Bank of England warns of tougher curbs on mortgage lending

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

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

Thats funny, because I remember it was the Jock banks that needed to be bailed out by the UK taxpayer, in particular, RBS and LLoyds.

Want to comment on Northern Rock, bearing in mind it was them who were issuing 125% home loans?

CML dismissed them, as did the FSA, whose job it was to prevent the sort of crisis Labour walked us straight into with their nonsense socialist dogma.

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Thats funny, because I remember it was the Jock banks that needed to be bailed out by the UK taxpayer, in particular, RBS and LLoyds.

Want to comment on Northern Rock, bearing in mind it was them who were issuing 125% home loans?

Cause and effect, I think you are confused remember the next step in the process, those charts that you used to produce Alt.A etc more credit damage from the good ole USA.

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

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.

For many people it isn't wage inflation that effectively erodes the debt but career progression.

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

Cause and effect, I think you are confused remember the next step in the process, those charts that you used to produce Alt.A etc more credit damage from the good ole USA.

So I suppose the role the London Traders had, together with global banks, operating under supervision of the FSA, controlled by New Labour, had nothing to do with it?

I thought (from what I was told by Jon Snow courtesy of the BBC) that the UK was the finance capital of the world, that we the best at it?

Fat lot of use that was.

RenovationMan

StevieJ wrote: »

For many people it isn't wage inflation that effectively erodes the debt but career progression.

This is what I was about to say. This is especially true with young profession FTBs, as I was many moons ago.

I bought my first house with a £38k mortgage when I earned £15k per year. I sold it 7 years or so later when I was on £37k per year.

Freebiehunter1980

I recently took a fixed rate mortgage under the impression that the rates could only go up. I'm happy with my new flat (bought with a friend - couldn't afford on my own) and see it as a long term investment. Each month I am chipping a little bit of the mortgage away rather than lining someone elses pocket - that's got to be a good thing!

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

because it doesn't fit peoples morality...

i rememeber discussing with Dervpro the morals of property investing when we were in year 3 at school and he was against it then so didn't want him to backtrack now

You may mock my moral standpoint, but it`s a view that i`ve held for a long time that encouraging multiple ownership is not a responsible thing to do when it is claimed that there is a shortage of property available to buy. I do think there is a case for investment in property, as long as it`s done with a certain degree of control. I hear tales of people on very modest salaries who have fairly quickly acquired several properties and a large pile of debt. I don`t like the idea of "speculation" on something that is so vital to everyone in this country. There was recently a news article about the price of food increasing, partly due to specualtion in the wheat market. If this continues and causes huge rises in food prices, then there`ll be an uproar. A similar thing happening in the property market would almost certainly be welcomed by many (and the media).

Funny, in the immediate aftermath of the credit crunch I heard all sorts of promises of financial reform and big changes in the way banks operate, and stronger controls on lending. A few months later, greed kicks back in again and it`s "maybe we should go back to the way things were before the financial crisis".

Wookster

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.

Reminds me of a quote I heard: Lord make me chaste, but just not yet.

ess0two

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.

Yeah and even more of a p isser this place promotes not paying it back thru un-enforceability loop-holes.

ess0two

ILW wrote: »

Think you may have got a little caught up in the hype, most of the things you mention were not even invented 20 or 30 years ago.
When I was a teenager (30 years ago) myself and all my friends all had cars. They did tend to be a little old and rubbish and cost about 50 quid but I truly cannot see that the standard of living is that much better now despite the amount of debt.

Yeah must admit most of my friends had a car,they were also peanuts to insure.
I had 2ltr Capri when i was 18,try insuring a 2ltr at 18 now.