View more on these topics

Editor’s Note: 100% safe? Time will tell


One hundred per cent LTV loans have still, understandably, rather a bad reputation in the market. Indeed, loans such as Northern Rock’s notorious 125 per cent ‘Together’ mortgage will likely be held up as a prime example of How Not To Do It for the foreseeable future.

While true 100 per cent mortgages have not yet returned, the market has a few loans that get pretty close.

The nearest yet came last week from Barclays, which announced it was scrapping the need for first-time buyers to provide a deposit for its Family Springboard mortgage. Previously, the lender had required a 5 per cent deposit plus a 10 per cent contribution from a relative or guardian. Now it asks for just the 10 per cent part, which is paid back in three years with interest.

Strictly speaking, these are not no-deposit loans because they still require cash from relatives. However, from a first-time buyer’s perspective they are true-blue 100 per cent loans.

Clearly the argument against this type of lending focuses on the risk. Lenders are still wary of borrowers who have a lower emotional investment in their property as a result of having less cash invested.

Then there is the greater risk of negative equity if house prices fall.

The move by Barclays has provoked an understandable backlash from some. Seasoned intermediaries have seen first-hand how 100 per cent mortgages can fall over, and they want to protect their clients from experiencing this again.

The story generally received a kicking from the national press too, for the same reasons.

But the need for 100 per cent LTV mortgages is growing, and the risks are shrinking.

While ‘100 per cent LTV’ has a whiff of the financial crash about it, we have not reverted to the bad old days. Affordability requirements post-MMR have kept a lid on risky lending.

One could argue Barclays and others have taken a sensible route in their attempts to offer 100 per cent loans. The market will be monitoring their level of success. Should things shift in this direction, a huge barrier may have been removed for many would-be first-time buyers.



Editor’s note: Can BTL take the stress?

The buy-to-let market was sent into a tailspin last week after The Mortgage Works announced a major change to its stress testing criteria. The lender will not only increase its rental cover requirements from 125 per cent to 145 per cent but will also cut its maximum LTV from 80 per cent to 75 per […]


Editor’s note: Don’t ignore golden oldies

Lending into retirement must be one of the more emotive issues facing our market, with most brokers having strong feelings on the matter. If you were to search for the root of the problem, it would likely be the period before the MMR when lenders tried to pre-empt the make-up of the final rules on […]


Editor’s note: Battle of criteria begins

As expected, the past few months have seen buy-to-let volumes spike as landlords looked to avoid getting hit by increased stamp duty rates. Council of Mortgage Lenders figures show buy-to-let lending in February was up 61 per cent year-on-year at £3.7bn. The figure has been no lower than £3.4bn each month since June last year, […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • Chris Hulme 12th May 2016 at 2:50 pm

    The reality of 100% lending was that the together style of structure was not only better than the 100% secured lending types but was also akin to what most 95% lenders were doing anyway. Take a 95% mortgage and then be offered a £25k personal loan from the lender within a month of completing the purchase.
    If you also consider the back books of some of the lenders tainted with a similar brush to Northern Rock and things weren’t anywhere near as bad as they were painted in the media by the government of the time.
    I am sure 100% lending will return in some further guises than the current Woolwich offering…