BOE to get more responsibilities.

grizzly1911

DervProf wrote: »

The obvious answer, but the green lobby and NIMBY brigade will be out in force, and to a degree, understandably so.

The other alternative is........ population control.

Please don't tell anyone I mentioned that :shhh:.

What population control of the whole world as every one seems to want come here:lipsrseal

DervProf

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What population control of the whole world as every one seems to want come here:lipsrseal

The whole world, wouldn't be a bad idea. 6billion+ is a lot of mouths to feed. More of them want, are are able to afford to burn fossil fuels. More of them want, and are able to buy consumer goods that draw from the earth's finite resources. We see people living in drought ridden countires, with little food, water or medical resources. We donate a few million for a few medical supplies and emergency rations, we even spend money on trying to save/extend their lives (that sounds very harsh, but I don't mean it like that), instead of promoting birth control and relocation to regions where they can grow their own food and have a water supply. It is almost cruel to help people to just about survive in regions where there is little prospect of the climate/government/environment being able to support them as they are now, or even with a larger population.

grizzly1911

DervProf wrote: »

The whole world, .

:shhh::shhh::shhh::shhh::shhh::shhh::shhh:

shortchanged_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The thing is, how do you manage that?
If you artificially restrict lending to curb demand, because lack of supply is driving prices up, all that you do is restrict lending to the wealthier and Mr average gets squeezed out.

Artifically restricting lending would only temporarily act like a dam until lending was eased again.

Why don't they look at the root cause and try to resolve that to curb HPI?

Do you actually mean sensible lending?

The sensible thing to do would be not allow any more than 90% ltv mortgages, possibly 95% for first time buyers absolute max.

Go back to an absolute maximum 4 times single income and 3 times joint income mortgage.

Strict proof of income for the self employed. (reduction of liar loans)

Have very strict criteria for interest only mortgages with the lenders requiring frequent checks for evidence of repayment vehicle in place during the term of the mortgage.

The BOE if they are monitoring this then need to strictly enforce such lending in order to prevent or at least reduce the effects of HPI.

the_flying_pig

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...but if there were sufficient properties, then lending could be relaxed and there wouldn;t be pressure to increase offers to secure a property...

Just no. That doesn't make any sense or mean anything.

Although kudos to you for your presumption that you know better than the collective wisdom of the Bank of England's many dozens of experts.

IveSeenTheLight

shortchanged wrote: »

Do you actually mean sensible lending?

I'm happy with sensible lending

shortchanged wrote: »

The sensible thing to do would be not allow any more than 90% ltv mortgages, possibly 95% for first time buyers absolute max.

This still seems ensible, although there is an argument that you should be allowed to borrow up to 100% of the valuation.
This could be reflected in the risk to the lender by a higher mortgage rate.

shortchanged wrote: »

Go back to an absolute maximum 4 times single income and 3 times joint income mortgage.

Hmmmm, two people with the same income can have vastly different expenditure.
Why restrict people who can afford by those who spend more heavily.
The industry recognises affordability and therefore it should be assessed against disposable income, not just the flat base income.

shortchanged wrote: »

Strict proof of income for the self employed. (reduction of liar loans)

Hasn't this already occured? Wasn't the issue (in the UK) minor with few instances.
Ultimately, you still have to be able to afford the loan.

shortchanged wrote: »

Have very strict criteria for interest only mortgages with the lenders requiring frequent checks for evidence of repayment vehicle in place during the term of the mortgage.

Tough one this one.
What constitutes a valid repayment vehicle?
Playing devils advocate, could future inheritance be utilised as the planned repayment vehicle.
I/O is simply renting the property from the lender and as long as the valuation does not decrease, is there an issue?

shortchanged wrote: »

The BOE if they are monitoring this then need to strictly enforce such lending in order to prevent or at least reduce the effects of HPI.

Again, I;d rather prefer they looked at the root cause than restrict people from owning their own home.

IveSeenTheLight

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Just no. That doesn't make any sense or mean anything.

Although kudos to you for your presumption that you know better than the collective wisdom of the Bank of England's many dozens of experts.

Do the Bank Of England have control over building properties?

If not, the only option they do have is fiscal policy, which does not resolve the root cause.

If the root cause is still there, you'll still have the underlying problems, just that you have to continue to manage the problem

shortchanged_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hmmmm, two people with the same income can have vastly different expenditure.
Why restrict people who can afford by those who spend more heavily.
The industry recognises affordability and therefore it should be assessed against disposable income, not just the flat base income.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. I think this has been part of the problem in the past. Maybe this should be combined WITH affordability criteria. Therefore with your example you keep the 4 times maximum but the person with more affordability issues gets lent less.

shortchanged_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Tough one this one.
What constitutes a valid repayment vehicle?
Playing devils advocate, could future inheritance be utilised as the planned repayment vehicle.
I/O is simply renting the property from the lender and as long as the valuation does not decrease, is there an issue?

Highlighting future inheritance definately not in my opinion because it is not guaranteed. A relative can quite easily change their mind about inheritance and leave your repayment vehicle to Battersea dogs home.

With regards to IO is simply renting, in which case what's the point?

IveSeenTheLight

shortchanged wrote: »

But you have to draw the line somewhere. I think this has been part of the problem in the past. Maybe this should be combined WITH affordability criteria. Therefore with your example you keep the 4 times maximum but the person with more affordability issues gets lent less.

What if 5x is affordable?

That way the high liver may still be able to enjoy the high life and get 4x, whilst the other candidate who doesn't have such a high lifestyle could afford more.

If it is the preferrence of an individual to spend more of their disposable income on one thing than another, why restrict it if they can afford it.