As thousands of fixed-rate mortgages come to an end in 2026, a common mindset dominates borrower decision-making: “I just want something similar to what I already have.” After years of volatility, higher rates, and economic uncertainty, this instinct is understandable. Certainty feels valuable.
However, this approach is increasingly proving to be one of the most expensive mistakes borrowers make.
Mortgage lending in 2026 does not reward familiarity or loyalty in the way many borrowers expect. Lenders are no longer pricing, assessing, or managing risk in the same way they did even two or three years ago. Simply matching your current deal—whether in rate, term, or structure—can quietly lock you into higher costs, reduced flexibility, and fewer future options.
At Willow Private Finance, we regularly speak with borrowers who believe they have made a sensible, low-risk choice, only to discover later that they have limited their ability to borrow, refinance, or restructure in the years ahead.
This article explains why “matching your current deal” is rarely the optimal strategy in 2026, how lender behaviour has changed, and what a smarter remortgaging approach looks like in today’s market.
Borrowers often associate remortgaging with disruption. New affordability checks, document requests, valuations, and underwriting scrutiny can feel intrusive and uncertain. As a result, many gravitate toward the path of least resistance—either a product transfer or a remortgage structured to look almost identical to their existing loan.
The problem is that this mindset is based on an outdated assumption: that what worked before will continue to work just as well going forward.
In reality, mortgages are no longer static financial products. They sit within an evolving regulatory and risk framework. What feels conservative or sensible to a borrower can actually be misaligned with how lenders price and manage exposure in 2026.
Matching your current deal may preserve short-term comfort, but it often ignores how lenders now assess affordability, risk, and long-term borrower behaviour.
Lenders are no longer primarily focused on the immediate affordability of a mortgage. Instead, they are modelling borrower sustainability over a much longer horizon.
This shift is driven by several factors. Regulators expect lenders to demonstrate resilience across interest rate cycles. Internal credit committees are increasingly cautious about future affordability shocks. Technology has enabled lenders to analyse borrower data more granularly than ever before.
As a result, lenders are no longer simply asking whether you can afford the loan today. They are asking whether the structure of the loan still makes sense if circumstances change.
When borrowers try to replicate an old deal—particularly one taken out during a lower-rate environment—they often fail to account for how these new risk models penalise inflexibility.
One of the most common misconceptions in 2026 is that securing a similar interest rate means achieving a similar outcome. This is rarely true.
Two mortgage deals with identical headline rates can have vastly different long-term costs depending on structure, term, repayment method, and lender policy. Borrowers who focus solely on “getting something similar” often overlook how lenders have adjusted fees, stress testing, and exit assumptions.
For example, some lenders now price future refinancing risk into their products. Others offer superficially attractive rates but restrict overpayments, capital reductions, or future borrowing. Over time, these limitations can increase the total cost of borrowing significantly.
In short, matching a rate is not the same as matching value.
Product transfers remain attractive in 2026 because they often avoid affordability reassessment. For many borrowers, this feels like a win—especially if income has changed, borrowing has increased elsewhere, or household costs are higher.
However, repeated product transfers can quietly trap borrowers inside a single lender’s ecosystem. Each time a borrower chooses convenience over strategy, the gap between their lender’s internal criteria and the wider market can widen.
Eventually, when the borrower genuinely needs flexibility—perhaps to raise capital, restructure debt, or manage retirement planning—they may find they no longer qualify elsewhere.
This issue is explored further in Remortgaging in 2026 After Using a Product Transfer First
Another reason matching your current deal can be costly is that affordability is now assessed on future resilience rather than historical performance.
Even if you have comfortably serviced your mortgage for years, lenders may apply more conservative assumptions when stress testing a new application. Living costs, dependants, unsecured debt, and property-related expenses are all modelled with greater sensitivity.
Borrowers who simply replicate term lengths or borrowing levels without considering these changes often find themselves paying higher rates or fees than necessary, because they are forced into narrower lender pools.
This is particularly common among borrowers with multiple properties, where portfolio-level exposure now plays a significant role.
See:
Mortgage Applications With Multiple Properties: Why Portfolio Size Matters More in 2026
One of the most overlooked consequences of matching an existing deal is structural inflexibility.
Many borrowers assume that maintaining the same loan term, repayment type, or lender will preserve optionality. In reality, this often does the opposite. Lenders increasingly favour borrowers who proactively manage risk through structure.
For example, shortening a term may improve affordability under certain models. Adjusting repayment methods can reduce long-term exposure. Introducing flexibility around overpayments or future borrowing can materially improve outcomes.
Borrowers who default to “what they already have” frequently miss opportunities to improve their financial position—even when rates appear similar.
A natural question arises: if matching your current deal can be costly, why don’t lenders explain this?
The answer is simple. Lenders are not advisers. Their role is to offer products within their current risk appetite, not to assess whether that product is optimal for your broader financial strategy.
In fact, lender incentives often align with borrower inertia. Retaining existing customers through low-friction product transfers reduces operational cost and risk.
This is why independent, whole-of-market advice matters more in 2026 than ever before.
The most successful borrowers in 2026 do not ask, “How do I keep things the same?” They ask, “How do I position myself best for the next five to ten years?”
This means reassessing loan structure, not just rate. It means considering future borrowing needs, tax planning, retirement timelines, and property strategy. It also means understanding which lenders reward proactive risk management rather than penalising it.
In many cases, the optimal solution looks different from the outgoing mortgage—but delivers materially better outcomes over time.
Lender criteria are unlikely to become more forgiving. If anything, underwriting models will continue to evolve, using more data and tighter assumptions.
Borrowers who repeatedly “kick the can down the road” by matching existing deals may find their future options narrowing. Those who take a strategic view at remortgage points are far better placed to adapt.
In 2026, remortgaging is no longer an administrative exercise. It is a strategic financial decision.
Willow Private Finance works with borrowers who want clarity beyond headline rates. We specialise in remortgaging cases where the obvious or easiest option is not the best one.
By assessing lender criteria, affordability models, and long-term implications, we help clients structure mortgages that support flexibility, cost efficiency, and future planning—rather than simply replicating past arrangements.
Q1: Why is matching my current mortgage deal risky in 2026?
Because lender affordability models, risk assessments, and pricing structures have changed, meaning similar deals can produce worse long-term outcomes.
Q2: Is a product transfer always cheaper?
Not necessarily. While it avoids affordability checks, it can restrict future flexibility and lead to higher costs over time.
Q3: Should I always change my mortgage structure when remortgaging?
Not always, but it should be reviewed. Small structural changes can materially improve affordability and flexibility.
Q4: Do lenders reward loyalty in 2026?
Generally no. Pricing and criteria are driven by risk appetite rather than borrower history.
Q5: When should I start planning a remortgage?
Ideally six to nine months before your current deal ends to allow for strategic planning.
📞 Want Help Navigating Today’s Market?
Book a free strategy call with one of our mortgage specialists.
We’ll help you find the smartest way forward—whatever rates do next.
About the Author
Wesley Ranger is the Director of Willow Private Finance and has over 20 years’ experience advising clients on UK and international property finance. He specialises in complex remortgaging strategies, high-value lending, and cases involving multiple properties or changing lender criteria. Wesley is known for helping borrowers navigate evolving credit conditions and avoid costly long-term mortgage mistakes.
Important Notice
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute personal financial advice. Mortgage products, lender criteria, affordability assessments, and interest rates can change at any time and depend on individual circumstances.
Remortgaging may involve fees, valuation risks, and long-term financial implications. You should always seek tailored, regulated advice before making any mortgage or property finance decision.
Willow Private Finance Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA No. 588422). Registered in England and Wales.
