Should 100% mortgages return?

rob316

I think they should. It's unrealistic expecting young working people to raise 30k for a deposit while paying extortionate rent on the private market.

Maybe even 95%?

Poor Uncle Tom

Expensive money isn't the answer to the housing shortage.

saintsaltynuts

It's the only way most people would get a mortgage these days.

Benteke

One recession not good enough for you?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's a huge topic but I don't think 100% mortgages were ever a good idea. When getting our mortgage it was a max of 80% and tied strictly to a multiple of our earnings. In many ways this helped keep price rises under some check.

Squall Leonhart

90% mortgages are already pretty good. 100% is only asking for trouble all over again.

Money easily got isn't money valued.

theboringfox

No they should never return. Just drives up prices. I'd prefer to see tighter not looser rules.

rob316

Benteke wrote: »

One recession not good enough for you?

When you have couple's out there who would have the means to pay back 2k a month but can't get mortgages because 1500 of that goes on rent. I don't see why a 100% mortgage would be a problem.

TheValeyard

Not a good idea at all.

monkeysnapper

Did i dream it or did they at one point chuck a 100% mortgage plus a brand new Rover car at people ...

Ipso

It may be the smart and ballsy thing to do.

The Rape of Lucretia

rob316 wrote: »

When you have couple's out there who would have the means to pay back 2k a month but can't get mortgages because 1500 of that goes on rent. I don't see why a 100% mortgage would be a problem.

Because there arent enough houses. Allowing more people to spend money they risk never being able to pay, or being caught when prices normalise would be bananas. If anything, the % should be reduced not increased when prices are in a bubble.

Dealing with the supply of houses is the only sane action.

gifted

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Did i dream it or did they at one point chuck a 100% mortgage plus a brand new Rover car at people ...

That was just stupidity at its best.....






Everyone knows Rover were ****e cars lol lol









I'll get my coat....

I think we are doing well with 90% to be honest as much as i would like 100%! prices would go... through the roof :cool:

monkeysnapper

gifted wrote: »

That was just stupidity at its best.....






Everyone knows Rover were ****e cars lol lol









I'll get my coat....

Did anyone take them up on offer .... I remember thinking how absolutely stupid that was .

P_1

No but we need to start building houses yesterday, this time in places where people want to live. Of course this won't happen till the core FF/FG voters are out of negative equity. Cheers for pulling the rope up there lads

padd b1975

I got a 100% 340,000 mortgage over 35 years in 2006 with my now ex wife.
In twelve years the principal has decreased by about 80k.
To be honest its not something I've dwelt on too much over the years, I just concentrate on meeting the repayment and everything that goes with it every month.

I hope to rent out a couple of rooms in the next few months for as close to the 14,000 limit as possible and put that towards the mortgage as well which will hopefully reduce the term of the loan substantially.

I don't think it would be a total disaster to reintroduce the product under very strict criteria and I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from availing of one if they met the terms and conditions.

Lackey

100% mortgage but stick to the wages=borrowing formula for deciding loan amount could work

Short memories it seems!

Sleeper12

Definitely not. We need to stick to our rules. If they ever change the rules they should adjust it by no more 1 or 2 percent per year.

If they changed to 100 percent mortgages all at once the only thing that would happen is house prices would jump yet again. You still have a house shortage. Letting people borrow more money without increasing the amount of housing will do nothing more than put more money in the sellers pocket

Lia_lia

No. I think many (not all) young people could be better with money though and therefore be able to save more.

Mooooo

No. Credit fuelled the last bubble and giving it out more easily will only push prices higher esp when supply is well down. Keep some form of rules 're deposit required, x times applicants wages etc and get them to be be better on the interest rates. Their cost of funds are fcukall atm and they are making a serious margin as is

retalivity

Bring back 105% mortgages - i need extra for the decking

Try_harder

Eh, no

MidMan25

100% with a requirement to pay back more in the first 5 years to reduce the principle?

It would solve the issue of people being well able to afford a mortgage repayment but not to save the 10% deposit while paying high rent, on the other hand as others said prices will be driven up.

Wait for the next recession, can't be too far away

Outkast_IRE

rob316 wrote: »

I think they should. It's unrealistic expecting young working people to raise 30k for a deposit while paying extortionate rent on the private market.

Maybe even 95%?

Fixing the rental market is the answer - not overlending to young people to prop up an over expensive housing system.

If you cant save the deposit when renting or living at home, then maybe buying a property isnt suitable for you, the mortage cost is only one cost of many that comes with property ownership.

Ipso

retalivity wrote: »

Bring back 105% mortgages - i need extra for the decking

Decking for the Dublin gaff or the Bulgaria one?

