Sophisticated borrowers shouldn’t have to jump through the same hoops

By:

It is my contention that similar provisions should be available to banks and mortgage brokers.

Mortgage Broker

Often, the way you assess an application for a borrower with a net worth of $2,000 compared to a borrower with $20 million will vary.

Making this distinction allows lenders to apply a more common-sense approach.

However, unfortunately, no such distinction exists.

All borrowers are subject to the same rules, irrespective of their financial position and financial literacy.

Retail versus Wholesale investor rules

The Corporations Act makes a distinction between wholesale and retail clients (or “sophisticated investors” if being offered bonds or direct shares).

A wholesale client is someone that meets either of the below two tests:

  1. Asset test – having a net worth of over $2.5 million; or
  2. Income test – having a pre-tax income of at least $250,000 in each of the past two years.

The Act also includes other exemptions in addition to the above including professional investor test, product value test, and small business test.

These asset and income hurdles were struck back in 1991 and are now vastly outdated.

Adjusting for the impact of inflation, the income threshold should now be over $490,000 and asset value over $4.9 million.

Wholesale clients are assumed to be financially savvy enough to make informed decisions and are able to protect their own interests.

In short, they can decide whether an investment is appropriate so there’s less onus on the provider or advisor.

Also, there are fewer obligations (on financial advisors and product issuers) when dealing with wholesale clients such as there is no need to provide a Financial Services Guide, Statement of Advice, Product Disclosure Statements, etc.

Wholesale clients are often required to confirm their status by providing a certificate from a qualified accountant.

Responsible lending rules may not be changed as planned

In September last year, the government announced that it would seek to wind back some of the responsible lending rules.

The main proposed change was to relax the obligation for the bank to verify how much you spend (and on what items) when applying for a loan.

The Bill passed the House of Representatives in March 2021 and is currently before the Senate.

Lending

It is being opposed by the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, and some consumer groups.

However, the government has reaffirmed its intention to push this legislation through.

I understand that the Bill is scheduled for a second reading next week (16 June 2021).

If this Bill doesn’t succeed, there’s an even greater need for sophisticated borrowers to be recognised.

Problems with a one-size-fits-all approach

A one-size-fits-all approach to assessing loans creates some perverse and frustrating outcomes.

I share two common examples that we have experienced recently.

1. Asset rich but income poor

We have recently been helping a client borrow $650,000 to purchase an investment property for $1.25 million (i.e. borrowing only 50% of its value).

This client has approximately $20 million of assets in cash, shares, and superannuation – and currently zero debt.

It is the banks’ policy to ignore historical dividend and interest income and instead use a deeming rate of only 0.25%.

Bank Calculating

As such, when calculating the client’s income for lending purposes, the bank assumes our clients will receive only $50,000 in investment income (from $20 million of assets), which is barely enough to cover living expenses.

This credit policy may be appropriate for ‘mum and dad’ borrowers that might have a small parcel of shares.

But there wouldn’t be many people that would disagree that applying the same approach to a high net worth individual (like our client) doesn’t make a lot of sense.

They have significant financial resources to draw upon to meet loan repayments.

If you’re not going to lend to them, who will you lend to?

2. Large offset balances

It is common for our clients, particularly ones that are approaching retirement, to have large borrowings that are fully or mostly offset.

When it comes to assessing borrowing capacity, the banks ignore money in offsets on the assumption that you could spend it, and if you did, you would incur interest in respect to the mortgage.

However, common sense suggests that someone with $2 million in an offset account has demonstrated a long history of making prudent financial decisions.

As such, it is unlikely that they will spend all this money frivolously tomorrow.

In fact, one could successfully argue that the mere fact that they have $2 million in their offset is the strongest evidence that they are prudent money managers and can afford to service additional debt.

It is time to introduce a new category of borrowers: sophisticated borrowers

The government began to tighten credit rules back in 2009 after the GFC.

By the time the banking Royal Commission started in 2017, most of the regulatory holes had already been plugged.

Of course, prior to 2009, the laws were too loose and they didn’t protect consumers adequately.

It makes absolute sense that banks and mortgage brokers have an obligation to ensure clients can afford a loan.

But it also makes sense that different people should be treated differently.

Getting A Credit

The Hawke government, which drafted the wholesale client rules that apply for investments, realised that higher net worth people have the capacity, knowledge, and experience to make prudent decisions and protect themselves.

As such, they don’t need the same levels of protection.

It is my view that credit laws must make the same distinctions.

Higher-income earners and high net worth persons are usually able to assess whether it is prudent for them to take out a new loan.

Also, the approach to assess a loan for a high net worth individual should allow a bank to rely on financial resources, not income, to demonstrate the capacity to service a loan.

The current system is broken

The fact that someone with several millions of dollars in the bank is subject to the same assessment as someone with very little financial resources highlights that the current regulations are inadequate.

Banks must be given a robust framework but enough discretion to operate within that framework to achieve acceptable outcomes.

Distinguishing between retail and sophisticated borrowers seems to be a logical step in the right direction.

icon-podcast-large

Subscribe & don’t miss a single episode of Michael Yardney’s podcast

Hear Michael & a select panel of guest experts discuss property investment, success & money related topics. Subscribe now, whether you're on an Apple or Android handset.

Need help listening to Michael Yardney’s podcast from your phone or tablet?

We have created easy to follow instructions for you whether you're on iPhone / iPad or an Android device.

icon-email-large

Prefer to subscribe via email?

Join Michael Yardney's inner circle of daily subscribers and get into the head of Australia's best property investment advisor and a wide team of leading property researchers and commentators.


About

Stuart was a Chartered Accountant before establishing mortgage broking firm ProSolution Private Clients. He has authored two books and shares his experience with readers of Property Update. Visit www.prosolution.com.au


'Sophisticated borrowers shouldn’t have to jump through the same hoops' have 4 comments

    Avatar for Stuart Wemyss

    June 20, 2021 Sushan

    Whilst the system definitely needs fixing in the short to longer term, I personally believe that laxing of borrowing or giving any edge to the to the so said “sophisticated borrowers” instantly appeals to the widening of the gap of the rich and the not so rich. One size definitely does not fit all but with what you have proposed in this article, I can only see rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. Access to capital must not be reserved to the people who have already had a fortune, I.e. millions of dollars of assets. People who lack those assets must not necessarily be seen as the ones lacking financial literacy or the good finance habits, they can merely be the products of our societal divisions that do not provide enough support for poor to rise from the sink-hole of poverty. Financial institutions and any new policies must be supporting them to get out of the poverty and not create a distinction between them and the more fortunate ones. One could argue that providing access to the capital who may not be able to repay it might sound counter-intuitive but this is where the financial institutions must use their available resources to analyse the individuals suitability for the access to capital rather than looking at the assets alone.

    Reply

    Avatar for Stuart Wemyss

    June 19, 2021 Dave

    It is not just high net worth clients who have the knowledge and intellectual capacity to make prudent investment decisions – nor are they the only ones who make the decision not to frivolously squander amounts that are strategically placed into offset accounts. Should this not be a consideration of the banks in making an assessment of individuals in the ‘majority’ of borrowers who fall into the lower net worth category? You rightly point out the lax standards prior to the GFC, though I would argue that those institutions – some of the wealthiest in the world and with the most (allegedly) experienced financial professionals on hand to advise them, were indeed at the root cause of the biggest global economic disaster of a lifetime – underpinned by deregulation and the view that ‘those with more are likely to make wise and prudent decisions’. Albeit I agree with your assertion that assets should be afforded (some careful) consideration when it comes to risk of default, but just because I may have $20m in blue-chip shares today, doesn’t necessarily mean the same in 3 months time (e.g. the impact of COVID). $20m becomes $14m on paper at the lowest point and a prudent, financially literate person would know full well they need to wait it out and not cement their losses – assuming they have a substantial cash buffer to meet all their expenses it shouldn’t be an issue – but if they are dependent upon the house of cards that is ‘the market’ not to come tumbling down – things could be different.
    The rules do have some clear absurdity in them though. Applying for the loan for my current home, I was obliged to close a $6k credit card (used to collect points and paid in full fortnightly) to ‘prove’ my serviceability, despite retaining a ~30% cash buffer in an offset account. Then almost immediately after the loan settled, I was promptly approved for a bigger and better credit card (which I don’t need, but again liked for the points and features). How’s that for institutional wisdom? Yet apparently, because my net worth doesn’t broach an artificial threshold I couldn’t possibly be trusted to make an informed, well researched decision with a detailed risk analysis that ensures I’m capable of maintaining my lifestyle and supporting my family in the event of a range of possible scenarios that may impact my circumstances. I think this article implies that ‘different’ people with more money are actually ‘better’ decision makers about money – which is often far from the truth.

    Reply


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.
CAPTCHA Image

*


Copyright © Michael Yardney’s Property Investment Update Important Information
Content Marketing by GridConcepts