Lower LVR for IP's under new National Credit Code?

The Government has announced that the new national consumer credit regime, the National Credit Code (NCC) will commence on 1 July 2010.

From my reading of the legislation, the Commonwealth has;

"specifically decided to enhance or extend the operation of the Code compared with the UCCC in the following ways:

- it covers credit for residential investment properties, providing important protections to ‘mum-and-dad’ property investors;

- it increases the monetary threshold under which consumers can request a change to certain terms of their credit contract on the grounds of financial hardship...to a fixed figure of $500,000. The code includes a new, flexible power to raise this threshold if necessary..."

Previously, hardship provisions under existing legislation generally only covered credit associated with PPORs, however this would now extend to credit for residential property i.e. IPs.

As such, I have heard that banks may be considering lowering LVR thresholds on finance for IP's where purchased in one's own name to help offset potential increased risks/costs in recovering on defaults. I have heard figures ranging from 75-60%.

If this is correct, then surely this would have a significant impact on ‘mum-and-dad’ property investors across the country.

Perhaps as a side effect it may even make purchasing through a trust struture more attractive given any such loan would not be subject to the NCC.

Can anyone confirm/clarify/correct such rumours?
 
"As such, I have heard that banks may be considering lowering LVR thresholds on finance for IP's where purchased in one's own name to help offset potential increased risks/costs in recovering on defaults. I have heard figures ranging from 75-60%."


Just curious where you heard this....
 
I've very curious as well - being limited to a 60% LVR will have massive implications for lots of property investors. Something tells me not to worry just yet though....
 
"As such, I have heard that banks may be considering lowering LVR thresholds on finance for IP's where purchased in one's own name to help offset potential increased risks/costs in recovering on defaults. I have heard figures ranging from 75-60%."


Just curious where you heard this....

Let just say a colleague on the inside....:cool:
I'm guessing its just one of a raft of options the B4 are canvassing in response to their many investment loans products now being subject to the NCC (previously they would have been outside of the old UCCC).

Personally I would like to think that competition would preclude such an option being implemented, but given the current lack of significant competition out in the market place it is a little concerning.
 
Surely rents would have to go up, so property investors with cash reserves to cover the contribution required will yield a higher return & a result of the lower borrowing power (LVR) should see property prices in areas less prone to owner occupiers should see a slight reduction in value making way for an even higher rate of return for the investors with more cash to contribute.
 
The last few loans that I've applied for, I've had to sign a form waiving my rights under the consumer credit code, as they have been investment loans.
Wouldn't the banks just change the form to reflect the new code ?
 
The last few loans that I've applied for, I've had to sign a form waiving my rights under the consumer credit code, as they have been investment loans.
Wouldn't the banks just change the form to reflect the new code ?
No, that's exactly the point. Previously, investment loans fell outside the UCCC, and the form you signed wasn't waiving your rights, but acknowledging that you were aware that you don't have UCCC rights - if you see the subtle distinction - because it was an investment loan. ;)

The new legislation would mean that investment loans fall under the NCC.

A couple of questions spring to mind...

1) You can get up to 95% LVR for a PPOR, subject to the UCC, so why should the NCC extending to cover investment loans cause LVRs to drop?

2) Will the NCC cover existing mortgages?

3) If not, I wonder how much you have to "tinker" with your existing investment mortgage for the authorities to consider it a "new loan" subject to the NCC? What if you go from a fixed to variable interest, or roll over to an new interest-only period etc?

4) Is it confirmed that mortgages in Trusts would fall outside the NCC? If so, what's the logic of this? Plenty of "mum and dad investors" use them. :confused:

5) Re limit of $500K. Is this per mortgage or per security, I wonder? So if you had a $1M property, could you be covered by having 2 x $400K loans?
 
I have heard figures ranging from 75-60%.
The reality is:

1- No many people would be able to afford properties at 75-60% LVR.
2- Resi mortgages are a bit chunck of Bank's revenue strings
3- Banks need to lend money to literaly make money and of course collect interest.

Therefore, IMO if this change happens it will be somehow bypassed and/or will have a short life.
 
1) You can get up to 95% LVR for a PPOR, subject to the UCC, so why should the NCC extending to cover investment loans cause LVRs to drop?

