Central Bank to limit amount banks lend for home purchase

mariaalice

molloyjh wrote: »

We should be looking to move away from this though. We should be able to have a property market that's relatively stable and not subject to wild fluctuations. Which I think is what these rules are trying to achieve. My only issue is that I think they could have achieved it with a 90% LTI rather than 80%.

Take for example a couple with good earnings of €110k a year who have been looking to buy a 3 bed home in South Dublin (not South County Dublin) and have been saving towards that end. Let's assume a house price of €350k is what they are looking at, which is fairly modest by South Dublin standards for a 3 bed. They currently own a home so are not first time buyers. For the record all of this is loosely based on my own situation.

Combined Salary|

€110,000

|
House Price|

€350,000

|
Old LTV|

92%

Old LTI|

N/A

|
Old Deposit Required|

€28,000

Old Mortgage Required|

€322,000

|
To Buy Under The New Rules
|
New LTV|

80%

New LTI|

3.5

|
New Mortgage Allowed|

€280,000

New Deposit Required|

€70,000

Additional Savings Required|

€42,000

|
What Is Available Under The New Rules
|
Possible Mortgage Allowed|

€140,000

Possble Deposit Required|

€28,000

Possible House Price|

€168,000

|


What is forcing people into saving so much extra really going to achieve? Bringing it to 90% would have meant an extra €7k savings for the deposit and a very manageable mortgage. Prices would naturally come down based on the LTI rules anyway and the mortgages would still be affordable.

You might be missing one of the reason for the new central bank rules and the is that it might change attitude and sentiment in the housing market, the larger the deposit the more personal stake people feel they have in the property they buy, which in turn leads to more careful and prudent consideration when making decisions.

I am curious, what proportion of you after tax income of 110k would a mortgage of 280k be? more or less that 25%

Michael D Not Higgins

Molloy, in your example, the prospective buyers have a deposit of 8% and an LTI of 2.93. That sounds like a good point to talk to a mortgage broker about and who would bend the rules to include them in the small number of exemptions to the limits.

The Spider

johnp001 wrote: »

But they didn't make gradual changes to the rules.
The situation I outlined does not apply instantaneously in all cases. It isn't that simple as you say. It also isn't as simple as everybody saving an extra €42k and prices remaining exactly the same.
Many sellers who can do so will sit on their asset rather than sell on it for less than they feel it is worth based on bubble prices.
Sellers who aren't in a position to sit on their asset will sell it for what the market will bear and if a couple on good wages can only borrow less than half the price of a €350k house (according to your figures above) then there is a limited amount of buyers with the resources to pay the original price.
The sellers sitting on their asset are then hoping on a price even further away from the market price which will be decreasing as motivated sellers sell at prices which set the market price lower.


Houses that were worth €350k in 2006 were sold for €200k and less shortly afterwards.

What sellers won't be in a position to sit on their asset? If the sale price is so little, then it'd make sense to rent it out when rents are rising?

The only people who could sell at such a level would either own their house outright or the mortgage is way below the price achieved. Anyone who is looking at negative equity won't sell, or move.

There may be banks pushing people to sell, but that will generally be on property that's worth more than the debt left on it.

johnp001

The Spider wrote: »

What sellers won't be in a position to sit on their asset? If the sale price is so little, then it'd make sense to rent it out when rents are rising?

The only people who could sell at such a level would either own their house outright or the mortgage is way below the price achieved. Anyone who is looking at negative equity won't sell, or move.

There may be banks pushing people to sell, but that will generally be on property that's worth more than the debt left on it.

Plenty of sellers have to sell. Executor sales, divorce, emigration are a few examples which I gave in my previous post.
A large proportion of houses are owned outright, saw some figures recently which I will link to if I can find them but around 60% if I remember.
EDIT 66% is the figure http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2015/0129/676424-only-34-have-mortgage-on-main-residence/
Another large amount of mortgaged properties are ones that were bought before the boom or early in the boom and which have largely been paid off so there would be no negative equity even at prices lower than today's.
Becoming a landlord isn't feasible for some people and for a lot of others would be very undesirable.

molloyjh

mariaalice wrote: »

You might be missing one of the reason for the new central bank rules and the is that it might change attitude and sentiment in the housing market, the larger the deposit the more personal stake people feel they have in the property they buy, which in turn leads to more careful and prudent consideration when making decision.

