Latest BOE mortgage data.... Rationing continues.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There would have been if no action had been taken to stop them happening.

You are kind of implying that so long as there is a solution put in place, there was never a problem.

yes that is logically true

but what facts does one have about a situation that was influenced by events?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes that is logically true

but what facts does one have about a situation that was influenced by events?

Sorry? Taking what you say is logic a step further then...

There wasn't a problem recently with the train track in Dawlish, as theres a solution to sort it out?

As for facts...I'm not entirely sure what fact you want. Interest rates were pulled to all time lows. Banks were under pressure by the government not to reposess. People in receipt of SMI almost tripled. £375bn worth of QE etc etc etc.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry? Taking what you say is logic a step further then...

There wasn't a problem recently with the train track in Dawlish, as theres a solution to sort it out?

As for facts...I'm not entirely sure what fact you want. Interest rates were pulled to all time lows. Banks were under pressure by the government not to reposess. People in receipt of SMI almost tripled. £375bn worth of QE etc etc etc.

I'm going down to Dawlish this weekend although I have no idea what you are talking about.

The issue is whether or not the UK mortgage lending pre 2007 was a problem for either the banks or the lenders.

Given we have the benefit of hindsight what is the evidence either way?

so yes we have 'forbearance ' and low interest rates
but on the other hand if there hadn't been a financial meltdown and the economy had followed its 'normal' course then would there have been a mortgage problem?

thescouselander

Of course one alternative explanation for so few mortgages being issued is that there simply aren't the houses to buy. I'm firmly of the view that the problem with the housing market of is on the supply side and nothing to do with credit conditions.

Houses are too expensive and there are not enough of them. There's no point in issuing more credit as house builders will just up their prices as we have seen under HTB.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

When the recovery is locked in, rates will quite rightly rise.

This is a real tragedy.

Too many on here think that when interest rates rise there will be higher levels of repossessions and masses if homeowners struggling due to being used to the low Bank of England base rate.

Conrad

I deffo feel the MMR from April will lead to a greater rate of applicants being declined, so more people caused to rent instead of buy.


Regulation has gone too far IF our aim is for a more meritocratic socially mobile society. If our aim is the most ordered mortgage market on Earth, then we're doing damned well.

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, but nowhere near easily enough....

Issuance of mortgages at 90% LTV or greater still under 2% of mortgages being issued..... Versus 11% before the credit crunch.

Your point in bold doesn't in itself say that there isn't "enough" availability of 95% Mortgages. It says that a relatively small number are being taken out relative to the overall market.

To know that there wan't "enough" availability (whatever that is), we'd need evidence that lots of people were applying for 95% Mortgages, and being turned down at a much higher rate than for other loans (a slightly higher decline rate for higher LTV is healthy imho).

In the absense of such information, there are a number of possible reasons why the take up is relatively low. Appetite for loans at that LTV may be limited. It may be that many of those with access to BOMAD can raise more than a 10% deposit while those without cannot raise even 5%. It may be that in many areas house prices are just too high for people to be able to afford to buy, even with the lower deposit requirements. It could even be that the number of issuances will pick up in the coming Months as the scheme becomes more widespread.

Certainly from the one piece of information you provided, I don't think it can be said that there is "insufficient" availability of 95% loans, so again, I'm yet to see anything that suggests anything other than that the era of "mortgage rationing" is well and truly over.

Percy1983

Jason74 wrote: »

Your point in bold doesn't in itself say that there isn't "enough" availability of 95% Mortgages. It says that a relatively small number are being taken out relative to the overall market.

To know that there wan't "enough" availability (whatever that is), we'd need evidence that lots of people were applying for 95% Mortgages, and being turned down at a much higher rate than for other loans (a slightly higher decline rate for higher LTV is healthy imho).

In the absense of such information, there are a number of possible reasons why the take up is relatively low. Appetite for loans at that LTV may be limited. It may be that many of those with access to BOMAD can raise more than a 10% deposit while those without cannot raise even 5%. It may be that in many areas house prices are just too high for people to be able to afford to buy, even with the lower deposit requirements. It could even be that the number of issuances will pick up in the coming Months as the scheme becomes more widespread.

Certainly from the one piece of information you provided, I don't think it can be said that there is "insufficient" availability of 95% loans, so again, I'm yet to see anything that suggests anything other than that the era of "mortgage rationing" is well and truly over.

I will say this does have some merit, the small percentage means nothing if its just wasn't desirable to many.

I know in my case the plan was to skip 10% and go for 15% due to better rates etc, the problem was the perfect house came up and off we went at 10% and got an instant approval as we waited until the moons of jupitor aligned before applying.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue is whether or not the UK mortgage lending pre 2007 was a problem for either the banks or the lenders.

Given we have the benefit of hindsight what is the evidence either way?

Both Northern Rock (August 2007) and HBOS (October 2008) required Treasury loans. As there was insufficient money on the wholesale markets to fund their business models.

Likewise the mortgage book of Bradford And Bingley was nationalised (March 2008).

Since the crash of 2008. JP Morgan have bought 90% of RMBS issued by UK banks. Foreign investors on the whole are not interested in buying UK mortgage debt.

pbouk

CLAPTON wrote: »

if you believe that the lending pre 2007 was dysfunctional then presumably that showed itself is some way over the next 6/7 years.

so presumably you have evidence of large numbers of defaulted mortgages or other mortgage delinquency?

No, but if the banks needed to be helped out and the BOE base rate needed to drop to 0.5%, then we can safely say that if these never happened, then large numbers of people would have lost their homes. If you think that wouldn't have happened, then you are insane.