A homeowning couple in the Netherlands wants to upgrade. They have €125,000 in overwaarde (home equity) and a solid above-average income. Their hypotheekadviseur (mortgage advisor) gives them the green light to bid on properties up to €500,000. Everything looks perfect, until the advisor drops a number that stops them cold: €35,000. That’s how much liquid savings they need to prove they can handle 24 months of double mortgage payments.
This isn’t some obscure edge case. It’s a growing requirement from Dutch hypotheekverstrekkers (mortgage lenders) that’s quietly reshaping who can actually buy a home in the Netherlands. And it has nothing to do with whether you can afford the monthly payments.
The Hidden Rule: Two Years of Double Coverage
The requirement is straightforward on paper: lenders want evidence you can pay both your existing and new mortgage simultaneously for two full years, using only your eigen vermogen (personal savings). For our couple targeting a €500,000 home, this meant showing they could cover €35,000 in additional housing costs without selling their current property.
At first glance, this seems reasonable. The Dutch housing market moves fast, but selling your old home isn’t guaranteed. Banks are protecting themselves against the risk that you’ll end up with dubbele lasten (double costs) you can’t sustain. But here’s where the logic frays: the same banks using income multiples to approve your loan suddenly ignore that income when assessing this specific risk.
The advisor’s proposed oplossing (solution) reveals the absurdity: “Just borrow €35,000 from family, show the bank statement, then give it back.” This suggestion, apparently common practice, ignores that lenders scrutinize large, unexplained deposits. A €35,000 gift triggers belasting (tax) implications, and a loan doesn’t count as eigen vermogen anyway. When the bank reviews three months of bank statements and sees a mysterious deposit, they’ll ask questions. The workaround is a fiction.
Who Actually Faces This Requirement?
Commentators on the original discussion clarified that this 24-month rule primarily hits two groups: buyers of nieuwbouw (new construction) and anyone needing overbrugging (bridge financing). If you’re building from scratch or buying a home that won’t be ready for months, you’re stuck paying your current mortgage until the keys transfer. The first payment on your new hypotheek often starts when construction begins, not when you move in.
But the rule’s application is expanding. Even renters upgrading to homeownership face questions about how they’d manage double costs. One commenter noted being asked to demonstrate how they’d handle 24 months of bridge payments during their aanvraagproces (application process). Banks want 100% certainty, even in a market where homes sell within weeks.
This creates a bizarre scenario: you qualify for a €500,000 loan based on income, but you’re disqualified because you don’t have €35,000 sitting in a spaarrekening (savings account) earning essentially zero interest. In a country where Dutch tax policy penalizes savers and impacts mortgage savings, this requirement feels particularly punitive.
The Savings Paradox in Practice
The situation highlights a deeper tension in Dutch personal finance. Official statistics suggest households save around €240 per month, yet discrepancies in Dutch savings behavior and financial reality show many people’s actual savings rates look different. For homeowners with substantial equity but limited liquid cash, perhaps due to recent verbouwing (renovation), family expenses, or simply investing elsewhere, this rule creates a liquidity crisis.
Consider the trade-offs: holding savings versus investing in the Dutch system has become a pressing question. With inflation eroding cash and Box 3 reforms taxing actual returns starting in 2028, many financially savvy residents keep minimal cash reserves. They rely on investment portfolios they can liquidate if needed. But banks won’t accept a portfolio statement as proof you can cover double mortgage payments. They want cold, hard euros in a Dutch bank account.
This contradicts basic financial planning principles. Emergency funds of three to six months are standard, 24 months of hypothetical double housing costs is extreme. As one observer bluntly asked: “Why buy a €500,000 home if you don’t have €35,000 in liquid assets?” The answer, in today’s market, is that housing prices have outpaced liquid savings requirements. A €500,000 home is no longer luxury, it’s often the entry point for families needing more space.
The Market Impact: Locking Out Qualified Buyers
The rule’s strictest interpretation creates a Catch-22: you need significant eigen vermogen to upgrade, but building that equity often requires being in the housing market already. First-time buyers using NHG (Nationale Hypotheek Garantie) rarely face this issue because they have no existing property. The burden falls on doorstromers (existing homeowners) looking to move up.
