Loan To Income - Progress Of The Soft Cap

[eek]

21 minutes ago, Venger said:

Finally having some fun at the BTLers' 'plight' doesn't make me a bad person.  It's about ******** time.  Carried it long enough my side against BTLer/HPI egos.  If we're nearing the end of BTL housing financialisation, hopefully the financial changes on many BTL participants will be lasting and help prevent anything similar for the long future.

 

And I don't? Busta between his tax schemes and attempts to make money any way he can is just a gift that keeps on giving.

My argument always has been that when things go boom there will be renters who are hurt by the fallout. 

22 minutes ago, Venger said:

Also my friends just had bad news today from a BTLer who agreed to a lower price on them renting a property, but now wants moar.  Maybe that's the banks fault too, or the young non-owners fault, or my fault - anyone but the innocence of the BTLers with all their multiple homes.   

That's just a market playing out. A game of brinkmanship to see who gives in first...

Edited November 14, 2016 by eek

[Venger]

2 hours ago, guest_northshore said:

Good to see that leaving up my old posts for your quoting convenience (as you requested by pm) wasn't in vain.

Whatever my ideals I hope yours eventuate, even if for different reasons.

 

For someone who seems to project they care so much about the direction of the forum and all the issues, I have difficulty in matching that against those who would ask moderators to pull their entire archive of posting history.   To chop and change activity - asking membership/posts to be deleted.

Why would one even contemplate doing that?  Remove all posts.  To detach themselves from their positions or thoughts they have shared?

Is it within your power as a member/ex-member/back-again member to request that from the moderators/admins?

I know MSE's approach, although not certain of HPC's and the moderators approach to such requests.

Quote

 

How do I remove my post?

We don't remove past posts or usernames. It disrupts the history of the Forum for all users.

If you don't want to post on the Forum any more, you can just stop posting. Nobody else will use that account.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/faqs/how-do-i-remove-my-post/

 

Just like there at MSE, we can edit our posts/remove them within a certain time period, and then those postings stay unless there are special circumstances.  

Yet to contemplate seeking all personal postings removed?  Do you not stand behind them?  Any thought that to do that would disrupt the reading of those who follow up those threads in later times?

 

On 8/8/2015 at 2:01 AM, Neverwhere said:

I'm not sure what everyone thinks is going on other than questioning and challenging opinions? That's all that discussing evidenced motivation for unevidenced positions is. I don't see what's wrong with that, especially where said positions are presented in a covertly aggressive manner. The forum is after all pseudonymous not anonymous.

 

[guest_northshore]

52 minutes ago, Venger said:

For someone who seems to project they care so much...

The input was part-clarification/part-support of a mod post because I was told it mentioned me. I previously deleted my account because someone close died, and I was angry about a lot of things. Your convenience or opinion wasn't and isn't my first concern, but all the best Venger.

[Venger]

6 minutes ago, guest_northshore said:

The input was part-clarification/part-support of a mod post because I was told it mentioned me. I previously deleted my account because someone close died, and I was angry about a lot of things. Your convenience or opinion wasn't and isn't my first concern, but all the best Venger.

Requesting deletion of account is fine if your head not in a good place - if not having to self-control to just not post.

Yet to think about deleting all posts with it because of such an event - and then think about doing same again - but then post passionately about the direction of the forum and its tone?

I stand behind my HPC positions, and won't be guilt tripped about my view that it's a strange measure to contemplate about trying to take (removal of all one's posts from a forum and on all of the issues, after years at a time of membership - and whilst coming back professing to care so much about the issues/forum).   

6 hours ago, guest_northshore said:

I have and not banned, but rather due to disagreement on treatment of some posters and progression towards a forum tone that's not for me; including attitudes noted by Democorruptcy.

However the moderators are arbiters of these things, for better or worse. Periodically update local data in case of others' interest.

 

3 hours ago, guest_northshore said:

Good to see that leaving up my old posts for your quoting convenience (as you requested by pm) wasn't in vain.

Whatever my ideals I hope yours eventuate, even if for different reasons.

Thanks for not requesting all your posts to be deleted, oh HCP-forum-one. 

[Bland Unsight]

Pretty sure that I already posted this chart from the June 2017 Financial Stability Report, but I need to update this thread so I'll post it here too:

Source

I think the comment that I made when I previously posted it is that the time of the shift in the pattern of lending at Loan to Income ratios greater than 5x looks more like first quarter 2014, which is when the FCA implemented the Mortgage Market Review than it looks like June 2014 which is when the FPC made the LTI soft cap recommendation.

For my money you have a situation where borrowers are keen to borrow as much as they can. Given that mortgage pay rates (i.e. the interest rate you actually pay) are so low compared to stress rates (the notional rate the bank use to assess affordability) the natural brake on lending is lender conduct and regulation.

I am still finding it essentially impossible to square the facts with Democorruptcy's theory (which I see he is promoting once again) that the story here is borrowers were unaware that they could borrow at high multiples post crisis and that the soft-cap was an attempt to, as per Democorruptcy "make it known how easy lending is".

That makes no sense to me. Punters find out how much they can borrow by approaching lenders and mortgage brokers. The idea that their assessment of how much they can borrow is meaningfully determined by reading announcements about macro-prudential moves by the Bank of England strikes me as being at best unlikely (and that is being diplomatic and definitely not candid).

As Digsby suggested further up the thread the truth of the Bank's intentions can't be determined from the data and their public announcements. However the idea that the LTI soft cap is pushing borrowing has always struck me as conspiracy ideation and given how thin the evidence base for Democorruptcy's claim remains it would be better if the claim was couched with some suitable weasel words ("I think that..." or "One possibility is...")

Edited August 1, 2017 by Bland Unsight