View more on these topics

Abbey cuts fixed rates

Abbey for Intermediaries is cutting the rates on some of its fixed rate deals available at up to 70% LTV by up to 0.24%.

The latest rate changes include a two-year fixed rate deal for purchases and remortgages at 3.44% and a three-year fixed rate deal for purchases at 4.25%.

There is also a three-year fixed remortgage deal at 4.25%, and a five-year fixed rate remortgage deal at 4.99%.

All products come with a £995 booking fee and will be available from April 30.

Recommended

cap_comp.gif
1

LAST WEEK’S WINNER

“What champagne are we drinking? Moat & Chandon, of course!” ROB FALCONERPENARTH

IAIN MALLON, DIRECTOR OF PROTECTION MARKETING, AXA

Recovery threatens to bring bigger bills

With the economic environment holding interest rates down, home owners have been making the most of low variable rates on their mortgages.But what happens if the green shoots reported by the government turn into a full-fledged recovery and interest rates begin to rise? Many people have made the most of the downturn and reviewed their […]

GERRY O’BRIEN:  NEGOTIATIONS ARE SERIOUS

Talks to save Home of Choice give ARs hope

As Mortgage Strategy went to press the directors of Home of Choice were in eleventh hour talks with a plc to rescue the network. The news will bring hope to hundreds of appointed representatives who risk losing their businesses should the deal collapse. The network was believed to have been close to securing a deal […]

UK policy: Kate Moss and short-termism

“Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels,” said supermodel Kate Moss, who is not often credited for her insights into policy making. Perhaps she should be. In politics, as in matters of diet, the course of action that is the best over the long term is often not the most desirable course of action in the short term. Add the instant gratification of the democratic electoral cycle and, instead of good policy making, you sometimes get the equivalent to a midnight binge in front of the fridge.

Read more


Important information

Investment risks

The value of an investment and any income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested. Forecasts and past performance are not a guide to future performance. Some information and statistical data herein has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable but in no way are warranted by us as to their accuracy or completeness. These are Neptune’s views and as such this document is deemed to be impartial research. We do not undertake to advise you of any change to our views.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
Comments
  • Post a comment
  • Ian Hhhddd 7th October 2013 at 3:31 pm

    ian test 2 login on story page

  • Ian Hhhddd 7th October 2013 at 11:18 am

    “Leeds BS tightens its lending into retirement criteria” but got this error message http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/error.html

    I don’t want to submit it twice to avoid the risk of it appearing twice in case it did go through and so I thought it better to send you a separate email with the comment:

    A spokesman from Leeds Building Society says: “We are constantly reviewing our mortgage range to ensure that it is appropriate for the market.”
    I guess this depends on how you define “the market.” If the word market is defined in the normal way, i.e. potential consumers of a product or service, this criteria amendment does the exact opposite of ensuring the mortgage range is appropriate for the market as it reduces consumer choice, despite there being no reduction in the availability of suitable advice.

    Therefore I assume either Leeds is getting too high a proportion of its business from mortgages where the borrower’s age at maturity is over 75, because of the small number of players in the sector of the market, or the word “market” is a euphemism for concerns about regulation.

    With this criteria change Leeds has merely come into line with most other lenders by removing one of its USPs but this move is further evidence of a conflict between what the MMR says, i.e. that lending into retirement, however one defines that these days, is acceptable, providing affordability can be adequately demonstrated, and what criteria the vast majority of mainstream lenders are actually currently applying to this sector of the market.

    Fortunately innovative products like the new Hodge Retirement Mortgage are helping to fill the gap left by mainstream lenders in meeting the affordable needs of older borrowers but it is notable that whilst pressing ahead with a second scheme to help the important First Time Buyer sector, and others only able to put down a small deposit, on the basis there is market failure in the 95% LTV market sector, The Chancellor appears not to have noticed there is even greater market failure in the market for older borrowers.

    It appears to have also escaped his notice that the “market failure” as far as high LTV lending is concerned is primarily due to the Basle 3 rules, which he supported. Does that mean that to address the “market failure” resulting from Basle 3 The Chancellor would now support changes in Basle 3 to make its capital requirements for high LTV lending less restrictive?

  • Ian Hhhddd 7th October 2013 at 10:14 am

    IH test comment

  • Katerina Tomrushka 27th September 2013 at 4:02 pm

    kt – Test comment (chrome)

    xA spokesman from Leeds Building Society says: “We are constantly reviewing our mortgage range to ensure that it is appropriate for the market.”
    I guess this depends on how you define “the market.” If the word market is defined in the normal way, i.e. potential consumers of a product or service, this criteria amendment does the exact opposite of ensuring the mortgage range is appropriate for the market as it reduces consumer choice, despite there being no reduction in the availability of suitable advice.

