These aims are noble and indisputably important. So it was like a bolt from the blue when last week AFM supremo, Hoogervorst, donned the hat of regulator besides that of supervisor. Within a month, he warned, he would independently stamp out maximum value mortgages (home purchase price + buyer’s costs) and ban all loans exceeding 4.5 times income. Shortly after Mr Hoogervorst’s statement made the news, the plan was lambasted from literally all sides (Nout Wellink – President of the Dutch Central Bank – was the only one in favour) and now seems to be off the table.

Even so, calculators have been doing overtime in the past weeks to work out whether first-time buyers can get on the property ladder or not, to establish whether an interest-only mortgage up to the forced sale value leads to lower monthly costs than renting a comparable house (answer in many cases: yes), and to compare the average house price with average income. Frequent comparisons were also made – both by supporters and opponents of the plans – between the Netherlands and  its neighbours.

All these are essentially reactions to the merits of the proposed rules. But a much more important question, perhaps, is whether the leader of such a powerful body as the AFM is wise to fly a kite about such a far-reaching subject – and do so completely on his own. And it would also be interesting to test his statements against the AFM’s own mission.

We live in times when TV loan adverts may be restricted to the evening hours (and accompanied by a strong health warning!), some brokers and intermediaries are struggling not to go under, and report after report is recommending more stringent rules for the financial sector. To make such statements in such unsettled times without broad-based backing defies all logic.

It is hard to reconcile Hoogervorst’s statements with the AFM’s objectives as quoted from its own website. Banks, intermediaries, brokers and private individuals felt ambushed and had no idea what lay in store - which made it very difficult to give customers careful advice. But an even more important consideration is, quite simply, that comments like this can damage confidence in the housing market – witness the fact that several worried (prospective) customers contacted us last week.

The AFM comes under the political responsibility of the Minister of Finance. So surely plans that seem carefully designed to pull the carpet from under the housing market should at the very least be put to the State Secretary or Minister first. The AFM claims to be single-mindedly committed to the careful provision of services, but they really got it badly wrongly here.