My budget wish - less FSA regulation

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Unpredictable?

There are articles in the newspapers going way back talking about irresponsible lending.

HPC predicted it and talked about it, and many of your persuassion regard them as merely idiotic imbeciles....yet here you are suggesting it was unpredictable, when a whole website of normal folk was set up predicting it, let alone experts.



As for this....if the earthquake didn't happen in Japan, the tsunami wouldn't have taken so many thousands of lives. But it DID happen. No point saying "well if it hadn't of, things would have been ok".

As for not defaulting....the government took them over. They held reposessions back, it's well known, even the government said it themselves!!

Graham, what caused the financial crisis was "toxic" securitised debt which certainly was a surprise to everyone when the problem crystallised. HPC were working themselves into their usual frenzy about irresponsible lending in the UK, which really wasn't an issue in the crisis. You don't need to take my word for it, that's what the FSA concluded.

Please show me the evidence that repossessions were prevented in any significant numbers. The default rate on mortgages remained at less than one half of one percent throughout the crisis. There was not significant unemployment which is the main driver of mortgage default.

You blather on endlessly on the idea that government action stopped massive respossessions via interest rate reductions, pressure on lenders not to repossess and mortgage assistance payments, but there is not a shred of evidence that this was anything other than an extremely marginal factor. And you don't explain how many repossessions you think this stopped as a proportion of the total (hint: it would have been a small fraction of one percent). You're just parrotting things people have told you without understanding what they mean or how significant they are. Frankly that's why you make sub optimum financial decisions (anyone for a 7% fix?), you have no facility for critical reasoning or contextualising data.

And you're missing an important point anyway, which is that we don't have to guess about what would of (sic) happened, because it was already happening pre crisis. There were 5% rates and the projections were for stagnation or slight falls. Having removed any suggestion of lax lending, prices have settled around 10% short of peak and rents are rising, showing that the principal factor was supply and demand for housing, not the availability of credit.

If you really want to believe that lax lending in the UK was the cause of the crisis, then be my guest, you'll have plenty of company. People believe in horoscopes and crystals and that the price of gold can only go up and all sorts of rubbish, much of which is supported by articles in newspapers. I prefer to go to contextualised source data and make logical inferences.

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

If you really want to believe that lax lending in the UK was the cause of the crisis, then be my guest, you'll have plenty of company.

I won't join him, but here's something to think about......

The building of towns / cities / nuclear reactors near Japan's coastline didn't cause the earthquake/tsunami.

julieq

DervProf wrote: »

I won't join him, but here's something to think about......

The building of towns / cities / nuclear reactors near Japan's coastline didn't cause the earthquake/tsunami.

The Chewbacca defense again

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

You blather on endlessly on the idea that government action stopped massive respossessions via interest rate reductions, pressure on lenders not to repossess and mortgage assistance payments, but there is not a shred of evidence that this was anything other than an extremely marginal factor. And you don't explain how many repossessions you think this stopped as a proportion of the total (hint: it would have been a small fraction of one percent). You're just parrotting things people have told you without understanding what they mean or how significant they are. Frankly that's why you make sub optimum financial decisions (anyone for a 7% fix?), you have no facility for critical reasoning or contextualising data.

Oh YAWN.

Back to the standardised response...ask for proof when you know proof cannot be given, as the thing you are asking for proof on, didn't happen.

I never said lax lending was the CAUSE of the crisis, and never have, which I also keep telling you over and over, which you ignore over and over and over.....ignoring, I presume so you can type some long winded post about your perceptions of what I think and tell me yet a bloody gain that lax lending didnt cause the crisis.

chucky

julieq wrote: »

The Chewbacca defense again

it's the usual suspects that continually use it.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

it's the usual suspects that continually use it.

Strangely, everyone and anyone who disagrees with your thoughts.

There must be a link here....Hmmm..

ILW

Ignoring the reasons, if housing costs were half what they are, would not the majority (among those that have to pay) have far better lives?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Strangely, everyone and anyone who disagrees with your thoughts.

There must be a link here....Hmmm..

again you get it wrong. Julie said it was the usual 'chewbacca response again'

surely you can't be this slow - are you pretending?

go on deflect the argument so you don't have to reply to julie's post - oh sorry you just did...

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh YAWN.

Back to the standardised response...ask for proof when you know proof cannot be given, as the thing you are asking for proof on, didn't happen.

I never said lax lending was the CAUSE of the crisis, and never have, which I also keep telling you over and over, which you ignore over and over and over.....ignoring, I presume so you can type some long winded post about your perceptions of what I think and tell me yet a bloody gain that lax lending didnt cause the crisis.

Ooooo, so lax lending didn't cause the crisis. Therefore the lending was affordable. Therefore all the guff about government measures and interest rate reductions preventing repossessions is completely irrelevant to the discussion because there was never an affordability problem in UK lending.

Which rather raises the question of why you blather on about it as if it was a factor.

It's true that it's difficult to extrapolate the full effects of the actions taken to exacerbate the worst effects of the crisis, but you can certainly do some of it. For example, you claim that mortgage interest payments were a major factor, so find out how many people received them as a proportion of the total number of mortgage payments. If it's a large proportion (it isn't) then you have a case.

Pressure on banks to avoid repossessions - you can compare arrears rates now and before the crisis and if the ratio of repossessions to arrears has changed significantly, you can sustain your case and extrapolate a "true" rate. But again it won't be a large proportion of the total.

If you're going to debate by making confident assertions, it's reasonable that you're asked to justify them. If you can't, then you're really just spouting hot air based on irrational beliefs.

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

The Chewbacca defense again

Harsh.

I think it's a decent analogy. Although irresponsible lending in the UK may not have caused the finincial crisis, the way some of our banks were lending did leave them exposed to the effects of a crisis. It's arguable that the banks that weren't offering so may high LTV products, and weren't aggresively lending such large amounts (thus relying on global financial markets) were not caught out as much as those that were.