Top

12 of the best mortgage deals for first-time buyers

Better mortgages for first-time buyers with small deposits could be on the way soon. But if you can't wait, Christina Jordan reveals the top deals available now.

The positive news releases just keep on coming. This week sees Nationwide's house price index recording an increase in average UK prices for three months in a row. In July they increased by 1.3% to £158,871 - the fastest rate since February 2007.

Far be it for me to put the dampeners on this particular ray of sunshine but, as many commentators have already noted, the grave lack of supply, particularly in prime locations, is keeping prices up.

Of course buyer interest is increasing, and has been for months now, but there is a big difference between a wannabe first-time buyer (FTB), and one who can realistically get the requisite mortgage finance and deposit together.

You have limited choices if you want to buy your first home:

  • Save a significant deposit of 25% of the property's value. In many parts of the UK this could take years.
  • Get help to raise a 25% deposit from your parents or another source. If you can do this you are one of the lucky ones- and in the vast minority of potential FTBs.
  • Save a 10% deposit and pay a hefty mortgage rate. This still requires a fair bit of saving, and your monthly outgoings will be higher in order to service the mortgage. If you don't earn a high salary you might find that the amount lenders are willing to offer leaves you with limited buying options.

In other words, many first-time buyers are still effectively frozen out of the mortgage market. And while deals may be getting competitive for those with 25% or more upfront, lenders are still unable to offer such attractive deals to higher risk borrowers.

This is the case for a few reasons:

  • When lenders price for risk they have to charge a premium to those putting down a small percentage of the property's value. After all, with house prices far from stable these borrowers could be more likely to fall into negative equity than any other group. Lenders need to account for the fact that the asset secured against the mortgage (the property) could fall in value.
  • The regulator's rules about how much capital mortgage lenders need to set aside when they lend out mortgage funds are more onerous at higher loan-to value (LTV) ratios (i.e. on deals with smaller deposits). In other words lenders have to tie up more money to lend these riskier mortgages. With funds pretty scarce that's not something they are overly keen on doing.
  • Lenders have limited funds. The few that are currently open for business are already extremely busy and, frankly, many wouldn't be able to manage the volumes if they launched market-leading high LTV mortgages. They can currently get the business levels they require with lower-risk offerings.

Hope springs eternal

There is constantly speculation about lenders making more mortgages available to borrowers - particularly first-time buyers - and talk of the Government pressure they are under to kick-start lending to those at the bottom of the ladder.

But is anything actually changing?

Back at the beginning of May there was excitement that a few lenders had launched higher LTV deals, and optimism that the mortgage market was returning to something like normality (i.e. not 2007 lending figures!).

Some lenders made their best deals available to borrowers with 25% upfront instead of 40% - not exactly high LTV lending but a step in the right direction.

Woolwich made large cuts to its higher LTV mortgages, and then HSBC launched a range of low 90% LTV mortgages causing a ripple of excitement. But the devil was in the detail and the mortgages were only available to the bank's Premier and Plus current account customers.

Still, the freeze was starting to thaw, wasn't it?

Not really. Very little has since changed in the 90% LTV bracket. It's still expensive for those with just a 10% deposit who are limited to fixed rate deals and a handful of variable options.

Things can only get better

But there are some positive signs on the horizon. At the start of this month, the Bank of England's Credit Conditions Survey said that lenders expect an increase in the availability of secured credit (mortgages and secured loans) to households in the next three months.

Plus they expect a general easing in 'non-price terms' - in other words criteria could become more flexible. The report specifically noted that lenders believe there will be an increase in maximum LTVs. So there could be more mortgages for those with smaller deposits. Hurray!

But if you can't wait for these lender expectations to come to fruition, because you need a high LTV mortgage now, below are your best bets.

I've listed a range of deals with different fees and durations for those with a 15% deposit and for borrowers with just 10%.

Best deals for those with a 15% deposit

LENDER

TYPE OF DEAL

RATE

FEE

MAX LTV

Ipswich  BS

Two-year fix

5.25%

£1,095

85%

NatWest

Two-year fix

5.69%

£799

85%

Abbey (FTB only)

Four-year fix

5.84%

£495

85%

NatWest

Five-year fix

5.89%

£799

85%

The Co-op Bank

10-year fix

5.99%

£995

85%

The Co-op Bank

Three-year fix

5.99%

Fee-free

85%

Best deals for those with a 10% deposit

LENDER

TYPE OF DEAL

RATE

FEE

MAX LTV

Furness BS

Three-year discount

4.94%

£699

90%

Britannia BS

Offset term tracker

4.59%

£599

90%

Yorkshire Bank

Three-year fix

5.99%

£599

90%

NatWest (FTB only)

Five-year fix

5.99%

Fee-free

90%

Leek United BS

Five-year fix

5.99%

£495

90%

HSBC

Two-year fix

5.99%

£599

90%

Compare mortgages with lovemoney.com

More: Hurry! Top mortgage deals are disappearing fast | The danger of short-term mortgages

