Banks continue to find new and innovative ways to ration mortgages

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Considering you have highlighted white in capitals to make a point of it, what point are you actually making?

I'm not trying to create a racist argument, that patently is racist. Just not sure what the point actually is!?

Misunderstanding here Graham. Firstly I was replying to Hamish, not you, so if anything in my reply addresses anyone at all here it's him. Secondly I was representing Daily Mail attitudes and their agenda, which essentially is that "things were better in the old days before all the outsiders arrived and changed things with all that human rights stuff". The Daily Mail famously championed the Nazis, it's a nasty newspaper and always has been.

I hadn't read your post when I reacted to Hamish's. I don't believe you're a racist, that's ridiculous, and if the post gave that impression I apologize. It was just a cross posting, that's all.

That said, I doubt anyone under the age of 55 ever went to an interview with their bank manager for a mortgage or anything else. Possibly this happened in the 1970s (when inflation was rampant and lending rates correspondingly high). I remember in the very early 1980s writing to mine personally about an overdraft, but that wasn't usual. Mortgages were arranged via filling out a form just as they are now.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

"BTL and such" are the people with large deposits and flawless credit ratings.

It's exactly what I'm saying.

They also have 2 houses the bank can repossess: their home and the investment place.

homelessskilledworker

julieq wrote: »

God Hamish, it's the Daily Mail, and therefore is nonsense by definition. Spanish banks, eh? In my day we walked to the local ENGLISH branch and chatted to the nice prudent WHITE bank manager who knew our finances, and he gave us a nice prudent mortgage. Never been the same since the Foreigners arrived... (etc)

It's easy to ration mortgages, you just have a pool of money and close deals when it's used up. This will be about a possible interpretation of FSA affordability criteria based around irregular large spending transactions, in accounting terms this would be provisions. Those added to monthly bills give a good assessment of affordability. Whether it's necessary is moot, but for heaven's sake don't use a Daily Mail article as evidence of anything at all.

WHY do you bring race into every topic? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I know you have shacked up with your coloured boyfriend now, but does this board have to hear about your constant race relations on here, what has it to do with property?

shortchanged_2

Hamish you know the true situation is that lenders are not lending enough to allow buyers to be able to afford current house prices.
It's basically a reverse of the situation during the boom years, when the banks were lending ever larger amounts that in turn pushed prices up higher and higher. Now they have seen the error of their ways and are trying to fix things.

Now we have reached the point where there is a void in the amount banks are willing to lend in comparison to the amount people want to sell for, therefore the result this time is downward pressure on houseprices.

So what have we got now. A very low level of transactions largely sustained by cash buys and many sellers sitting and praying that they are one of the lucky ones who attract a cash buyer.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

Hamish you know the true situation is that lenders are not lending enough to allow buyers to be able to afford current house prices.

For the lucky few who can get a mortgage, the banks are still on the whole willing to lend enough to fund today's values.

This isn't the problem.

It's the fact they're only lending a third or so the number of mortgages they used to that is the problem.

And falling house prices will not solve that problem. We are averaging around 50,000 mortgages a month, when we need to be issuing more like 120,000 mortgages a month. Even if prices fell by an economy-destroying 50% from here, there would still be a shortfall.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Misunderstanding here Graham. Firstly I was replying to Hamish, not you, so if anything in my reply addresses anyone at all here it's him. Secondly I was representing Daily Mail attitudes and their agenda, which essentially is that "things were better in the old days before all the outsiders arrived and changed things with all that human rights stuff". The Daily Mail famously championed the Nazis, it's a nasty newspaper and always has been.

I hadn't read your post when I reacted to Hamish's. I don't believe you're a racist, that's ridiculous, and if the post gave that impression I apologize. It was just a cross posting, that's all.

That said, I doubt anyone under the age of 55 ever went to an interview with their bank manager for a mortgage or anything else. Possibly this happened in the 1970s (when inflation was rampant and lending rates correspondingly high). I remember in the very early 1980s writing to mine personally about an overdraft, but that wasn't usual. Mortgages were arranged via filling out a form just as they are now.

I think we have both misunderstood then as I didn't believe you were calling me a racist.

I'm left baffled as to why some daily mail commentators suggesting they used to have to go to see the bank manager can be turned into suggesting they are somehow being racist, but we shall leave it as that.

homelessskilledworker

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think we have both misunderstood then as I didn't believe you were calling me a racist.

I'm left baffled as to why some daily mail commentators suggesting they used to have to go to see the bank manager can be turned into suggesting they are somehow being racist, but we shall leave it as that.

It's not just you GD, for the life of me I don't know how she managed to throw yet another race card issue in there.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So as many will know, I've been banging on about this issue for some time now, as mortgage rationing is the single biggest cause of the decline of homeownership in the UK.

Owner occupation levels are down to figures last seen in the 1980's, and we are storing up vast problems for the future by creating a socially disenfranchised Generation Rent.

Now some posters on here seem to mistakenly believe that the current absurd lending restrictions are historically normal, which is of course wrong.

The current lending restrictions are designed for one thing alone, to reduce the pool of borrowers to match the pool of available funding.

Until now this has been done by abandoning historically normal, prudent, and sensible lending criteria such as requiring a 5% to 10% deposit, an average credit rating and a decent employment history, and replacing it with unusually tight criteria such as requiring 25% deposits, long term flawless credit ratings, etc.

But the banks now have a problem...

Since the rules changed in early 2008, large numbers of people have been quietly saving up the required deposit levels and according to the estimate of at least one MPC member, the number of those with deposits will now start to increase rapidly.

Furthermore, the biggest generation of people in history, bigger even than the boomers, is about to start reaching FTB age. From late 2012 onwards the numbers will grow steadily every year, until peaking in the mid 2020's. and then starting to decline again. Indeed, it will be sometime around 2035 before there are as few FTB's competing for mortgage lending and houses as there are today.

So the banks, in the absence of more funding, must now find new and innovative ways to restrict mortgage lending.... And it seems those ever-creative little rascals have found a beauty this time.



Yes folks that's right, the banksters, desperate to avoid facing the political consequences of raising deposit levels still further to perhaps 40% or higher, have now introduced criteria so vague, so open to interpretation and so absurd, even Priced Out are up in arms about it.



Of course, such checks are patently absurd and verging on downright intrusive.



Indeed.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106173/Want-mortgage-Tell-spend-presents-Bank-delves-deeper-personal-lives-penalise-extravagance.html#ixzz1nNy3kgmu

the same old sh1te, eh.

1 - "mortgage rationing" played a small part, if any part at all in falling home ownership rates, which started long before banks' willingness to lend reached its peak.



the real driver is very obviously the increased popularity of BTL [caused in part by ZIRP]

2 - i really, really, really don't understand the pwoperdee rampers' squealing about lenders carrying out spending checks. they're the very same people who always used to bleat about income multiples being far too crude a measure of creditworthiness because they didn't include differences in spending. if neither income nor spending checks are any good you're left with, well, no checks, and presumably taxpayers on the hook again, more bank bailouts, repo forebearance, SMI, etc.

3 - i cannot for the life of me get understand your "new and innovative" point. it beggars belief why believe that both: (1) bank profit maximisation is best served by not lending to creditworthy borrowers; and (2) that there'd somehow be case for intefering with this profit-maximising behaviour if so.

michaels

JULIEQ I hope your account has been hacked.

julieq wrote: »

God Hamish, it's the Daily Mail, and therefore is nonsense by definition. Spanish banks, eh? In my day we walked to the local ENGLISH branch and chatted to the nice prudent WHITE bank manager who knew our finances, and he gave us a nice prudent mortgage. Never been the same since the Foreigners arrived... (etc)

It's easy to ration mortgages, you just have a pool of money and close deals when it's used up. This will be about a possible interpretation of FSA affordability criteria based around irregular large spending transactions, in accounting terms this would be provisions. Those added to monthly bills give a good assessment of affordability. Whether it's necessary is moot, but for heaven's sake don't use a Daily Mail article as evidence of anything at all.

julieq

Well no, it wasn't hacked, but I didn't realise that irony was no longer allowed.

It's kind of amusing - but sad - that homelessskilledworker's nasty little jibe about the fact I'm married to an immigrant is left here when the original post parodying Daily Mail attitudes to Johnny Foreigner was removed (but then quoted twice). I'm not playing the race card, I'm commenting on how the Daily Mail views the world.

And of course the killing joke here is that a sad thicko, embittered because his wife dumped him and took half the equity from his house, ACTUALLY plays it and no-one complaining turns a hair. I'm not going to press the "report" button, because that in itself is pretty pathetic, but frankly there is more racism and outright nastiness in the comment about my "coloured boyfriend" than you'll ever find in anything I post. Not that it's the first of the kind from this poster and his previous incarnations.

The Daily Mail is an unpleasant newspaper. It has an agenda based on the idea - not so far away from hsw's philosophy - that somehow the country has been wrecked by groups it doesn't like, which includes immigrants and foreigners, particularly Europeans, and it's painting something that is in fact a reasonable interpretation of affordability criteria as snooping and rationing, when that isn't needed. In using an article from it to make a point Hamish isn't doing the side of the argument that uses proper data and proper arguments any favours.