Liquid Goldfish Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 I don't have a good feeling about this. The political pressure is going to be huge. CML today were appealing directly to ministers over the heads of the FSA. Having seen Cameron cave in over the EU and immigration just this week, I can't see him having the balls to resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Goldfish Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) this made me laugh the CML produced two pieces of research showing 2.2 million existing homeowners would be unable to get mortgages if the rules were introduced and showing that extra checks being required could raise the price of a loan by £21.50 for every mortgage taken out, rising to £35 for those whose income needed further investigation. Those are one off costs he's talking about, not an extra £35 per month Heaven forbid they have to incur an extra £35 when deciding whether to loan an average of £135,000!!! Edited November 5, 2010 by oldsport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 That's proposterous!! I mean, 'assess their ability to pay' - those crazy FSA boys! And 'assume that interest rates might rise from their initial level' ? Whoever heard of such a ridiculous and absurd hypothesis???!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expatowner Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 I haven't seen a mismatch like that since Ali took on Dunn. You're older than you look, you sly old Redhat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonBrownSpentMyFuture Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Among the FSA's plans are that lenders should have to: verify the income of all borrowers assess an applicant's income and expenditure assess their ability to repay on a full capital-and-interest basis assume loans are for no longer than 25 years restrict the size of loans to people with past payment problems, and assume that interest rates might rise from their initial level. Geez man, like, talk about Draconian. This is the 21st century man. These FSA dudes need to chill. I mean, like, what's the worse that can happen, yo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonBrownSpentMyFuture Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 FFS! Who's running this country.. the regulators or the frickin' mortgage lenders? Funny you should ask because until very recently... Sir James Crosby: He Is Mr Liar Loans: He Got Knighthood From Brown. CROSBY as head of HBOS WAS BEHIND MUCH OF UK LIAR LOAN SCAM All this should have been done in 2003! I'm amazed it's even still being debated. The truth is, Labour encouraged/sanctioned the reckless lending and borrowing of the past 10 years (even giving knighthoods to those who oversaw the scam) and the Conservatives did absolutely NOTHING to oppose it. They are all complicit in this massive fraud against UK citizens. Any talk of "started in America" is utter bullsh!t. UK politicians were all busy creating an environment in which they could line their own pockets. Just ask the (Labour !) Prime Minister of the time... Telegraph: Blair's property portfolio reaches £14 million Mirror: Tony Blair's fortune to treble to £45million next year Never forget, inform your children and do not allow them to rewrite history. Happy Guy Fawkes Remembrance Day everybody. The last honest man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonBrownSpentMyFuture Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 And you have to ask: How the HELL has the CML managed to get away with their Ponzi Scam for SO long?? Methinks there's a whiff of scandal..... :angry: Cuts, deficit, bankers bonuses, deflation, smoke, mirrors. Now, now, Eric. Remove your tin foil hat. It started in America. Nobody saw it coming. Completely unexpected. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonBrownSpentMyFuture Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 These aren't directly related to this story but, again, for the benefit of our younger / newer readers... BBC News: How Leeson broke the bank Tuesday, June 22, 1999 Published at 15:58 GMT 16:58 UK BBC News: Leeson scandal 'could happen again' Tuesday, June 22, 1999 Published at 11:58 GMT 12:58 UK When trader Nick Leeson shook the financial world by singlehandedly bringing down an established bank, City chiefs were so shocked that they pledged to make changes to ensure it could never happen again. ... After the scandal was uncovered, banks reviewed their internal procedures, activities in dealing rooms around the world were tightened up and governments worked to clarify regulations of financial institutions with branches overseas. ... Neil Wilson, editor of Futures and Options Week, said: "It could happen again because the incentives are the same, if not greater. The rewards are very great and that's a temptation for people." These articles were published just 4 years before the BBC2 Mortgage Madness expose on self certification liar loans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 These articles were published just 4 years before the BBC2 Mortgage Madness expose on self certification liar loans! For all details re: BBC2 Mortgage Madness expose --- SEE ALL DETAILS BELOW in my 'signature'. [Keep up the good work GordonBrownSpentMyFuture! ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 As long as banks know that the taxpayer will always pick up the tab on gambling losses, they'll keep on gambling. Remove the safety net (i.e. let some banks fail) and then we'll see who still wants to gamble So true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 They'll find some other way of enriching themselves whilst leaving carnage in their wake. It's not allowing the banks to fail that's the problem, it's not allowing the people running those banks to fail. There have to be personal consequences or they'll either move on to some other job provided by the clique, or retire on their ill-gotten gains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Cuts, deficit, bankers bonuses, deflation, smoke, mirrors. Now, now, Eric. Remove your tin foil hat. It started in America. Nobody saw it coming. Completely unexpected. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along... You forgot 'No sub prime in the UK'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 They'll find some other way of enriching themselves whilst leaving carnage in their wake. It's not allowing the banks to fail that's the problem, it's not allowing the people running those banks to fail. There have to be personal consequences or they'll either move on to some other job provided by the clique, or retire on their ill-gotten gains. I'd argue - - All bonuses, and all wages over a certainly level (50% tax band, probably) would be treated as contingent; that is, they would be subject to clawback if the institution went bankrupt or was forced into nationalization within 10 years. - All banks and other financial institutions will be non-limited liability companies. At the moment, even when institutions are allowed to go bankrupt, those who drove it over the edge can retire on a Goodwinesque pension, so the idea that allowing institutions to go bankrupt will act as a deterrent does not seem correct. Only if the management actually has skin in the game can you expect risk to be taken seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 You're older than you look, you sly old Redhat! Ooooohhhhhh..... good for my age! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 IMO, it's a political pantomime, as it really makes no odds. When the real estate market was booming, banks didn't bother to check people's income because their income was irrelevant to their ability to repay the loan. If they had ownership of a house which was rising in value in a high volume market, then by implication they had to ability to repay the loan whatever their income was. Now the market has changed, it is obviously time to make a political pantomime out of clamping down on those pesky banks by forcing them to do what they were probably going to do in any case. So now the problem is solved? Ha ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 IMO, it's a political pantomime, as it really makes no odds. When the real estate market was booming, banks didn't bother to check people's income because their income was irrelevant to their ability to repay the loan. If they had ownership of a house which was rising in value in a high volume market, then by implication they had to ability to repay the loan whatever their income was. Now the market has changed, ............... What happens now? Stalemate. Your move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 IMO, it's a political pantomime, as it really makes no odds. When the real estate market was booming, banks didn't bother to check people's income because their income was irrelevant to their ability to repay the loan. If they had ownership of a house which was rising in value in a high volume market, then by implication they had to ability to repay the loan whatever their income was. Now the market has changed, it is obviously time to make a political pantomime out of clamping down on those pesky banks by forcing them to do what they were probably going to do in any case. So now the problem is solved? Ha ha Agreed, but with one major addition. The market then was based on securitisation. Packaging up loans and seeling them onto others including pension funds, to free up the cash to lend out again, and again, and again. It was a feeding frenzy, we couldn't give out loans and repackage them quickly enough. The majority of that has gone forever. It was an insane plan and no one in their right mind now touches them. So the money in the system is now finite and severly restricted. Once its gone its gone. The government can't afford to provide a safety net as was requested. If they don't then mortgage backed securities (securitisation) is not going to happen as it's far too a dangerous bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 6, 2010 Author Share Posted November 6, 2010 n.The government can't afford to provide a safety net as was requested. If they don't then mortgage backed securities (securitisation) is not going to happen as it's far too a dangerous bet. very interesting..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Funny you should ask because until very recently... BBC: Sir James Crosby resigns from FSA ....the funny thing about his resignation was his continued denial: Sir James said in his statement that HBOS had "extensively investigated" Mr Moore's allegations, concluding that they "had no merit". Mr Moore was the former head of risk at HBOS. ...it sounds very grand to say the allegations 'had no merit' ...but what does that mean ....?...when they appeared to forecast the demise of the bank correctly....why was he not challenged on this ...?....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 I'd argue - - All bonuses, and all wages over a certainly level (50% tax band, probably) would be treated as contingent; that is, they would be subject to clawback if the institution went bankrupt or was forced into nationalization within 10 years. - All banks and other financial institutions will be non-limited liability companies. At the moment, even when institutions are allowed to go bankrupt, those who drove it over the edge can retire on a Goodwinesque pension, so the idea that allowing institutions to go bankrupt will act as a deterrent does not seem correct. Only if the management actually has skin in the game can you expect risk to be taken seriously. You need to go further. Any bank that has deposits insured by the UK taxpayer, should have directors who take personal unlimited liability for any losses if the bank needs a state bailout. They will be tapped for this for up to ten years after leaving their post. That rule alone would make the system safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 7, 2010 Author Share Posted November 7, 2010 ....the funny thing about his resignation was his continued denial: ...it sounds very grand to say the allegations 'had no merit' ...but what does that mean ....?...when they appeared to forecast the demise of the bank correctly....why was he not challenged on this ...?....... Crosby should be investigated - and put on trial. It is SCANDALOUS that he hasn't been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) Anyone know what is the latest/lowdown re: the spat between the CML & FSA?? Edited November 9, 2010 by eric pebble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted December 23, 2010 Author Share Posted December 23, 2010 :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) says the plans of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) are "flawed and impractical". That is: The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) continues its mission to wreck the UK economy for its own self interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted December 23, 2010 Author Share Posted December 23, 2010 That is: The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) continues its mission to wreck the UK economy for its own self interest. CML: The Council of Mortgage Lenders Liars. 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.