From today's Metro:
Measures aimed at stimulating the mortgage market and helping hard-pressed homeowners have failed to convince housing experts...
Haven't convinced me, either.
Chancellor Alistair Darling said the Government would work on plans to underwrite mortgage financing in a bid to stimulate the sector ...
Yup. Having noticed over the past few weeks that neither the £37 billion bank bail-out nor the 150 bps cut in the BoE base rate have had the desired effect of magically reinflating the house price bubble, the gummint are now going to "underwrite mortgage finance", whence it is a small step to lending directly to borrowers (possibly channelled discreetly via NR or B&B). That's a polite way of saying "throwing taxpayers' finest at the problem".
... Banks traditionally sell on bundles of their mortgages to investors, in a process known as securitisation, to raise the money they need to lend to consumers. But the securitisation market has dried up in the wake of the problems in the US sub-prime mortgage sector, leaving banks increasingly reliant on using money from depositors to fund their mortgage lending.
Dude, WTF? The whole securitisation nonsense has mushroomed over the last five or ten years, it's not "traditional". Traditional is when banks and building societies rely on ... er ... money from depositors.
Mr Darling said: "To implement Sir James's recommendation, the Government would need to obtain State Aid approval from the European Commission and resolve some technical and practical considerations. But we will proceed to work up a detailed scheme based on his recommendations and seek State Aid approval to proceed."
When our only hope is the EU ... say no more.
Meanwhile, measures to help struggling homeowners were also announced by the Chancellor. If someone is having difficulty paying their mortgage, lenders will wait at least three months before initiating repossession proceedings. In addition a scheme that covers mortgage interest payments for those who lose their jobs will be extended to cover mortgages up to £200,000. "This will help ease worries for homeowners who have lost their jobs as they look for new employment," the Chancellor said.
Not forgetting that for every over-indebted family that isn't repossessed, there's another more cautious family in rented accommodation who'd love to buy ... it's a zero sum game.
£200,000? Not only is that up from the £175,000 first suggested a few weeks ago, that's a handsome slab of property in most parts of the country. Shouldn't the the government be, er, reducing the enormous burden of tax and regulations to ensure that not as many jobs are lost in the first place? Are we to have a two-tier Welfare State, the unemployed on council estates and the better class unemployed who managed to sign up for an unaffordable mortgage shortly before losing their job?
The Government also announced £15 million of new funding for debt advice in the Pre-Budget Report.
Six months ago that was £9 million.
Housing minister Margaret Beckett said: "... Everyone needs to do their bit to help families avoid the traumatic impact of repossession, and we expect lenders to do more to build on work already under way to help their customers."
FFS. I sold to rent in anticipation of a house price crash. My decision, my risk. Why should I now "do my bit" (i.e. pay loads of extra taxes) to subsidise other people's mortgages, prevent repossessions and prop up house prices? I want them to fall as far and as fast as possible, to be honest.
The CPS Loses Yet Again...
25 minutes ago
14 comments:
It pisses me right off that Brown Darling are using the money not spent on houses at the top of the market by my clients and my children and that they have saved to put a deposit on a house WHEN they crash in price. A penalty for prudence.
The only saving grace is that it won't work as 'you cannot buck the markets'. Well, you can of course, if you nationalise everything.
http://anti-citizen-one.blogspot.com/2008/09/repossession-is-tragedy-but-also-zero.html
Alistair Darling said:
“Repossession must be the last resort".
I think in most cases it is... obviously. I'm struggling to think of a distressed mortgage situation where it isn't the last resort?
Just been explaining the days events to a foreign friend over the phone... he thought I was making it all up!
L, the good news is, MPs usually own two homes...
AC1, ta, I have spliced it in.
JP, they want to make repossession "The resort after the one after the last resort". What's this going to do for the value of all the bank shares that we the taxpayers own?
"a scheme that covers mortgage interest payments for those who lose their jobs will be extended to cover mortgages up to £200,000."
Woo Hoo! As one who is probably shortly to be laid off, working for a currently high profile US bank. I was thinking of paying off my very modest £40,000 mortgage in preparation for redundancy.
Why bother, perhaps I should leverage up to 199,000 instead, and buy gold or some other asset with the proceeds.
What do you other present tax payers think?
:-)
"MP's usually own two homes" - Paid for by me and you, and you're clearly not paying enough tax 'cos I'm paying too much!
Anon #1, the mortgage subsidy will no doubt be asset means tested, so you'd only qualify if you MEW'd up to the hilt and spent it on wine, women and song.
Unemployment will rise, house prices will continue to fall, Darling's plan will be shown up for the con that it is - and we'll be facing massive tax rises regardless.
There's an efficiency vs moral hazard trade-off on repossessions: yes, it's galling to see people who did ridiculously silly things being bailed out (I've saved a large deposit in the bank [*] and have never owned a house); but on the other hand it's almost certainly cheaper to cover the interest on a family's mortgage for a few months while they job-hunt than to stick them in astonishingly-priced rat-infested temporary accommodation.
Ideally, I'd like to see the government taking an equity stake in people's houses as a trade-off for providing mortgage interest cover...
[*] less than gbp25k per bank, and not in Icelandic ones...
JB, I worry greatly about gummint involvement, whether that's via welfare or via taking an equity stake ... while prices are plummeting.
What 'trade-off'? How about this for a plan: Let's assume that borrowers get a statutory stay of execution from the first missed payment of three months (or six or whatever), if they haven't got resumed payments in that time, they then have one further month (or two months, or whatever) to find alternative rented accommodation before they can get physically chucked out. There are plenty of properties available to rent.
That would be efficient and humane without encouraging moral hazard. And there'll be plenty of repo's for the likes of thee and me to snap up (should we so wish).
As an aside I'd scrap housing benefit for private tenants. That would get rents down a fair bit.
I think New Labour should write off everyones debts and give them houses for free.
Those poor people that sweat buckets watching daytime TV and drinking cheap booze are already in debt up to their ears and just can't afford a decent house as well as the new car repayments.
It is Christmas coming up so I think people who have saved should offer help to those that have problems paying for their new flat screen TV's, trips to Eurodisney and are still paying for last Christmas.
Sounds crazy doesn't it... but not far removed from New Labour's mantra ! Time to get out of the UK if you have any sense !!!
The "no repossession proceedings" is a classic old New Labour trick of the White Knight Fighting The Straw Man.
No-one gets repossession proceedings against them for 3 missed payments. It just doesn't happen. Repossession proceedings cost a huge amount of money, and banks and building societies would rather try some much cheaper ways of getting money out of you than going to such a drastic step.
Most of the financial MSM are so ignorant that they don't even know that it's bollocks, so Cap'n Darling and the lenders get a load of nice PR despite doing absolutely nothing.
TA, well...
Remember that some of the taxpayers that are propping up other people's savers will have no savings themselves. That's the real kicker. Robin Hood would be spinning in his grave, if he had one.
Post a Comment