Banksavingsinterestrates

Young, Self Employed, No Accounts And No Savings. How Did I Get A Mortgage?

I was having considerable problems getting a mortgage to buy my first home about four years ago. If I was to believe everything I had heard, I was the ideal candidate for a mortgage – young, a first-time buyer and with an annual income of about 30k. Easy!

No, not easy, actually. Being young with a leaning towards enjoying myself, I had no savings – nothing to use as a deposit. But what about these 100% mortgages I had been hearing about? Surely I qualified? Oh, there was something else – I was also self employed with no accounts.

Self employed with no accounts and no savings.

Could I get a mortgage? It was virtually impossible. Not a single High Street lender would give me a mortgage. Even my bank who have had my services for ten years turned me down; even though my bank knew exactly how much I earned each year and how much I spent each week; even though my bank knew that making the monthly payments on a repayment mortgage would not be an big problem for me.

Then I heard about Self Certification Mortgages.

What is a Self Certification Mortgage? It’s essentially a mortgage whereby you decide whether or not you are capable of making the repayments. And that is when the penny dropped, because you see the entire process of applying for a mortgage is premised upon an institution (such as your bank) deciding whether or not you are able to make the monthly repayments.

And what is the formula for working this out? Well, if you are employed it is your salary – a bank will lend you, say, 3 or 4 times your annual salary. Normally they will ask you for a small deposit, say 5%, to demonstrate that your intentions are serious.

Obviously, if you are self employed, and particularly with no accounts, you often do not have an annual salary and you are unable to demonstrate regular monthly income. Many self employed people – notably me – live hand-to-mouth, regularly waiting for reluctant clients to settle outstanding invoices. So how can your ability to repay a mortgage be judged? I discovered that self certification was the answer – i.e. YOU. You make a judgement as to whether or not you are borrowing too much money and whether or not you will be able to afford the monthly repayments. After all, if you are bright enough to run your own business, manage your own tax affairs, handle purchasing and invoicing, surely you are bright enough to work out whether you can repay your mortgage!

Think about it – conventional, salary-based mortgages are judged on the basis of what a person has earned in the past, but a person could be made unemployed within hours of securing a mortgage. On the other hand, Self Certification puts the onus on you predicting what you will earn in the future. Sure, you could go out of business, but a salaried person could also lose their job.

So I thought, well this is good, but I bet that a Self Certification Mortgage is the stuff of loan sharks, with huge interest rates, crushing monthly repayments and Guantanemo-style penalties.

But there was something else I discovered about mortgages. Although the High Street is swamped by lenders, there are only actually a very small number of ‘actual’ lenders: the majority are intermediaries acting on their behalf, because the number of mortgage applications is so great that intermediaries are required to perform the process of judging each applicant and assessing risk.

So I discovered that whereas a High Street lender would turn me down, a smaller lender might accept me. But get this: the mortgage that I actually received from the small lender at the end of the day was exactly the same as the mortgage which had been refused me by the High Street lender! Only the forumla for judging my ability to repay the mortgage was different, not the mortgage itself!

So what’s the catch with Self Cerftification? There is always a catch in my experience, and in this instance it was a very big catch. Whereas a regular mortgage requires the borrower to contribute a deposit of, say, 5%, my Self Certification Mortgage required a deposit of 15%. Fifteen percent!! Of course I can see why they ask for this, why if you are not being judged using the conventional formula you are expected to show some serious committment. But I didn’t have any savings. I was young and self employed for crying out loud.

So what did I do? Okay, I would not recommend this to everybody, but I was desperate for my own home and I knew that I could afford the repayments. I took out a Personal Loan shortly before my mortgage application and, supplemented with a timely invoice payment, I was able to pay the deposit and afford the key refurbishment costs on the property (roof, re-wiring, plumbing etc).

On the High Street this would be called a Home Improvement Loan and acquired AFTER you have obtained a mortgage and purchased the property. I simply borrowed a little more in the form of a Personal Loan before I had acquired a mortgage. I was fortunate in that I could afford to carry the costs of these repayments for the forseeable future and I had bought on a rising market – the value of my property was already more than the mortgage and personal loan combined before I had even finished the refurbishment (ie. 4 months after buying the property). I would not recommend this to everyone, and you have to be very, very clear about how much you are borrowing and what the total repayments will be.

However, getting on the property ladder and having my own home was the most important thing to me, and it just goes to show that if you look beyond the High Street you can actually find the same or similar financial products but with less of the hassle. The High Street had always made me feel inadequate, a financial failure

You might be interested to know that, because I was still looking for the catch in my Self Certification Mortgage, I went to a respected, independent financial advisor recently (on the High Street as it happens) and asked if I should change my mortgage to something better. His advice was that I had got a very good mortgage deal and that I should stick with it for the forseeable future. So I have.

