Here she said the worst gig the group ever did was a private event at the Gherkin for “old banker men”.

Many readers of Mortgage Solutions may well recall that event, even if, like me, you weren’t there.

This got me thinking. Did that gig personify the mortgage market at that time? Did all that lavish spending of money cause the problems the market was soon to face? Has the market learned any lessons over the last few years?

Let’s start with the gig. Did it really personify the market?

Well, in some respects I think it did. It was at a time when the market was really enjoying itself.

Sponsored

£2.5m paid to help broker clients benefit from greener homes

Sponsored by Halifax Intermediaries

You could argue the gig was a bit excessive, but there was lots of excess at that time. There was excess in terms of lending figures, compared to today, and some argue there was excessive risks in terms of lending.

There was perhaps an excessive amount of lenders and funding. Certainly marketing budgets, for many, were over the top, with a lot more corporate entertainment going on.

So, you could argue that that gig did personify the mortgage market at that time, because their performance was a bit excessive.

I guess excess is never good, but the mortgage market was certainly no different to other sectors outside of financial services. In fact, its excesses were quite tame compared to many other markets. We live and work in a free market, so we have to take the trials and tribulations of market peaks and troughs on the chin.

However, while the market was much freer with its budgets at that time does not mean it was the cause of today’s problems.

We can blame banks, other lending institutions and politicians.

Yet, the causes of the credit crunch and the market that followed are so complex that it will make a great case study for future Harvard graduates.

Fundamentally, the problems were caused by the same drivers that give us economic growth and development, but I am not going to discuss the role of anthropology, psychology and economics on the credit crunch here.

Essentially, we are all to blame, to some degree.

Rather than keep blaming different groups, the market should think about what it has learned from the experiences from the past.

Personally, I think it has learned a great deal. However, knowledge can be a bad thing.

Albert Einstein said that “imagination is more important than knowledge,” but I am not so sure that innovative thinking is winning the battle with Mr Logic right now, especially when it comes to what is seen as risk.

The industry could be accused of learning some things, but forgetting a few basics.

Many lenders are at actually at risk of turning away good, profitable business, while the excessive price competition from 18 months before the credit crunch continues.

Any strategist will tell you that leading on price is never sustainable in the long term, as we discovered.

Yet, I am amazed at how often I see news of “rates reduced”. Lenders need to invest in their technology, their service and their people, and add value. They still need to have good products and competitive rates, but leading on rate is not a solution.

Another problem of the past was the focus on new business acquisition and a seeming disregard for retention.

I can’t be certain, but from the outside not much seems to have changed.

Lenders should be collaborating with intermediaries to find a win-win solution to prevent the merry-go-round of credit that occurred before, so it is great to read that ING are going to throw some fresh thinking into this area.

All in all, that Girls Aloud gig did personify the market back then.

Yet, Girls Aloud have moved on, as should the mortgage market. It is important to learn from past mistakes, but not be shackled by them, because as Einstein also said “in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity”.

It would be a crying shame to make a new mistake in missing out on the opportunities that do exist.

Jeff Knight is managing director of Tonic Marketing