Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,789
As it's written in the article, it makes no sense
So, which would cost the customer more over the life of a loan?
Paying back 250,000 at a tracker rate of 2%, over 20 years. ..?
or
paying back 110,000 at a variable rate of 6%, over 20 years. ?
I think the original tracker may be best in that situation....
and from the same articlePermanent TSB is understood to be considering offering mortgage holders a credit for additional payments.
Someone who pays off €100 could get credit for €103 under the scheme, the [broken link removed] has learned.
...
It is also looking at allowing those who are moving house to retain their trackers, in return for paying a slightly higher rate.
The deals would apply to both residential mortgage holders and those with buy-to-let investments.
...
Permanent TSB has acquired a reputation for leading on mortgage issues. It has pushed through a hike of a full 1pc in variable rates this year.
Last month it emerged that some heavily-indebted mortgage customers of [broken link removed] of Scotland ([broken link removed]) have managed to get some of the debt written off. The bank, which shut down operations here last year, admitted it was working with customers to "restructure their debt in exceptional circumstances".
It is also looking at allowing those who are moving house to retain their trackers, in return for paying a slightly higher rate.
I think you need to check your figures JoeJust to add to my previous message..
So, which would cost the customer more over the life of a loan?
Paying back 250,000 at a tracker rate of 2%, over 20 years. ..?
or
paying back 110,000 at a variable rate of 6%, over 20 years. ?
I think the customer will pay 305,783 euros in total for the tracker rate, and a massive 331,806 on the reduced capital with an increased rate.
This shows how large the reduction needs to be. Most people would be very happy to hear that the 250K owed has been reduced to 110K.. but they would lose out.
There is another piece of info. In some cases, (if you have 110K for example),.. you may be better off taking an unfair reduction, if this allows you to pay back the mortgage and thus avoid interest payments. This is intangible, but it's the only way this scheme can be made to work.
For the above example.. I think the capital needs to be reduced to 75,000, from 250,000 in order not to lose out with a 4% interest rate rise. (total payback 305,776). That's a capital reduction of 70%, and it shows how stupid the banks were to give out trackers.. they're supposed to be good at maths.
Someone who pays off €100 could get credit for €103 under the scheme - so if I pay €100k off my tracker, they will reduce it by €103k or am I reading this wrong?
Yes, figures are incorrect. Sorry about that.
I think this discussion needs accurate figures in order to see what a fair offer would be. It's an issue that may affect many people.
What is a fair reduction in the capital if someone is moved from a tracker of 2%, on 250,000 with 20 years remaining?
Yes, figures are incorrect. Sorry about that.
I think this discussion needs accurate figures in order to see what a fair offer would be. It's an issue that may affect many people.
What is a fair reduction in the capital if someone is moved from a tracker of 2%, on 250,000 with 20 years remaining?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?