Bank sees no dangerous bubble now


Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells Robert Peston he wants to stop a "mass of people moving into riskier mortgages"

So apparently a rise in London house prices of circa 20% per annum is not a serious bubble, according to the Bank of England.

It has announced modest constraints on banks' ability to make riskier loans. But it is highly unlikely that these will have any significant impact on the health of the housing market in any part of the UK, including the booming markets in London and the South East.

The Bank's Financial Policy Committee - created by the current government in 2010 to help prevent a repetition of the 2007-8 financial debacle - is making two proposals to limit the future growth of mortgages that are a high multiple of household incomes.

But these recommendations, if implemented this second, would have no material impact on the behaviour of banks - and are in effect an insurance policy to prevent banks becoming much more reckless in coming years.

'Rising trend'

The most eye-catching plan is to limit the proportion of new mortgages that are 4.5 times income or greater to no more than 15% of any bank's total mortgages.

Which may sound like a significant constraint on banks' commercial freedoms.

But it is unlikely that any of the big banks has ever in the history of banking supplied such a high proportion of high loan-to-income mortgages over any extended period.

Over the last 12 months, no bank has gone over the 15% threshold. And the average for all banks over the past year has been 11%.

That said, high loan-to-income mortgages are a bigger share of the total than their historical norms and are on a rising trend.

The Bank of England would expect banks to hit this threshold by 2017, based on its forecasts for earnings and house prices.

Or to put it another way, this policy is designed to limit the dangerous risks it expects banks to be taking in three years time.

The Bank of England's other recommendation is that banks should check that new borrowers could afford their mortgages if interest rates were to rise by 3% over the subsequent five years.

This is a marginally tougher affordability test than banks currently use, but does not seem materially or economically significant.


Mark Carney reacted with apparent amusement after Robert Peston asked if the Chancellor was being "irrational and hysterical"

Perhaps more eye-catching than the Bank's announcements is the adjustment being made by the Treasury to its Help to Buy subsidised mortgage scheme.

It says mortgages of 4.5 times household income or more will no longer qualify for the scheme.

The Treasury says this makes good the chancellor's promise in his Mansion House speech to adjust the Help to Buy Scheme in line with the Bank's mortgage-market proposals.

But surely the chancellor is going further than the Bank of England, in that the Bank is limiting these high loan-to-income mortgages to 15% of new mortgages - whereas the Treasury is going for zero tolerance of them.

I asked the governor whether the chancellor had gone a bit overboard.

Mark Carney said he welcomed the Treasury's action. But then he winked.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

How Labour pays for student fee cut

Labour would reduce tax relief for those earning £150,000 or more a year, shrink maximum pension pots to £1m and cut maximum annual pension contributions to £30,000 to pay for a cut to £6,000 in student fees.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 371.

    Whatever the exact details of housing resolution, any pooling of rights for their 'more equitable' redistribution must be 'by our agreement', from processes framed by that foundational agreement, for democracy: 'the voice' of every individual (free speech, writing, assembly, choice of vote in ballot AND market-spend) shall be enduring, subject only & equally to law (laziness or criminality proven)

  • rate this

    Comment number 370.

    @369. All for All "innocent demon"

    Though purest illusion, this demon is not innocent of enslaving our entire citizenry, for we all pay to allow the "owners" to indulge their fantasy of power over their futures, though this power is founded on nothing more than the continuing good will of their fellow citizens.

    In that partnership, at least, we must all ever remain equal, in peace or fear.

  • rate this

    Comment number 369.

    Grounder @368

    Irony as ever appreciated, but if good intentions are not to pave that road (@364), then we should summon the courage for ambiguity - beneath the fearsome gaze of GCHQ - to encompass address of that innocent demon 'ownership', our servant not our master, the parcelling of rights shared, approval of process truly SHAREABLE... yours to veto, IN goodwill?

  • rate this

    Comment number 368.

    @367. All for All "What more 'exact' meaning would you offer?"

    I plead "constructive ambiguity" (ironically: let the exegete decide).

    Contextually, if it is not ownership per se that one values, what are the perceived benefits of ownership that one values and how, then, may one enjoy those benefits without ensnaring oneself in ownership itself and the evil thereof?

  • rate this

    Comment number 367.

    is exactly
    what the hearer
    can make of it"

    I confess, 'the meaning of this saying' is 'borrowed' from a Higher Source!

    Hence 'for what it is worth', my humble observation that judgement 'does come, from ourselves, each other, & fate'. What more 'exact' meaning would you offer? For OFSTED approval, perhaps 'prizes for all'? Bearing what is, not powerless in thought together.


Comments 5 of 371



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.