Amortisation requirements, the LTI ratio, and the LTV cap are macroprudential policy tools that are used in Sweden and many other countries. But what are the potential effects of these borrower-based measures? To answer to this question, Finansinspektionen commissioned two expert reports on the topic.
Households continue to be under pressure from both higher interest rates and other costs. This is evident in FI’s mortgage report. The report looks at new mortgagors during the autumn of 2023. We can see that there are fewer mortgagors than in previous years. Home buyers also bought slightly less expensive homes and borrowed slightly less. Total lending to households has stagnated, but despite this household indebtedness continues to be high.
FI has received an assignment from the Government to assess an increase in the loan-to-value (LTV) cap from 85 to 90 percent. At the same time, the Government proposes phasing out the tax deductibility for unsecured loans. We assess that an increase in the LTV cap would lead to higher household indebtedness and an increase in associated risks. This assessment holds even if interest rate deductions for unsecured loans are phased out. We also take the position that it is appropriate to await the results of the ongoing inquiry into both the LTV cap and the amortisation requirement and consider any changes to the measures comprehensively.
Finansinspektionen has conducted a survey into banks' administration of amortisation requirement exemptions, as an assignment from the government. The survey shows that banks have primarily handled amortisation requirement exemptions well. Banks have improved their procedures for handling exemptions, which have increased due to increased pressure on households' finances and more widespread knowledge within society about the possibility of receiving an exemption. The banks' improved procedures are an adjustment to this change.
Mortgagors are under pressure from rising interest rates. At the same time, the majority of new mortgagors continue to have good margins in their personal finances. These are the conclusions drawn by Finansinspektionen in this year’s Swedish Mortgage Market report, which is being presented today.
Changing or pausing the amortisation requirements is not an accurate or appropriate measure for helping the households with the greatest need for financial support to handle their higher costs. This is the conclusion of FI’s evaluation of how the amortisation requirements impact households with lower incomes and small margins in today’s difficult economy.
Swedish households continue to take increasingly larger loans. More new mortgagors than in previous years had both a high loan-to-income ratio and a high loan-to-value ratio. Higher inflation and rising interest rates mean that mortgagors have smaller margins in their personal finances. This decreases the consumption capacity at the same time as the mortgagors’ ability to repay their loan is impaired.
Since 2010, FI has implemented a number of macroprudential measures aimed at increasing the resilience in the financial system and subduing the risks associated with high and rising household debt. These measures include tightening the capital requirements on banks and introducing a mortgage cap and two amortisation requirements. In this report, we present an overall assessment of these measures, with a focus on the measures that, via lenders, place restrictions on households’ mortgage borrowing.
The temporary amortisation exemption resulted in new mortgagors borrowing almost 4 per cent more and buying homes that were approximately 1 per cent more expensive, concludes a new FI Analysis.
The ability to borrow is beneficial to households in many ways. At the same time, debt can make their consumption more sensitive to unexpected changes in interest rates, income, and house prices. This, in turn, can affect how the economy evolves in a crisis. But measures that lead to lower debt don’t necessarily increase the resilience of all households. To assess the effects of borrower-based measures, it is necessary to also consider households’ balance sheets, in particular their liquid assets.