Sensible Mutuals Have To Pay For B&B

RayWolfe

Oblivion wrote: »

My argument is that financial institutions should have their liability to the FSCS guarantee scheme based on a similar assessment of risk. You know it makes sense
Dave.

Ah, but who decides what's risky?
Last year certain people, masters of the universe, with brains the size of Yorkshire, thought that lending money to buy to let'ers with self certified incomes was the safest thing next to having a cup of tea with Mother Teressa.
Allegedly.

sabretoothtigger

Buy to let mortgages have a lower average rate of arrears then normal mortgages apparently

Oblivion

RayWolfe wrote: »

Ah, but who decides what's risky?
Last year certain people, masters of the universe, with brains the size of Yorkshire, thought that lending money to buy to let'ers with self certified incomes was the safest thing next to having a cup of tea with Mother Teressa.
Allegedly.

Certainly not the FSA in its present condition ... I wouldn't give them a job sweeping the streets.

Your analysis of 'last year' is spot on, but in this year, I think enough has been learned about what works and what doesn't, to provide a very strong financial control regime.

It just requires the political will to establish it, and with the cross-party announcements today with each political leader admitting that they all need to work together to get us out of this mess, it may just happen.

Dave.

RayWolfe

Except that what we know now folk didn't know then. It was an Known Unknown. So, what's the next Unknown Unknown?




ps. I do agree with you really!