Tracker mortgages - Banks considering buying them out..?

Noffles

Heard on the radio this morning that a bank(s) is looking at a cost to buy tracker mortgages off customers, with a regulator saying that is should be at around 25% of the mortgage. What are peoples opinions on this, I'm almost certain there would be a lot of people willing to trade in their mortgages for a lump sum pay out...
As I am in a tracker I'd be very wary of trading mine in, if the bank is willing to spend a good deal of money to get them back it would mean that they are very valuable?

tHE vAGGABOND

banks have been at this for a while..

Regardless of what they offer you, say no to any offer! Its in your interest to keep your tracker, think long term, not just a few grand now [and a higher monthly interest rate for 20+ years].

Noffles

Yes, these are my thoughts... but you never know what they may offer though and to some it will look awfully handy!

gandalf

No way they are getting me off my tracker (unless they pay the whole mortgage off )

seamus

Well it depends on the situation. 25% could be the difference between coming out of negative equity in ten years, and coming out next year. I can't really see the banks offering 25% of the mortgage unless they expect the standard variable rate to rise significantly above the ECB rate.

However, for those who need to upsize (or downsize) to a property which suits their needs, the prospect of getting out of negative equity now and starting again would look very appealing.

Thoie

When I was looking at fixed rate mortgages initially, someone made a very good point to me. At the time interest rates were low, and the fixed was obviously higher than the variable. I said "Oh, but the fixed might be handy if interest rates rise". It was pointed out to me that the banks have entire teams of people dedicated to working out these things, and if they've fixed a rate at a certain percent, it's because they're relatively sure they won't lose out on it even if rates rise.

I'd see the same situation if they tried to buy out my tracker mortgage. No matter how much cash they offer me, they'll have calculated it so that they don't lose out in the longterm.

Doing some quick sums.
If I currently owe 200k, at 1.5% over 25 years, the total cost of credit is just under 40k.

If the bank gives me 50k (25% of the mortgage), BUT raise my interest rate rises to 10%, still over 25 years, then 150k, 10%, 25 years - cost of credit is 245k !

Even if we take a more reasonable 5%, cost of credit is 110k. In this case, by taking their 50k, it actually ends up costing me an extra 70k.

Using the 200k, with interest rates at 5% example, they'd want to give me 50% and allow me to reduce the term to 14/15 years for me to consider it. I'd be losing out a bit, but would have the benefit of having my mortgage paid off a lot faster.

If I thought interest rates might rise to 10%, then they'd want to give me 75%, again with a reduced term.

Gurgle

seamus wrote: »

I can't really see the banks offering 25% of the mortgage unless they expect the standard variable rate to rise significantly above the ECB rate.

They are the people who decide the difference between ECB and 'standard' variable rates. This isn't something they "expect", its a clear statement of what they are planning to do.

Only if you're planning to sell in the next few years should you consider giving up your tracker for cash.

William72

Thoie wrote: »

When I was looking at fixed rate mortgages initially, someone made a very good point to me. At the time interest rates were low, and the fixed was obviously higher than the variable. I said "Oh, but the fixed might be handy if interest rates rise". It was pointed out to me that the banks have entire teams of people dedicated to working out these things, and if they've fixed a rate at a certain percent, it's because they're relatively sure they won't lose out on it even if rates rise.

I'd see the same situation if they tried to buy out my tracker mortgage. No matter how much cash they offer me, they'll have calculated it so that they don't lose out in the longterm.

Doing some quick sums.
If I currently owe 200k, at 1.5% over 25 years, the total cost of credit is just under 40k.

If the bank gives me 50k (25% of the mortgage), BUT raise my interest rate rises to 10%, still over 25 years, then 150k, 10%, 25 years - cost of credit is 245k !

Even if we take a more reasonable 5%, cost of credit is 110k. In this case, by taking their 50k, it actually ends up costing me an extra 70k.

