ING Direct to Offer Neverending Mortgages

by Kris Sayce on 25 May 2010

Mental note, withdraw savings from ING Direct savings account.

What am I talking about?

Get a load of this from the Sunday Telegraph: “Revealed: The home loan that could save you a fortune”.

According to a delighted Nick Gardner of the Sunday Telegraph, “Homebuyers are to be offered never-ending mortgages in a bid to overcome Australia’s affordability crisis.”

He goes on, “ING Direct, Australia’s fifth largest lender, is preparing to sell loans that have no fixed term and no requirement to repay any capital along the way.”

Hurrah! Just the kind of thing our Ponzi banks need, another scam to make sure the populous is indebted in death as in life.

Hats off to ING Direct.

Hats off to Nick Gardner for gushing about it so lovingly.

ING Direct CEO Don Koch told the gooey-eyed Gardner: “People are needlessly being denied the chance to buy a property while prices spiral rapidly out of their reach. There is an urgent need to provide more affordable options and borrowers should be able to choose whether they want to repay the capital, or not.”

“Needlessly denied”? What, because they can’t afford it because either the prices are too high or they don’t have enough money? Yeah, your editor has been needlessly denied the chance to buy an Aston Martin, what’s Don Koch gonna do about that? I want an Aston Martin, give it to me…

But this was our favourite quote attributed to Don Koch. He wants ING Direct to be the customer’s “mortgage partner for life.”

Ooh, we’re going weak at the knees here. How romantic. Can you imagine it? A lovely spouse, two wonderful kids, a dog named Pooky, and [sob] your very own mortgage for life. [Weep].

So, what does this [cough] innovation from ING Direct mean? It means the banks believe that borrowers believe that there’s no downside to the Australian housing market.

In other words, ING is playing on the ingrained belief among many Australians that the price of housing never falls and therefore there’s no need to reduce the interest liability.

After all, you can just sell the house pay off the principle and Bob’s your uncle, a clear profit. As long as you ignore the thousands paid in interest of course. But that’s never mentioned anyway, so just shut up about it alright.

And it obviously also means the banks know they’re onto a winner. Think about it this way. The bank doesn’t care whether the borrower ends up owning the house or not.

The bank figures that the average time a borrower stays in a house is only about five years anyway – that’s a guess by the way.

If you put yourself in the shoes of Mr. or Mrs. Bank Manager, what’s more important to them is that you don’t default on your home loan. And what better way to ensure that than to make sure your repayments are as low as possible.

Take out the requirement to repay the principle and there you have it, a supposedly cheaper home loan against a home you’ll never own but which you’ll be indebted to for the rest of your life.

As I said above, hats off to ING Direct on this one. They are the bright ones – for now.

They’ve found an ingenious way of getting their customers hocked up to the eyeballs for life. And providing they can help to keep the housing Ponzi scheme going, it will earn them a tidy sum.

But that’s the thing isn’t it. It’s still a Ponzi scheme, sucking in more suckers who are prepared to pay ever higher amounts for a gradually depreciating asset. The banks know what a massive bubble they’ve blown, but it’s now too late to stop.

They’ve got to keep blowing it up because they know once the bubble starts deflating there will be no stopping the carnage.

The way we look at it is that buying an overpriced home in this market is just plain crazy. But I tell you what, buying an overpriced home with a principle and interest mortgage is 100 times better than letting yourself get sucked in by this example of banking scammery.

It takes the worst element of buying a house – the interest costs – and combines it with the worst element of renting – not owning the asset – and combines it into one. The result is a money spinner for the bank and an economic disaster for the suckers who are dumb enough or desperate enough to take them up on it.

Here’s how the numbers stack up. A borrower buys a house for $1 million putting down a deposit of just $50,000. They borrow $950,000 paying $5,826 per month, or nearly $70,000 per year in interest.

How can the bank possibly lose? Even if the borrower defaults and the property is sold at a discount the bank is still likely to come up trumps – providing the housing market doesn’t crash.

While the poor old borrower is out on their ear and faced with having to pay the shortfall between the mortgage amount and the house sale price.

But the way the product is sold to the borrower is that house prices always rise. So what’s the big deal, if house prices always go up, if they double every 7-10 years then it doesn’t matter if you’ve just paid interest because at least the capital has increased.

Here’s the thing though. A buyer needs for the value of the house to at least double every 10 years just to break even. With interest rates around 7% and an annual growth rate of 7% required in order for it to double, the buyer needs well above that growth rate in order to make anything on the deal.

As we’ve pointed out before, just because house prices went ballistic during the 1980s and 1990s you shouldn’t assume that will happen again. The easy credit that flowed like crazy from the banks was a once-off spurt.

It made plenty rich, and now the belief is that it’ll happen again.

But the easy credit that’s flowing now is merely keeping the market afloat. It won’t have the same multiplying impact as before.

You can think of it like a car reaching top speed. The 1980s and 1990s was the big acceleration as the credit market went from 0-200km/h in a flash. But 200km/h is the top speed. The banks have to keep their foot to the floor just to maintain that speed, they can’t go any faster.

And they know if they take their foot off the credit gas, the housing market will start to implode.

Hence why the banks are so desperate to keep refuelling the boom. They know that once the fuel runs out they’ll be in big trouble.

[Reader's voice: enough with the metaphors already]

But the folks at InfoChoice claim the ING Direct product will be great because “Depending on the size of the loan, it could add hundreds of thousands of dollars to a borrower’s cash flow over their lifetime.”

In actual fact it will subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from a borrower’s cash flow over their lifetime. Remind us not to take out a subscription to InfoChoice.

But seriously, let’s be honest about this. If you can’t afford to pay an extra $700 or so each month in order to pay off some of the principle, then you really shouldn’t be taking out a loan for $950,000.

And the same goes for lower value amounts.

The way I look at it is that the interest only period is the banking equivalent of a drug dealer giving a junkie their first shot of heroin for free – “Go on, just try it, there’s no obligation old bean…”

Remember, the teaser rates in the United States helped push their housing market into the abyss. Borrowers got hooked on the super low rate and then copped it in the proverbial when the rates were reset higher.

Here, under the ING Direct plan, the outcome will be more insidious. Perhaps rather than directly causing a collapse in the housing market, it will succeed in ensuring the Australian economy becomes even more lopsided.

More and more resources will continue to be poured into Australia’s singularly most unproductive industry. And fewer resources will be made available for investment elsewhere in the economy.

We’ve read recently that some commentators believe Australia is suffering from Dutch Disease. That is the economy becomes so reliant on the resources sector that it draws all the investment to it, and therefore investors neglect other areas of the economy.

Can you see where I’m going with this?

That’s right, Australia does have a terminal case of Dutch Disease, but it’s not due to an over-reliance on the resources sector.

The real danger of Dutch Disease is in the housing market. Because the market is so heavily rigged towards property, other more productive industries are starved of life.

The access to capital and investors is blocked by those who want to raise funds for property investing.

Banks see property and housing as a lower risk proposition and so they’ve backed it to the hilt. The problem is, backing something that’s low risk to the degree that the banks have done with easy credit, has actually turned housing into a super high risk asset.

So instead of capital going to entrepreneurs who have developed a great new labour saving idea, or a fantastic new technology, or even an innovative service, the banks are too busy pouring dollar after dollar into the massive Australian property Ponzi scheme.

Simply because they know they’ve got to.

The fact is, any new product from the banks which only succeeds in increasing the debt burden while seemingly making it cheaper for people to borrow has to be bad news for the Australian economy.

Household residential debt is already at records highs, close to $1 trillion. Has no-one learnt the lessons from two years ago?

Has it not sunk in that the cure for excessive debt isn’t to just make the debt cheaper so everyone can join in?

If you think the Australian and global economies are out of the woods, then think again. This new ING Direct product may only have a small impact on the economy, but it’s indicative of which way economies are continuing to head.

And that is down the path of self-destruction.

To finish with, it’s perhaps appropriate that it should be a Dutch bank that’s helping to make the Dutch Disease in the Australian property market even worse.

Not that the Australian banks needed any help from overseas. But we’re sure they’re grateful for any assistance they can get to keep the massive housing bubble from bursting.

Cheers.

Kris.

{ 50 comments }

31 Jason May 26, 2010 at 11:24 am

So basically, its like renting but paying at interest rate prices….oh yea you get to “OWN” your own home, if you can call it that…

Oh but of course theres the other little spice, the house also goes up in value continually in Australia…..so as long as that house price goes up higher than the mortgage repayment minus what it would cost to rent, then your laughing.

So i guess in this dimension, i can buy as many houses as i want, then rent them out so im paying an overall amount of interest i can afford, then when their value goes up in an ever continually rising australian housing market, i would be incredibly rich. If this in theory is true, we will instigate a new buble with no added value to the australian community……again.

If you ask me, the main cause of the GFC was not banks, it was the ability to take out loans to speculate on investments with the idea that increased equity will be the resulting increased wealth.

In short, the use of speculative equity for access to loans used for speculative investment in similar equity style investments should be banned!!!

32 Nick May 26, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Wolf..now you know why I am so passionate.

By the way, here is what happens to those who dare tell the truth.
Just like the climate change thing, “what’s this bloke know! The “experts know best!” …I am privy to research that supports this guy’s conclusion.

The GFC is no different.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_he_me/eu_britain_autism_doctor

33 Nick May 26, 2010 at 12:11 pm

…Oh, and Wolf… you see “miracles” as depicted in the move, DO happen.

34 The Wolf May 26, 2010 at 12:13 pm

I don’t know anyone from a Med. country who is not passionate Nick!

