60% LTV - any point in using a mortgage broker?

[Some Gump]

Rangeroverover said:

Always use a mortgage broker, he is a filter between you and "computer says no" keyboard operator at the lending side.

1) They will get you a better deal
2) They will have acces to deals not open to Jo public
3) They know who has their loan book open at the moment, there are many lenders, still advertising, who in reality have all but closed their loan book for now.
4) Sarnie has to make a living

I'm not a broker, but sell houses for a living, a broker we can talk to always helps. For the avoidance of doubt we never take commision on broker referrals

When I did mine, I found a better deal than the broker - despite saying "I have this, beat it and I'll pay you" right at the start.
Maybe the gap was Sarnie's living?

[Twilkes]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Not if after the two years are up, rates have risen and you get royally shafted.

But surely if you were on a tracker then you would have been experiencing those higher rates throughout your mortgage period, and by the end you'd be in the same position anyway?

[Roger Irrelevant]

Twilkes said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Not if after the two years are up, rates have risen and you get royally shafted.

But surely if you were on a tracker then you would have been experiencing those higher rates throughout your mortgage period, and by the end you'd be in the same position anyway?

Yes, but the point is that if you go for a short term fix then you will in almost all instances pay more to start with than if you go for a tracker. True, if rates rise above the level of your fix relatively early on in the term then you've 'won', but when pricing their fixed mortgages lenders take very close account of the likelihood of a base rate rise. If fixed rates are only just above trackers, such as now, then it indicates that the likelihood of a base rate rise in that timeframe (or at least other than towards the end of it) is virtually zilch, and so you're very likely to have paid for a guarantee that turned out to be worthless. Over the whole term of a mortgage you are considerably more likely to pay less if you go for trackers than a series of fixes.

[stongle]

Twilkes said:

But surely if you were on a tracker then you would have been experiencing those higher rates throughout your mortgage period, and by the end you'd be in the same position anyway?

Not so much if you switch products every 2 years. Obviously you'd need to include switching costs, but with a long term low to negative (if Eur) rate outlook you'd be better off on a tracker product. There is more risk in a tracker but it's pretty idiosyncratic at the shorter end.

That saying fixed rate products are great for those on a budget, ambivalent to switching or not interested in finance.

Personally I think it worth people understanding the mandate of the Bank of England and how demand cycles work in rate setting over the News, Politics and Economics forum or Daily Mail (when dealing with their biggest asset), but it's pretty boring stuff!