I am curious, what proportion of you after tax income of 110k would a mortgage of 280k be? more or less that 25%

Re the first point I think that's fair enough, but a gradual shift towards the 80% can still achieve that.

In relation to the proportion of income that mortgage would take up it's in and around 25% all right, give or take a percent or two.

johnp001 wrote: »

Plenty of sellers have to sell. Executor sales, divorce, emigration are a few examples which I gave in my previous post.
A large proportion of houses are owned outright, saw some figures recently which I will link to if I can find them but around 60% if I remember.
EDIT 66% is the figure http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2015/0129/676424-only-34-have-mortgage-on-main-residence/
Another large amount of mortgaged properties are ones that were bought before the boom or early in the boom and which have largely been paid off so there would be no negative equity even at prices lower than today's.
Becoming a landlord isn't feasible for some people and for a lot of others would be very undesirable.

This is a difficult one to predict. It's all about supply an demand. By making the rules on mortgage borrowing stricter you reduce the number of borrowers and the amount they are borrowing. However the rules for FTBs haven't changed substantially. If you take the house I'm in now it was worth €275k when we bought (which was a few years before the peak). Standard practice at the time was for a minimum of 5% deposit, with some places looking for 8%. So that's a deposit of about €15k and a mortgage for €260k.

Under the new rules the same house would require a deposit for FTBs of €27.5k and a mortgage of €247.5k. That would require a couple with a combined income of €70k. We got our mortgage on a combined income of around €65k. The only real difference here is the deposit, where people will need an extra €10-15k compared to when we bought. So FTBs won't be as badly affected by this as current home owners, meaning the demand from FTBs probably won't reduce significantly. Nor will their ability to pay. They'll simply save for a little bit longer and/or get more from parents or whatever.

Now take my home at the moment. It is no longer worth €275k. It's more like €220k. Our mortgage amount is pretty much the same, a little higher. Now we could look to sell at a loss and cover the €3-4k ourselves. But then where do we move to? There's no point in us going anywhere unless the location and/or house are an improvement on what we have. That means moving somewhere more expensive. Hence my €350k home example. And for as fantastic as our combined salary of €110k sounds it's only a recent thing (last 6 months) so our ability to save hasn't been remotely close to what it may appear. So as for right now we are in no position to move. And I'd wager there's a lot of people out there like us. That generation who bought during the boom and are reaching that age where they should be trading up because they are having families etc but who just can't afford to.

So what does this mean for the market? Well those people who have bought and paid for their houses more often than not have bought and paid for family homes. That is not the market that the FTBs are after. They are after the cheap 2 or 3 bed starter homes. The ones that people like me are in and can't get out of. And we're the ones who should be looking to buy from those selling their 4 bed family homes. There is a hole there in the market. Demand for smaller homes could well surpass the supply while supply for those larger family homes could well surpass the demand. That may well be the ideal in that it will ensure the price of starter homes doesn't drop much/any more while the price of family homes reduces. Or it could mean that those FTBs start to buy the family homes. And what happens then?

johnp001

molloyjh wrote: »

This is a difficult one to predict. It's all about supply an demand. By making the rules on mortgage borrowing stricter you reduce the number of borrowers and the amount they are borrowing. However the rules for FTBs haven't changed substantially. If you take the house I'm in now it was worth €275k when we bought (which was a few years before the peak). Standard practice at the time was for a 3. minimum of 5% deposit, with some places looking for 8%. So that's a deposit of about €15k and a mortgage for €260k.

Under the new rules the same house would require a deposit for FTBs of €27.5k and a mortgage of €247.5k. That would require a couple with a combined income of €70k. We got our mortgage on a combined income of around €65k. The only real difference here is the deposit, where people will need an extra €10-15k compared to when we bought. So FTBs won't be as badly affected by this as current home owners, meaning the demand from FTBs probably won't reduce significantly. Nor will their ability to pay. They'll simply save for a little bit longer and/or get more from parents or whatever.

Now take my home at the moment. It is no longer worth €275k. 1. It's more like €220k. Our mortgage amount is pretty much the same, a little higher. Now we could look to sell at a loss and cover the €3-4k ourselves. But then where do we move to? There's no point in us going anywhere unless the location and/or house are an improvement on what we have. That means moving somewhere more expensive. Hence my €350k home example. And for as fantastic as 2. our combined salary of €110k sounds it's only a recent thing (last 6 months) so our ability to save hasn't been remotely close to what it may appear. So as for right now we are in no position to move. And I'd wager there's a lot of people out there like us. That generation who bought during the boom and are reaching that age where they should be trading up because they are having families etc but who just can't afford to.

