How can we get the housing market moving?

DervProf

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

What I find a bit upsetting is that DervProf is part of the gang. I have found his posts to be pretty much on a par with mine and yet he jumps on board all of this. I guess bullies just stick together, no matter what they really believe. Perhaps Dervprof is afraid of making a stand in case he is next?

No need to get upset. I stated earlier that I did wonder if you are RM "reincarnated", that is all. I also pointed out that I agreed with a lot of what you have posted (and even if you are RM, or had posted under the username of RM, I would still have agreed with the points you made.)

If other forum members are "having a go" at you, well that's their business. I am not just jumping on board all of this, and I'm certainly not going to "bully" you. If someone says something against you that I agree with, then I might agree with them.

So far, I haven't had a go at you, although I have said that I thought RM was a bit of an egomaniac. If you are RM, then you already know this is my opinion of you, if you are not, then there is no need to get upset. This situation does remind me of my first "meeting" with RM. I seem to remember him getting upset with what he thought was me "bullying" him. All I was doing was asking him to clarify a point that he made which was wrong. Not long after that, he stopped playing the victim and started to have a pop back at me, and then a few others. I seem to remember RM using the term "Graham's gang", or something similar. Apparently I was a member of this gang. I think anyone who disagreed with RM gained automatic membership.

So, I`ve said what I think. Make of it what you will. If you aren't happy with what I post, then you could use the "Ignore" facility which RM did a few months before his demise, although just before he vanished I did seem to become a focus of his attention once3 again.

Conrad

I feel like Winston Churchil being ignored by everyone with his funny predictions the Germans were going to kick off again.


Overly tight mortgage regulation is the key reason people cannot borrow.
Great news for landlords.

One day, just perhaps, someone just might hear what I'm squeaking........

Conrad

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Your argument here isn't about banks putting a lower ceiling on the amount they are prepared to lend, it's about the banks tightening up criteria on who they will lend to.

Bit by bit from 2007 or so the FSA required lenders to proove almost beyond a doubt that every new mortgage granted, was to a bullet proof applicant.

Lenders want to lend. The FSA stops them in 2 ways. Firstly with higher capital adequacy limits and secondly by defining all sorts of hitherto perfectly capable adults, as incapable.

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

Overly tight mortgage regulation is the key reason people cannot borrow.

Not really. Just a return a prudent banking. Some of us remember bank managers that could make decisions.

Best to get use to it. As it's going to tighten further yet.

CLAPTON

Conrad wrote: »

Bit by bit from 2007 or so the FSA required lenders to proove almost beyond a doubt that every new mortgage granted, was to a bullet proof applicant.

Lenders want to lend. The FSA stops them in 2 ways. Firstly with higher capital adequacy limits and secondly by defining all sorts of hitherto perfectly capable adults, as incapable.

interesting..
what sort of restrictions do the FSA impose, on what sort of borrowers?

Gracchus_Babeuf

CLAPTON wrote: »

interesting..
what sort of restrictions do the FSA impose, on what sort of borrowers?

Presumably, no spotty youngsters without a decent track record in credit. That's no bad thing.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Presumably, no spotty youngsters without a decent track record in credit. That's no bad thing.

Or according to some, the bank goes "Hmnnnn, houses are a bit pricey. We're going to hold off lending until they get cheaper...."

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

interesting..
what sort of restrictions do the FSA impose, on what sort of borrowers?

I'm trying to avoid laundry lists as the posts end up too long and detailed.

Armchair experts also draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions.


To give one example that affects many people, the restrictions on older borrowers such as a 58 yo newly divorced needing to buy out thier ex / start over with a nnew home.

In theory lenders can lend, but in practice I assure you the bulk of applicants will be declined.

Now here's the critical point; In the past such people were trusted and 99% of em sustained a home no problem.

But now because they cannot proove beyond a doubt they can work longer into older ages / get a tesco delivery driver job at 68 / meet a new partner / get an inheritance / down size etc etc etc, they fail the responsible lending test. REMEMBER - AN EMPLOYER WILL BE RELUCTANT TO PUT IN WRITING THE EMPLOYEE CAN WORK TO SAY AGE 75 just in case of a compensation claim later on. None the less in PRACTICE people have always worked to older ages.


So perfectly capable adults are tapped on the shoulder by a nanny state, with the unwelcome news, nanny knows best, the only option is to rent.


THRUGLEMIRE - you always reply this is a return to the past, but thats flat out wrong, this is much more severe and unfair.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Or according to some, the bank goes "Hmnnnn, houses are a bit pricey. We're going to hold off lending until they get cheaper...."

I don't think so. I just did an online quote for my partner and myself taking on a new mortgage and the maximum amount we can borrow is astonishing - around 5x our income. This is clearly insane as I would never be willing to pay such a huge part of my income on a mortgage. I'd have to live on toast and marmite.

shortchanged_2

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Or according to some, the bank goes "Hmnnnn, houses are a bit pricey. We're going to hold off lending until they get cheaper...."

See, you're getting it.