Is a home Equity Loan Considered a second Mortgage

Lower House - 2013 budget

Helpdesk to Buy: Mortgage bond to help improve the mortgageability of new or refurbished homes for those trying to buy with small deposit. Founded in 1938 as part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the US Federation of the German National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae. Mae Fannie was founded to make available government funds to financing mortgage loans to help locals improve the level of homeownership and availability of accessible accommodation.

Fannie Mae was authorised by the German authorities to buy personal mortgage loans in 1970. 221 ] She also founded the FHLMC (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), commonly known as Freddie Mac, to rival Fannie Mae to provide a more resilient and effective mortgage collateral trading system. The Housing and Community Development Act was enacted in 1992.

This law modified the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Charta to make sure that the two bodies "have a positive commitment to facilitating the funding of low and middle-income families' affordability in a way that is commensurate with their general purpose of the community, without losing a great deal of funding and a fair commercial return".

This was the first occasion on which the two Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) had to achieve "affordable residential goals", defined each year by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and endorsed by Congress. Then the Clinton government urged the extension of mortgage lending to low and middle-income borrower by raising the quotas of its loan portfolio in disadvantaged inner-city areas as defined in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977.

Loan guarantees will be granted: Include a state guaranty for creditors who are offering mortgage loans for those with a down payment of 5 percent to 20 percent; Be open not only to first-time purchasers but also to current home owners; 150. As part of the mortgage guaranty system, the authorities will'give creditors the opportunity to acquire a guaranty for the upper limit of the mortgage'.

In other words, "the State will reimburse the mortgage provider for part of the net loss in the case of redemption", with a warranty of "up to 80 per cent of the purchase value of the real estate guaranteed". Creditors will take a five percent stake in the net loss above this 80 percent mark, but the important thing is that the tax payer will also loose in the case of failure.

232 ] Under the conditions of the mortgage guaranty system, creditors must repay the State a trading charge for each mortgage under the system. Fees are fixed in such a way that the system is self-financing and creditors must therefore indemnify the State: Anticipated system loss; 151.

Help to Buy's mortgage guaranty component, as mentioned above, is partially aimed at supporting homes that do not have mortgage entry due to the shortage of high loan-to-value mortgage. Smee, of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, explains the reason and tells us: 155.

Chancellor was also asked what considerations the government had made about the amount that creditors could calculate for mortgage loans under the programme. The government's intent, he said, was "to improve the affordable nature of mortgage loans, not to reduce the affordable nature of mortgage loans". When asked whether he had considered an upper limit for the level of charges to creditors, he replied:

In 2014, the mortgage bond, to be launched, will lead the state to partly bond the mortgage of those who spend less than 600,000 pounds on their houses, with a 5 to 20 percent margin. That constitutes a significant encroachment on the UK mortgage subprime mortgage sector.

However, the government has argued that first-time purchasers and others who want to move real estate cannot do so because creditors need large amounts of money after the credit crunch. As the government says, this is a failing mortgage that it is trying to remedy through the mortgage bond.

However, the way the government has taken to help these individuals would be to grant the mortgage provider taxpayers damages for part of the net loss in the case of a withdrawal. Chancellor explains that the anticipated loss under the system will be met by the trading charge invoiced to the participant creditors.

Therefore, the Committee cannot judge whether there is a probability that the Registrar is right when he says that anticipated mortgage protection system loss is compensated by the trading commission. Moreover, recent events tell us that the residential property markets are highly competitive and that the extent of forced expropriations is hard to compute.

Therefore, we believe that it will be highly challenging for the government to assess the charge in a way that greatly reduces the Treasury's exposure. Mortgage guarantees also make the State an actor in the mortgage markets. However, the Committee is worried that the Ministry of Finance now has a fiscal interest in keeping home values up to date in order to reduce tax loss to the tax payer.

Treasury's new part in the mortgage lending business is taking place against a background of considerable leniency on the part of creditors. In the wake of the global economic downturn, the government and the regulatory authority have urged banking institutions to take lenient action, such as vacation, transient cuts in payments, transient shifts from borrower to pure interest rate mortgage, or the extension of mortgage conditions for fighting borrower to improve their chance of staying in their houses.

Council of Mortgage Countries figures show that leniency has lowered the rate of forced expropriation from around 12,700 at the beginning of 2009 to around 8,500 by the end of the second half of 2012. 242 ] However, there are indications that creditors may be less willing to be lenient in the foreseeable term.

There is a danger that if mortgage creditors start to exert a lenient, reductive degree of leniency, repossessions may increase and housing costs will then be lower than they would otherwise be. When this has been done, and unless this exposure has been fully factored into the charge, the Treasury may end up with large defaults on these mortgage guarantees.

This committee investigated the effects of state intervention in the residential property sector through Help to Buy. In particular, we focused on the effects of the measure on the residential property offer and the effects on property values. Mr Smee and Mr Cridland, whose CBI members included both building contractors and mortgage banks, both greeted Help to Buy.