Using the 200k, with interest rates at 5% example, they'd want to give me 50% and allow me to reduce the term to 14/15 years for me to consider it. I'd be losing out a bit, but would have the benefit of having my mortgage paid off a lot faster.

If I thought interest rates might rise to 10%, then they'd want to give me 75%, again with a reduced term.

excellent points but might need to rework those numbers - ECB is currently at 1% which means most trackers are closer to (or over) 2% than 1.5%. Not meaning to be picky and as I say your points are well made - in general whatever they offer you - its worth more.

on that point whats the lowest tracker people have? - I've ecb +1.1 which as far as I know is good but not the best - anyone lower?

seamus

Gurgle wrote: »

They are the people who decide the difference between ECB and 'standard' variable rates. This isn't something they "expect", its a clear statement of what they are planning to do.

Oh I know that, but no-one has said that the banks are going to offer 25% of the mortgage. But if they do I would take it as an indication that the banks expect to raise and maintain their standard variable rate at least 3% above ECB for the long-term.

Personally, presuming you're not married to your property, then accepting a lump sum to get you out of negative equity might not be the stupidest idea in the world. You could sell up, rent and save for a few years, or you could move to a cheaper long-term property and save on your mortgage.

*If* the banks start offering these insane amounts for people to get out of trackers, then I wouldn't advise anyone to dismiss the offer without looking at their plans & options.

on that point whats the lowest tracker people have? - I've ecb +1.1 which as far as I know is good but not the best - anyone lower?

I'm +1.25%, pretty sure I was one of the last people to get a tracker. I know of people on +0.75%, but I haven't heard of any lower than that.

Thoie

William72 wrote: »

excellent points but might need to rework those numbers - ECB is currently at 1% which means most trackers are closer to (or over) 2% than 1.5%. Not meaning to be picky and as I say your points are well made - in general whatever they offer you - its worth more.

on that point whats the lowest tracker people have? - I've ecb +1.1 which as far as I know is good but not the best - anyone lower?

Mine is ECB + 0.53 (or possibly 0.55), which is why I was using the 1.5% as a sample figure.

seamus

I went ahead and did some figures, and now I actually wouldn't be surprised if banks start offering 25% (or more) off mortgages to get people onto standard variable rates.

I did a very basic table below. This shows the original principle, the new principle, the original cost of the credit at an ECB + 1% rate and the new cost of the credit if moved onto a variable rate. I did it for variable rates of 4% and 5% mainly because I was surprised at the 5% figures.

The two tables are for a mortgage over 30 years.

You can see that it works out *very* profitable for banks to get you onto variable rates, even if they offer a huge chunk off your mortgage.

They may insist that you go onto a 3 or 5-year fixed when you switch, in order to prevent you jumping ship, but they probably wouldn't. It's all swings and roundabouts to them - every person who gets off a tracker and sells up, stops costing them money and will probably get a new mortgage anyway.

Thoie

seamus wrote: »

I did a very basic table below. This shows the original principle, the new principle, the original cost of the credit at an ECB + 1% rate and the new cost of the credit if moved onto a variable rate. I did it for variable rates of 4% and 5% mainly because I was surprised at the 5% figures.

I am not an economist, and not making a prediction in any way, but while my 10% interest rate figure seems like a shocker to our generation, during the last recession (during the 80s) interest rates of 16-21% were pretty common. I'm not saying they'll hit that, but I wouldn't really blink if some fixed rate mortgages were on offer at 10% in the next few years. Obviously I'd cry a lot, but not blink.

Addition:
BTW, if the bank suddenly rings me tomorrow offering me 50% of my mortgage, then I'll predict that interest rates are heading for 10%

cgc5483

seamus wrote: »

I went ahead and did some figures, and now I actually wouldn't be surprised if banks start offering 25% (or more) off mortgages to get people onto standard variable rates.

I did a very basic table below. This shows the original principle, the new principle, the original cost of the credit at an ECB + 1% rate and the new cost of the credit if moved onto a variable rate. I did it for variable rates of 4% and 5% mainly because I was surprised at the 5% figures.

The two tables are for a mortgage over 30 years.

You can see that it works out *very* profitable for banks to get you onto variable rates, even if they offer a huge chunk off your mortgage.

They may insist that you go onto a 3 or 5-year fixed when you switch, in order to prevent you jumping ship, but they probably wouldn't. It's all swings and roundabouts to them - every person who gets off a tracker and sells up, stops costing them money and will probably get a new mortgage anyway.

Very interesting analysis. Had been wondering about this myself and thinking it would have to be quite a large sum to get me off my tracker (+0.9%) before i would even consider it and not the measily amount Halifax were offering.

Just one thing to consider in your analysis. The ECB is unlikely to say at its current unprecedented low so the differential between trackers and variables will not always be the 3% from your calculations.

The 25% might get people out of negative equity but as you mentioned they might lock you into a fixed rate for several years thus preventing people from selling up.

dan_d

Watching this story with interest.Without working the figures, the following logic would seem to me to apply....
Trackers were seen by some as "not a good deal" while interest rates were so low in this country. However the ECB then cut rates, making trackers very attractive...however we all know this will not last. But our banks are now in so much trouble, that it would seem to me they are going to raise rates a lot over the coming years. Historically I believe the highest the ECB has risen to is around 4.25% (can't remember where I read that, so can't link to source, sorry) and that was during a period of high inflation. Taking all this into account, the tracker is definitely the better deal over the next number of years and in all likelihood into the future, because the likelihood of it getting much higher than our domestic banks is fairly low - seeing as they have such big problems.
I know this sounds airy fairy, but it's kind of hard to explain what I mean.Anyway, bottom line is that I'm sticking with my tracker mortgage!

Thoie

cgc5483 wrote: »

Just one thing to consider in your analysis. The ECB is unlikely to say at its current unprecedented low so the differential between trackers and variables will not always be the 3% from your calculations.

I think it's a good guideline though. As stated earlier, the banks won't set a fixed rate that could potentially end up lower than the ECB + a margin. And if the ECB goes up, you can be pretty sure that the banks will hike any variable rate along with it. The precise figures will change over the 20-30 years, but the scale of the cost/savings will remain roughly similar.

gpjordanf1

Hi

If you were on a tracker and the bank offered you 25% of the remainder of the Mortgage.

Giving you X and you had Savings Y in various banks.

The total of X + Y is greater than your outstanding Mortgage. Would you be mad not to take the offer? Or is it better to have a lump sum around?

Or would the banks have a stipulation in the agreement that says you cant pay off the mortgage using the bonus from them?

Or would that be just tough luck on the banks?

Noffles

If they were to offer 25% of our mortgage I think we'd take it, since we're looking to sell anyway this would make sense and give us a house that would be easier to sell when we have less mortgage.

seamus

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

The total of X + Y is greater than your outstanding Mortgage. Would you be mad not to take the offer? Or is it better to have a lump sum around?

You'd be mad not to clear your mortgage. In the long term, credit will cost more than your savings can earn.

Or would the banks have a stipulation in the agreement that says you cant pay off the mortgage using the bonus from them?

I doubt that they could legally prevent you from using legally-obtained money to pay off a debt, however they could lock you into some agreement whereby you pay a penalty if you repay your mortgage within X years of your payoff.

Just one thing to consider in your analysis. The ECB is unlikely to say at its current unprecedented low so the differential between trackers and variables will not always be the 3% from your calculations.

Agreed. I worked it out before - the mean ECB rate over its lifetime is about 3.15%.

Since the ECB came into existence during a period of serious growth, this mean may be a little bit high, but by no more than 0.5%. If we take the average ECB rate to be 3%, then over a 30-year period on a tracker, you can expect to pay your 4% or thereabouts over that period.
Standard variable rates will probably hover around ECB + 3%, so someone on a standard variable can expect to pay 6% over those 30 years.

