Bradford building society boss calls for Bank of England to wait before taking action on house prices

Andrew McPhillips

Andrew McPhillips

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Business Reporter

A Bradford-based building society executive has backed calls for the Bank of England to delay any action to cool the housing market with prices outside London still well off pre-crisis levels.

The call came from Graham Beale, chief executive of Nationwide, the UK’s biggest building society, speaking as the lender reported record underlying pre-tax annual profits which more than doubled to £924 million as gross mortgage lending rose 31 per cent to £28.1 billion.

Andrew McPhillips, economist at Bradford-based Yorkshire Building Society, the second largest, has echoed Mr Beale’s view, suggesting the Bank of England should adopt “a watching brief”.

The Nationwide boss said “frenetic" housing market activity in London was starting to ease off while elsewhere in the country prices remained two per cent below 2007 levels – or 21 per cent when adjusted for inflation.

There has been speculation that the Bank of England will next month move to cool the market, possibly by asking lenders to restrict borrowing terms or being forced to hold more cash on their balance sheets.

However, latest figures show mortgage approvals falling and Mr Beale suggested waiting until October for a “more considered view” of how the market had developed.

He said: “Whatever happens in London, we could get unintended consequences by starting to destabilise the rise in the housing market. It’s an important aspect in the growth of the rest of the UK.

“I am a great believer in natural corrections. If house prices come up and up and up, there will come a point when people won’t pay or they can’t pay. I would allow the housing market to go through its cycle. We have had a lot of things going on and I think it’s important to allow that to consolidate and then take decisions as necessary.”

Mr McPhillips said: “The rate of growth in London has been a cause for concern and if this was to continue it would be likely that the Bank of England would take steps to address it. However, this would probably be through restrictions on some mortgage lending rather than by increasing interest rates.

“With the fluctuations in the market a watching brief may be a more prudent course of action as it appears the London market is cooling while there is still some way to go for the rest of the country.

“Taking Yorkshire as an example, house prices in our region are increasing in line with the national average when you exclude the capital.

“But this is not at such a high rate that you could really call it a bubble and there is still some way to go in the region before prices recover to their pre-crisis peak.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:16am Thu 29 May 14

Simon4567 says...

Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue.

I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt.

In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower.

Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity.

My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason.

When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me.

Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.
Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue. I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt. In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower. Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity. My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason. When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me. Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me. Simon4567
  • Score: -5

8:35am Thu 29 May 14

sorrow&anger says...

Of course he doesn't want any action. The higher house prices are, the higher the mortgages are and the more profit he makes.

Most mortgages these days aren't for ordinary people, they're either for the very rich or buy-to-let landlords. Building Societies used to be sensible places where you saved for a home, now they're part of the get rich quick mentality.
Of course he doesn't want any action. The higher house prices are, the higher the mortgages are and the more profit he makes. Most mortgages these days aren't for ordinary people, they're either for the very rich or buy-to-let landlords. Building Societies used to be sensible places where you saved for a home, now they're part of the get rich quick mentality. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 17

9:25am Thu 29 May 14

pcmanners says...

Mr Osborne said that a housing boom would be good for he country, and that should be good enough for the Bank. It is not for the Bank to interfere in the market. That is Socialism and will end in disaster.

Mrs Thatcher wanted a property owning democracy and that is a policy we Conservatives must always uphold.
Mr Osborne said that a housing boom would be good for he country, and that should be good enough for the Bank. It is not for the Bank to interfere in the market. That is Socialism and will end in disaster. Mrs Thatcher wanted a property owning democracy and that is a policy we Conservatives must always uphold. pcmanners
  • Score: -15

10:29am Thu 29 May 14

Albion. says...

Simon4567 wrote:
Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue.

I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt.

In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower.

Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity.

My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason.

When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me.

Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.
Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?
[quote][p][bold]Simon4567[/bold] wrote: Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue. I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt. In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower. Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity. My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason. When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me. Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower? Albion.
  • Score: 0

10:53am Thu 29 May 14

Grumpygirl says...

Albion. wrote:
Simon4567 wrote:
Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue.

I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt.

In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower.

Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity.

My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason.

When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me.

Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.
Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?
Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either.

The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon4567[/bold] wrote: Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue. I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt. In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower. Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity. My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason. When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me. Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?[/p][/quote]Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either. The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 5

11:34am Thu 29 May 14

Thackleygirl says...

