settling down and making a living are protected
On the weekend morning at a small coffee shop in Ha Dong (Hanoi), Mr. Nguyen Thanh Nam - a construction engineer - excitedly shared with friends about the new draft decree developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV).
"If this regulation comes into effect, I will feel more secure when borrowing from the bank to buy an apartment. The house is the only place for the family to live, the bank does not have the right to tighten, so I am motivated to repay the debt," said Mr. Nam.
Previously, the worry of losing a house made the couple hesitate for many years. "Every time I hear about people being held back from debt, I worry. The house is both the greatest asset and a place to shelter from the rain and sun. If we lost it, where would we go?, Mr. Nam shared more.
Not only Mr. Nam, Ms. Lan - a teacher in Hanoi - also breathed a sigh of relief. Ms. Lan said: "My husband and I borrowed money to buy an apartment. Before, I was afraid that if I was late in paying, my house would be confiscated. Now that I have heard the only draft to protect a house, I feel more secure in borrowing capital.
According to the draft, the collateral of bad debts is only seized when it is not the only housing and not the main or only labor tool.
The State Bank explains: The only house is a single construction project under the ownership of the guarantee party, with a stable, long-term or regular residence and living. The main or only labor tool is the means of labor that brings in the main income, determined based on the regional minimum wage prescribed by the Government.
The State Bank emphasized: "Not confiscating the collateral as the main labor tool or the only home of the people is a protective measure, helping the collateral maintain minimum living conditions, working capacity and family support".
Experts worry about draft decree making banks cautious about lending
At a major auto dealership in Hanoi, Mr. Nguyen Hieu - Head of sales department - acknowledged that this draft regulation is " humane but needs to be classified". He analyzed: It is necessary to carefully assess the debt repayment process and loan purpose. Having been in charge of business for many years, I have noticed that some people really borrow money to run services, but some people also use it for other purposes. I see some cases where borrowers do not return, even sell or keep their vehicles. Some customers even remove the positioning devices that the bank has installed for management. With mobile assets such as cars, banks face many risks.
Sharing with Lao Dong about the draft, Dr. Nguyen Tri Hieu - financial and banking expert - said that he did not agree. Dr. Hieu said: "If a bank is not allowed to take the collateral, which is the main home of a customer or the only labor tool, it is considered an inactivation of the collateral. The borrower used the house to mortgage, but when he was unable to repay the bank debt, it could not be handled, which violated the mortgage contract".
Dr. Hieu cited practical evidence in the US: Banks have the right to recover collateral, including the main house, or through court, or based on a mortgage contract. If customers see their rights affected, they can file a lawsuit, and during the trial, the bank is not allowed to confiscate them. But if it does not sue, the bank has the right to reclaim it, including the main house".
He emphasized: When using a house as a mortgage, borrowers must clearly understand the risks that can be confiscated if they do not repay the debt. If the law stipulates that the main house is not confiscated, it will no longer be a security asset from the beginning. This is a legal conflict, making the mortgage contract meaningless. A more reasonable solution is the mechanism through the court: the court can decide to temporarily postpone or limit the revocation. But an absolute ban as in the draft is unreasonable.
From another perspective, Dr. Nguyen Quoc Hung, Vice President and General Secretary of the Vietnam Banking Association - also noted many shortcomings: "The draft is humane, but if the regulation on "only home" or "only means of use" is not confiscated, an unacceptable situation will arise. For example, there is a case of a single house but worth hundreds, thousands of billions of VND, even a villa, a castle, it cannot be "only" that the bank cannot handle. On the contrary, for poor families living in apartments of a few dozen square meters, the forced confiscation is very difficult and inhumane.
Mr. Hung also emphasized the special assets: When seized, ships are often left at sea, not put into use, so they are gradually spoiled and lose value.
If the borrower does not repay, the creditor has the right to confiscate and distribute the property. According to Dr. Hung, credit institutions themselves are very concerned. Agreeing with the humanitarian factor, if the regulation is too broad, it will lead to a situation where borrowers with large assets cannot be confiscated, while borrowers with small and difficult assets are affected. Thus, people's access to capital will be limited.
Dr. Hung proposed: The regulation needs to ensure harmony between the minimum right to housing according to the law and the responsibility to repay debts. It is possible to consider arranging minimum accommodation for people, then the remaining assets can be processed to recover debts. The important thing is to have a clear line: which assets are protected, which assets must be handled, to ensure the legitimate rights of both the borrower and the lender.
The Bank is assigned to develop a Decree according to shortened procedures and order, the expected time to submit to the Government for promulgation before September 15, 2025 and take effect from October 15, 2025, the same time as Law No. 96/2025/QH15 takes effect.