So plug these into the table and you get the below. Much less "wow", but much more realistic I think. It still shows that there is much benefit to the banks in dropping tracker debts in order to make mooney.

Thoie

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Hi

If you were on a tracker and the bank offered you 25% of the remainder of the Mortgage.

Giving you X and you had Savings Y in various banks.

The total of X + Y is greater than your outstanding Mortgage. Would you be mad not to take the offer? Or is it better to have a lump sum around?

Or would the banks have a stipulation in the agreement that says you cant pay off the mortgage using the bonus from them?

Or would that be just tough luck on the banks?

I assumed that the purpose of the lump sum was to reduce the mortgage. If they said that, what's to stop you saying "I conveniently have a similar amount under my mattress, which I'm going to use to pay something off" I might be wrong, but I can't see them writing a cheque for 25%

If I had enough savings (Y) - ooh, tough call. I don't really have those kind of savings lying around, but I think if I did then I might go for paying off the mortgage completely. In my case if I did that I'd hope to then start saving the amount I was paying each month (if that makes sense). So if I could suddenly pay off the mortgage tomorrow, and I'm currently paying 1,000 a month, I'd like to think that I'd then start saving that 1,000 a month in some kind of highish yield account. Having a large lump sum to hand would be handy at times as well though.

I know if I won double my outstanding mortgage in the Lotto tomorrow, I'd certainly pay off the mortgage completely. If I won exactly what's outstanding I'd have to give it some thought - my gut feeling is that I wouldn't entirely pay it off - I'd keep 50k or so somewhere convenient.

gpjordanf1

Thanks for the reply & advice guys

Was listening to the Matt Cooper show and they said it would be in t he region of 15k, so not worth it to me anyway.
Thought would be more and would have sorted all my problems!

Perhaps I'll dream of being mortgage free tonight instead of the usual Baliff Nightmares

stepbar

seamus wrote: »

I went ahead and did some figures, and now I actually wouldn't be surprised if banks start offering 25% (or more) off mortgages to get people onto standard variable rates.

I did a very basic table below. This shows the original principle, the new principle, the original cost of the credit at an ECB + 1% rate and the new cost of the credit if moved onto a variable rate. I did it for variable rates of 4% and 5% mainly because I was surprised at the 5% figures.

The two tables are for a mortgage over 30 years.

You can see that it works out *very* profitable for banks to get you onto variable rates, even if they offer a huge chunk off your mortgage.

They may insist that you go onto a 3 or 5-year fixed when you switch, in order to prevent you jumping ship, but they probably wouldn't. It's all swings and roundabouts to them - every person who gets off a tracker and sells up, stops costing them money and will probably get a new mortgage anyway.

Anybody who has a tracker mortgage is likely to be a number of years into their mortgage.

Some people maybe on "interest only" and as such they are fcuked.

Your diagrams are only valid if someone started on a tracker rate and made a lumpsum reduction instantly. That scenario is not possible.

Zaph

Thoie wrote: »

Mine is ECB + 0.53 (or possibly 0.55), which is why I was using the 1.5% as a sample figure.

I've got ECB +0.5%. I'm pretty sure that's the lowest any of the banks went. I got it only a couple of months before they stopped doing trackers, although there had been a lot of messing around for a few months beforehand which held things up.

Derek Zoolander

anything like 20 - 25% of the mortgage and I'd jump at the chance...

looking at u pgrading anyway so I'll be saying goodbye to the tracker anyway... 20% of my current mortgage would cover the deposit on a new mortgage and some of the stamp duty....

wouldn't touch the offer if I was planning on living in my current house for the next 10 - 15 years though..

seamus

stepbar wrote: »

Anybody who has a tracker mortgage is likely to be a number of years into their mortgage.
...
Your diagrams are only valid if someone started on a tracker rate and made a lumpsum reduction instantly. That scenario is not possible.

Someone on an original 35-year tracker who is 5 years into their mortgage now, seems pretty likely

When I say "original sum", I mean "before the lump sum", not the original mortgage principle.

