benefits seperate lenders vs WBC package

[dredfern]

Hi all,

Just after some opinions/other thoughts. I am trying to decide whether I should move my wife's 245K IP loan (.7 discount NAB homeside) to our existing WBC package (1% discount) to save the extra .3% for the next 25 years, or keep it seperate as an alternate lender. WBC package has 2 loans totalling a little over 1 Mil. All loans just under 80% LVR with no cross coll.

Other things to consider is I would like to have the best chance of borrowing against each IP seperately up to 80% LVR over the long term for other investing (likely into existing share portfolio).

What would others do/recommend?

 

[Terry_w]

Your wife is a separate legal person to you so if you are worried about risk with one lender there may not be much to worry about unless you are on the loan too or the loans are crossed.

I would go for the lowest rate myself.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

Hi all,

Just after some opinions/other thoughts. I am trying to decide whether I should move my wife's 245K IP loan (.7 discount NAB homeside) to our existing WBC package (1% discount) to save the extra .3% for the next 25 years, or keep it seperate as an alternate lender. WBC package has 2 loans totalling a little over 1 Mil. All loans just under 80% LVR with no cross coll.

Other things to consider is I would like to have the best chance of borrowing against each IP seperately up to 80% LVR over the long term for other investing (likely into existing share portfolio).

What would others do/recommend?

What would this mean in the context of what you want to achieve moving forwards?

If you've borrowed all the money you ever want to borrow with no intentions of doing more and your objective is lower costs, there's better lenders than both NAB and Westpac; you could probably move everything elsewhere and save a bit of money.

If you do intend to borrow more for further investment, then you need to understand how various lenders policies apply to what you want to achieve before making any moves.

 

[dredfern]

What would this mean in the context of what you want to achieve moving forwards?

If you've borrowed all the money you ever want to borrow with no intentions of doing more and your objective is lower costs, there's better lenders than both NAB and Westpac; you could probably move everything elsewhere and save a bit of money.

If you do intend to borrow more for further investment, then you need to understand how various lenders policies apply to what you want to achieve before making any moves.

Yes the ability to borrow further (up to 80% of each property) is very important in my overall plan moving forward. I would say even more so than the rate of the smallest loan. At this stage I plan to invest any future borrowings into my share portfolio rather than buying any more IP's. So I expect total lending will remain below 1.3 Mil in 'todays values' but will increase.

I just don't want to create any lending policy issues at WBC by moving the IP. (mainly around total lending restrictions/hurdles rather than serviceability)

Also curious whether others feel the contingency of backup lender for any reason may be worth the extra rate or not. I understand emergencies can happen.Although the share portfolio would in part be for this reason also.

 

[Jamie M]

I just don't want to create any lending policy issues at WBC by moving the IP. (mainly around total lending restrictions/hurdles rather than serviceability)

If servicing is strong - and LVR is less than 80% then refinancing that small loan over shouldn't have much of an impact other than getting you a lower rate.

Just keep it variable and if you need to refi to another lender later - the costs won't be too high.

If you paid LMI on the Homeside loan previously - and suspect you may borrow beyond 80% against that property in the future...then I'd keep that loan with Homeside.

Cheers

Jamie

 

[dredfern]

Thanks some great feedback to consider. BTW we did pay LMI on all 3 loans as were originally 90% LVR.