several thousand euros which they would have to stump up, given that house price trends appear to be downward, their chances of having any surplus from selling the house is relatively low (as it is relatively new bought). They may even find themselves not being able to sell it for enough to cover the costs.
I would agree with jhegarty, had the same first thought as you, why hang onto an asset that is difficult to afford but then saw the fixed penalty and realised it probably wouldn't be beneficial.
The asset is still the asset, it is the debt that is difficult to afford
No, not true, the debt is the liability.
Your asset: dwelling
Your need: Finance to pay for said dwelling so that prior owner will sign over the asset to you
Your liability: finance owed to bank
Your negotiating tactic to obtain said finance:
1) a promise to repay the amount borrowed plus a cost of borrowing (interest) over a term
2) a promise to allow the bank to take control of the asset if you renege on your repayments in return for their returning interest in the property to you once you have discharged your debt.
Bank's asset: your mortgage
Bank's security: your agreement to mortgage your property and your deeds
Bank's liability: to whomever they have "borrowed" the money from, be it other lenders or their own depositors.
The asset remains an asset at all points, your liability is the mortgage debt; that is the millstone.
Mortgage finance arrangements were originally limited to a very select group of people - those who held assets basically. You still need to "own" an asset to get a mortgage, hence the property is yours (or rather the bank agrees to give you your property back if you pay up cos you only have it all to yourself fleetingly, blink and you've missed it!) but the bank holds a metaphorical gun to your head by holding the evidence of ownership and the evidence of the agreement to relinquish your right to your property in the event of default.
At least that is my understanding!
Honestly, is what your are saying of any point or relevance to the OP?
You pointed out that the option of downsizing should be considered by the OP, jhegarty indicated that the reason it may not be viable for the OP is that they have over a year left on a fixed term and would be penalised for paying off early. Added to the current housing market and the costs of the transaction, it makes it far less palatable to consider at this juncture. That is the important discussion, everything else is simply semantics and of little value to the OPs plight from what I can see.
Also if you are going to argue (your wording) about assets and liabilities at least don't randomly lump in current and capital together!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?