Should the government interfere in lending conditions?

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 10.06.40 AM

The majority of our readers surveyed, believe that under certain circumstances the government should interfere in lending conditions. Only a small minority though, believe that lending conditions are the responsibility of the government.

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 10.06.49 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 10.07.05 AM

Written responses unedited:

Lending conditions must reflect sovereign liquidity and future fiscal risk profiles. Other than that, butt out.

Reserve Bank responsible as regulator for NZ banks

Conditions such as minimum deposit should be the responsibility of Govt

Lending criteria is for the banks to determine, however govt may class multiple residential property ownership as a commercial venture leading to higher business loan rates and harder lending criteria.

Interfere if required to stem inflation

only to stop interest gouging thugs who prey on the “lower decile communities”

Only as part of the countries overall financial stability. If a particular problem exist interference to apply only to that area not a blanket nation wide policy.

Govt should only interfere to maintain economic stability

The entire dilemma is based around one almighty question. Is it really the governments job/responsibility to see every person is fed, housed and happy? No its not, thats what each of as individuals is responsible for.

Deposit percentage of purchase price and loan to income ratios help protect the buyer and offer some constraint on prices. They work well when established but are disruptive on introduction.

Responsibility of the Reserve Bank

Government should only interfere in so much as to ensure macro economic stability

The RBNZ is responsible for the integrity of the banking system, not the government. Trading banks are self-managing mostly, they won’t lend if risk deemed unacceptable, they’re there to make a profit after all.

Minimum standards should not include heat pumps.

In terms of ensuring stable financial environment, conditions around lending are responsibility of government but the specific conditions imposed by the banks are not.

Only if required to prevent detrimental economic conditions.

I don’t know.

If a person or couple show a good savings record but have low incomes maybe the government could lend them dollar for dollar up to say $50k so they have a deposit and there would be a small interest only of say 3% for first 5 years then they have to refinance from a bank.

Should be the role of the reserve bank in an attempt to preserve economic stability

I think that corrupt institution ‘banking’, should be bought into line whenever they get too greedy, problem is the people and money behind the banking world have so much control over economies and countries, any measures taken to counter their rules could bring a country to its knees.

Only in dire circumstances to protect the majority – not as a catch all to prevent a few idiots from being idiots.

There needs to be checks and balances and a overview so that supply issues as created by lying Len and his council can be overrides early on. It is an unfortunate indictment of this government that hey have not interfered before now.

Usury needs legal control

Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

If you agree with me that’s nice, but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo, look between the lines and do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.

You can follow me on 

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.