# Escaping Negative Equity...thoughts



## sharedRespon (4 Jun 2013)

Hello,

I am hoping to get some advice on options available to me ...

*Personal and income details*
Income self: PAYE worker - 60,000 PA
Income history: In current job 1 year
Income partner: PAYE worker – 46,000 PA
Number of children: 0

*Home loan*
Lender: EBS
Taken out: 2007
Amount outstanding: 400,000
Value of home: 210 approx
Interest rate: Fixed 4.25% one more year then move to SVR
Monthly repayment: 1600 (inc. MIR)
Type of loan: 100%
Life of mortgage: 35 years
Amount in arrears: none

*Summary of discussions and agreements with the bank:*
None as yet

*Other loans and creditors *
No other loan commitments

*Other savings and investments *
3,000

*Any other relevant information*
We want to be able to move abroad and not have this house hanging around our necks like a millstone.  The MIR is due to complete in 2017 which, at current interest rates, will push our mortgage repayments up to 2100 a month – this will make life very difficult and utterly depressing.

*What is your preferred realistic outcome? *
Sell the house and get the shortfall written off.

*Other Information:*
Although we can afford to pay our mortgage, currently, we can’t afford to do much else, hence the paltry savings.

I am looking for options and would appreciate any insight people might have.

Thank you.


----------



## PaddyW (4 Jun 2013)

Would I be right in thinking that with both salaries you would have a rough income of €6000.00 per month? Or maybe a bit less with pension payments and such? That leaves roughly 4,000 per month, give or take, after mortgage. Where is the rest of the money being spent? Have you done the money makeover section to see where you can cut back on spending.


----------



## idkwatmi (4 Jun 2013)

I'm not sure why you think any bank would or should write off your negative equity. I appreciate you want to move abroad but I dont think you are in a bad financial position. Your incomings far outweigh your outgoings.


----------



## Jim2007 (4 Jun 2013)

Time for a reality check me thinks!!!  Based on your salary figures, it would appear that  your disposable income is higher that of most families in Europe and the USA and as another poster pointed out even after paying the mortgage you still have about 4K of disposable income, so moving for economic reason does not seem to make much sense...

You need to do some proper analysis of where your money is going because blaming the mortgage for your lack is savings does not seem to fly!


----------



## mark71 (4 Jun 2013)

Is it just me or is their more and more of these type threads appearing lately?


----------



## Luternau (4 Jun 2013)

mark71 said:


> Is it just me or is their more and more of these type threads appearing lately?



I would agree with that. Could be that word is spreading that AAM is a good place for advice or it could be that people are realising more that they need help.


----------



## Luternau (4 Jun 2013)

I don't disagree with anything said above. You have high earnings and a mortgage you can easily service. There is no way a bank will agree to a write off. 

You should be able to save 1.5 to 2k a month on your earnings/outgoings no problem-so you need to look at what you spend your money on. 

In addition to saving you should be looking to pay down debt. You could request a reduced mortgage term-which will pay off in the long run. It's the only escape to your negative equity that I can see.

Alternatively, put all your spending up here (case study) to get an analysis on your spending.


----------



## sharedRespon (4 Jun 2013)

Thank you for the responses.

The reason I posted here is that people seem genuine in their advice.

I will look at all our outgoings but we certainly do not feel as wealthy as you are suggesting.

The problem I have is that we will pay 200k approx of dead money. We take the full hit for a mistake of buying our first and only house and that's how it is I suppose!


----------



## Luternau (4 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> The problem I have is that we will pay 200k approx of dead money. We take the full hit for a mistake of buying our first and only house and that's how it is I suppose!



That is a different matter!! Negative Equity is only a problem if you are selling. If not - forget about it until you need to concern yourself with it.

You are earning way way above average earnings. Many families with two or more kids and multiple debts are spending less each month than you earn and getting by. You should read through some of the threads on negative equity, debt, bankruptcy and the plight of some people with their banks and you will realise that being in a position to pay your bank, even if the home is in negative equity, and still have lots left over for anything you want to spend it on, is a dream for many. Long may it continue that way for you.

If you get your spending sorted, you will be flying and you won't have to live a frugal lifestyle to start saving either.


----------



## wbbs (4 Jun 2013)

I would love to get my hands on your budgeting to see where the money is going 

Spending diary, sounds boring and it is but it is a very valuable exercise to see where the money goes.  Alternatively maybe you pay most things by card in which case some forensic checking of your statements should throw some light on the subject.

Identify you main annual bills such as insurance and your monthly ones like phone, esb etc, averaged out this will tell you how much you need for bills every month, the rest is discretionary spend other than food.  Then start to cut down every bill you can, shop around for everything, check your food spend, are you a M&S or a Lidl shopper?  

Would be very interested to see how you get on with this exercise.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Jun 2013)

I have more sympathy for the position of sharedRespon than others seems to have.

I recognise that his income position is good and he is not suffering the same hardship as many others.

However he faces 35 years paying €2,100 a month for a property he cannot sell, or more if interest rates rise. This situation is not going away for him.

People in the various types of arrangement will eventually have their situations resolved and be able to move on with their lives. The cost of that will be borne by the tax payer, i.e. sharedRespon.

Looking at irelands economic future, there is not going to be inflation to wipe away the debt, either public or private debt, both of which sharedRespon will have to pay for . There isn't going to be a big increase in the numbers at work in the country to share the burden of public debt.

You have got to ask yourself why bother? If you had the option to walk away and earn good money elsewhere wouldn't you? Especially if you are young and have the rest of your life ahead of you.


----------



## Negotiator (5 Jun 2013)

cremeegg said:


> You have got to ask yourself why bother? If you had the option to walk away and earn good money elsewhere wouldn't you? Especially if you are young and have the rest of your life ahead of you.



Totally agree with your sentiments Cremeegg, there has to be an incentive for people to continue servicing their debts if they are in serious negative equity regardless of how they got there and if they are on an average income (even a relatively ok income).

In my (strong) opinion, when a property market crashes by 50% to 70% and an economy contracts so severely that it's a once in a century phenomenon, then all bets are off!!  We are living in unprecedented times and normal lending and repayment terms no longer apply to legacy debt. It is only human nature that people will want a brighter future for themselves by removing the burden of debt they find themselves in, and good luck to them I say. Don't be a debt slave for the next 30 years because you think it's 'the right thing to do'. Make your decisions based on whats right for you and your family's future and don't let anything else cloud your judgement on that.


----------



## dereko1969 (5 Jun 2013)

Negotiator said:


> Totally agree with your sentiments Cremeegg, there has to be an incentive for people to continue servicing their debts if they are in serious negative equity regardless of how they got there and if they are on an average income (even a relatively ok income).
> 
> In my (strong) opinion, when a property market crashes by 50% to 70% and an economy contracts so severely that it's a once in a century phenomenon, then all bets are off!! We are living in unprecedented times and normal lending and repayment terms no longer apply to legacy debt. It is only human nature that people will want a brighter future for themselves by removing the burden of debt they find themselves in, and good luck to them I say. Don't be a debt slave for the next 30 years because you think it's 'the right thing to do'. Make your decisions based on whats right for you and your family's future and don't let anything else cloud your judgement on that.


 
Yes but who ends up paying for their decisions to walk away from their debts, if everyone in that position (excellent salaries, manageable debt) decided to follow suit - where would we be?

Nobody seemed to worry about selling their houses for huge amounts during the boom and how that impacted on society but now want to be bailed out or walk away from their debts now and place that burden on society.

Just in the last couple of days there have been a number of threads started by people who want to walk away from debts yet still get maternity benefits or pensions from the state - people seem to forget that with rights come responsibilities, we are a nation of mé féiners.


----------



## Jim2007 (5 Jun 2013)

Negotiator said:


> Totally agree with your sentiments Cremeegg, there has to be an incentive for people to continue servicing their debts if they are in serious negative equity regardless of how they got there and if they are on an average income (even a relatively ok income).



If we followed this thinking then we'd need to compensate everyone who made a bad financial decision:

- The pensioners who invested in BOI/AIB shares because they thought it was safe for their retirement.
- The parents who invested their hard earned savings in college funds for their kids.
- The business man who's enterprise fails through no fault of his own...
- The pension funds who invested in Irish bonds and now have large deficits and will be unable to pay out the expected pensions to their members
- The list just goes on.....

Everyone of these people made bad financial decisions that they will have to live with well into the future, why should we single out the property owners in negative equity for special treatment???

It is bad enough that taxpayer will be on the hook for people who simply can't meet their obligations, but to expect them to also carry the can for someone who is capable to meeting their obligations and does not feel like it is just not on.


----------



## flattea2 (5 Jun 2013)

Your problem is not your mortgage it’s your discretionary spending.


----------



## dereko1969 (5 Jun 2013)

flattea2 said:


> Your problem is not your mortgage it’s your discretionary spending.


 
From the scant details provided it would seem that there is more spending than is discrete! - take home 6k, mortgage 1.6k - leaves a lot of money.


----------



## sharedRespon (5 Jun 2013)

Thank you for the continued responses.

My point was, as was mentioned, about the 35 years.  There were two parties to our mortgage yet we must take the entire burden of the loss.

I am looking for a way forward, like crystallise the loss and share that with the bank.  We could then plan for some sort of future beyond this debacle. I am not looking to walk away from the debt but if some sort of way is found what's to stop me from declaring bankruptcy?

We are in that sector of society that can afford their mortgage in the short term but long term we will need some sort of attention as 35 years of paying dead money is utterly depressing and unsustainable.

Also we don't get 6k net a month I don't know where that has come from, it is based on a false premise.


----------



## Jim2007 (5 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> My point was, as was mentioned, about the 35 years.  There were two parties to our mortgage yet we must take the entire burden of the loss.



We the taxpayers are the other party, since we had to bail out the banks, why should we be on the hook for your mistakes, when you are well capable of servicing you debts?



sharedRespon said:


> I am not looking to walk away from the debt but if some sort of way is found what's to stop me from declaring bankruptcy?.



Well in the first place you do not declare yourself bankrupt, you apply to the courts and the judge declares you bankrupt if you meet the criteria.  Based on your figures you clearly do not meet the criteria.


----------



## STEINER (5 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> Thank you for the continued responses.
> 
> My point was, as was mentioned, about the 35 years.  There were two parties to our mortgage yet we must take the entire burden of the loss.
> 
> ...



Hi,

You get €106k gross per annum.  What is the annual net figure approximately
 please?


----------



## Luternau (5 Jun 2013)

You see your mortgage as being unsustainable yet it accounts for somewhere between 30 and 40 of disposable income. Where is the rest going?

When you bought your property, what were you thinking- pay some of it back and look for a deal? No, you like everyone else borrowed to pay it all back. Thats the way it was till a few years ago-now some people who can pay, don't want to pay for myriads of reasons that in some cases are hardly credible. What has changed in your circumstances that makes you think the bank won't expect it all back? 
Look at it another way;
If your property increased in value by say 50%, would the bank come looking for 50% of the increase? No
Now, just because it has fallen, why should they take a % of the fall when the loan is being paid. 

The reason is that it's your house and all they want back is their money. There is no shared responsibility. If you start looking for reduced payments they will forensically examine expenditure and if you really earn a combined 106k, they will refuse.

I have to say, I find your thinking on all this difficult to fathom.


----------



## Billo (5 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon 

you have two good jobs.
You have plenty of income.
You can well afford the mortgage.


You need to think positively. 
Forget about negative equity and burden of loss.
Judging by what you have written above you have plenty to be positive about.


----------



## Luternau (5 Jun 2013)

Billo said:


> sharedRespon
> 
> you have two good jobs.
> You have plenty of income.
> ...



