Well done Brendan on Primetime. You made it clear that the 'loss making trackers' line so often used is a myth, though Eoin Fahy still wouldn't let it go.
Sarenco
Tonight on Primetime, it was stated that Sara's LtV ratio is 60%.....why oh why has she not jumped to KBC for example so as to get a much better rate. Are we getting the full story here?
In relation to banks and their tracker loan books it would be my opinion that some of the banks might be making a very marginal profit on the performing portion of their tracker loan book before administrative costs. On the other side of the argument I personally know of millions of euro of non performing tracker mortgages I would be surprised if any of them are making a profit on the total tracker loan book when you take this into account.
Yes that would seem like a good deal for Sarah should she wish to explore it. But thank you Sarah for nevertheless highlighting the issue for those of us not in a position to switch because of negative equity or high ltv ratio.Wow.
KBC's <60% LTV mortgage rate is 3.75% (with the 0.2% discount if you open a current account with KBC). KBC will also throw in €1,000 towards your legal costs and will cover 50% of your home insurance for a year.
That's an even better deal than Sara's (allegorical) neighbour is getting!
Sara should be encouraging people to switch at every available opportunity. That's the best way to get PTSB's attention.
Wow.
Sara should be encouraging people to switch at every available opportunity. That's the best way to get PTSB's attention.
Is this the first time anybody has publicly challenged the received wisdom that banks are making huge losses on their tracker books? Does anybody else find it odd that no financial journalist has taken up the running on this issue?
Sara from all accounts appears quite articulate and is available to the media and would have put a good bit of effort preparing for all of this. I would not put myself in the same articulate category as Sara but I would have used that time that she did into negotiating a cheaper rate from another institution and telling my friends to do so.
I honestly think that spending whatever hours it takes to change your mortgage to a cheaper bank would be more productive than going to meetings. I just wonder how many of the people who say the will go to a mass meeting re SVR mortgages have pro-actively tried to switch themselves. There are a lot of people out there who want someone else to do it for them. I could not be bothered attitude but are still prepared to complain.
If 30,000 SVR mortgage holders which is 10% or so started to switch in the next month I believe that the banks would pay attention particularly when they would air their success.
Most of the people who will attend a meeting will already know what the problem is and how to go about sorting it. Switching or making their mortgage provider feel that that is what they are going to do. I am not against the mass meeting but just giving a view.
Tonight on Primetime said:Sara and her husband were both working when they took out the loan. Sara has since had to stop working for family reasons. So while she has a clean credit record and has an LTV of 60%, she would not meet the Loan to Income requirements of other lenders.
Sara is very proactive. If she could switch to another lender, she would be gone out of there immediately.
Brendan
She has said on radio since that the neighour story is just being used as an analogy and she in fact has no idea what sort of mortgages her neighbours have
At least she has put this issue out there and even if she gets 3.8 SVR from ptsb she's still getting ripped off.well done Brendan tonight.
The issue of admin costs was discussed by both Brendan and Sarenco on the thread elsewhere about the Cost of Trackers. Admin costs are low and mainly fixed regardless of whether Trackers were to stay or go.Brendan,
Not sure I agree with the way your view of Trackers came over. Whilst they may be at breakeven in terms of cost of funds (though that is surely questionable!), you assumed that PTSB had no administration costs.
So if we add admin costs plus some modest "profit margin", surely Trackers are still net loss making?
The solution of course is simple. If Trackers people were to pay a "market" rate, then SVR people might expect a lowering rate to "market rate". But some politicians want Banks to reduce SVR rates whilst not increasing Trackers.
Do we really want Banks to trade irresponsibly?
If you want a focus for any issues you may have around high SVR's, then go look at those not paying mortgages for several years but remain insitu.
Yes your right she wouldn't be getting ripped off as much as the people with ulster bank. The SVR in Ireland should be 3% a cross the board the banks have made enough money on the high SVR, s now they should give people a cut now. Good luck to all the people on trackers I am one of the fools who didn't tick the tracker option its about timing as well.Well Ulster bank SVR holders are paying more, so she has a better deal, doesn't she?
Good luck to all the people on trackers I am one of the fools who didn't tick the tracker option its about timing as well.
Well done Brendan on Primetime. You made it clear that the 'loss making trackers' line so often used is a myth, though Eoin Fahy still wouldn't let it go.
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?