Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
AIUI the original sub-prime problem wasn't so much the dodgy lending per se, but that this was hidden and disguised within portfolios of supposedly sounder loans, the financial equivalent of mixing radioactive waste with household refuse.
AIUI the original sub-prime problem wasn't so much the dodgy lending per se, but that this was hidden and disguised within portfolios of supposedly sounder loans, the financial equivalent of mixing radioactive waste with household refuse.
Indeed.
The John Bird and John Fortune piece on it is still the best explanation that I have seen going. linky (It is SFW but not if work does not like YouTube)
If banks want to take the risk, I hope its only small institutions like Kensington and Precise, we don't bail them out if it goes tits up.
Absolutely.
There is nothing wrong with lending money to higher risk customers provided that everyone involved is aware of the risk they are taking. If it all goes tits up then the taxpayer should not be bailing them out.
AIUI the original sub-prime problem wasn't so much the dodgy lending per se, but that this was hidden and disguised within portfolios of supposedly sounder loans, the financial equivalent of mixing radioactive waste with household refuse.
That was exactly what the problem was, except it was radioactive waste with the household shopping. However, the article seems to be about sub-prime mortgages themselves, not their wrappers.
If banks want to take the risk, I hope its only small institutions like Kensington and Precise, we don't bail them out if it goes tits up.
AIUI the original sub-prime problem wasn't so much the dodgy lending per se, but that this was hidden and disguised within portfolios of supposedly sounder loans, the financial equivalent of mixing radioactive waste with household refuse.
"Figures today from the Bank of England revealed that net new mortgage lending (not including redemptions and repayments) in September was £112m, down from £1.62bn in August. "
Leave a comment: