Accord Mortgages - Increasing SVR?!

Thrugelmir

LizEstelle wrote: »

Ok, so their fixed rates are based on the 'fixed cost of the money to them'... and they wouldn't be swayed by the dramatically low return they're getting on existing trackers towards jacking up all other rates, knowing you 'can't move from them', as certain other posters have suggested.

My earlier comment was perhaps too simplistic, as matching mortgage lending to mortgage funding involves a whole jigsaw of different rates.

The interest rates Accord charge will depend on their overall loan book.

They won't be looking at one particular mortgage rate and "jacking" up another to correspondingly recover a loss.

As said my previous post fixed rates will reflect the "cost" of money to them.

The individuals that are unable to move, unfortunately will bear the brunt of the premium, as in risk terms they will be considered the group that will lose the bank money in the event of default.

[Deleted User]

patchman wrote: »

where did you hear this from? i can't see anything on their site

We received a letter on Friday, I'll get the text online later today for you.

Thrugelmir: I'm confused on the risk of default comment though. Surely we're not at any more risk of defaulting than someone on a fixed rate with a slightly lower LTV, or any deal in fact. If you're unfortunate enough to lose your income, you default; could happen to the best of us.
Plus, we've not borrowed a ridiculous salary multiple, we didn't self certify, we've never missed a payment and have good credit profiles. By that reckoning, anyone who bought in the last 5 years with a variable rate is instantly labelled 'sub-prime'... and so deserve to have their rates jacked?;)

Thrugelmir

Myssinic wrote: »

We received a letter on Friday, I'll get the text online later today for you.

Thrugelmir: I'm confused on the risk of default comment though. Surely we're not at any more risk of defaulting than someone on a fixed rate with a slightly lower LTV, or any deal in fact. If you're unfortunate enough to lose your income, you default; could happen to the best of us.
Plus, we've not borrowed a ridiculous salary multiple, we didn't self certify, we've never missed a payment and have good credit profiles. By that reckoning, anyone who bought in the last 5 years with a variable rate is instantly labelled 'sub-prime'... and so deserve to have their rates jacked?;)

From the banks point of view. Any borrower that is negative equity or has a high LTV is more likely to cost the bank money than say a borrower with a 50% LTV.

Its not that you will default personally, but for many reasons (redundancy, divorce, long term illness etc) people with high LTV will cost the bank money. The bank looks at statistical probabilities not individual cases.

Alan_Cross

LizEstelle wrote: »

So is Accord likely to drop its fixed rates further?

Presumably their 'prime' range is finally coming under competitive pressure from other lenders and this is why they've reduced to 'match' recently, in an effort to keep the existing prime customers which they need...?

Yes, I'd like to hear opinions, too. There seems to be something odd going on at Accord.

benjo

Since April Accord have raised their fixed rates, then lowered them a little - but they are still not as low as they were in April. They also introduced a 60% ltv band, I cant find that available now. Perhaps Im looking in the wrong place, but I cant see any details for new borrowers - just existing customer transfers.

patchman

got the letter this morning :mad::mad: £75 a month extra on my mortgage, lets hope these cowboys go t*ts up a.s.a.p...these deserve to...

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

From the banks point of view. Any borrower that is negative equity or has a high LTV is more likely to cost the bank money than say a borrower with a 50% LTV.

Its not that you will default personally, but for many reasons (redundancy, divorce, long term illness etc) people with high LTV will cost the bank money. The bank looks at statistical probabilities not individual cases.

Ok two points:
1) Who has a 50% deposit lying around these days? :rotfl: Yep, definitely my bad for not having swimming pools of money to roll around in. I deserve to be treated like dirt. If only I'd sold one of the Bentleys before buying that house...;)
2) I've had a high LTV since I bought the house 3 years ago. Nothings changed in that department, so ... ??

Seriously though. I see what you're saying but it's little wonder the banks come in for so much criticism. It's not our fault they can't run their business properly. They want all the money and those of us just trying to get by are getting utterly s*** on. And that includes anyone under the age of 45 apparently. I guess that makes us the sub-prime generation...

Patchman: it sucks big time all my projections out the window. I can't believe people are trying to justify this absolute extortion (no offence ). If it was Lloyds, I'm sure it'd be a different story.
By the way I consider Lloyds, Northern Rock and RBS sub-prime banks, does that mean I'll get a better rate with them?? :T (ok i'm just being silly now ).

Thrugelmir

Myssinic wrote: »

Ok two points:
1) Who has a 50% deposit lying around these days? :rotfl: Yep, definitely my bad for not having swimming pools of money to roll around in. I deserve to be treated like dirt. If only I'd sold one of the Bentleys before buying that house...;)
2) I've had a high LTV since I bought the house 3 years ago. Nothings changed in that department, so ... ??

Seriously though. I see what you're saying but it's little wonder the banks come in for so much criticism. It's not our fault they can't run their business properly. They want all the money and those of us just trying to get by are getting utterly s*** on. And that includes anyone under the age of 45 apparently. I guess that makes us the sub-prime generation...

Patchman: it sucks big time all my projections out the window. I can't believe people are trying to justify this absolute extortion (no offence ). If it was Lloyds, I'm sure it'd be a different story.
By the way I consider Lloyds, Northern Rock and RBS sub-prime banks, does that mean I'll get a better rate with them?? :T (ok i'm just being silly now ).

1 . Accord didn't just lend to FTB's.

2. If you have a repayment mortgage your debt is reducing albeit slowly at first. Speed up repayment reduce the interest charges.

As for the banks you are right with NR.

You omitted Lehmans, GMAC, Morgan Stanley, Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley, HBOS, Mortgage Express, Chelsea Building Society from your list. Lloyds itself wasn't into sub prime.

redlooney

patchman wrote: »

got the letter this morning :mad::mad: £75 a month extra on my mortgage, lets hope these cowboys go t*ts up a.s.a.p...these deserve to...

I'm with you Patchman - we've been stung with this thieving rate rise too and no amount of smooth talk from fianaciers helps, either on this board or elsewhere - would love to know how many of their staff have their noses in the old gravy trough this Xmas for the usual bonus run :mad:

captainhaggis

Forgive me, but can someone explain how a bank can just increase their SVR for existing customers?

I've asked a similar question on another (newer) thread but I'm still not entirely sure I know the answer.....

Doesn't a mortgage offer usually state what the lender's SVR is and state that this is the rate onto which a mortgage will revert at the end of any fixed period?

My mortgage switches to "Barclays Base Rate plus 2.440%" at the end of my fixed period. This is in my mortgage paperwork in black and white.

Could my lender just suddenly decide to charge me 20% instead, or whatever rate they so chose?!