View more on these topics

FSA delays MMR proposals until autumn

The Mortgage Market Review proposals will not be published before early autumn, Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, has revealed.

The proposals had been expected to be published in July but speaking at the FSA’s annual public meeting today, Turner says the reforms need wide ranging debate.

He says: “The more that a regulator seeks to intervene in defence of consumer interest, the more that the regulator is then making crucial trade-off choices on behalf of society, and such trade-offs are never purely technical, but judgemental and political with a small ‘p’.

“Such trade-offs are at the forefront of our work on the MMR, which is designed to address the tail of poor lending, where consumers were sold mortgages with a likelihood of default so high that the lending might reasonably be considered irresponsible.”

He says the crucial social choice is how high is too high.

He adds: “If you knew in advance that mortgage lending to a customer group with specific characteristics had a 15% chance of resulting in arrears and repossessions, is that too high? – when the implication of considering it ‘too high’ is that we will protect the 15% from the trauma of repossession, but at the expense of restricting the freedom of 85% of that customer group to make a stretching but still ultimately affordable commitment.”

Turner says this is a question which deserves wide-ranging debate, as best possible to forge a social consensus and is not a question which a regulator can resolve on the basis of technical analysis alone.

He adds: “The analysis required to enable an informed debate on this issue needs to be of the highest quality and clearly presented. This means that we will not be publishing our proposal before early autumn but I trust that when it is forthcoming, it generates the engagement that this important question deserves.”


Fairness could just saddle borrowers with growing debts

The FSA last week published its annual report for the year 2010/11, in which it warns there will be more action taken against firms for treating customers in arrears unfairly. But is it really treating customers fairly to have kept them in their homes for the past two to three years paying the minimum amount […]

Lenders must clarify what a valuation report actually does

I was interested to read last week that the council of the Residential Property Surveyors Association has written to Hector Sants, chief executive of the Financial Services Authority, calling for an investigation into the advice mortgage lenders give their borrowers. The RPSA claims only one in five home buyers obtain a survey or condition report […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • Jim Maye 23rd June 2011 at 11:50 am

    Good to see time being taken to consider the bigger picture but is it really that difficult to sort this industry out

    1) Lenders cannot differentiate product offering through different distribution channels so as not to dis advantahe consumers as to where they take their advice. If a lender wants to control volume or offer a specific product eg 90%ltv where greater control is required then no alterntive differently priced product should be available elsewhere.

    2) No Insurance premium load for those providers using the intermediary market or bank branded deals for distribution.

    3) A standard commission payment across providers using the intermediary channel – wow no bias towards a provider due to commission payment

    There you go no dual pricing or additional premium for sourcing insurance via a bank or intermediary.
    Simple a transparent mortgage and gi industry so the only thing left to resolove is to whom and how much the lenders can lend and that is surely their decision not the FSAs