Capitalmind
Capitalmind
Actionable insights on equities, fixed-income, macros and personal finance Start 14-Days Free Trial
Actionable investing insights Get Free Trial
Commentary

Can't Outsource Due Diligence on Homes to the Financing Bank

A new ICICI Home Finance advertisement on TV (no link) shows a young man telling his dad about his decision to buy a house. The father wisely tells the son about the scrutiny, background checks and legal work required to ensure the property is all ok – the son says “ho gaya” (done) and points to an executive sporting an ICICI badge.

SBI Home Finance, in a recent ad, also promises “security” of knowing the correct background work has been done by the very stable.

This is a horrible image to sell to customers, when the reality is in fact very different.

First, note that all home loans in India are full-recourse loans. Meaning, if you default then they can sell the house – if the sale yields less than the loan amount, they can take other assets from you.

This means you can’t just mail in your keys and say goodbye to the loan (like the US allows). This also means banks have not enough reason to do “background checks” or scrutinize the property you have taken a loan for. If the collateral gets stuck because of some legal issue, you’re still liable for the loan. They can take something else you own, like your car, and FSM forbid, your cellphone.

The incentives are just not there for a bank to really investigate a property they lend against – and it shows. Recently, I noted how ICICI double lent against the same property – they gave two different loans against the same underlying property – is that enough “legal scrutiny” for you? Of course, that case was even more zany because they had originated the other loan also, making an even bigger mockery of their “scrutiny” process that the good son in that advertisement was relying on.

Banks tend to charge “legal costs” during the loan process – in Bangalore, it used to be 10-15K per flat. Still, the work is shoddy because of misaligned incentives again, as the person who is doing the work (the lawyer) isn’t accounting the person who is paying (you). If you hired a lawyer yourself you might get a better investigation done.

The correct thing to do would be to ignore these ads and do the right amount of due diligence yourself. In the US, banks tend to have no recourse other than the property so they must scrutinize the loan properly; even then they found the bubble in securitization was enough to palm off the risk to other buyers, and “loosened” scrutiny for both the underlying homes (inflating quotes) and borrowers (allowing very low quality creditors in).

In India, they have full recourse, so if you’re a rich buyer they won’t care about the property so much. Some banks even take “guarantors” apart from property papers; if the property isn’t enough, and you vanish, they will go after the guarantor. So the only thing that hurts the banks is a slow legal system; but that’s starting to change. And it WILL change for the “faster”, in the 20 year tenure that you pay your loan on. So if the banks get to foist a bad property on you, it will be your problem; so do the diligence yourself. You don’t want to be in a situation where you get a big loan on a property, the property gets stuck in a legal case, and the bank comes running to seize your other assets. You can’t say, “But you did the scrutiny” – the bank will somehow develop amnesia.

(As for exactly what kind of diligence: Ranges from getting full ownership history of the property, various government approvals, any court cases, appropriate copies of Powers of Attorney if any, builder history, running advertisement for x days soliciting no-objection etc. A laywer will know best)

  • mkd says:

    >Nice post.

    Now only if people show some common sense and listen.

  • Arpit says:

    >Enlightening!

    Thanks.

  • Nilesh says:

    >good to learn.

    i relied on SBI bank for legal for buying flat. and fortunately, it seems fine "SO FAR" (i touch wood).

    by the way, how can i rely on lawyer also. he also can do NO CHECKS and say to me everything is OK. as there is saying "there is no difference b/w lawyer and liar". in that case only person i can rely on is ME and i only will have to check all legal myself.

  • Outsourcing Providers Philippines says:

    >Thank you for sharing this. I hope people get to read your post as it is very informative. Gives us a great insight about the world of Outsourcing.

  • feltra says:

    Yes, very sad indeed that there is nothing binding on banks if the deal should go bad. 2 doors away from my house is my neighbour-friend who have had their dreams shattered. They went in for a 3-bedroom flat – and had loans sanctioned by SBI (of all the ones), and the loan was also paid 80% – when the builder went belly up – ALACRITY in Chennai!
    The shocking thing is that SBI not only wanted the principal back, but also the interest from these people! Fortunately there were a sizable number of people (about 100 families) and they petitioned the courts – and after much legal legwork, managed to get the interest portion done away with. Still the principal is pending, for which there are pending cases against ALACRITY and their associated cohorts…
    If I was the SC, I would have ordered SBI to collect the funds from ALACRITY and free the retailers..
    How many peoples/families dreams have been shattered by such things, God only knows….
    Thanks & Regards,
    -feltra

    • True – but honestly the banks customer is you, not the collateral. In India at least. In the US you can return your keys and then the loan is the bank’s problem. (“No recourse” to your other assets). Here they have recourse. And here you can’t even get away by declaring personal bankruptcy; there’s no such thing.
      I wonder if we’ll at least see an act allowing personal bankruptcy.