Smee expressed his satisfaction with the warranty arrangement. The complainant alleged that it would help creditors to provide higher loan-to-value mortgage rates'because the principal to back the loan is charged in the context of an established [government] guarantee', so that creditors 'have to hold less capital'. Mr Smee said that this was decisive, "if one comes to higher mortgage lending values, the amount of principal that a creditor must put behind a loan really does increase considerably".

Mr. Smee said the surety scheme: Subsequently to the budget, institutional investors and experts voiced their concerns about the effects of the mortgage bond on home values. Grainia Long, for example, Managing Director of the Chartered Institute of Housing, warned that'the government must closely watch the effects of these measures to make sure that they promote the construction of new houses and not just raise property prices'.

Martin Wolf also criticized the program of the government: 164. It interviewed witness witness accounts about the risk that state interference in the residential property markets would just increase home values and lead to another real estate bubble. 4. Mr Cridland said that the system would "strengthen" trust. 254 ] He thought that the budgetary interventions for residential construction were "an independent task as a reasonable intervention", but admitted that the isolated help to buy programmes were not a residential policy.

"Mr. Cridland said, a comprehensive residential strategy." Mr. Smee was asked if Help to Buy would encourage an expansion of the available accommodation. Answering us by saying that "the Help to Buy Equity Loan Bit is designed to raise the offer", he admitted that the much bigger mortgage guaranty system had no such immediate offer-attraction.

Asked whether Help to Buy, if considered a bundle, would increase the gap between offer and request, he said: This committee interviewed Professor Nickell of the Budget Responsibility Committee on the likely reaction of help to buy in terms of buying and selling and the impact on home pricing.

Nickell said to us that "the crucial question is: will it only push up housing costs? The Chancellor was asked whether the New Buy programmes would largely lead to increasing home purchase costs, as Professor Nickell proposed, at least in the near future.

Before telling us that the justification for the system was, he said to us that "of course the OBR can come to its own judgment": Asked whether the main aim of the plan was to increase property values, the Chancellor replied clearly: 'No, it wasn't'.

It pointed to proof that the committee had obtained from the Council of Mortgage Lenders that the suggestions were unlikely to produce a real estate bubble. 1. Again he championed the justification for the scheme: 168. Chancellor was also asked what measures, if any, the government was taking to improve house availability in the wider business community.

Our design changes are aimed at increasing the number of houses that can be constructed. Urging whether Help to Buy would trigger a bidding response, he said to us that "the first part of Help to Buy[Equity Loan] [...] will be to raise the offer of new buildings [...], the builder's favourable reactions suggest that this will happen".

262 ] The Chancellor further argued that there would be a separate offer from demand: We discussed the Help to Buy programmes against the background of an ongoing controversy over whether UK home pricing is being overpriced. There was a division among our experts as to whether the UK residential stock was undervalued.

Our two eyewitnesses said that they were not overrated by the restrictions on the provision of accommodation, while our third eyewitness considered them overrated. Daly said that "given the very limited availability of flats in the economy", home values were "probably not at the present level overvalued".

Believing that "due to limited supplies and the fact that there are not enough homes in the market, my opinion is that home values are not currently being overpriced. Nickell, Professor of the Budgetary Responsibility Committee, and external observers have suggested that the mortgage guaranty system will boost residential space demands, but that the current limitations on the availability of new space - mainly due to urban development legislation - will mean that the main effect of a lighter loan could be an rise in residential property rates, at least in the shorter to longer run.

By no means is it clear that a system whose main result may be home price supportive pricing is eventually in the interest of first-time purchasers. which the government says it wants to help. In the Committee's view, the Chancellor claims that an increase in the housing market and increasing mortgage price will lead to a corresponding offer reaction, which is not convincing, at least in the near future.

That would be likely in a well-functioning one. The residential property sector, however, is experiencing considerable bottlenecks. Governments argue that the new offer is supported by the equity components of First Buy. That may be the case, but the magnitude of the equity loan facility, which at 3. 5 billion, is eclipsed by the magnitude of the mortgage guaranty facility schedule - which provides up to 12 billion pounds of federal guarantees, enough to back up 130 billion pounds of high loan-to-value mortgages. 4.

Overall, however, if the government gave preference to providing accommodation, its accommodation should have focused on it. Help to Buy models are both conceived as transitory. As regards the mortgage bond regime, the transitional character of the regime'reflects the Government's perception that the present shortage of high loan-to-value loans is primarily a cyclical problem and not a sign of longer-term restructuring in the mortgage markets.

268 ] This discussion focuses on the question of whether in the course of repairing their financial statements and taking into account the general business conditions, German financial institutions will withdraw from higher loan-to-value ratios over time. As an alternative, it may also mirror a longer-term profound change in banks' approach to risks in conjunction with changes in the regulatory framework, making the provision of such loans less appealing.

Criticism of the regulation is that what was conceived as a transitional regulation can become lasting. Chancellor Merkel has dealt with this subject and told us that he did not intend this programme [First Buy] to run for more than three years. That was a reminder of his statement in the budget declaration that the extension of the plan would need the agreement of the Fiscal Policy Committee.

