Sub Saharan Africa: The New Frontier For Mortgage Lending?
Economists are blaming overzealous lender for the US sub prime mortgage debacle. According to them, lenders compromised on prudently devised norms f...
Economists are blaming overzealous lender for the US sub prime mortgage debacle. According to them, lenders compromised on prudently devised norms for lending, and in the process, loaned monies to people who would not under normal conditions qualify for any mortgage. While this is true to an extent, it is not the whole truth.
The problem actually started towards the end of 1990s, and the first few years of 2000s, when the banks and lenders found their coffers filled with cash. They had no takers for this money, which is the reason they brought down both lending rates as well as the norms for lending. This did not do augur well for long-term business, considering the cost of their capital.
Desperate to earn some monies, lenders innovated new financial products to capture more customers than their competitors. Home loans were considered the safest bet of them all. After all, if the borrower failed to pay, the lenders could always opt for foreclosure and get back their monies. Their assumption was not far fetched, because around that period, real estate values had climbed up a few notches. In what followed this surplus liquidity, many people with adverse credit, including some first time homebuyers came into these rapids. A frenzied borrowing trend led real estate to dizzying heights, but eventually, when the first set of these poor credit borrowers defaulted, the real estate bubble just burst, and lenders found they’d been lending more than the actual worth of the property. They also realized that their products had contributed to this frenzy, and those foreclosure clauses were not adequate protection for them.
Though financial analysts squarely blame the lenders for offering mortgage products to people with poor credit, the fact remains that surplus liquidity also played a role. Of course, the crisis surfaced because of the mortgage loans to people with poor credit. Today, 10 years after the actual foundation of the sub prime problem was laid, the same credit or liquidity conditions that existed in the US prior to the crisis, are now present in the sub Saharan African nations. Biggest banks here have too much cash on their hands. So is it going to result in mortgage boom in the region?
The difference with the African market is that the home loan market is not flooded. This is because a lot of African people don’t even use financial institutions. There are very few people who have the ability or the desire to become home owners.
Nevertheless, the possibility of the banks in Africa offering any mortgage products to people with poor credit is remote. The main reason for this is that most of Africans have no credit record. Because of this, it is difficult to judge them based on credit history. The criteria for home loans here are steady employment, and the amount of salary. In addition, in this part of the world, it is the employer who deducts the mortgage installments from salary and pays it to the lenders. Therefore, borrower does not have any way to default per se. Since this reduces the lender’s risks, borrower is compensated with lower rates of interest on mortgage.
This means the lenders in sub Saharan region would not be allowing a mortgage market to run away. Instead, they will be investing elsewhere and earning profits on their investment. Mortgage market in the west, particularly, the home loan segment will take several years to recoup. In the meanwhile, it will be African banks that may rule the roost.
Graham McKenzie is the content coordinator for a leading South African leading portal which provides access to .