Government Mortgages

Dan_Collins_2

This thread is a big a waste of time as the 50bn itself!

Only the banks will control when things get better. The government couldnot afford to lend at such low rates, they borrow money just like we and the banks do. If they print more cash it devalues the pound even more.

I am affraid it time to batton down the hatches and wait for this to pass. No magic wand, that attitude got us here. We are to inpatiant and want answers before the questions are asked!

buck2001

Fair point dunstonh and your right, I do, and with good reason.
But.. there is no bigger picture, it's just people talk of a bigger picture and don't accept the simple common sense of it all.

If the gov. can't afford to offer cheap loans becuase they loaned the money then why do we keep talking about £50 billion of tax payers money? Because it isn't taxpayers money its the governments and its not loaned, we will never see it again so whats the difference. If 50b isn't enough then how was 25b enough to prop up NR which had a massive proportion of the mortgage market? It's just pessimism and bankers who suggest this is a bad idea.

It was OK when the gov. ran the post office and the utilities and the comms market but apparently they couldnt run a mortgage business? I think they could and should.

To many people are saying it can't be done but offer no good reason why, too many say theres a bigger picture but can't explain what that bigger picture is, too many pessimists and financial advisers advising wrongly, suggest it can't be done but it simply can, accept it!

What are you all afraid of? Cheaper mortgages?

Dan_Collins_2

buck2001 wrote: »

Fair point dunstonh and your right, I do, and with good reason.
But.. there is no bigger picture, it's just people talk of a bigger picture and don't accept the simple common sense of it all.

If the gov. can't afford to offer cheap loans becuase they loaned the money then why do we keep talking about £50 billion of tax payers money? Because it isn't taxpayers money its the governments and its not loaned, we will never see it again so whats the difference. If 50b isn't enough then how was 25b enough to prop up NR which had a massive proportion of the mortgage market? It's just pessimism and bankers who suggest this is a bad idea.

It was OK when the gov. ran the post office and the utilities and the comms market but apparently they couldnt run a mortgage business? I think they could and should.

To many people are saying it can't be done but offer no good reason why, too many say theres a bigger picture but can't explain what that bigger picture is, too many pessimists and financial advisers advising wrongly, suggest it can't be done but it simply can, accept it!

What are you all afraid of? Cheaper mortgages?

OK, so the Government start up the Bank of England Mortgage services. Whats the criteria to get a loan? They will want to ensure its low risk and the that it will not cost anything to run. So they need to take on a whole new department to run the lending or trust a major UK lender with our cash?!? I dont think so.

The 50mil pumped in, was not pumped in. It was offered and on very poor terms. Strict in what they can exchange it for but not strict on what the lenders have to do with the money.

What the government should of, or what the FSA should have done, is manage the lenders of Mortgage and more so unsecured loans and credit cards.

I took a new nil balance offer on my credit card last year and extending the limit to pay for something and they did not ask for proof of income. They did not even check or ask that my job had not changed since I last applied for for a change of limit or even applied for the card.

I took car finance 3 years ago, they did not ask me for proof of earning or even how much I earned even though the chap keyed in I had been self employed for just 6 months!!

Now if my mortgage business goes down anymore and I start to default they will chase and hound me until they get blood. A mortgage lender will follow the rules and regulations to the tee and in most cases wont hassle you anyway near a unsecured lender will for obvious reasons.

I know that looks like I have gone of subject, but if the FSA or Government had kept an eye on the big boys rather than harping on about TCF to the smaller brokers and networks this thread would not be needed.

ManAtHome

buck2001 wrote: »

If the gov. can't afford to offer cheap loans becuase they loaned the money then why do we keep talking about £50 billion of tax payers money? Because it isn't taxpayers money its the governments and its not loaned

HUH..??

And where did the government get this money from - are they secretly making widgets and flogging them to the Chinese or something? The ONLY money the govt have is what they rake in from taxpayers - even though the loans are notional (no pound coins changing hands), if the "punters" (in this case the banks) default, do you think they'd either:
a) make more widgets to sell to the Chinese
b) have a whip-round in the house of pr@s to cover the shortfall
c) hike up taxes to cover the shortfall

buck2001

ManAtHome wrote: »

The ONLY money the govt have is what they rake in from taxpayers

I think you missed my point.
What I meant was, of course it's what the gov. took off us in taxes but it isn't ours, we'll never see it again! It's not like the gov. will ever give it back to us, unless in cheaper mortgages etc.

So talking about it as if it's ours and were up in arms because their giving it to Northern Rock and the banks is stupid, it's not ours it's theirs and we'll never see it again.

Rather let them use OUR TAXES that THEY OWN to offer us low cost mortgages.
As for the rest, if they start a new department they can apply the same criteria as do banks but with proper checks and at 2.5x salary over 25 years, i.e. the good ol way. The low interest rate would be enough to cover the cost of running it. And obviously they wold never lose money cos they would always get it back in repayments - obvious isn't it? It might be non-profit making but why shouldn't it be, it's our taxes working for us.

But hey! you stick to your widget plan eh!
If customers defaulted they would do as is normally done, repossess and hey presto got all the money back + whatever payments were made + whatever the new cost of the resale of the house is. Except of course they can't reposses NR or the banks can they? Even more reason to start a mortgage business so they they can protect their money, make money on it instead of taxing us to the bone and offer a stable housing market to the taxpayer.

wymondham

buck2001 wrote: »

The government should withhold the taxpayers money they are earmarking for greedy bankers who refuse to pass on the governments and Bank of Englands rate decreases to their customers.
The £50 billion should instead be used to provide us, the people of the UK, with government funded mortgages at approx 3-4% that will remain stable and static for the life of the mortgage. This would send a clear message to the greedy bankers and would alleviate mortgage woes whilst providing a stable mortgage for the people and a steady income for government.
Please visit the goverment petition site here -
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Gov-Mortgage/
and sign the petition.

You know it makes sense!

It's dangerous for the Government to get involved with business and money as they don't understand it

ManAtHome

buck2001 wrote: »

I think you missed my point.

I'm sure you missed my point - govt are currently skint (they had to borrow the £2.7bn "10p tax fiasco" bribe) so they can either "magic up" long-term money (the £50bn+ to the banks is allegedly short to medium-term) by increasing tax or printing even more. End result is still the same - punters pay more (tax or inflation) to support an unproductive asset.

If they wanted to do something sensible like increase the supply of social/long-term rented housing, that's another matter...

ixwood

Clueless.

IMHO