Northern Rock - Legal Challenge

Feb 18, 2008 86 Replies

They have to keep them ongoing until they can find someone willing to buy them. Who would buy them? If they had the money and thought the risk acceptable, then perhaps almost anyone. But if they had to borrow the money, then it's only worth buying the assets if the income they will generate exceeds the cost of borrowing.

A mortgage book is a bit like a portfolio of gilts. Each mortgage you might want to buy has a redemption date (the date on which the borrower

*must* repay the loan at par, though he is usually free to do so earlier) and a yield (the interest rate, expressed, as with gilts, as a percentage of par (the amount borrowed)). This simple view applies to interest-only mortgages, it gets a bit more complicated with the repayment variety, but this is of no fundamental concern.

If you could buy 6%-yielding gilts only by borrowing at 6.9%, you could break even (on the current account) only if you could buy them at less than 87% of par. The capital account will skew the results, of course, so any gain you expect to make by buying at a discount to par might compensate for some loss on the current account. And if the borrower redeems early, you collect a bonus!

It's not as simple as that. That's only a theoretical value in isolation. Its real value is what someone would be willing to pay for it, i.e. the value as perceived by a potential investor. This would take not only the above isolated value into consideration, but also its capability to generate income or gain (why else invest, after all?). And the cost of financing the deal must play a part too.

Israel seem to have gotten away with this for 30 years.

tim

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That only means that the value is reduced by 0.9%pa **for the period until sale**. That might be below 0.1% !!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Possibly some other banks might buy parts, possibly there may be many, many people buying bits each (eg the mortgagors themselves might "buy back" their own mortgages!).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

If only a mortgage loan was like a gilt!

But there are two major differences:-

(1) The T&C usually allow the mortgage lender to "call-in" the loan immediately, don't they? Of course, they wouldn't usually do this (after all, mortgage lenders are in the business of making mortgages, so wouldn't usually want to reduce the volume of (good) business).

(2) The mortgage lender can increase the SVR, thus effectively encouraging the mortgagors to take up their "option" to redeem immediately (this will affect all but 'tracker' or **very long term** fixed rate mortgages).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

If the mortgagors didn't want to redeem, it could generate a v.large income just by substantially increasing the SVR!!

Huh?

No, they don't, not unless the borrower is in breach. If they did, NR would have nothing to worry about. They could just call in enough of their loans to get themselves out of trouble.

One of the usual T&Cs is indeed that a borrower is given the opportunity to repay the loan immediately and without penalty if the lender should seek to increase the interest rate, or to change any of the T&Cs to the borrower's disadvantage. However, if the bank were to decide to try something like this in order to engineer what is in effect an uncalled-for calling-in, I dare say they'd fall foul of the relevant regulator.

As above, I don't think they would be allowed to.

It is the current value of future cashflows. £200,000 in 25 years time is not worth the same as £200,000 now.

They can only call it in now if the borrower defaults, and where the borrower defaults, there is a greater than average risk of bad debts. This is not an overdraft facility.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Eg 40 days of 0.9%pa is under 0.1%.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Maybe I need to look into this :-( ! When I checked the small print thoroughly at time of taking my (big bank, with high general customer satisfaction) mortgage loan, I seem to remember that there was a clause allowing the bank to "call in" the loan at any time (of course, there'd need to be a reasonable notice period to allow re-financing elsewhere).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Surely the regulator wouldn't intervene if they only raised it to no more than a small margin over their borrowing costs (eg 7.4% if they borrow at 6.9%) ?

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required