Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Mortgage slump piles pressure on Bank of England to cut rates again



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 02 December 2008
THE value of new mortgages being offered to prospective home-buyers has plummeted by two-thirds in a month, new figures showed yesterday.
Loans worth £459 million were offered in October – compared to £1.49 billion the previous month. The Bank of England said the figure was the second lowest on record since 1993, dramatically indicating the effect of the credit squeeze on the UK housin
g market.

But the total number of deals offered in October was broadly similar, at 32,000, to the preceding three months – though almost two-thirds down on the 88,000 approvals in October last year.

This will place further pressure on the Bank of England to deliver another cut in interest rates when its monetary policy committee announces its monthly decision on Thursday.

Last month, it slashed rates by 1.5 percentage points, taking its base rate to 3 per cent.

Experts believe the relative stability in the number of loans – down just 1,000 month-on-month – indicated the housing market may be close to bottoming out.

But a government-commissioned report from former bank boss Sir James Crosby, which was published alongside last week's emergency Budget, suggested there was a risk of no new loans being offered next year.

House prices are broadly static in Scotland, but are continuing to drop across England and Wales. In September, the government announced it was scrapping stamp duty for a year on homes costing up to £175,000 in a bid to revitalise the first-time buyers' market.

The dramatic slump in the scale of mortgage lending was blamed on a tightening of conditions by lenders, in the wake of the collapse of US bank Lehman Brothers in September. Many lenders now require prospective buyers to provide deposits of around 20 per cent or more to secure funding.

Simon Rubinsohn, chief economist at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, said cuts in the Bank of England base rate – and in the rate that banks lend to each other – had not yet filtered through to the housing market. He said: "First-time buyers and homeowners alike are still struggling to buy property as banks are still requesting sizeable deposits, further stagnating the property market. This will continue unless banks begin to loosen up on lending conditions."

Ed Stansfield, property economist at Capital Economics, said: "It is hard to see a recovery in the housing market gaining traction any time soon.

"Indeed, as the economic downturn gathers pace, 2009 may well be an even tougher year for the housing market than 2008.

Activity levels will remain close to rock-bottom for several months yet and house prices will fall markedly further."

Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at IHS Global Insight, said house prices "still have a long way to fall". He said: "Housing market activity is exceptionally low compared to long-term norms."

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: "As the housing market continues to fall, we should expect to see the amount of mortgage lending fall. However, a collapse of this magnitude suggests this is much more than people choosing not to move house. It is critical that the government ensures the banks start lending again to prevent this recession becoming deeper and even more painful."

Banks urged to follow RBS lead on mortgage reprieve

HIGH street banks were yesterday urged to follow the lead of Royal Bank of Scotland and allow homeowners threatened with repossession more time to pay their mortgages.

RBS, and its subsidiary NatWest, said it would not launch repossession proceedings for six months after a lender falls into arrears – compared with the previous three-month limit.

The announcement came as the government confirmed it owned almost 58 per cent of the bank after spending £19.97 billion of public money on preference and ordinary shares to keep it afloat.

RBS had already announced a freeze in the overdraft charges for small businesses.

Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, said the move – coupled with cuts in Bank of England lending rates – would give hard-pressed homeowners more room for manoeuvre.

He said: "I now hope more lenders will follow RBS's lead and also do as much as possible to help borrowers in other ways by passing on – in full and promptly – cuts in interest rates and by beginning lending again to help get the economy moving."

The housing charity Shelter said it was an important step towards helping thousands of people to keep their homes. Its chief executive, Adam Sampson, said: "RBS has raised the bar for other lenders, who must now follow suit to ensure that all homeowners benefit from the same protection from repossession."

But Louise Cuming, from moneysupermarket.com, said it was merely a "clever marketing ploy" as it was rare for lenders to start proceedings before six months.







The full article contains 814 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Kingston,

Singapore 02/12/2008 04:15:02
Why is this a bad thing!
House prices will be more affordable.
Why should rates be cut only to held one sector of society. As one side losses another gains.
It's called the free market.
For interest groups to call for rate cuts, is market manipulation.
And as ever the Scotsman is representing that sector.
2

cabrach loon,

inverness 02/12/2008 08:04:46
without a viable interest rate who will invest in a bank or building society for so little return? There is a limit, persons on pensions and fixed incomes have to invest for income! So there is a limit. Money goes to iinterest rates and if the dollar or euro etc. offer more off it will go.
3

Tommy Trout,

Alicante, Spain 02/12/2008 09:00:29
What is the point of cutting the Base Rate further when the banks are refusing to pass it on to their customers. All that is happening is giving the banks reasons to cut their savers interest rates. The very people who are calling for interest rate cuts are either the estate agents who want to boost their business back up or the people who took out to large a loan in the first place...aided and abetted by the banks in the first place.
4

Mcsnagpile,

02/12/2008 09:07:29
The Japanese cut their interest rates in 1992 --eventually to zero. They are still battling and that was with strong savings. I am looking for a way out of the money system---invest in gold Doubloons and a treasure map..
5

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 02/12/2008 09:08:02
I can't see why there is this obsession to kick start a market which has to die a bit more to be back on an affordable basis and in the meantime savers get hammered on low rates. The up side of this situation at the moment must be that first time buyers are renting while waiting for the housing market to hit rock bottom, then it will settle back to its proper place. So the rental market must be doing fine or least balancing the loss of first time sales.

I agree with Louise Cumming of moneysupermarket.com - which bank really wants to reposess property in the current climate? Which is why they're willing to take a risk on defaulters starting to repay for up to 6 months.

Murphy appears to lose the plot somewhat in equating house loans "to help get the economy moving". This is the same ole same ole attempt to inflate house prices as an "economy" in itself. However this "economy" has no tangible basis or service to offer - merely paper returns. Which brings us back to Broon's warped idea of prudence and assisting industry - by creating an artificial housing boom.
6

yockel,

02/12/2008 09:11:11
The Banks bought the world by lending money that didn't exist. They paid too much and went bust. The govenment bailed them out with our cash so now they own everything and we are meant to spend the next 20 years in tax slavery to payfor it. We wus robbed.
7

yockel,

02/12/2008 09:12:09
Then again if we refused to pay for it then the Government would go bust ...............
8

Elephant,

Linlithgow 02/12/2008 09:22:02
"House prices are broadly static in Scotland"
What a load of tosh Ross. Thank goodness your only the political and not the property editor. They have fallen an average of 6% across Scotland last quarter and anecdotally the market is in freefall, both prices and volumes. Being in the enviable position of having no house at the moment but being able to buy, I put out the feelers with one estate agent and they said we could expect 10K to 15k less than fixed price on 2 properties we like the look of. That's even before going through the door.
9

Alan B,

02/12/2008 09:28:41
The uk recession will be much worse due to the dithering by Brown and Darling over interest rates. They took far too long to allow the mpc more flexibility in setting interest rates. Interest rates should have been cut 7/8months ago and then again more deeply 4/5 months ago. Interest rates are currently over a percentage point too high.

Problem is having waited so long deeper action is now needed and interest rates themselves have deminished in their power.

We have just seen massive economic incompetence piled on top of massive economic incompetence.
10

ebbi,

spain 02/12/2008 09:33:39
AS LONG AS THE RATE CUTS ARE NOT PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS ,THERE IS NO HOPE FOR THE ECONOMY AND THERE IS NO POINT IN CUTTING RATES.
THE INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO FORCE THE NATIONALIZED BANKS TO PASS ON THE RATES TODAY AND NOT TOMORROW.
11

Liz,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 09:53:53
#9
Rates have been too low for too long over recent years. People were allowed to borrow too much at very low rates which, when rates rose again (as it was inevitable they would - and will again) these same people were always going to be in trouble.

What I want to know is why the Government did not do something to rein the banks in and limit lending to sensible levels and to only those who could afford it? Much of this mess aould have been avoided had the regulators insisted on sensible borrowing amounts - house prices would have stayed more sensible thus reducing the need for borrowing ever larger amounts.
12

Alan B,

02/12/2008 09:54:07
#ebbi

The banks are in a mess because they lent far too much. They could simply not afford to lend as much based on deposits so they borrow massively via the credit markets. The credit markets seized up due to similar stupid lending in the US.

For banks to get back into good health they need to reduce their lending exposure and increase their deposits. As such why would a bank want to lower interest rates to encourage more lending when they have too much at the moment. And reduce interest rates for savers that would encourage savers to move their valuable deposit money somewhere else.

Also banks had silly lending practices lending far too much money as a ratio of salary with the government doing nothing about it. Moving back to the more prudent lending ratios will simply not cover the massive house prices now. Also how much should a bank lend if they think the value of a property will be say 20/30% less in a year.

The government made much of this mess. The banks did not help themselves and made a mess of their own situation. Now the government wants the banks to bail out the government by getting into a deeper mess themselves.

The problem with the housing market is also not interest rate levels. The problem with the housing market is:
1)people expect big drops and therefore would be stupid to buy
2)people are expecting to lose their jobs which means they are not as willing to buy and will encourage the big drops mention above in 1.
3)banks are restricting mortgages as they are wanting to make sure they are based on being repaid by the lender and not based on fantasy valuations of the property.
4)current customers are being hit due to basing their lending on the 2/3 discounted rate and then are now finding they have to pay the full whack as they cannot remortgage to find good discounted offers.
13

GLasVegas,

02/12/2008 09:54:26
Why does no one mention what this is doing to the value of the pound. Intrest rates may be low but the pound has sunk to its lowest position in a long time. As an importer I can say that once my current stock has gone, prices will need to rise 25-30% to make up for the extra pounds needed to buy the same product. Sony, Fender and a whole range of goods from china, Japan and the Usa will suddenly increase in the next couple of months. Not by a silly 2% like out vat cut but 30%.

As a first time buyer im not looking at rates to make a decision on buying, its the capital cost. If rates went to 0% and mortgages to 0% you would know that in a years time it would rise to 15% because these rates are unsustainable. A mortgage is a long term product low rates now mean nothing!
14

Alan B,

02/12/2008 10:01:54
#Liz

I agree in principle what you are saying. The government were completely irresponsible for allowing such levels of personal debt via mortgage lending.

Unlike the eu which uses interest rates to target money supply growth ie credit the uk targets inflation. Nothing wrong with that. But Brown changed the inflation rate to cpi and that does not take account of housing costs(inflation).

My own view posted here a few times would not to primarily use interest rates to rein in the borrowing levels and housing inflation but use quantitive measures. ie enforced ratios of borrowing to salary, none of the 130% mortages something like 90% max so that a deposit is needed. And much stricker controls round buy to let in relation to affordability of borrower.

I would also have wanted enforced capital requirements to ensure the banks did not borrow too much on the credit markets and become unstable. By limiting the lending more to deposits then the amount available for mortgage would have been restricted.

Doing something about the supply side of the equation should also have been taken more seriously.

Having said that my post that you responed to was about how to get us out this absolute mess. To avoid millions going on the dole as the economy shinks.

As such we have to differeniate between short term measures to get us out this government inspired mess and long term stable economy management.
15

ccc,

02/12/2008 11:03:14
No point in reading this actual story. Most of the replies have 100 times more intelligence and insight.

As has been already mentioned I do love this comment in the article:

"House prices are broadly static in Scotland"

Brilliant. Delusion at its most impressive. Wonder what figures they are using for this ? Not the Nationwide, or Halifax, or ESPC, or I imagine the GSPC or similar.

The only index I can think of that is not showing broad YOY falls across Scotland is the Registrars of Scotland. Of course anyone who has a clue about these things knows the RoS figures are delayed compared to the rest by about 6-9 months.

According to the ESPC in Edinburgh the falls from peak (Summer 2007) are 17% so far.

Why are so many people determined to delay the inevitable ? Why so much denial ? What is the point ?The longer the delay - the worse the outcome. Just ask the Japanese.

All this desperate fiddling is pathetic.
16

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/12/2008 11:51:21
Nationalising the banks seems to be an attractive option for some - Sweden did it during the Nordic banking crisis in the early 1990s and came out rather well. The problem of repeating that for UK banks is that the scale of the problem is so much bigger.

Personally, I would prefer Darling to use the 2 institutions that are already nationalised, Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock, to improve the levels of lending to homeowners and SMEs.
17

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 02/12/2008 12:02:03
Ross Lydall - journalist or mover of sedition against the Crown?

Even with my secondary modern school education, I can work out that a bank will lend you a sum to buy property based on what the property is actually worth and your ability to repay. Cutting base rates to 1% would not have the same effect on mortgage rates because LIBOR better reflects actual market risk than politically motivated market assessment. So suppose mortgage rates were 1%. First time purchase price £110,000. Borrow the whole lot - interest is £1100. But you still need an income of £20-25K to have a fair chance of paying all the capital back over 25 years provided interest rates never go up again.

The banks won't lend because offerors need to be taught the value of their assets. When they have learned the market will free up. As for RBS - oh yes do go on, don't mind me. Use my hard earned deposits to lend to people who can't pay and then don't move against them to secure my deposits while the arrears are small and the asset value can cover the loss. Wait 6 months for the arrears to get bigger and the value of the security to fall. Bankers? You certainly rhyme with them.
18

techpunk,

02/12/2008 12:10:21
#15
ccc

any opinion on the article?
19

ccc,

02/12/2008 12:12:05
#16

"to improve the levels of lending to homeowners"

Do a quick search and you can easily find historic figures for the council of mortgage lenders.

A few points. Lending in the first 3 quarters of this year was almost exactly the same as the first 3 quarters of 2003. It was half that of the 2007 - the peak of the biggest ever credit backed asset/property boom.

Does this sound like 'Banks are not lending' to you ?

This is the myth that is currently being peddled by the media and the Government.

The banks lending is not the issue. If it was then why no outcry from homeowners in 2003.........

Hosue prices are the problem. Pure and simple.
20

Alan B,

02/12/2008 12:13:26
German view of Browns economic strategy:

"German chancellor Angela Merkel has ruled out further tax cuts before elections in September next year saying she has doubts over their impact.

She said her government had no need to enter a "senseless" competition with other countries which were spending billions of euros to prevent recession."
21

ccc,

02/12/2008 12:13:41
#18.

Yes...

All of my response in #15 is relevant to the article....

You would be better reading most of the replies anyway. Far more interesting.
22

Alan B,

02/12/2008 12:16:03
#ccc

I agree I seldom read the articles now a days and go straight to the comments.

23

techpunk,

02/12/2008 12:18:52
really?

there's me thinking you were going off on the "dropping property prices" de-railer again.

silly me.

must try harder.
24

John south of Soutra,

02/12/2008 12:36:21
Agree with everything that you are Glasvegas, I too import and we have had to introduce a surcharge on our products of around 20% to cope the plummeting pound, we have agreed to review this quarterly but if the pound continues to fall like a stone, raw material costs which are linked to the $ will rocket as will imports from the far east.
What the money markets are saying is that they have no confidence in the people running this country and that they are not prepared to invest in sterling.
25

ccc,

02/12/2008 12:45:25
#23

I think you fail to grasp the background to all this mess we are in.

I will explain as you are clearly having difficulty !!

Credit crunch, recession, banks going bust etc.... It all comes round to one single matter. A HOUSE PRICE BUBBLE !!

It really is not difficult to work out. That is why in these sort of articles I will talk about house prices. NOTHING could be more relevant.

Also - in case you hadn't noticed - this article details both house prices and mortgages....
26

ccc,

02/12/2008 12:56:01
#24

Interesting comments re Sterling and your costs . One thing that is regularly 'missed' in the media. Lost about 30% of its value now across most currencies. I think it is clear it was overvalued before but still it looks to be under serious pressure. Loss of confidence as you say. The undying desire of this Government to drop interest rates close to zero does not help matters either.

This could have severe consequences for the debt that the Government wishes to raise. This is raised from selling long term Government bonds and Gilts at auction.

Last year the ratio of bids to buyers was about 2.4. Last one was only about 1.4.

If it goes below 1.0 then all the required debt cannot be 'sold'. Hence UKPLC could be in a very sticky situation. Options if this happens:

(1) Print money. This will lead to MASSIVE inflation.
(2) Raise interest rates to a level that is deemed attractive enough to entice foreign money back to Sterling.

The UK is not far behind Iceland. Their economy and currency collapsed. Their Krona lost ~40% of its value against the main basket of currencies. The pound has lost about 30%................

The markets clearly think we could be next - probably after Switzerland and Italy. Worrying.
27

Alan B,

02/12/2008 13:48:18
#ccc

I doubt printing money would be particularly inflationary (within reason).

The money supply is now largely made up of debt rather than notes and coins.

And also due to the nature of the global economy and competition.

A closed economy would be much more susceptable to inflation from printing money.
28

ccc,

02/12/2008 13:57:09
#27

By printing money I meant creating Government money/debt without any product behind it (Gilts/Bonds etc..)

Although that gets us onto the subject of fractional reserve banking.

All very complicated anyway !! I don't understand half of it. But the bits I do are rather frightening...
29

BIG EYE,

Paisley 02/12/2008 14:14:42
Has any of the Labour propogandists considered that the rush to go shopping is caused because people see what is happening to the pound, recognise it is dropping on a daily basis and are trying to get some goods for their money before the price of everything soars because everything is imported and our brillint Union with england has ensured we don't make very much any more having sunk all our hopes on the financial sector and services!

Oh Yes the Union dividend strikes again.
30

BIG EYE,

Paisley 02/12/2008 14:15:56
Maybe it's time to bring back the "sunset" industries who actually made things?
31

ccc,

02/12/2008 14:18:02
"the rush to go shopping"..........???

Where is this happening ? This is what Labour wants people to do. However it seems quite the opposite is happening. Quite right too. If you have little money and are scared about job prospects the last thing you should be doing is splashing the cash !! Especially if it is not yours...
32

Richard Lionheart,

02/12/2008 15:12:32
Global downturn? Oh you mean that having denied that there was a global economy for 10 years, when “WE HAVE PUT AN END TO BOOM & BUST" was the rhetoric of the day, G Brown has learned, all too late, that there is a GLOBAL Economy.

Suppose that is progress. Even if he only realised that this Global Economy existed when he was looking for something to blame, for the mess that some numpty who was Chancellor for 10 years had gotten us into.

Shame the dinosaurs still believe that they can get the over indebted British people to spend their way out of recession, and that Bank Rate controls interest rates charged in the market!
33

moral___superiority_,

02/12/2008 17:25:43
unbelievable
34

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/12/2008 17:50:37
"Loans worth £459 million were offered in October – compared to £1.49 billion the previous month. The Bank of England said the figure was the second lowest on record since 1993"

However, the bubble started in 1982, so we've got a ways to go yet.

35

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/12/2008 17:52:45
"First-time buyers and homeowners alike are still struggling to buy property as banks are still requesting sizeable deposits"

The article has misspelled "sensible".
36

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/12/2008 17:56:58
7 reckons: "Then again if we refused to pay for it then the Government would go bust ..."

Really, you say that like it'd be a Bad Thing.
37

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/12/2008 18:00:51
13: You seem to imagine people will buy houses using mortgages in future. Could be they were simply part of the bubble and are slowly vanishing as it pops.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.