So there are two kinds of entrepreneurs, those with housing collateral to offer banks and those without. Pity the latter... the unemployed... and us

Sir, John Plender in “Britain has embarked on wrong kind of recovery”, September 11, writes, “Since banks require entrepreneurs to back their borrowings with housing collateral the small business sector also needs a rising housing market to prosper and generate jobs”.

So there are two kinds of entrepreneurs, those with housing collateral to offer banks, and those without. Just out of curiosity, why does not John Plender call a banker and ask him, how much capital a bank is required to hold when lending to either one of those entrepreneurs classes. Might much of the bank reluctance to lend to the entrepreneurs without property have to do with that they might then be required to hold much more capital that in the other case?

Do you really want to have bankers who lend to entrepreneurs by looking at their properties and not caring shit about what they will do with the money? Is that how you wish to drive a recovery that creates sturdy jobs?