wealthy Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I just read this in the beeb article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11468240 The CML denied it was scaremongering, but acknowledged that, if the FSA's restrictions had been place in the past few years, many borrowers would simply have had to change their plans. "They would have got a smaller mortgage, they wouldn't have been able to buy a house near where they wanted to live, they would have had to move further out," Michael Coogan of the CML told the BBC. No, they would have got a smaller mortgage and would have been able to buy a house near where they wanted to live because everyone else would also be taking out smaller mortgages Stupid VI w****ker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I was just talking to an EA in Swansea who said that 30% deposits were now the norm and that it had killed off the FTB market. No idea how this is affecting people remortgaging further up the ladder. The EA was of the opinion that buyers are panicing because they can't get mortgages but I bit my lip... thinking that it should be sellers panicing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Goldfish Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) It is quite frightening to me that they consider any of these measures in any way optional. No wonder we are in such a mess... * assessing an applicant's income and expenditure * assessing their ability to repay on a full capital-and-interest basis * assuming loans are for no longer than 25 years * restricting the size of loans to people with past payment problems and * assuming that interest rates might rise from their initial level. I wonder exactly which of these criteria they think is excessive? I just showed those criteria to my uncle who was a Midland Bank branch manger until the late 1980s. He was absolutley staggered that they no longer have to use these criteria which he said were just the normal criteria which were applied to every mortgage in his day. He's taking them along to the next pensioner's meeting so they can all have a laugh/cry. He also had no idea that you could now get IO without a repayment vehicle. In those days one had to be legally assigned to the mortgage and reviewed every year. Edited October 5, 2010 by oldsport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) But it calculates that only 151,000 arrears cases and 30,000 repossessions would have been prevented. They say that like they're small numbers. Edited October 5, 2010 by exiges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I just showed those criteria to my uncle who was a Midland Bank branch manger until the late 1980s. He was absolutley staggered that they no longer have to use these criteria which he said were just the normal criteria which were applied to every mortgage in his day. He's taking them along to the next pensioner's meeting so they can all have a laugh/cry. He also had no idea that you could now get IO without a repayment vehicle. In those days one had to be legally assigned to the mortgage and reviewed every year. Those were the days - and things WORKED - because people did things PROPERLY - and HONESTLY....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtickle Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) Was it Coogan on Radio 5 Live at 6.50am this morning? He got a bit of a pasting from Andrew Verity and Mickey Clarke. They put it to him that the mortgage lenders had lent far too much money to people who couldnt pay, and why should mortgage lenders lend to someone without verifying their income? You can hear it in all its glory here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/v16l6/?t=48m07s Edited October 5, 2010 by mrtickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtickle Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 One of them was interviewed on radio 5 before 7am this morning. He said his piece then the interviewers got stuck into him. He was squeeling like a stuck pig before they had finished and just sounded like a VI with little of interest to say. They grilled him on over priced houses being the problem, didn't ask about the low low low interest rate we have had being responsible for most people being OK for now, but well done BBC at last. I recall the interviewer even said house price falls are predicted !!! Seems momentum has turned and price falls are mainstream thoughts now, and squeeling piggies at the trough are to become tomorrows bacon butties. Hear it and enjoy it again for the next 7 days: http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/v16l6/?t=48m07s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Coogman - Pig face. Complete crook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic the Hedge Fund Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Don't understand the CML at all. Its not as if their members have any money to lend (speculatively) anyway, and neither has the Government. Presumably they just want the "wriggle room" to lend recklessly if they want to. What if the banks don't actualy want to lend? Perhaps CML fully expect another crash and are just looking for somone else to blame for the mortgage drought Remeber that before the ConDems came in the governement line was always 'if we can only get the banks to lend again' so it's not supprising that the CML are promoting an alternate scapegoat (FSA) for this time round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 What if the banks don't actualy want to lend? Perhaps CML fully expect another crash and are just looking for somone else to blame for the mortgage drought Remeber that before the ConDems came in the governement line was always 'if we can only get the banks to lend again' so it's not supprising that the CML are promoting an alternate scapegoat (FSA) for this time round. Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarman001 Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Stopping these mortgages would have a huge impact on the housing market. Enough said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 They are small numbers, Brown said he saved 300,000 hard-working families from losing their homes ... The guy was the greatest moron ever to occupy No: 10...... The WORST PM EVER in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Lower prices would have meant they would not have needed to reject 16% of applicant on the basis of breaching the '35% of income rule', nor would they have been required to reject a further 16% mortgages on the basis of affordability over a 25 year mortgage. Last of all, they would not have rejected one fifth of mortgages due to affordability over a 25 year period. Its simple, regulation would have merely stopped the prices going ballistic - the applicants would have been able to proceed at sensible prices whilst lenders would have been able to work to a sensible lending framework. ......./ The elephant is sitting in the room. It takes up most of the room. But no one sees it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.