This is good advice. As I said much earlier, the negative equity is not something to worry about when meeting payments. Negative Equity mortgages are coming on stream and with your earnings you may be perfect candidate -so don't feel that you are trapped in that property for 35yrs. But, you need to sort that spending.


----------



## sharedRespon (5 Jun 2013)

Thank you all for the honest feedback


----------



## cremeegg (5 Jun 2013)

Jim2007 said:


> If we followed this thinking then we'd need to compensate everyone who made a bad financial decision:
> 
> - The pensioners who invested in BOI/AIB shares because they thought it was safe for their retirement.
> - The parents who invested their hard earned savings in college funds for their kids.
> ...



We should single out people like this op because with a a combined income of €106 k and a remaining mortgage term of 30 years, these are the people who are the future of our country. (I am assuming that this high earning reflects an even greater contribution to the country's economy and is not just some well paid sinecure.) And to saddle them with paying for the mistakes of the past is in no ones interest. 

This is not a moral argument just a pragmatic belief that if we force these people to pay for the mistakes of the past they may decide to simply opt out, and where does that leave the rest of us.

The issue is not just their personal debt but also the public debt we are incurring at the rate of €1 billion a month. These people are going to be taxed to pay that.

If Ireland's debt problem is not addressed, the country will become unlivable for people like this and that is in no ones interest.


----------



## Luternau (5 Jun 2013)

The OP is not someone that is pinned to their collar because of the sins of anybody. All of us are being taxed to account for the sins of the past-but I see no logic in your argument that they be cut some slack. Their duty and legal obligation, whether in 2007 or 2013 is to pay the bank.  They can afford to pay it back. Therefore I see no 'pin', no 'collar'  and no 'saddle' here. I do see excessive spending and no savings for a rainy day-something they need to address if you ask me.

For other people that have lost jobs as a result of the big mistakes of past Govts, Banks etc, absolutely, they need lots of assistance. However, the OP should not hope for the same type of assistance or redress.  As you allude to, the assistance is not free-we all pay for it in our taxes.


----------



## Jim2007 (5 Jun 2013)

cremeegg said:


> We should single out people like this op because with a a combined income of €106 k and a remaining mortgage term of 30 years, these are the people who are the future of our country. (I am assuming that this high earning reflects an even greater contribution to the country's economy and is not just some well paid sinecure.) And to saddle them with paying for the mistakes of the past is in no ones interest.



People who saddle the country with additional debt because they are unwilling to meet their obligations are not the future of the country, they are just making it more difficult for everyone else!  Like I already said just because someone pumped money in to a property does not make them special - people who lost their life savings in pension funds etc... are just as entitled to expect to be compensated.



cremeegg said:


> This is not a moral argument just a pragmatic belief that if we force these people to pay for the mistakes of the past they may decide to simply opt out, and where does that leave the rest of us.



No worse of than we were!  We are not talking here about someone is unable to meet their debts, we are talking about someone who is unwilling to do so.  And if we are going to give anyone a break then it should be those who are unable to meet their obligations and are in some serious financial difficult.



cremeegg said:


> The issue is not just their personal debt but also the public debt we are incurring at the rate of €1 billion a month. These people are going to be taxed to pay that.



You are right,  but so is every other citizen who took no part in the decision to run up these personal debts, but must no chip in to cover the cost of the exercise.  Expecting them to pay additional taxes, while giving a free pass to someone who is clearly well able to meet their obligations is a non starter.



cremeegg said:


> If Ireland's debt problem is not addressed, the country will become unlivable for people like this and that is in no ones interest.



Which is exactly why those who can pay should required to do so.  The taxpayer has been saddled with enough additional responsibilities.


----------



## Bronte (6 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> My point was, as was mentioned, about the 35 years. There were two parties to our mortgage yet we must take the entire burden of the loss.
> 
> I am looking for a way forward, like crystallise the loss and share that with the bank. We could then plan for some sort of future beyond this debacle. I am not looking to walk away from the debt but if some sort of way is found what's to stop me from declaring bankruptcy?
> 
> ...


