Comparing a 6.39% 20-year mortgage quote in Mumbai

K

KindHarbor

Homeowner
Established
The 6.39% headline is not enough to compare these offers. My specific concern is that the lenders used different fee and loan-to-value assumptions for a Mumbai purchase near ₹56,360,000.

The quoted fixed period is 20 years, but I may not keep the borrowing unchanged for that long. Should the comparison centre on cash paid over realistic holding periods, the remaining balance at each point, or an annualised measure? I also need to separate the value of portability from its conditions and check early-repayment costs and any later rate-reset exposure.
 
Compare them over the period you realistically expect to keep the loan, not automatically over 20 years. For each lender, add payments and all upfront or financed fees, then subtract the balance remaining at the end of that period. Also confirm both illustrations use the same loan amount, term and payment timing. Otherwise even an annualized cost figure can mislead.
 
The missing number is the actual loan-to-value. Is ₹56,360,000 the property price or the amount being borrowed? A lower advertised rate may simply apply to a different tier. I’d also ask whether “20-year fixed” means the entire loan term or a fixed window inside a longer mortgage, because that changes the relevance of rate-reset risk.
 
₹56,360,000 is the approximate purchase price, not necessarily the amount borrowed. That distinction probably explains part of the mismatch, so I’m asking each lender to rerun the illustration using the same requested loan amount and term. I’ll also get written clarification on whether the 20 years covers the whole loan rather than relying on the headline wording.
 
That should make the comparison much cleaner. Ask for two versions if possible: fees paid upfront and fees added to the loan. Adding them can look easier initially but means the repayment schedule is based on a larger balance. I’d put the monthly payment, total paid after 5 and 10 years, remaining balance, and exit cost side by side.
 
I wouldn’t choose solely by the lowest total interest. On a purchase of this size, monthly affordability and flexibility could matter more than a relatively small difference in the headline rate. If one quote leaves little room for other ownership costs, the cheaper long-term calculation may still be the worse practical option.
 
Agreed on affordability, although flexibility needs a price attached rather than being treated as automatically valuable. Adrian, ask what happens under several early-repayment dates and amounts. If the lender’s illustration assumes you keep the mortgage for 20 years but you might refinance or repay earlier, its total-interest figure is answering the wrong question.
 
I’d be cautious about assigning much value to portability until the lender explains exactly how it would work for a future property and loan amount. Treat it as a possible benefit, not a reason to accept higher costs today. Get the conditions and any related fees in writing, then compare the quotes without portability first and with it second.
 
If a decision is due soon, compare the quotes without trying to predict a future refinance. The trade-off is between the lowest long-term cost and flexibility if the loan changes earlier.

Use identical borrowing, start-date and payment assumptions, then list upfront and financed fees, instalments, remaining balance and exit charges at several dates. A five-year comparison may favour a different lender from the full 20-year view. Keep portability and refinancing as separate scenarios so an uncertain future benefit does not hide a higher cost today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top