If you work it out over 25 years, the figures will be smaller but you'll still have the banks coming out with a sizeable profit.

stepbar

seamus wrote: »

Someone on an original 35-year tracker who is 5 years into their mortgage now, seems pretty likely

When I say "original sum", I mean "before the lump sum", not the original mortgage principle.

If you work it out over 25 years, the figures will be smaller but you'll still have the banks coming out with a sizeable profit.

Assuming you go with the lower mortgage repayment. Anyone getting a lumpsum of 25% of their mortgage would be mad not to consider giving it up and keep the repayments the same as before. Same for anyone in negative equity.

But I will say one thing. I doubt it will ever happen as the cost for most banks would be in the billions.

Gurgle

stepbar wrote: »

Anyone getting a lumpsum of 25% of their mortgage would be mad not to consider giving it up and keep the repayments the same as before.

The payments will only be the same as before until the bank raises its variable rate. Breaking from your tracker lets them do this as and when it suits their needs. Giving them the option during a credit crunch when you have no other bank to switch to would be crazy.

But I will say one thing. I doubt it will ever happen as the cost for most banks would be in the billions.

Those are the billions that they are a) getting from the state and b) 'supposed' to be making available as credit to the country's thousands of struggling businesses.

seamus

stepbar wrote: »

Assuming you go with the lower mortgage repayment. Anyone getting a lumpsum of 25% of their mortgage would be mad not to consider giving it up and keep the repayments the same as before. Same for anyone in negative equity.

Well it depends on the offer. The banks aren't (that) stupid. They would probably insist that anyone getting paid off maintains their current term for 5 years or so.

But I will say one thing. I doubt it will ever happen as the cost for most banks would be in the billions.

Trackers are already costing the banks money. It's all about scale.
If (for example), a €200k mortgage costs me €67k @ 2%, but the bank is paying 3% (variable) on that money, then there's almost a €40k shortfall for the bank. It would look better for the bank's balance sheet and credit rating to give me €20k and get me off their books, or better yet, to give me €50k and increase the total cost of my mortgage to €140k.

And that's the other kind of thing we might see - banks offering low amounts (10%) or so if you will move your mortgage elsewhere, or large amounts of 25% if you agree to fix for a certain amount of time and then move to a standard variable.

Thoie

seamus wrote: »

Well it depends on the offer. The banks aren't (that) stupid. They would probably insist that anyone getting paid off maintains their current term for 5 years or so.

This is why, back in one of my earlier posts, I mentioned that in order to make it worth it to me, they'd have to offer me x% off AND allow me to reduce the term by Y years as well. One of the things I made sure of when I took my mortgage was that there were no penalties for paying it off early - while I'm not expecting to win the lotto/get a random lump sum somewhere, who knows what could happen in 10 years time. The other point is that if your salary increases significantly over time, your current monthly repayments won't seem that big. We've all heard of people who are paying 2s6d a year for their mortgage.

seamus

Thoie wrote: »

This is why, back in one of my earlier posts, I mentioned that in order to make it worth it to me, they'd have to offer me x% off AND allow me to reduce the term by Y years as well.

I've found that banks at the moment don't really have a major problem with people reducing their term, even if it does mean less return for them.

In reality, when I was doing up the figures above, the repayments over 30 years on 200k @ 2% were comparable to or slightly less than the repayments on 150k @ 4%. So if someone is just about managing their tracker repayments now, or don't have a huge amount of wiggle room, then reducing their term simply wouldn't be an option.

As I say, the banks will do their homework on this. You can be guaranteed that if the bank is appearing to be very kind and generous to you and you can't see any problem, then you're either in the 1% of people who are winning on the deal, or you're missing something.

Thoie

Thoie wrote: »

The other point is that if your salary increases significantly over time, your current monthly repayments won't seem that big. We've all heard of people who are paying 2s6d a year for their mortgage.