 
Your thinking is way off on this. Everybody who gets a mortgage finds it tough at the beginning, you've a situation of NE and you don't want the bank to share this 'loss', you want the taxpayers to pay it. If your property had doubled in value would you be on here asking us how to share this 'gain' with the bank? 

It was you who decided on 35 years, and you who decided to take out such a large mortgage. Are you not happy in the house you live in and with the two good jobs you have? Are you not indeed a lucky man? What is the 'wealthy' that you are looking for, what is in this 'wealthy' that you need or want. And would it make you happy. 

There is a lot of talk currently in Irish society from the won't pay brigade, to justify their stance. Are you becomming one of those? Is this influencing you?

I note that you have not told us your actually net salary. Yet you have blamed the cost of the mortgage for the fact that you have no savings. I respectfully sugggest that you have no savings because you have spending issues.

Are you seriously suggesting that you would walk away from two perfectly good jobs to declare bankruptcy, can you expand on that thinking, I mean that's just absolutely crazy. 

To help you and give you some concrete suggestions, yes 30 years remaining is a long time, but you can do something about it, by curtailing your spending, by saving and by overpaying your mortgage you can easily bring down that term. But it's a matter of discipline. 

Also bear in mind that as each year goes by the NE is getting less, and you never know, inflation or an increase in house prices might literally overnight wipe out a lot of the NE issues. 

Cremegg & Negotiation, the OP is not in any trouble and have two good jobs, the NE is irrelevant as they don't need to move and yet you both think something should be done for him. Pray tell who is going to pay for this? There are plenty of people in NE not looking for anything, just doing the right thing, paying back the debt they incurred and not being a burden on other taxpayers.


----------



## burmo (6 Jun 2013)

My question would be, if the prices in 5 or 10 years are back to where they were when you bought or even 5% will you still wish to escape from paying back 'dead money'? Because with inflation this is what is very very likely to happen IMHO.


----------



## sharedRespon (6 Jun 2013)

I appreciate all the comments and understand where you are coming from.
As a previous poster has stated we are living in extraordinary times.  We don’t want to walk away from our debt but we can’t see a future in this country.  We don’t spend money excessively.  I agree we could be more discerning.  Our net before any spend is 5200 but that is only in the last year.  We don’t blame the mortgage entirely, which will rise to over 2100 approx. a month on current AVR in 3 years, it’s the fact that the whole edifice that existed in early 2007 was to buy a house at any cost - Yes we were extremely naïve and as I’ve said we made a major mistake which, to answer most of the respondents here, we will be paying for the next 30 years.


----------



## Jim2007 (6 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> I appreciate all the comments and understand where you are coming from.
> As a previous poster has stated we are living in extraordinary times.  We don’t want to walk away from our debt but we can’t see a future in this country.  We don’t spend money excessively.  I agree we could be more discerning.  Our net before any spend is 5200 but that is only in the last year.  We don’t blame the mortgage entirely, which will rise to over 2100 approx. a month on current AVR in 3 years, it’s the fact that the whole edifice that existed in early 2007 was to buy a house at any cost - Yes we were extremely naïve and as I’ve said we made a major mistake which, to answer most of the respondents here, we will be paying for the next 30 years.



You need to grow up and start to learn how to manage your money, seriously!  

A disposable income of 5200 per month would be considered a good income even by Swiss standards!  And out of that you'd expect to pay about 2k in rent for a 3 roomed apartment, save about say 1k, pay about 4k p.a. in health insurance and support a family of 4 on the rest including an annual holiday!  Now if two of you can't learn to do that in Ireland on the income you have, I doubt you'll learn to do it any where else either!


