• 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!

Bank plans to cap risky mortgages

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

    Bank plans to cap risky mortgages

    Charlie Bean, the Bank’s Deputy Governor, said “direct constraints” may be needed to restrict access to credit, and that homebuyers could be forced to put down sizeable deposits before being granted a mortgage by their banks or building societies. This would mean that prospective buyers would have to put down between 10 per cent and

    25 per cent of a property’s purchase price as a deposit before being able to obtain a loan.

    It is the first time that a senior official has indicated that the Bank may intervene directly with new rules on so-called “loan to value ratios” to stop risky lending. In the years before the credit crunch, some borrowers were lent 125 per cent of their property’s value and became stuck in negative equity when prices crashed. The move would also mark the return of so-called “credit controls” — scrapped in the early 1980s — which made it difficult for many borrowers to get a mortgage.

    More: Bank plans to cap risky mortgages - Telegraph

    ---------

    About ****ing time - 3x average salary is about the fair value for a house - if you want more than you are a dirty spekulant and it's just a matter of time before you get introduced to Mr Wall

    #2
    "Until the early 1980s, banks were only allowed to lend money that had been deposited by savers, therefore mortgages were effectively rationed. However, these rules were scrapped by Margaret Thatcher’s administration, which allowed banks to raise money for lending from the money markets."

    So, now we know who is responsible!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by AtW View Post
      "Until the early 1980s, banks were only allowed to lend money that had been deposited by savers, therefore mortgages were effectively rationed. However, these rules were scrapped by Margaret Thatcher’s administration, which allowed banks to raise money for lending from the money markets."

      So, now we know who is responsible!
      Responsible for what? It makes little difference whether it is from savers or other sources, the bank is still lending borrowed money. That's how it works.

      Do you think they should have a big pile of their own money and only lend from that?

      Comment


        #4
        Didn't they already do this? It's very hard to get less than 10% mortgages following changes after Northern Rock.

        As for houses being worth some multiple of salary, in poorer parts of the country you can get a 4-bed semi for £70-80k. The one I'm letting out is for sale if you'd like to invest
        If people are rich enough to force the price of houses so high in nicer areas, isn't that just supply & demand?
        Originally posted by MaryPoppins
        I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
        Originally posted by vetran
        Urine is quite nourishing

        Comment


          #5
          The problem lies with 100 per cent (and more) mortgages, allowing high lending to earnings ratios, and high risk lending.

          In other words, the credit boom of the 2000s when banks were encouraged to throw money around like confetti.

          Comment


            #6
            Which were banned a year or more ago, I thought? Or was that only a government suggestion that wasn't made a rule?
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              #7
              I don't think 100% or 125% mortgages were legally banned, but that mortgage providers internally banned them because they were (and still are) too risky.

              The danger is that as soon as there is some sort of recovery, some bright spark in a bank / building society will argue that there are big profits to be made from [placeholder for new fancy buzzword that is basically sub prime, yet bamboozles everyone into thinking it's risk free].

              Personally I think there should be a minimum deposit of 10%. Of course, expect all the lefties to start whinging that it "discriminates against those that don't have money" etc.

              Comment


                #8
                Where's the risk in offering 125% mortgages? House prices only ever go up don't they?

                There is a conflict of interests between the banks and the consumers here because it is in the banks' interest to give out larger and larger loans.

                I suppose it will be all right - so long as the banks' have to live with the consequences of their crazy lending and the government doesn't do anything stupid like bail them out.

                Bugger.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Gonzo View Post
                  There is a conflict of interests between the banks and the consumers here because it is in the banks' interest to give out larger and larger loans.
                  It's in their interest to make the most on interest from loans. Not quite the same... increasing loans to the point too many default introduces problems.
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by centurian View Post
                    expect all the lefties to start whinging that it "discriminates against those that don't have money" etc.
                    Funny you should say that. Many analysts regard the Clinton Regime's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act that addresses such 'discrimination' as being the root cause of the sub prime crisis.
                    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

                    Working...
                    X