Times up, Zero interest mortgage.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
https://www.ft.com/content/4e0377e6-6ad4-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa

Linda needs to have a difficult conversation with her son. The expectation was that one day, he would inherit the family home in London where she still lives. But her decision to take out an interest-only mortgage of £182,000 nearly a decade ago has effectively cost him his inheritance.

Few questions were asked when the 66-year-old part-time school teacher took out the loan following a family crisis, and the 10-year term is close to running out. Since then, she has paid more than £70,000 in interest — but not repaid a penny of the underlying debt.

“I’ve had a letter from my lender asking what I intend to do, but I’ve ignored it,” she says, admitting she has no way of paying off the debt. “It gives me headaches just to think about it.”

The options for Linda — and many thousands of other borrowers like her — are not pleasant. At her time of life, obtaining another mortgage will be difficult. She could clear the debt by selling her £550,000 home and “downsizing” to a smaller, cheaper property, but this would mean moving miles away from her friends and family. An equity release agreement would mean she can stay put — but the effect of the interest charges rolling up will almost certainly extinguish any inheritance for her son.

Around a fifth of all outstanding residential mortgages in the UK are interest-only, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which estimates that about 1.9m borrowers are just paying off the interest on their debts without making a dent in the underlying capital.

While financial regulators have massively restricted the type of borrowers who can access credit in this way, a “repayment crunch” is looming for those affected. What will the consequences be for the housing market — and how will those with outstanding loans cope — if house prices fall, and interest rates start to rise?

Ticking time bomb
“We’ve definitely got an interest-only mortgage ticking time bomb scenario,” says Adrian Anderson, mortgage broker at Anderson Harris. “Lots of people in the past took out interest-only mortgages at much higher loan-to-value ratios than would now be granted, and people took them out without thinking about how they would pay them off.”

It is estimated that one in 10 borrowers has no plan in place to repay the capital when the loan term expires — and even those who have a plan may find it falls short. Back in the 1990s, interest-only loans were often sold with endowment policies — a stock market linked investment designed to repay the capital at the end of the loan term while the borrower serviced the interest. However, many policies are worth less than expected, and borrowers have accused lenders of mis-selling, saying they did not understand the risks.

This year and next, the Financial Conduct Authority expects to see “peak maturity” of such mortgage plans sold in the 1990s and early 2000s. The people who took out these loans are likely to be approaching retirement, so may have trouble obtaining another loan if their endowment fails to cover the repayment. However, house price rises across the UK mean the FCA forecasts most will have relatively high levels of equity in their property.

The second crunch point is expected in 2022. This is when the FCA forecasts that a large tranche of interest-only mortgages issued between 2003 and 2009 will start to mature, peaking in 2028. However, these loans — issued at the height of the credit crunch — were typically advanced to borrowers classified as “less affluent” who will be in their 40s and 50s when repayment is due.

Before the financial crisis, interest-only mortgages were commonly issued to people who could not afford the repayments on a conventional mortgage (combining capital repayments with interest charges).

The monthly repayments were lower, meaning borrowers on lower incomes could get the keys to their dream home. L&C Mortgages, a broker, estimates that for a typical mortgage of £200,000 at a 2 per cent interest rate for 25 years, a borrower on a repayment plan might pay almost £850 a month, while an interest-only borrower would pay just over £330 to the lender. But some now risk losing those homes as the underlying debts fall due.

Gary, a self-employed fitness instructor, is one borrower worried about his interest-only mortgage. He’ll soon have to hand over a lump sum of £129,000 to his bank, but it is money he doesn’t have.

“We didn’t have things explained to us,” says Gary, who lives with his wife and daughters in Luton. “Anyway, our hands were kind of tied at the time — it was more or less our only option.”

Currently paying a monthly interest rate of 4.29 per cent, Gary has been struggling to find another mortgage.

“In the past, people took them out because they were cheaper and easier without being able to repay them,” says Mr Anderson. “[Choosing a product] because you can’t afford anything else is not good.”

Lenders may allow borrowers to extend their loan term if they can switch to a repayment (or part-repayment) mortgage, but this will depend on their age and income level. As regulators have cracked down hard on interest-only loans, if borrowers cannot satisfy affordability tests, or demonstrate how they will repay the capital, then selling up may be their only remaining option.

So apparently one fifth of all mortgages are interest only, which is 1.9 million people seemingly and a lot of them aren't touching their debt at all...

Looks to me that repossessions are back in order soon, there's also other debt ridden issues looming, like car rental (though it seems to be more of an American problem, i'm sure it's similar levels here).

So we've really hit the jackpot on screwing ourselves, hope people enjoy this wild ride.

Ohh and savings are collapsing as well, sitting at around £5.8 billion, below even at the worst of 2007/8.
 
Last edited:

Raz

Raz

Soldato
Joined
18 Sep 2003
Posts
5,184
Location
Nowhere
Sell the house, and downsize. Alternatively, gift the rest of the money to the son who (if working and is able to) can get a mortgage for a bigger house.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
32,044
Location
Rutland
£70,000 over 10 years in just interest. However that's under £600 a month for a £550,000 property, probably cheaper than renting, plus you're also up however much the value of the property has gone up.

Am I being stupid or does it not actually sound that awful a deal?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,157
Ohh and savings are collapsing as well, sitting at around £5.8 billion, below even at the worst of 2007/8.

Problem is the interest on any savings is pitiful now the only way to make any kind of reasonable return really is moderate or high risk investments - most people would rather spend the money than have it sitting around doing little or risk losing it especially when they are being increasingly squeezed out of the lifestyle they could previously afford.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
Problem is the interest on any savings is pitiful now the only way to make any kind of reasonable return really is moderate or high risk investments - most people would rather spend the money than have it sitting around doing little or risk losing it especially when they are being increasingly squeezed out of the lifestyle they could previously afford.

True enough, but still, having a chunky backup is still far better than having nothing there.

£70,000 over 10 years in just interest. However that's under £600 a month for a £550,000 property, probably cheaper than renting, plus you're also up however much the value of the property has gone up.

Am I being stupid or does it not actually sound that awful a deal?

I'm sure it is if you look at it like a really cheap rental, but the banks certainly don't think so and most people will have wanted their homes not getting repossessed because they thought paying half of what most people in London pay was somehow "lucky".
 
Associate
Joined
28 May 2017
Posts
1,121
Location
Aberdeen
Am I being stupid.....?

Yes. You still have to pay the £500k at the end of the term.

In before anyone says any of these morons were 'mis-sold' their mortgages. Since at least 2004 the 'key facts illustration' documents, now known as 'ESIS', have said in massive letters that the capital on these mortgages is not being repaid and you need to have a method in place to pay for it at the end of the term. Some people just decided to say '**** that ****' and wanted to not bother. Now they want to cry when they still owe ££££££. **** them.

This IO timebomb has been known about and publicised for several years.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,306
Not a bad deal for renters who wanted a property to themselves, to be fair. For building a settled life, inheritance and dream homes - more of a problem. Still, it does not take a bright spark to realise that paying for the privilege of deferring loan repayment does not absolve one from the principal amount, and it does matter what you plan on doing with the extra equity or income liberated by such an arrangement over the term. Even during the crunch, I could think of at least two basic personal finance sites that explained in simple terms what you were up for and what to do, ffs - for free! Now I'm reminded of these tech support scams that are going around, and nans up and down the country avoiding the inevitable. I'm surprised the aforementioned family and friends haven't stepped in by now.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
32,044
Location
Rutland
Yes. You still have to pay the £500k at the end of the term.

In before anyone says any of these morons were 'mis-sold' their mortgages. Since at least 2004 the 'key facts illustration' documents, now known as 'ESIS', have said in massive letters that the capital on these mortgages is not being repaid and you need to have a method in place to pay for it at the end of the term. Some people just decided to say '**** that ****' and wanted to not bother. Now they want to cry when they still owe ££££££. **** them.

This IO timebomb has been known about and publicised for several years.

Pay £500k to who?

Don't you just sell the house at the end, pay off the balance (the initial purchase price) and keep what's left?
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
25,062
Location
Godalming
I was actually reading a slightly related article this morning, albeit more about cars and in the US. The problems are plentiful:

From birth you're educated by "the system" that you have to have a house and a mortgage.

The banks are all greedy conciousless cowboys who have zero issues ******* other people over for profit. They literally ruin lives with their debt management and there's nothing to stop them.

There isn't enough education in this country around debt. People don't know what they're getting in to most of the time, as evidenced by the explosion of payday loan companies over the last few years.