----------



## cremeegg (6 Jun 2013)

Originally Posted by cremeegg  

We should single out people like this op because with a a combined income of €106 k and a remaining mortgage term of 30 years, these are the people who are the future of our country. (I am assuming that this high earning reflects an even greater contribution to the country's economy and is not just some well paid sinecure.) And to saddle them with paying for the mistakes of the past is in no ones interest.

People who saddle the country with additional debt because they are unwilling to meet their obligations are not the future of the country, they are just making it more difficult for everyone else! Like I already said just because someone pumped money in to a property does not make them special - people who lost their life savings in pension funds etc... are just as entitled to expect to be compensated.

I am bot talking about deserving cases, people who lost money lost money, thats history. But it is the OPs future contribution to the Irish economy I am concerned with.


Originally Posted by cremeegg  

This is not a moral argument just a pragmatic belief that if we force these people to pay for the mistakes of the past they may decide to simply opt out, and where does that leave the rest of us.

No worse of than we were! We are not talking here about someone is unable to meet their debts, we are talking about someone who is unwilling to do so. And if we are going to give anyone a break then it should be those who are unable to meet their obligations and are in some serious financial difficult.

We are worse off if productive members of society become discouraged, and it is more in our broader interest to resolve their situation that that of people who may seem to have a nore attractive back story. I am not talking charity I am talking about society's self interest.


Originally Posted by cremeegg  
The issue is not just their personal debt but also the public debt we are incurring at the rate of €1 billion a month. These people are going to be taxed to pay that.

You are right, but so is every other citizen who took no part in the decision to run up these personal debts, but must no chip in to cover the cost of the exercise. Expecting them to pay additional taxes, while giving a free pass to someone who is clearly well able to meet their obligations is a non starter.

I am not suggesting a free pass at the taxpayers expense, jus suggesting that the OPs problem is our problem too.


Originally Posted by cremeegg  
If Ireland's debt problem is not addressed, the country will become unlivable for people like this and that is in no ones interest.
Which is exactly why those who can pay should required to do so. The taxpayer has been saddled with enough additional responsibilities.

If those who are deemed able to pay are required to pay for the rest of their lives, those with the talent and energy may just decide to leave.

Apologies for the awkward formatting I cannot figure out how to do the blue thing


----------



## Mouldy (6 Jun 2013)

Is your home in a good rental area? Could you rent the house out through an agent if you move abroad?

If the rental income if very high in your area and the local authority are looking for houses there, enquire about the 10 year leaseout option. You are early into a 35 year mortgage and are therefore paying lots of interest, you can write 70% of this off against tax on rental income.

There is no hope of the bank giving you even a dollar off this mortgage. If you wan to go down that road, go to England and go bankrupt. This is not a trivial decision but it will (eventually) solve your problem, while creating a load more.

If you both have good jobs and the jobs look like they will be secure, you really need to ask yourself why you want to emigrate. If you don’t like where you live you can easily afford to rent out your current house and rent somewhere else.

As for the next 35 years, you are comparing all of those years with the current year. Central banks all over the world are printing money and the EU seems to be mooting a mechanism that would have the same effect – inflation. With good income and carefully managed finances, things might not work out as badly as you think.

M


----------



## Bronte (7 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> , to answer most of the respondents here, we will be paying for the next 30 years.


 
I find your response evasive.  And to that comment in particular let me say this, what you've written there applies to everybody who has ever had or will have a mortgage.  We all spend most of our mature adult working life paying off a mortgage, what is wrong with that idea for you, what makes it different for you?

Tell me, seeing as you seem preoccupied with the length of your mortgage, let's pretend you didn't have a mortgage, what would you pay in rent for an equivalent house currently?


----------



## Bronte (7 Jun 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Apologies for the awkward formatting I cannot figure out how to do the blue thing


 
No idea what this post is about.  

In any case, you think the OP should have some kind of debt forgiveness, is this correct? Who should pay for this?

Bearing in mind the OP can well afford their mortgage, that they freely went into it, that they have two good jobs, you actually think they should be let off the mortgage?


