Comparing a 5.94% 20-year mortgage quote in Bangkok

B

bold_meter

Buyer
The small monthly difference between two offers changed how I see this choice. On a Bangkok purchase of about THB 7,200,000, one quote is 5.94% fixed for 20 years, but the cheaper-looking option may not remain cheaper once its fee structure and loan-to-value band are applied.

I am now less interested in choosing by headline rate alone. Should the comparison start with APR, interest during the period I expect to hold the loan, or all payments and upfront charges to a realistic exit date? I also need to check whether “20 years” describes both the loan term and the fixed-rate period.

Flexibility could matter if I sell, refinance or make an early payment, although I do not want to assume portability has value without knowing what the lender means by it. Which written terms and figures would you line up first?
 
That creates another question: when are you actually likely to sell, repay or refinance? A 20-year comparison can favour one quote even if your plausible exit is much earlier.

I’d run both offers to the same few dates and include the initial charges, payments made, balance still outstanding and any repayment cost at each date. APR is still a useful screen, but only after checking which fees each lender has included. That gives portability a limited role unless moving is a realistic plan, while the written early-exit terms remain directly comparable.
 
Is the loan term also 20 years, or is only the rate fixed for 20 years? Also, what loan-to-value band are you in? Without the actual amount borrowed and itemised arrangement fees, the lower advertised rate versus 5.94% cannot really be assessed.
 
I’m not convinced portability should outweigh price unless moving during the term is a genuine possibility. Even where a loan is described as portable, the lender may still need to approve the new property and circumstances. I’d give more weight to the written early-repayment conditions, because selling, paying down the balance or refinancing are easier scenarios to model.
 
The assumed exit date drives this more than the label attached to either loan. I would not choose between “cheaper” and “more flexible” until both offers have been tested at the same dates.

Put the deposit, amount borrowed, initial charges, cumulative payments, remaining balance and contractual exit charge side by side. For example, compare keeping the mortgage for 20 years with refinancing at an earlier date that genuinely fits your plans. Keep principal repayment distinct from financing cost, but show it in the cash-flow total. If the lower-cost result only appears under an optimistic refinance assumption, decide on the basis of the longer holding period instead.
 
Don’t lose sight of monthly affordability either. A small difference today may not justify a restrictive loan, but the comfortable payment should still leave room for property expenses and income changes. I would run the numbers both on the assumption that you keep the loan for 20 years and that you refinance earlier; otherwise the cheaper result can depend entirely on an optimistic refinance assumption.
 
Ask both lenders to explain portability in writing rather than relying on the label. Does it mean transferring the existing balance and rate, or merely applying again with the same lender? Likewise, get the early-repayment wording for a partial overpayment, a full payoff and a sale. The treatment can depend on the contract and jurisdiction, so the actual offer documents matter here.
 
Agreed on using more than one exit date. I’d make the no-refinance case the baseline, then treat an earlier refinance as an alternative rather than the plan needed to make the offer attractive. If 5.94% still looks acceptable after including all fees and assuming no convenient future rate, flexibility becomes a bonus instead of something masking a weak deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top