Lenders bypassing car loan curbs

[Jano]

I know a young couple working in finance industry, middle income bracket, combine income more than $20+K per mth.

Also take 8yrs, Full loan for his preowned BMW335i.

 

Also don't feel happy. so not just lower income bracket. The most unhappy ones are the middle income group with high financial commitment.

 

how much is such car?

need to take full loan n 8yrs when they earn so much?

 

new policy is good because it teaches what the parents or school never teach.

do within yr means. 10yr loan is no no. u shld have $ to give upfront in order to buy yr things

when the 10yrs is launched, i already feel its over lenient n have friends who bought cars when they just come out to work and take 10yrs loan.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Jano

[Mllcg]

But how many of the people who take full loan will choose a car within their means? This is because they chose a car they can afford. I know a few people who earn close to that amount but take full loan to get cars much more expensive than a 335i.

 

personally, when i changed car recently, my family wanted one what wouldnt go on anymore loans(was given 20-25k to choose a car).. so i chose an EK. was eyeing sth else but required a small loan.

 

and if i earn 20k/mth, i would choose a car that can give me plenty of spares

[Sdxx]

I find that those for the new law in purchasing cars are usually Car owners while those against are yet to own a car and hopes to do so in future (minus those dealer or banks ppl )

 

don't you think it is very selfish for those who keep stating "Good Good! this will ceratinly make the road less populated with cars and less jams and blah blah...."

Sometimes we need to think objectively.

just becos you own a car already, does that mean you can deprive others from doing so???? and claiming that this group of ppl will add on the woes.... Damm shallow thinking....

 

once i have a friend who chided me when i wanted to get a car. he drove a a Rav 4 at the time and he made a comment to me "Why you want to buy car... dun buy lah... road so jam liao... you buy only add on to the jam only... then make my driving so difficult"

 

I looked at him and said "hey... is my money smelly? then why i cannot buy a car?? it is my money and my wish.. if you hate the jam.. then you sell off your bloody car lah and don't drive on the road so as not to deprive those who can take it"

 

 

Anyway, if you want to curb the jams or whatsoever traffc woes.... maintain the populations of this country first to a moderate level....

come 2030, with the expected 7mil population with mostly are incoming foreigners whom are executive or management level, Even having a law of paying in full cash terms for a car will still have roads swamp with cars!!!

 

Typical human behaviour, can do little about it. Don't you think it's the same for everything else? Be it policies, rules, housing, rebate, etc etc? If benefit me, good. If not, vote for opposition even if the policy is beneficial to majority. People can vote based on trivial things that don't benefit them so it's no surprise they reacted the way you described. If this go on get ready to change govt every 5 years and good luck to all of us.

 

[Leepee]

Looking on the bright side.

 

A) Wouldn't it be good that this new rule helpe to lower the COE price from $80k-90k, to say $20k-30k( assuming, must see next week result).

A saving of $60,000 from the car price.

 

B)Or would it be better reinstate the 80%-100% loan, and buy a car with $90k++ COE as per before 26feb announcement.

 

For those who don't have a car now, but would love to own a car, and should be able to save up the 50% within 1-2 years......which would be the better preference?

 

Those who need more than 5years or more to save up the 50%, I assume they would prefer the old 100% loan scheme?

 

I say, any rule that helps to lower down COE prices, or better still lower down ARF, on the entire car prices is a good thing.

 

I find that those for the new law in purchasing cars are usually Car owners while those against are yet to own a car and hopes to do so in future (minus those dealer or banks ppl )

 

don't you think it is very selfish for those who keep stating "Good Good! this will ceratinly make the road less populated with cars and less jams and blah blah...."

Sometimes we need to think objectively.

just becos you own a car already, does that mean you can deprive others from doing so???? and claiming that this group of ppl will add on the woes.... Damm shallow thinking....

 

once i have a friend who chided me when i wanted to get a car. he drove a a Rav 4 at the time and he made a comment to me "Why you want to buy car... dun buy lah... road so jam liao... you buy only add on to the jam only... then make my driving so difficult"

 

I looked at him and said "hey... is my money smelly? then why i cannot buy a car?? it is my money and my wish.. if you hate the jam.. then you sell off your bloody car lah and don't drive on the road so as not to deprive those who can take it"

 

 

Anyway, if you want to curb the jams or whatsoever traffc woes.... maintain the populations of this country first to a moderate level....

come 2030, with the expected 7mil population with mostly are incoming foreigners whom are executive or management level, Even having a law of paying in full cash terms for a car will still have roads swamp with cars!!!

Edited March 6, 2013 by Leepee

[Nzy]

personally, when i changed car recently, my family wanted one what wouldnt go on anymore loans(was given 20-25k to choose a car).. so i chose an EK. was eyeing sth else but required a small loan.

 

and if i earn 20k/mth, i would choose a car that can give me plenty of spares

 

Your car paid by ur parents? Anyway what I meant is most. Not you... Have seen many already. Even earning 2k+ only still want to buy car, then when their pay rise only immediately want to upgrade again.

[Nzy]

Looking on the bright side.

 

A) Wouldn't it be good that this new rule helpe to lower the COE price from $80k-90k, to say $20k-30k( assuming, must see next week result).

A saving of $60,000 from the car price.

 

B)Or would it be better reinstate the 80%-100% loan, and buy a car with $90k++ COE as per before 26feb announcement.

 

For those who don't have a car now, but would love to own a car, and should be able to save up the 50% within 1-2 years......which would be the better preference?

 

Those who need more than 5years or more to save up the 50%, I assume they would prefer the old 100% loan scheme?

 

I say, any rule that helps to lower down COE prices, or better still lower down ARF, on the entire car prices is a good thing.

 

The govt is helping those who need to save up for a long time just to get money for the DP. At least it gives them time to think whether they really need a car or not since they have been able to survive on public transport for the past few years. After saving for so long they might not bear the spend all that money in one go. They might even not buy a car and use the money for other more meaningful things.

 

As for the ARF, I thought most people would be happy about the new measures. Since in the past people have been complaining about the rich buying many cars and how they should be paying more. With this new scheme won't it make those who buy luxury cars pay more? It makes the rich pay more which is what many have been asking for for a long time right?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Nzy

[Mercs]

Interest rates too high, finance companies are capitalizing on the restriction.

[Dinosaka]

can u imagine if ppl turn to loan sharks and pawn shops.......i cna tell you more social issues

 

Social issues getting more cos of the casinos Liao...

[Mllcg]

Your car paid by ur parents? Anyway what I meant is most. Not you... Have seen many already. Even earning 2k+ only still want to buy car, then when their pay rise only immediately want to upgrade again.

 

car paid by them..

 

usage paid by me. (parking, petrol, etc..)

Edited March 6, 2013 by Mllcg

[Forte3737]

car paid by them..

 

usage paid by me. (parking, petrol, etc..)

 

how about you trying not to live off their $$$?

[Turret]

while i welcome to move by the Government to cool down the demand for COE, I am disappointed with uncoordinated, synchronized move to implement a series of loan-curbing measuring by MAS but leaving a loophole for the unregulated-MAS lenders to profit.

 

From a policy perspectives, this is a bad policy.

 

Again, I am not sure how long will MTI complete their review of the HPA and implement the new measures.

 

There are uncertainties and there is a high likelihood chance that buyers may move in to rush to these un-regulated lenders before the new measures start to kick-in.

 

The original purpose of the measures implemented by MAS has been mitigated to a large extent by this unexpected blunder or loophole.

 

The current losers arising from these MAS measures are the consumers (who have to pay a higher interest rates now to borrow from those unregulared lenders) and the regulated lenders who lose these businesses. And when the downturn starts to kick-in, these losers will become true losers who realize that they are borrowing a large chunk of monies just to buy a paper license which would depreciate at an accelerated rate in times of recession.

 

Whatever, the outcome, the consumer are the real losers who are buying car in times of uncertainties right now.

 

 

 

 

[Mllcg]

how about you trying not to live off their $$$?

 

how about u minding your own business

[Simplecar]

Looking on the bright side.

 

A) Wouldn't it be good that this new rule helpe to lower the COE price from $80k-90k, to say $20k-30k( assuming, must see next week result).

A saving of $60,000 from the car price.

 

B)Or would it be better reinstate the 80%-100% loan, and buy a car with $90k++ COE as per before 26feb announcement.

 

For those who don't have a car now, but would love to own a car, and should be able to save up the 50% within 1-2 years......which would be the better preference?

 

Those who need more than 5years or more to save up the 50%, I assume they would prefer the old 100% loan scheme?

 

I say, any rule that helps to lower down COE prices, or better still lower down ARF, on the entire car prices is a good thing.

You have forgotten those with cars. By pandering to the cries of the would-be car buyers, the car owners/lessees are now disadvantaged.

 

My blood boiled when I heard someone (IIRC) on TV yesterday mentioned about bringing the bottom 20% (30?) to become the top 20% by 2030. So you make the rest suffer so that someone else benefits? What kind of logic is that?

 

Can rules be fair without making someone else suffer?

[Chucky2007]

You have forgotten those with cars. By pandering to the cries of the would-be car buyers, the car owners/lessees are now disadvantaged.

 

My blood boiled when I heard someone (IIRC) on TV yesterday mentioned about bringing the bottom 20% (30?) to become the top 20% by 2030. So you make the rest suffer so that someone else benefits? What kind of logic is that?

 

Can rules be fair without making someone else suffer?

Sorry don't understand your post. Can elaborate more?

[Simplecar]

Sorry don't understand your post. Can elaborate more?

not sure whether you heard from one of the MPs on TV during yesterday's new in Parliament. I thought I heard someone talked about helping the bottom 20%.

 

What it does is not different from what the govt is doing - helping those who are weak in financial planning by preventing him/her from digging a deeper hole.

 

In doing so, the rest are now inconvenienced/affected. Or is this just the Chaos Effect?

[S4vtec]

while i welcome to move by the Government to cool down the demand for COE, I am disappointed with uncoordinated, synchronized move to implement a series of loan-curbing measuring by MAS but leaving a loophole for the unregulated-MAS lenders to profit.

 

From a policy perspectives, this is a bad policy.

 

Again, I am not sure how long will MTI complete their review of the HPA and implement the new measures.

 

There are uncertainties and there is a high likelihood chance that buyers may move in to rush to these un-regulated lenders before the new measures start to kick-in.

 

The original purpose of the measures implemented by MAS has been mitigated to a large extent by this unexpected blunder or loophole.

 

The current losers arising from these MAS measures are the consumers (who have to pay a higher interest rates now to borrow from those unregulared lenders) and the regulated lenders who lose these businesses. And when the downturn starts to kick-in, these losers will become true losers who realize that they are borrowing a large chunk of monies just to buy a paper license which would depreciate at an accelerated rate in times of recession.

 

Whatever, the outcome, the consumer are the real losers who are buying car in times of uncertainties right now.

 

 

i think the story is pretty clear now, after the budget roundup. It is not about financial prudence or controlling of car growth. It is to curb or bring down inflation figures. Looking at the stats, they figured majority of car owners take loans from banks,and the moneylenders are negijible few, so paerto's law applied now the problem goes the oether way....

 

[Bobucw]

So,.... increase tax on the "rich" so this extra income can go towards those car sales person who just lost their job becos of this rule??

 

From another prespective,... these car sales persons and car sales business owners,... are they gonna be classified as the bottom 20% that needs help becos of this rule??

[Forte3737]

Interest rates too high, finance companies are capitalizing on the restriction.

 

pity those comapnies regulated by MAS. all their biz shiifted to finance co not regulated by MAS