1.5%

So will you fuckers with tracker mortgages *please* start buying stuff
so we can get interest rates back to something decent, ta.

 

we have a 4.78% fixed for another 30 months.

I looked at the "early redemption fee" yesterday.

£16K - ouch.

 

Ouch indeed. I thought it was bad enough that I paid ~6k in August
when I sold my flat.

And if you could switch and reduce your monthly payment by
£533.33/month you'd be up on the deal!

 

well, yes - I doubt we could reduce it that much, though.

I do think it's a bit of a rip that for the same product (5 year
fixed) from the same provider (Nationwide), given the current base
rate, they are now offering it at 5.78% - how the **** do they justify
that?

 

Ouch indeed. I've got two trackers (yay!) & one fixed (boo!). Only £3k
redemption but it's in negative equity so no chance of remortgaging
(sob).

--
Krusty

'03 Tiger 955i
'02 MV Senna (for sale) '96 Tiger (for sale)
'79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale)

 

no - it decreases at roughly the same rate as the interest/principle
differential.

 

Consumer spending has **** all to do with it.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Cane

<fx: makes self comfy>

This is going to be good. I messed Prof. Blaney's celebrated lesson on
the cosmos.

Canesian Economics should be an acceptable substitute.

 

I spoke to someone with a tracker mortgage last week, and theirs has
been capped at a minimum rate - they were saying this was quite common
on the news this morning.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dr Zoidberg

Higher bank profits leading to quicker repayment of the government
investment?

 

I have a fixed interest savings acct at 7%. Sadly the rate gets reviewed
next Sept. Oh well, it'll be good while it lasts.

 

What's the point of interest rate cuts if the banks don't pass them
on?

(Always had a plain vanilla straight repayment mortgage. Nothing
fancy, no endowments, no low start, no tracker, just an ordinary old-
fashioned mortgage)

 

FOYRNB ;-)

 

True, but I can see why the banks don't:

1. LIBOR is still higher than base rate.
2. The banks need to make some money to cover their losses and to start
repaying the govt's investment in them.
3. If they reduce lending rates, they have to reduce savings rates to
make a profit (see 2.). If they do this too much, then savers move
their deposits elsewhere and they have less money available to help
with 2, above.

Obv. IANAEconomist and I await the posts saying that the above is a
load of bollocks with err, interest.

You? Really? You do surprise me! )

 

"HSBC will also pass on the reduction to all its personal and business
customers."

Base plus .89%...

<counts on fingers>

<shoes remain on>

 

As are Lloyds TSB & Nationwide. I expect most banks will, in part at
least.

--
Krusty

'03 Tiger 955i
'02 MV Senna (for sale) '96 Tiger (for sale)
'79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale)

 

Aye. But that's because the T&Cs of most trackers mean they have no
choice, although some do have collars, and only 10% of mortgages are
SVR.

 

"If it's too good to be true..."

 

I don't know about you, but my savings rates have gone to shit in the
last six months.

 

Yes, my best instant access is at 3.5% now.

However, savings rates need to stay at being less than mortgage rates,
so it's getting to the point now that if they pass on the full cut to
lenders then savings rates will tend towards negative.
Ergo, they'll keep the lending rates a bit higher so that savings rates
can remain positive and there's still a gap between the two.