ABSA interest rate announcement

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,659
Due to market conditions and the increase in the repo rate from 11.50 % to 12.00%, Absa announced that it will increase its prime overdraft rate by 0.50% to 15.50% effective from 13 June 2008.

Absa also announced that its mortgage rates will be increased by 0.50% to 15.50% effective from 13 June 2008.
 

Kimosabe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
854
Consumers need to be prudent when buying residential property in the current economic cycle,“ says Gavin Opperman, Group Executive: Secured Lending, Absa Retail Bank.



As affordability remains under pressure due to factors such as rising interest rates, consumers may need to consider buying smaller, less expensive homes to ensure their affordability in the medium to long term.



Nominal property price growth is expected to slow down further to between 5% and 6% this year and just below 4% in 2009. Additionally, interest rates are expected to increase by another 50 bps in June with a risk of further hikes in the short term.



With this in mind, consumers will be wise to carefully assess their disposable income and make prudent decisions when selecting which properties they buy in this current cycle.



Opperman explains: “Residential property should always be seen as a medium to long term investment, especially in the current cycle, and therefore, consumers need to be aware that real returns will only be realised in time. Also, when accessing affordability, rather buy for less and put down a deposit to mitigate the risks of the current cycle.”



In response to current market conditions, Absa Home Loans has adjusted its credit lending policy, requiring customers to pay a deposit when purchasing a new home.



Opperman explains the motivation behind this decision: ”When looking at the picture holistically, we need to encourage South Africans to avoid the risk of being over-indebted. Working towards saving a deposit for a home instils a good discipline and fosters a savings culture. Chances are also that consumers will buy a home closer to what they can realistically afford when planning their purchase including a deposit.”



Opperman continues: “The lending landscape has changed with the implementation of the National Credit Act in 2007 being a significant driver in managing banks and consumers lending and borrowing behaviour. While this had a positive impact on all concerned, one simply must factor in the down cycle when making responsible lending decisions and motivating consumers to make wise financial choices. By including a deposit requirement, we ensure our customers take a very close look at what they can realistically afford.”



In spite of the current conditions, there are various options available to consumers. For first home owners, buying down as a way to get started is advised. Alternatively, rent initially until such time that you are sure you can afford a home. For those already in the market but needing a bigger home, we recommend rather doing alterations to your existing home than selling to buy bigger.



Opperman says:” The current cycle brings with it some opportunities for investors if you are patient in terms of your expected capital returns. Rental yields are to pick up further from current levels which may further boost your income.



And for those consumers feeling the pinch, contact your bank to make suitable arrangements. Those arrangements may include considering a fixed interest rate as a way of managing your cash flow and mitigating the risk of further interest rate increases or extending the loan term from 20 to 30 years.



Ends
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,666
I think they all do basically automatically.

When I saw BTech's post, I had a quick look at the first chapter of the competition act, and unless in subsequent chapters banks are exempt, what they are doing is collusion.

In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion.

I mean the bread bakers were cuaght out becuae they raised prices at the same time. Why are the banks never slated for it. It does not encourage competition.

Or maybe I'm just grasping at straws, in order to avoid a prime lending rate hike. :eek:
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,821
When I saw BTech's post, I had a quick look at the first chapter of the competition act, and unless in subsequent chapters banks are exempt, what they are doing is collusion.



I mean the bread bakers were cuaght out becuae they raised prices at the same time. Why are the banks never slated for it. It does not encourage competition.

Or maybe I'm just grasping at straws, in order to avoid a prime lending rate hike. :eek:

Good point, although in this case the Reserve Bank raises the repo rate with the aim of banks pushing up their rates, otherwise it wouldn't have much effect. I don't know much about competition law. :eek:
 

werner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,400
so, 100% mortgages are gone, as most likely other bankls will follow ABSA's lead. next ladder rung will be 90%. painful for homeowners looking to sell. it is just a pity this same scene is replaying itself in beautiful south africa.
 

OhGats

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
935
Dont you worry, the banks have their fingers on the enter button the moment the rates are increased. The banks dont give a hoot for the customers anyway, they are only interested in the share holders.
 

ld13

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
12,557
Dont you worry, the banks have their fingers on the enter button the moment the rates are increased. The banks dont give a hoot for the customers anyway, they are only interested in the share holders.

BS. They are kinda forced by the reserve bank to do this...

When I saw BTech's post, I had a quick look at the first chapter of the competition act, and unless in subsequent chapters banks are exempt, what they are doing is collusion.

I mean the bread bakers were caught out because they raised prices at the same time. Why are the banks never slated for it. It does not encourage competition.

Or maybe I'm just grasping at straws, in order to avoid a prime lending rate hike. :eek:

Grasping at straws indeed. You need to understand how it all works, before you go about accusing the banks of anything.

Like I said before, they are indirectly forced by the reserve bank to do this. In layman terms it comes down to this: They need money. The reserve bank is the last and almost only place they can get money. If the reserve bank hikes their rates, they will be charged the higher rate the next time they 'request' money.

I'm still trying to get my head around the complete picture at the moment. Found this thread in the process :)

Will explain more as soon as I understand more. Oh, and sorry for the minor bump :eek:
 
Top