Richard

Now, heres a real tax savings to the individual taxpayer with dependents. The child tax credit is a direct federal income tax credit based on the number of dependent children in your family. This federal tax credit is available to provide credit to taxpayers with income below certain established levels. Started in 2003 and going to 2010, the maximum credit per child is 1000 and is first applied to reduce or eliminate the taxpayers federal tax liability. In 2011, the Sunset Provision will decrease the tax credit unless the credit is extended or made permanent.

How does this federal tax credit work and who qualifies for this credit? Well, lets start with the last question first. Every family with children qualifies, however the federal tax credit phases out when income is above 110,000 for married filing jointly, 75,000 for single, head of household, or widow, and 55,000 for married filing separately. In addition, the child tax credit might be limited by the amount of income tax you owe as well as any alternative minimum tax you might owe. But like everything else in this world, there are exceptions. If the amount of your child tax credit is greater than the amount of federal income tax you owe, you may be able to claim a portion or all of the difference as an “additional” Child Tax Credit.

First exception: if your earned income exceeds 10,750, you may be able to claim up to 15 percent of that amount. Second exception: if you have three or more qualifying dependent children in your family, you may claim up to the amount of Social Security taxes you paid during the year, minus any Earned Income Tax Credit you received. If you qualify under both these exceptions, you receive the greater of the two amounts, up to the difference between your federal tax liability and your regular Child Tax Credit. You may want to seek a tax professional for help with this credit.

Now, to answer the how does it work aspect; the best approach might be to simply break down the requirements, and explain each fully. The child tax credit is the responsibility of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the credit issuance is determined through the federal tax returns the individual taxpayer completes each year. Taxpayers must complete either the 1040 or the 1040A and the IRS form 8812. The IRS will then determine eligibility, and process accordingly; the requirements and limits change each year, so the individuals eligibility may change each year.

In order to qualify, a family must have earned at least 10,500 in income, and that figure will rise each year, according to inflation. There must also be at least one qualifying child. In order to be classified as a qualifying child, the child must meet the following requirements: under age 17 of the tax year, claimed on your tax return as a dependent, must pass the relationship test (son, daughter, stepchild, grandchild, brother, sister, foster child, adopted child, etc.), be a US citizen or a resident alien, and have a social security number.

During its original year of inception, many families with qualifying children were mailed an advance federal income tax credit of either 300 or 400 pounds; but they were also told this would reduce their end-of-year tax credit, pound for pound.
The method used for determining the tax credit is fairly simple, and is not difficult to calculate; however, any individual taxpayer with uncertainty should seek the advice and assistance of a tax professional when preparing their federal tax return.

The credits, as stated earlier are claimed when you complete a 1040 or 1040A and file your returns with the Internal Revenue Service. Although many individual taxpayers pay for a professional to complete their federal tax returns each year, there are qualified preparers that are available free of charge each year, through the IRS; either way, make sure that you communicate your qualifications for the child tax credit, and check your tax return to see that the credit was applied. You do not want to let this tax credit slip by.

The child tax credit, along with the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits are a direct means to affect the individual taxpayers tax liability and offer some level of tax relief. This is meant to help parents with the costs associated in raising children, and educating them. Most often, the child tax credit is a way to alleviate the existing federal tax liability for middle-income taxpayers. For the extremely low income families, there is often no income tax due, so there is no allowable tax credit. Although it does not help the poverty level families as a form of federal income tax refund or tax-free income, it does help to alleviate any federal tax liability. The Earned Income Credit is used by many poverty level or low-income families as a supplement to their earned income.

Asset bubbles – in the stock exchange, in the real estate or the commodity markets – invariably burst and often lead to banking crises. One such calamity struck the USA in 1986-1989. It is instructive to study the decisive reaction of the administration and Congress alike. They tackled both the ensuing liquidity crunch and the structural flaws exposed by the crisis with tenacity and skill. Compare this to the lackluster and hesitant tentativeness of the current lot. True, the crisis – the result of a speculative bubble – concerned the banking and real estate markets rather than the capital markets. But the similarities are there.

The savings and loans association, or the thrift, was a strange banking hybrid, very much akin to the building society in Britain. It was allowed to take in deposits but was really merely a mortgage bank. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 forced S&L’s to achieve interest parity with commercial banks, thus eliminating the interest ceiling on deposits which they enjoyed hitherto.

But it still allowed them only very limited entry into commercial and consumer lending and trust services. Thus, these institutions were heavily exposed to the vicissitudes of the residential real estate markets in their respective regions. Every normal cyclical slump in property values or regional economic shock – e.g., a plunge in commodity prices – affected them disproportionately.

Interest rate volatility created a mismatch between the assets of these associations and their liabilities. The negative spread between their cost of funds and the yield of their assets – eroded their operating margins. The 1982 Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act encouraged thrifts to convert from mutual – i.e., depositor-owned – associations to stock companies, allowing them to tap the capital markets in order to enhance their faltering net worth.