----------



## Mrmr (7 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> we will be paying for the next 30 years.



But this is the same for everyone? How do you think you are different? Unless you intended on flipping the property for a fairly immediate cash gain and no mortgage period? If that was it, then your investment just didn't work out and maybe changing to a rental would work better for you? If having this investment simply no longer suits you, then you may have to crystallize the loss and accept it. Investments may fall as well as rise  

No one made you take out a mortgage, unfortunately a lot of us got stuck with inflated mortgages due to the times we lived and live in. If it's still a nice home and you have a nice life then all is OK, no?


----------



## flattea2 (7 Jun 2013)

sharedRespon said:


> I appreciate all the comments and understand where you are coming from.
> As a previous poster has stated we are living in extraordinary times.  We don’t want to walk away from our debt but we can’t see a future in this country.  We don’t spend money excessively.  I agree we could be more discerning.  Our net before any spend is 5200 but that is only in the last year.  We don’t blame the mortgage entirely, which will rise to over 2100 approx. a month on current AVR in 3 years, it’s the fact that the whole edifice that existed in early 2007 was to buy a house at any cost - Yes we were extremely naïve and as I’ve said we made a major mistake which, to answer most of the respondents here, we will be paying for the next 30 years.



But you haven't really understood where posters are coming from really have you judging by this post? Its back to the poor us thing, a sense of entitlement to an upside only on purchasing assets.

Over 30 years with inflation and a recovered economy, you will be fine. 

You say "we can't see a future in this country". That's extraordinarily negative, you really think Ireland has no future? I think Ireland is a great country.

Why do you feel so aggrieved?


----------



## breathe (7 Jun 2013)

Looking at a mortgage term of 30 years is daunting for most an alternative perspective or view you might consider is overpaying your mortgage. This would involve looking at all your outgoings and looking at what you can realistically overpay. It will take years off your mortgage and ensure you pay the lender less in interest in the long run.

I realise that you are currently on a fixed rate and may not be able to overpay but get in touch with your lender and see what rules apply with them. We have a fixed rate but our lender allows us to overpay monthly.

There are some excellent mortgage calculators which illustrate the impact overpaying would have on your mortgage. Look at some of the Key Posts in the Deposits section of this site.


----------



## Luternau (7 Jun 2013)

Agree with all ( bar creamegg/negotiator)

The OP does not get:
-they bought, not the bank
-they could have rented
-they choose the mortgage (amount and term)
-the value of homes will always rise/fall
-the value of a home cannot just be equated to a monetary sum
-negative equity only comes into play if selling

They also don't get that
-their financial future is theirs to make with prudent saving or ruin with excessive spending
-that worrying about negative equity won't get them anywhere
-that despite saying they are not looking for a write off, that is exactly what they asked about.

In summary - a serious reality check needed.


----------



## daftpunk (19 Jun 2013)

As for the next 35 years, you are comparing all of those years with the current year. Central banks all over the world are printing money and the EU seems to be mooting a mechanism that would have the same effect – inflation. With good income and carefully managed finances, things might not work out as badly as you think.

M[/QUOTE]

Is this true??, sounds like light at the end of the tunnel if so. The only positive I've heard anyway.


----------



## daftpunk (19 Jun 2013)

I too am unable to do the blue thing for quoting, apologies!


----------



## so-crates (20 Jun 2013)

daftpunk said:


> I too am unable





daftpunk said:


> to do the blue thing





			
				daftpunk said:
			
		

> for quoting, apologies!


Easy peasy 

You just need to use the right tags around the text


daftpunk said:


> daftpunk said:
> 
> 
> > I too am unable



Now to show you how, I have to list them in the other order 
To close a quote use [/QUOTE]
To open a quote use the word 





> To open a quote with a persons name you open as follows
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bronte (21 Jun 2013)

Luternau said:


> The OP does not get:
> -they bought, not the bank
> -they could have rented
> -they choose the mortgage (amount and term)
> ...


 
I like this, should be taught to all young people in school.


----------

