Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Implementation Of A Maximum LTV of 70%, for 3rd properties and beyond only...

views
     
epalbee3
post Nov 5 2010, 12:40 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
QUOTE(kok_pun @ Nov 5 2010, 12:08 PM)

for 1 buying as 3rd house and 1 buying as 1st house, my loan department is unable to answer me as there is no firm instruction from the govt yet
*
I guess lar.. it may be counted as third house; if not, everyone will go find their mum/dad/son/daughter as co-borrower.

u c, it is easy to put another name, just my guess.
epalbee3
post Nov 5 2010, 01:09 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
I think it is good to have this policy of 70% LTV.
And we have 100% of LTV for first time buyer < 220k houses.

I have already secured my house in KL and has no intention to buy the third one...

The LTV will stop the speculation activities for those highly speculated area.

One day I drove through some so-called high class condo > 500k, what surprises me is only 20% turns on the lights.
The move will help to save innocent investors from loan default later..

Actually I am happy with the policy.

But I think the flippers are now very anxious of their speculations..

The poor people are happy with cheap house and 100% loan..


Added on November 5, 2010, 1:14 pmby limiting everyone only have 2 houses, then the left over few houses can be distributed to those who own nothing..

the richest people will have 1/3 capability now to push the property price high. In this case, the left-over 67% houses are now free from speculations.

So... now poor people with low capacity can buy cheap houses now.. it is indeed a good news..

The loan policy has sided the poor and press the rich ones.. don't u see it?


Added on November 5, 2010, 1:18 pmThere are 3 groups of people now:

Poor: get 0 entry to the property market < 220k
Medium: get 10% entry to property market > 220k - 500k
Rich: get conned and have to pay 30% to enter the investor market..

The new policy sided the poor (70% of people are < RM3000).
Smile is for the poor..wink.gif

This post has been edited by epalbee3: Nov 5 2010, 01:18 PM
epalbee3
post Nov 5 2010, 08:54 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
QUOTE(truelife @ Nov 5 2010, 07:31 PM)
that's right ! the rich will become richer. just imagine this. the rich is used to afford to buy a property cost 1mil. they can fork out 100k downpayment. but because of LTV 70% for 3rd property, they will swift to medium cost house as they can now fork out 90k to buy a house cost 300k. if more rich investors buy medium cost houses, this will push up the price for properties in the category of 220k to 500k price range and make these properties very unaffordable and speculative. lower income group still cannot find a dream home !
*
you should think like this, previously the rich people is able to speculate on 3 properties of 350k, now they only able to speculate one.. so the house prices will be affordable. There are 1/3 number less speculators everywhere..

if 1 million property cannot be cooked, they will drop to original value of 600k then continue to push the lower level houses. SO it is still better for the poor.

Less speculative loans are released to the RE, so the real buyers can buy the house with real prices, not the speculated one.. That is what i think...
epalbee3
post Nov 6 2010, 12:37 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
Now speculators has only 1/3 x of their previous speculation powers for all levels.

that means for every level, there are three leaving to the bottom level while another one enter the current level.

See the following figure assumption,

speculator who want to stay

High range: 1000 ---> 10 1000 ---> 1000

Mid range: 5000 -----> 1000 5000 ---> 5000

Low range: 10000 -----> 5000 10000---> 20000

(Another 10k speculators lose their speculation powers)

With less speculators (who bought > 2), and more real buyers, the re market will be more healthy and the prices are determined by the genuine buyers. THe above is just example, from 1:1 ratio to 0.2:1.

SO in this case the speculators have little power to control market, the poor will win.

So I am happy with the policy.
epalbee3
post Nov 6 2010, 11:59 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
QUOTE(Daryl Teo @ Nov 6 2010, 12:57 AM)
Won't disagree if the argument is that the end justifies the means. My only concern that a lacklustre market impeded by the LTV cap will not be able to absorb the bad loans as the ruling is self fulfilling. If our only concern is simply that of suppressing the market & curb speculation than i'll have to admit that this measure has achieved its end. But if i were to be asked if it'll create spiral in the market due to illiquid assets due to lack of available liquidity in the market then i'll have to differ & say yes! How many of these  so to speak 'poor buyers' will now step up to absorb these now illiquid assets, IMV, very few. Hopefully high savings households would bolster the prop market moving forward. We can agree to disagree, so let's bide our time & revisit this thread 6 months ahead & see if we feel the same. I, myself, am a value investor & have always been careful with my pickings to building real equity over the longer time horizon, so perhaps my view is skewed towards liquidity considerations. TQ.
*
There are still liquidities provided by genuine purchasers, those liquidities from speculators will reduce to 33%.

In term of liquidities, I think speculators are not that dumb, they usually focuses on the high density areas which has no liquidity problem; what speculators did previously in these areas is to instead resist the liquiditiy by holding a lot of units and create a sense of little supplies. The genuine buyers were not able to buy at the genuine price.

That's why I think the speculators HAS NEVER CREATE LIQUIDITIES, but they blocked the liquidities.

So I support the gomen this policy. Good move.


epalbee3
post Nov 8 2010, 04:52 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
QUOTE(prody @ Nov 8 2010, 04:39 PM)
This is still not clear (unless you bought those 3 properties without getting a loan).

Statement says: "Bank Negara Malaysia wishes to announce with immediate effect the implementation of a maximum loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 70%, which will be applicable to the third house financing facility taken out by a borrower."

This could mean that if you previously have taken two loans, but already fully paid them off and apply for another loan, that you will only get 70%.
*
third house financing facility

How to read this? may be "financing facility of the third house"..

don't be too happy now. wink.gif
epalbee3
post Nov 8 2010, 07:16 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
With the current house price and current salary level, paying for one or two is already very headache, if the normal salaried flippers can't release the properties, they will b suffering very much.

Unless u have > 8k, but how many people can have more than 8k?

buy only when u can afford..

now i know why many people chose to buy a 100k+ low cost flat and enjoy their life..

when u buy 450k for 35 years, u r going to pay total of 750k at the end, which will dry you up.

i have 1.5 houses. (one in kl, 0.5 at hometown)

don't buy if u cannot afford. OR just buy something reasonable.


epalbee3
post Dec 12 2010, 10:35 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,345 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
QUOTE(Veda @ Dec 12 2010, 09:51 PM)

*
RM3800 for RM6k owner is impossible.

Imagine that after deduction, u get only 5k, then after this you only have RM1200 for spend.

Unless u r already rich and cash free then u can hold it for a while.

but this kind of investor usually is flipper, and must flip within shortest period...

well.. if this cannot be done, the consequences are very deep for him.. wink.gif

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0187sec    0.53    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 10th December 2025 - 05:03 PM