Define "High Risk" lending.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I'm saying Hamish is that if we repackaged the debt and sold off the "bad stuff" overseas, it's contradictory to then say our lending was fine, but the problem was losses on the overseas stuff.

And you haven't established a shred of evidence to show that these figures I referenced, from a BOE research paper, included some repackaged UK mortgages in the mortgage lending they claimed was "overseas".

So kindly provide some evidence to back up your claim, or stop muddling.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And you haven't established a shred of evidence to show that these figures I referenced, from a BOE research paper, included some repackaged UK mortgages in the mortgage lending they claimed was "overseas".

So kindly provide some evidence to back up your claim, or stop muddling.

YOU claimed it was overseas. You appear to be disagreeing with yourself now and getting into a right old pickle.

It wasn't UK mortgage lending the UK banks lost all that money on, it was overseas mortgage lending.

Graham_Devon

And while were at it, as it's you Hamish who appears to be questioning everyone elses definition of high risk (and from what I can see, were all pretty much on the same page, though we can't define it absolutely as it depends on so many factors)...

Maybe you could correct us, and tell us what High Risk actually is? Apparently it's us that have no idea what we are talking about (your last paragraph in your OP), so why ask us?

Thrugelmir

HBOS profits and losses

2001 £3.0 billion profit
2002 £3.0 billion profit
2003 £3.8 billion profit
2004 £4.6 billion profit
2005 £4.8 billion profit
2006 £5.7 billion profit
2007 £4.1 billion profit
2008 £10.8 billion loss
2009 £12.3 billion loss
2010 £2.3 billion loss
2011 £3.7 billion loss
2012 £255 million profit

In round numbers HBOS has made £100 million profit in the past 12 years.


UK banks not taking risks? Some would say excessive. Thats why we've the problems today.


A pure a UK bank as you'll find.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

UK banks not taking risks? Some would say excessive. Thats why we've the problems today.

The problem is though, most of those risks were not on UK residential mortgage or small business lending.

They were overseas misadventures.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The problem is though, most of those risks were not on UK residential mortgage or small business lending.

Which you could say suggests UK lending is currently at the correct level.

Of course, what you say about overseas stuff is nonsense...but, if we have to go down that route, it only leaves the fact that UK lending is working....why turn it into a risk?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

YOU claimed it was overseas. .

Here you go....

The exact quote:

"UK-owned banks have lost 15 times more on foreign mortgages, since the crisis started, than on mortgages in the UK".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17398014

Now put up or shut up Graham.

Provide some evidence that those "foreign mortgages" being referenced included repackaged UK mortgages.

Or stop muddling.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Of course, what you say about overseas stuff is nonsense...but, if we have to go down that route, it only leaves the fact that UK lending is working....why turn it into a risk?

UK lending in 2007 was working. After all, the current default figures include all those loans.

Why claim something was high risk when it clearly wasn't?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Here you go....

The exact quote:

"UK-owned banks have lost 15 times more on foreign mortgages, since the crisis started, than on mortgages in the UK".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17398014

Now put up or shut up Graham.

Provide some evidence that those "foreign mortgages" being referenced included repackaged UK mortgages.

Or stop muddling.

This is research by Broadbent. Hardly someone who you could describe as "level" when it comes to this sort of stuff.

As the article states:

Not everyone will buy these arguments.

I, for one, don't.

His research is based entirely end figures, but as the article suggests, that's not a good way of looking at things. It's ok to suggest for instance that UK households owe X amount and has X amount in assets.

However, the people with the debt don't, in general, own the assets, and the whole argument falls apart.

Theres also this to consider (which I know you won't, but hey ho).

Likewise, had it not been for the Bank of England's record low interest rate policy, bank losses on UK housing over the past few years would have been considerably greater.

Then theres SMI, forebearnace (of which the banks can't even tell us the quantity or quality) and we go on. Theres plenty of reasonings in the article. It doesn;t make it correct just because one man says it.

The very first, highest rated comment states all you need to know. If you rig the system so you can't lose, you won't lose.

If the US allows a correction to take place (which they did), the US will show greater losses. Other countries are also different to us. They can hand the keys back and walk away. We can't. Therefore again, losses are going to increase elsewhere. You can't simply suggest this means UK lending was ultimately low risk, it means the fundementals are different.

It means we have weaknesses you won't even acknowledge. Weaknesses the banks are acknowleding hence lower risks taken.

It's pretty easy stuff in truth.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH
Here you go....

The exact quote:

"UK-owned banks have lost 15 times more on foreign mortgages, since the crisis started, than on mortgages in the UK".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17398014

Now put up or shut up Graham.

Provide some evidence that those "foreign mortgages" being referenced included repackaged UK mortgages.

Or stop muddling.

So? UK banks are international! HBSBC only generates 10% of operating income in the UK. RBS operated in 83 countries around the world at the peak when largest bank in the world. .

Grasp..... straws........... springs to mind.