Mortgage lending up on a year ago, says CML

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes RenoMan this may well be true IF you can afford the equivalent repayment mortgage in the first place, but both you and I know this was not the case in the previous decade and that many people were taking IO mortgages because it was the only way they could afford the payments on that mortage for a property.

So basically what I am saying is that IO mortgages have been abused over the past decade and they have helped make properties 'affordable' to some when they aren't really.

My other dislike for IO mortgages is that because they haven't been properly monitored over the past few years it was all to easy for someone to say, 'look, here is my repayment vehicle' only to stop paying into it after the mortgage has been obtained.

Can you see why now I have a dislike for IO mortgages?

It does look like the FSA have now addressed this issue in that someone must be able to afford the equivalent repayment mortgage which is of course a step in the right direction.

*sigh* We've been over this many times. The fact that some people overstretch themselves has nothing to do with their mortgage product and everything to do with their lender not having strict enough lending criteria. This can (and is being) fixed without having to withdraw IO mortgages.

As far as the person then lapsing his repayment vehicle, then that's really down to the individual concerned, he's the one who is going to get to the end of his mortgage term and have to sell the house to repay the debt.

The problem only comes in when there isn't enough equity, even after 25 years, to pay off the debt because of MEWing. The solution should be for the FSA to stop people MEWing, which would be more effective in saving people from themselves than any of your IO mortgage banning and 3.5 x salary mortgage ideas.

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

*sigh* We've been over this many times. The fact that some people overstretch themselves has nothing to do with their mortgage product and everything to do with their lender not having strict enough lending criteria. This can (and is being) fixed without having to withdraw IO mortgages.

As far as the person then lapsing his repayment vehicle, then that's really down to the individual concerned, he's the one who is going to get to the end of his mortgage term and have to sell the house to repay the debt.

The problem only comes in when there isn't enough equity, even after 25 years, to pay off the debt because of MEWing. The solution should be for the FSA to stop people MEWing, which would be more effective in saving people from themselves than any of your IO mortgage banning and 3.5 x salary mortgage ideas.

As always RenoMan we'll have to agree to disagree. While I firmly believe that the loose lending over the previous decade has caused the mess we are now in, including all the factors such as irresponsible lending of IO mortgages, too high income multiple mortgages and too low deposit requirements.

All this did was fuel an unsustainable housing boom that obviously now may take some time to correct and repair.

So as long as the banks don't open the floodgates and get silly with lending again, then eventually a happy norm should be acheived.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

As always RenoMan we'll have to agree to disagree. While I firmly believe that the loose lending over the previous decade has caused the mess we are now in, including all the factors such as irresponsible lending of IO mortgages, too high income multiple mortgages and too low deposit requirements.

All this did was fuel an unsustainable housing boom that obviously now may take some time to correct and repair.

So as long as the banks don't open the floodgates and get silly with lending again, then eventually a happy norm should be acheived.

I think all we disagree on is just who is an irresponsible borrower and who isn't and whether they should all be lumped together and treated the same.

I disagree with you that the majority of sensible borrowers should have their financial planning derailed in order to deal with a few idiots. I disagree with you the state should get more involved and more prescriptive in people's lives, I want people to be responsible for themselves and their own actions.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

p.s. Just out of interest, why do you thank all of your own posts?

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

p.s. Just out of interest, why do you thank all of your own posts?

What the hell are you on about now?

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

I think all we disagree on is just who is an irresponsible borrower and who isn't and whether they should all be lumped together and treated the same.

I disagree with you that the majority of sensible borrowers should have their financial planning derailed in order to deal with a few idiots. I disagree with you the state should get more involved and more prescriptive in people's lives, I want people to be responsible for themselves and their own actions.

But it's been strongly highlighted that if there is too much freedom in the market it all eventually goes pop. There needs to be some restrictions and regulations.

Free markets have frequently shown they are unable to regulate themselves.

AndyGuil

PERCY_THE_MUMMIES_BOY wrote: »

It's well known you are a multi-troll-sockie. Now please answer my question.

Ha! Sorry had to laugh out loud.:rotfl::D

shortchanged_2

AndyGuil wrote: »

Ha! Sorry had to laugh out loud.:rotfl::D

Yes very good. :rotfl:

I can't see this numpties comments as they and a few others have been put on my ignore list.
This place is getting a bit sockie stupid at the moment.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

But it's been strongly highlighted that if there is too much freedom in the market it all eventually goes pop. There needs to be some restrictions and regulations.

Free markets have frequently shown they are unable to regulate themselves.

I'm not sure what you are saying here in response to my post, it doesn't logically follow on?

Are you saying that responsible and irresponsible borrowers should be lumped together? Are you saying that there are only two states a market can be, either totally free or totally regulated?

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes very good. :rotfl:

I can't see this numpties comments as they and a few others have been put on my ignore list.
This place is getting a bit sockie stupid at the moment.

Yes and eventually the puppetmasters will get this part of the forum closed down. Perhaps that's what they want?