Vince Cable promises to take 'tough line' on banks

Business Secretary Vince Cable has said he plans to take a "tough line" with parts of the UK banking system.


Mr Cable said he would press banks to ensure they were meeting lending targets, especially those to small and medium-sized businesses.

He said this was a key factor to help an early economic recovery.

Mr Cable had earlier faced questions from MPs seeking assurances about £730m worth of help for business which is now under review.


The review of the previous government's pledges is part of efforts to cut public spending this year.

"We inherited a very large number of projects which were agreed in a hurry in the run-up to the last general election," Mr Cable told MPs in his first business questions in the House of Commons.

'Stifle recovery'

In what was described as his first major speech as business secretary, Mr Cable pledged to "redouble our efforts to ensure that bank lending agreements from banks that have benefited from taxpayer subsidy are being honoured - especially for SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises]".

He went on to say the banks were wrong to say there was no demand.


"If the bar is set too high, of course no one is willing to jump," said Mr Cable.

"The current risk aversion by banks in the SME sector will stifle recovery and, if it does, will actually rebound on the banks through bad debt."

EU to press for Europe-wide tax on banks

All European nations should introduce a similar upfront levy on banks, the EU internal market commissioner is expected to announce later.

Michel Barnier will suggest proceeds should go into a fund to insure against future financial failures.

UK Chancellor George Osborne backs such a levy but would prefer national governments to have more freedom to decide how the money is spent.

The move is among the global attempts to tighten up banking regulation.

A Senate bill in the US containing the biggest overhaul of banking regulation since the 1930s is awaiting approval by the House of Representatives.

An independent commission is being established in the UK to look at breaking up banks into their retail and investment banking arms to reduce risk.

Meanwhile, EU ministers recently voted to curb the activities of hedge funds and certain other investment funds.

Recklessness fear Mr Barnier will suggest the money raised by the levy should go into so-called national "resolution" funds, to pay to unwind banks that run into the kind of difficulties seen during the credit crisis of 2008.

"The commissioner will say that the resolution funds would be used only to provide the kind of temporary finance required to lubricate the break up of big banks" Robert Peston: European bank tax

 A common criticism of such schemes is that they could induce recklessness if the bank knows there is a permanent bail-out fund.

The BBC's business editor Robert Peston says Mr Barnier is expected to allay the chancellor's concerns in this area and point out that it would only provide temporary finance at the time of a collapse.

 The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has said there may be a case for two new taxes on banks - one on what they borrow and another on their profits.

Sourced from the BBC

Banks given new rules on bonuses

Banks given new rules on bonuses
New rules on how financial institutions should determine pay and bonuses for staff have been set out by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

It wants to see bankers' pay deals linked far more closely with the long-term profitability of the banks.

The FSA says that bonuses should not be guaranteed for more than a year, and that senior employees should have their bonuses spread over three years.

Many believe that big bonuses led to excessive risk-taking at banks.

The new code is designed specifically to discourage short-term risk-taking, which many argue was an important factor in triggering the financial crisis.

The FSA is determined that banks' remuneration policies should be consistent with, and promote, effective risk management Hector Sants, FSA chief executive

"The fundamental objective [of the rules] is to sustain market confidence and promote financial stability through removing the incentives for inappropriate risk taking by firms," the FSA said.

But it said that "inappropriate remuneration policies" were a "contributory, rather than a dominant factor" in the crisis.

'Right incentives'

Hector Sants, head of the FSA, said the regulator was "determined that banks' remuneration policies should be consistent with, and promote, effective risk management".

The FSA said there were two main objectives behind the code of practice.

First, to ensure that boards focus more closely on making sure that "the total amount [of pay and bonuses] distributed by a firm is consistent with good risk management and sustainability".

And second, to ensure that overall pay, including bonuses, "provides the right incentives".

To this end, a number of new principles have been added to the FSA's financial regulation handbook.

In particular, these make clear that bonuses should only be guaranteed for 12 months, and that senior employees will see two-thirds of their bonuses paid out over three years.

Mr Sants said the new rules would take effect from January 2010.

The FSA wants banks to submit their remuneration policies to it by the end of October. Firms that do not comply with the code "could face enforcement action", or be forced to hold more cash in reserve should they want to pursue risky strategies.

However, it conceded that the code "is not going to change the bonus culture overnight".

The FSA also reduced the number of banks affected by the code to 26, down from the 47 originally covered.

The Association of British Insurers described the new rules as "an important step forward."

"The new version [of the handbook] is much more likely to deliver the desired outcome without excessive compliance burdens," it added.

Nicholas Stretch at City law firm CMS Cameron McKenna said: "This is not the end of the rules for rewards for bank employees.

"There is still substantial political pressure for capping awards, greater public disclosure and naming and shaming in this sector, both in the UK and internationally, which is likely to continue for some time."

Relocation concerns

The FSA launched a consultation in February looking at measures to discourage excessive risk-taking, and published a draft version of the code in March.

Bankers expressed concerns that the proposed measures on bonuses, some of which have been included in the final code, would encourage institutions to relocate employees outside of the UK, to get round the new rules.

This could have serious implications for the City's position as the world's leading financial centre, and for the UK's tax take, bankers argue.

However, recently there have been concerns that large bonuses are returning amid a boom in profits from investment banking.

And there have been calls for stricter rules on pay from those who criticise what they see as excessive bonuses.

sourced from THE BBC

Banking reform proposals outlined

Opposition parties are setting out details of how they would regulate banking, following the loss of billions of pounds in the credit crunch.

Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable is expected to argue that large, failed UK banks are the "financial equivalent" of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

And taxpayer-owned Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland should be broken up.

Meanwhile, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne wants to give the Bank of England more regulation powers.

However, he also wants to curb the personal power of the governor of the Bank by vesting the responsibility for supervising financial institutions in a new financial policy committee. This would include independent appointees.

The Tories, in their 52-page "plan for sound banking", also propose a raft of measures to protect and empower consumers.

These would include transforming the rump of the current Financial Service Authority (FSA) into a consumer protection agency and also forcing banks to give the consumers more useful information on what they charge.

Treasury minister Lord Myners called the proposals "window dressing that ignore the failures that led to the global financial crisis".

"While George Osborne talks about who's in charge, we are focused on the lessons of the crisis, including greater scrutiny of the shadow banking sector and a crackdown on excessive City bonuses.

"The Tory proposals would abolish an independent, expert regulator, while diverting attention from banks that took excessive risks that led to this crisis."

'Not hostile'

Meanwhile, Mr Cable will use a speech later to argue major reform is needed to make banks a lesser threat to the UK economy.

He will tell the London Stock Exchange he believes there is a long-term role for state banking, and will argue the banks in which taxpayers have a stake should be broken up into smaller parts before being returned to private ownership.

Tory financial plans
Mr Cable will also call for highly-paid bankers to publish details of their pay and bonuses and will repeat his calls for the FSA to keep its role as banking regulator.

"Some aspects of the financial services industry are simply too big for the British economy to manage safely," he will say.

"The large, failed, British banks are the financial equivalent of Chernobyl. Like the former Soviet Union, the UK became over-reliant on dangerous financial reactors."

To prevent Britain from becoming the next Iceland, "radical safety measures" were needed, he will argue.

"My approach to the City is not one of hostility, or of obsequiousness. I recognise its importance.

"But it needs 'tough love', not the freedom to run amok."

Earlier this month, Chancellor Alistair Darling said banks would have to hold more capital and announced plans to strengthen regulation.

He intends to set up a new Council for Financial Stability, which would see the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury meeting regularly and reporting on the systemic risks to financial stability.

sourced from THE BBC

Ten US banks fail recession test

May 8 2009

US banks would need a total of £50 billion in additional funds to survive if the recession deepens, the results of government "stress tests" showed.

An assessment of the robustness of the sector found that 10 of the 19 largest banks would need to find extra capital to see them through the bad times.

Bank of America faces the largest potential shortfall of £23 billion.

It joined a list of institutions that also includes Citigroup and Wells Fargo.

The stress tests were designed to gauge whether America's 19 largest banks have enough capital to see them through a deepening of the recession.

After Bank of America, Wells Fargo was found to have the second largest shortfall of £9.1 billion, followed by GMAC with a potential £7.6 billion black hole.

Ten US banks fail recession test

May 8 2009

US banks would need a total of £50 billion in additional funds to survive if the recession deepens, the results of government "stress tests" showed.

An assessment of the robustness of the sector found that 10 of the 19 largest banks would need to find extra capital to see them through the bad times.

Bank of America faces the largest potential shortfall of £23 billion.

It joined a list of institutions that also includes Citigroup and Wells Fargo.

The stress tests were designed to gauge whether America's 19 largest banks have enough capital to see them through a deepening of the recession.

After Bank of America, Wells Fargo was found to have the second largest shortfall of £9.1 billion, followed by GMAC with a potential £7.6 billion black hole.

Citigroup is being asked to raise an additional £3.3 billion to make it secure. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and American Express were among the nine banks deemed not to need to raise additional funds.

The stress tests were designed to help regulators assess the ongoing financial stability of US banks.

They look at two models of the economy going forward - one in which unemployment reaches 8.8% next year and house prices drop a further 14%. In the second scenario, joblessness rises to 10.3% and property slips another 22%.

Banks facing a shortfall under the model will have to come up with a plan to raise additional capital by mid June.

 If they cannot do so independently, they may have to turn to the government's £466 billion financial bailout fund.

sourced from Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News

Lloyds Bank chairman to step down

Sir Victor Blank is to step down as chairman of Lloyds Banking Group by June 2010.

Sir Victor has been chairman of Lloyds since 2006

Following a meeting with the board, Sir Victor said it was "the right time for the Group to appoint a new chairman".

Lord Leitch, who has been appointed deputy chairman, said the board was "very sad" at the decision.

Sir Victor and Lloyds' chief executive, Eric Daniels, have faced criticism for their decision last year to buy HBOS, the troubled owner of Halifax.

The UK Treasury owns 43% of Lloyds.

Sir Victor confirmed he was stepping down just before he went inside Lloyds' headquarters in the City of London on Sunday.

Sir Victor has jumped before he was pushed Robert Peston, BBC business editor Read Robert Peston's blog Lloyds sees HBOS loss of £10..

He told BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam that he "still had lots to do" and denied he was being forced to resign under pressure from shareholders.

In a statement released after the meeting, he said he would continue working until a successor was appointed "to ensure the successful integration of the two banks".

"This remains - in the medium term - a unique value-enhancing opportunity," he added.

Mr Daniels said Sir Victor had played a very important role "during a period of significant change for our company and at a time when there has been unprecedented volatility in the markets".

HBOS losses HBOS made a loss in 2008 of almost £11bn. But Lloyds TSB, as it was called, made a profit of £807m last year, albeit an 80% drop on the previous year.

The two banks together are expected to be in loss this year.

The government earlier this year agreed to insure £260bn of the bank's toxic loans, and to potentially raise its stake in the bank to 65% following the HBOS losses.

The deal was part of the Treasury's taxpayer-backed Asset Protection Scheme to insure banks' riskiest assets against further losses resulting from the credit crisis.

Lloyds' directors do not believe that Sir Victor would have been ousted by shareholders at the forthcoming annual meeting, according to the BBC's business editor, Robert Peston.

However, he believes that UK Financial Investments (UKFI), which manages the government's stake in financial institutions such as Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland, was "acutely aware" of other shareholders' convictions that there had to be a change at the top of Lloyds.

"I am now persuaded that UKFI would have voted its 43% (that's taxpayers' 43%) against him staying on," Mr Peston said.

 'First-class chairman' Lord Leitch said the board "was unanimous in wanting Sir Victor Blank to seek re-election as chairman for another three years".

LLOYDS' TOXIC ASSETS 83% of the £260bn toxic assets came from HBOS 17% come from the books of Lloyds TSB Of the toxic assets, £151bn are in corporate and commercial loans £74bn comes from residential mortgages "We are very sad about Sir Victor's personal decision to retire, although we respect and understand his reasons for it," he said in a statement.

"Sir Victor is a first-class chairman and we are delighted that he will continue with us to ensure an orderly succession and the continued integration.

" Lloyds last month announced it is to cut 985 jobs at a business offering car finance over the next two years, the first major job losses from the merger.

 The government backed the Lloyds takeover of HBOS last September, bypassing normal competition rules to avoid the collapse of the Halifax owner.

Shares in the bank have dropped by 27% so far this year, closing at 89 pence on Friday.

Lloyds controls about 25% of British customers' personal bank accounts and about 28% of the mortgage market.

sourced from The BBC

Lloyds Bank chairman to step down

Sir Victor Blank is to step down as chairman of Lloyds Banking Group by June 2010.

Sir Victor has been chairman of Lloyds since 2006

Following a meeting with the board, Sir Victor said it was "the right time for the Group to appoint a new chairman".

Lord Leitch, who has been appointed deputy chairman, said the board was "very sad" at the decision.

Sir Victor and Lloyds' chief executive, Eric Daniels, have faced criticism for their decision last year to buy HBOS, the troubled owner of Halifax.

The UK Treasury owns 43% of Lloyds.

Sir Victor confirmed he was stepping down just before he went inside Lloyds' headquarters in the City of London on Sunday.

Sir Victor has jumped before he was pushed Robert Peston, BBC business editor Read Robert Peston's blog Lloyds sees HBOS loss of £10..

He told BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam that he "still had lots to do" and denied he was being forced to resign under pressure from shareholders.

In a statement released after the meeting, he said he would continue working until a successor was appointed "to ensure the successful integration of the two banks".

"This remains - in the medium term - a unique value-enhancing opportunity," he added.

Mr Daniels said Sir Victor had played a very important role "during a period of significant change for our company and at a time when there has been unprecedented volatility in the markets".

HBOS losses HBOS made a loss in 2008 of almost £11bn. But Lloyds TSB, as it was called, made a profit of £807m last year, albeit an 80% drop on the previous year.

The two banks together are expected to be in loss this year.

The government earlier this year agreed to insure £260bn of the bank's toxic loans, and to potentially raise its stake in the bank to 65% following the HBOS losses.

The deal was part of the Treasury's taxpayer-backed Asset Protection Scheme to insure banks' riskiest assets against further losses resulting from the credit crisis.

Lloyds' directors do not believe that Sir Victor would have been ousted by shareholders at the forthcoming annual meeting, according to the BBC's business editor, Robert Peston.

However, he believes that UK Financial Investments (UKFI), which manages the government's stake in financial institutions such as Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland, was "acutely aware" of other shareholders' convictions that there had to be a change at the top of Lloyds.

"I am now persuaded that UKFI would have voted its 43% (that's taxpayers' 43%) against him staying on," Mr Peston said.

 'First-class chairman' Lord Leitch said the board "was unanimous in wanting Sir Victor Blank to seek re-election as chairman for another three years".

LLOYDS' TOXIC ASSETS 83% of the £260bn toxic assets came from HBOS 17% come from the books of Lloyds TSB Of the toxic assets, £151bn are in corporate and commercial loans £74bn comes from residential mortgages "We are very sad about Sir Victor's personal decision to retire, although we respect and understand his reasons for it," he said in a statement.

"Sir Victor is a first-class chairman and we are delighted that he will continue with us to ensure an orderly succession and the continued integration.

" Lloyds last month announced it is to cut 985 jobs at a business offering car finance over the next two years, the first major job losses from the merger.

 The government backed the Lloyds takeover of HBOS last September, bypassing normal competition rules to avoid the collapse of the Halifax owner.

Shares in the bank have dropped by 27% so far this year, closing at 89 pence on Friday.

Lloyds controls about 25% of British customers' personal bank accounts and about 28% of the mortgage market.

sourced from The BBC

US jobless rate increases to 8.1%

 

The US jobless rate jumped in February to 8.1%, according to official figures from the Labor Department. The number of people out of work rose by 651,000 during the month. Both figures were bigger than expected. The number of job cuts in January was revised up to 655,000 while December's losses were pushed up to 681,000. December's figure was the biggest job loss in a single month since October 1949. The unemployment rate was the highest since December 1983.   Rising unemployment has meant greater demand for free meals President Obama said that the number of jobs lost so far in the recession was "astounding". Speaking in Ohio, he added: "I don't need to tell the people of this state what statistics like this mean," saying that he had signed his economic stimulus package in order to save jobs. The extra 161,000 jobs added to December and January's figures mean that almost two million jobs have been lost in the past three months. A total of 12.5 million people are now unemployed in the US. "It just continues to show the grim state of the labour market, which suggests a deepening US recession," said Joe Manimbo, currency trader at Ruesch International in Washington. Across sectors There were further signs of companies cutting back on their spending with the news that the number of people who wanted to work full-time but were forced to work part-time for economic reasons rising 787,000 to 8.6 million.   FEBRUARY'S BIG JOB CUTS Goodyear: 5,000 Macy's: 7,000 General Motors: 3,400 Estee Lauder: 2,000 Lincoln Electric: 900 The average working week stood at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December. Jobs were cut in most sectors, with only government, education and health services adding staff. In the manufacturing sector 168,000 jobs were cut in the month while 104,000 jobs went in construction and 375,000 were cut in the service sector. "The payroll numbers are very weak. With the revisions, we've had significant job losses in the past four months," said Gary Thayer, senior economist at Wachovia Securities in St Louis. "Companies are reducing workers and output in order to bring inventories into line with weak sales." Among the companies that announced big job cuts in February were Goodyear, Estee Lauder, Macy's and General Motors. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress earlier in the week that economic indicators "show little sign of improvement" and suggest that "labour market conditions may have worsened further in recent weeks".

US jobless rate increases to 8.1%

 

The US jobless rate jumped in February to 8.1%, according to official figures from the Labor Department. The number of people out of work rose by 651,000 during the month. Both figures were bigger than expected. The number of job cuts in January was revised up to 655,000 while December's losses were pushed up to 681,000. December's figure was the biggest job loss in a single month since October 1949. The unemployment rate was the highest since December 1983.   Rising unemployment has meant greater demand for free meals President Obama said that the number of jobs lost so far in the recession was "astounding". Speaking in Ohio, he added: "I don't need to tell the people of this state what statistics like this mean," saying that he had signed his economic stimulus package in order to save jobs. The extra 161,000 jobs added to December and January's figures mean that almost two million jobs have been lost in the past three months. A total of 12.5 million people are now unemployed in the US. "It just continues to show the grim state of the labour market, which suggests a deepening US recession," said Joe Manimbo, currency trader at Ruesch International in Washington. Across sectors There were further signs of companies cutting back on their spending with the news that the number of people who wanted to work full-time but were forced to work part-time for economic reasons rising 787,000 to 8.6 million.   FEBRUARY'S BIG JOB CUTS Goodyear: 5,000 Macy's: 7,000 General Motors: 3,400 Estee Lauder: 2,000 Lincoln Electric: 900 The average working week stood at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December. Jobs were cut in most sectors, with only government, education and health services adding staff. In the manufacturing sector 168,000 jobs were cut in the month while 104,000 jobs went in construction and 375,000 were cut in the service sector. "The payroll numbers are very weak. With the revisions, we've had significant job losses in the past four months," said Gary Thayer, senior economist at Wachovia Securities in St Louis. "Companies are reducing workers and output in order to bring inventories into line with weak sales." Among the companies that announced big job cuts in February were Goodyear, Estee Lauder, Macy's and General Motors. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress earlier in the week that economic indicators "show little sign of improvement" and suggest that "labour market conditions may have worsened further in recent weeks".

What do you think?

[polldaddy poll="1371226"]

What do you think?

Brown under siege as Congress caps bankers' bonuses

A dramatic vote on Capitol Hill is set to bring major change to Wall Street's risk culture as cash incentives for executives, brokers and traders are limited to a third of their salaries. Gaby Hinsliff, Zoe Wood and Paul Harris report on the implications for Britain.

Gordon Brown was under rising pressure to clamp down on the City's bonus culture last night after the US Congress agreed to drastic curbs capping senior bankers' bonuses at a third of their salary.

The measures, which are expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama (Barack Obama page on the Guardin website) this week, would apply to dozens of staff at American banks bailed out by the taxpayer and could cost Wall Street's wealthiest millions. Cash bonuses would be banned in favour of long-term share options, with the restrictions extending beyond a handful of top executives to senior brokers and traders.

read full article from The Gardian

Brown under siege as Congress caps bankers' bonuses

A dramatic vote on Capitol Hill is set to bring major change to Wall Street's risk culture as cash incentives for executives, brokers and traders are limited to a third of their salaries. Gaby Hinsliff, Zoe Wood and Paul Harris report on the implications for Britain.

Gordon Brown was under rising pressure to clamp down on the City's bonus culture last night after the US Congress agreed to drastic curbs capping senior bankers' bonuses at a third of their salary.

The measures, which are expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama (Barack Obama page on the Guardin website) this week, would apply to dozens of staff at American banks bailed out by the taxpayer and could cost Wall Street's wealthiest millions. Cash bonuses would be banned in favour of long-term share options, with the restrictions extending beyond a handful of top executives to senior brokers and traders.

read full article from The Gardian

Banks to get bonuses

bankAs the government / general public have bailed out the banks. It is proposed that the banks will pay bonuses. So not only have the banks been run badly, they have gambled with our money (and lost) and had massive financial support from you and me, know their want to give bonuses out. I think this is unacceptable, if a bank gives out any bonuses than the government should with hold any further funding for any bank.

But if its the lower payed bank workers that get the bonuses than good , but when the bonuses go higher up in the banking system. Bonuses should only be awarded for hard and good work, so why are bonuses proposed to people that have directly gambled with our money, been bailed out by the government. 

Maybe now is the time to only have one or two banks, one privaltyly owned and other goverment owned. I now where I'd put my money. 

 

 

Lloyds defends staff bonus plan

Lloyds insists it is right to offer financial

rewards to staff who hit targets

Lloyds insists it is right to offer financial rewards to staff who hit targets Lloyds Banking Group has defended plans to reward retail and commercial staff with bonuses, worth a reported £120m.

Its subsidiary HBOS - bought with government backing last year - is to record a loss of nearly £11bn, raising concerns it may need more state help.

But Lloyds, already 43% taxpayer-owned, said its employees deserved "financial recognition" for hitting targets.

Shadow business secretary Ken Clarke has accused ministers of overseeing a "shotgun marriage" of the two banks.

In most cases staff bonuses would amount to £1,000 or less for employees earning about £17,000 per year, the bank said. The report comes amid speculation that the government - which has already poured £17bn into the group - may be forced to take a majority stake in Lloyds, or even nationalise it.

read full article click here

Banks to get bonuses

bankAs the government / general public have bailed out the banks. It is proposed that the banks will pay bonuses. So not only have the banks been run badly, they have gambled with our money (and lost) and had massive financial support from you and me, know their want to give bonuses out. I think this is unacceptable, if a bank gives out any bonuses than the government should with hold any further funding for any bank.

But if its the lower payed bank workers that get the bonuses than good , but when the bonuses go higher up in the banking system. Bonuses should only be awarded for hard and good work, so why are bonuses proposed to people that have directly gambled with our money, been bailed out by the government. 

Maybe now is the time to only have one or two banks, one privaltyly owned and other goverment owned. I now where I'd put my money. 

 

 

Lloyds defends staff bonus plan

Lloyds insists it is right to offer financial

rewards to staff who hit targets

Lloyds insists it is right to offer financial rewards to staff who hit targets Lloyds Banking Group has defended plans to reward retail and commercial staff with bonuses, worth a reported £120m.

Its subsidiary HBOS - bought with government backing last year - is to record a loss of nearly £11bn, raising concerns it may need more state help.

But Lloyds, already 43% taxpayer-owned, said its employees deserved "financial recognition" for hitting targets.

Shadow business secretary Ken Clarke has accused ministers of overseeing a "shotgun marriage" of the two banks.

In most cases staff bonuses would amount to £1,000 or less for employees earning about £17,000 per year, the bank said. The report comes amid speculation that the government - which has already poured £17bn into the group - may be forced to take a majority stake in Lloyds, or even nationalise it.

read full article click here

Recession and the housing market

As the housing market starts falling is this going to most difficult year for many home owners. As the prices fall by up to £3,000 per month, this is not the time move.

But as I’m sure you will have noticed a lot of houses that were for sale late last year are now for rent, people who have let their property will not find it an easy marked. If your house is on the market you would be very lucky to sell it, the biggest problem is agreeing a sale price and then all the people in the chain being able to to get the mortgages and financial security.

Almost 3,000 home owners are falling into negative equity every, negative equity is bad if you are planing or need to move. Negative equity means you are paying more for your mortgage then the value of your property.

But over a period of time house prices will increase after the low. I am not surprised this has happened to the housing market, the prices were getting so high and out of control. I know a lot of people hold the banks responsible for the housing situation, but we had a lot to do with it, people over estimated their salary with self certification and people mortgages them self’s up to the hilt.

read full article

Recession and the housing market

As the housing market starts falling is this going to most difficult year for many home owners. As the prices fall by up to £3,000 per month, this is not the time move.

But as I’m sure you will have noticed a lot of houses that were for sale late last year are now for rent, people who have let their property will not find it an easy marked. If your house is on the market you would be very lucky to sell it, the biggest problem is agreeing a sale price and then all the people in the chain being able to to get the mortgages and financial security.

Almost 3,000 home owners are falling into negative equity every, negative equity is bad if you are planing or need to move. Negative equity means you are paying more for your mortgage then the value of your property.

But over a period of time house prices will increase after the low. I am not surprised this has happened to the housing market, the prices were getting so high and out of control. I know a lot of people hold the banks responsible for the housing situation, but we had a lot to do with it, people over estimated their salary with self certification and people mortgages them self’s up to the hilt.

read full article