Things keep getting tougher

They may be the 1st but I'm assuming they won't be the last to tighten policy. This just from ANZ who seem to be the pioneers in revising policies in recent times.

In response to the continuing softening in the economic environment, effective Monday, 20th April 2009, ANZ will be making changes relating to serviceability criteria.



These changes reflect ANZ’s prudent and measured response to the current economic environment and ensures the bank and our customers are well positioned for any weakening in the economy throughout 2009.



It also reflects a need for customers to state what their living expenses are, rather than just using the default rates which may not adequately reflect their circumstances. Your support in obtaining this information is important to help customers help themselves as conditions tighten.


For all loans repayments, ANZ and OFI, a sensitivity margin of 2.25% will be applied to the standard variable rate (SVR). Note: Equity Manager & Simplicity Plus accounts assess on the actual rate plus the new 2.25% sensitivity margin.



As you are aware interest rates are at an all time low and as prudent lenders we need to ensure that we position our customers for any changes to the rate over the life of their loan.


Also effective Monday, 20th April will be increases to living expenses for single and joint applications and also for any dependants.


Old New
Couple $1,380 $1,612
Single $ 950 $1,105
Child $ 340 $ 394



Please note that these are to be used as minimal benchmarks only.



As a result you are all encouraged to spend time understanding your customers living expenses. As a guide, we have provided a list of common expense items you can discuss with your clients:

Basic living costs
Food
Clothing
Rates (council / water)
Utilities (telephone / electricity / gas)
Motor vehicle
Personal entertainment
Education (public)
Home Insurance

Additional expense items:
Child maintenance
Private Education
Insurance (Medical / Contents / Life & Income Protection)
 
St G introcuded a similar 'loading' on the 9th.

I belive they take whatever you want to borrow, times it by 1.25 then see if you can service it with the 'worst case' interest rates.

I snoozed & lost. Went from 239k to 200k.....

%$)(#@

:)
 
does anyone think tighter lending criteria could impact house prices negatively :confused::rolleyes:

Obvious answer is Yes, HOWEVER, Australians are an inventive lot.

So we like our houses and the banks want to do low LVRs, so what is the answer/s?

1. Vendor finance for some of the additional deposit required
2. Borrow from solicitors (as in the past)
3. I'm not advocating it (would not do it personally) - do the Rick Otton thing
4. Exploit CC balance tranfers at low rates for long periods.
5. I'm sure there are other creative ppl here who could tink of some more ;)
 
Obvious answer is Yes, HOWEVER, Australians are an inventive lot.

So we like our houses and the banks want to do low LVRs, so what is the answer/s?

1. Vendor finance for some of the additional deposit required
2. Borrow from solicitors (as in the past)
3. I'm not advocating it (would not do it personally) - do the Rick Otton thing
4. Exploit CC balance tranfers at low rates for long periods.
5. I'm sure there are other creative ppl here who could tink of some more ;)

That last bastion of financial engineering........


Saving!! :D hehe....
 
does anyone think tighter lending criteria could impact house prices negatively :confused::rolleyes:

The tighter lending may postpone the next boom for a while, but this is a positive not a negative. Two booms in quick succession would be unhealthy and could leave us in a similar position to the UK or Ireland (where property prices quadrupled in the same 10 years that property prices in Australia only doubled).

The tighter lending criteria is positive because it slows down house price growth, which would otherwise be going through the roof due to the record population increase, historically low interest rates and massive undersupply of property.

The latest statistics from RPData etc show house prices rising moderately, which is a nice sustainable development. It is better to have a few years breathing space with moderate prices rises only. That way we can more easily manage the next boom, which should begin in a few years time.

So, yes, in terms of sustainable growth, the tighter lending is a positive. It is certainly better than prices jumping by 50% in the next two years, which is what would happen otherwise. It just means Australia won't have to experience a large future crash such as occurred in other countries where lending was much looser.
 
i see tighter lending criteria adding value to local RE, not decreasing value.

it ensures people can afford their home / IP and financial security is a confidence booster.

i see nothing wrong the posted scenario at all.

thanks for sharing :)
 
I am also seeing this as a good thing.