Not sure what you mean by "a lot of people like us" but:
1. I believe those in negative equity are a small enough segment of the housing market according to my post above.
2. 14% of household have a gross income above €100,000 per annum
quarterly-economic-observer a lot of those on higher incomes would be older/settled and not currently looking to buy family homes.

molloyjh wrote: »

So what does this mean for the market? Well those people who have bought and paid for their houses more often than not have bought and paid for family homes. That is not the market that the FTBs are after. They are after the cheap 2 or 3 bed starter homes. The ones that people like me are in and can't get out of. And we're the ones who should be looking to buy from those selling their 4 bed family homes. There is a hole there in the market. Demand for smaller homes could well surpass the supply while supply for those larger family homes could well surpass the demand. That may well be the ideal in that it will ensure the price of starter homes doesn't drop much/any more while the price of family homes reduces. 4. Or it could mean that those FTBs start to buy the family homes. And what happens then?

In the segments that demand surpasses supply then the prices will be bid up to the maximum people are willing to pay (typically the maximum amount they can leverage) which is going to be less than previously.
3. For first time buyers deposit requirements have risen substantially from the 5% you quote in your post. LTI will also affect a lot of FTB substantially.
For non-FTB the amount that can be leveraged is very significantly down as described in your earlier post.

In segments that supply exceeds demand the prices will fall lower again until equilibrium is reached.

4. If the FTBs buy the family homes what does happen? That seems perfectly possible but I don't understand the question.

moxin

moxin wrote: »

Take this with a pinch of salt if you like.

There are 2 3-bed houses asking roughly nearly 300k on my road in a well established area on a main thoroughfare in the "mature" burbs of the northside of Dublin beside amenities like schools and tons of shops, both houses were lived in by elderly people so need to be fully refurbished.

They are still for sale this Xmas eve, builders and investors have expressed no interest so far since about September. Any couple wishing to buy at that price will have to fork out tens of thousands to modernise the properties. My own thoughts on this is that the tax incentive that runs out in a week has not resulted in a sale of these 2 houses. Who else is there to buy them?

2 months later, one is now Sale Agreed, the other has reduced their price. The latter which needs a good refurbishment job is within the view of my living room. There was a viewing last weekend, me being nosy noticed about 5 arrivals, youngest viewers looked to be in the 40's. One of them was a builders van parked outside my house across the road from the house on sale, probably nosing about for a do-upper.

Also a 3rd house for sale has cropped up in the last week at a slightly higher price but this one has been well kept by the owners. Will keep ye posted

by the seaside

Even Pravda thinks that tractor production may be faltering. http://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/your-money-the-property-market-is-stalling-should-you-sell-31030406.html

Timber!!!

Bob24

by the seaside wrote: »

Even Pravda thinks that tractor production may be faltering. http://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/your-money-the-property-market-is-stalling-should-you-sell-31030406.html

Timber!!!

Indeed!

I don't tend to believe their predictions from estate agents when they say prices are going up though, so not sure I have anymore reason to believe them when they are saying otherwise.

But I certainly woudn't have expected to read this coming from them.

Villa05

That piece on the Sindo is part of the the attack on the CB rules. Honohan has suggested that the rules can be changed if it has an overly negative effect on the property market.
So even though the market has been cooling before these rules were mooted the indo wants to blame these rules as they are an obstacle to soaring house prices

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

That piece on the Sindo is part of the the attack on the CB rules. Honohan has suggested that the rules can be changed if it has an overly negative effect on the property market.
So even though the market has been cooling before these rules were mooted the indo wants to blame these rules as they are an obstacle to soaring house prices

In any event- a larger volume of transactions in a submarket is having a disproportionate effect on a barely functional market. So- what- house prices fell in January in South Dublin (apartment prices didn't).

I don't believe prices are still 'soaring' by any means- but respectable prices are being achieved where both buyers and sellers are realistic- and especially in the <240k market (the 220k doesn't seem to be a barrier- I believe its higher than this).

Also- and I don't know where they're coming from- but there is a new cohort of cash buyers out there- many of them retirees who have cashed in and are trading down- who are now fighting each other over smaller units in good locations- who are very price conscious- as they are trying to protect the cash they have just released from elsewhere.

Bob24

Villa05 wrote: »

That piece on the Sindo is part of the the attack on the CB rules. Honohan has suggested that the rules can be changed if it has an overly negative effect on the property market.
So even though the market has been cooling before these rules were mooted the indo wants to blame these rules as they are an obstacle to soaring house prices

Good point.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2015/03/02/watching-while-the-economy-burned?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=watching-while-the-economy-burned

"As I left the inquiry, I asked myself why hasn’t this type of innovation been introduced.

Could it possibly be because the same vested interests that cheer-led and caused the last boom are still in more or less in power and the system hasn’t really changed?

Surely not – it couldn’t be.

Could it?"

Dubh Geannain

The_Conductor wrote: »

In any event- a larger volume of transactions in a submarket is having a disproportionate effect on a barely functional market. So- what- house prices fell in January in South Dublin (apartment prices didn't).

I don't believe prices are still 'soaring' by any means- but respectable prices are being achieved where both buyers and sellers are realistic- and especially in the <240k market (the 220k doesn't seem to be a barrier- I believe its higher than this).

Also- and I don't know where they're coming from- but there is a new cohort of cash buyers out there- many of them retirees who have cashed in and are trading down- who are now fighting each other over smaller units in good locations- who are very price conscious- as they are trying to protect the cash they have just released from elsewhere.

Using only one public sector group as an example - A quick glance at http://www.educationposts.ie/ might help explain where some (or a lot) of the cash buyers are appearing from.

The only teaching jobs available are temporary/maternity roles or Permanent School principal roles. This is reflected in other groups too where high level staff are getting out on better terms than if they were to hang around for a few more years.

mel123

Just my few cents worth, I follow this thread every day.
I am not a first time buyer, currently renting, and looking (was looking) to buy a home. I have a property which I receive rental income on (its part owned so its not an option for me to either sell, or move in to). My share is probably worth 250k. I have regular savings and have a large chunk of a deposit. My salary is average-ish. I would be buying a property on my own. With the new rules, I'm totally out of the game because of what the banks will loan me with no flexibility and where I wish to live (Dublin, Northside). Second property doesn't count and rental income doesn't count. I am in my mid 30's.
I am not looking for people to tell me to move down the country, save harder etc etc. I am just telling my story to the people who are interested on this thread about how the new rules have effected some buyers. It looks like I am out of the race.

by the seaside

The_Conductor wrote: »

In any event- a larger volume of transactions in a submarket is having a disproportionate effect on a barely functional market. So- what- house prices fell in January in South Dublin (apartment prices didn't).

I don't believe prices are still 'soaring' by any means- but respectable prices are being achieved where both buyers and sellers are realistic- and especially in the <240k market (the 220k doesn't seem to be a barrier- I believe its higher than this).

Also- and I don't know where they're coming from- but there is a new cohort of cash buyers out there- many of them retirees who have cashed in and are trading down- who are now fighting each other over smaller units in good locations- who are very price conscious- as they are trying to protect the cash they have just released from elsewhere.

I agree with the barrier. There is no firm barrier, but as the price increases beyond 220k, it gets progressively harder for FTBs. So properties targeted at FTBs priced above 220k will see downward pressure on prices. Of course there are also upward pressures (and other downward pressures).

dearg lady

mel123 wrote: »

Just my few cents worth, I follow this thread every day.
I am not a first time buyer, currently renting, and looking (was looking) to buy a home. I have a property which I receive rental income on (its part owned so its not an option for me to either sell, or move in to). My share is probably worth 250k. I have regular savings and have a large chunk of a deposit. My salary is average-ish. I would be buying a property on my own. With the new rules, I'm totally out of the game because of what the banks will loan me with no flexibility and where I wish to live (Dublin, Northside). Second property doesn't count and rental income doesn't count. I am in my mid 30's.

What banks did you speak with? AIB said they would take part of rental income into accoutn for me. That was a few months ago that I last spoke to themso things may have changed

farrerg

mel123 wrote: »

Just my few cents worth, I follow this thread every day.
I am not a first time buyer, currently renting, and looking (was looking) to buy a home. I have a property which I receive rental income on (its part owned so its not an option for me to either sell, or move in to). My share is probably worth 250k. I have regular savings and have a large chunk of a deposit. My salary is average-ish. I would be buying a property on my own. With the new rules, I'm totally out of the game because of what the banks will loan me with no flexibility and where I wish to live (Dublin, Northside). Second property doesn't count and rental income doesn't count. I am in my mid 30's.
I am not looking for people to tell me to move down the country, save harder etc etc. I am just telling my story to the people who are interested on this thread about how the new rules have effected some buyers. It looks like I am out of the race.

