Shrimpsvoices

Interest rates cut by 1 1/2% to 3 %. What are the chances of getting a 4% mortgage I wonder
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7713006.stm

none because the bloomin lenders will not pass it on,absolute waste of time
scalehall shrimp

Lets see which banks will take full advantage of the cut.

The banks which the Government have had to bail out will have to but the rest wont.

Abbey put their rates up the other day

If they are all as skint as they say there will be no cuts from them for a while.

marky No.1 wrote:Interest rates cut by 1 1/2% to 3 %. What are the chances of getting a 4% mortgage I wonder
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7713006.stm

Probably only chance of a mortgage rate cut is if you have a tracker mortgage

Probably only chance of a mortgage rate cut is if you have a tracker mortgage

I've got a variable rate mortgage that effectively tracks base rate. I probably won't be getting most of that cut passed on because my well-behaved building society are being forced to fund those city tossers that gambled and lost or those building societies that gave 100% loans on a depressed housing market. That's what happened a few weeks ago with the last interest rate cut, I can actually say I am paying £12 per month towards the HBOS fiasco. (£12 is how much more my mortgage shold have gone down if the full cut had been passed on).

Good news for anyone about to come out of a fixed one aswell.

We've never changed our variable rate mortgage since we took it out, what grates me is the last 3 cuts haven't been past on and with todays that's 2.5% in total but the moment there's even a sniff of a B.O.E rise the notification letters on the doormat within a week.
VARIABLE? Yes but only when it suits the banks!

As far as I know, there's a difference between a bank's standard variable rate and a tracker that tracks the BofE's base rate. The bank's SVR can be basically set to whatever they want, it's in the small print when you sign up for it. No sympathy.

The Marksman wrote:As far as I know, there's a difference between a bank's standard variable rate and a tracker that tracks the BofE's base rate. The bank's SVR can be basically set to whatever they want, it's in the small print when you sign up for it. No sympathy.

If I were a Marksman i'd put one right through your noodle box!

I wasn't looking for your sympathy or anyone elses, just stating that when its rates up time there's no stopping em but when it's the other way, it's what suits.
Anyhow good news!
We do infact have a Tracker that tracks 1% above the base rate for the full term of the mortgage which is now 5 years and 7 months YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
and it mentioned on tv that they have now come around to everyone elses thinking.............................and so they bloody well should!

Fair enough, point taken. I'd just read an article on BBC about a couple "Amy and Neil" or whoever they were who apparently had over 50 grand in loans and credit cards and were "having trouble keeping up with payments". Idiots. Why should the banks help them out with interest rate cuts in a risky financial environment if they're so dense as to overstretch themselves like that?

Not that I have any idea about your situation, I was just wound up and found a place to vent it...

Fair enough, point taken. I'd just read an article on BBC about a couple "Amy and Neil" or whoever they were who apparently had over 50 grand in loans and credit cards and were "having trouble keeping up with payments". Idiots. Why should the banks help them out with interest rate cuts in a risky financial environment if they're so dense as to overstretch themselves like that?

You have to question the companies that allowed them to have 50 grand in credit cards and loans.

The Marksman wrote:Not that I have any idea about your situation,

I'd say i'm in a great position, I don't have anything that isn't paid for outright and have always lived by the same rule 'If I can't afford it I don't have it'
I know this can lead you into feelings of envy and yes i'd love some of the material things others get off on owning but then again what I have is my own and most of theirs is on tick.......................THANKS but NO THANKS!

Phoenix wrote:Fair enough, point taken. I'd just read an article on BBC about a couple "Amy and Neil" or whoever they were who apparently had over 50 grand in loans and credit cards and were "having trouble keeping up with payments". Idiots. Why should the banks help them out with interest rate cuts in a risky financial environment if they're so dense as to overstretch themselves like that?

You have to question the companies that allowed them to have 50 grand in credit cards and loans.

Yes, you do, but you also have to question the spanners who asked for the loans and credit in the first place. Plus, it's a bit rich complaining about having to pay it back. Take some responsibility for your actions, idiots!

Yes, you do, but you also have to question the spanners who asked for the loans and credit in the first place.

While the companies allow it, spanners and fraudsters will try it! Stopping it at source with a joined-up approach between companies would be much easier.

If the silly banks didn't lend money out to people who clearly can't afford it then none of this would happen in the first place, they just think sale sale sale, when in the long run it just doesn't work like that.

I'm with Oldham on that one, if you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Sammy h wrote:If the silly banks didn't lend money out to people who clearly can't afford it then none of this would happen in the first place, they just think sale sale sale, when in the long run it just doesn't work like that.

I'm with Oldham on that one, if you can't afford it, you can't have it.

I don't agree with you on this - it takes two parties to agree on a loan, so heaping all the blame on one side isn't fair. People have to take responsibility for their own actions as well, rather than relying on some "system" to save them from themselves.

If you can't afford it, don't ask for it in the first place.

I don't agree with you on this - it takes two parties to agree on a loan, so heaping all the blame on one side isn't fair. People have to take responsibility for their own actions as well, rather than relying on some "system" to save them from themselves.

Which do you think is easier? Re-educate millions of people and lock up the fraudsters or modify a computer system?

The Marksman wrote:

Sammy h wrote:If the silly banks didn't lend money out to people who clearly can't afford it then none of this would happen in the first place, they just think sale sale sale, when in the long run it just doesn't work like that.

I'm with Oldham on that one, if you can't afford it, you can't have it.

I don't agree with you on this - it takes two parties to agree on a loan, so heaping all the blame on one side isn't fair. People have to take responsibility for their own actions as well, rather than relying on some "system" to save them from themselves.

If you can't afford it, don't ask for it in the first place.

I can see where you are coming from, but i am looking at the whole financial mess, the majority of the banks were thinking of themselves and sales targets and not looking at the customers needs at all. They shouldn't be offering products that the customer cannot afford, but then again like you say, the customer should know what he/she can afford.

Swings and roundabouts.

we bought our first house at the depths of the last recession. It was a repossession after the previous owners had done a moonlight flit. Their debt was huge but some of it was stupidity. For example, they put double glazing in at the front of the house on credit, but they weren't even repaying enough to cover the interest! They had bought so much stuff it was crazy. She was a cleaner, he worked in Macdonalds, so probably on low wages that weren't even enough to cover the repayments on credit cards & loans, even before their mortgage.

It's cyclical, people will learn for a while as we go through the 'pain', then it will all start up again as people forget. The trouble is people will have marriages that fail and even suicides before we get through.

Sammy h wrote:

The Marksman wrote:

Sammy h wrote:If the silly banks didn't lend money out to people who clearly can't afford it then none of this would happen in the first place, they just think sale sale sale, when in the long run it just doesn't work like that.

I'm with Oldham on that one, if you can't afford it, you can't have it.

I don't agree with you on this - it takes two parties to agree on a loan, so heaping all the blame on one side isn't fair. People have to take responsibility for their own actions as well, rather than relying on some "system" to save them from themselves.

If you can't afford it, don't ask for it in the first place.

I can see where you are coming from, but i am looking at the whole financial mess, the majority of the banks were thinking of themselves and sales targets and not looking at the customers needs at all. They shouldn't be offering products that the customer cannot afford, but then again like you say, the customer should know what he/she can afford.

Swings and roundabouts.

I agree with pretty much all of that - like you say, the banks were thinking of themselves - so were the consumers. Neither party is blame free, which is why it makes me mad when people attach all the blame to one party.