Most Recent


Comments



  • 07 August 2009

    The truth is that there was never any 'political will' , under Labour to allow the price of an average house, to be affordable for a person earning average wage. We went to look at a house in 1999, priced at £67k. I had to move for work purposes, and four months later we went back to have another look. It had increased to £78k! At that point we pulled away thinking it was a ridiculos increase. Since then we have been forced to waste tens of thousands in rent. [I will not let house prices get out of control. Gordon Brown 1997] My own Labour MP was flipping houses, making over £200,000.00 in profits from 2000-2007, whilst ignoring my emails telling her how useless the First Time Buyer initative schemes were. I looked into the initiatives every year, for 8 years, I talked to the housing associations, estate agents, house builders, Joseph Rowntree trust, other trusts, and Homebuy agents for all the government schemes. They were all completely useless. The best scheme the government offered was the FTBI scheme. Whereupon, I would be required to purchase up to 50% of the property and pay rent on the remaining percentage retained by the government, or trust. Paying equity on a sliding scale after the first three years. However, when you work out the repayments, with the interest, over the life of the mortage,and add the rent to this sum, it was nearly as expensive as purchasing the entire property! The only government funded shared equity schemes, within 25 miles of me, fell into a number of different county councils territories. And according to all the local County Councils, who i contacted, time and time again, I had to have family, work, or some other form of ties to the area, to move there or live there! The only people who took this up were certain 'key' workers! It was a system designed NEVER to work. It was a smokescreen, so politicians could milk the system, and make huge profits, by flipping houses. [Whether that was their intention or not. When the Daily Telegraph requested to see the expenses under the freedom of information act, Labour did everything possible to hide the house flipping expenses] This is complicated theivery. Browns expenses system turned our MP's into nothing more than property speculators. Its truly unbelievable. All we ever wanted was a small house and a decent job. Now Im out of work due to the recession, running out of money, with no redundancy pay, but I have 20k in savings so the job centre have said I am not entitled to any money. Yet I still have to find £800pcm rent. All of this because we did not get onto the ladder around 1999. If this bubble had not been allowed to inflate, we would probably have got a house by now, and paid off a large percentage of the mortgage. In 1997 What the UK needed was some stability to allow us to get on with our lives. [No more boom and bust. Gordon Brown] Instead weve had a rollercoaster ride to hell under Labour.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 07 August 2009

    FTB, good analysis, and the reason why we know that the vested interest brigade are plain lying. This analysis highlights the 'pent-up', not demand to buy, but frustration building up in this nation. Another bubble may burst, involving people on the streets.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 07 August 2009

    The complete lack of regulation, [following Browns creation of the FSA, which destroyed the ability of the BOE to 'watch' inflation,] and the rise in the housing market really took off due around 1999. 'From 1999 onwards mortgage-backed securities, [AAA rated financial products,] which already represented one layer of packaging of debt, started to be repackaged into CDOs, thus creating a Russian doll product: a tranched, packaged product each component of which was itself a tranche of a packaged product. Given their excellent reputation, putting mortgage-backed securities rather than corporate bonds or loans inside CDOs might seem a small step. In 1999 Bayerische Landesbank, which had become involved in the US mortgage market, approached J.P. Morgan to package $14 billion of bundles of mortgages. This was the beginning of huge packages of toxic mortgage debt being passed from one bank to another. The Housing market cannot survive without FTBers. And they will not be buying until the price of an average house, returns to circa 3.5x the average salary...... [NOT the average salary OF A COUPLE. But of a single individual. As it was toward the end of the 20th Century.] Average House Prices: Source: Nationwide. 2007 Q1 £175,554 2003 Q1 £119,938 1999 Q1 £67,478 1997 Q1 £55,810 1995 Q1 £51,084 1989 Q4 £61,495 ! 1987 Q1 £40,882 The average wage has hardly increased at all during the last decade. Every FTB has access to the internet. And Every FTB has educated himself with the above figures. The Housing ponzi scheme is over. I, and every other FTB I know. Have one stipulaton when talking to Estate Agents. I am only interested in a property that is priced at its 1999 2000 price. Location, size, etc are all secondary to that single criteria The housing Market will now drag along the bottom for a decade, slowly coming down each year, with the government and Estate Agents etc , using lies and spin, to try and tell us that a bottom has finally been reached. The government who allowed this to happen, and encouraged this disastrous financial model, are now performing complicated theivery to steal our taxes, devalue the pound in your pocket through QE, and steal Interest Rates, believing we should all pay for this toxic housing bubble, even those of us who do not own property. Its theft. Plain and simple. Over the next ten years, we will enter a Japan style recession. Blame our Labour governmnet. It is certainly there fault as much as the Banks. If not more The price of an average house needs to fall back in line with the average wage. The housing CRASH is the recovery Or do all you home owners believe that no hardworking young people in the country should be allowed to have the opportunity you did, to own your own property? To return to historically sustainable levels, To stay in line with historically sustainable levels, The average house is worth about 75k. NOT 175k People on tracker mortgages are paying pennies to stay in massively artificially inflated houses, whilst we still have to find hundreds and hundreds of pounds per month in rent. Yet, having been priced out for ten years, we have already lost tens of thousands in rent. The banks have now returned to sensible lending. 3.5 times salary Banks like Lloyds have debt greater than our countries annual GDP. While our business's go under the bankers are getting richer. Until there is real accountability there will never be a recovery. Labour do not understand the concept of accountability. The UK is governed by a completely corrupt elite.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Most Popular

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.