Banks and building societies are offering homebuyers super-sized mortgages of six times salary as they struggle to climb the property ladder.

Attempts to bridge the gulf between wages and high house prices have shifted from targeting first-time buyers to offering larger mortgages to home movers too.

Leeds Building Society recently extended its mortgage loan-to-income (LTI) to six times salary, with major rivals NatWest, Lloyds Barclays, HSBC and Nationwide all offering bumper loans.

The shift comes after the Government and financial watchdog cleared the path last summer for more homeowners to borrow six times their income, instead of the typical four and a half times.

In mid-April, Leeds BS boosted its Income Plus range – increasing the loan-to-income from 5.5 to 6 times salary and opened it up to home movers and re-mortgagers, not just first-time buyers, with a minimum household income of £75,000.

Critics worry that financial crisis era protections are being swept away in a government chase for growth, but supporters say big mortgages tend to be reserved for those on higher incomes who must still pass affordability checks.

But from the borrower’s perspective is it wise to take advantage of a super-sized mortgage, or should they be avoided at all costs?

We asked two expert mortgage brokers with opposing views to go head-to-head and put their arguments for and against mega-mortgages.

Yes, big mortgages can be great for the right borrower

Samuel Mather-Holgate, Managing Director & IFA at Swindon-based Mather and Murray Financial says higher LTI mortgages are needed for many.

He says: For the right borrower, a higher loan-to-income mortgage is not a shortcut to trouble, it is a bridge onto the housing ladder.

Higher loan-to-income mortgages reflect the reality of today’s housing market, not the market of 15 years ago.

Prices have risen far faster than wages and, for many buyers, the biggest barrier is no longer affordability in practice, but strict borrowing caps. A growing number of lenders are starting to recognise this shift.

Leeds Building Society increased its Income Plus range from 5.5 times income to 6 times and crucially extended it beyond first-time buyers to include home movers and re-mortgagers.

That follows similar moves by NatWest and Barclays, signalling a broader change in approach across the market.

For many younger buyers, especially professionals at the start of a clear career path, income multiples can be the limiting factor rather than their ability to meet monthly payments.

A lot of renters are already comfortably paying amounts equal to, or higher than, a potential mortgage, but remain locked out by rigid lending criteria.

Used properly, higher LTIs can help creditworthy borrowers who are trapped by rising house prices and rent inflation, rather than poor money management.

They are not about stretching finances recklessly, but about recognising future earning potential and real-world affordability.

They can be particularly helpful for first-time buyers with strong earnings, stable employment and good credit histories, but who have struggled to build a deposit while covering high rental costs.

The key point is that these mortgages are not right for everyone, but they can be exactly right for borrowers with strong affordability, sensible spending habits and clear progression in their income.

A rigid income multiple can sometimes be more unfair than prudent if it ignores a borrower’s actual financial position.

For the right applicant, a higher LTI mortgage is not reckless lending, it is a realistic route onto the housing ladder.

The bigger picture is that if creditworthy people are forced to rent for longer, they can end up worse off financially than if they had been allowed to buy sooner.

Higher LTIs should be seen as a targeted tool, not a free-for-all. When matched to the right borrower, they can widen access to homeownership without abandoning sensible underwriting.

No, big mortgages are too risky for most

Nouran Moustafa, Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth, says higher LTI mortgages are risky.

For some borrowers, a higher loan-to-income mortgage is not a solution, it is a risk that is being underestimated.

There is a growing push to expand higher LTI lending, but the fundamental issue is that affordability is not the same as resilience.

Passing a lender’s model today does not mean a mortgage will be comfortable, or even sustainable, tomorrow, namely in real life.

The real risk is not just getting the mortgage – it is being able to remortgage out of it later.

If circumstances change, rates rise, or property values fall, borrowers may find themselves stuck, unable to move to a better deal.

That is where the danger begins to resemble a new kind of mortgage prisoner who is trapped by stretched borrowing at the outset.

High loan-to-income mortgages are often paired with high loan-to-value borrowing, and that combination creates double risk.

On one side, there is the pressure of repayments taking up a large share of income. On the other, there is limited protection if house prices fall.

If values drop, borrowers can slip into negative equity, restricting their options and leaving them reliant on product transfers rather than full access to the market.

The problem is made worse by how affordability is assessed. Lenders look at income before tax, but borrowers live on income after tax. That gap matters.

A mortgage that looks manageable on paper can feel very different once take-home pay is stretched.

What is often missed is how this interacts with real life. People have lifestyles, responsibilities and unexpected costs that do not show up in a credit file. Travel, family commitments, hobbies – all of these compete with mortgage payments.

When too much income is committed to the mortgage, something has to give.

In some cases, borrowers simply cut back. In others, they turn to credit to maintain their standard of living. Over time, that can lead to a cycle of borrowing that was never part of the original plan.

For the right borrower, with strong financial discipline and clear future income growth, higher LTIs can work. But that is a narrow group.

But it’s my firm belief that these products should be treated as a specialist exception, not a mainstream solution.

Used carefully, they can help. Used loosely, they simply delay the problem and potentially make it harder to solve later.