Banks MUST hold more capital, and lending won't get "back to normal" until then

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ask Hamish what "normal" lending is, and he describes 95% mortgages. Well we got them.

Not like we used to, they're rationed(!) considerably more than they used to be. They are available but is anyone actually being accepted for one? There's no rejection figures available but with the average LTV being 81% it would suggest they aren't being dished out.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i agree that credit has always been rationed. the rationing is just more acute now than it was previously.

it's being moaned about because .

We have internet forums for those with an axe to grind to bang on about it.

Back in the late eighties early nineties we didn't.:)

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Not like we used to, they're rationed(!) considerably more than they used to be. They are available but is anyone actually being accepted for one? There's no rejection figures available but with the average LTV being 81% it would suggest they aren't being dished out.

And you're unlikely to EVER have them like you used to.

So would not "rationing" be better replaced by "normality"?

Would you consider the lack of having to sit down with your bank manager "abnormal" or would you consider it a normal thing now?

Aftrerall, you used to have to do it. You don't now. No one harps on about that...mainly as it suits.

This is all about how it effects us. Those who want to see lending and therefore HPI will call it rationing. Those who don't want to see HPI, won't call it rationing. if we can get over that, we can get over the continual semantics issue when deep down, were all on exactly the same level.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is all about how it effects us. Those who want to see lending and therefore HPI will call it rationing. Those who don't want to see HPI, won't call it rationing. if we can get over that, we can get over the continual semantics issue when deep down, were all on exactly the same level.

So to clarify...

Rationing is called rationing by people who want their house to increase in value but those who don't, or don't care, are going to call it something else? However deep down we're all agreeing that rationing is rationing whatever we call it and it's affecting the mortgage market?

This is squirming on an epic scale. You wouldn't have started this thread if you'd understood the implications - all you saw was "over indebted homeowners" or something similar and hit the send button.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And you're unlikely to EVER have them like you used to.

So would not "rationing" be better replaced by "normality"?

Would you consider the lack of having to sit down with your bank manager "abnormal" or would you consider it a normal thing now?

Aftrerall, you used to have to do it. You don't now. No one harps on about that...mainly as it suits.

This is all about how it effects us. Those who want to see lending and therefore HPI will call it rationing. Those who don't want to see HPI, won't call it rationing. if we can get over that, we can get over the continual semantics issue when deep down, were all on exactly the same level.

You are making a bold statement there I would like to see more lending but that doesn't mean I want to see hpi. The argument made was that self cert's and high income multiples were the main cause of hpi so wouldn't stopping self cert's and using reasonable income multiplies reduce hpi.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

So to clarify...

Rationing is called rationing by people who want their house to increase in value but those who don't, or don't care, are going to call it something else?

Seems to be the case on here. Would you disagree?

Still nothing on the OP? Or pestons blog?

Maybe time to start a new thread considering the way this one has gone.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Maybe time to start a new thread considering the way this one has gone.

Maybe not, seeing how this one has gone.

Just saying.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Maybe not, seeing how this one has gone.

Just saying.

Yes sir.....

grizzly1911

[QUOTE=Graham_Devon;56743367

Still nothing on the OP? Or pestons blog?

.[/QUOTE]

It took decades to get us into this mess things aren't going to change for along time to come. Things are going to take a long time to unravel and I don't think just writing the debt off in it's entirety are a good way forward.

The country and the west is in long term decline and there is no quick fix. Reckless lending practices may not return until people forget.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems to be the case on here. Would you disagree?

Yes I'd disagree. There have been plenty of discussions about mortgage rationing - most of us can work out what it means whether we agree about it or not. I've never seen anyone argue that there is mortgage rationing just because they want house prices to go up (or vice versa) but it's enlightening to hear you think this way.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Still nothing on the OP? Or pestons blog?

I've already mentioned that, in the absence, of rejection data this is further evidence of mortgage rationing. Peston is asking the obvious - if banks are being required to increase reserves, prepare for defaults AND lend more then what gives?