We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Credit Card Debt
Comments
-
I would pay my mortgage on my credit card like a shot for the cashback...in fact when the lock in ends and I decide how much of the mortgage to pay off (currently mortgage is 100% stoozed but rates may make this less attractive in future) I would be really happy to pay the lot off and get 1% cashback
I think....0 -
1% cashback and a 3% fee? Still happy?0
-
I stand corrected on the nature of the loan package.
On the other point, it makes sense to secure all the loan, even if the value of the collateral is below the value of the loan. If you get lucky, the collateral will rise in value (ie house prices go up) and you end up with a fully secured loan.
Night, night.
I've been wondering why NR went for an unsecured + secured loan set up for quite a while. My guess has been that the funding mechanism is different between a 95% and a 125% mortgage. That is, it is quite easy to securitise and sell an unsecured loan on the market, because that was where the securitisation market developed first in the UK. Mortgages are a little harder to sell, and in order to get the A rating (or better) needed, they couldn't include 100%+ plus mortgages in the mix.
At least that's my hypothesis, but it would be interesting if anyone knows better?“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
Makes sense except one bit of the benefit of the securitization was the splitting of loans in to different risk rated tranches which would seem to be ideal for mortgages lacking proper asset backing?I've been wondering why NR went for an unsecured + secured loan set up for quite a while. My guess has been that the funding mechanism is different between a 95% and a 125% mortgage. That is, it is quite easy to securitise and sell an unsecured loan on the market, because that was where the securitisation market developed first in the UK. Mortgages are a little harder to sell, and in order to get the A rating (or better) needed, they couldn't include 100%+ plus mortgages in the mix.
At least that's my hypothesis, but it would be interesting if anyone knows better?I think....0 -
. That is, it is quite easy to securitise and sell an unsecured loan on the market, because that was where the securitisation market developed first in the UK. Mortgages are a little harder to sell
surely other way round..........
though Lehmans mixed different grade debt together....... was some of it NR's?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards