Saturday 04 February 2012 | RSS Feed

Interest-only loans more dangerous for low-end borrowers

Banning interest-only mortgages only makes sense for loans under £500,000, the Building Societies Association has said.



Sarah Davidson, 30 July, 2010

Speaking to Mortgage Introducer, Paul Broadhead, head of mortgage policy at the BSA, said that if the Financial Services Authority does decide to ban interest-only mortgages it should consider only banning them for lower value mortgages, despite Lloyds Banking Group’s recent decision not to offer interest-only mortgages on deals over £500,000.

A Lloyds spokeswoman said: “On a loan of that size it’s even more crucial to ensure that the borrower can repay because the shortfalls can be so much bigger - that’s why we’ve introduced the restrictions we have.”

In CP 10/16 on responsible lending the FSA called for debate in the industry about the future of interest-only mortgages and said there was a possibility the regulator would ban them. Their review is part of the FSA’s move towards a sustainable mortgage market where borrowers can afford to repay their loans as opposed to service their interest.

Broadhead said his reason for limiting an interest-only ban to the lower end of the market was in line with the FSA objective of protecting consumers from overstretching themselves financially by applying for an interest-only mortgage rather than a repayment deal.

He said the risk of borrowers using interest-only mortgages as a method of increasing the amount of capital they could borrow and then being unable to afford to repay was much higher for borrowers buying more average priced homes than for those investing in high value property.

He said: “Someone borrowing on an interest-only basis for a £100,000 house and then finding that they can’t afford to repay will present a bigger risk for the lender in reality than someone borrowing £500,000 for a million pound house.

“People borrowing on an interest-only basis at the more expensive end of the market are generally doing it out of a conscious choice to plan their finances that way. They also usually have other sources of income and will have many more options, including down-sizing, if their income is reduced in any unexpected way.

“At the lower end of the scale there is more of a danger that borrowers are taking interest-only in the shorter term to make loans more affordable. If there is to be some restriction of interest-only deals, it would make sense to put more conditions on those types of loans. It’s these borrowers who have fewer forbearance options if they do default – they’ll be harder hit than those with equity in a higher value property if they suffer a loss or reduction of income.”

AMI director Robert Sinclair said considering some restrictions on the lower end of the market would seem like a sensible option. He added: “I absolutely agree with Paul’s analysis. Banning interest-only outright is too restrictive.”



More breaking news

More News

Your Comments
2 Comment(s)

Neil Bellamy wrote:

In essence I agree with this, but to offer more flexible repayment options to the 'better heeled' whilst prescribing a no option rule but to have a repayment mortgage for Joe Average is simply not fair. As many others have commented before - If a consumer with full knowledge of their actions have a pure interest mortgage then in the long term there is a real prospect of increasing the equity within their home. Yes values of homes can go down too, and they need to understand this risk properly. This could encourage more younger adults to choose a life time of renting with nothing at all to show for it, or even decorate how they wish! The rental payments are quite often more than an interest only mortgage payment. In this scenario they have no prospect of building up any equity at all. Furthermore, they will simply provide profit to landlords who may well be one of the 'better heeled' consumers with an interest only mortgage! We should treat consumers as adults who when given proper advice, and warnings, can make an informed decision. After all adults are allowed to go to the casino (just like bankers) and potentially lose their shirts, yet they may not be allowed to have an interest only mortgage! A touch of reality at the top is really required now please.

30 July 2010 09:31:08 GMT

Recommend? (0)

fasteddy wrote:

And whilst we are about it lets ensure that people at the "lower end" (who clearly dont have the intellect and will never have the wherewithall to understand or deal with these complex issues and must be protected from themselves) cannot spend on a credit card or take out a loan or even scrub their own posterior. Nanny state ? No much, much worse ! A centralised "market" ruled by dictat by a faceless and unaccountable beaurocracy - Now hasnt that already been tried before ?

30 July 2010 10:13:46 GMT

Recommend? (0)

Have Your Say

Loading