One million homes face Interest-only remortgage threat

maveli

amcluesent wrote: »

More than one million homeowners on interest-only mortgages face a repayment timebomb when they next come to remortgage.

Mine is a lifetime tracker and got another 21 years left on it. If inflation is going to keep the current trend and my savings gives 6 times more interest compared to my debt, I will be able to repay the outstanding with couple of month's salary in 2031

phil_b_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

Where did I say she could "live happily on the interest alone"????

I said she/they rely on the interest ........You will more than likely be old one day , hope you have a bit more compassion then..........
!!!!!!

Some have the argument that interest rates need to rise to help those who rely on bank interest, despite the fact that many many more would struggle if they did.

I'm sure I'll be told that those in mortgage trouble have themselves to blame as it was a risky punt etc, but it could be argued that planning to fund retirement via bank interest is also risky. Having money in the bank as a means of providing income is an investment strategy like any other, which can go up and down and isnt exactly a dead-cert.

I've plenty of compassion for any old person who is struggling btw.

leveller2911

phil_b wrote: »

I'm sure I'll be told that those in mortgage trouble have themselves to blame as it was a risky punt etc, but it could be argued that planning to fund retirement via bank interest is also risky. Having money in the bank as a means of providing income is an investment strategy like any other, which can go up and down and isnt exactly a dead-cert.


Interest rates recently have been manipulated by Government for the benefit of people with mortgages..... and to the detriment of savers.......

This is not usual/normal , Government had no room for manouver so they shafted savers to save the indebted.....What would happen if all the savers withdrew their money from the banks? Think we know the answer to that when the NSI certs were withdrawn simply because savers were withdrawing their money from the Banks to put into certs........

There is No balance in interest rates at present......You didn't sound compassionate in your last post ..........

mbga9pgf

They would QE and buy bank bonds if there were a savers strike.

LydiaJ

phil_b wrote: »

Some have the argument that interest rates need to rise to help those who rely on bank interest, despite the fact that many many more would struggle if they did.

But don't we keep reading that savers outnumber borrowers in this country? I'm sure I've seen that in several articles, although I freely admit I'm not an expert and don't have any data.

chucky

leveller2911 wrote: »

Interest rates recently have been manipulated by Government for the benefit of people with mortgages..... and to the detriment of savers.......

This is not usual/normal , Government had no room for manouver so they shafted savers to save the indebted.....What would happen if all the savers withdrew their money from the banks? Think we know the answer to that when the NSI certs were withdrawn simply because savers were withdrawing their money from the Banks to put into certs........

There is No balance in interest rates at present......You didn't sound compassionate in your last post ..........

if you really believe what you have put in your post you don't really understand what is going on in the economy...

leveller2911

chucky wrote: »

if you really believe what you have put in your post you don't really understand what is going on in the economy...

I freely admit Im no economist, but I do see there is an inbalance where savers are bing shafted.

We are being told by Government that we should start saving more and have less credit, so what should we do Chucky?

I'm all ears, keep it simple though.....

chucky

leveller2911 wrote: »

I freely admit Im no economist, but I do see there is an inbalance where savers are bing shafted.

We are being told by Government that we should start saving more and have less credit, so what should we do Chucky?

I'm all ears, keep it simple though.....

i wasn't being nasty when i said that but it one of those things that is said on this forum way too often and it isn't true

the BOE rates serve a number of purposes and lowering the BOE rate wasn't to help the indebted or to be bad to savers it was to try and fix more important issues in the economy - however this has happened as a result of lowering BOE rates.

phil_b_2

LydiaJ wrote: »

But don't we keep reading that savers outnumber borrowers in this country? I'm sure I've seen that in several articles, although I freely admit I'm not an expert and don't have any data.

Maybe they do, not sure. It's not really relevant though. Most savers won't 'suffer' as such from low interest rates. The ones that genuinely rely on interest to heat their homes etc are, I can only assume, a very small minority.

Those that would suffer from increased interest rates aren't only those with mortgages. Indirectly perhaps, I, you, all of us would suffer from knock on effects that mass unemployment and a shrinking economy would have.

It's just a case of the lesser of two evils.

leveller2911

chucky wrote: »

i wasn't being nasty when i said that but it one of those things that is said on this forum way too often and it isn't true


Fair do's Chucky,Am I right in thinking that the Nationwide made a promise that its mortgage rates would not be more than around 1.5% above base rate? and in doing so slashed savings rates to make up for the profit loss?