user.first_name
Menu

Mortgage News

IMLA and CML advise against “over-regulation” of non-banks

vickyhartley
Written By:
Posted:
October 5, 2010
Updated:
October 5, 2010

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) could permanently damage the non-bank sector through over-regulation, warned the Intermediary Mortgage Lenders Association (IMLA) and the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML).

Imposing the same capital requirements on non-banks as banks could force these lenders out of the market or become banks damaging competition, warned the two trade bodies in their joint-submission to the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review: Responsible Lending consultation.

Banks comply with BIPRU regulations, which, amongst other things, set out the level of capital a bank must hold, whereas non-banks comply with a simpler set of requirements, entitled MIPRU, reflecting the fact non-banks don’t have retail depositors to protect.

The submission argues that the FSA’s analysis of the non-bank sector does not accurately reflect market realities, for example, in its assumption that non-banks encouraged the mainstream banking sector to undertake high risk lending.

The submission puts the importance of increasing competition in lending markets and said it is wrong to equate high-risk lending with irresponsible lending.

Peter Williams, IMLA executive director, said: “For example, some higher risk lending categories such as lending above 100% LTV and lending on new build city centre flats did create heavy losses at some deposit takers but non-banks were not at the forefront of the lending.

Sponsored

What mortgage and protection advisers should take from the FCA’s AI stance

Sponsored by Sesame Bankhall Group

“We recognise that non-banks need to be adequately capitalised, but forcing them to operate under the same capital requirements as banks is overly restrictive and could make it uneconomic for some non-bank lenders to operate,” said IMLA.

CML director general Michael Coogan said: “Non-banks could play an important role in helping re-build competitiveness in a mortgage market in which lending has become concentrated in the hands of a few large banks and building societies.”

Instead the trade bodies argue the FSA could achieve the same policy goals with a MIPRU rule change. This could include an increase in the capital requirement for on-balance sheet regulated mortgage assets from 1% to 2.8% to bring it in line with banks’ capital requirements for mortgages with a loan-to-value ratio of 80% or less, they said.