Osborne: Scrapping HTB would be "intergenerational theft"

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham, you seem to be immensely confused.

On the one hand you talk about wanting young people to be able to buy a house.

And then you advocate policies which prevent millions of people from buying a house thanks to mortgage restrictions.

How does this allow more people to buy a house?

Or get more houses built?

And what use are cheaper house prices if hardly anyone can get a mortgage to buy one?

I'll ask this one again, as you have a knack of avoiding it.....;)

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So the only solution is to increase the amount of debt in order to avoid artifically reducing demand...

Which means lending an amount over and above the value of the asset, and ignoring risk. Afterall, demand is everywhere, how else would you avoid "artifically reducing it" other than handing mortgages out to all and sundry?

So much wrong with your post.....

The alternative to artificially reducing demand is simple..... to quote Hamish "sensible and historically normal mortgages to creditworthy people" oh and
Build more houses. We have a lack of housing in this country, this is an indisputable fact.

Graham_Devon

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

So much wrong with your post.....

The alternative to artificially reducing demand is simple..... to quote Hamish "sensible and historically normal mortgages to creditworthy people" oh and
Build more houses. We have a lack of housing in this country, this is an indisputable fact.

And that's what we had. Banks lending to people who passed their risk scoring.

Then HTB came along specifically to guarantee the risk that the banks were not willing to take.

And "risk" is the key word both you and Hamish are doing all you can to avoid.

Policies such as HTB have not featured in any of the "prudent, historical or normal" lending you guys keep advocating. So it seems really, we all want the same thing..... mortgages for people who can afford them.

The only difference is, I care about the risk.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And that's what we had. Banks lending to people who passed their risk scoring.

Then HTB came along specifically to guarantee the risk that the banks were not willing to take.

And "risk" is the key word both you and Hamish are doing all you can to avoid.

Graham you know full well that is a load of absolute nonsense.

The banks were using excessively draconian "risk scoring" to deliberately exclude enough borrowers so as to shrink the pool of applicants to match the much smaller pool of available funding.

This was only needed because of the dysfunctional lending markets after the global financial crisis.

What the government and BOE have done with HTB, FFL, etc, is restore partial functionality to dysfunctional markets.

Policies such as HTB have not featured in any of the "prudent, historical or normal" lending you guys keep advocating. .

Because they were never needed.

This is the first time in nearly a half century that banks have had to deliberately exclude millions of creditworthy, low risk, borrowers to ration limited funding.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The only difference is, I care about the risk.

Absolute Rubbish.

You couldn't care less about the risks of lending, you just want prices to fall.

You would vote for economic armageddon if you thought it would bring down house prices. You are obsessed with it. You want a crash at any and all costs, and consequences for wider society and the banks be damned.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham you know full well that is a load of absolute nonsense.


Because they were never needed.

This is the first time in nearly a half century that banks have had to deliberately exclude millions of creditworthy, low risk, borrowers to ration limited funding.



Absolute Rubbish.

You couldn't care less about the risks of lending, you just want prices to fall.

You would vote for economic armageddon if you thought it would bring down house prices. You are obsessed with it. You want a crash at any and all costs, and consequences for wider society and the banks be damned.

Beat me to it....:T

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This was only needed because of the dysfunctional lending markets after the global financial crisis.

Caused by everything you now offer up as the solution.

Were going around in circles here Hamish, so have a nice afternoon.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Caused by everything you now offer up as the solution.

Were going around in circles here Hamish, so have a nice afternoon.

House building was the cause of the financial crisis..... You get better and better.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Caused by everything you now offer up as the solution.

Increased UK mortgage lending caused the global financial crisis.

That's a new one.

I'll try one last time....

What use are cheaper house prices if hardly anyone can get a mortgage to buy one?

wotsthat

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What use are cheaper house prices if hardly anyone can get a mortgage to buy one?

Good luck - I've asked that multiple times.

I managed to get a second home because the natural competition couldn't get a mortgage. The lack of buyers meant the vendors were willing to accept much less than they wanted. I'm already looking at the possibility of capital gains tax if I sold up.

Then there's the prospective BTL's who benefit from low prices and low mortgage availability - they've had a field day mopping up cheap houses without competition from nuisance owner occupiers.

Then there's the middle class offspring whose parents can pay off their debts and help with a deposit. They're able to buy without the pesky oiks snapping up the bargains.

Mortgage rationing is brilliant for concentrating wealth among the already well off.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wotsthat wrote: »

Mortgage rationing is brilliant for concentrating wealth among the already well off.

It is indeed.

Which makes it all the more bizarre that Graham is a such a cheerleader for it....