A win for borrowers; CCCFA changes won

OMG Are you serious Mr Clark, “’The changes include removing regular 'savings' and 'investments' as examples of outgoings that lenders need to enquire into when assessing the borrower's future expenses? They also clarify that when borrowers provide a detailed breakdown of their future living expenses, and these are benchmarked against robust statistical data, there is no need to also enquire into their current living expenses from recent bank transactions. They also say that where lenders choose to estimate future expenses from recent bank transaction records, they are permitted to obtain information about how their current expenses are likely to change once the contract is entered into. And they say that the requirement to obtain information in ‘sufficient detail’ only relates to information provided by borrowers directly, rather than relating to information from bank transaction records.”” Lenders in New Zealand have been applying common sense to lending applications for over 100 years already Mr Clark and they have some of the lowest mortgage defaults in the southern hemisphere. Now embarrassingly you’re telling the experts the basics of how to run their business, amazing to you have so many talents and expertise in a wide variety of Industries. I’m still shocked to see yet another overpopulated government department spending taxpayers’ money to overregulate yet another industry causing a reverse negative effect on consumers. Ask any banker, mortgage adviser, real estate agent, conveyancing lawyer if the CCCFA changes have had a negative effect on mortgage lending and I would say you would get a resounding Yes! all round. I feel for all the perfectly sound potential mainstream mortgage borrows that have missed out on purchasing the family home over the last 4 months because they purchased Uber eats that one time to many over a three-month period. MBIE among their many talents and different industry expertise really need to get there research right before making half-baked recommendations and changing Acts that effect lives, if only there was some person accountability for one’s mistakes, now wouldn’t that be something new for the current Government

Well said valkyrie6. You have summed things up perfectly. New Zealand needs a new Minister of Commerce who actually knows what he is talking about. Heads also need to roll at MBIE. What value is the ministry adding to the country if the Government has to remove regulations it recommended only last year? This is a very poor look for the law makers as it illustrates the whole process was rushed through without proper consultation taking place within the industry. For the sake of borrowers around the country lets hope the banks are able to apply these "practical amendments" quickly to their lending policies and we can all get back to common sense lending.

100% agree valkyrie6! Show us the data on mortgagee sales to back the recommendations. Banks and good advisers already are prudent, you have the regular checks in place which are a pretty good bench mark for making a decision on whether to lend to a client or not. Remember like: Credit checks, account conduct, income and debt levels for servicing and the inflated servicing rate to act as a buffer to ensure clients could afford a margin on current rates if they go up. The savings and investments are a joke they should have never ever been added in the first place, clients save surplus income end of story, they are not that dumb to go into debt just to continue saving! Get back to basics and try and make a common-sense approach but unfortunately, the banks are too scared so you have to then tell them what common sense is..... judging clients on what they choose to spend money on is over the top, unwarranted and frankly crossing the line. I suppose you have heard Nonbanks are having a great run at the moment I wonder why! yet you are protecting "vulnerable clients" as if! You are making them vulnerable!

Do we really think an assessor can unsee bank statements when that evidence is required? I predict long client letters of explanation for every little thing we see that varies from the evidence presented.