While the government touts its efforts to boost home ownership, one real estate network warns that current first home buyer schemes could be a catch-22.

The government has substantially increased property price caps under several of its schemes aimed to help first home buyers into the market, but the PRD Real Estate Group has now argued that participants may be swapping early and/or easier access to home ownership with a debt level they may not be ready to take on.

According to Minister for Housing Michael Sukkar, new price caps for the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme (FHLDS) and the Family Home Guarantee (FHG) acknowledge the challenges of buying a new home or re-entering the housing market.

And while the government’s intention might be good, PRD’s chief economist, Dr Diaswati Mardiasmo, warned of possible long-term challenges for current buyers.

With the FHLDS foreseeing a slim 5 per cent deposit and the FHG an even slimmer 2 per cent, first home buyers and single parents are essentially being asked to service a higher level of mortgage debt, Dr Mardiasmo explained.

For instance, a $600,000 Gold Coast property with a 2 per cent deposit at just $12,000 and a First Home Owner Grant of $15,000 will still accrue $573,000 in mortgage debt, excluding other fees.

Similarly, under the FHG, a $650,000 home in Brisbane, with a $32,500 deposit and a $15,000 grant yields $602,500 in mortgage debt.

Additionally, Dr Mardiasmo said, the new price caps open up a higher probability for certain price bands to inflate, lifting prices on what was once thought of as “affordable”.

“This potentially prices out the next generation of first home buyers and single parents, creating a multiplier effect of reliance on government incentives.”

“It seems that the current government schemes are a catch-22, swapping early and/or easier access to home ownership with a debt level that the target demographic may not be ready to take on,” the chief economist opined.

Looking ahead, Dr Mardiasmo urged the government to closely review current issues in the housing market in order to implement the right policies.

She recommended reestablishing balance by implementing schemes that will add to the supply of housing stock.

“These government schemes add to the demand, and thus must be balanced with schemes that will at least create the same amount of supply,” she highlighted.

Warning of the impending return of migrants, the chief economist judged that “at present our property market is sheltered from international demand”.

“Once again, policy – or more correctly, the right policy – really matters.”

The issue of housing supply has become a hot topic countrywide. Most recently, the Real Estate Institute of Australia addressed the apparent crisis, with its president, Adrian Kelly, calling on the state and federal government to tackle a housing supply plan with “the same spirit, determination and funding we have used to fight COVID-19”.

Many lenders are taking a number of weeks (sometimes months) to approve loans at the moment.

These delays have been caused mainly by significantly higher mortgage application volumes and the operational disruption from onshoring back-office services due to Covid lockdowns in the Philippines and India.

As such, banks are prioritising applications for borrowers that have already purchased property and have a definitive settlement date to meet.

Consequently, pre-approval applications are low priority and can take a long time to arrange.

This blog discusses the pros and cons associated with buying a property without a loan pre-approval.

What is a mortgage pre-approval?

A pre-approval is conditional loan approval.

Typically, the main condition is that the borrower is able to offer a suitable property as security for the proposed loan.

For example, a bank may approve a loan for $800,000 subject to the borrower buying an acceptable property that is valued by the bank at an amount of at least $1,000,000 (to keep the loan to value ratio at 80%).

The only other condition might be that the borrower’s financial circumstances do not change.

This is called an approval-in-principle (AIP) or pre-approval.

Arranging a written pre-approval with a bank (via a mortgage broker) gives borrowers a higher level of certainty that, if they go ahead and purchase a property, that the bank will ultimately unconditionally approve a loan to fund that property.

Pre-approvals do not attract any fees (they are free) and you are not obligated to use that lender or borrow the pre-approved amount.

What could go wrong even if you have a pre-approval?

Things can still go wrong even if you have a pre-approval.

Typically, the only material risk is that the bank values your new property below the purchase price.

The bank will lend against the contract price or valuation, whichever is lower.

If the property valuation is lower than the purchase price, it will mean you won’t be able to borrow as much and you must contribute more cash (or additional property as security).

For example, if you buy a property for $1,000,000 and need to borrow 80% (or $800,000), and the property valuation comes back at $950,000, the bank will reduce your loan amount to 80% of that value, being $760,000.

That means you must contribute another $40,000 of cash to be able to settle on the property.

The other risk is a change in circumstances (such as losing your job) occurring between when the pre-approval was issued and when the loan is ultimately formally approved.

Of course, if your circumstances change before you have purchased a property, you should go back and speak to your bank or broker.

If your circumstances change after you have purchased but prior to a loan being fully approved, that could be problematic, although this is very, very rare.

