Thursday, May 14, 2009

About time

Telegraph: Homebuyers face FSA limits on mortgage size to income

Lord Turner, FSA chairman, said: "A key choice in product regulation would be between LTV and LTI (loan-to-income) limits. There is a prima facie case that LTI limits are more likely to be appropriate given that it is the relationship between income and loan repayments which determines whether a household can service its debt."
It loos like the Financially Supine Authority is changing.

Posted by growler @ 07:11 AM (1016 views) Add Comment

25 Comments

1. flashman said...

Weasel words. If this article is representative of the FSA's stance, then they have deliberately contrived a way of appearing to be tough, whilst encouraging the dubious practice of providing larger mortgages when interest rates are low. LTI should be based on the capital borrowed/income ratio but it looks like they are trying to change the emphasis to a repayments/income ratio. If this is not the case, then why did the article finish with:

"He added that because interest rates are now low "compared to the early 1990s, we are less likely to see mortgage repayment problems among the vast majority of people... even if the house price fall is more severe".

Thursday, May 14, 2009 07:54AM Report Comment
 

2. crunchy said...

If only house prices were pegged to interest rates.
Interest rates go up house prices follow. visa versa. lol

That would be interesting!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 08:24AM Report Comment
 

3. flashman said...

Crunchy, I think you might get your wish. Imagine what 10% mortgage rates would do to house prices in this economic climate.

Perhaps the FSA would like to see more fixed interest rate mortgages. They cant be crazy enough to impose a metric that causes misery when interest rates rise?? In the US the market was relatively stable until variable rate mortgages became popular.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 08:43AM Report Comment
 

4. crunchy said...

3. flashman

Fixed rates, fixed bank. No fun and games!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 08:47AM Report Comment
 

5. crunchy said...

We need a system that punishes bad politicial and central banking choices, not one that encourages the reckless public to follow suit in there follies.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 08:57AM Report Comment
 

6. Bobby9983 said...

A tiered approach, based on credit worthiness, level of income, and number of financial dependants is what is required, and in many cases, what is already being used lenders to assess mortgage affordability.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 08:58AM Report Comment
 

7. crunchy said...

We need CHANGE. lol

Thursday, May 14, 2009 09:00AM Report Comment
 

8. str 2007 said...

(Lord Turner said he wanted "to protect individual customers against the consequences of over-risky borrowing" and stressed the FSA is still debating the issues. )

Why do we need the FSA to protect the over indebted when we have a labour government to wrap them in cotton wool at the expense of those who bothered to put some savings by for retirement ?

Thursday, May 14, 2009 09:00AM Report Comment
 

9. Poppins said...

I simply cannot believe this article!! Does this really need a debate!!! dear dear dear!! Sack the lot of these people and let someone with a bit of "common" make up the rules! 90% LTI and 3.5 multiple to income should HAVE NEVER INCREASED! This is gross misconduct on Brown, his cronies and the "Never diid anything" FSA!!! It does NOT take a rocket scientist to realise that these loans were all going to be terribly bad and it is inconceivable to think that this now needs a debate!!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 09:01AM Report Comment
 

10. crunchy said...

7. str 2007

Last time..... Keeping the host alive!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 09:09AM Report Comment
 

11. sybil13 said...

Discussed at this thread yesterday:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=114274&st=0

Thursday, May 14, 2009 09:15AM Report Comment
 

12. crunchy said...

He added that because interest rates are now low "compared to the early 1990s, we are less likely to see mortgage repayment problems among the vast majority of people... even if the house price fall is more severe".

crunchy... and there is the problem. They just don't get it! 25 years is a long time. CHANGE my ar8e.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 09:22AM Report Comment
 

13. crunchy said...

Correction.. won't get it!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 09:24AM Report Comment
 

14. happy mondays said...

@ 7 Crunchy, we shall have change, whether we want it or not... I take the taoist / Buddhist path and roll with it, going around the problems, flow like water ...Embrace the change, i am sure that being a trader these would be good for you, if you don't already, but judging by your past postings, i think you do..

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:00AM Report Comment
 

15. mark wadsworth said...

@ Crunchy 2, "If only house prices were pegged to interest rates. Interest rates go up house prices follow. visa versa. lol. That would be interesting"

Nah. We should replace as many taxes as possible with Land Value Tax - if land values (i.e. house prices) go up then the LVT goes up and acts like a wonderful stabiliser (i.e. like a much higher interest rate, but only only the speculative i.e. land element). That will leave interest rates correspondingly lower which helps the productive economy.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:19AM Report Comment
 

16. crunchy said...

14. happy mondays

No option but to flow with the wind. Standing in front of 20 tonne juggernauts isn't for me.

I just find it frustrating when I see other people doing it, when I know that the driver eats road kill for breakfast.

crunchy indeed!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:27AM Report Comment
 

17. crunchy said...

15. mark wadsworth, Bang on mark. I was just trying to make a point.

LVT is the way to go. So if it's so obvious to us mere mortals, it does beg the question? of why that will not see the light of day.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:38AM Report Comment
 

18. buctootim said...

You cant blame Adair Turner for what has gone on before. He has been Chair of the FSA for only a short time. He is a very, very able guy and whatever he proposes to end the property markets inherent ability to bubble and crash repeatedly, I would listen very carefully to.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:39AM Report Comment
 

19. crunchy said...

18. buctootim... Tell me about it in five years time!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:45AM Report Comment
 

20. buctootim said...

crunchy......more like 15 years I reckon - when the next crash would be about due!

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:57AM Report Comment
 

21. crunchy said...

15 years is too long to wait for pay day, unless we see some very "strange" movements in the stockmarket, precious metals, commodities.......

Agree it will happen again. You can bank on it if you are smart! A rear commodity.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:04AM Report Comment
 

22. str 2007 said...

buctootin

Are you Lord Adair or his wife ?

You seem to have a remakable insight to what may or may not happen

Surely the MP's will simply ignore everything he says unless it suits them and their portfolios.

If the will was ctually there (which I doubt it is) to stop the housing boom and bust then it can't be that difficult.

The answers are all over this website.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:08AM Report Comment
 

23. crunchy said...

A rare commodity. That's another site altogether. lol

Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:10AM Report Comment
 

24. flashman said...

buctoon: Adair is at best a chronic fence sitter. In his previous environmental capacity he backed coal-fired power but only for a few years. At the LSE he advocated free markets but with a bit of control. When he was Chairman of the Overseas Development Institute, he shuffled some papers for a while and failed in his brief to get more funding from the private sector.

He even took a lucrative role with Merrill lynch during their worst periods of excess. Does this bode well for his regulatory roe?

This worthless plank has been at the FSA almost a year and achieved nothing. How long does it take to write: 3.5 X income. 90% max LTV?

Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:26AM Report Comment
 

25. mander said...

LTI (loan-to-income) is what makes sense and 90% max LTV but 90% max LTV alone will indebt the person even higher because they will borrow the 10% deposit easily and keep on bubbling...


Self-certified mortgages and other future inventions should be banned. That will not create bureaucracy but plain transparency.

Limited companies/PLC should not be allowed to buy already built residential property I think.

Thursday, May 14, 2009 02:02PM Report Comment
 

Add comment

Username   Admin Password (optional)
Email Address
Comments
  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies