers can’t come back to the lenders and say they didn’t know what they were getting themselves into. This way the lenders make their money without making the borrowers do something they’re not comfortable with, the borrowers get their money without the fear and guilt, so that they can get on with more constructive work.

The Tax man will be happy as well, as more finance means more property transactions, more activities for the real estate and finance industry, hence more income tax, more stamp duty, more land tax, more capital gain tax, etc.

A86
 
Tax man vs Lenders

If the tax man ever goes after you as a low-doc borrower, you have to tell the tax man the truth that you declared an income for finance purpose only, and they don’t represent your taxation position. That way you haven’t broken the tax law, for which the penalty is severe.
http://melonmail.melon.com.au/vemail/view_email.php?id=29867&u=2949

agent 86 said:
The Tax man will be happy as well, as more finance means more property transactions, more activities for the real estate and finance industry, hence more income tax, more stamp duty, more land tax, more capital gain tax, etc.

Yes, but the tax man would be much happier if people didn't lie on their tax returns either. The ATO is using the loan declaration as an easy means of catching you out in a lie. Using the above workaround gets around this problem but it still won't stop the them from targetting low doc/no doc borrowers for audits. It is fertile ground for finding candidates whose income tax returns cannot possibly support the amount of borrowings taken out. A honey-pot of sorts.
 
OSienna said:
Yes, but the tax man would be much happier if people didn't lie on their tax returns either. The ATO is using the loan declaration as an easy means of catching you out in a lie. Using the above workaround gets around this problem but it still won't stop the them from targetting low doc/no doc borrowers for audits. It is fertile ground for finding candidates whose income tax returns cannot possibly support the amount of borrowings taken out. A honey-pot of sorts.

OSienna,

Naturally the ATO doesn't want people lying on their tax returns, and I'm personally not into that.

I like his solution though, as I was looking at it from a personal serviceability angle.

A86
 
The problem with the suggestion above is that you can't contract out of the Consumer Credit Code.....ie if it is a consumer loan nothing you sign can take you away from or outside the protection the code offers.

This is where the big danger is in low doc lending sits....many lenders get the borrower to sign a declaration saying that the loan is for 'investment' or 'business use' and they think they have moved the loan outside the code.

However if the borrower ever gets in trouble and it goes to court, all the borrower has to say is "it was a loan to purchase a PPOR and the broker/lender told me to sign the declaration".....next thing the loan is back under code and the LMI provider can (rightfully) say the original agreement was fraudulent and they are not on the hook for any claims.
 
Back
Top