It tends to be a bit of a giveaway when the “establishment” protests loudly…way too much money and too many reputations at stake to support his work…

35 cb May 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm

Wow, Nick. What a story. Instructional, and very touching, too. Thank you for sharing it with us.

36 cb May 26, 2010 at 1:05 pm

N – Hmmm, yes, this particular loss of confidence clearly is not due to too much printing at this point, but more to the fear that the governments and economies that have been issueing and standing behind the subject currency may end up abandoning it, and thereby making it worthless virtually overnight. Such a scenario is probably more appropriately characterised as a currency failure, or currency crisis, rather than as hyperinflation of the type we have seen with the Zimbabwe dollar.

Having said that, I suspect that the term ‘hyperinflation,’ is mostly being used generically, meaning by it a severe and accellerating loss of purchasing power, which is the way things will end up as more and more people come to realise that the jig is up and that they need to get out of the currency, whether it be in paper or electronic form.

I suspect that when a crisis strikes, whether it be due to excessive printing, or the likely failure of the governments, or of their willingness to stand behind the currency, not all people wake up to the game at the same time. Some, and especially the insiders, will see the failure approaching from a long way off, while others will keep hanging on to the bitter end. But the symptoms will be the same, regardless of the exact cause: As more and more people realise that the currency is in trouble, the fewer and fewer people will want to have less and less to do with it, and thus causing an accellerating and severe loss in its purchasing power, until nobody wants to accept it as payment anymore, at which time, it will be completely worthless.

This phenomenon, regardless of what caused it, is what is being described in popular language use as hyperinflation. And if that is right, then at least in these terms, the lesson to take away is not that we are not headed for hyperinflation, but that the possible hyperinflation of the Euro going forward need not be caused by excessive printing, but simply by a loss of confidence in the currency that can easily find itself abandoned by all governments who have formerly backed it.

Anyhow, the substance of the matter is one and the same, but the language with which it is described can differ, depending on whether one works with a narrow or wider definitions of the key terms and concepts.

37 cb May 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Sorry, I seem to have doubled up the negatives. I was meaning to say: “As more and more people realise that the currency is in trouble, more and more people will want to have less and less to do with it, …”

38 cb May 26, 2010 at 1:17 pm

But this is the more interesting question:
In a hyperinflationary/currency failure environment like this, what is going to happen to debts in general? Will they lose their value right alongside the purchasing power of savings? For example, if the Euro fails, will mortgage holders (the borrowers) be freed from the debts they owe? That could be something. And it certainly seems possible that people should be able to pay off their debts with rapidly devaluing notes as the loss of purchasing power speeds up. The only catch would be if interest rates were being jacked up by the lenders on a daily or hourly basis to keep ahead of the game? Hmm … Anyone with thoughts on this?

39 N May 26, 2010 at 1:49 pm

CB – I still think deflation is the trade for the foreseeable future, with downward pressue on consumer prices and FIRE assets. Debts will be repudiated or re-negotiated in an orderly fashion – no elected government will have a mandate to engineer a socially destabilising runaway inflation. Gold may do well as paper and over-valued hard assets are devalued.

There seems to be a widespread misconception out there that inflation is somehow a cure for unpayable debts – it isn’t. Defaulting on debt has the same effect as inflating it away – the creditors (for example hopeful boomer retirees) loose purchasing power. The difference is wether this is done in a controlled (negotiated repudiation) or uncontrolled (runaway inflation) fashion. I believe that in western democracies, the controlled approach will prevail.

40 cb May 26, 2010 at 2:33 pm

N – Yes, all that is plausible. But here is an example of how inflation can help with the payment of otherwise unpayable debts. And there is little doubt that inflationary policies (over at printing headquarters they call it stimulatory monetary settings) have been one of the chief reasons why real estate has been such a hot ticket to wealth creation over the decades. Here it is:

Suppose you borrowed a million and bought a couple of investment properties, or a mixture of investment properties and some other hard assets, such as gold. Suppose also that, realistically, the debt is unpayable from your current income over a given time frame, such as 20 or 30 years, although servicing the debt is manageable.

The question at hand is whether your debt can be inflated away, so that you can pay it all back within that time frame. The answer is to the affirmative. For example, if real inflation is running at around 5 – 6% pa, then with a combination of wage rises and asset appreciation the debt can be easily cleared. Indeed, you can clear it in less than half the indicated timeframe if you sell half of your initial investments, following their doubling in value in nominal terms.

Is this unrealistic? Not at all. History has shown that, if monetary settings are “stimulatory,” (read: interest rate settings are negative in real, inflation adjusted terms), then it is very likely that more money will be created than would otherwise be justified by real economic growth, and the excess liquidity is going to end up, amongst other things, in hard assets, pushing up their nominal value. So, the answer is that yes, debts and all manners of monetary promises and obligations made by governments can be inflated away, and indeed this is what governments have been, and will try continue doing till the cows come home.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: