Irish Mortgage Brokers Blog

We have made a few more bold predictions in our ‘Mortgage Market Trend Outlook 2012′ and reviewed how wrong many of our 2011 forecasts were as well.

Some of the main points thus far are:

1. That mortgage lending bottomed out in 2011.
2. That IBRC may take on some tracker loan portfolios to de-risk state owned banks (as the state already owns these loans entirely anyway).
3. That rates for existing AIB borrowers will have to go up but that for new borrowers rates may come down with changes to how prices are charged depending on risk of the proposed loan.
4. That deposit rates will start to drop.
5. That up to 25,000 mortgages will be deemed ‘unsustainable’ and that the ‘won’t pay’ contingent of arrears cases may be as high as 1 in 5.

We hope you enjoy this report, we in turn hope that we get some of the calls right!

Many thanks,

Irish Mortgage Brokers

RTE interviewed Karl Deeter in this clip about the recent CSO report, it was on the 20th of December 2011.

This is the usual update of rates available at the moment. As you’ll notice, AIB is the leader in almost every section. However, they are not necessarily lending to every client hoping to obtain finance with them - to know if they’ll be the lender of choice you need to construct the application in a manner that will ensure it shows the best aspects of the case to them.

There are lots of other lenders out there too (we deal with the pillar banks and many others as well), so looking at ‘best rate’ is perhaps different than ‘best attainable rate’.

Anyway, here is the list, if you ever want mortgage advice give us a call! 016790990

Best variable rate mortgage: AIB 3.24% (with one for 2.84% < 50% LTV)

Best 1yr fixed rate mortgage: AIB 4.15%

Best 2yr fixed rate mortgage: PTsb 3.1% < 50% LTV, otherwise AIB 4.65%

Best 3yr fixed rate mortgage: AIB 4.88%

Best 5yr fixed rate mortgage: PTsb 3.7% < 50% LTV, otherwise its AIB 5.35%

Best 10yr fixed rate mortgage: n/A 12/2011

Oh, one final thing, AIB called everybody into a meeting at their head office about two weeks ago, the resounding message was that they are going to be lending more in 2012 but prudence will remain and prices will change (upwards to more comparable market rates).

When a bank creates a loan that becomes an asset, the property it is secured upon is the collateral (sorry my teaming millions, I know I repeat this eternally). So if NAMA decide to become a brand of lender this October as we saw from an article in today’s Independent; then how does it work? Where does the money come from?

Take a property that they are putting up for sale (1st picture: pic not related). We’ll say for the sake of this example that it is worth €200,000.

The NAMA position may be that they paid more or less for this particular property but it doesn’t really matter; what does matter is that for the sake of them selling it the property may as well be unencumbered, there is no lien above that held by the NAMA.

This means they can give a title deed to the buyer when they sell it - but don’t forget, when a person takes out a mortgage there are two sales/purchases, the individual buys from the vendor (1st sale/purchase) then they sell it to the bank in exchange for the money [we call the 'mortgage] to complete the transaction (2nd sale/purchase) and the bank then take the ‘1st lien’ or ‘right’ on the property.

Prior to this they put in their deposit (10% or €20,000) which becomes their own, this is their ‘equity’, which is why ‘negative equity’ is described not as value versus the market (that’s called ‘price’), rather value versus the mortgage secured on the property.

What NAMA have indicated is that they will provide a kind of ‘bridging finance’ for buyers, so a certain portion will be made up of Bank borrowing, just a regular mortgage (we’ll speculate that it will be 60%).

This has a key advantage for the bank who will have 1st lien (because NAMA have said that there is some loss sharing mechanism which would indicate that at best they hope for 2nd lien). First of all they have a low loan to value (LTV) mortgage - considered lower risk because before the property gets into negative equity from the banks perspective (60% of 200k is €120,000) the price would have to fall a further €80,000. Secondly it means that they can lend a little more freely because their risk in this instance is reduced, it doesn’t mean ‘lax standards’ but it shouldn’t be as stringent as the lunacy that prevails now where it is so difficult to obtain credit.

So working through the example: The buyer puts in €20,000 (10%), the bank forward €120,000 (60%) leaving €60,000 (30%) to cover.

Thus we have the NAMA input; but where does this money come from?

Quite simply it comes from nowhere.

How? Because the property is unencumbered so what NAMA do is draw up a loan agreement (that then becomes an asset) and they give you the keys, along with an agreement that (speculating) might say that if prices fall then after 5 years there is some kind of loss sharing mechanism.

This means that they go from a situation of having an empty apartment generating nothing into the following:

Buyers input: €20,000
Mortgage: €120,000
Loan written: €60,000

The first two give a cash input of €140,000 which can then be invested (we’ll assume they get 5% p.a.) and they also have a loan of €60,000 which is a future claim on earnings of the buyer (again, we’ll assume 5% interest rate).

If there is ‘loss sharing’ don’t forget, the buyers equity gets wiped out first so it is not a case that if values fall that NAMA are onto a loser, rather it is if they fall greater than 10% over the next 5 years, and that may well be likely but don’t forget, they have money in hand today which will generate profit elsewhere.

That 140k over 5yrs at 5% will give them €178,679 (compound interest being [M=P(1+i)n]), the 60k loan will bring in €16,567 in cash meaning that they have €60,000 at risk but €55,246 in cash-flow, and let us not forget that if prices did fall and fall that the €120,000 bank loan has no loss sharing and would put NAMA in a better position than if they held out and sold at a later date - but I see that as an Armageddon scenario.

If prices fell a further 20% (which could happen and was hinted at in the Central Bank paper ‘Scenarios for Irish House Prices‘) then NAMA only have €20,000 to worry about and depending on the loss sharing scheme put forward all they do is write down the value of their loan on that basis giving the following:

€120,000 underlying bank loan
€20,000 deposit (now wiped out as buyers equity goes first)
€200,000 - 20% = €160,000 so the €60k loan they advanced becomes a €40k loan from that day forward.

Not a bad deal (for them) all said.

Our prediction that fixed rates would cease to exist this year is proving quite accurate, at the time we took quite a beating for making such a ‘drastic’ call in our Mortgage Market Trend Outlook report.

So far, PTsb have removed them and now Haven (and likely EBS) are set to do the same. We received notice today (see below)

The concern from a borrowers perspective is that we are getting to a point where you can’t fix a mortgage and you will be forced to ride the rate hikes that banks come up with including any that come from the ECB.

HAVEN FIXED RATE UPDATE

Due to ongoing increases in the cost of funds we will be temporarily
withdrawing both new and existing business mortgage fixed rates.
Significant movements on financial markets have resulted in fixed rates
which would not deliver value to customers at this time.  This position
will, of course, remain under constant review.

PIPELINE IMPLICATIONS

New business loan offers will be honoured until close of business Monday
28th February 2011.  Any case not completed by Monday 28th will be subject
to an amended offer for acceptance of the applicable tiered variable rate.

For existing customers, all fixed rate offers will be honoured until close
of business Friday February 18th 2011.  In each case Haven must be in
receipt of a Fixed Rate Mortgage Conversion form by close of business
Friday 18th to secure the application of a fixed rate term.

Section 23 properties have had their tax treatment changed, in effect the buyer honoured their side of the contract from the outset and after the initiation of this the Government reneged on their side of it. This is contrary to the idea of fairness, the concept of contractual obligations, and it undermines the faith any taxpayer can have in the state.

The state recently cut many people with income tax and reductions in entitlements, but these were never contractual and people certainly didn’t leverage up to obtain them. Landlords may not be a group worthy of sympathy, but at the same time recent changes to taxation on rent (Case V income) mean the amount of financing expense the business can offset has dropped by 25% (mortgage interest you can offset has gone from 100% to 75%), this is contrary to the rules of accounting when you look at any other business.

The only solution is a reversal of this policy, and perhaps the only way to ensure this is to apply the idea of mutual assured destruction. If there were 10,000 section 23 owners who all signed up to a commitment to go into 100% default on the 1st of April if this is not changed then you would see that the state would reverse this policy because it is flawed and because the 60-100m in savings that they would make would be eradicated by the ensuing mess the banks would be left in because of it.

When default becomes discretionary then a solution becomes necessity, and at this point, for many landlords default is becoming an option because they are being hit from all sides. Banks are looking for capital and interest payments at a time when rents are dropping, subsidizing the capital payments is often coming from earned income which is being subjected to more taxation, landlords are making imaginary profits because they can’t offset their expenses fully and now a lasing commitment regarding property taxation has been grabbed because it was easier than making the right decision.

The right thing would be to tax all property rather than just attacking those who hold investment property, they made this move before with the NPPR tax (€200 p.a.), and there was no resistance despite the fact that a flat tax of this nature was grossly unfair and didn’t distinguish between a mansion and a one bed apartment. Now there is an extension of this approach because it’s easy, because landlords don’t fight back, but that forgets the fact that you reach a certain point and people simply roll over or opt out, Atlas can always shrug.

Perhaps it was time that the Government found out that we do have an ace up our collective sleeve, and that it can be used to destroy the system they have fought so hard to save.

The EBS distribute through brokers via their subsidiary ‘Haven Mortgages’, the EBS have thoroughly debunked the idea that mutuality means anything by charging their existing clients different rates than new clients. They have also failed to be in the driving seat for a ‘third force’, going it alone has not happened, remaining an independent entity has failed, and the likelihood of private equity getting involved will most likely hinge upon state support being part of the package, thus it seems that institutional buyers will be the only serious suitors.

It is in an environment such as this that costs should be most seriously addressed, they have done this with Haven, slashing commissions and workforce, getting the organisation lean, but thus far EBS have failed to pursue efficiency with the same zeal within their own camp, and this zombie-like bank/mutual/whatever, is now reducing LTV’s for the only efficient part of the operation, Haven will now only offer a maximum of 80% LTV to potential clients, leaving 90% loans with the least effective arm of the organisation, the agent network.

It is important to remember that EBS obtain much of their distribution via their ‘agency network’ which is effectively a network of tied brokers, there are actually very few EBS branches that are owned and operated solely by the parent company, rather it is like branded tied brokers. As non-tied independent brokers we are saddened by the EBS move to force Haven to lower their maximum LTV, the move certainly wasn’t sought by Haven, and it is funnelling resources instead toward the inefficient mother-ship when the sensible thing to do would be to cut costs there and get cheap distribution via intermediaries, but it seems they are opting instead for intermediary distribution but only via tied agents who have different sets of underwriting rules etc. This is typical of Irish banking, punish those who do right and reward those who don’t.

When making a mortgage application this is a question that many first time buyers want to know, how much money do I must I have for a deposit? Well, that kind of depends on which bank provides the mortgage finance!

Lending criteria is different for every bank/building society/lender, this goes for rates, the general underwriting criteria as well as the ‘loan to value‘, the deposit you need is 100% minus the Maximum LTV and that will give you the deposit amount you require.
For instance, ICS have a maximum LTV of 92% so the deposit you need - if you are obtaining finance through them - is 100% - 92% = 8%.

What is interesting in that example is that when you go ’sale agreed’ on a property the estate agent will ask for a security deposit and the balance of 10% at the signing of contracts, this is an example of industry lingo being so embedded that it becomes separate to reality. The fact is that if you obtain 92% finance that you don’t need to give a security deposit plus the balance of 10% at the signing of contracts, it would be the balance of 8% - your solicitor will talk to the other side and organise this.

The mortgage criteria on deposits required by each bank is listed below. We have put them in the order of the banks that are actually lending.

Banks Lending Normally:
AIB, ICS, BOI all require at least an 8% deposit.

Banks Drip Feeding Lending:
EBS 8%
Haven & KBC 20%

Banks That are essentially Not Lending:
INBS 10%
NIB 20%
BOS 20%
PTsb 10%
First Active (Not doing any new mortgages)
Ulsterbank 10%

The banks that are currently lending in a regular fashion all provide 92% finance, it will be no surprise that they are headed for the maximum market share on lending in 2009, obviously the €1,000,000,000 that we gave each of them earmarked for first time buyers helps a lot too! In any case, there are plenty of banks and lenders to choose from, the issue is currently more about ‘who’ is lending as opposed to what prices or options are available, if you can’t get approved with one of the current primary lenders then you may have to wait up to 3 weeks for an initial response or find yourself with the option of a variable rate which is 400 basis points above ECB.

The changes mentioned in the recent budget will be kicking in soon and it will mean that people are likely to be affected in their mortgage interest relief for the month of May. TRS (tax relief at source) is going to be temporarily suspended for most of qualifying borrowers so that revenue can work through the claimants and determine who should be obtaining the benefit and at what level.

The rules regarding TRS can be found on the Revenue Commissioners website, some of the national commentary on it appeared in the Times (here).

According to banking sources we spoke to the borrowers who will be affected are any who changed their mortgage in the first seven years, so if you switched to get a better deal, topped up or made any changes you will probably be affected in the short term. As well as that, any first time buyers who moved during this time will be affected, if you bought a house (for instance) in 2004 then moved in 2006 then you are still (for TRS purposes) considered a first time buyer until 2011, the relief is connected to your status from the time you first take out a mortgage, not to the property in question.

The time it will take to resolve will be at some point in June according to the Revenue Commissioner.

Below are answers to some of the questions you might have about the change in TRS. The come compliments of Barry Delaney of Haven Mortgages who were the first bank to contact industry about this issue, we are both thankful and impressed, I think we speak for customers and intermediaries alike when we say this customer driven approach of Haven pointing out a problem before it arises is particularly welcome in banking.

Important Update on Tax Relief at Source (TRS) - FAQ

What is happening?
From 1st May the Revenue are making changes to the Tax Relief at Source (TRS) system.  As a result of changes announced in the Government’s April 2009 Emergency Budget, borrowers who qualify for TRS will now be entitled to receive relief for the first seven years of their mortgage only, .

First-time buyers, who have not moved house/remortgaged/re-financed, will continue to receive tax relief at source in the usual way.

All borrowers currently receiving TRS are having their relief suspended immediately, pending a review of their entitlements by the Revenue under the amended TRS scheme. Mortgage lenders are acting on the instructions of the Revenue in this regard.

Why is this happening?
The Revenue want to ensure that customers get relief only for the period they are entitled to receive it.
For example, a borrower (including first-time buyers) who switch/change their mortgage lender three years into their mortgage will not be classified initially as a qualifying borrower.  However, under the amended TRS scheme they will be entitled to a further 4 years relief under the seven year rule.

These changes will ensure that customers, as in the example above, are accurately assessed for the remaining relief owed and are not awarded an additional seven years tax relief when switching.

Will customers who still qualify for TRS get reinstated?

Yes.  The Revenue have committed to a full review of these accounts across all institutions and will reinstate TRS for customers who continue to qualify under the new rules.

How long will this review take?
An exact timeline has not been provided at this stage, however the Revenue aspire to have the review completed during the month of May 09 and to begin reinstatement of payment/credit for TRS from June 09 onwards.

This timeframe is purely indicative at this stage and given the number of accounts involved across all institutions this review may take longer to complete.

Will qualifying customers get back the TRS they miss while the review is ongoing?
Yes.  The Revenue have agreed to reimburse customers for any relief entitlements not paid/credited during the review.

It is important to note that under the new TRS rules included in the recent budget, borrowers may now attract a lower level of relief than previously enjoyed and may not get back as much as they anticipate or as much as previously received.

Are the Revenue telling customers what is going on?
No plans are currently in place for communication by the Revenue to the general public.

As you will appreciate this will cause a great deal of confusion for borrowers who will be unsure as to why their relief has been suspended.

We expect a large volume of calls to both brokers and Haven on this issue and it will be important to reassure borrowers that this is a temporary measure.

HOWEVER, AFFECTED BORROWERS CAN EXPECT HIGHER DIRECT DEBITS TO THEIR ACCOUNTS FOR THEIR MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT, DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF TAX RELIEF BEING CREDITED TO THEIR MORTGAGE ACCOUNTS.

Customers who are currently experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the economic downturn could be negatively affected by this change and it will be important to handle such queries in a manner sensitive to their circumstances.

if you have specific questions in relation to tax relief at source you can call the Revenue TRS helpline on 1890 463626.

Steve Leuthold talks on Bloomberg about the reasons he feels we are going to see a cyclical bull market (as opposed to the secular bear that many feel we are in). Small cap stocks (likely some pinksheets) and many others are headed upwards according to Leuthold who feels that this we are seeing the best valuations he has come across in his 45 years of studying the markets.  He says that a split of 65% in stocks is now advisable, that is a huge weighting given the market moves we have seen lately where equity holders have been continuously wiped out. Big tech stocks and gold both feature in his talk.