Why on earth do people think that Tories aren't building enough houses? I agree in some areas of the country this perhaps needs to be done, but I would question as to whether it needs to be done around here to the full scale that they are quoting. Why or why don't people get their facts and figures correct first of all and just look around to see how many houses are standing empty before building any more. Why are they empty? Why do they not have families living in them? These are lovely houses in lovely parts of our town. The rental side of the property market should be controlled and monitored so families are encouraged / can afford the rent. As a priority any house building should take place on brownfield sites first of all and the infrasture should also be taken care of - not just build the houses and move onto the next green field! If families move into a property, they need a school, doctors, dentists etc etc
Why on earth do people think that Tories aren't building enough houses? I agree in some areas of the country this perhaps needs to be done, but I would question as to whether it needs to be done around here to the full scale that they are quoting. Why or why don't people get their facts and figures correct first of all and just look around to see how many houses are standing empty before building any more. Why are they empty? Why do they not have families living in them? These are lovely houses in lovely parts of our town. The rental side of the property market should be controlled and monitored so families are encouraged / can afford the rent. As a priority any house building should take place on brownfield sites first of all and the infrasture should also be taken care of - not just build the houses and move onto the next green field! If families move into a property, they need a school, doctors, dentists etc etc Thackleygirl
  • Score: 2

1:18pm Thu 29 May 14

Andy2010 says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Simon4567 wrote:
Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue.

I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt.

In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower.

Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity.

My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason.

When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me.

Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.
Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?
Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either.

The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed.
God give it a rest with your anti-tory rubbish

We are only coming out of the recession caused by your so loved Labour Party and are still paying for actions taken by their leader (see Iraq, Afghanistan (to the tune of £45 billion) not to mention their other "crazy" policies.

The interest rates will rise in the next year or so when its the right time to do it. Its nothing to do with greedy bankers or the wealthy

Do you actually understand even the slightest bit of economics or just spout anti Tory drivel
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon4567[/bold] wrote: Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue. I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt. In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower. Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity. My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason. When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me. Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?[/p][/quote]Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either. The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed.[/p][/quote]God give it a rest with your anti-tory rubbish We are only coming out of the recession caused by your so loved Labour Party and are still paying for actions taken by their leader (see Iraq, Afghanistan (to the tune of £45 billion) not to mention their other "crazy" policies. The interest rates will rise in the next year or so when its the right time to do it. Its nothing to do with greedy bankers or the wealthy Do you actually understand even the slightest bit of economics or just spout anti Tory drivel Andy2010
  • Score: 4

2:15pm Thu 29 May 14

Grumpygirl says...

Andy2010 wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Simon4567 wrote:
Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue.

I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt.

In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower.

Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity.

My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason.

When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me.

Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.
Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?
Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either.

The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed.
God give it a rest with your anti-tory rubbish

We are only coming out of the recession caused by your so loved Labour Party and are still paying for actions taken by their leader (see Iraq, Afghanistan (to the tune of £45 billion) not to mention their other "crazy" policies.

The interest rates will rise in the next year or so when its the right time to do it. Its nothing to do with greedy bankers or the wealthy

Do you actually understand even the slightest bit of economics or just spout anti Tory drivel
Debt has gone up under the Tories and the rich are getting richer under the Tories. Fact,
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon4567[/bold] wrote: Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue. I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt. In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower. Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity. My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason. When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me. Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?[/p][/quote]Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either. The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed.[/p][/quote]God give it a rest with your anti-tory rubbish We are only coming out of the recession caused by your so loved Labour Party and are still paying for actions taken by their leader (see Iraq, Afghanistan (to the tune of £45 billion) not to mention their other "crazy" policies. The interest rates will rise in the next year or so when its the right time to do it. Its nothing to do with greedy bankers or the wealthy Do you actually understand even the slightest bit of economics or just spout anti Tory drivel[/p][/quote]Debt has gone up under the Tories and the rich are getting richer under the Tories. Fact, Grumpygirl
  • Score: 2

2:29pm Thu 29 May 14

Andy2010 says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Simon4567 wrote:
Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue.

I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt.

In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower.

Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity.

My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason.

When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me.

Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.
Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?
Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either.

The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed.
God give it a rest with your anti-tory rubbish

We are only coming out of the recession caused by your so loved Labour Party and are still paying for actions taken by their leader (see Iraq, Afghanistan (to the tune of £45 billion) not to mention their other "crazy" policies.

The interest rates will rise in the next year or so when its the right time to do it. Its nothing to do with greedy bankers or the wealthy

Do you actually understand even the slightest bit of economics or just spout anti Tory drivel
Debt has gone up under the Tories and the rich are getting richer under the Tories. Fact,
Debt has only gone up because of previous agreements set up by previous Governments for borrowing criteria. Debt is the problem its the countries spending which is and that's why cuts or "austerity" were brought.

Labours spend and boom policy is a complete disaster for this country

And in fact it isn't the rich who are getting richer but in the past 12 months any family earning an income of £40k between them would have seen themselves getting "richer" in real terms.

