Rate cuts passed on at last

crazygaijin

All this talk of cheaper mortgages doesnt mean a thing unless someone can actually get it.

I cant seem to get anything less than 5%, which is anoying when everyone is talking about huge reductions.

So forget for a min what the talk is, whats the truth actual % of mortgage that is possible to be accepted?

stonethrower

If the link below is true banks wont pass on other cuts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5114787.ece

drbeat

chucky wrote: »

mortgage fraud - i'm assuming that's what everyone did to get a mortgage previously... well your interpretation of that because that was the excuse that you made to yourself because you were not able to get one i can only assume.

not everyone committed fraud - it was because they had enough earnings.
and for your info, you don;t need just a good credit history - other criteria is involved.

i don't know anyone who had a 10x morgage, that's just an urban myth of the A44Downey, Fatpig, Napoleon and the others who are misfortune even to themselves.

being a wannabe house owner is not a good thing especially when you're never going to be one.

No my post was based on fact - Mortgage fraud had a huge part to play in the massive house price inflation that we've seen.

chucky

drbeat wrote: »

No my post was based on fact - Mortgage fraud had a huge part to play in the massive house price inflation that we've seen.

i suggest that you speak to these guys http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/practicenotes/mortgagefraud.page if you say it was "huge", you may get a reward if you have "facts"

of course people lied about getting a mortgage - on a "huge" scale. i don't think so somehow. sorry to disagree.

WTF?_2

stonethrower wrote: »

If the link below is true banks wont pass on other cuts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5114787.ece

They'd be mad to. Back when banks funded most of their lending from deposits, changes in base interest rates simply meant they adjusted their savings and loan rates accordingly (and skimmed the difference as profit).

Now that they have to go to the markets to get their cash, base rate changes can't simply be passed on unless the markets reflect the change. And in order to 'maintain lending at 2007 levels' as government strategy calls for, the banks MUST go to the markets as there is a massive shortfall between deposits and 2007-style lending demand.

There's also the somewhat inconvenient fact that many of them are 'broke' and need to recapitalise. To do that, they have to turn profits. Not so easy to do it on the markets since they are no longer rising consistently so they look to make money on their traditional lending operations. Which means trying to pocket more of the difference between borrowed/loaned rates. Except that the government is exerting political pressure to stop them doing this and in fact has just made them take a cut in their margins.

If you look at the banks which eventually did pass on the 150bps cut in rates, they are pretty much all the banks which got into trouble and had to be rescued with taxpayer money. Which means that the government has interfered but promised them that they will make up the shortfall. Which means more public money being pumped into the banks, making the problems last longer and complicating things even further with respect to government borrowing.

This whole thing is increasingly becoming a mess. We've had government pressure on repossessions policy, interest rate cuts and no doubt soon on job cuts. They have provided a very costly taxpayer crutch to the banks and are now proceeding to kick away at the good leg.