Are low valuations common?

No. By definition, the value of a property is what the market is prepared to pay for it.

Therefore, if you have purchased a property in a standard open-market sale, that is usually strong evidence of its current market value.

However, if there are not enough sales of comparable properties to support your purchase price, that is when a low valuation becomes a risk.

It is possible to challenge a bank valuation by providing additional evidence, but this usually has a low success rate for a variety of reasons.

In our experience, the most expedient solution is to go to another bank.

More often than not, alternative banks (which means alternative valuers) will value the property at the contract price.

However, if you have genuinely overpaid for a property, then obtaining a bank valuation equal to contract price will be challenging.

Do you need to know what you do not already know?

Some potential borrowers use logic to determine the likelihood of a bank approving their loan.

They may reflect on the fact that the repayments are easily affordable and assume the bank will agree.

That is a flawed approach because sometimes (often) bank credit policies often lack logic.

Just because you feel you’re low risk, doesn’t mean the bank will agree.

Banks use compressive credit scoring models in order to assess an applicant’s creditworthiness.

If your application scores low, it will be declined.

There are lots of things that impact a credit score, some of which most laypeople would consider to be inconsequential.

The other common ‘unknown’ is what is on your credit file.

For example, there might be a bill that you were never aware of that wasn’t paid.

Or it could contain errors.

These things can cause issues.

These risks can be identified and mitigated by arranging a pre-approval.

Do all pre-approvals reduce your risk?

There are two types of pre-approvals.

The first type is where the application goes through the same credit approval process as a full application.

That is, a human credit assessor reviews the application and verifies the information.

The second type is where the bank’s system reviews/approves the pre-approval, but no one verifies the data that is put into the system.

Of course, the second scenario is highly dependent on the information that is entered into the system.

If there is any ambiguity or subjectivity to the data, the second option doesn’t really reveal how the lender will assess that information, and is, therefore, less valuable.

Is it risky to buy without a pre-approval?

The answer to this question depends on the strength of your financial position and circumstances.

Typically, we would consider two main factors:

1. How much you need to borrow compared to your maximum borrowing capacity. For example, if we were advising a client and we assessed that they could borrow up to $2 million. However, in this instance, they only need to borrow $500,000, then we might conclude a pre-approval is not critical. However, if we need to borrow close to a client’s maximum, then even a small change in a lender’s assessment could have an adverse impact. As such, we’d recommend the client obtain a pre-approval.
2. Our assessment of the likelihood of approval. After almost 20 years of experience, we have a very good sense of whether a bank will approve a loan. Included in this assessment is considering the level of subjectivity in the bank’s credit assessment. If a client’s situation is not clear-cut, it increases the risk that a bank may not agree with our assessment. Of course, we would never advise a client to take unmitigated risks. But if we are almost certain that we can get a loan approved, a pre-approval is not as imperative.

In some situations, we might have a high level of certainty that we can get a loan approved by one of the 30+ lenders on our panel, but it’s not ascertained that the client’s preferred lender would approve it.

In this situation, we would invite the client to make friends with the worst-case scenario  – that is, if their preferred lender declined the loan then we would need to use an alternative lender.

Often the differential in interest rates and fees, if any, are not material, as the mortgage market is competitive.

How experienced is the banker or mortgage broker advising you?

If a mortgage broker or banker advises you to purchase a property without a pre-approval, you must assess their experience and aptitude before relying on their advice.

If they have many years or decades of experience and deal with people that are similar to you, it should provide you comfort.

However, don’t listen to someone just because they work for a well-known brand. You need to trust the individual, not the brand.

How can you minimise bank valuation risk?

Banks will not value a property before you sign a contract of sale.

However, you could engage a firm (the same firm that also works for the banks) to prepare a “valuation for mortgage purposes”.

This would give you an indication of fair market value, although it’s possible that values may be conservative to manage their business risk.

However, in my experience, few purchasers get properties valued before they buy them.

Undertaking comparable sales research is probably the best thing you can do to minimise the risk of paying more than the bank’s valuation.

Engaging the services of an experienced and trustworthy buyers’ agent is another way to minimise valuation risk.

They will have a lot of experience and knowledge which helps determine fair market value and undertake comparable sales research on your behalf.

Remember, it’s your risk

Buying a property without having a pre-approval is not without risk.

Of course, the risk is acceptable in some situations but unacceptable in others.

A highly experienced mortgage broker will be able to guide you with this decision, as they will be able to draw upon their experience with multiple lenders.

However, ultimately, if you decide to purchase without a pre-approval, it’s your risk.

Of course, I do acknowledge that sometimes circumstances do not allow you to obtain a pre-approval, even if you wanted one.

This is why investing is more a game of finance, than a game of assets (property or shares).

And an experienced team of professionals (buyer’s agent, financial advisor, mortgage broker) can help you win that game.

The continuous growth of Australian housing market has put upwards pressure on the portion of profit-making resales, new research has found.

The portion of profit-making resales in the first quarter of 2021 soared to 90.3 per cent nationally, up from 89.1 per cent in the previous quarter and the COVID-induced low of 86 per cent in the three months to June 2020, CoreLogic’s latest Pain and Gain report, based on approximately 98,000 resales, revealed.

The proportion of national loss-making sales, on the other hand, declined from 10.9 per cent to just 9.7 per cent, with owner-occupiers said to have enjoyed a higher incidence of profitability than investors

Namely, owner-occupiers recorded 94 per cent profit-making resales, whereas investors only bagged 88 per cent.

According to CoreLogic’s head of research, Eliza Owen, the increase in the rate of profit-making sales has come off the back of remarkable growth in Australian dwelling values.

Between the market bottoming out in September 2020 and the end of March 2021, Australian dwelling values have increased 8.2 per cent, she said.

Additionally, national home values added 5.8 per cent in the March quarter alone, and 10.1 per cent in the calendar year to date.

“The upswing in values has been driven by a multitude of factors, including expansive monetary policy, an accumulation of household savings through strict social distancing periods, government incentives for home purchases, and low total levels of stock on the market,” Ms Owen noted.

But while the proportion of profit-making resales have increased, the total value of profitable sales dropped to $30.7 billion from $32.2 billion in the December quarter – likely due to the lower sales volume over the three months to March 2021, according to the researcher.

Regional v capital resales

For the fourth consecutive quarter, regional Australian resales recorded a higher rate of profitability (90.6 per cent) than capital city markets (90 per cent).

However, the gap in the rate of profit seen between capital cities and regions has narrowed, and, according to CoreLogic, is likely to keep narrowing given capital city growth rates have been closer to regional value growth rates through April and May.

“In the three months to March, the combined regional dwelling market increased 6.3 per cent, compared with a 5.6 per cent increase in values across the capital cities,” Ms Owen said.

‘Sea change’ and ‘tree change’ markets, in particular, generally saw an uplift in the rate of profit-making sales, with Victoria’s Ballarat triumphing, with a reported 99.5 per cent of sales clocking a profit.

Meanwhile, resource-based housing markets in Western Australia and Northern Territory continued to record elevated rates of loss-making sales. An uptick is, however, predicted with towns rich in mining activity witnessing the fastest decline in the rate of loss-making sales.

Of the capital cities, Hobart was the most profitable, with the portion of loss-making sales at just 1.6 per cent. It was followed by Canberra with 6.1 per cent, Sydney and Adelaide with 6.4 per cent, and Melbourne with 5.5 per cent.

Across the ‘rest of state’ markets, regional Victoria saw the lowest portion of loss-making sales at only 1.6 per cent. It was followed by regional Tasmania with 3.6 per cent, regional NSW with 3.9 per cent, regional SA with 13.5 per cent and regional Queensland with 14.1 per cent.

Ms Owen, however, cautioned that there are still pockets of risk in the Australian housing market, despite a broad-based upswing in values.

“This quarter, we took a look at the case of the Melbourne LGA unit market. The volume of
loss-making unit resales had reached a record high at 173. However, this is in the context of rising
overall sales volumes, and still wasn’t at a peak proportion.

“For this region, investor sales may have been triggered by rental values falling more than 20 per cent over the year. As long as COVID weighs on international travel and inner-city economic activity, this market is likely to see subdued performance,” Ms Owen said.

Houses v units

As has been the case throughout the pandemic, houses once again emerged as the more profitable asset, with the national proportion of profit-making sales at 93.2 per cent for houses and 83.2 per cent for units.

Moreover, the rate of loss-making sales remained substantially elevated in the unit segment. In the three months to March, 16.8 per cent of units sold for a loss across Australia – almost two and a half times the rate of loss-making house sales (6.8 per cent).

Looking ahead, Ms Owen said that while a broad-based housing market upswing continues to support improved profitability in housing market resales, with the dwelling market at extraordinary record high values, there are potential headwinds for buyers to be cautious of.

At the national level, these include affordability constraints, eventual mortgage rate rises and the remaining threat of COVID clusters.