"lending guidelines" / kreditrichtlinien

über 9 monate nach ankündigung und sicherlich einige jahre zu spät sind nun endlich die lang erwarteten "lending guidelines" also kreditrichtilinien http://tinyurl.com/jhdzc (pdf) veröffentlicht worden.

vom timing her erinnert mich das ein bißchen an z.b. die richtlinien die wall street nach dem dot.com bust in sachen analysten zu befolgen hatte. nachdem alles verloren war wurde auf wesentliches hingewiesen und ethik verlangt. ähnliches gilt auch jetzt.

wie hoch dieser antein an "krediten mit negativer tilgung" inzwischenen ist sieht man hier schön an der grafik

On a national basis 46% of loans in 2006 were adjustable and of those 63% were non-traditional. In other words 29% of all loans nationally were either interest only or pay option arms.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0929/p01s02-usec.html

One broker, "Dennis," works for a mortgage company where he says a whopping 85 percent of loans are stated income. He says out of that 85 percent, they all have inflated numbers.
http://immobilienblasen.blogspot.com/2006/09/liar-loans-statet-income.html

sollten diese guidelines umgesetzt werden dürften es diese kreditnehmer schwer haben ne neue finanzierung zu bekommen.



wie weit das ganze eskaliert ist sieht man daran das diese "guidelines" im prinzip nur das ganz wesentliche bei der kreditvergabe einfordern. nämlich das zur abwechslung mal geprüft werden sollte ob der kreditnehmeer den kredit bedienen kann und ob er in der lage ist dieses darlehen auch zurückzubezahlen. lustig wenn so wesentliches eingefordert werden muß, oder?

mir kommt es ausserdem so vor als wenn hier die 4 aufsichtbehörden sich vorsorglich ne art "persilschein" ausstellen wollen um bei dem kommenden abschwung (peak sommer 2005) aus der schusslinie zu gelangen. wäre zumindest nicht untypisch......

auch nach einem wochenende intensiven lesens ist immer noch nicht klar ob diese "guidelines" wirklich "biß" haben. zum einen gelten sie aktuell nur für die regulierten banken und nicht für die unabhängigen mortagebroker, reits usw die bisher knapp 50% des marktes ausmachen. diese müssen auf bundesstaatlicher ebene einzeln reguliert werden. kann bei 50 bundesstaaten dauern.

ausserdem ist nicht ganz klar geworden ob diese "guidelines" nun wirklich hart eingefordert werden oder mehr unverbindliche richtlinien sein sollen/werden.

hier nun einige auszüge:

The Agencies developed this guidance to address risks associated with the growing use of mortgage products that allow borrowers to defer payment of principal and, sometimes, interest. These products, referred to variously as “nontraditional,” “alternative,” or “exotic” mortgage loans (hereinafter referred to as nontraditional mortgage loans), include “interest-only” mortgages and “payment option” adjustable-rate mortgages. These products allow borrowers to exchange lower payments during an initial period for higher payments during a later amortization period.

While similar products have been available for many years, the number of institutions offering them has expanded rapidly. At the same time, these products are offered to a wider spectrum of borrowers who may not otherwise qualify for more traditional mortgages. The Agencies are concerned that some borrowers may not fully understand the risks of these products. While many of these risks exist in other adjustable-rate mortgage products, the Agencies’ concern is elevated with nontraditional products because of the lack of principal amortization and potential for negative amortization. In addition, institutions are increasingly combining these loans with other features that may compound risk. These features include simultaneous second-lien mortgages and the use of reduced documentation in evaluating an applicant’s creditworthiness

The Agencies proposed that for all nontraditional mortgage products, the analysis of borrowers’ repayment capacity should include an evaluation of their ability to repay the debt by final maturity at the fully indexed rate, assuming a fully amortizing repayment schedule. In addition, the proposed guidance stated that for products that permit negative amortization, the repayment analysis should include the initial loan amount plus any balance increase that may accrue from negative amortization. The amount of the balance increase is tied to the initial terms of the loan and estimated assuming the borrower makes only the minimum payment.

The Agencies believe that institutions should maintain qualification standards that include a credible analysis of a borrower’s capacity to repay the full amount of credit that may be extended. That analysis should consider both principal and interest at the fully indexed rate. Using discounted payments in the qualification process limits the ability of borrowers to demonstrate sufficient capacity to repay under the terms of the loan. Therefore, the proposed general guideline of qualifying borrowers at the fully indexed rate, assuming a fully amortizing payment, including potential negative amortization amounts, remains in the final guidance.

