First-time buyers unable to take advantage of falling house prices...

[MsAnneThrope]

Strict lending conditions stopping first-time buyers entering market: Irish Examiner

FIRST-time buyers are being prevented from taking advantage of plunging house prices because of stricter lending criteria by banks and falling incomes.

Banks are now requiring up to 20% deposits for mortgages with many asking potential homebuyers to prove that at least half of their deposit money has come from personal savings.

I agree we shouldn't go back to the days of 100% mortgages but are the banks being too strict now? There are people/couples, employed in the same good jobs for many years, who are unable to buy a house now due to these restrictions.

Reductions in mortgage interest repayments over the last year mean home-loan repayments have fallen by 42%, making it more affordable to have a mortgage.

A family with a €250,000 mortgage over 25 years would have paid €1,550 a month last September if they have a tracker mortgage but monthly mortgage repayments will have fallen to €1,118 now, giving a monthly saving of €432.

Is it going to be a case of our existing wealthy landlord classes, who already own multiple houses and apartments to rent out, being the only beneficiaries of falling property prices? If they take a long-term view they can pick up bargains now and in the future that should be worth considerably more in a few years time. And in the meantime rent out these properties to the very kind of people who want to buy them but are unable to?

What a mess this whole property obsession has created

[macdarawhitfield]

So what do you propose to do about it? I imagine it involves dafties me subsidising 'first time buyers' - get yer Kleenex out.This is what is meant by 'mortgage interest tax relief' is it not?I am still renting btw.Maybe they should tighten up the rules on grasping landlords.1.fixity of tenure.2 .fair rents.

That'll do for now,even tho its only half the old Land League's demands.Still not there tho!

[Dios]

I agree we shouldn't go back to the days of 100% mortgages but are the banks being too strict now?

No.

That is all.

[SamVimesBoots]

Restrictions? Like "prove you actually saved this deposit and it isn't made up of yet more debt from the Credit Union"? That's a restriction?

Shows just how mad people got really. "I'm entitled to as much debt as I like regardless of my ability to pay it back or manage my cashflow prudently!"

The banks are merely returning to the prudent lending practices that applied for generations, before the neoliberals started "deregulating" and debt-peddling in the 90s.

Like your old granny probably used to say when you were a child: "If you can't save up for it then you can't afford it". Welcome to the reality of the next decade or two.

[sharper]

Is it going to be a case of our existing wealthy landlord classes, who already own multiple houses and apartments to rent out, being the only beneficiaries of falling property prices?

It's people who already own property who are hit by falling prices.

If prices are too high that the average couple can't afford them then they have further to fall.

[H.R. Haldeman]

Every single solitary article like this is a fancy way of saying that house prices are still too high.

But instead of coming to that blindingly obvious conclusion, for some mystifying reason people still want to talk voodoo about "problems" with bloody lending conditions and mortgage lengths and deposits and stamp duty blah blah. Duh. Just reduce house prices and all of these variables click perfectly into place.

[oceanclub]

Strict lending conditions stopping first-time buyers entering market: Irish Examiner

Best news I've heard; hopefully this will stop stupid people from buying depreciating assets.

P.

[Alliance 109]

the idea that the banks are lending money again is the biggest con job going....if you manage to get a loan nowadays you must have a horse shoe up your ar.se

[seabhcan]

Someone who can't save 20% has no place buying the house.

If we'd had the 20% rule over the last 15 years there would have been no housing boom, no bust, and the banks wouldn't be in trouble because all the nest-eggs of hundreds of thousands of would-be buyers would be in savings accounts in banks.

The 20% deposit requirement should be a law. In fact, I'd like it to be in the constitution.

[Furze]

If they are stupid enough, there is always Tom Parlon's sub-prime scheme.
Home Choice | What is Home Choice Loan?