Nationwide rate cut?

lisyloo

Have you got a house now?

Yes

When did you buy your house?

This one 2003.
Although I'm not quite clear on the relevance of this.
Are you interested from a market timing point of view or LTV?

ive looked at the svr deals you put up and the only one that looks any good is First Direct.

But they weren't put up as examples of competitve deals.
They were put up to demonstrate that you were wrong about banks passing on the rate cut.
FWIW - I'm going onto BOE + 0.49% which is 4.99%.
So that's an example of a competitive deal.

Im just saying that the banks may say they are passing on the drop , but in my eyes it should be a lot more than a 2% gap between themselves and the BOE rate.

Does "my eyes" include a full understadning of the increased costs of borrowing i.e. LIBOR rate, the increased risk now prices are falling and the costs of regulation.
People with good LTVs and good credit historys can get much better deals than this e.g. mine is a margin of 0.49% above base rate.
Of course if your LTV is high or your credit rating is a bit shabby then you would expect there to be a premium wouldn't you?
On what have you based your judgement that it's too high?.
Have you done a full investigation and analysis of the various factors or is this jsut what the man down the pub said?

People arent thick and they know when they are being took for a ride

Good let's hope they have the good sense to get a decent deal like mine and not pay SVR.
No problem then is there?
As I said the information was put up to show lenders were dropping rates, it was NOT put up as a list of comeptitive deals and you seem to be twisting it that way.
If you have a decent situation then you can knock 1.5% off that.

and lets hope the banks lower their rates .5% above the BOE RATE.

See my deal then which is slightly less (0.49%), it's already available (subject to status of course).

confused31_2

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes



This one 2003.



But they weren't put up as examples of competitve deals.
They were put up to demonstrate that you were wrong about banks passing on the rate cut.
FWIW - I'm going onto BOE + 0.49% which is 4.99%.
So that's an example of a competitive deal.



Does "my eyes" include a full understadning of the increased costs of borrowing i.e. LIBOR rate, the increased risk now prices are falling and the costs of regulation.
People with good LTVs and good credit historys can get much better deals than this e.g. mine is a margin of 0.49% above base rate.
Of course if your LTV is high or your credit rating is a bit shabby then you would expect there to be a premium wouldn't you?
On what have you based your judgement that it's too high?.
Have you done a full investigation and analysis of the various factors or is this jsut what the man down the pub said?



Good let's hope they have the good sense to get a decent deal like mine and not pay SVR.
No problem then is there?
As I said the information was put up to show lenders were dropping rates, it was NOT put up as a list of comeptitive deals and you seem to be twisting it that way.
If you have a decent situation then you can knock 1.5% off that.



See my deal then which is slightly less (0.49%), it's already available (subject to status of course).

I aint bothered about your deal, you seem to be a well self opinionated person, the post was about nationwide not cutting there rates, and most people on here think like myself that the banks may pass on the 0.5%, but the rates are still too high.

you need to get of your high horse, ive noticed in a lot of your post's you take the high ground and treat everybody else is like yourself.

Most people have a life, you need to get one, if i was a buyer at the moment i wouldnt bother getting a mortgage unless i had a very big deposit, but even then i would still hang on.

Maybe when house prices fall 50% and your in negative equity we might see you with a different view.

Your basically saying because you have saved a large deposit and have a large equity in your property you deserve a good rate, and that any people who havent saved dont.

I personally dont like anyone getting ripped off, just because you can save, some people are just not in the position to save.

confused

_Andy_

confused31 wrote: »

Your basically saying because you have saved a large deposit and have a large equity in your property you deserve a good rate, and that any people who havent saved dont.

And? Basic lending strategy - the higher the equity in the property, the lower the risk for the lender. Therefore borrowers with a higher percentage of equity are lower risk and therefore can be offered lower rates.

tjb500

The C and G have put their fixed rates up since yesterday. Despite the announcements on Monday. How does this help homeowners?

lisyloo

if i was a buyer at the moment i wouldnt bother getting a mortgage unless i had a very big deposit, but even then i would still hang on.

I would generally agree with you.

Maybe when house prices fall 50% and your in negative equity we might see you with a different view.

I think you should stick to the dicussion and not get too personal but I have a 36% LTV so I won't be in negative equity at 50%.
But what do house prices have to do with rates?
I thought we were talking about bank rates?

Your basically saying because you have saved a large deposit and have a large equity in your property you deserve a good rate, and that any people who havent saved dont.

Something like that.
Let me explain it to you.
If you have a high LTV you are a higher risk than someone with a low LTV.
If you have a bad history of not repaying debt you are a higher risk than someone who has 6 years history of paying debts on time.
It has ALWAYS been the case that lower risk customers get better deals.
This is nothing new.

I personally dont like anyone getting ripped off, just because you can save, some people are just not in the position to save.

I also don't like people getting ripped off which is why I haved helped many people on these boards e.g. claiming mortgage exit fess.
If people are not in a posistion to save for a deposit whilst they live with their parents or in rented accomodation then they are probably not in a good posistion to buy where they will face many additional costs like maintenance, repairs and buildings insurance.
It's chepaer to rent and especially to live with parents so how can you afford a mortgage if you can't put money by in this situation?

confused31_2

_Andy_ wrote: »

And? Basic lending strategy - the higher the equity in the property, the lower the risk for the lender. Therefore borrowers with a higher percentage of equity are lower risk and therefore can be offered lower rates.

Thats obvious mate, but how many first time buyers now have large deposits???
I suspect not many, when i bought my house i had a 7000 pound deposit and it took me a few years to get it together, at the time that was a 10% deposit now banks are asking for 25% which i think is ridiculous.

Its okay if you bought youR house whEn i did as i have well over 100,000 pound equity, but to get the housing market going again these mortgages need to be aimed at FTB'S.

thats why there wont be a lot of people getting mortgages and i still think it will be a long time before a influx of FTB's come back.

Thats why i think you would be a fool to jump on a high svr rate now as a FTB, people who have houses and have no equity, may not have a choice and its a shame for these people.

Having said all that on sky news today they reckon interest rates will make sharp falls again next year, and they also said inflation would be down to 2% by the end of 2009.

The big picture is there wont be many new mortgages until FTB'S come back, and i dont think they will come back until the banks lower their interest rates,fees, high deposits and the house prices level out.

im prepared for a long wait, be patient everybody!!!

confused

confused31_2

Loopyloo

In my original post i stated none of the banks pass it on, and in relation i still think the rates that you stated are not good rates.

when rates where 4.75% in 2005 most banks svr was 5%, now the rate is 4.5% and most svr are 7%

In 2005 people only needed a 5% deposit to get tha,t now they would need at least a 25% deposit to get 0.49% like yourself.

This is simply not fair and i think the banks rates are too high, you can go on about libor, the libor rate as come down and the banks have now started lending to each other again due to the government takeover.

But again its seems to me like it does to most people the banks are still being greedy.

confused

lisyloo

and in relation i still think the rates that you stated are not good rates

I agree and they weren't posted as an example of good rates.
They were posted as examples of rate cuts which they definitely show.
We both agree that these are not competitive rates.

when rates where 4.75% in 2005 most banks svr was 5%, now the rate is 4.5% and most svr are 7%

Well some people (including myself) believe that 2005 was an abomination and one of the reasons that we are now in this mess.
You are comparing with a historical anomally and not historical norms.
You have picked out the best time in history to make that particular comparison.
So here we disagree because I would say that 2005 rates were scandalously cheap where you would say that now they are expensive.

In 2005 people only needed a 5% deposit to get tha,t now they would need at least a 25% deposit to get 0.49% like yourself.

They could also have got a 120% mortgage with northern rock.
Or a self certified "liar" loan that went through on a "nod and a wink".
Personally I don't think we should be hailing that as a "golden era".

This is simply not fair

Possibly.
I'm not saying it's good, but going back to the days of giving people 120% mortgage wouldn't be fair either in my view.

and i think the banks rates are too high

I think they more properly reflect the risk being taken than they did in 2005.

But again its seems to me like it does to most people the banks are still being greedy.

Have you price in regluation, higher costs of fuel etc.
I'm sure their electricity bills have gone up about 40% since 2005.
We can agree to disagree and that's fine.
I'm just not sure your analysis is complete, it feels like more of a gut reactions rather than an informed analysis.
Apologies if you've done the anaylsis, but I haven't seen the evidence so far of regulation, rising costs etc, being factored in.

I think we have the same opinion about the posistion of the housing market cycle so do you honestly believe it's fair to entice pople to borrow lots of money which may be at risk in a falilng housing market.
My niece is currently on a 120% Northern Rock mortgage and cannot remortgage.
She is giving birth on the exact day her 2 year deal runs out and going onto SVR at the same time as going down to one income.
Couldn't have timed it worse?
I know people have to take reponsibility, but do you think that encouraging people into large amount sof debts is responsible???

You seem to agree it's a poor time to invest but you want the banks to give people the chance to take on lots of debt on marginal LTVs?
I can't see how that is "fair".

confused31_2

As long as people can pay the money back it is okay, you have to be stupid to have a 120% mortgage.

Also you have to be stupid to borrow 5 times the amount you earn, but there are stll people who have 5 and 10 percent deposits who are being priced out with interest rates and fees.

Let me clarify i know people go on about 120% mortgages, is that like borrowing 120,000 pounds for a 100,000 pound house and then spending the 20,000 grand on other things like cars and holidays?

If people are that stupid they deserve all they get, at least people who have saved 5% or 10% realise what its like to save money, but to ask them to save 25% to 40% would take them years.

I have never said bring back 100% mortgages let alone 120% mortgages so i dont know where you have got that from.

I just said the rates should be competitive for people who have 5 or 10 percent deposits, not as they are now as they are still too high.

confused

Locoblade

confused31 wrote: »

Loopyloo

In my original post i stated none of the banks pass it on, and in relation i still think the rates that you stated are not good rates.

when rates where 4.75% in 2005 most banks svr was 5%, now the rate is 4.5% and most svr are 7%

In 2005 people only needed a 5% deposit to get tha,t now they would need at least a 25% deposit to get 0.49% like yourself.

This is simply not fair and i think the banks rates are too high, you can go on about libor, the libor rate as come down and the banks have now started lending to each other again due to the government takeover.

But again its seems to me like it does to most people the banks are still being greedy.

confused

LIBOR rates may have dropped a little, but they arent going to be at 2005 levels, and even if they were, its not the whole story. In addition to higher LIBOR rates, compared to 2005 there's a huge lack of confidence in the banking system, there's falling house prices (meaning the deposit it more critical to prevent negative equity) and there's a bleak outlook for the economy (i.e higher unemployment leading to more people defaulting on payments), so is there any wonder they're now more wary to lend, charging more for the privilege and only prepared to lend to people they believe are lower risk?