I know a lot of people in the same position, the bank puts the full stressed mortgage repayments, and the discounted rental income, against you in their calculations because they won't rely on the other party stepping into the breach and meeting any shortfall if something goes wrong.
I think getting a mortgage on your own was going to be hard before the new rules anyway but they won't have helped

Do you have an idea of what they would have lent before and now after the rules?

mel123

dearg lady wrote: »

What banks did you speak with? AIB said they would take part of rental income into accoutn for me. That was a few months ago that I last spoke to themso things may have changed

I spoke with EBS (who I didn't like at all and there was so much messing with them) and then I went to BOI who approved me but not for an amount I could get a house with, and they don't take in to account the rental income of the second property. What they said is 'you could sell that house at any time and then you don't have rental income'.

mel123

farrerg wrote: »

I know a lot of people in the same position, the bank puts the full stressed mortgage repayments, and the discounted rental income, against you in their calculations because they won't rely on the other party stepping into the breach and meeting any shortfall if something goes wrong.
I think getting a mortgage on your own was going to be hard before the new rules anyway but they won't have helped

Do you have an idea of what they would have lent before and now after the rules?

No I have no idea, and I don't want to know now either
EBS did so much messing around (and a case of my own fault putting all my eggs in that basket) before the new rules came out, then it was a case of 'actually no we're not approving you' and it was too late. I know it would still have been heavily tested, but I think I would have got a bit more at least.
And yes, you are right in what you say, because I am going solo I have no one to fall back on if say I lose my job so they stress test me more I believe.

Michael D Not Higgins

Hi Mel, with regards to the house that you have a shared interest in, do you pay a mortgage on that or is it owned outright? I can't understand the bank saying you could "sell at any time" when you'd either reduce your outgoings on a mortgage or increase your liquidated assets. The only situation it would make sense is if there's a small mortgage and you're making a profit on the rental income, but even then you'd still get a payday by selling.

Greyian

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Hi Mel, with regards to the house that you have a shared interest in, do you pay a mortgage on that or is it owned outright? I can't understand the bank saying you could "sell at any time" when you'd either reduce your outgoings on a mortgage or increase your liquidated assets. The only situation it would make sense is if there's a small mortgage and you're making a profit on the rental income, but even then you'd still get a payday by selling.

Is it possible the bank meant that mel could sell the property at any time before getting a new mortgage (for the new property), thereby reducing their total mortgage debt. It could be that the bank are basically saying "You can get a mortgage from us, provided you sell the existing property first."

If there's no mortgage on the current property though, I can't see why the bank would say (or even should be able to say) that they can't get a mortgage while owning it.

Michael D Not Higgins

Greyian wrote: »

Is it possible the bank meant that mel could sell the property at any time before getting a new mortgage (for the new property), thereby reducing their total mortgage debt. It could be that the bank are basically saying "You can get a mortgage from us, provided you sell the existing property first."

If there's no mortgage on the current property though, I can't see why the bank would say (or even should be able to say) that they can't get a mortgage while owning it.

It could be that but I read it as saying they wouldn't take the rental income into account because Mel could sell the property then not have any rental income.

mel123

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Hi Mel, with regards to the house that you have a shared interest in, do you pay a mortgage on that or is it owned outright? I can't understand the bank saying you could "sell at any time" when you'd either reduce your outgoings on a mortgage or increase your liquidated assets. The only situation it would make sense is if there's a small mortgage and you're making a profit on the rental income, but even then you'd still get a payday by selling.

Nope, I own it out straight, there is nothing owing on it.
BOI said they only take it in to account 'in exceptional' circumstances (whatever they are I do not know), and my mortgage advisor went off with my application and came back, I said to her that's lower that what I would hope for can you not take the property I own in to consideration, so she said she would have to make a case for the under writers, and she came back and told me they said no and what I said above about selling at any time. The rental income alone would cover the mortgage if I was to buy a new house, and all bills, so its a bit baffling, but they just said times have changed!
I was going to write to them and tell them I could sign a contract that if I ever sold the existing property I own I would pay what I borrowed on it straight off, but I don't think it will make any difference to be honest, they seem pretty set on the rules.

