My budget wish - less FSA regulation

Conrad

Yes, yes, I'm a broker, but I earn more now that mortgages are so hard to come by, so this is not some VI plea from me.

This is about giving grown adults thier heads again. FSA regulation has severly curtailed the dreams of many a would be home owner which has a considerable knock - on negative impact on economic sentiment.

A tiny proportion of owners get repossessed, yet the curtailment of lending by FSA regulation has a hugely disproportionate effect and stops millions even get a chance at ownership. The claim made is that better regulation is about TREATING CUSTOMERS FAIRLY via prudent lending, but this takes no account of the fact millions of them are thus excluded from home ownership which creates a two tier society in this regard. In other words, in the round, far more people are not treated fairly as they don't even get shot at ownership.

I'm not going to go into all the in's and out's again, suffice to say I want to see a meaningful scaling back of FSA mortgage regulation so that millions of aspirant hard working Brits can once again follow thier dream and not be forced to rent.

System

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3127374

ILW

Conrad wrote: »

Yes, yes, I'm a broker, but I earn more now that mortgages are so hard to come by, so this is not some VI plea from me.

This is about giving grown adults thier heads again. FSA regulation has severly curtailed the dreams of many a would be home owner which has a considerable knock - on negative impact on economic sentiment.

A tiny proportion of owners get repossessed, yet the curtailment of lending by FSA regulation has a hugely disproportionate effect and stops millions even get a chance at ownership. The claim made is that better regulation is about TREATING CUSTOMERS FAIRLY via prudent lending, but this takes no account of the fact millions of them are thus excluded from home ownership which creates a two tier society in this regard. In other words, in the round, far more people are not treated fairly as they don't even get shot at ownership.

I'm not going to go into all the in's and out's again, suffice to say I want to see a meaningful scaling back of FSA mortgage regulation so that millions of aspirant hard working Brits can once again follow thier dream and not be forced to rent.

Are you still going on about how it is difficult for octogenarians to get new mortgages?

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3127374

I think he wants a bit more than that.

This is the guy who openly admits championing fraud. I'd assume he no longer wants the fraud he champions, to remain fraud. Rgather just let people do whatever they like.

julieq

Fraud is an emotive word. What he is asking for is that lenders are allowed to manage their own risks without excessive regulation. It's up to a lender to choose what basis he or she lends on, how much verification they do and how defaults are financed.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Whilst you are at it you might aswell campaign for the abolishment of risk assessment whilst calculating insurance premiums.

tomterm8

julieq wrote: »

Fraud is an emotive word. What he is asking for is that lenders are allowed to manage their own risks without excessive regulation. It's up to a lender to choose what basis he or she lends on, how much verification they do and how defaults are financed.

If you as a lender manage your lending badly will UK taxpayers have to pick up the pieces?

julieq

The whole point is that risk is best managed by assessment not rules. Rules can eradicate the possibility of risk, but they're a blunt instrument and remove niche opportunities.

The only reason there's any allowable argument about whether capitalists can take risks with their money (or their shareholders') to generate returns - and bear in mind that these returns feed through to the prudent who save, or to pensioners - is the perception that the taxpayer is underwriting the risks and has made big losses doing so because of excessive risktaking. That's a gross distortion of what happened.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Fraud is an emotive word. What he is asking for is that lenders are allowed to manage their own risks without excessive regulation. It's up to a lender to choose what basis he or she lends on, how much verification they do and how defaults are financed.

Not if its the taxpayer bailing the banks out and bailing the mortgagee's out, while bailing out FTB's due to credit fuelled increased prices, its not.

If you are porposing banks and borrowers place the risk on themselves and are responsible for the risk themselves, fine.

But thats not the case. The taxpayer faces all the risk.

DervProf

Had it not been for a big cut in base rates and a little "advice" from the government for banks to go easy on mortgage holders in arrears, then it is quite possible that we'd would be seeing a large number of repo's by now. The "light touch" regulation of the financial services arguably left many consumers in a very precarious position, who were then "saved" by massive government intervention. And now we get calls for "light touch" regulation to be reinstated.

It's like a child going very close to an open fire, before the parent pulls the child back and puts up a guard. The argument is that the child didn't get burned, so why not remove the guard again ?

Graham_Devon

DervProf wrote: »

It's like a child going very close to an open fire, before the parent pulls the child back and puts up a guard. The argument is that the child didn't get burned, so why not remove the guard again ?

Except this time, the call is for the parent to be removed too.