I'm also not suprised the sensitivity margin is higher. It won't be long before all of the banks raise their margin.

What can be better than making sure that borrowers can actually afford their debt?

I don't consider the changes too detrimental to lending. The borrowers that will drive the market will have secure jobs, be well established and know their budget. They will be able to service their loans easily. These are the same borrowers that always drive the market.:)

Regards Jo
 
Yep,

I agree with Josko, Shadow and others that tightening credit is a good thing. It is the strong balance sheets of our banks that has protected us through this downturn. Their tightening measures force private household balance sheets to remain more robust than individuals might prefer so also protect against personal insolvancy.

This acts to stop a property price bubble forming and allows for sustainable price appreciation at acceptable LVR and servicability rates. It will put a solid floor under prices whilst limit the risk of a bubble/burst cycle developing.

Good initiative.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Just playing devil's advocate...

But if these measures are needed to ensure that people really can pay off their debt and to ensure that a bubble does not form... Then what has been happening during all those years these measures were not in effect? How do we know that current price points are not a product of easy credit where people could easily get large loans approved?

I guess my question is, if the Aussie banks have been as solid and responsible as some people in this thread are suggesting, why are they only implementing these measures now? What about all the people who borrowed too much a couple of years ago?
 
I guess my question is, if the Aussie banks have been as solid and responsible as some people in this thread are suggesting, why are they only implementing these measures now? What about all the people who borrowed too much a couple of years ago?
Hi GoodmorningAus,

They didn't have to as the RBA did all the hard work for them. The monetary setting was in the contractionary range so limited servicability of would-be borrowers. Now that the monetary setting is in the expansionary range it is important for the lending institutions to be wary of people taking on too much leverage when rates are at historic lows.

The two work in cohort, and until recently the rate setting was working to limit borrowing and stop a bubble from forming. The RBA has loosened its hand so the banks are tightening theirs.

Cheers,
Michael
 
does anyone think tighter lending criteria could impact house prices negatively :confused::rolleyes:

It has to have some effect.

If there are less people wandering around that are going to qualify for loans, then sellers will have less buyers to choose from.

If they don't need to sell, then they won't sell and will take their home off the market. No big deal for these people.

But, if they need to sell - and there are always a few of those scattered around - especially now, then they will sell at a discount due to financial constraints.

On the flip side; I wonder how this will affect the non-Bank lenders? They may become a bit more relaxed with their criteria in order to claw back some market share?

It will have to happen I suspect. If everyone is not giving out any loans (or loads less loans), sooner or later someone will break ranks and make borrowing a bit easier again.
 
Also effective Monday, 20th April will be increases to living expenses for single and joint applications and also for any dependants.


Old New
Couple $1,380 $1,612
Single $ 950 $1,105
Child $ 340 $ 394

I had always wondered what the bank's "standard living expenses" were. Hmmm...$1612 per couple per mth....I have a bit of trimming to do. :eek: Are these figures indicative amongst the Big 4?
 
does anyone think tighter lending criteria could impact house prices negatively :confused::rolleyes:
Yup. I don't think it will have a huge effect with the changes implemented so far, and not many people would say that banks should be lending over 95% anyway, BUT it will be different if this is just the tip of the iceberg. If the availability of credit dries up I think it will definitely impact prices. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to pay if no bank will stump up the funds!
One of the things I have always thought, but never said, in relation to the graphs showing rising house prices is this: Perhaps the reason growth was lower pre-1990 (or whatever) is because you couldn't get credit. Perhaps if 100% lends were available in the 1960s & '70s, rather than 50% after bowing before the local branch manager, the growth in the last 10 years wouldn't seem so disproportionate.
 
Ms jade

These living costs are loosely based around Henderso Poverty Index.

That thing we use to state that someone is living below "the poverty line"

ta
rolf
 
Ms jade

These living costs are loosely based around Henderso Poverty Index.

That thing we use to state that someone is living below "the poverty line"

ta
rolf

Thanks, Rolf. But these figures are supposed to represent some type of average living expenses? If so it looks like we'll be sitting down again this weekend reviewing the budget. I thought I was being quite frugal but I see it's all relative...
 
Back
Top