Bruce Banner Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Speaking to Declan on BBC News, he said that if the proposed FSA rules come into force, 50% of people that currently get a mortgage wouldn't be able to do so. Declan's answer, they'll have to go to mum and dad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 course, obviously, 50% more could get sensible mortgages, and buy a home, if prices werent inflated by Sub prime loans in the first place. If money is worth nothing, then it matters not to anyone how much is lent, the cost of the house, or anything priced in money. Boulger...get back to the bankruptcy court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papag Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Speaking to Declan on BBC News, he said that if the proposed FSA rules come into force, 50% of people that currently get a mortgage wouldn't be able to do so. Declan's answer, they'll have to go to mum and dad. Wonder how much he has given to his kids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Wonder how much he has given to his kids £10 a week pocket money loaned at interest. APR? Phone numbers. (Probably.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted November 6, 2010 Author Share Posted November 6, 2010 http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/mortgages/ray-boulger-fsa-is-biggest-threat-to-mortgage-market/1019670.article John Charcol senior technical manager Ray Boulger says the FSA is the biggest threat to the mortgage market.Boulger’s claim follows the release of Council of Mortgage Lenders research which shows 3.8m mortgages - or 51 per cent of loan applications - would not have been granted if the regulator’s Mortgage Market Review had been in place between the second quarter of 2005 and the first quarter of 2009. Boulger says: “I actually think the biggest threat to the mortgage market over the next year is not the lack of mortgage lending - it is not even the lack of consumer confidence - it is the FSA.” Boulger has also called for the Government to step in. He says: “I’m surprised the Government hasn’t taken more of a stand on this. If the FSA proposals go through, it will have a big impact on house prices. And if we had a substantial fall in house prices, you would then need, in all probability, a second bank bailout. And you could stop all of that by sensible regulation.” Emba group sales and marketing director Mike Fitzgerald believes the measures will lead to a “lost generation” of mortgage clients. He says: “The CML research just shows you that if the MMR comes in its current format, there is going to be a dead 10 years, we’ll have a lost generation of mortgage clients. I don’t think they have got any appreciation about the impact of their rules.” “It is a social right to be able to own your own home - you are denying them that right with these proposals.” The Association of Mortgage Intermediaries and the Building Societies Association have also expressed concern about the MMR. AMI director Robert Sinclair says: “The regulators apparent aversion to a type of borrowing that has served many consumers very well appears predetermined rather than driven by rationale. When they are delivered on an advised basis and with a robust assessment of appropriateness for the customer, there is an appropriate place and use for interest only mortgages.” BSA head of mortgage policy Paul Broadhead says: “There is a real danger that the FSA could introduce over-burdensome regulation that will stifle this market and affect many existing borrowers - including many for whom this is a suitable option.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Bruno Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 What Ray Bulger says implies that 51% mortgages were provided without due diligence and were unsafe. But when the banks don't get the money back the muggins taxpayer can always bail them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Benedict XVI Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 What Ray Bulger says implies that 51% mortgages were provided without due diligence and were unsafe. But when the banks don't get the money back the muggins taxpayer can always bail them out. Boulger is quite clear about this Boulger has also called for the Government to step in. He says: “I’m surprised the Government hasn’t taken more of a stand on this. If the FSA proposals go through, it will have a big impact on house prices. And if we had a substantial fall in house prices, you would then need, in all probability, a second bank bailout. And you could stop all of that by sensible regulation.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Loan sharks like bigger loans, they get more commission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Boulger is quite clear about this Boulger has also called for the Government to step in. He says: “I’m surprised the Government hasn’t taken more of a stand on this. If the FSA proposals go through, it will have a big impact on house prices. And if we had a substantial fall in house prices, you would then need, in all probability, a second bank bailout. And you could stop all of that by sensible regulation.” So where does he get the idea that the banks will have problems from? They will only have problems if people stop paying back the loans and on what basis would they do that. They would have to go into bankruptcy wouldn't they? And that's neither easy nor a fun activity and last for years and years. I doubt that many would do that. They will fall, people will carry on as normal, maybe not being able to move, but carry on as normal. That's it. Doesn't seem 'four horsemen of the apolacypse' scenario to me. Anyone got any opposing views please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 So where does he get the idea that the banks will have problems from? They will only have problems if people stop paying back the loans and on what basis would they do that. They would have to go into bankruptcy wouldn't they? And that's neither easy nor a fun activity and last for years and years. I doubt that many would do that. They will fall, people will carry on as normal, maybe not being able to move, but carry on as normal. That's it. Doesn't seem 'four horsemen of the apolacypse' scenario to me. Anyone got any opposing views please? The banks never loaned any money. Ergo, it wil have to be created by the central bank in order to be "paid back." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pent Up Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 The proposals are to only lend to people who can afford to repay it. How the hell is that a problem. This man sure is not suggesting that the banks lend to people you can't afford to repay it? Also that 50% of people will get a mortgage no problem. Once prices have fallen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 The proposals are to only lend to people who can afford to repay it. How the hell is that a problem. This man sure is not suggesting that the banks lend to people you can't afford to repay it? Also that 50% of people will get a mortgage no problem. Once prices have fallen. Ah but that's the problem. Banks can lend to people who can't afford it, an interest only mortgage is an example. If you intend to sell the house at the end, then you only need cover the interest payments, so therefore buy a much more expensive place. That is deemed acceptable by a bank, so long as they recover their money. Also, isn't 5 or 6 x income affordable? It's relative to your lifestyle and priorities. I could eat beans and tuna every day and afford a mansion. But if I want a holiday and a new car every three years, then that's unaffordable. The FSA are restricting what they deem affordable I believe. And it's not based on ever increasing house prices. They are taking a chunk of the decision making away from the banks. Personally I think the FSA is right, but if your job is in a bank then you will think them wrong for the above reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 The proposals are to only lend to people who can afford to repay it. How the hell is that a problem. This man sure is not suggesting that the banks lend to people you can't afford to repay it? Also that 50% of people will get a mortgage no problem. Once prices have fallen. Quite right....he has to ask himself would he lend someone his own money, if the answer is no then why would he think others would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Speaking to Declan on BBC News, he said that if the proposed FSA rules come into force, 50% of people that currently get a mortgage wouldn't be able to do so. Declan's answer, they'll have to go to mum and dad. These guys just want to flog off there properties, and they are using the media to influence there views, by pretending to project unbias views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
“Nasty Piece of work” Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 I am suprised that Declan understands the idea of parentage, and RB, as the spore of Satan, will look upon it as a bizarre principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 The proposals are to only lend to people who can afford to repay it. How the hell is that a problem. This man sure is not suggesting that the banks lend to people you can't afford to repay it? Also that 50% of people will get a mortgage no problem. Once prices have fallen. Lending at interest can't be repaid as a totality. The proposals do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) Boulger is quite clear about this Cameron has made it clear there is no more cash for any more bailouts - thus banks bricking (trying to reload their empty wholly self-created 'Enron' vaults) themselves, making up any excuse not to pass mortgage applications and not lending to small/medium size businesses. Edited November 6, 2010 by erranta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) So where does he get the idea that the banks will have problems from? They will only have problems if people stop paying back the loans and on what basis would they do that. They would have to go into bankruptcy wouldn't they? And that's neither easy nor a fun activity and last for years and years. I doubt that many would do that. They will fall, people will carry on as normal, maybe not being able to move, but carry on as normal. That's it. Doesn't seem 'four horsemen of the apolacypse' scenario to me. Anyone got any opposing views please? The banks know damn well interest rates will be back to norm/10% within a couple of years - wiping out the majority of the 1.3 million (renters off the banks) on recent mewed/over-extended I/O liar loan mortgages! Edited November 6, 2010 by erranta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 The banks know damn well interest rates will be back to norm/10% within a couple of years - wiping out the majority of the 1.3 million (renters off the banks) on recent mewed/over-extended I/O liar loan mortgages! You little devil you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 ...what Boulger has to realise is his 'good old days' of bad lending are over ...Gordo has gone and therefore no more credit bubble this generation .....most of the losses have yet to be realised as the tide continues to flow out ...and the tsunami of bad debts and collapse will hit us as the crunch approaches it most destructive phases..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpc-craig Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 "A whole generation of mortgage clients will be lost" He can't even be bothered to try and disguise his VI. Just throwing his toys out of his pram because things aren't going his way anymore. Didn't Charcol's go bust anyway. if they can't manage their own income and expenditure then how can they possibly give out mortgage advice and deem what is affordable and what isn't ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the flying pig Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 ...If the FSA proposals go through, it will have a big impact on house prices... boo hoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 boo hoo ...it's actually smiles .. ... all round ...prices will adjust downwards to honest levels.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermany Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 He says: “I’m surprised the Government hasn’t taken more of a stand on this. If the FSA proposals go through, it will have a big impact on house prices. And if we had a substantial fall in house prices, you would then need, in all probability, a second bank bailout. I think we can see where he's coming from. He's effectively saying government can't afford to let house prices fall..................ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the primitive Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 Ah but that's the problem. Banks can lend to people who can't afford it, an interest only mortgage is an example. If you intend to sell the house at the end, then you only need cover the interest payments, so therefore buy a much more expensive place. That is deemed acceptable by a bank, so long as they recover their money. Also, isn't 5 or 6 x income affordable? It's relative to your lifestyle and priorities. I could eat beans and tuna every day and afford a mansion. But if I want a holiday and a new car every three years, then that's unaffordable. The FSA are restricting what they deem affordable I believe. And it's not based on ever increasing house prices. They are taking a chunk of the decision making away from the banks. Personally I think the FSA is right, but if your job is in a bank then you will think them wrong for the above reasons. If you get a £150K mortgage on a salary of £30K a year, the repayments are half your gross income at 9.29% IR. Half your NET income at much lower IR of about 6% That is not affordable for most people when you add in running a car, council tax, eating food, paying other bills, and even a rleatively modest lifestyle. 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.