A million interest-only mortgage holders 'face repossession' | Money | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/s ... ens-advice

I'm struggling to understand who thought this was a good idea. I can see a rationale for buying a house before the house price boom and therefore selling towards the end of the mortgage and making a profit. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Can someone please enlighten me?

Interest only buyers tended to have some form of investment to pay off the capital at the end of the term.

Many endowment plans were miss-sold and are like to fall significantly short of the required amount at the end of the term. This was flagged up several years ago but many cannot afford the steep rise in endowment payments required to meet the capital repayment. A surprisingly large number of people were not covered by the mis-selling compensation programme put in place. My parents fell foul of that scandal. Luckily they had other investments they could cash in to make up the shortfall, which put a serious crimp in their nest egg plans.

There were many who took on interest only mortgages to cash in on the housing bubble - If the value increased significantly, they could sell and score some cash, and if not? Well, what's the difference between that and renting?

Surely banks should have ensured people with interest only mortgages has some sort of regular investment in place to pay it off at the end

You assume banks understand the meaning the word 'responsibility'. All evidence suggests not.

Lets say the average Mtg was a standard 20 - 25 yr one
The means that they had an interest only mtg for the past 20 (ish) years
Ok they might have to sell to replay the mtg but with house inflation they will still have a wad of cash and will just need to downsize / move to a cheaper area and still be able to afford a house