Forum Home» Mortgages & Endowments

fixed mortgages should banks gain from their sub-prime fiasco - Page 2

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

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
2456716

Replies

  • This is very interesting.
    Are you accusing the woolwich of deliberately misleading you by not telling you that their lending practices would result in a global financial crash?

    I'm sure a good lawyer would be interested in this accusation.


    ...Until you tell them you got your evidence from wikipedia !!!!!!.
  • edited 27 March 2014 at 2:43PM
    jonesoswestryjonesoswestry Forumite
    63 posts
    edited 27 March 2014 at 2:43PM
    in post #6 you said: even though we were badly let down at the start (when we were green) by overpaid mortgage advisers telling us that endowments were the way to go, we all know that one.

    Where does this say a mortgage advisor sold me an endowment. The overpaying refers to the commission they received for bad advice. (Endowments paid large commissions to advisers) that little piece in the brackets is off Martin Lewis on his section about mis-sold endowments


    No they didnt. Mortgage advisers are mortgage advisers. They are not authorised to set up or advise on investment products. They cant receive commission from them as they do not hold the regulatory permissions.

    The criteria around what mortgage advisers can and can't do changed as a result of mis-sold endowements. So are you telling me they did not, at the time, get commission? again refer to Martin Lewis quote in brackets.

    Only after I mentioned food standards... Plus, I see you have edited your post to say the FSA was replaced by the FOS. The FOS has not replaced the FSA.

    I changed as a result of your pedantic thread and I changed to FOS as that was who I meant to put in the first place as the body I have complained to.

    The credit boom showed a lack of responsibility. You had irresponsible banks giving money to irresponsible borrower. However, that has nothing to do with your issue. Mistakes in one area do not mean that every other area is wrong as well.

    The irresponsible banks lending to irresponsible borrowers (someone who may have difficulty repaying the loan) is precisely why the financial collapse happened and that is what sub-prime lending is.

    So, if you didnt like the rate, why did you buy it?

    You really need to read more clearly I never said I wasn't happy with the rate (at the time). What I am unhappy with is the rates that I have been unavailable to obtain since and I'm paying the rate that was applicable prior to the financial crisis.
  • mrginge wrote: »
    This is very interesting.
    Are you accusing the woolwich of deliberately misleading you by not telling you that their lending practices would result in a global financial crash?

    I'm sure a good lawyer would be interested in this accusation.


    ...Until you tell them you got your evidence from wikipedia !!!!!!.

    To mrginge not everything on wikipedia is incorrect. The banks had to know at some point the financial crisis was going to happen. You tell me when this was. As the banks certainly will not.

    To all
    I never at the start of my post said they had, I was simply asking was it possible.
    If you did not think so why didn't you just say instead of sarcasm

    My argument is twofold even if they didn't know they have still profited.
  • dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    103.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Where does this say a mortgage advisor sold me an endowment. The overpaying refers to the commission they received for bad advice. (Endowments paid large commissions to advisers) that little piece in the brackets is off Martin Lewis on his section about mis-sold endowments

    The posts are there. Your information is wrong. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of these commissions paid to mortgage advisers for investment backed products as that would breach regulator rules as they would be acting outside remit and unlawfully.
    The criteria around what mortgage advisers can and can't do changed as a result of mis-sold endowements. So are you telling me they did not, at the time, get commission? again refer to Martin Lewis quote in brackets.

    Mortgage advisers have never been able to recommend or set up endowments. It required investment authorisations to do that.
    You really need to read more clearly I never said I wasn't happy with the rate (at the time). What I am unhappy with is the rates that I have been unavailable to obtain since and I'm paying the rate that was applicable prior to the financial crisis.

    If you are happy with the rate then why you are complaining about it? Your complaint will thankfully fail as it is a daft complaint and your allegations are outside the remit of the FOS as they have no ability to rule in commercial decisions. All they will do is make sure the disclosure documents at the time matched what you got.

    You seem to want your cake and eat it. You were happy with the rate when you bought it. You knew it gave you certainty of payment whether rates went up or down. No doubt had rates gone up, you would still be happy with it. However, as rates have fallen you believe that they have done something wrong despite completely adhering to the terms of the contract you were more than happy to enter into.

    Your complaint has to rank as one of the daftest i have seen. Throwing your toys out of the pram and quoting unrelated things and wiki entries does not aid your complaint either.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • antrobusantrobus Forumite
    17.4K posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ....How often will you see one lender offer a 10 year fix interest rate lower than their 3year or 5year fix. ....

