When a real estate investor submits a loan application, the bank does not only look at their income. It applies a precise calculation method to assess their debt-to-income ratio. The differential calculation was part of these methods, and its official abandonment has reshuffled the cards among banking institutions.
Why the differential calculation remains a hot topic after the HCSF decision
The High Council for Financial Stability issued its binding recommendations starting in January 2022. Banks must now adhere to a debt-to-income ceiling set at 35%. Before this date, several institutions used the differential calculation to assess the borrowing capacity of rental investors.
Read also : The best places for affordable shopping in Paris
With the classic method, the bank adds up all credit charges and then divides them by total income. The differential calculation worked differently: it subtracted rental charges from rental income to obtain a net balance. This balance then modified the borrower’s overall income without artificially inflating their charges.
In practice, an investor whose rents largely covered the monthly payments displayed a much lower debt-to-income ratio with the differential method. The classic method, on the other hand, stacks all monthly payments on the charge side, even if the collected rents offset them. To better understand the differential calculation in banks, one must grasp this fundamental distinction between offsetting and addition.
Read also : The Evolution of the Insurance Market in 2024
Mutual and regional banks: a differential logic that persists
On paper, the rule is the same for all institutions. In practice, brokers and investors observe significant discrepancies in the analysis of applications.
Mutual networks maintain a more flexible approach for investor profiles. Regional branches of Crédit Mutuel, Banques Populaires, Caisses d’Épargne, and Crédit Agricole are regularly cited by brokerage professionals as incorporating a form of differential reasoning in their internal studies.
This does not mean they violate HCSF rules. The nuance lies in how they assess disposable income, the quality of rental assets, and the recurrence of rental income. A regional branch familiar with the local market may give more weight to a rent received in a tight area than a national bank applying a standardized grid.
Why this difference between national and regional banks
Large national banks centralize their lending criteria. An analyst in Paris processes a Bordeaux application using the same ratios as a Lille application. Regional branches have local discretion.
Have you ever noticed that two banks can give opposing answers on the same application? This is precisely because the interpretation of rental income varies from one network to another. The HCSF sets a framework, but each institution retains latitude in how to weigh the elements of the application.
Debt-to-income ratio and rental investment: what the classic method changes
Let’s take a simple case. A borrower receives a monthly salary and owns a rental property whose rent covers the associated loan payment. With the differential calculation, this property was almost neutral in the equation. With the classic method, the monthly payment is fully added to the charges, and the rent is only counted as a fraction (often after a discount for vacancy).
Switching to the classic method reduces the borrowing capacity of multi-property owners. An investor who could borrow for a third property sometimes finds themselves blocked at the second, even though their actual financial situation has not changed.
- The monthly payment of each mortgage is counted in full among fixed charges, regardless of the rent received in return
- Rental income generally undergoes a discount before being integrated into the borrower’s income
- The debt-to-income ratio mechanically rises for profiles holding multiple properties financed by credit
The banks’ margin for exceptions
The HCSF allows banks to deviate from the criteria for a limited portion of their credit production. This margin of flexibility enables certain institutions to accept applications that exceed the 35% threshold, particularly for investors with solid assets or comfortable disposable income.
Exceptions are primarily directed towards the purchase of primary residences. Rental investors capture only a fraction of this, which reinforces the impact of the disappearance of the differential calculation on their projects.
Pressure from professionals for a return of the differential calculation in real estate credit
Organizations of rental investment professionals are calling for a relaxation of HCSF rules. Their main argument: the ban on differential calculation hinders investment in the private rental sector.
The reasoning can be summed up in one sentence: an investor whose properties are self-financing does not present the same risk as a household over-indebted by consumer loans. Treating both situations with the same calculation grid penalizes the former without better protecting the latter.
Some brokers recommend that investors prioritize the following strategies to circumvent the constraint:
- Extend the loan term to reduce the monthly payment and stay below the debt threshold
- Renegotiate borrower insurance to lower the overall cost of credit
- Structure the project through an SCI or a professional setup, which may partially escape the HCSF framework applicable to consumer credit
- Target regional branches likely to use their margin for exceptions for investor profiles
The debate remains open. The HCSF has not announced a revision of its recommendations on this point, despite repeated requests from the sector. For investors, the choice of bank and the quality of the financial setup remain the two concrete levers to maximize their borrowing capacity within the current framework.