Under a Labour Government this would not have been possible due to many factors but mainly down to state dependency

Rather than just post rubbish how about a balanced arguement rather than the usual...Tories are evil...Labour are good arguements.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon4567[/bold] wrote: Hmmm, methinks he doth talk with a forked tongue. I think that sort of advice coming from people who have a vested interest in maintaining high prices on the housing market should be taken with a very large dose of salt. In reality houses are significantly overpriced even in the Yorkshire region, the cost of building a house these days is significantly lower than the usual asking price, by several tens of thousands of pounds in a lot of cases, most modern housing stock on the market is being sold at the price that the seller needs to sell at in order to fully clear any existing mortgage, not at the true bricks and mortar value which is likely to be significantly lower. Interest rates need to go up and house prices need to come down, of course that's good for savers and bad for the mortgage lenders and will put a lot of people into negative equity. My belief is that there should be a simple rule in lending; the amount of lending which is to be guaranteed by the borrower should not exceed the actual bricks and mortar valuation rather than the whole of the guarantee being based on a value that is speculative. Any mortgage lending above the true b&m valuation should be classed as speculative and deemed irrecoverable from the borrower if the borrower becomes unable to repay the mortgage for any valid reason. When lending speculatively the lenders are in effect gambling on the future market value of a property so why should they not carry some of the risk of that gamble ?. At the moment for them it's win win, doesn't seem very fair to me. Bricks and mortar valuations are very easy, you just need a quantity surveyor to go round and take a look as well as the estate agent, the quantity surveyor will give you a real value of the property whilst the estate agent will give you a speculative value, the difference between the two should be guaranteed by the mortgagee not by the borrower, sounds fair to me.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't they get a higher turnover of sales if prices were lower?[/p][/quote]Normally yes, but since the Tories aren't building enough houses (it will take Labour to do that) the optimal strategy for greedy bankers is to drive individual prices up. The Estate Agents aren't complaining either. The Tory state is a machine for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Tories stand for unfairness and greed.[/p][/quote]God give it a rest with your anti-tory rubbish We are only coming out of the recession caused by your so loved Labour Party and are still paying for actions taken by their leader (see Iraq, Afghanistan (to the tune of £45 billion) not to mention their other "crazy" policies. The interest rates will rise in the next year or so when its the right time to do it. Its nothing to do with greedy bankers or the wealthy Do you actually understand even the slightest bit of economics or just spout anti Tory drivel[/p][/quote]Debt has gone up under the Tories and the rich are getting richer under the Tories. Fact,[/p][/quote]Debt has only gone up because of previous agreements set up by previous Governments for borrowing criteria. Debt is the problem its the countries spending which is and that's why cuts or "austerity" were brought. Labours spend and boom policy is a complete disaster for this country And in fact it isn't the rich who are getting richer but in the past 12 months any family earning an income of £40k between them would have seen themselves getting "richer" in real terms. Under a Labour Government this would not have been possible due to many factors but mainly down to state dependency Rather than just post rubbish how about a balanced arguement rather than the usual...Tories are evil...Labour are good arguements. Andy2010
  • Score: 1

2:50pm Thu 29 May 14

Thackleygirl says...

The whole housing market (including the rental side ie: landlords) needs to be thoroughly investigated, controlled and monitored and I don't mean by greedy developers who want to line their pockets. It is a fact that there are 1000's of houses standing empty in Bradford, the majority are brilliant family homes, in really nice areas with gardens etc and yes there are some which need to be regenerated - which in turn would and should provide jobs for local people who live in Bradford. I wonder if Bradford Council have a correct figure on how many properties are standing empty or perhaps a figure they would like to publish along with the reason why these propertis are standing empty? When the interest rates go up (which they will very soon) and depending by how much of course, this will mean that families will have to find a considerable £+ each month. So many families will struggle and how many more new housing developments will be standing empty and how many more green fields lost.
The whole housing market (including the rental side ie: landlords) needs to be thoroughly investigated, controlled and monitored and I don't mean by greedy developers who want to line their pockets. It is a fact that there are 1000's of houses standing empty in Bradford, the majority are brilliant family homes, in really nice areas with gardens etc and yes there are some which need to be regenerated - which in turn would and should provide jobs for local people who live in Bradford. I wonder if Bradford Council have a correct figure on how many properties are standing empty or perhaps a figure they would like to publish along with the reason why these propertis are standing empty? When the interest rates go up (which they will very soon) and depending by how much of course, this will mean that families will have to find a considerable £+ each month. So many families will struggle and how many more new housing developments will be standing empty and how many more green fields lost. Thackleygirl
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Thu 29 May 14

Andy2010 says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
The whole housing market (including the rental side ie: landlords) needs to be thoroughly investigated, controlled and monitored and I don't mean by greedy developers who want to line their pockets. It is a fact that there are 1000's of houses standing empty in Bradford, the majority are brilliant family homes, in really nice areas with gardens etc and yes there are some which need to be regenerated - which in turn would and should provide jobs for local people who live in Bradford. I wonder if Bradford Council have a correct figure on how many properties are standing empty or perhaps a figure they would like to publish along with the reason why these propertis are standing empty? When the interest rates go up (which they will very soon) and depending by how much of course, this will mean that families will have to find a considerable £+ each month. So many families will struggle and how many more new housing developments will be standing empty and how many more green fields lost.
Why are they "greedy developers"?

Developers are simply a business. Do you work? If so does the business you work for try and operate a healthy profit? Of course they do

Empty housing stock isn't the answer as in reality there isn't that much. How many houses do you know say on the street where you live on in surrounding streets that are empty? Not many I would guess.

Yes we need to build more houses but the demand for houses and the lack of is down to immigration and more people arriving here / being born than dying / leaving. Again we have the Labour government to thank for that.

Your right about the struggle with interest rates but that's no-ones fault other than the borrower. Mortgage holders should have made sure they can cope with any rates increase when they took out their mortgage. With the new stress tests brought in by the FCA this goes some way to address this problem but personal responsibility shouldn't be overlooked
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: The whole housing market (including the rental side ie: landlords) needs to be thoroughly investigated, controlled and monitored and I don't mean by greedy developers who want to line their pockets. It is a fact that there are 1000's of houses standing empty in Bradford, the majority are brilliant family homes, in really nice areas with gardens etc and yes there are some which need to be regenerated - which in turn would and should provide jobs for local people who live in Bradford. I wonder if Bradford Council have a correct figure on how many properties are standing empty or perhaps a figure they would like to publish along with the reason why these propertis are standing empty? When the interest rates go up (which they will very soon) and depending by how much of course, this will mean that families will have to find a considerable £+ each month. So many families will struggle and how many more new housing developments will be standing empty and how many more green fields lost.[/p][/quote]Why are they "greedy developers"? Developers are simply a business. Do you work? If so does the business you work for try and operate a healthy profit? Of course they do Empty housing stock isn't the answer as in reality there isn't that much. How many houses do you know say on the street where you live on in surrounding streets that are empty? Not many I would guess. Yes we need to build more houses but the demand for houses and the lack of is down to immigration and more people arriving here / being born than dying / leaving. Again we have the Labour government to thank for that. Your right about the struggle with interest rates but that's no-ones fault other than the borrower. Mortgage holders should have made sure they can cope with any rates increase when they took out their mortgage. With the new stress tests brought in by the FCA this goes some way to address this problem but personal responsibility shouldn't be overlooked Andy2010
  • Score: -1

3:30pm Thu 29 May 14

Thackleygirl says...

Just had a very quick 'Google' and found an article that the T & A did on the 11 September 2013 called - 'Bradford Council considers joining 'empty homes' loan scheme'

In the news item it states that "There are currently 9,731 empty properties in the Bradford district, 5,413 of which have been empty for six months or longer".

What I am trying to say is surely these 9,731 empty properties could be brought back to life with some pride and in doing so would also provide local jobs...
Just had a very quick 'Google' and found an article that the T & A did on the 11 September 2013 called - 'Bradford Council considers joining 'empty homes' loan scheme' In the news item it states that "There are currently 9,731 empty properties in the Bradford district, 5,413 of which have been empty for six months or longer". What I am trying to say is surely these 9,731 empty properties could be brought back to life with some pride and in doing so would also provide local jobs... Thackleygirl
  • Score: -1

4:44pm Thu 29 May 14

Albion. says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
Just had a very quick 'Google' and found an article that the T & A did on the 11 September 2013 called - 'Bradford Council considers joining 'empty homes' loan scheme'

In the news item it states that "There are currently 9,731 empty properties in the Bradford district, 5,413 of which have been empty for six months or longer".

What I am trying to say is surely these 9,731 empty properties could be brought back to life with some pride and in doing so would also provide local jobs...
They all have owners, they might prefer to keep them as they are than have them purchased by.....Who exactly? They aren't all derelict by the way.
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: Just had a very quick 'Google' and found an article that the T & A did on the 11 September 2013 called - 'Bradford Council considers joining 'empty homes' loan scheme' In the news item it states that "There are currently 9,731 empty properties in the Bradford district, 5,413 of which have been empty for six months or longer". What I am trying to say is surely these 9,731 empty properties could be brought back to life with some pride and in doing so would also provide local jobs...[/p][/quote]They all have owners, they might prefer to keep them as they are than have them purchased by.....Who exactly? They aren't all derelict by the way. Albion.
  • Score: 3

7:17pm Thu 29 May 14

alive and awake says...

Interest rates must not rise, it would be disastrous.
Interest rates must not rise, it would be disastrous. alive and awake
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree