My Interest rate gamble pays off again!

Roundabouts

Is that renoman gone again? Come back soon mate, missing you already..

OffGridLiving
PPR

shortchanged_2

Roundabouts wrote: »

Is that renoman gone again? Come back soon mate, missing you already..

OffGridLiving
PPR

You obviously haven't read post 407.

MFW_ASAP

shortchanged wrote: »

FTB rates certainly are much lower now compared to what they were before the credit crunch.

Not according to Percy1983, even though he bought after a crash, bought in a recession, bought when interest rates were low, he's saying that he's missed out and hasn't had the same opportunities as others. From what I've read of this thread, the OPs mortgage was a discounted 2.04% over base rate (2.54%) with 75%LTV. It would be interesting to see what the LTV was on Percy's mortgage and what the rates were when he bought.

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

FTB rates certainly are much lower now compared to what they were before the credit crunch.

Is this true?

Percy1983

My rate is 4.99% on a 5 year fix, which will then go to base + 3.49% at the end of its term, on 90% LTV.

with the same lender that deal would now be 4.75% going to base + 3.99%.

...oh wait 90% LTV mortgages don't exist...

Percy1983

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Not according to Percy1983, even though he bought after a crash, bought in a recession, bought when interest rates were low, he's saying that he's missed out and hasn't had the same opportunities as others. From what I've read of this thread, the OPs mortgage was a discounted 2.04% over base rate (2.54%) with 75%LTV. It would be interesting to see what the LTV was on Percy's mortgage and what the rates were when he bought.

My point is I had no chance to lock onto a stupidly small number + base mortgage, the banks have just increased margins, FTBs are no better off.

MFW_ASAP

Percy1983 wrote: »

My point is I had no chance to lock onto a stupidly small number + base mortgage, the banks have just increased margins, FTBs are no better off.

Neither did the OP, his was 2.54 not the .75 above base rate you mentioned. You paid a premium to go onto a fixed rate, so if you got a 2 or 3 year discounted rate, it would have been less and not a million miles away from the OPs.

The point is that for a 5 year fixed rate on 90% LTV, 4.99% is still a really low rate compared with your peers before the credit crunch. You could have maxed out your mortgage and still be paying less that you would have been if you had bought pre-crash, especially as you must have knocked 30% off the asking price post crash.

So let's recap. If you had bought before the housing crash, you would have paid upto 30% more and would have had a +6% mortgage rate.

Regardless of whether you maxed out your borrowing, you have benefitted from the housing crash and low rates, so instead of bemoaning that FTBers are no better off, perhaps you need to re-evaluate. Certainly, if you had bought your home in 2007 with a 90%LTV you'd now be living in negative equity, so you HAVE had advantages over FTBers who bought before you.

If you had maxed out your borrowing, then the combination of house price reduction and lower interest rates would have allowed you to pay the same mortgage in 2012 as you would have paid in 2007, but for a much larger house (or one in a better area). You played it safe, which is prudent. Others take risks and sometimes they work spectacularly well, and sometimes they go spectacularly badly. The OP seems to have done spectacularly well, especially as he now has a 2.79% 5 year fix which gives him a further 5 years of low rates, regardless of what the BoE do, to pay down his mortgage.

Getting back to you, I do think you need to start counting your blessings for what you have achieved - buying at the bottom of the market and getting a historically low 5 year fix for a 90% LTV mortgage - instead of moaning about what you haven't achieved. You'll never be happy in life if you're always drinking from a glass half full. Just look at Devon and shortbrained, do you really want to turn out like them?

Percy1983

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Neither did the OP, his was 2.54 not the .75 above base rate you mentioned. You paid a premium to go onto a fixed rate, so if you got a 2 or 3 year discounted rate, it would have been less and not a million miles away from the OPs.

The point is that for a 5 year fixed rate on 90% LTV, 4.99% is still a really low rate compared with your peers before the credit crunch. You could have maxed out your mortgage and still be paying less that you would have been if you had bought pre-crash, especially as you must have knocked 30% off the asking price post crash.

So let's recap. If you had bought before the housing crash, you would have paid upto 30% more and would have had a +6% mortgage rate.

Regardless of whether you maxed out your borrowing, you have benefitted from the housing crash and low rates, so instead of bemoaning that FTBers are no better off, perhaps you need to re-evaluate. Certainly, if you had bought your home in 2007 with a 90%LTV you'd now be living in negative equity, so you HAVE had advantages over FTBers who bought before you.

If you had maxed out your borrowing, then the combination of house price reduction and lower interest rates would have allowed you to pay the same mortgage in 2012 as you would have paid in 2007, but for a much larger house (or one in a better area). You played it safe, which is prudent. Others take risks and sometimes they work spectacularly well, and sometimes they go spectacularly badly. The OP seems to have done spectacularly well, especially as he now has a 2.79% 5 year fix which gives him a further 5 years of low rates, regardless of what the BoE do, to pay down his mortgage.

Getting back to you, I do think you need to start counting your blessings for what you have achieved - buying at the bottom of the market and getting a historically low 5 year fix for a 90% LTV mortgage - instead of moaning about what you haven't achieved. You'll never be happy in life if you're always drinking from a glass half full. Just look at Devon and shortbrained, do you really want to turn out like them?

Don't you worry I am more than happy in life and happy with where I have got to. As mentioned its the claiming luck as skill or the opposite of when people write off skill as luck which just annoys me.

On the glass being half full, to me its always full, its just half liquid and half gas.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

As mentioned its the claiming luck as skill or the opposite of when people write off skill as luck which just annoys me.

Don't be angry Percy. These people made better life choices than you through judgement not luck. It's something you need to get over and stop being so bitter about.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

I still don't see how its any different, yes I far from maxed myself, but if I maxed myself or not I still didn't have access to any mortgage product offering anything close to the BOE interest rate the only gamble I could take was save £20 a month on a tracker and if rates increased by 1% I would be £20 a month worse off, I am happy to pay the extra £20 to not have to care much what rates do for 5 years.

It's obvious you don't see how it's different. You're still trying to equate the risk of maxxing out on IO without a repayment method as being equivalent to the choice between a fixed or variable rate mortgage.

Whether or not you had access to exactly the same mortgage as renoman is IRRELEVANT.

Are you honestly saying that the only gamble possible was one which involved gains or losses of £20/ month?