Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
Mortgages - Are banks at risk?
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
|
|
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!
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 5/31/2011 Posts: 5,121
|
Lawyers in the house, this is over to you
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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!
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
Mortgages - Are banks at risk?
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.
|