The Spider

And then you have this...

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/british-investors-buying-irish-homes-as-sterling-strengthens-over-euro-31030802.html

BoatMad

mel123 wrote: »

Nope, I own it out straight, there is nothing owing on it.
BOI said they only take it in to account 'in exceptional' circumstances (whatever they are I do not know), and my mortgage advisor went off with my application and came back, I said to her that's lower that what I would hope for can you not take the property I own in to consideration, so she said she would have to make a case for the under writers, and she came back and told me they said no and what I said above about selling at any time. The rental income alone would cover the mortgage if I was to buy a new house, and all bills, so its a bit baffling, but they just said times have changed!
I was going to write to them and tell them I could sign a contract that if I ever sold the existing property I own I would pay what I borrowed on it straight off, but I don't think it will make any difference to be honest, they seem pretty set on the rules.

The bank will not take not illiquid assets as collateral and even then may not consider even liquid assets. If you rental income is consistent and soley at your discretion I would be surprised if they did not take that into account, but they would apply a haircut to all self employed income anyway.

At the end of the day the bank will not take in your assists , their new mantra is " ability to repay" , by which they mean , your current monthly ability , stress tested of course

I would suggest the TSB, which in my view are more realistic at present then the so-called "pillar " banks. PS BofI are the worst of the bunch as far as tough assessments go. avoid them like the plaque

gaius c

Post on the pin suggests carnage at the higher end of the market.

Long story short
€260k household income
2 kids
€110k deposit saved
Max mortgage of €545k with savings assumed to have increased to €150k by then

That's a 2.1 LTI ratio. Going to be interesting times ahead if that is typical.

Cuddlesworth

The Spider wrote: »

And then you have this...

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/british-investors-buying-irish-homes-as-sterling-strengthens-over-euro-31030802.html

The only actual data points in that article besides hearsay.

"This year alone our website had 85,000 visits from 1,101 locations across the UK, accounting for 8pc of the total site traffic,"

85k hits in a year is not a big number. Its sounds big but its not. Websites measure in unique visitors but when that totals around 1k it doesn't sound so good.

"The strong pound means that a €500,000 Irish property bought this time last year in sterling is now £26,000 cheaper to buy for a British customer"

What was the increase last year in 500k SDC houses? 10%? How does the above make any sense, even with the fall in Sterling houses in the 500k region are more expensive than last year.

The_Conductor

gaius c wrote: »

Post on the pin suggests carnage at the higher end of the market.

The article is pretty accurate- as many of us who are looking for property can confirm. The vibrant property market is in the sub 300k bracket. Its probably stable up to around 450k- and after that- may god have mercy on your soul if you're trying to sell.

gaius c wrote: »

Long story short
€260k household income
2 kids
€110k deposit saved
Max mortgage of €545k with savings assumed to have increased to €150k by then

That's a 2.1 LTI ratio. Going to be interesting times ahead if that is typical.

To be brutally honest Gaius- a 260k household income is *not* normal. It is probably in the top 1-2% of all incomes. The reason why your LTI is lowered- is because of the two children. Your childcare bill could very well be similar to the repayments on your mortgage- perhaps as high as 3k a month each (but you probably net 12k a month- leaving you with 6k over after mortgage and childcare costs).

You could legitimately argue that you could comfortably afford a significantly higher mortgage- it depends entirely on your lifestyle and how you might propose to rejiggle your outgoings.

BoatMad

gaius c wrote: »

Post on the pin suggests carnage at the higher end of the market.

Long story short
€260k household income
2 kids
€110k deposit saved
Max mortgage of €545k with savings assumed to have increased to €150k by then

That's a 2.1 LTI ratio. Going to be interesting times ahead if that is typical.

feedback that I have seen , suggests banks are even more conservative when approaching higher level mortgages then previously , because typically incomes can be variable and the effect of a fall in income has dramatic effects

Kinet1c

gaius c wrote: »

Post on the pin suggests carnage at the higher end of the market.

Long story short
€260k household income
2 kids
€110k deposit saved
Max mortgage of €545k with savings assumed to have increased to €150k by then

That's a 2.1 LTI ratio. Going to be interesting times ahead if that is typical.

Bonuses are not allowed so not 260k income, down to 200k. Saying that, still going to be interesting to see that end of the market move.