Comparing a 4.67% 10-year fixed mortgage quote in Lyon

E

EasyRiver

Homeowner
The 4.67% quote is not the cheapest on the headline figures. My concern is whether its better overpayment terms justify the extra upfront cost on a purchase of about €460,000 in Lyon.

The fixed period is 10 years, and the fee plus the applicable loan-to-value band makes the initial pricing less attractive than it first appeared. I’m comparing monthly affordability, interest and fees paid at several possible exit dates, along with the balance remaining at each date. Portability, early repayment charges and the position after the fixed period also matter because I do not want the calculation to depend on an easy refinance. Is there another cost or rate-reset risk I should add before choosing?
 
The missing fact for me is how long you genuinely expect to keep this mortgage. A higher-fee offer with generous overpayments could win if you reduce the balance heavily, but it could be poor value if you move early and never use that flexibility.

I’d ask each lender for matching repayment schedules, then run an ordinary-payment case and your most likely overpayment case. Compare the cash paid, exit charge and principal still outstanding after a few plausible holding periods. That should show whether the costly features have practical value rather than just looking reassuring.
 
Is the mortgage itself repayable over 10 years, or is that only the fixed-rate period? Also, how likely are you to make substantial overpayments or sell before year ten? Those details could determine whether the painful fee buys you anything. I’d ask both lenders for repayment schedules based on the same loan amount and term.
 
Be careful with comparing only the interest charged during the fixed period. Two repayment structures can leave different balances outstanding at the end, so the cheaper-looking offer may simply postpone more of the cost. I would compare: cash paid by year ten, remaining principal, fees paid, and the cost of exiting at a few plausible dates.
 
I’d also resist assigning much value to portability until you know exactly when and under what conditions it applies. Early-repayment flexibility is easier to model because you can run specific overpayment amounts. Portability may sound attractive but still be irrelevant if you never move, or if a future purchase does not fit the lender’s conditions.
 
The 10 years is the fixed period, not necessarily how long I expect to keep the financing. That’s why the comparison has become awkward. I may overpay, but I can’t confidently predict the amount or whether I’ll move.

I’m now building three versions for each quote: no overpayments, moderate overpayments, and an exit before the fixed period ends. I’ll include the remaining balance as Alejandro suggested rather than just adding interest and fees.
 
That approach makes sense, but include a fourth case where you keep the loan through the reset and rates are less comfortable than expected. Otherwise the spreadsheet quietly assumes you can refinance on acceptable terms in year ten. Even if that case never happens, the monthly payment after the fixed period needs to remain manageable.
 
I slightly disagree that the higher fee can be justified mainly by flexible overpayments. Paying a definite fee today for flexibility you might not use is expensive insurance. Work out how much and how early you would need to overpay before that quote overtakes the cheaper-fee option. If the break-even requires an unrealistic pattern, choose based on the more probable scenario.
 
Ask for every relevant condition in writing, then put the offers into one table: upfront fee, rate, monthly payment, balance after each likely exit date, permitted overpayments, early-repayment cost, portability conditions and what happens after year ten. Keep the €460,000 property price separate from the actual amount borrowed, since the loan-to-value tier depends on that distinction. That should expose whether the advertised-rate difference matters at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top