But this was too little and too late. The S&L’s were rendered unable to further support the price of real estate by rolling over old credits, refinancing residential equity, and underwriting development projects. Endemic corruption and mismanagement exacerbated the ruin. The bubble burst.

Hundreds of thousands of depositors scrambled to withdraw their funds and hundreds of savings and loans association (out of a total of more than 3,000) became insolvent instantly, unable to pay their depositors. They were besieged by angry – at times, violent – clients who lost their life savings.

The illiquidity spread like fire. As institutions closed their gates, one by one, they left in their wake major financial upheavals, wrecked businesses and homeowners, and devastated communities. At one point, the contagion threatened the stability of the entire banking system.

The Federal Savings and Loans Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) – which insured the deposits in the savings and loans associations – was no longer able to meet the claims and, effectively, went bankrupt. Though the obligations of the FSLIC were never guaranteed by the Treasury, it was widely perceived to be an arm of the federal government. The public was shocked. The crisis acquired a political dimension.

A hasty 300 billion bailout package was arranged to inject liquidity into the shriveling system through a special agency, the FHFB. The supervision of the banks was subtracted from the Federal Reserve. The role of the the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was greatly expanded.

Prior to 1989, savings and loans were insured by the now-defunct FSLIC. The FDIC insured only banks. Congress had to eliminate FSLIC and place the insurance of thrifts under FDIC. The FDIC kept the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) separate from the Savings Associations Insurance Fund (SAIF), to confine the ripple effect of the meltdown.

The FDIC is designed to be independent. Its money comes from premiums and earnings of the two insurance funds, not from Congressional appropriations. Its board of directors has full authority to run the agency. The board obeys the law, not political masters. The FDIC has a preemptive role. It regulates banks and savings and loans with the aim of avoiding insurance claims by depositors.

When an institution becomes unsound, the FDIC can either shore it up with loans or take it over. If it does the latter, it can run it and then sell it as a going concern, or close it, pay off the depositors and try to collect the loans. At times, the FDIC ends up owning collateral and trying to sell it.

Another outcome of the scandal was the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). Many savings and loans were treated as “special risk” and placed under the jurisdiction of the RTC until August 1992. The RTC operated and sold these institutions – or paid off the depositors and closed them. A new government corporation (Resolution Fund Corporation, RefCorp) issued federally guaranteed bailout bonds whose proceeds were used to finance the RTC until 1996.

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) was also established in 1989 to replace the dismantled Federal Home Loan Board (FHLB) in supervising savings and loans. OTS is a unit within the Treasury Department, but law and custom make it practically an independent agency.

The Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) regulates the savings establishments for liquidity. It provides lines of credit from twelve regional Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB). Those banks and the thrifts make up the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLBS). FHFB gets its funds from the System and is independent of supervision by the executive branch.

Thus a clear, streamlined, and powerful regulatory mechanism was put in place. Banks and savings and loans abused the confusing overlaps in authority and regulation among numerous government agencies. Not one regulator possessed a full and truthful picture. Following the reforms, it all became clearer: insurance was the FDIC’s job, the OTS provided supervision, and liquidity was monitored and imparted by the FHLB.

Healthy thrifts were coaxed and cajoled to purchase less sturdy ones. This weakened their balance sheets considerably and the government reneged on its promises to allow them to amortize the goodwill element of the purchase over 40 years. Still, there were 2,898 thrifts in 1989. Six years later, their number shrank to 1,612 and it stands now at less than 1,000. The consolidated institutions are bigger, stronger, and better capitalized.

Later on, Congress demanded that thrifts obtain a bank charter by 1998. This was not too onerous for most of them. At the height of the crisis the ratio of their combined equity to their combined assets was less than 1%. But in 1994 it reached almost 10% and remained there ever since.

This remarkable turnaround was the result of serendipity as much as careful planning. Interest rate spreads became highly positive. In a classic arbitrage, savings and loans paid low interest on deposits and invested the money in high yielding government and corporate bonds. The prolonged equity bull market allowed thrifts to float new stock at exorbitant prices.

As the juridical relics of the Great Depression – chiefly amongst them, the Glass-Steagall Act – were repealed, banks were liberated to enter new markets, offer new financial instruments, and spread throughout the USA. Product and geographical diversification led to enhanced financial health.

But the very fact that S&L’s were poised to exploit these opportunities is a tribute to politicians and regulators alike – though except for setting the general tone of urgency and resolution, the relative absence of political intervention in the handling of the crisis is notable. It was managed by the autonomous, able, utterly professional, largely a-political Federal Reserve. The political class provided the professionals with the tools they needed to do the job. This mode of collaboration may well be the most important lesson of this crisis.