• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Gordon Brown to bar 100pc mortgages

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Gordon Brown to bar 100pc mortgages

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...mortgages.html

    Gordon Brown to bar 100pc mortgages
    Gordon Brown is to prevent banks and building societies offering 100 per cent mortgages in an attempt to usher in a new era of "responsible lending".

    The Prime Minister and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, will make the move in a tacit admission that the Government did not do enough to stem the wild lending policies that played a major role in creating the credit crisis.

    Although critics will claim that the Government is acting too late – few if any 100 per cent mortgages are available to home buyers now – ministers insist that action must be taken to stave off a future crisis.

    "This will be a symbol of a new era of responsible lending," a senior government source told The Sunday Telegraph.

    Mr Brown, who visits Berlin on Sunday for an economic summit with fellow European leaders, and Mr Darling have asked the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to review the rules that allow lenders to offer loans worth the entire value of a property – or even more.

    However, sources made it clear that the FSA was effectively being ordered to recommend a ban, which ministers would implement immediately. It would apply only to new loans.

    Mr Brown said: “We have got to get the balance right between serving home owners better and encouraging responsibility in the housing market. Britain needs to lead the world in reforming and restructuring our banking system.”

    Ministers also want to step up the drive to get banks offering "traditional" home loans worth between 75 and 95 per cent of a property's value – a market that has been badly hit by the recession.

    To this end, they will make banks agree to increase lending as a condition of participating in the taxpayer bail-out of "toxic" assets, the full details of which are expected to be agreed this week.

    The "asset protection scheme" will see the taxpayer underwrite bad assets under an open-ended agreement that will potentially cost hundreds of billions of pounds.

    A Treasury source said: "Clearly there will be some insurance provided for some assets – the exact figure to be agreed and decided. Our priority is to get some conditions attached to that in the form of additional lending. If you can free up capital it should make it easier to lend."

    Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which is almost 70 per cent-owned by the taxpayer following its £20 billion autumn rescue, is planning to place about £250 billion of toxic assets in the scheme.

    Meanwhile, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Ken Clarke, the shadow business secretary, calls on the Government to go further still in its efforts to boost lending – this time in the car industry.

    He wants the finance arms of car companies to be treated in the same way as banks, giving them extra, government-backed security for loans.

    His comments come after the Unite union claimed that an unnamed British car plant was on the brink of closure unless the Government bailed it out. Ministers played down the claims but Unite said bosses from the car company involved would be meeting ministers tomorrow.

    It was also confirmed yesterday that Mr Brown will visit President Barack Obama in Washington next week. It is thought that he will be the first EU leader to do so.

    ===========================

    "Ministers also want to step up the drive to get banks offering "traditional" home loans worth between 75 and 95 per cent of a property's value – a market that has been badly hit by the recession."



    Surely he should be banning any mortgage over 75% and more than three times salary?

    #2
    Shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted? Yes, these measures should be implemented, but since his days in office are numbered, this should be agreed as a cross-party policy. (not saying that that's realistic under our current political system)
    Speaking gibberish on internet talkboards since last Michaelmas. Plus here on Twitter

    Comment


      #3
      This should have been done years ago and I was personally complaining that this was a major problem while banks were allowing mortgage increases for consumer items such as cars, kitchens and repaying of unaffordable credit-card debts. The guys an idiot and should never have been Chancellor let alone PM. Low interest rates were never the problem, but lack of credit controls certainly was.

      Comment


        #4
        Wonder what these people who have 95% mortgages in a falling market, never mind those with 100-125% mortgages are going to do come remortgage time. Sit on a relatively more expensive variable rate I assume compounding the problem.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Manic View Post
          Wonder what these people who have 95% mortgages in a falling market, never mind those with 100-125% mortgages are going to do come remortgage time. Sit on a relatively more expensive variable rate I assume compounding the problem.

          Variable rates have fallen dramatically since October, so anybody remortgaging should be able to get a better rate once their high fixed rate ends. The major problem is that many people are still locked into high fixed rates because Brown failed to cut interest rates dramatically in 2007 when the first signs of a credit crunch were obvious. This failure of HMG has exacerbated the current problems.

          Comment


            #6
            I held my nose and read the original article on the Observer's website.

            One paragraph got me:

            We do not envisage, as some have advocated, a rigid divide in future between "narrow banking" - retail and corporate deposit taking - and investment banking and trading conducted at an international level. But while no one is advocating a retreat to single-purpose, nationally focused banks, we do want to see the reinvention of the traditional savings and mortgage bank in Britain, for loans to be made on prudent and careful terms, not just to people with large deposits, but to first-time buyers and those on middle and modest incomes who wish to buy their home but who have not been able to save a huge deposit.
            The first point is up for debate (seperation of investment and commercial banks) - I happen to agree on a divide, but there is a case for allowing the mixture.

            However, the last point about modest incomes access to the mortgage market is the origin of the sub-prime problem that Clinton created.
            How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

            Follow me on Twitter - LinkedIn Profile - The HAB blog - New Blog: Mad Cameron
            Xeno points: +5 - Asperger rating: 36 - Paranoid Schizophrenic rating: 44%

            "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office" - Aesop

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by HairyArsedBloke View Post
              However, the last point about modest incomes access to the mortgage market is the origin of the sub-prime problem that Clinton created.
              The opposite of due dilligence in fact.

              It was stupid then, so imagine how stupid it is for Brown to advocate repeating it.

              Comment


                #8
                I agree we should go back to max 3x salary, but cant see it happening. THat would mean a large chunk of property owners who have bought a hosue in the last 10 years having the value of their houses halved overnight as nobody ill be able to afford the current prices. Nobody will sell as they will refuse to "lose" this amount of money. First time buyers would be over the moon!!

                I stil haven't bought my first house, but got a mortgage quote last week. On my income they will loan me £350k as long as Iget a £50k deposit, then pay back £1700 per month for the next 30 years. Now call me old fashioned but the though of giving up £50k immediately and £1.7k per month for a good chunk of my life seems a hell of a lot of money. I know I will go through with it, but it made me think "Is it financially sensible to commit this much money for30 years and still expect a decent standard of living, or would I be better renting a nice house and have more expendable income?"

                It supports the German way of life where only 40% of the poulation own a house

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by JoJoGabor View Post
                  I agree we should go back to max 3x salary, but cant see it happening. THat would mean a large chunk of property owners who have bought a hosue in the last 10 years having the value of their houses halved overnight as nobody ill be able to afford the current prices. Nobody will sell as they will refuse to "lose" this amount of money. First time buyers would be over the moon!!

                  Most owners of larger properties have equity, so the 3x salary will not affect them, and I for example have almost 95% equity, but am not selling anyway. I will be renting this out and maybe buying a smaller property to live in.
                  This will only really affect those at the lower end, but lower-end properties have been grossly overpriced for years, so it is a good thing for me also, and long overdue.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by JoJoGabor View Post
                    I agree we should go back to max 3x salary, but cant see it happening. THat would mean a large chunk of property owners who have bought a hosue in the last 10 years having the value of their houses halved overnight as nobody ill be able to afford the current prices. Nobody will sell as they will refuse to "lose" this amount of money. First time buyers would be over the moon!!
                    Nobody is selling anyway.

                    House prices are 'halving' anyway.

                    We are planning for the time when lending restarts. The 3x limit will be about right, so it makes sense to implement it now if that's the level we want the market to be at.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X