I assume it's because PPOR loans are seen as lower risk for lenders - which is why historically we had higher IRs on investment loans. People will do pretty much whatever it takes to hang on their home. The UCC gave rights to home owners vis-a-vis the banks that that PIs didn't get. It doesn't surprise me that if the new regime gives added rights to PIs, banks will find some way of offsetting it. Maybe lower LVRs or maybe back to an IR premium.

Ooh, i just read your q again, and perhaps you mean "LVRs in general" not "LVRs for IPs?" I think the OP is talking lower LVRs just for IPs.

I sure hope that someone can answer your other q's though. This has the potential for huge ramifications.Where is TF??
 
Previous its been easier for the bank to take possession of an investment property, rather than PPOR. One really wonders what is motivating ASIC to include this new clause. I would have thought that rulings on property investment spuikers (advisors) selling apartments on the Gold Coast would have been better.

The Banks are lowering LVR's on loans regardless. The non bank lenders are coming back with a few at 95%. As a broker I feel this is fine for IP property but not PPOR purchase. Unless they are just out of uni or something, but feel once someone has a high spending habit and not savings its a very hard habit to break. I never sold 100% home loans despite the banks pushing me for it. I have only done 3 FHOG loans in 6 years. All gone now !
 
This is interesting

If only i knew what it ment:confused: How would such a "rumor" apply to me i wonder.

Im trying to get into the market(FHB) As i read it...my deposit would now be an astonomical 30-40% ?
 
Reeco, if you are looking at buying a PPOR it should make no difference. The LVR would be decreased only on investment loans to better reflect the banks' apparently increased risk exposure to IPs.
 
This is interesting

If only i knew what it ment:confused: How would such a "rumor" apply to me i wonder.

Im trying to get into the market(FHB) As i read it...my deposit would now be an astonomical 30-40% ?

'Twas once "normal" to stump up 20% with a proven savings history ie Dad couldn't just give you the deposit. And that without any FHB grants available. :(

That was before the break-out of house prices. Do see see any cause/effect here? Will prices revert to the mean when financing goes back to "normal"?
 
Reeco, if you are looking at buying a PPOR it should make no difference. The LVR would be decreased only on investment loans to better reflect the banks' apparently increased risk exposure to IPs.

Devil in them details i spose. If such a thing were to occur it will only be a matter of time before the holes are found. One thing property has taught me is that there is always a way and that it mostly comes down to perception. Vendor finance industry will be the one to watch i think.

If anyone can skin a cat they can
 
Last edited:
My two cents

The ruling is to further protect mum and dad investors believing that they should have protection when borrowing funds for investment properties as well as PPOR.

Working for a fin inst, the changes are starting already where we are to disclose the whole discussion and not just the products offered, why they were and why the other products were not suitable.

Also, this is the bigger one. The UCCC condition, states that you cannot lend to a customer that is 'beyond' their means.... this seems very much common sense, but when this is also attributed to investment properties it removes all flexibility.

Therefore, if the customer defaults on the loan (maybe through their own non-disclosure) and is able to PROVE that they were not in the position to borrow the funds in the first place may have the right not to repay the loan. Now this is the extreme case, but to have this also attributed to investment loans removes the CREATIVITY! - or POLICY EXEMPTIONS:)

PS. They won't reduce LVR's by force - my belief.
 
Working for a fin inst, the changes are starting already where we are to disclose the whole discussion and not just the products offered, why they were and why the other products were not suitable.

will make for some interesting positions. If one wroks for ABC lender, the new NCPP suggests that the ABC employee should know that for a particualr deal, that the client is better served at xyz bank. In not recommending XYZ bank, the borrower is disadvantaged by the advice provided by the ABC lender, thus a breach of the regs. Same applies for brokers.......

ta
rolf
 
will make for some interesting positions. If one wroks for ABC lender, the new NCPP suggests that the ABC employee should know that for a particualr deal, that the client is better served at xyz bank. In not recommending XYZ bank, the borrower is disadvantaged by the advice provided by the ABC lender, thus a breach of the regs. Same applies for brokers.......

ta
rolf

Theres no way you could police that IMO. That screams litigation cost. Especially when its eventually tested down the line. I reakon ASIC and the like are just lining them selves up in the wake of the US fallout. Alot of lessons learnt from there mistakes. Good thing too can never have too many tools in the box.
 
Back
Top