//Once you're in the debt trap it's extremely hard to get out, I can vouch for this personally as I was also uneducated on debt and moved to London (from Holland) when I was 21. I had companies left, right & center throwing offers and credit cards at me and as a stupid 21 year old man I simply went for it. I then spent many years keeping my head afloat and struggled to get it all paid off, I worked for years for no reason other than to pay off debt. I learned a hell of a lot and although it was an extremely painful and torturous time, I learned a hell of a lot and I never agree to anything without reading the fine print and understanding every aspect of an agreement 100%. If I have even the slightest doubt regarding an agreement, I make the company explain it, in writing, so there's none of this murky waters nonsense. I think banks need to make their deals much more transparent and make sure that every single work of a contract is understood by the signee before committing. This will cause many to run a mile however, which is why it's all obscured in tiny print at the bottom using jargon that will confuse many. These banks aren't idiots, they know exactly how to milk the system.

That said, this interest only mortgage stuff sounds like a proper scam to me.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,306
Do you pay off the original value of the house, or does the debt accrue with rising value?

The loan has two parts: the principal that you've borrowed and the interest. In this case, it's secured on a fixed asset - the house. You have been repaying the interest to stop the debt from accruing, but the principal remains. The equity is not factored into this after the fact. If it goes up significantly, you can have enough money to both repay the original loan and get another nice place; if it crashes, you're clucked. Sentiment means little in all of this - you have to be clear from the start that this can only work as a purely financial calculation, a convenience of having cheap money. In our case, the caveat is that the lady's home will be taken over by the bank to recoup their 'losses' should she not have the cash to stump up or another loan or help to clear it without selling. They don't have to credit the difference to her as they remain the ultimate legal owner until the mortgage is cleared.
 
Caporegime
Joined
6 Dec 2005
Posts
37,573
Location
Birmingham
Gary, a self-employed fitness instructor, is one borrower worried about his interest-only mortgage. He’ll soon have to hand over a lump sum of £129,000 to his bank, but it is money he doesn’t have.

“We didn’t have things explained to us,” says Gary, who lives with his wife and daughters in Luton. “Anyway, our hands were kind of tied at the time — it was more or less our only option.”


It was more or less your only option... but you didn't have it explained to you. Yeah sure.

You would have read the information prior to looking for a mortgage, you would have read the key facts documents, you would have read that part that was probably in bold 62 sized font stating you would need to repay the amount of the loan at the end of the term. :rolleyes:


“I’ve had a letter from my lender asking what I intend to do, but I’ve ignored it,” she says, admitting she has no way of paying off the debt. “It gives me headaches just to think about it.”


You've ignored the letters from your bank?!? :D:D You do have a way to pay the debt, you sell and move. Why would you even expect to own something after not paying back the money?!

Given she's had the loan for 10 years I imagine the property has probably increased in value by at least £100k in those years given it's in London! So it's not exactly all doom and gloom is it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
32,044
Location
Rutland
This question doesn't make any sense.


To the bank that loaned you the £500k or whatever amount you borrowed.

If you sell the house then where do you live?

What if house prices stay the same or *gasp* go down?

That's my point - she's essentially rented the house cheaply and also gained the amount the property has gone up in value. Both scenarios leave you without a property at the end, I hadn't missed that.

It would be different if the property value had fallen, but that's very unlikely in our market.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,554
Location
Nottingham
Yes. You still have to pay the £500k at the end of the term.

In before anyone says any of these morons were 'mis-sold' their mortgages. Since at least 2004 the 'key facts illustration' documents, now known as 'ESIS', have said in massive letters that the capital on these mortgages is not being repaid and you need to have a method in place to pay for it at the end of the term. Some people just decided to say '**** that ****' and wanted to not bother. Now they want to cry when they still owe ££££££. **** them.

This IO timebomb has been known about and publicised for several years.

But the woman in the OP didn't borrow £500k, she borrowed £182k, thus if she sells the house she is ~£300k up as the house is now worth £550k... doesn't seem a too bad a deal to me.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
32,044
Location
Rutland
But the woman in the OP didn't borrow £500k, she borrowed £182k, thus if she sells the house she is £250k up... doesn't seem a too bad a deal to me.

Exactly.

She could have rented the house and have nothing at the end of the 10 year period. This way she's essentuakky rented a house she couldn't have otherwise afforded and pocketed 250k at the end.
 
Back
Top Bottom