Comparing a 4.63% French mortgage quote after fees

A

aisha_deals

First-time buyer
I want a mortgage whose payment remains manageable without depending on a future refinance, but the lender illustrations do not allow a clean comparison. I am 59 days into financing a Paris purchase of roughly €220,800 and now have a 4.63% offer fixed for 10 years. Fees and the relevant loan-to-value band narrowed the apparent advantage of the rate originally promoted.

Would you rebuild both offers with the same balance, dates and treatment of fees, then compare APR with the amount paid over ten years? I am also checking early-repayment charges, what happens after the fixed term and whether portability has meaningful conditions attached. Monthly affordability matters more to me than a saving that only appears under an optimistic refinancing assumption.
 
I’d use APR as the first filter, then compare total cash paid over the same 10-year period. That prevents one illustration looking cheaper simply because it uses a different timeline or treatment of fees. Keep the assumed balance and payment dates identical, and list any upfront cost separately so you can see whether it is recovered through the lower rate.
 
Are both quotes based on exactly the same loan amount and loan-to-value tier? Also, is each arrangement fee paid upfront or added to the borrowing? Those differences affect both the monthly payment and interest, so comparing the headline rate—or even two lender illustrations—may not be like-for-like.
 
The main constraint is that nobody knows today whether refinancing or moving will be straightforward later. For that reason, I would not let a preferred future scenario decide which offer looks cheaper now.

APR is a useful baseline, although it should not be the only test. Compare matching ten-year cash flows, then add an early-repayment case and a case where the loan continues beyond the fixed period. Treat portability as having no value until the lender sets out when it applies, and check the post-fix terms rather than assuming another loan will be available. That gives the custom calculation a role without allowing uncertain plans to dominate the choice.
 
A simple way forward is to put both offers into three matching scenarios: keep for 10 years, repay early at a plausible date, and continue beyond the fixed period without refinancing. For each, record upfront fees, monthly payments, remaining balance and any stated repayment cost. That should expose whether 4.63% is genuinely worse or whether the advertised alternative only looks better because of different assumptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top