Furthermore, the analysis of repayment capacity should avoid over-reliance on credit scores as a substitute for income verification in the underwriting process. The higher a loan’s credit risk, either from loan features or borrower characteristics, the more important it is to verify the borrower’s income, assets, and outstanding liabilities

dank geht an mish http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

meinung von ramsey su / silicon investor

If the guidelines are followed, which I don't know how they can not follow, a ton of loans in the pipeline are going to be rejected. Furthermore, the recasters are going to have hell of a time refinancing, while the existing loans are all going to be non-conforming to these guidelines.

The big question is applicability to the non regulated lenders such as NEW, LEND and NFI. Could they actually benefit because all the regulated lenders such as CFC, WM, WFC would all be forced out of the market. I find it hard to believe that the powerful banking lobbyist would allow that to happen so it would be only short term.

I think it has teeth because while they are just guidelines, the banks are going to have to explain to the examiners why they choose to ignore the guidelines if they continue to lend using old underwriting standards. They guidelines are pretty clear.

Switching back from a FICO based to a ability-to-pay underwriting standard is alone a monumental change. Compounding that with using fully indexed rate and fully amortized repayment, this will close the door on the irresponsible practices of the last 3 years.

Reduced Documentation – no more stated income loans unless there is a reason for it. “W-2, pay stubs or tax return” borrowers are going to have a tough time justifying why they need to go to low/no doc route. Lenders are going to have an equally tough time pushing these products. Is this the end of the disguised Alt-A loans?

Non-Owner-Occupied Investor Loans – this guideline limits LTV using debt service plus reserve underwriting, similar to any income property loan. I would guess that if you want to buy a house or condo as an investment, you are going to need at least 40% in down payment to qualify.

mike larson http://interestrateroundup.blogspot.com/

There's a lot of guidance and tough talk about excessive risk-taking in the lending arena. The agencies make clear they're not happy with how lenders are doling out interest only loans and option ARMs to anyone with a pulse. ....

But it's not like any type of loan was banned. And while more pre-closing disclosure documents warning about the risk of these "Frankenstein Financing" mortgages is nice, customers are already bombarded with page after page of disclosures when they take out a loan. Are they really going to benefit from being given even MORE?

Lastly, there's the timing issue. Everyone who follows this industry, as I do, has known for a long time that too much high-risk, B.S. lending was going on. Fraud? Rampant. Outright lying about income, assets, owner occupancy status? It's everywhere. Why is it NOW, a full year after the housing market peaked (I put that at July 2005), that we're seeing the regulators step it up? I'm not really surprised, just disappointed ... because it's too late to prevent a lot of ruined lives.

Simultaneous Second-Lien Loans – though these 80-20s may be toxic, the new qualifying standards would pretty much remove most of the toxins. I suspect that borrowers not suitable for this loan product is not going to get pass the other guidelines to get here.

Frederick Cannon, a banking analyst for Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

The guidelines will likely have a chilling effect on option ARM lending at regulated institutions (typische analystenantwort, oder? nichtssagend)

fazit:

biß ?

oder kein biß ( lenny war vegetarier)?

diese frage wird wohl erst in den nächsten monaten zu beantworten sein.

sollten diese richtlinien aber nur ansatzweise umgesetzt und vor allem auch vom regulierer verfolgt werden dann dürfte klar sein der makt implodieren wird. da praktisch das ganze wachstum in den presein und im volumen nur durch diese "innovativen" kreditformen ohne angabe von gehalt, negativer tilgung usw erzielt worden ist.

da ich aber grundsätzlich sehr skeptisch bin (gerade wenn in den usa die banken eingeschränkt werden sollen) möchte ich erst beweise sehen bevor ich das glauben kann. wäre ansonsten zu schön um wahr zu sein.

evtl. bringt ja auch ein paar monate später ein ehrgeiziger staatsanwalt wie seinerzeit elliot spitzer leben in die bude.

denn eines sollte klar sein: horrorgeschichten im bezug auf zwangsvollstreckungen, paymentshocks, betrug usw werden explosieren. genügend betätigungsfeld für einen der später in die politik will.

denke ne indikation köntten die hypothekenanträge der nächsten monate geben ob hier wirklich ernst gemacht wird. ich zweifle noch stark

jan-martin