the price at which the property was sold, but a valuation commissioned by the lender and paid for by the borrower. So if the property was sold for less than the valuation, the borrower's percentage share would be further reduced. Barclays' booklet on shared appreciation mortgages gives an example of a property with an original valuation of £100,000 and a final valuation of £150,000. For a loan of £25,000, i.e. 25% of the original valuation, the repayment would be £25,000 + (75% × £50,000) = £62,500, i.e. 42% of the final valuation. Over a period of 20 years this would be equivalent to a compound interest rate of 4.7%. However, the value of property has increased by a much greater amount than Barclays used in their example. The final valuation of the property in the example might now be £400,000. For a loan of £25,000, the repayment would be £25,000 + (75% × £300,000) = £250,000, i.e. 62.5% of the final valuation. Over a period of 20 years this would be equivalent to a compound interest rate of 12.2%, two and a half times the rate of the example. The borrower's share of the equity would be £150,000, less than half the final valuation of £400,000 of the property. Bank of Scotland also sold shared-appreciation mortgages on which interest was charged at about 5.75% to 6% per annum. On these mortgages the maximum loan was 75% of the value of the property (compared with 25% for a zero-interest SAM), and the lender's percentage share of the appreciation was the same as the percentage of the loan to the original value of the property (compared with three times the percentage for a zero-interest SAM). Therefore if the loan was 75% of the original value of the property, the lender's share of the appreciation would also have been 75%. The interest was paid by monthly instalments, and the final repayment was the original amount borrowed plus the lender's share of the appreciation. The large repayment amount of a shared appreciation mortgage and the small share of the equity remaining mean that the borrower might not have sufficient money to be able to downsize to a smaller property. The borrower would have less money to pay care home fees, which would require the local authority to make a greater contribution to those fees. And the borrower would have less money to leave to