Forum Home» Mortgages & Endowments

fixed mortgages should banks gain from their sub-prime fiasco - Page 6

New Post Advanced Search

fixed mortgages should banks gain from their sub-prime fiasco

edited 27 March 2014 at 12:01PM in Mortgages & Endowments
153 replies 8.2K views
13468916

Replies

  • JimmyTheWigJimmyTheWig Forumite
    12.2K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I've been paying more than what has been available due to bad banking practices.
    I disagree.
    I'd say that what has been available is less than what you've been paying due to bad banking practices.

    I.e. had the bankers not been naughty then we wouldn't have seen an unprecidentedly long period of unprecidentedly low rates.
  • AndyT678AndyT678 Forumite
    756 posts
    My post is on 2 fronts and the 2nd was that even if they didn't know the results were still the same.

    Yes. The lender made the profit that they expected to based on their own cost of money. Money that they would have obtained at a fixed rate themselves as other posters have already pointed out.
    I've been paying more than what has been available due to bad banking practices.

    No. You've been paying more than what has been available due to your own choice to have long term security over your mortgage payments. That's the downside of opting for a fixed rate.
  • I disagree.
    I'd say that what has been available is less than what you've been paying due to bad banking practices.

    I.e. had the bankers not been naughty then we wouldn't have seen an unprecidentedly long period of unprecidentedly low rates.

    Not sure if that argument isn't precisely what I'm saying?????
  • AndyT678 wrote: »
    Yes. The lender made the profit that they expected to based on their own cost of money. Money that they would have obtained at a fixed rate themselves as other posters have already pointed out.



    No. You've been paying more than what has been available due to your own choice to have long term security over your mortgage payments. That's the downside of opting for a fixed rate.

    I don't argue as to how it was funded and never have despite what everyone posts. That isn't relevant for me.
  • pjread wrote: »
    So
    *you're on 4.98%
    *you say you could have got 5yrs at under 2% 3yrs ago, so lets say 2% to be 'pessimistic'. I'll assume no fees which might offset the 'under 2%' you state.
    * Lets assume you owe 100k at that point, it doesn't really matter as it's about percentages...

    £100k at 4.98% over 5yrs = £113,172 total
    £100k plus 6% penalty = £106k. At 2% over 5 yrs = £111,477
    Saving from paying exit = £1,695

    Not huge but a definite saving unless "under 2%" means 1.99% with a £2k fee.

    add to this calculation the setting up fees, mortgage completion fees (we have £250 on this and presumably on the next), solicitor fees valuation fees etc, I might be able to buy a bag of chips.
  • JimmyTheWigJimmyTheWig Forumite
    12.2K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not sure if that argument isn't precisely what I'm saying?????
    I understand why you may think that, but it's not quite the same.

    When someone does something wrong all we can look at is what would have happened if they didn't do it. We can't look at what would have happened if you had known they were going to do it.

    E.g. David Beckham crashes into your car.
    What happens is that he, or his insurance company, pays to fix your car and any other associated damages. Once your car is fixed, and you haven't had to pay for it, it's as though the accident didn't happen.
    What doesn't happen is you say "if I'd have known this was going to happen I would have brought my autograph book, thus completing my collection of signatures of the Class of '92 and I'd be sitting on something really valuable. Therefore I'm entitled to that signature."

    Had you had known that they were going to do these bad practices, and had you had known that these bad practices would lead to such low rates for such a long time, then you could have been better off today. But you didn't know that and there is nothing to say that you should have known that.
    Had they not sone these bad practices then you would have the same rate as you do now. You'd have a smug feeling that you made the right choice because rates didn't come down, but you'd still be paying the same as you are now.

    I guess, then, you can sue the bank because they denied you a smug feeling by carrying out these bad practices. I'm not sure that the court will put a monetery value on a smug feeling, though, so it might not be worth it.
  • Not sure if that argument isn't precisely what I'm saying?????


    No its not!


    You made the decision to take a 10 year fix. You did the subsequent calculations to prove it was not cost efficient to move so this has been the ideal deal for you when you took it out.


    Woolwich Barclays have made exactly the same return on your mortgage since you took out your mortgage with them as they too have been stuck with a 10 year fixed term bond that no one in their right mind will buy from them given interest rates have plummeted post 2008.


    Where do you think this is unfair, perhaps this is because you really don't have such a grasp of the mechanics of the financial system as you think you do.


    Man up, get over it and stop whining.
  • 007stuart wrote: »
    No its not!


    You made the decision to take a 10 year fix. You did the subsequent calculations to prove it was not cost efficient to move so this has been the ideal deal for you when you took it out.


    Woolwich Barclays have made exactly the same return on your mortgage since you took out your mortgage with them as they too have been stuck with a 10 year fixed term bond that no one in their right mind will buy from them given interest rates have plummeted post 2008.


    Where do you think this is unfair, perhaps this is because you really don't have such a grasp of the mechanics of the financial system as you think you do.


    Man up, get over it and stop whining.

    what some dunderheads fail to spot is that is not worth me leaving due to the 6% leaving fee not because the mortgage percentages

    And Woolwich's 'bond' has no concern for me as I have already stated????
  • I understand why you may think that, but it's not quite the same.

    When someone does something wrong all we can look at is what would have happened if they didn't do it. We can't look at what would have happened if you had known they were going to do it.

    E.g. David Beckham crashes into your car.
    What happens is that he, or his insurance company, pays to fix your car and any other associated damages. Once your car is fixed, and you haven't had to pay for it, it's as though the accident didn't happen.
    What doesn't happen is you say "if I'd have known this was going to happen I would have brought my autograph book, thus completing my collection of signatures of the Class of '92 and I'd be sitting on something really valuable. Therefore I'm entitled to that signature."

    Had you had known that they were going to do these bad practices, and had you had known that these bad practices would lead to such low rates for such a long time, then you could have been better off today. But you didn't know that and there is nothing to say that you should have known that.
    Had they not sone these bad practices then you would have the same rate as you do now. You'd have a smug feeling that you made the right choice because rates didn't come down, but you'd still be paying the same as you are now.

    I guess, then, you can sue the bank because they denied you a smug feeling by carrying out these bad practices. I'm not sure that the court will put a monetery value on a smug feeling, though, so it might not be worth it.

    Not a Man u fan.

    Ill give you an analogy:-

    What if I put a bet on a horse race and the bookmaker then runs out in front of the horse and stops it from winning.
    He has therefore affected my chances of being on a winning horse and pocketed the money in the process???

  • Had they not done these bad practices then you would have the same rate as you do now. You'd have a smug feeling that you made the right choice because rates didn't come down, but you'd still be paying the same as you are now.

    For someone who disagrees with me you always seem to quote my issues very well.

    Come on over to the dark side Luke
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support