Bank of England warns of tougher curbs on mortgage lending

ILW

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Smoking could be seen as a public service. Seeing as its mainly doleites that do it.

It also helps the pensions problem and cuts down on the costs of caring for people with Alzheimers. It should be encouraged.

doire_2

It will be great to see tougher rules coming in. People cant expect to turn up at a bank and be given what they want so that they can buy any house which takes their fancy.

Poeple need to realise that they will now need a decent desposit.

chucky

doire wrote: »

It will be great to see tougher rules coming in. People cant expect to turn up at a bank and be given what they want so that they can buy any house which takes their fancy.

Poeple need to realise that they will now need a decent desposit.

those things only happen in Lala Land and in peoples imaginations who post on this type of froum.

Graham_Devon

I'm just an outside observer and have no interest or vested interest in debt mountains, apart from paying some off myself.

Personally, I think the biggest problem with debt over the last decade has been our absolutely brilliant and, somewhat naive ability to ignore the fact it has to be paid back.

Looking at remortgaging and releasing equity....it was always seen that the equity would magically replace itself, and therefore, the release of equity was free.

Looking at personal debt, it was always seen that the loan was a good idea, as inflation would make the debt cheaper over time, so you wouldn't actually pay as much back as you took. I have seen this explained on other parts of the forum aswell as this one.

The 70's seem to be a point in time which people refer to quite a lot, as a time when your debt was paid off for you.

To this day, we still have people on this forum suggesting you get the debt now, as your wages will increase, and therefore it's cheaper to buy today. No one actually knows that your wages will increase....but it's still the mindset that debt will be paid off for you.

Not always the case.

StevieJ

AD9898 wrote: »

I see weird contradictions in media reports all the time, everyone seems in a agreement that the financial crisis has been to the detriment of the UK economy, it was caused by very poor lending by the banks to very poor borrowers.

Yet when the banks wish to tighten criteria, there is uproar. It can't be refuted that this kind of lending and borrowing caused the house price bubble, and it's this very bubble that has played a major part in ruining the economy and many peoples lives.

It seems some want there cake and eat it, they want no future financial crisis at the same time as a normal housing market with sky high prices

It seems obvious to me that you can't have both, it's either one or the other.

We all know that when action is taken as a result of a crisis, action taken will go well over the top, from one extreme to another.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm just an outside observer and have no interest or vested interest in debt mountains, apart from paying some off myself.

Personally, I think the biggest problem with debt over the last decade has been our absolutely brilliant and, somewhat naive ability to ignore the fact it has to be paid back.

Looking at remortgaging and releasing equity....it was always seen that the equity would magically replace itself, and therefore, the release of equity was free.

Looking at personal debt, it was always seen that the loan was a good idea, as inflation would make the debt cheaper over time, so you wouldn't actually pay as much back as you took. I have seen this explained on other parts of the forum aswell as this one.

The 70's seem to be a point in time which people refer to quite a lot, as a time when your debt was paid off for you.

To this day, we still have people on this forum suggesting you get the debt now, as your wages will increase, and therefore it's cheaper to buy today. No one actually knows that your wages will increase....but it's still the mindset that debt will be paid off for you.

Not always the case.

good post Devon

who says the bit in Bold?

mbga9pgf

Nope, not really. I remember many asking for caps on LTV and multiples back in 2005. Unfortunately, they were dismissed as "too simple" by the idiots who were responsible for the credit crunch.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

good post Devon

who says the bit in Bold?

I'm not going to list names, as it will just provide food for argument.

It's been talked about many times before now though. "Buying a house now is cheaper than when the ticket price is cheaper". "Buy now and your wages will be more in the future". Etc etc.

heres a perfect example from yesterday, with the poster removed:

If you want a loan, have a loan. Money should be lent on the basis of ability to pay it back, not how much you earn today for a 25 year long loan. It's irrelevant, in a few years you will be earning much more.

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Nope, not really. I remember many asking for caps on LTV and multiples back in 2005. Unfortunately, they were dismissed as "too simple" by the idiots who were responsible for the credit crunch.

I don't remember the Yanks commenting on the mechanics of our housing market.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not going to list names, as it will just provide food for argument.

It's been talked about many times before now though. "Buying a house now is cheaper than when the ticket price is cheaper". "Buy now and your wages will be more in the future". Etc etc.

fair enough

wage inflation above inflation isn't going to happen in general terms but it will happen for some - so you're right wage inflation will not save people money.

but... the right interest rates and the right property prices will save people money.