Thursday, Jun 17, 2010
Mr Boulgar, a True VI!
Mortgage Solutions: No mention of LTV cap in Osborne speech
"I never thought there was a realistic chance of a 75% cap. After investigation the cap idea has already been rejected by the FSA," he said.
"Even if the new Consumer Protection agency ends up taking this on, there has never been any real evidence of major problems in this area although the budget on the 22 June will be the next opportunity to clarify the issue," he added.
"No evidence of major problems in this area?!!" Are you bloody mad or stupid Mr Boulgar! Reckless lending and the blind eye mentality to liar loans and high LTV advances, is exactly why we had a bubble dipsey!!
Posted by magnaman @ 10:30 AM (1428 views) Add Comment
9 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
1. Cypher007 said...
i see no ships.
2. uncle tom said...
I would be very surprised to see an LTV cap that low for all mortgages, and restriction of income multiples would be much the wiser route.
A 75% cap might be prudent for those who cannot prove their income - 66% might be better still..
Oh, but how the mood is changing - now that the baby boomers are no longer running the country..
ReCaptcha - 'powerlessly residing'
3. magnaman said...
Either way, house price inflation will freeze and should reverse!
4. Jay said...
Hello... new to this. What does VI stand for?
5. tenyearstogetmymoneyback said...
uncle tom beat me to it in suggesting a restriction on income multiples. It wasn't so long ago that
"Thou shall not have more than three times salary" was carved in stone at evry building society. A friend
of mine only got 2.5 x salry as he had had the audacity to take out a car loan to buy a second hand Renault 5
(people really knew how to whoop it up in the early eighties.
As for the second comment why should anyone not be able to prove their income, when the Inland revenue has
accurate records. In fact why not ask them directly, possibly averaging over the last couple of years to ensure accuracy.
6. clockslinger said...
I hate to say it, but I told you so. So many many misguided souls who believed, pre-election, that the Tories would implement policies to burst the HPC bubble are just that....misguided. No "democratic"government will rein in an allegedly a "booming economy" for the long term good, whatever they think, because to do so is electoral suicide. Far better trash the currency and (in the Tory case) also destroy welfare and infastructure as long as the people feel they personally have a chance in the greed lottery. It worked in the eighties and if there was ever a party with a keenly developed sense of Mars Bar Sun reading populism it is the Tories...how else do the party of the rich minority get elected by the vastly poorer majority? Play to their prejudices and their stupidy...and there are still plenty of both around, as amply demonstrated by the political views regularly posted on this site, even including the most vulgar and poorly argued ageism!
Right now Spotty and Dave are in "make it look worse than it is so we can justify really sticking it to the poor" phase (elaborate that all you want stockpickers..but that is the long planned ideological agenda and intended outcome...make welfare unacceptable). Watch same space for phase two..."give savings in form of grants and tax breaks to our rich mates in supermarkets and city and call it stimulating enterprise". Footsiebotherers...you voted for it, don't bitch if hurts you too one day. But note what has happened to planned subsidy for advanced world beating steel manufacturing in the UK today? Guess they will blame Brown for that too..while they think they can. So much for those far reaching moves away from reliance on service sector.
7. uncle tom said...
"As for the second comment why should anyone not be able to prove their income, when the Inland revenue has
accurate records. In fact why not ask them directly, possibly averaging over the last couple of years to ensure accuracy."
There's a lot to be said for requiring the IR to provide a 'certificate of declared income' on request, when someone is seeking a loan. I'm not sure that facility currently exists. It would better evidence earning power than a couple of recent payslips (which are also very easy to forge..)
However there are quite a few situations where someone can reasponably expect to earn a lot more than in the preceding years, or has previously been working abroad. To wholly freeze them out of the mortgage market would not be reasonable, so a 'default' LTV would be desirable.
8. tenyearstogetmymoneyback said...
In reply to Uncle Tom
For years I have argued that it should also work the other way round. Find all the people who told the banks they were earning £100K a year and check that the full amount of tax due was paid and if it wasn't demand it.
"However there are quite a few situations where someone can reasponably expect to earn a lot more than in the preceding years"
I think either your or my idea would have the same outcome, causing people to have to wait a bit (either to save or prove their income)
before they could get a mortgage. Which brings me straight to another idea from the past. Insist that anyone applying for a mortgage
has had a savings account with that Bank for the past couple of years.
9. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.