My budget wish - less FSA regulation

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Graham, you're the person making unsupported assertions. At some point it would be good if you provided some evidence, particularly since you're extremely dismissive of people who do actually have the first clue about what they're talking about.

Yawn yawn yawn.

Julie, as I say again, I cannot give the evidence you require, as you are asking me to proivide evidence of something that didn't happen.

I've already explained this, but were back there again.

They may be unsupported assertions, but you hardly need to be a brainiac to figure out if interest rates etc were back where they were in 2007, repo's would be higher. You don't need to be a brainiac to understand SMI is there to stop people losing their homes. It shouldn't need proof that you know I can't give for you to finally accept the absolute bleeding obvious.

I'm extremely dismissive of that, and your insistence to literally brush anything off with "but what if" "but more do" "but less did" "but most are ok" "but it was the US" "started by the US" "was the fault of the US"

And no doubt that will get the brush off with something to do with chewing bacca. Around that circle we go again.

julieq

DervProf wrote: »

Lax lending did indirectly cause the crisis. Wasn't it American mortgage debt that was being "meddled with" that started it all off ?

You can play with words all you like, but the root cause was debt.

Our banks were exposed to this "funny money", and that's largely part of why our economy is where it is now.

OK, so let's go back to the title of the thread and ask ourselves how exactly the FSA gets to regulate US lending.

All the FSA can regulate is what happens here, which by and large didn't cause a problem. It was put under essentially political pressure to provide more regulation, and although it identifies various combinational factors that increase UK risk, it wasn't able to find specifically systemic problems here. The measures it proposes are essentially affordability checks and prevention of what it deems risky combinations of practices. The lenders - who carry the risk - are against the proposals because they restrict lending to people they consider acceptable risks. And hence the original post I suspect.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yawn yawn yawn.

Julie, as I say again, I cannot give the evidence you require, as you are asking me to proivide evidence of something that didn't happen.

I've already explained this, but were back there again.

They may be unsupported assertions, but you hardly need to be a brainiac to figure out if interest rates etc were back where they were in 2007, repo's would be higher. You don't need to be a brainiac to understand SMI is there to stop people losing their homes. It shouldn't need proof that you know I can't give for you to finally accept the absolute bleeding obvious.

I'm extremely dismissive of that, and your insistence to literally brush anything off with "but what if" "but more do" "but less did" "but most are ok" "but it was the US" "started by the US" "was the fault of the US"

And no doubt that will get the brush off with something to do with chewing bacca. Around that circle we go again.

Graham, I've explained what you can find out and how you can construct an argument leading to your conclusions. Just because you can't construct a precise model of how repossessions would increase without the measures you blather about, doesn't mean you can't produce a model with error bars or produce a ballpark estimate.

Claiming that you can't is really just a measure of your ignorance.

So let's start by you telling us how many people received support from the government for interest payments as a proportion of the total number of mortgages, and how this evolved over time. That is a perfectly reasonable piece of data to find and will support your argument.

You won't because (a) you have no idea where to look for the data, and (b) you probably realise it's a tiny fraction of the total and you're hoping to bluster your way out of the argument by being obtuse. Eventually I will give up and go away.

As to what caused the crisis, just go and read the FSA report which concludes it was US lending. You don't have to take my word for it.

ILW

julieq wrote: »

As to what caused the crisis, just go and read the FSA report which concludes it was US lending. You don't have to take my word for it.

Well the FSA are not going to come up with a report that says it was their own failings that contributed to the crisis. They appear to just be sticking to the Gordon Brown response or "It's all the Americans fault".

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

The lenders - who carry the risk - are against the proposals because they restrict lending to people they consider acceptable risks. And hence the original post I suspect.

Don't the lenders have to consider the risks of where they are getting their funding from ? Surely the likes of NR were playing a bit "fast and loose" with their supply of funds. I suspected they were taking risks, did the FSA not see this too ? If you say it's not in the FSA's remit to police those sort of thing, well I'd say they should be doing so, and if they had done so, NR might still be an independant private company.

DervProf

ILW wrote: »

What is a Chewbacca comment?
Isn't he some kind of monkey?

Star Wars, I believe.

Never much rated those films. I am a bit "hairy" though, so julieq might have been onto something.

julieq

Generali wrote: »

Fraud is obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. Lying about your income (deception) to obtain a mortgage (pecuniary advantage) is an example of fraud.

For this not to be fraud would need a change in the law AIUI.

You'd have to show that there was widespread deception, and there is simply no evidence of that. Most people don't lie about their income on a mortgage application because (a) they have no reason to, and (b) because they assume it will be checked.

If a lender doesn't care one way or another what true income is it's not a factor in gaining a pecuniary advantage, is it?

kabayiri

Conrad wrote: »

...
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.
...

Is this true?

The overriding concern amongst the people I know is job security.

How many people are getting knocked back on mortgage applications? Perhaps the people Conrad deals with distort his view?

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Graham, I've explained what you can find out and how you can construct an argument leading to your conclusions. Just because you can't construct a precise model of how repossessions would increase without the measures you blather about, doesn't mean you can't produce a model with error bars or produce a ballpark estimate.

Claiming that you can't is really just a measure of your ignorance.

So let's start by you telling us how many people received support from the government for interest payments as a proportion of the total number of mortgages, and how this evolved over time. That is a perfectly reasonable piece of data to find and will support your argument.

You won't because (a) you have no idea where to look for the data, and (b) you probably realise it's a tiny fraction of the total and you're hoping to bluster your way out of the argument by being obtuse. Eventually I will give up and go away.

As to what caused the crisis, just go and read the FSA report which concludes it was US lending. You don't have to take my word for it.

I give up Julie.

It's basic sense. It's all you need.

Without interest rates where they are. Without SMI payments which have been extended today, reposessions would be very much higher.

I don't know why you need proof of that, or models drawn up for you. It really does just need common sense. I therefore, give up. I cannot argue with this sort of pedance.

julieq

ILW wrote: »

Well the FSA are not going to come up with a report that says it was their own failings that contributed to the crisis. They appear to just be sticking to the Gordon Brown response or "It's all the Americans fault".

Every single report has said the same thing. It also explains what happened completely. But if the facts don't match the theory, cast doubt on the facts.