votreargent.lexpress.fr
French Homebuyers Save Thousands by Switching Mortgage Insurance
French homebuyers can save up to \u20ac15,000 on mortgage insurance by switching from bank-provided coverage to external insurers, thanks to the 2022 Lemoine law allowing for easy switching, despite banks' pressure tactics.
- What factors contribute to the price discrepancy between bank-offered and external mortgage insurance in France?
- Banks often require mortgage insurance, costing around 15% of the total credit cost (average 0.36% of the borrowed capital). However, borrowers can independently find significantly cheaper insurance (0.08% to 0.20% for under-45s), saving an average of \u20ac15,000. This difference stems from external insurers offering more individualized contracts based on factors like age and health.
- How significantly can French homebuyers reduce their mortgage costs by choosing external insurance providers instead of their bank?
- French homebuyers significantly reduce mortgage costs by choosing external insurance. A 32-year-old, for instance, saved \u20ac15,650 over 25 years by switching from a bank's 0.36% rate to an external 0.11% rate, lowering monthly payments from \u20ac75 to \u20ac23. This is due to banks offering more standardized, higher-priced insurance.
- What are the legal implications and practical steps for French homebuyers seeking to switch their mortgage insurance after the enactment of the 2022 Lemoine law?
- The 2022 Lemoine law allows French homebuyers to switch mortgage insurance anytime. Early switching maximizes savings. While banks may initially pressure borrowers, the ability to switch and the significant cost savings make independent insurance comparison worthwhile. The new contract must meet at least 11 of 18 criteria set by the CCSF to be accepted by the bank.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article is framed to strongly advocate for choosing external insurance providers. The headline (not provided, but implied by the text) and introduction would likely highlight the significant savings potential, drawing the reader to that conclusion before presenting other perspectives. The use of specific numerical examples of savings reinforces this framing.
Language Bias
The article uses language that favors external insurance. Phrases like "facture qu'il est possible de réduire" (bill that can be reduced) and descriptions of bank insurance as "mutualisé" (pooled) with "less variation in rates" subtly position bank insurance negatively. The repeated emphasis on cost savings and the use of expert quotes supporting external insurance further reinforces this bias. More neutral language could include focusing on the options and differences objectively, rather than highlighting only cost savings of one option.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the financial benefits of choosing external insurance over bank-provided insurance, but omits discussion of potential downsides or limitations of external options, such as differences in claim processing or customer service. It also doesn't explore the banks' perspective beyond the claim of pressure tactics.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as solely between the bank's insurance (expensive) and an external option (cheaper). It doesn't consider other potential insurance options or variations in pricing within external providers.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how consumers can save money on mortgage insurance by comparing offers from different companies. This can significantly reduce financial burdens for individuals, particularly younger buyers, and contribute to reducing inequality in access to affordable housing and financial services. Switching to external insurance can lead to substantial savings (e.g., 15,000 euros), improving financial equity.