I only half heard this earlier, and can’t find a link.
But I think I heard an AIB representative on the radio saying they were reducing the LTV to 85% on all residential mortgages above €400,000. Those houses, the rep said, constituted 3% of all mortgages.
I am not in debt, I could clear the investment mortgage and still have a sizeable deposit for our own house. FYI we are renting cos we sold our family home a couple of years ago and have been sitting waiting to buy our family home. Hardly “significant debt and exposure”. That very debt and exposure is from irish banks and I am paying the price for it so get of your high horse and go back to your banking job!
I assure you we were properly assesed, with the full form filling and interview exercise.
BTW, AIB and BOI offered us the same.
I should clarify, we are a profesional couple, I am an engineer, my wife a public servant, we in the are debt free, and have a 6 figure deposit.
I assure you we were properly assesed, with the full form filling and interview exercise.
BTW, AIB and BOI offered us the same.
I should clarify, we are a profesional couple, I am an engineer, my wife a public servant, we in the are debt free, and have a 6 figure deposit.
Well I am glad to hear of a positive experience with the lending depts. Nice to know we are not all being treated poorly. We are not looking for anything close to 450k but the difference is we have kids and the banks do not like dpendants while assessing a mortgage!
One thing that bothers me is that the Banks and Goverment who got us into this mess still want to lend 5 times joint income! This does two things, 1: it makes the prices of property unsustainably expensive (which the Banks want to do to improve the value of their security,at our expense) and 2: They can potentially lend out new money at a much higher margins which means more profit (again at our expense). These figures are completely reckless and not sustainable.
The UK learned their lesson from the crash in the eighties, simple lending guidlines were then put in place: single buyer 4 X income, joint buyers get two options 4 X main income plus 1 X second income or 3 X joint income.
The government need to realise that the less money we give the Banks to pay for mortgages on overpriced houses the more we have to spend in the Irish economy (which would be taxed multiple times with VAT, Duty, Income Tax etc). It doesn’t take much math to realise lower prices will actually help our economy within the next 3 to 5 years.
Take out London and some of the close commuting belts from the UK average house price index and the answer is no they are not more expensive than Ireland. Check it out here for yourself:
Banks in the UK did not lend up to ten times salary on 100% interest only mortgages. If you read my comments with regards multiple of salaries and bank lending policies in the UK that would answer your question with regards sustainability. I’m not sure what lending practices you think are sustainable.
Do you think it is sensible to borrow 5 x joint income in Ireland to buy a home and that is the basis homes should be valued on?
Is this a legally enforced limit on how much a bank can lend in the UK?
Otherwise it was just industry best-practice which would inevitably get extended and stretched as property reached the heights in a bubble. We had similar limits in the early '90s too.
No it is not impossible.
If you earn an average income and your partner is a self-employed musician, then you’ve an entitlement to your €250k dream property. If you’ve difficulty persuading the bank, drag the taoiseach to meet the bank manager.
“I was actually waiting out-side the bank for (my husband) Joe to arrive when I clocked Enda canvassing and I thought I’d take my chances by asking him how I could get a mortgage,” she said.
“As soon as I mentioned it he took me by the hand and brought me into the bank and asked to see the manager." thestar.ie/star/enda-kenny-s … t-for-mum/
Another reminder, as if such were needed, that Enda is an awful gom. He is a walking exemplar of the Peter Principle. In fact, they should just call it the Enda Principle and have done with it.
The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization’s members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, “Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.” In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous[1] treatise, which also introduced the “salutary science of hierarchiology”.