Most folks realise that their salary is unlikely to increase significiantly over time, in many cases in 5 or 10 years time they will not be on what they were on in the height of the boom prior to levees and paycuts etc. Mortgage repayment will however rise over the coming years, becoming a higher percentage of most folks spend.

buck65

Someone mentioned that anyone on a tracker interest only loan is fcucked , why is this?

seamus

buck65 wrote: »

Someone mentioned that anyone on a tracker interest only loan is fcucked , why is this?

I wouldn't necessarily say fcuked, but they're basically just paying rent on their property and nothing more.
With normal mortgage repayments, even when house prices are dropping, you're still paying off some principle, so at the end of the day the drop in house prices will affect you less.
Those on interest-only still owe whatever they borrowed and the value of the asset has collapsed.

buck65

Fair enough. I bought a house on an interest only tracker in 2006 (as advised by bank). The mortgage was in the region of 220k on a property cost of 245k. The property is worth perhaps 200k today but surely over the lifetime of the loan the property should be back into positive equity?

buck65

buck65 wrote: »

Fair enough. I bought a house on an interest only tracker in 2006 (as advised by bank). The mortgage was in the region of 220k on a property cost of 245k. Fair enough the property is worth perhaps 200k today but surely over the lifetime of the loan the property should be back into positive equity?

A property bought in 2006 at 245K may well be worth 200K now as you bought before the peak

Over the lifetime of the loan all propertied eventually will be in +ive equity unless the property is worth €0.

crazy woman

Hi there, only picking up on this now but what are your thoughts on this - we're currently on the market to sell and thought of looking for a settlement agreement from our bank - seeing as we're gonna lose it anyway..chancing our arm?

3DataModem

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Regardless of what they offer you, say no to any offer!

Generally the right advice, but not always.

Depends on whether you want to sell / move / default / pay off early.

sodslaw

sorry for posting on an old thread but my bank (boi) have just taken me off my tracker mortgage after i took a 6 month payment holiday, i still paid the interest and after reading this i am wondering if they are allowed to do this.
if anyone could let me know what my rights are that would be great, hope you all had a good new year.
thanks
john
ps they just sent a letter saying it had been switched and that we are pleased to confirm that your new variable rate will be €800 a month! i am annoyed if they have done this and they are not allowed, i hate the banks with a fury!

William72

sodslaw wrote: »

sorry for posting on an old thread but my bank (boi) have just taken me off my tracker mortgage after i took a 6 month payment holiday, i still paid the interest and after reading this i am wondering if they are allowed to do this.
if anyone could let me know what my rights are that would be great, hope you all had a good new year.
thanks
john
ps they just sent a letter saying it had been switched and that we are pleased to confirm that your new variable rate will be €800 a month! i am annoyed if they have done this and they are not allowed, i hate the banks with a fury!

you'll probably find that somwhere in the small print of your agreement to go on a 6 month holiday there is something about the new terms of conditions of your mortgage. If there isn't then yes, i suspect you may have a case here as your tracker was a contract with the bank which cannot be changed without both parties consent... but... if by taking a 6 month holiday they didn't make it clear to you that you would be giving up your tracker the its prob worth pursuing...

I tried to take a 4 month interest only holiday a few years back when my wife was on maternity leave and my mortgage provider tried to change the terms of my mortgage... i told them to sod off thanks but no thanks

sodslaw

thanks william
ill pop upto them this week, they never said anything would be changed by taking the mortgage break but as you say it may be in the small print. ill pop upto them this week and see what they have to say, i didn`t think they could just change it without telling me. then again they will try anything these days.
cheers
john

bigdogbarking

just stumbled across this thread,I'm curiuos, Does anyone know if these offers were made and if so, for how much? could be real handy in taking my current house out of negative equity and allowing us to sell, i understand it won't be that simple and there will have to be a lot of thought put into it but still, could be handy for some people.

batman1

I am currently switching my current account to ulster bank from BoI.

My mortgage is and will stay with BoI as it is a tracker, currently on 2.25%.

Can they mess around with my mortgage if I close my current account, as in use it as an excuse to take me off the tracker?

makeorbrake

Is there any sign of movement on this from any of the banks?


I'm on ECB +0.59% - in a position to clear the mortgage - but simply will never do so unless they deal....but perhaps they never will....??

GSF

makeorbrake wrote: »

Is there any sign of movement on this from any of the banks?


I'm on ECB +0.59% - in a position to clear the mortgage - but simply will never do so unless they deal....but perhaps they never will....??

I thought PTSB offered something like £10k reduction for exiting the tracker a while ago but havent heard of any others. I particularly surprised that BOSI and other market exiters havent offered anything.

makeorbrake

GSF wrote: »

I thought PTSB offered something like £10k reduction for exiting the tracker a while ago but havent heard of any others.

Yes, they did during the Summer - but I don't believe that deal represented good value.

GSF wrote: »

I particularly surprised that BOSI and other market exiters havent offered anything.

I'm equally baffled. Maybe its a case that in the medium to longterm, they see people voluntarily surrendering them when they have to trade up to a bigger property..

Pablo Sanchez

As our banks can access unlimited cheap lending from the ECB, there is less reason for them to incentivise you overpaying your mortgage. If they had to pay market prices for the money they borrow it would be a different story.

Pablo Sanchez

Just saw this in todays times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1221/breaking13.html

Banks took a huge €489 billion at the European Central Bank's first ever offering of three-year funding today, providing hope a credit crunch can be avoided and that the money may be used to buy Italian and Spanish debt.

It hopes the limit-free, ultra-cheap and ultra-long funding will have a range of beneficial effects, including bolstering trust in banks, easing the threat of a credit crunch and tempting banks to buy Italian and Spanish debt to use them as collateral.

Rather than a simple flat rate, the three-year funds were offered at an interest rate which will be the average of ECB's main interest rate over the next three years. That benchmark rate is, after a rate cut earlier this month, currently at a record low of 1.0 per cent.
For some banks, the money could be more than 3 percentage points cheaper than they can get on the open market. As part of the deal they could switch money borrowed from the ECB back in October into three-year funding and will also be able to pay it back after just a year if they so wish.

makeorbrake

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

For some banks, the money could be more than 3 percentage points cheaper than they can get on the open market. As part of the deal they could switch money borrowed from the ECB back in October into three-year funding and will also be able to pay it back after just a year if they so wish.

So based on that, this is not a subject banks will visit until this cheap financing offered by the ecb ends?....and it won't end for 3 years, correct?

Pablo Sanchez

makeorbrake wrote: »

So based on that, this is not a subject banks will visit until this cheap financing offered by the ecb ends?....and it won't end for 3 years, correct?

To be honest cheap funding will continue until such a time as the EU pulls out of the financial trouble it finds itself in. When that happens interest rates are likly to go back up to a much higher level, thus negating a lot of the problems that the banks have with trackers in the first place.

I wouldnt be holding my breath for banks to start offering people silly money for coming off trackers, that was a rumour and nothing more then that. PTSB were the only people to come through with somewhat of a offering but it was no where near as generous as people thought it would be. Moral of the story is, if you can afford to, over pay your mortgage. If you can clear your mortgage, do so. Why continue to pay interest on money when you dont need to.

NIMAN

I asked AIB approx 15-16 months ago about them giving me a deal on my tracker to pay it off, and was more or less told NOT A CHANCE.

Pablo Sanchez

Dont forget that the banks are now fully capitalised and are technically in better shape then they were three years ago.

makeorbrake

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

Dont forget that the banks are now fully capitalised and are technically in better shape then they were three years ago.

Ok, thanks. I guess I better put that idea out of my head - but I won't be surrendering my tracker and will see it through in the normal (as in the agreed montly payments) fashion for the next 25 years of it's 30 year term.

I had been planning on buying another property outright anyway - and will probably do so next year - just need to save a little bit more.