wazua Fri, Jan 31, 2025
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In | Register

Mortgages - Are banks at risk?
VituVingiSana
#1 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 7:14:45 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,136
Location: Nairobi
From

http://coldtusker.blogsp...-are-banks-at-risk.html

The largest mortgage lender is HFCK which focuses on mortgages. The other large players are:

- KCB through S&L but a small piece of KCB's overall business
- CFC Stanbic but a small piece of overall Loan business
- Stanchart but a small piece of overall Loan business

What will happen to HFCK if the Borrowers default using the new law as the excuse?
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
hisah
#2 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 7:40:22 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 8/4/2010
Posts: 8,977
Yikes! That Land Act has thrown a big stick into the mortgage works. How will lenders redraft the existing loans without risking facing objections from parties (other spouses) that were not part of the deal? Mortgages risk management is exposed by this Land Act. How do you remodel the risks of existing mortgages with such grey areas? The playing field is no longer in favour of the lender...

Is this why Mr Market is undervaluing HF?
$15/barrel oil... The commodities lehman moment arrives as well as Sovereign debt volcano!
VituVingiSana
#3 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 8:26:05 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,136
Location: Nairobi
@hisah - Perhaps HFCK is not under-valued
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
mwekez@ji
#4 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 9:34:48 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 5/31/2011
Posts: 5,121
The law is an ass!

I do not see KCB, HF and other banks losing out because the mortgage/charge documents are being redrafted to accommodate the new conditions stipulated by the Land Act 2012. Besides, in lending, the banks give more weight on the repayment ability of the borrower than on the security offered. If u check well, you will notice that those people with loans secured by properties, are people of good means with a credit rating and reputation to protect. Defaulting is not an option for them.

FYI, this law affects ALL LOANS (not just home loans) that are secured by properties registered in individual persons names. This is therefore a BANK WIDE issue and not just KCB and HF
VituVingiSana
#5 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 10:45:23 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,136
Location: Nairobi
So it is even worse than I thought. If many banks are in trouble since properties are often used to secure loans.

As for 'repayment ability' well that is all fine but these can change rapidly in the current economic environment. The fallback remains the security/collateral.

Defaults will happen even to "people of good means with a credit rating and reputation to protect" because circumstances change.
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
mwekez@ji
#6 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 11:38:11 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 5/31/2011
Posts: 5,121
@VituVingiSana, dont you think the redrafting of the mortgage/charge documents that is ongoing will sufficiently secure the banks? Notice that the redrafted security documents will incorporate all requirements of Land Act 2012 and will therefore cover the bank in case of default.
VituVingiSana
#7 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 12:42:13 PM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,136
Location: Nairobi
mwekez@ji wrote:
@VituVingiSana, dont you think the redrafting of the mortgage/charge documents that is ongoing will sufficiently secure the banks? Notice that the redrafted security documents will incorporate all requirements of Land Act 2012 and will therefore cover the bank in case of default.
Not if some borrowers refuse to sign the amended agreements. Will the banks foreclose? If yes, will they win in court under the new laws? If no, then they will have to write down the loans to meet CBK's guidelines. As it stands the current mortgage documents are likely to be rejected by the courts.
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
mwekez@ji
#8 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 1:00:08 PM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 5/31/2011
Posts: 5,121
@VVS

•Why would a borrower refuse to sign the amended agreements
•Will banks really take the actions of such a borrower kindly
•I reiterate; the law is an ass, an idiot! Banks would certainly find a way of hammering such a borrower, if s/he comes up
King G
#9 Posted : Friday, August 03, 2012 1:55:21 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 3,855
Location: Othumo
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle
Thieves
mwekez@ji
#10 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:55:16 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 5/31/2011
Posts: 5,121
Lawyers in the house, this is over to you
VituVingiSana
#11 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:24:00 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,136
Location: Nairobi
mwekez@ji wrote:
@VVS

•Why would a borrower refuse to sign the amended agreements
Because is benefits the borrower to be under the 'current' loan then weaken his position vis-a-vis the bank. The only reason the bank wants the borrower to sign an amendment is to strengthen its position!
•Will banks really take the actions of such a borrower kindly
No, but does that matter? How often has a bank ever been nice to you?
•I reiterate; the law is an ass, an idiot! Banks would certainly find a way of hammering such a borrower, if s/he comes up.
Maybe, but the law seems to be on the borrower's end/favor

Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
VituVingiSana
#12 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:27:31 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,136
Location: Nairobi
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle
That's what caught the banks off-guard despite the intense lobbying. It has been applied retroactively. The same happened with the "land laws" re: new constitution regarding ownership of land by 'foreigners' or firms with even some foreign ownership i.e. conversion of freehold & 999-yr leasehold to 99-yr leasehold. This issue came into play for the listed Agricultural Firms.
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
Aguytrying
#13 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:15:09 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/11/2010
Posts: 5,040
VituVingiSana wrote:
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle
That's what caught the banks off-guard despite the intense lobbying. It has been applied retroactively. The same happened with the "land laws" re: new constitution regarding ownership of land by 'foreigners' or firms with even some foreign ownership i.e. conversion of freehold & 999-yr leasehold to 99-yr leasehold. This issue came into play for the listed Agricultural Firms.


The unknown is how the banks and customers will react to the new law, this is the deciding factor. Just when i was warming up to HFCK...drat
The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself
VituVingiSana
#14 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:45:00 AM
Rank: Chief


Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,136
Location: Nairobi
Aguytrying wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle
That's what caught the banks off-guard despite the intense lobbying. It has been applied retroactively. The same happened with the "land laws" re: new constitution regarding ownership of land by 'foreigners' or firms with even some foreign ownership i.e. conversion of freehold & 999-yr leasehold to 99-yr leasehold. This issue came into play for the listed Agricultural Firms.


The unknown is how the banks and customers will react to the new law, this is the deciding factor. Just when i was warming up to HFCK...drat
A crooked borrower can take advantage. What happens if a 'good' borrower dies & his 'other' family shows up? How long do these cases take to resolve?
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
the deal
#15 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:53:57 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,534
Location: Windhoek/Nairobbery
Fear mongering too much, at the end of the day folks will not default....there is the CRB were defaulters names are taken...you will never borrow again!
sparkly
#16 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:49:17 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 9/23/2009
Posts: 8,083
Location: Enk are Nyirobi
Needless fear.

How will the requirement for a spouse to sign the mortgage document affect the mortgage uptake?

If anything this will be an added security, if both spouses are involved. Two securities are better than one.
Life is short. Live passionately.
guru267
#17 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:16:50 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 6,675
Location: Nairobi
Looks like a lot of low EQs on this thread..

Mark 12:29
Deuteronomy 4:16
Aguytrying
#18 Posted : Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:35:12 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/11/2010
Posts: 5,040
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle


You are absolutely right. Section 108(2)of the Land Registration Act(the new law) says that both the rights of the bank and the liability of the mortgage holder will not be affected.
The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself
Aguytrying
#19 Posted : Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:36:45 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/11/2010
Posts: 5,040
VituVingiSana wrote:
mwekez@ji wrote:
@VVS

•Why would a borrower refuse to sign the amended agreements
Because is benefits the borrower to be under the 'current' loan then weaken his position vis-a-vis the bank. The only reason the bank wants the borrower to sign an amendment is to strengthen its position!
•Will banks really take the actions of such a borrower kindly
No, but does that matter? How often has a bank ever been nice to you?
•I reiterate; the law is an ass, an idiot! Banks would certainly find a way of hammering such a borrower, if s/he comes up.
Maybe, but the law seems to be on the borrower's end/favor



Section 108
The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself
Users browsing this topic
Guest (8)
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2025 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.