  • Steven Abbiw 27th September 2013 at 3:25 pm

    xA spokesman from Leeds Building Society says: “We are constantly reviewing our mortgage range to ensure that it is appropriate for the market.”
    I guess this depends on how you define “the market.” If the word market is defined in the normal way, i.e. potential consumers of a product or service, this criteria amendment does the exact opposite of ensuring the mortgage range is appropriate for the market as it reduces consumer choice, despite there being no reduction in the availability of suitable advice.

    Therefore I assume either Leeds is getting too high a proportion of its business from mortgages where the borrower’s age at maturity is over 75, because of the small number of players in the sector of the market, or the word “market” is a euphemism for concerns about regulation.

    With this criteria change Leeds has merely come into line with most other lenders by removing one of its USPs but this move is further evidence of a conflict between what the MMR says, i.e. that lending into retirement, however one defines that these days, is acceptable, providing affordability can be adequately demonstrated, and what criteria the vast majority of mainstream lenders are actually currently applying to this sector of the market.

    Fortunately innovative products like the new Hodge Retirement Mortgage are helping to fill the gap left by mainstream lenders in meeting the affordable needs of older borrowers but it is notable that whilst pressing ahead with a second scheme to help the important First Time Buyer sector, and others only able to put down a small deposit, on the basis there is market failure in the 95% LTV market sector, The Chancellor appears not to have noticed there is even greater market failure in the market for older borrowers.

    It appears to have also escaped his notice that the “market failure” as far as high LTV lending is concerned is primarily due to the Basle 3 rules, which he supported. Does that mean that to address the “market failure” resulting from Basle 3 The Chancellor would now support changes in Basle 3 to make its capital requirements for high LTV lending less restrictive?

  • Steven Abbiw 26th September 2013 at 7:10 pm

    Test comment:

    A spokesman from Leeds Building Society says: “We are constantly reviewing our mortgage range to ensure that it is appropriate for the market.”
    I guess this depends on how you define “the market.” If the word market is defined in the normal way, i.e. potential consumers of a product or service, this criteria amendment does the exact opposite of ensuring the mortgage range is appropriate for the market as it reduces consumer choice, despite there being no reduction in the availability of suitable advice.

    Therefore I assume either Leeds is getting too high a proportion of its business from mortgages where the borrower’s age at maturity is over 75, because of the small number of players in the sector of the market, or the word “market” is a euphemism for concerns about regulation.

    With this criteria change Leeds has merely come into line with most other lenders by removing one of its USPs but this move is further evidence of a conflict between what the MMR says, i.e. that lending into retirement, however one defines that these days, is acceptable, providing affordability can be adequately demonstrated, and what criteria the vast majority of mainstream lenders are actually currently applying to this sector of the market.

    Fortunately innovative products like the new Hodge Retirement Mortgage are helping to fill the gap left by mainstream lenders in meeting the affordable needs of older borrowers but it is notable that whilst pressing ahead with a second scheme to help the important First Time Buyer sector, and others only able to put down a small deposit, on the basis there is market failure in the 95% LTV market sector, The Chancellor appears not to have noticed there is even greater market failure in the market for older borrowers.

    It appears to have also escaped his notice that the “market failure” as far as high LTV lending is concerned is primarily due to the Basle 3 rules, which he supported. Does that mean that to address the “market failure” resulting from Basle 3 The Chancellor would now support changes in Basle 3 to make its capital requirements for high LTV lending less restrictive?

  • Steven Abbiw 26th September 2013 at 7:03 pm

    sa – test comment (chrome) – web2 ‘

  • Steven Abbiw 26th September 2013 at 7:02 pm

    sa – test comment (chrome) web 1 – anonymous “

  • Steven Abbiw 26th September 2013 at 6:58 pm

    sa – test comment (chrome) web 1 – anonymous >

  • Steven Abbiw 26th September 2013 at 6:56 pm

    sa – test comment (chrome) web 2

  • Steven Abbiw 26th September 2013 at 6:51 pm

    sa – test comment (chrome) web 1 – anonymous

  • Steven Abbiw 26th September 2013 at 6:51 pm

    sa test comment 1 (chrome) – web 1

  • Katerina Tomrushka 23rd September 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Nice

  • Katerina Tomrushka 23rd September 2013 at 12:24 pm

    Second one

  • Katerina Tomrushka 23rd September 2013 at 12:18 pm

    Abacus test

  • Laura Zambon 23rd September 2013 at 11:53 am

    Centaur testing comments