This has subtle but important effects on the market. It reduces liquidity, the very thing that makes the Dutch housing market function. A family that could comfortably afford a larger home and would quickly sell their current property gets stuck. They either stay put, reducing available inventory, or they must delay their purchase by years while building unnecessary cash reserves.
The requirement also ignores the reality of housing upgrade decisions amid financial constraints. Families don’t upgrade on a whim, they do it because they’ve outgrown their current space. Forcing them to hold tens of thousands in idle cash means less money for actual moving costs, renovations, or, you know, raising the children they’re trying to house.
Workarounds and Reality Checks
Is the advisor’s shady “borrow and return” tactic the only option? Not exactly, but legitimate alternatives are limited:
1. Sell First, Then Buy
The simplest solution is selling your current home before buying the next. In a hot market, this works. But it means temporary housing, storage costs, and the risk of being priced out while you search. The emotional and logistical burden is real.
2. Negotiate the Completion Date
For new builds, push the start date of your new hypotheek as late as possible. Some developers allow flexibility. But you’ll still face months of overlap, and the bank knows it.
3. Build Genuine Reserves
The most straightforward but frustrating answer: save the required amount. For many, this means realistic budgeting and savings challenges for Dutch residents become even more critical. But in a country where building financial resilience through regular investing despite low savings rates is already challenging, this delays homeownership by years.
4. Explore Flexible Lenders
Not all hypotheekverstrekkers apply the rule equally. Some may accept lower reserves if you have strong overwaarde or a guaranteed buyer for your current home. An onafhankelijk hypotheekadviseur (independent mortgage advisor) with access to 40+ lenders can identify more flexible options, though this rarely eliminates the requirement entirely.
The Broader System Failure
This savings requirement reveals a systemic flaw. Dutch housing policy pushes homeownership through hypotheekrenteaftrek (mortgage interest deduction) and other incentives. Yet the execution creates barriers that have nothing to do with financial health. You can have stable income, substantial equity, and a perfect payment history, but without liquid cash, you’re stuck.
It also highlights how structural flaws in Dutch wealth taxation affect average savers. The system simultaneously discourages holding cash and demands it for major life decisions. The result is a population caught between conflicting financial signals: invest to avoid wealth taxes, but save cash to satisfy mortgage lenders.
The rule’s expansion beyond clear bridging scenarios suggests risk management is becoming a cover for overly conservative lending practices. After the 2008 crisis, Dutch regulators tightened rules to prevent another crash. But this requirement doesn’t reduce systemic risk, it simply shifts it onto individual households, forcing them to hold inefficient cash buffers while the bank’s risk position remains essentially unchanged.
What Actually Works
If you’re facing this requirement, forget the advisor’s “borrow from family” fiction. Instead:
Get a second opinion from an independent advisor who can compare policies across lenders. Requirements vary more than banks admit.
Document everything. If you have a buyer lined up for your current home, get a letter of intent. Some lenders will factor this into their risk assessment.
Consider NHG. While primarily for first-time buyers, NHG has specific bridging loan products with different requirements. Check if you qualify.
Delay and save. Painful but practical: budget aggressively and build the reserve. Just don’t park it in a regular spaarrekening where Box 3 taxes and inflation will erode it. Use a mix of instant-access savings and low-risk, liquid investments you can document clearly.
The Bottom Line
The €35,000 mortgage trap exposes a disconnect between how Dutch lenders assess risk and how residents actually manage money. In a system that penalizes savers and rewards investors, demanding massive cash reserves for a temporary, unlikely scenario is backward. It locks out qualified buyers, reduces market mobility, and forces financially responsible people into suboptimal decisions.
Until regulators or lenders revisit this requirement, doorstromers face an unpalatable choice: keep excessive cash on hand, delay your move, or navigate the gray area of temporary family loans. None of these solutions serve the housing market’s long-term health. They simply prove that in Dutch finance, having enough income to afford something means far less than having the right kind of money in the right account at the right time.