    It happens whenever there is an inverted yield curve, i.e. the expectation is that interest rates will be lower in the future.
    ...Do people think Woolwich knew and is it fair they have gained from the banking bad practise they were part of....

    I suspect that if Woolwich (aka Barclays) had known in 2006 what was about to happen in a year or two, they probably would have shut up shop, and not lent you any money at all.:)

    But I see where you're coming from. Because you locked yourself into what now seems to be an expensive 10 year fix in 2006, you think that your lender is somehow 'profiting' from your error. The truth is that banks act as financial intermediaries in that they take deposits from one set of people to finance loans which are extended to a completly different set of people. If Woolwich/Barclays was offering a particular rate on a 10 year fix in 2006, that would be because they had raised (or knew they could raise) matching funding at that rate minus a margin. Woolwich/Barclays are still making their margin, but the real winners would be whoever had given them the money in the first place.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • Are you (now) on a repayment mortgage, OP?
    If so, I suspect that you are better off with your 4.98% 10 year fix than you wuold have been with a 5.49% 5 year fix followed by, say, a 3% 5 year fix.

    I would have been exactly £600 better off with the 2x 5 year fix option of your choice, however I don't see that that is relevant.
  • JimmyTheWigJimmyTheWig Forumite
    12.2K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I would have been exactly £600 better off with the 2x 5 year fix option of your choice, however I don't see that that is relevant.
    If that is not relevant then I really don't see what your point is.
  • edited 27 March 2014 at 4:18PM
    jonesoswestryjonesoswestry Forumite
    63 posts
    edited 27 March 2014 at 4:18PM
    dunstonh wrote: »
    The posts are there. Your information is wrong. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of these commissions paid to mortgage advisers for investment backed products as that would breach regulator rules as they would be acting outside remit and unlawfully.



    Mortgage advisers have never been able to recommend or set up endowments. It required investment authorisations to do that.



    If you are happy with the rate then why you are complaining about it? Your complaint will thankfully fail as it is a daft complaint and your allegations are outside the remit of the FOS as they have no ability to rule in commercial decisions. All they will do is make sure the disclosure documents at the time matched what you got.

    You seem to want your cake and eat it. You were happy with the rate when you bought it. You knew it gave you certainty of payment whether rates went up or down. No doubt had rates gone up, you would still be happy with it. However, as rates have fallen you believe that they have done something wrong despite completely adhering to the terms of the contract you were more than happy to enter into.

    Your complaint has to rank as one of the daftest i have seen. Throwing your toys out of the pram and quoting unrelated things and wiki entries does not aid your complaint either.

    Coming back with the same response time and again is getting us nowhere, where did I say the mortgage advisor sold me my statement was
    'overpaid mortgage advisers telling us that endowments were the way to go'
    Unless you are misreading telling for selling.
    I can only tell you what happened when we went for advice on our mortgage in 1993. and I don't recall you being there.
    We were advised that our best option was an endowment. This was based on the the same facts that everybody else who have had payouts for mis-selling was obviously told.
    They arranged the endowment and they would have received the commission as we did not pay any money for this advice.
    Again you still fail to tell me how else they get paid.
    Do you believe that Martin Lewis is incorrect in his statement I gave you before?
    You again ask why I am complaining about the rate I don't believe I could put it in a different that would sink into that skull.
    If you disagree fine but dont ask me to explain what I already have.
    The FOS are already looking into the claim and may or may not agree, if it fell outside their remit they would have said at the start as I have discussed this over the phone.
    The wiki entry may not aid anything but I cannot find anywhere else on the web where I can get the information as to exactly when the banks were aware.

    answer these questions
    how else did they get paid.
    Do you believe that Martin Lewis is incorrect in his statement Endowments paid large commissions to advisers
  • If that is not relevant then I really don't see what your point is.

    I say that is not relevant because it is just one scenario of many but you never stated whether you were in any agreement with me but came up with an option and a prediction I was better off as I was, which was wrong.
  • Prothet_of_DoomProthet_of_Doom Forumite
    3.3K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    I took a ten year fixed rate out at 4.6% in 2004, knowing that the interest rate might go up, and it might go down, and that if it went down, I'd be paying more than people who did not take a fixed rate, and vice versa.
    Isn't that the point ?
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