"45% Of Mortgages Were Dodgy" Fsa

[Bloo Loo]

Even at 2007 peak only 5% of UK loans were to " credit impaired" customers.

Nearly 10% of US mortgages are in arrears or foreclosure, less than 1% UK ones.

you what....CCJs, missed payments, credit card late payments, all were not even considered....until the securitisation and SIV scam was halted.

WHY do you think so many got into difficulties when their teaser rate was ended ( O, I forgot, two year deals were not teasers either)....not just because of rising rates, but becuase suddenly, the banks needed to put the risk on their own balance sheets, so rates for even minor digressions shot up...fears that some would be paying 10 or 12% were in the papers for weeks.

now, many are turned down for mortgages, and its not just for lack of deposit....its the criteria that have got hard...and the recession has barely started yet.

All the above reasons, nobody was checking, so I dont need the proof from official figures to tell me that just because they caught 1% with impairment, the whole REASON for the boom in Self cert and GUARANTEE NOT TO CHECK loans was to bring in the impaired, hide them, and sell them on. It happened in the US, it happened here.

Russian and other criminals bought thousands of flats without any means whatsoever....all they did was scam the lenders.....the system for fruad detection was NON EXISTENT.

I suspect you are an official in some government Quango, hding behind the figures fed to you. remember, a pilot relying on his internal sensors can be fooled into thinking the flight is straight and level, where he is in reality in a spiral dive.

[andykn]

Exactly.

My point is, if the problems with the banks were confined to problems in the US mortgage markets and are completely disconnected from the UK property market as you seem to imply, then it would be pointless "testing them" against market conditions in the UK.

Given that the whole credit crunch is down to confidence in the stability of major financial institutions I don't think a stress test is pointless

IIRC the reason given was that they did not want to destabalise the markets.

Going back to the original point you were making about Erics opening post.. basically you are right if you take the report at face value.

What you missed out on having only been a member for the past 2 months, was that right up until 2007 the FSA and government were claiming that there was "NO sub-prime in the UK" and that we had nothing to fear. Now that they are being pushed into a corner they have finally come out and admitted that there was infact a lot of un-verified loans being made.

I suspect that, like Eric's misreading of the recent FSA statement, they didn't actually say that.

The reason Eric extrapolated 45% into 60-70% was IMO to emphasise how little he trusts the FSA. Call it tin-foil doom mongering if you wish, but the FSA have every reason to try to cover their asses on this one. They have been completely useless/incompetant at controlling lending standards over the past 10 years, they never made any attempt to address the issue until it ws too late and now it is quite plausible IMO that they are playing this down as best they can. Of all the government agencies these guys are most culpable IMO.

There's nothing wrong with distrusting the FSA figures. But don't misuse them. By all means say you think that more than 45% of mortgages were "non income verified" but to extrapolate twice to say they're all liar loans too is going a bit far.

Especially with no figures of your own to back it up.

[andykn]

you what....CCJs, missed payments, credit card late payments, all were not even considered....until the securitisation and SIV scam was halted.

WHY do you think so many got into difficulties when their teaser rate was ended ( O, I forgot, two year deals were not teasers either)....not just because of rising rates, but becuase suddenly, the banks needed to put the risk on their own balance sheets, so rates for even minor digressions shot up...fears that some would be paying 10 or 12% were in the papers for weeks.

"so many got into difficulties" "rising rates"? Rates are falling and reposessions no worse than last time round.

now, many are turned down for mortgages, and its not just for lack of deposit....its the criteria that have got hard...and the recession has barely started yet.

All the above reasons, nobody was checking, so I dont need the proof from official figures to tell me that just because they caught 1% with impairment, the whole REASON for the boom in Self cert and GUARANTEE NOT TO CHECK loans was to bring in the impaired, hide them, and sell them on. It happened in the US, it happened here.

Russian and other criminals bought thousands of flats without any means whatsoever....all they did was scam the lenders.....the system for fruad detection was NON EXISTENT.

I suspect you are an official in some government Quango, hding behind the figures fed to you. remember, a pilot relying on his internal sensors can be fooled into thinking the flight is straight and level, where he is in reality in a spiral dive.

"caught 1% with impairment"? 5% were to "credit impaired" customers. 1% is the current defaults in the UK. Will rise, of course, but I doubt to anywhere near US levels.

Whilst the financial institutions were lax in lending, I doubt that they ignored credit checks altogether to lend to Russian criminals. otherwise the rfepossesion and default rates would be far higher than last time.

[OnlyMe]

andykn

Nothing the FSA say is worth spit. Utterly failed bunch of incompetents - or far, far worse. Their regulation record is dreadful, worst in UK history, a lot of the damage done is still yet unseen as it will have multi-decade repercussions which you have to scratch beneath the surface to recognise.