WoollyRedHat

Now 100

retalivity

Ipso wrote: »

Decking for the Dublin gaff or the Bulgaria one?

Crap....better make it 110% so

SEPT 23 1989

Yes I think you should take on as much debt as you can sign for

Things are great nothing will change

We wont repeat the mistakes of the past

We are an island

Ipso

Someone with a bit more knowledge may be able to help me on this.
We had a property bubble in the early 2000's where houses were thrown up everywhere and then there were ghost estates, has the population increased so much in the mean time that there is now a shortage or were houses built in the wrong areas?

Also has a study been done comparing house prices as a multiple of income from around now looking back to the 80's?

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

I got a 100% 340,000 mortgage over 35 years in 2006 with my now ex wife.
In twelve years the principal has decreased by about 80k.
To be honest its not something I've dwelt on too much over the years, I just concentrate on meeting the repayment and everything that goes with it every month.

Meanwhile I have spent 66,000 euro on rent in the last 4 years. I'd be delighted if 100% mortgages came in. So long as it was done sensibly such as only people in permanent positions, 3.5 times of their salary etc.

rob316

MidMan25 wrote: »

100% with a requirement to pay back more in the first 5 years to reduce the principle?

It would solve the issue of people being well able to afford a mortgage repayment but not to save the 10% deposit while paying high rent, on the other hand as others said prices will be driven up.

There's a thinking man.

The UK had 130% mortgages!

rob316

RoboKlopp wrote: »

The UK had 130% mortgages!

With 6.5% interest. Ouch!

Sand

100% mortgages would just be a subsidy to developers and property owners, as they were in the past. The property "problem" in Ireland today is one of supply. Boosting demand only makes things even worse.

lawred2

100% mortgages to those with clear ability to repay shouldn't be much an issue.

Better than a 50% mortgage to someone who can't.

The Celtic tiger was fueled by reckless lending of all levels to people who were always going to be over stretched.

MayoSalmon

Not even 10 years removed from recession and I see this thread pops up. People really and truly deserve what they get in life (personal tragedies aside)

colm_mcm

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Did i dream it or did they at one point chuck a 100% mortgage plus a brand new Rover car at people ...

It was a Volvo c30

Yes, definitely. An inspired idea. 100% mortgages and they should be repayable over 40-45 years. The poor First Time Buyers need to be able to borrow much more.

Yours,

everybody in Dublin who is thinking of selling

rob316

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Not even 10 years removed from recession and I see this thread pops up. People really and truly deserve what they get in life (personal tragedies aside)

I don't see the problem if it's kept very strict. 10% extra over 20 odd years to someone with a strong ability to repay isn't going to melt the economy.

My point is 30k is a prohibitive figure for a couple to save when they are spending about 16k a year on rent.

100% mortgages didn't cause the last recession, it was the reckless lending criteria that did.

Wildly Boaring

It would all end in developers' pockets.
House prices would shoot up.

Ipso

rob316 wrote: »

I don't see the problem if it's kept very strict. 10% extra over 20 odd years to someone with a strong ability to repay isn't going to melt the economy.

My point is 30k is a prohibitive figure for a couple to save when they are spending about 16k a year on rent.

100% mortgages didn't cause the last recession, it was the reckless lending criteria that did.

But in the past people used to save it, and back then rates were in the double digits.
100% mortgages are a symptom of a bigger problem that needs to be addressed and turning to 100% mortgages just feeds into the vicious cycle.

GingerLily

100% mortgages maybe at loan interest rates, but if you want interest rates based on a secured assest then you need to have actual equity in it and not just market speculation.

AMKC

No. I thought 100% mortgages was a stupid and crazy idea back then and I still do now. Sure borrow 100% of something you will never be able to fully pay back sure great idea not.

Wheeliebin30

How about no I phone, holiday, 4 take always, 2 cars, Orlando every year, kids decked out in the newest gear, laptops, I pads, Netflix, 3 TVs in each house etc etc

Then people wonder why that can’t afford the necessary things.

no.8

rob316 wrote:

I think they should. It's unrealistic expecting young working people to raise 30k for a deposit while paying extortionate rent on the private market.

Ridiculous. This is a windup...IT has to be

VinLieger

rob316 wrote: »

When you have couple's out there who would have the means to pay back 2k a month but can't get mortgages because 1500 of that goes on rent. I don't see why a 100% mortgage would be a problem.

Literally learned nothing

Esse85

What's the bigger challenge of the two for a single first time buyer, is it

a) saving the actual deposit

or

b) the 3.5x your salary

rgace

rob316 wrote: »

With 6.5% interest. Ouch!

At least those banks priced in some of the additional risk they were taking unlike the Irish banks.