interestrateripoff

The Bank Of England Clueless Thread

2,789 posts in this topic

"Mark Carney Hands His Gold Card to the Bankers

Lloyds Banking Group Plc, Britain's biggest mortgage lender, is in pole position to buy Bank of America Corp.'s 7 billion-pound U.K. credit card business, MBNA, according to the FT.

It's a deal with quite a few risks. Whoever buys it might have to compensate more customers for the mis-selling of payment-protection insurance, the U.K.'s costliest finance scandal. There's also the question of Britain's uncertain economic future as it prepares to leave the EU. Loan losses may rise.

But there's a sweetener here in the form of Carney's Term Funding Scheme. The 100 billion-pound ($124 billion) facility offers banks the chance to borrow for four years at about 0.25 percent. That's much cheaper than MBNA's internal funding line of about 1.5 percent in 2015, according to UBS estimates. With 4.2 billion pounds of internal funding to be refinanced, ultra-cheap credit will be useful."

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-11-21/mark-carney-hands-a-gold-card-to-the-banks

Central bank creates money. Bank borrows that money, pays 0.25% interest, takes over £7bn (really?) of UK private debt. Consumer borrows that money and pays ~20% interest, buys overpriced designer brands, posts to Instagram. Everyone wins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, interestrateripoff said:
 

UK to raise deposit guarantee after pound's Brexit plunge

 

LONDON The Bank of England (BoE) has proposed raising the guarantee on bank account deposits back to 85,000 pounds from Jan. 30, 2017, to reflect the sharp fall in sterling following Britain's vote to leave the European Union.

 

Up and down like a yo-yo!

LOL as if it matters one jot to the average man in the street unless they are the rich HPC crowd waiting with their cash mountains for prices to fall ... but clearly just split the cash between all the various banks, say 10, to get protection for 750,000 or total protection with NS&I .... all these accounts I am sure paying around 1% may be even 1.5% (that is the real news not the 75 to 85k change.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/11/2016 at 8:49 PM, thewig said:

fcking Halloween, somehow this became a thing in our house this year, I reluctantly bought a few pumpkin and some sparklers and other nondescript TAT on the orders of the wife. god damit I hate these manufactured consumer events.

I still recall how back at Easter time they were reporting that "retail spending has been given a boost thanks to the increased demand for hot cross buns"... I honestly thought it was a joke, but no it was a genuine financial news story!

 

It shows just how completely f****d our economy really is when people buying a few extra hot cross buns can have a noticeable impact on retail sales figures!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/11/2016 at 8:49 PM, thewig said:

fcking Halloween, somehow this became a thing in our house this year, I reluctantly bought a few pumpkin and some sparklers and other nondescript TAT on the orders of the wife. god damit I hate these manufactured consumer events.

You did it all wrong. The English version of Halloween pumpkins (which we got ready for guy Faulks) were turnip lanterns. 

 

http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/october/turnip-lanterns.html

 

after carving out one of these, the kids will no longer pester you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mark Carney 'plans to keep Britain in EU single market until 2021', putting Bank of England on collision course with Theresa May over Brexit terms

The Governor of the Bank of England has held a series of private meetings with bankers and business leaders imploring them to demand that Britain has single market access after Britain leaves the EU in 2019, according to the Sunday Times."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/27/mark-carney-plans-keep-britain-eu-single-market-2021/

Just an independent technocrat, not political at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Noallegiance said:

It's OK everyone. Mark's being vigilant again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38155178#comment_125882346

Join the dots.

For that reason he said the rules on risky mortgage lending would remain as they have been for the last two years.
In June 2014 lenders were told they could not lend any more than 15% of their loan book to people borrowing more than 4.5 times their annual income - so-called riskier mortgages.

.......

In its report, the Bank also noted that house prices are now, on average, 4.5 times those of average incomes, a ratio which is high by historical standards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Household debt too high? It's risen continuously since the Canadian dummy took over from Mervo the Clown in 2013!

Carney should tell the truth: His thorough incompetence has left the Bank sidelined by the markets, neither able to raise rates or lower them.

Swarm over, death...

150402-Household-debt.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Democorruptcy said:

Join the dots.

For that reason he said the rules on risky mortgage lending would remain as they have been for the last two years.
In June 2014 lenders were told they could not lend any more than 15% of their loan book to people borrowing more than 4.5 times their annual income - so-called riskier mortgages.

.......

In its report, the Bank also noted that house prices are now, on average, 4.5 times those of average incomes, a ratio which is high by historical standards.

 

 

and he selects his words carefully.  "Income" must be different to earnings.

Quote

 

 

nationwide.jpg

Quote


2 November 2016

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37844832

The typical UK home now costs six times average annual earnings, even though house price inflation is slowing, according to the Nationwide.

The last time the prices/earnings ratio was so high was more than eight years ago, in March 2008.

 

 

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Democorruptcy said:

Join the dots.

For that reason he said the rules on risky mortgage lending would remain as they have been for the last two years.
In June 2014 lenders were told they could not lend any more than 15% of their loan book to people borrowing more than 4.5 times their annual income - so-called riskier mortgages.