[Limpet]

It's called supply and demand. 3x earnings is not an immutable economic law, it's an arbitrary limit.

Do you intend price controls on petrol? Bread? IT consultancy?�

Not a valid argument.

Property prices are influenced largely by building restrictions planning laws and monetary policy which are in turn influenced, if not absolutely controlled by a self appointed elite.

The market can operate more efficiently on the price of petrol, bread and even the holy grail of IT consultancy.

[eric pebble]

andykn

Nothing the FSA say is worth spit. Utterly failed bunch of incompetents - or far, far worse. Their regulation record is dreadful, worst in UK history, a lot of the damage done is still yet unseen as it will have multi-decade repercussions which you have to scratch beneath the surface to recognise.

And - had the govt NOT put a floor underneath the repossessions by telling the lenders to NOT REPOSSESS.... the repossession figures [which andykn keeps referring to] would be FAR higher.....

AND - as far as I can recollect - repossession figures ARE higher than before are they not?

[eric pebble]

He he he he he

Lenders, meanwhile, turned a blind eye. For them it was all about volume, about flogging as many loans as possible so they could be bundled up and sold on in the next securitisation.

Never mind the quality, feel the quantity.

The result was the biggest housing boom and bust in British history, the second half of which has only arguably just begun. Still, it was a good party while it lasted - for some at least.

That the lies should have gone so for so long now seems astonishing. Everybody knew what a joke the whole system was – everybody, it seems, apart from the people charged with regulating the City and protecting the public from their worst excesses.

What the Financial Services Authority was doing throughout all this madness still needs some explanation. They knew what was going on, and indeed it was they who provided the fascinating nugget of information above.

http://www.mrscohen.com/personal/-/comment....aspx?ID=340527

Edited May 31, 2009 by eric pebble

[andykn]

And - had the govt NOT put a floor underneath the repossessions by telling the lenders to NOT REPOSSESS.... the repossession figures [which andykn keeps referring to] would be FAR higher.....

AND - as far as I can recollect - repossession figures ARE higher than before are they not?

The arrears figures do not bear out your opinion. The FSA chart shows arrears lower than last time but repossessions about the same, surely indicating that lenders are repossessing earlier.

[andykn]

He he he he he

Lenders, meanwhile, turned a blind eye. For them it was all about volume, about flogging as many loans as possible so they could be bundled up and sold on in the next securitisation.

Never mind the quality, feel the quantity.

The result was the biggest housing boom and bust in British history, the second half of which has only arguably just begun. Still, it was a good party while it lasted - for some at least.

That the lies should have gone so for so long now seems astonishing. Everybody knew what a joke the whole system was – everybody, it seems, apart from the people charged with regulating the City and protecting the public from their worst excesses.

What the Financial Services Authority was doing throughout all this madness still needs some explanation. They knew what was going on, and indeed it was they who provided the fascinating nugget of information above.

http://www.mrscohen.com/personal/-/comment....aspx?ID=340527

But with loan to values low and good credit histories why is this a problem? There is no bigger arrears problem than last time round.

[eric pebble]

The arrears figures do not bear out your opinion. The FSA chart shows arrears lower than last time but repossessions about the same, surely indicating that lenders are repossessing earlier.

Frankly, who gives a sh1t about the FSA chart or anything else they produce/publish/write.... As most finance/business commentators rightly point out, the FSA are clueless idiots.

And - the Nieue Labia have quietly ordered lenders to not repossess.... Vast numbers of people who haven't kept up with the repayments on their loans have merely signed "IVAs" - Individual Voluntary Arrrangements - whereby they pay back £5 a month [rather than the £000,000's they owe], and the lenders just leave them alone. The lenders are deliberately doing this because they know from last time that if they go around repossessing all their defaulters all they do is devalue the "worth" of the properties they've lent on. It is entirely cynical - and don't even bother trying to tell me everything is fine and dandy... the figures for repossessions are far lower than they should actually be etc etc. because in reality the "official figures" are complete and utter bullsh1t. Many people are waking up to the fact that "official" figures are complete B0LL0CKS - produced and published by vested interests who hire PR/Spin Merchants to fiddle figures and tell complete lies to suit their own interests..... Remember all those pathetic media articles that said house prices were only going to go down "5%"? Brilliant example of UTTER B0LL0CKS fed to the media by VI PR/Spin Merchants.....

Edited May 31, 2009 by eric pebble

[Bloo Loo]

But with loan to values low and good credit histories why is this a problem? There is no bigger arrears problem than last time round.

and theres barely 2m uneployed, 5m on sick,2m unacounted for and 1.5m self paying students.

doesnt leave a lot of the 21m workforce does it, and half of whats left is paid for by government.

yes, I beleive official figures, clearly the FSA had a handle on the banks for the last 10 years......NOT.

[eric pebble]

and theres barely 2m uneployed, 5m on sick,2m unacounted for and 1.5m self paying students.

doesnt leave a lot of the 21m workforce does it, and half of whats left is paid for by government.

yes, I beleive official figures, clearly the FSA had a handle on the banks for the last 10 years......NOT.

And I see news that Bradford & Bingley are just starting to realize that at least 5% of the stupid loans they made on the Ponzi/Pyramid Lie-to-Let Scam are totting up their losses to £700 MILLION so far.......

I shall NEVER forget parking outside a B&B branch in the west country about 18 months ago - and in the window was a massive poster inviting anyone and his dog to join the club in Buy-to-Crap and "secure an income and investment for life" [etc.] - and I let out a huge sigh and just said out loud...

WHAT A LOAD OF F*CKING B0LL0CKS!!

[eric pebble]

But with loan to values low and good credit histories why is this a problem? There is no bigger arrears problem than last time round.

B0LL0CKS.

[podpodman]

B0LL0CKS.

Yes. B*ll*cks.

[Bloo Loo]

the dogs.

[andykn]

B0LL0CKS.

Why on earth would you start a thread based entirely on a figure whose originator you clearly have absolutely no faith in?

"Haha Dave says I was right!"

"That's not what Dave said"

"Dave talks rubbish anyway"

And you also have no faith in your own posts either! You were the one explaining only a coule of posts earlier WHY repossessions are lower, now you say they aren't.

Those not interested in FSA figures should leave this thread now, those who are can easily see that repossesions are no worse than last time round:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/speeches/at_12may09.pdf

Slide 7, page 8.

[podpodman]

Why on earth would you start a thread based entirely on a figure whose originator you clearly have absolutely no faith in?

"Haha Dave says I was right!"

"That's not what Dave said"

"Dave talks rubbish anyway"

And you also have no faith in your own posts either! You were the one explaining only a coule of posts earlier WHY repossessions are lower, now you say they aren't.

Those not interested in FSA figures should leave this thread now, those who are can easily see that repossesions are no worse than last time round:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/speeches/at_12may09.pdf

Slide 7, page 8.

As Mr Pebble and others so rightly said; don't believe a word the FSA says; they tried to deny there was any sub-prime in the UK until very recently. The BBC Money Programme (that Mr Pebble draws attention to in his signature) interviewed Mr Coogan of the FSA about their explosive undercover revelations about liar loans way back in 2003! Mr Coogan, a reptillian individual at the best of times, denied all of it outright, and told complete lies. You keep going on about the FSA figures; they are not worth the paper they're written on, even after Mr Coogan has used it to wipe his posterior.

[andykn]

As Mr Pebble and others so rightly said; don't believe a word the FSA says; they tried to deny there was any sub-prime in the UK until very recently. The BBC Money Programme (that Mr Pebble draws attention to in his signature) interviewed Mr Coogan of the FSA about their explosive undercover revelations about liar loans way back in 2003! Mr Coogan, a reptillian individual at the best of times, denied all of it outright, and told complete lies. You keep going on about the FSA figures; they are not worth the paper they're written on, even after Mr Coogan has used it to wipe his posterior.

Then why agree with Eric quoting FSA figures?

[Guest มร หล&#3]

Can none of you get laid or something?

This is still going on . . . ?

[eric pebble]

Can none of you get laid or something?

This is still going on . . . ?

andytwat will be jerking himself off right now!

[Bloo Loo]

Then why agree with Eric quoting FSA figures?

because if an ass coverer says its bad, then its really bad.

[eric pebble]

because if an ass coverer says its bad, then its really bad.

Yup...

[andykn]

because if an ass coverer says its bad, then its really bad.

Which brings us full circle to the fact that the figures aren't as bad as Eric thinks they are.

[ingermany]

Those not interested in FSA figures should leave this thread now, those who are can easily see that repossesions are no worse than last time round:

Isn't this just because, by nationalizing and bailing out the banks, the Government has taken personal debts of individuals onto its own books and added them to the national debt? The PM has decided that there will be fewer reposessions, and because he (on our behalf) has bought all the banks he can make it so (at a ruinous cost to future generations). I don't think anything like this happened in the last crash. I remember the 80s and the privatization of BT and British Gas etc. Back then it would have been inconceivable that all but one of the High Street banks would become an arm of Government in the total control of the Labour Party.

[eric pebble]

Isn't this just because, by nationalizing and bailing out the banks, the Government has taken personal debts of individuals onto its own books and added them to the national debt? The PM has decided that there will be fewer reposessions, and because he (on our behalf) has bought all the banks he can make it so (at a ruinous cost to future generations). I don't think anything like this happened in the last crash. I remember the 80s and the privatization of BT and British Gas etc. Back then it would have been inconceivable that all but one of the High Street banks would become an arm of Government in the total control of the Labour Party.

Precisely. Answer that one antsypants...