Chancellor, I would just like to make it clear what you mean by a temporary system. If this system stops, unless the FPC comes to you and says, "We want to go on. This mortgage bond will open in January 2014 and has a term of three years.

However, the transitory character of this arrangement mirrors the Government's perception that the present shortage of high loan-to-value is primarily a cyclical problem and not a sign of longer-term restructuring in the mortgage markets. Few analyses have been submitted by the government to substantiate this claim. In fact, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which very much embraced the programme, blamed the shortage of such credit in part on higher principal demands for high loan-to-value mortgage-backed securities.

The reason for this could well be an assessment of the greater risk appetite of such loans. We are concerned that if the present shortage of high loan-to-value ratios reflects rather structure than cyclicality, the pressures on the government to prolong the system in three years will be enormous. Unintentional and undesirable results could well be that an approach to tackling a perceived transitory issue in the UK residential property markets becomes an integral part of the UK residential property markets.

Deciding to outsource the continuation of the system to the FPC may be a realization that it will be hard to shorten the system after three years, as has been the case with home building and subsidies programs in recent years. From the Chancellor's findings, the FPC and the government seem to have taken the lead in seeking or demanding the continuation of the plan.

FPC has a subsidiary goal to assist the government's economical policies. FPC's new Help to Buy: mortgage warranty responsibilities are an expansion of the FPC's responsibilities beyond its present scope and have significant impact on policies. In view of the significant challenges already facing the FPC in the creation and implementation of new macro-prudential instruments to fulfil its key function, this new accountability may turn out to be a diversion or a burden.

Often the closing of subsidised residential construction was fought against. This is reflected in the FPC's reticence to demand even one macroprudential instrument for assessing creditworthiness, which instead prefers a less political proxies, the so-called industry CRD. When the government decides to further develop the FPC's roll, it should make public, before the start of the programme, clear benchmarks according to which the FPC should make its choice.

It is expected that this replacement will take place and will review it before the start of the warranty system. Help to Buy: mortgage warranty, which contains a draft schema and was released together with the 2013 budget, made it clear that buy-to-lease and pure interest rate mortgage loans are not ineligible.

It did not, however, state whether the purchase of second dwellings was qualifying. 274 ] The problem was addressed in plenary during the budget discussion when the business secretary could not corroborate whether second dwellings would be considered and replied instead that "the system has not yet been elaborated in detail".

There are two concerns about the uncertainty as to whether the mortgage guaranty will be open to those who want to buy a second home. Secondly, although the committee is conscious of the complexities that can be associated with foreclosure, we find it difficult to understand the reasons why the tax payer stands behind a loan for persons who want to own a second home, especially as the Chancellor has repeated that the main purpose of the programme is to help those on the real estate manager and those who want to move real estate.

Recent government interventions in the residential property sector have raised many issues. Those issues need to be addressed in order to address the concern that the regime may have accidental and undesirable consequences: However, the government has claimed that the present shortage of high loan-to-value ratios, whether for economic or institutional causes, is a failing state. How does the government assess the likely length of this malfunction?

Is the decrease in the disposability of high loan-to-value mortgage loans a reflection of temporary/cyclical elements or does it constitute a longer-term move by creditors away from such a notion? Does the government believe that the uptake of high loan value mortgage loans will grow after three years, making the system superfluous? When the latter is the case, should the government try to undo the lender's move away from potentially more risky ways of providing high loan-to-value mortgage loans?

How high is the government's estimation of the number of homeowners it anticipates will be backed by the mortgage bond, and what estimation, if any, has been made of the number of first-time homeowners backed by the facility? How does the government assess the likely sustainability cost of the warranty regime?

How does the government assess the impact of the warranty after three years on property values? Was it estimated how much higher home values would be in relation to the likely price levels if there were no such system? How strong is the offer reaction that the government is expecting from the implementation of the mortgage protection system?

How long does the government anticipate a noticeable reaction to the offer? Which are the main obstacles to increased accommodation in the UK? A trading charge is paid to the Government by the creditors participating in the system of guarantees. Are the fees collected "earmarked" or handled as State revenue?

What is the treatment of fees and contingencies resulting from the system of guarantees and how are they recorded in economic and total public accounting? What was the reason for choosing the FPC to take the decisions on the continued mortgage protection after 2017? When the FPC is given charge of ending the mortgage guaranty system, does this necessitate a modification of the mandate?

What are the government's expectations for the FPC to take a final determination on the continued operation of the warranty regime? Whether the system of guarantees should be continued after 2017 could be disputed in political terms. Is the government in agreement that the transfer of this ruling to the FPC could undermine its capacity to fulfil its key function, namely the quest for fiscal sustainability?

Unsurprisingly, why were secondary residences not expressly exempted - is it due to complexities or does the government want the guarantees regime to promote the purchase of secondary residences? In answering this report, the Committee looks to the Government to provide answers to these issues. No matter what the benefits of Help to Buy's suggestions may be, we find that the government has focused on what it sees as mortgage failures.

The budgetary actions seem, however, to highlight less the more serious economical problem: the widespread malfunctioning of the corporate credit markets causes problems for small enterprises.