.......

In its report, the Bank also noted that house prices are now, on average, 4.5 times those of average incomes, a ratio which is high by historical standards.

 

 

After Brown created the the FSA we had a tripartite (FSA/Bank of England/Treasury) system overseeing the mortgage lenders at a systemic level but mortgage lending was self-regulated between 1997 and 2004. (You might have noticed a slight decline in lending standards during this period; liar loans, naked interest-only, buy-to-let.)

Mortgage lending to owner-occupiers was regulated by Brown's FSA from 2004 until the Coalition dismantled the tripartite system in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis. The FSA arrived on the mortgage regulating scene at a time when there was endemic mortgage fraud by borrowers, abetted by lenders. The FSA pointedly ignored all this wrong-doing and pursued, at the behest of the Treasury, a touch that was so light-touch it was basically no-touch.

The Bank of England implemented the Mortgage Market Review in April 2014 essentially removing self-certified lending and interest-only lending from the mortgage market.

Brown had kept buy-to-let lending unregulated in 2004 and when Labour set up the terms of the Mortgage Market Review once again buy-to-let was protected from the consequences of supervision by regulators because politicians at the Treasury decided that was how they wanted to play things. Osborne passed on the chance to regulate buy-to-let presented by the implementation for European Union Mortgage Credit Directive in 2014. The government has now announced that it will grant the Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee the powers of direction it has been publicly seeking since the the summer of 2014. Even in the absence of powers of direction the Bank's Prudential Regulation Authority has issued credit underwriting rules which bring forward the effects of the Section 24 amendments to the taxing of property income.

It is essentially impossible to reasonably argue with the proposition that the Bank of England under Carney has driven through a tightening-up of lending standards that means that regulatory controls over mortgage lending to both owner-occupiers and buy-to-let lenders are now enormously tighter than they were ten years ago.

These controls have consequences. Though nationwide house price indices are much higher than they were in 2008 the inflation is centred on and largely driven by London house prices. The stock of secured lending to owner-occupiers has hardly grown at all since the financial crisis; almost all the growth in lending since the crisis is buy-to-let.

The facts simply do not support the suggestion that loose lending to owner-occupiers is driving house prices and that the Bank of England is encouraging that lending.

If the Bank of England is trying to drive house prices by pushing lending on owner-occupiers they are going about in in the most extraordinary way. There is a much simpler explanation; they aren't trying to drive house prices by pushing lending on owner-occupiers.

Look at it this way. Mortgage interest rates have collapsed, yet the stock of secured lending to owner-occupiers has hardly grown at all. Look at the conduct of the CML lenders with buy-to-let. Is there anyone who seriously believes that the mortgage lenders are not lending wildly to households because they've finally seen the light? Their regulator is stopping them, and the Bank of England is that regulator.

Edited by Bland Unsight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, interestrateripoff said:

Donald Trump has made financial system vulnerable, says Mark Carney

Protectionist policies will hurt the UK as an 'open trading nation', Bank of England Governor says 

 

And Mark Carney makes it safe.......


Indeed

Quote

 

 

The President-elect has already “reinforced existing vulnerabilities” in the financial system, the UK’s central bank argued. Those vulnerabilities were highlighted on Wednesday when bailed out lender, RBS, failed stress tests, suggesting it would not survive another financial crisis.

 

There he goes again.

More Forward Guidance.  Carney is well known for his forward guidance.  It's one of the reasons the economy is in the mess it's in - Trump had nothing to do with the mess, Trump doesn't even become fully President until next year.

One of the reasons Trump was elected was to sort out the mess, including an economy totally wrecked by the likes of Carney.  

Then he's implying that Trump is going to be responsible for the future failures of RBS - words fail.  It sounds like future failure of RBS is already baked in the cake - in large part due to the past actions or lack of action of the BoE.

 

 

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2016 at 8:31 PM, interestrateripoff said:

Donald Trump has made financial system vulnerable, says Mark Carney

Protectionist policies will hurt the UK as an 'open trading nation', Bank of England Governor says 

 

And Mark Carney makes it safe.......

The breakdown of a thirty+ year free market program of privatisation, globalisation and deregulation was responsible for the GFC, from which the global economy has yet to recover.

Donald Trump's election is an expression of popular dissatisfaction with that dual failure.

Is it really the case that Carney doesn't understand this, or is he simply propagandising for the City of London?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, interestrateripoff said:

Bank of England insists monetary stimulus saved the ‘left behind’

New economic modelling research from the Bank suggests all regions of the UK have benefited from the monetary stimulus in terms of incomes, employment and wealth

The same article quotes Haldane speculating on the chance of a move down to 0%:

"He said the probability that this [low growth in 2017] could force its policy interest rate down to the “zero lower bound”, where borrowing rates cannot practically be pushed any lower, was between 15 and 40 per cent.

“My personal views is that this provides grounds for not proceeding too hastily with any tightening of the monetary policy stance,” he said."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.