Love to be the one to Make good property decisions?

Then register for free and get exclusive, personalised benefits that will help you achieve all your money goals.

Join the lovemoney.com experience

Register Now

Confused?

Why Register?

House prices will fall again!

Published 27 August 2009 in Make good property decisions

Find out why the housing market hasn’t bottomed out just yet!

Economists espouse many different theories on the housing market crash, credit crunch and wider recession. And, while probability dictates that some of them will call the crash and the recovery correctly, there will be many more experts who get their predictions completely and utterly wrong.

That said, most agree there have been some positive signs in the last few months, particularly in the housing market. Whether you see these signs as simply less negative than before, a dead cat bounce, or true green shoots, is a matter of opinion, but there has certainly been some stabilisation.

Economic alphabetti spaghetti

Recessions and recoveries can be described as V-shaped, U-shaped, L-shaped and W-shaped -- reflecting the shapes they make on a graph. The recession in Japan in the nineties, for example, was L-shaped, with the economy flatlining for years. On the other hand, the 1950s recession in the US was V-shaped, with growth having fallen and returned to trend in less than two years.

But what about this one?

The UK housing market, in particular, seems to be currently experiencing an upturn which places it in the V or W camp (or perhaps bumping along the bottom of a U).

My money is on W as each positive statistic has a lingering element of doubt attached to it that suggests further decline looms. It's unlikely that the summer upturn is sustainable and that we'll be back to 2007 volumes and house prices in the foreseeable future. Quite simply, current mortgage criteria will not allow it, and until lenders begin to offer higher loan-to-value (LTV) mortgages, the housing and mortgage markets are stifled.

Far more likely in my view is that we will experience a double dip. In other words, these green shoots will be followed by another downturn before a proper pick up at the end of the big W. This is not my own theory (I'm not clever enough) -- economists are increasingly turning to the idea of a W-shaped recovery.

So what are the positive signs that suggest an upturn, and why aren't they completely convincing?

Arrears and repossessions down

Arrears and repossessions figures released from the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) in August look a lot less frightening than might have been expected.

The number of mortgage repossessions fell in the second quarter of the year by 10%, while cases of arrears levelled off (though they are still high at 1.85% of all loans).

This is partly due to lenders being more flexible with struggling borrowers and partly due to low interest rates. 

On the surface, the figures are positive. Unfortunately, recent unemployment statistics suggest that arrears and repossessions could rise in the coming months as households struggle to pay their bills. And of course, when interest rates eventually rise, many borrowers will inevitably find increased mortgage repayments difficult to manage.

Lending up

Gross mortgage lending totalled £16 billion in July, a significant 26% increase from £12.7 billion in June, and the highest level in nine months, according to new data from the CML.

However, mortgage activity is still subdued historically; this is the lowest July lending figure since 2001 and £11 billion lower than the July average over the previous seven years of £27 billion.

June and July are usually strong months for the housing market, according to the CML (news to me -- isn't the summer traditionally slow?) so the increases could be seen as reflective of seasonal variations, especially when compared to an exceptionally weak winter.

Increasing property values

According to Government figures house prices rose by 2.6% in the second quarter of this year. They were still down 10% over the year but the recent figures could reflect the beginning of an upturn. Or they could simply highlight the chronic lack of supply keeping prices artificially high!

The figures are based on mortgage completions up to the end of June so they tend to lag a few months behind other house price indices. Nationwide and Halifax's, for example, are based on offers accepted and therefore provide a more up-to-date snapshot. Nationwide noted a rise of 1.6% in August, up for the fourth month in a row, while Halifax recorded an increase of 1.1% in July.

Plus, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors recently said it is likely that UK property prices will be higher in the last quarter of 2009 than in 2008.

Key indicators

While it may be the nation's favourite obsession, the housing market is, of course, just one of a range of key economic indicators. Below are other headline statistics, showing a mixed recessionary bag. While there are cautious signs of optimism they are tempered by some worrying trends, in particular rising unemployment.

  • Inflation is stable according to last week's figures with the Consumer Prices Index at 1.8% and the Retail Prices Index (which includes mortgage costs) at minus 1.4%
  • Unemployment is high at 2.4 million, and it is expected to reach 3 million in 2010. There were 427,000 job vacancies in the three months to July 2009 -- the lowest figure since records began in 2001
  • GDP decreased 0.9% in the second quarter of 2009, compared to a fall of 2.4% in the first quarter -- with many sectors showing a slowdown in the rate of decline
  • Retail sales rose by 3.3% from July 2008 to July 2009
  • Manufacturing output was 12% down year-on-year in July, though just 0.2% down in the last quarter
  • And the less said about public sector debt the better. Gulp!

Whether you are an economist or not, there are few people who believe we are truly out of the woods at this stage -- though if you do think that, please post your thoughts in the comments boxes below.

Perhaps you think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Or like me, a bit better before they get worse -- the W-shaped recession.

As with any predictions, every one of our opinions is valid. As this crisis has taught us, the 'experts' certainly don't know it all.

More: Five ways to make thousands from your home | Farewell to the 0% mortgage

Compare mortgages with lovemoney.com

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Share this lovemoney.com content on any of the social networks and utilities below by simply clicking the site of your choice.

  • You can subscribe to all lovemoney.com articles via our RSS feed.

Comments

Maitri said

  • 0 recommendations

Can I suggest that readers search Lovemoney for the excellent article on Lovemoney in March titled "Why House Prices Have Further to Fall" because NOTHING has changed. Merryn Somerset Webb in her excellent article "Stay Away from Property It Has Much Further to Fall" over at Moneyweek, warned us all to expect a bull trap this summer, however, now the party is over. Latest auction figures for July 2009 show property prices down 40% from peak and many believe that auctions offer a better insight into the level of property values needed to clear the market today. Rightmove is full of overvalued properties that have been sitting there unsold for a year. Rightmoves director has been saying since the start of the year that sellers needed to reduce 25% from peak, indeed Lovemoney ran an article "Sellers need to Reduce their Prices" earlier this year. RM's latest HPIndex said that estate agents were advising sellers to take a lower cash offer rather than wait for a higher offer from someone who needs a mortgage as the money just isn't there for lending and lenders are valuing 25 - 30% below peak and up to 40% for remortgages resulting in chains breaking down. So re- read Lovemoneys "Why House Prices Have Further to Fall" because it says it all. Indeed I think the situation now is much worse than when than article was written. When Rightmove starts to say that approvals will not recover to levels that support house price stability let alone increase for years and years , and that mortgage lending will remain limited too , well you just know this is not a recipe for recovery, let alone stability in property prices. What is more you also know that if the market is like this with billions in tax payers money thrown in and QE and repossesions being hidden , then there were reasons for Moodys and the FSA saying that "the assumption now is 40% falls" but stress testing for 50 - 60% .

nickpike said

  • 0 recommendations

While interest rates are at 0.5%, you know that the economy is screwed.

This will effect everything, including the precious British housing market.

Why do banks want 40% depeosit. Because they want your money to vapourise as prices drop instead of theirs. The banks know what the future holds for house prices, and now you should know.

Johnny5 said

  • 0 recommendations

NickPike, Banks want 25 percent deposit, noit 40 percent and this is beginning to change downwards. You are a real property doomster and have been for some time and are extremely negative about property and never use any positive's  which makes me think it's a case of what you want to happen...

As is I believe the case with,Maitri, I have only seen one other person  recently quote Moody's, who got slated on "this is money" ? Let me remind you Moody's were fast asleep at the wheel up the the crunch> also if you knew what I know about Moody's you'd know they were a dinosaur and know as much about UK property as my cat ! Their ratings business is a "cash cow and has been for year's. They are more about making money than a bank and their products are just a means too an end and are becoming widely discredited in the city.

QE devalues money hence should increase upward pressure on inflation and house prices over the long term(note i said long term). Banks know nothing about the long term picture of house prices. If they weren't so short sighted and started lending properly again(collectively) they could ensure the upward trend and protect their interests but they are too daft to do so.

This article from Christina and these first 2 posters I wouldn't trust with a bargepole. Mortgage lending is increasing now which is a good sign, there is pent up demand as the brits still love property. I believe talk of 50 percent falls is frankly rubbish from people with a one sided argument and hidden agenda.  There are many problems currently but property is a long term commitment and these property doomster's forget the love affair with property we have in the UK. They make out property will be as cheap as chips in a few year's, well if that happen's nothing will be of any value then, because where else is a good investment. I think we all know in 25 years property is likely to be worth 3 times what it is now and that's a better pension fund that's under your control than you'll get elsewhere and it's tax free.

Let them carp on I say but judge the facts for yourselves..

russpw100 said

  • 0 recommendations

Yes, I agree with Johnny5 - Too many people have a vested interest in seeing prices fall further (to take advantage themselves) and we should IGNORE their biassed and one-sided views

time2go said

  • 0 recommendations

One reason why repossessions are down is that their is little or no equity left. The Banks view must be don't repossess now because we won't make any money, certainly not to give the borrower slack. When the number of repossessions begin to increase so will the number of properties on the market. This I am sure will encourage both first time buyers and investors.

Fundamentally there was a shortage in housing before the crash, following which fewer developers commenced new projects. So unless people are 'vanishing' in one way or another it suggests (without a detailed statistical analysis) that the shortage in housing must have increased.

Banks will lower the LTV as competition for business increases and they become competitive rather than work as a Cartel. The only other factor that needs to move in the right direction is employment... if confidence in the housing market is improving, unemployment figures will surely drop? The problem was not necessarily just inflated house prices but the way the banks were lending money. They did not consider affordability of repayments lets hope they learnt their lesson.

  • 0 recommendations

If anyone could ACCURATELY predict where the housing market is going would be a miracle, given the many factors to take into consideration! We have some classic forces at work on supply and demand:

Supply: Much reduced new building, limited land availability, limited mortgages & funding for building, over inflated pricing

Demand: Reduced Buy to Let demand, unpredictable employment prospects, increases in future mortgage interest rates.

Given the above my best guess would be the price trend has yet to bottom out, but given the completely screwed nature of the British housing market anything could happen.

I personally predicted a 25-35% drop some 3 years ago as I considered houses over valued and I see no reason to change that prediction now.

By the way, I dont play in the game anyway, as I have no mortgage and havnt moved house in 21 years!

debtwagon said

  • 0 recommendations

I agree that maitri and nickpike are obviously desperate to see the housing market fall to the bottom of the pit but I just wish that they'd be honest about why they want that to happen.  Are they anti-capitalists in favour of a nationalised housing stock and cheap rent for all - or do they want to talk the market down in order to pick up cheap investments and make a killing?  Come clean, guys, let's hear a little bit about your particular situations and the basis for your viewpoints.

However, Johnny5, you reckon we have a "love affair with property".  Only because UK rents are as expensive as mortgages and so, if at all possible, one is going to take out a mortgage and at least then own a bit of what you're living in rather than pay the landlord's mortgage for him.  I for one would be quite happy with a more "European" arrangement, where I paid a low rent for life to live in a decent place.  Our economy would be much more adaptable and responsive if it weren't entwined with the property market.  If the govt were to write to me "compulsory purchase, please find enclosed cheque for £250,000, your rental payment will be £50 a week from now on", I'd be tempted.

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

Christina you really should read Neil Faulkner's excellent article on the subject:

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/the-property-ladder/property-market-is-back-to-normal-3795.aspx

The property market has now returned to normality after a year or so when a massive demand shock, caused by a rapid change in the supply of mortgages, forced it down. With that demand shock now having been absorbed by the system in the form of a similarly massive fall in supply (half as many transactions as last year), the market has begun behaving normally again. And what's a normal market? It's one you can't predict - V, W, U or L, no one will know until after it's occured. Just look at Nationwide and RICS - predictions of 15% falls have already been drastically altered at the halfway point of the year!

And I think you need to change your last sentence - as with any predictions, no one's opinion is 'valid', they are all guesses at various levels of education. I think all they serve to do is to make people who agree with your predictions feel better, ain't that right Maitri and nickpike? ;)

bimber said

  • 0 recommendations

Why is it that some people think that those who THINK the market will do gown WANT it to go down. They may have positioned themselves to benefit from their foresight but it's not really the same thing. If someone does not think that free, limitless energy is possible then is it right to conclude that they are a "doomster" or have a financial gain from expensive energy? No, of course not. So let's assume opinions are just opinions unless evidence tells us otherwise. Argue with the opinion, not with the (wo)man.

Johnny5, you mention "rubbish from people with a one sided argument and hidden agenda." You've been one-sided whilst the housing market slid all the way down, so just to clear things up, have you sold your house yet? I can't remember under which of your user names you mentioned that you were trying to sell, but I don't recall you saying whether you'd been successful. I've asked a few times now, I hope you're not hiding anything.

cranky said

  • 3 recommendations

The only people who want property prices to increase are horrible greedy people... why dont you get a life and get a proper job. Let those who want to live normal lives get a decent house and get on with their lives. Why cant the average salary provide a family home without the home maker having to work too, and then have to dump the children in care! It's a sh** it's why society is so bad in this part of the world.

kstein said

  • 2 recommendations

I agree with cranky. Its also these morons who mess up the prices trying to make a quick buck. Its the ones who see it as an "investment" who keeps the prices too high

oldhenry said

  • 1 recommendation

Good houses in the right place will sell, and always have, although maybe a realistic price. What won't sell is the rabbit hutches built by the main builders in awful places with no amenties. Also teh awful twn centres 'apartmnets ', AKA shoeboxes.

The houses prices are still too high compared to incomes, that is the key 0 affordability. Forget the few who have so much money that they can pay £8m in Chelsea. Th eagents latch onto these as a sign of revival, rubbish.

Get the priceses down to a real affordable level, that can be done by the mortage lenders retricting loans to a 80% of value, and beinghard on valuations.

They aren't making land anymore, the population is crazy, so demand will always be there in England( maybe not Britain) ,but I still think that until unemployment falls( it is still rising) there can be no proper recovery.

The current hot air from Agents is sheer desperation , I loathe Estate Agents and blame them for the recession- in cohorts with banks of course.

NZJenn said

  • 0 recommendations

We had our house valued in 2007 before we left the UK, and again three weeks ago, and what do you know... both lots of valuations were basically exactly the same. 

I love that these people spouting fantasies about what the future will bring are called "experts".  These "experts" have been banging on about house prices crashing since I arrived in the UK in June 2002, yet it took until 2008 for that to happen and not for any of the reasons that they had stated.

All these so called "experts" dispense nothing more than conjecture, and at the end of the day are about as believeable as astrologists, they both get it right with the same amount of frequency.  Expert tell me my house isn't worth what it was and my horoscope tells me that I will have issues with my colleagues.  Reality tells me that my house hasn't dropped in value and is worth over 60K more than we paid for it 5 years ago and I am self employed.  Good old experts, eh?!

This obsession with house prices and ownership is bordering on the ridiculous.  I'd happily sell our house and rent for the rest of my life.  We are living in rented property abroad and I am loving it, no responsibility, no hassle of fixing anything (that's what landlords are for) and nothing tying you to a place if your circumstances change and you need to move to another area or country. 

Sadly my husband doesn't want to sell our UK home, but then he's British and obessed with owning property too.  I'm hoping to find a cure for that sooner rather than later... the obsession that is, not him being British ;o)

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

In an ideal world the government would tax all these people with multiple properties out of market, but I guess they'd be shooting themselves and their mates!  Ok it's not an ideal world and people are going to be greedy it's human nature, but at least let the greedy ones suffer and stop bailing them out! They pretend they're hard business people and soooo clever with their portfolios of property but when it comes to the crunch they all run like crying little babies for a QE bailout... not so tough then! Stop treating people's homes as stock, there's no need you can use gold, coal etc for your little games! and remember it's not even real the state controls everything anyway...

Sparkyb said

  • 0 recommendations

As always there are mixed opinions. I believe that the "longing for housing to boom again" is driven by people wanting to make money from it. This includes DIY stores, television, builders, electricians, mortage companies and the rest. For my money, I want a nice home in an area where my son can attend a good school, where I can feel settled.

Two years ago, people were asking very silly prices for houses. So I welcome the down-turn, and hope the re-growth will be slow and steady. I also hope a lot of  "get rich quick" junkies got their fingers burned with property and move on to other markets.

We sold our house 6 months ago with a 18% drop from peak. One very noticable feature of the current housing market is that there are very few houses out there to buy.We have just bought a house which needs quite a lot of work. We plan to do the work over the next few years, as funds come available (rather than dumping it all on credit and moving on when it's complete).

My interest in the housing market is selfish. I don't want to loose my shirt, and I want somewhere to call home. As for making a fast buck, I'm 43. I have long since realised that investments (or betting if you view it that way) that rely on you predicting a change, are best left to gambling adicts. I have gone for tax efficient ISAs and Unit trusts. I may never be rich at someone elses' misfortune. But I hope to be fomfortable and able to enjoy life rather than lying awake at night worrying about the latest economic forcasts. 

SiGl26 said

  • 0 recommendations

Volume, volume, volume...  Prices are creeping up because sellers are holding out for recovery, buyers are taking advantage of (relatively) low interest rates, so tiny demand is outstripping even tinier supply. If the recession is W, there's a lot more unemployment to come, more distressed sellers, more realism on the supply side.  BUT social pressure on the banks not to foreclose on those in genuine distress (after all, they have to live somewhere, so why not where they chose, on a payment holiday to be recovered when things pick up?) is also higher than in the past.

Personal view is that it has not bottomed yet, but it's a 'dead cat bounce'; even a dead cat is unlikely to end up further down than where it started its bounce :)  So wait a while for the next dip, then get into the market.

But what do I know?  I bought in Aberdeen in '82 (oil peak), escaped at par in '87 (oil trough) and bought in SE in '89 (just about peak...).  but I needed a HOME where I was WORKING, which is really the only proper driver for most people

  • 0 recommendations

I am new to this forum but my comments are as follows in relation to this topic:

There are 3 basic property markets, commercial, residential and buy to let.

commercial property is struggling with the economic downturn in terms of viable rent covenants from tenants, added to the rate changes for empty property this sector will continue to struggle as supply outstrips demand and price pressure is downward due to the tax liability if the property stands empty.

Good for a tenant to negotiate downward bad for a landlord looking for the best investment yield. ( I am not commenting from either perspective just observing the market)

Residential property is in 2 basic categories home to live and buy to let.

Homes to live has some challanges still regarding price due to a mixture of personal and funding circumstances.  The motivations of a seller are many and price is largly dictated by this if you want to upsize then selling quickly may be an issue for your existing property at current rates in order to avoid bridging finance or such like so a needs based determination on price will come into effect ( not a wider economy issue directly but clearly influenced in the wider sense)  If you want to downsize again speed of transaction and the reasons will determin ( need for equity release to pay for elderly care, balancing monthly outgoings by reducing property costs etc).

Unemployment rising will clearly have an impact on those looking to balance household budgets and as interest rates go up then more people will be dragged into the needs based reason to sell rather than lifestyle choice.  No economist can currently predict a systematic rise in house prices until both unemployment is forecastable and interest rates predictable.

One major thing to think about the level of govenment debt can be managed unlike the pessimists predict but the options are not pretty ( the most ugly is for the country to go on a war footing and war bonds issued against savings- this is draconinan and unlikely but still an option to an absolute crisis) if we avoid focussing on armegeddon as a financial solution then the most likely tool is inflation. If inflation can be " controlled" at around 10-12% then over 2 terms of parliment the current debt crisis can be written off. Clearly there are wider implications of this which I dont want to debate.

Buy to let market prices however are in the main going to struggle for a while ( there will be local supply shortages that will buck the trends but in the main it will struggle)

Too many people subsidised income yeilds against the equity increase and are now struggling, balance that against the ability to refinance with the real cost of borrowing ( base plus X%) then factor in the extremely cautious instructions that banks panel valuers have been given the money flow is restricted. Therefore a lot of buy to let properties are and will keep coming to market. The pressure is downwards not upwards.

Once prices reach a level with income yeilds then we will hit the bottom. Once there then prices can build as banks and valuers will start to factor into their lend criteria the stabilistaion of the market and lend a bit more than current ratios.

Have we reached the bottom yet:

Commercial-No

residential to live in-for those who can afford their outgoings yes for those that cant no

Buy to let - depends on where you live and the base price of the property against income yeild.

But thats only my opinion

creative said

  • 0 recommendations

Christina - house prices may change either way. My preference 'the finger in the wind' method of determining prices seems as accurate as the many economists who speculate for their own profit.

One thing that doesn't change is English grammar, you write........

'And, while probability dictates that some of them will call the crash and the recovery correctly, there will be many more experts who get their predictions completely and utterly wrong..'.

Please note, 'And' is a joining word and should not be used to start a sentence, also it does not require a comma to be placed after it. 6 on 10 for the article but 3 on 10 for punctuation!

  • 0 recommendations

Some people just don't get it and I suppose they never will, especially in a country where house prices going up 10-20% a year seems to be considered normal, the expectation is that the gravy train will continue forever because of the Brits love for property.  This really is a nonsense as everything depends on funding - full stop.  The banks relaxed their lending criteria to such an extent that by 2007, 45% of the loans given were of the "no income" check variety.  Even the FSA finally had to admit that given the increase in fraud in the market that this was dangerous.

So, where do we stand today?  According to the Nationwide, prices have been going back up for the last 4 months, 1.4% this month and this is presented as green shoot, good news.  The fact that without loose lending and being able to fiddle your income on a mortgage application, sales are now massively down, seems to be conveniently overlooked by the housing market bulls. 

Most people will not be able to put together a deposit of up to 25% at current price levels.

Most people do not earn enough to afford to buy at current price levels now that self cert mortgages have mostly been removed from the market.

These price levels were achieved by greedy banks turning a blind eye to loose lending and self-cert fraud.  They finally woke up in 2007 when everything hit the fan big time. 

People need to wake up and smell the coffee, house prices can remain artificially high and continue to go up only on lower sales numbers than the boom years of loose lending.  In fact, I would argue that if we suddenly went back up to mortgage approval levels of 100-120,000 per month, then it can only be happening because the banks have returned to the bad old, loose lending, self-cert fraud days.  If that happens, enjoy the next bubble while it lasts, because the UK economy will eventually be destroyed by it.

ckm4328 said

  • 0 recommendations

I don't really see how those who predict big price falls expect this to happen.

For example I bought my flat with 100% mortgage and have very little equity at current prices. Despite this I need somewhere to live so I am not going to sell my flat. Big restriction on supply.

So what am I going to do now, get permission to let my flat and rent a bigger house and pay someone else's mortgage.

In order for big house price falls people like me would need to sell their flat/house and take a loss. I'm not going to do that and nor is anyone else I know in a similar position.

So to get these big house price drops you need to rely on mass repossessions. Are the banks going to make these repossessions. Of course not, they are under too much pressure from the government not to and they know if they hold off and continue the restriction in supply confidence will return.

In my current job I deal with Administration of Estates and a very high proportion of my clients are choosing to rent the deceased's property long term rather than take a loss on the house sale.

I'm not saying we'll return to big rises in house prices just that we will have a long term stagnation.

Predicting a 25%+ drop in house prices in unrealistic. I won't sell at that level and nor will anyone else.

debtwagon said

  • 0 recommendations

Yes, creative, "and" is a joining word but it's a little bit rich to criticise Christina on that one.  Many journalists writing for the quality press do the same thing (and they do it with "but" too).  There are far worse grammar howlers to be found in many of the contributions on these threads, including some of the above, such as Sparkyb's "I don't want to loose my shirt".  I wonder whether he meant "loosen" or "lose"? [Yes, that question mark's not strictly correct but seems to work better than a full-stop!]

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

CKM4328, people will sell when they have to join the rising unemployment queue and cant afford the repayments! Banks will call in the loans because they can...  I think the government has helped about 5 people so far who couldn't pay, the other thousands have lost their homes...

ckm4328 said

  • 0 recommendations

I might be wrong CRANKY but I just don't see your reality. I have seen very few repossessions where I live.

Unemployment has been a bit higher but using my firm as an example we made some redundancies at the start of the year and have now just hired 3 new people. This is also the case with our competitors in the area.

What level of unemployent do you think we need to reach to see these massive drops in house prices?

Where are all these people going to live who have had their homes repossessed? People have to live somewhere be it rented property or council houses there is not enough housing for the population.

I'm afraid without an increase in the supply of housing you will never see the affordable housing you obviously crave. This isn't the fault of greedy buy-to-let investors because people have to live in the houses they own. It is the fault of a short sighted government who have failed to ensure suffcient housing for the population.

Buy-to-let investors have just taken advantage of a commodity in limited supply just how market forces are suppose to work.

kstein said

  • 0 recommendations

"I have seen very few repossessions where I live"............"using my firm as an example"

You have your own business, therefore would be fairly well off living in a well off area im guessing? No surprise you havent seen much repossessions in your area.... ;)

cranky said

  • 1 recommendation

Ckm,

Im not saying what I think will happen, I'm merely stating what should happen. As the rules can be changed daily by the government there's no telling where it will go.

Market forces are great to balance things out and bring about a natural end to the greed, but bail outs from the government just keep it going.

As for market forces, the demand soon fell off when the prices crashed as there's now about half the trading there was before. So this demand is all investment driven and not a shortage of houses. There are millions of unoccupied properties in the country.

Unemployment is heading to 3 million which is not addressed by your 3 hires! So I would say just like in all the past recessions house prices will fall and not rise until employment gets better. The banks can only move interest rates in one direction now, and I very much doubt all these unemployed or about to be unemployed people will be clambering to borrow money. Until you can take away all the simulous packages and put the rates back to normal you cant say we have a growth market. Any 'green shoots' from this artifical position will be snuffed out immediately.

time2go said

  • 0 recommendations

sparkyb, I think you have the right outlook.

I would love to think like you do, my concern is what will happen when I stop working (retirement or ill health). Just look at the way many pensioners are treated today.

If I need nursing care the government will take all my assets to pay for Local Authority care. Having first hand experience of the type of care some local authorities provide, I will do anything to avoid being reliant on the government for this in the future. Tax efficient ISA's and Unit Trusts sound like a perfect plan, but who knows when a future government decides to change the rules because it needs more revenue (They have slowly eroded away at the level of tax benefits of pensions over the years and now they need as much revenue as they can get).

Only time will tell if the 'buy to let' brigade are trying to 'get rich quick' as you say or they are savvy long term investors.

ckm4328 said

  • 0 recommendations

@Kstein - I use the phrase my firm meaning the one I work for and unfortunately I don't live in a particularly good are, although it is in the south.

I currenty live in Eastleigh which is a town near Southampton and certainly not an upmarket address. My one bedroom flat I share with my wife was recently valued at £100,000 well below the national average and my wife recently lost her job.

Despite this we can still service our mortgage quite happily.

@Cranky - Where are all the unoccupied properties. The population is growing by 0.7% each year that's 408,000 in 2008. Are there 204,000 homes being built per year? 

There is a shortage of supply and the government bailouts are necessary as there would be no way to cope with the vast number of council houses that would be necessary with mass repossessions.

Don't get me wrong I would love to see low house prices. A 25%+ drop would allow me to buy a house and start a family rather than renting one. I just don't see it happening.

bimber said

  • 0 recommendations

ckm4328, there are 3 empty homes in a row opposite mine. There are 787901 others according to http://www.emptyhomes.com/ and not all are in the same state as those in the picture on their homepage. It is credit, not houses, which is in short supply.

How would the government cope with housing people when their house is reposessed? Well they won't necessarily manage it - people could be forced to move in with friends and family - but they could buy the reposessed homes and rent them to the people who couldn't afford them.

debtwagon said

  • 0 recommendations

Well, wouldn't it be better if the Govt. bought them a bit sooner, prevented the repossession in the first place, then rented it back to the incumbents?

delinear said

  • 0 recommendations

Debtwagon and Creative: while most people's English teachers probably drummed into them the rule that you can't start a sentence with a conjunction, it was a purely arbitrary rule in the first place and one which has relaxed in modern usage.

The rule should be that the conjunction must join two ideas, in which case the placement of the period before the conjunction, while often resulting in a halting sentence structure (sometimes intentionally), is not strictly grammatically incorrect. It's merely a convention, and it's worth noting that some of the greatest writers frequently break with convention and use language creatively.

It's perhaps a little unfair to criticise the entire article on one point of contested grammatical usage....

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

Double Dip it is then, (or as many as it takes) to get it into people's heads that we should work for a living and produce something. You cant all get rich off buying and selling houses! The country as a whole just gets poorer. We need more scientists, engineers people who can add value not people who can add magnolia paint and beige carpets to a house and think they deserve to be millionaires...  Property values are at unsustainable levels until they reach 3.5 times income mortgage levels, that's why nobody is buying houses right now.

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

Wow cranky you really are, well, cranky! Sadly, as has been pointed out above, BTL has very little to do with the recent boom - BTL still makes up just 11.5% of the total mortgage market, making it an even smaller fraction of the overall property market given that total mortgage lending is only 25% of total property values in the UK.

You also fail to understand that the vast majority of BTL landlords (me included) do work for a living and produce something. I'm a writer who bought a property a few years ago, rennovated it with more than just magnolia walls and lived in it. When it came to be time to move on I kept it and rented it out. Not because I think it'll make me a millionaire, because there is a demand for rented property and it makes a good investment. You can say I'm bad person for this if you want, but my tenants (who are all students and so have no need or desire to buy a house for a few years yet!) say I'm the best landlord they've ever had.

Oh, and people are buying houses right now - 38,000 in July. Why? Because they want somewhere to live and houses are in short supply. They'd rather buy somewhere now than sit and whinge about it until the next boom starts and they're left behind again. It may not be right, it may not be fair, but until the supply situation is sorted out it's how the UK property market works.

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

Double dip.  Write that in your next book! Why sadly? Do you wish it was the BTL causing the bubble?!  Well it is partly, it's nothing to do with percentages (although that's a fair wack anyway!) it's the concept of property being an investment rather than a home. It's people making money out of BTL and prime time TV programs banging on about it every night! It's pretty much the conversation of every person in this country. The 38,000 people I agree want somewhere to live funny how it was double that figure pre-crash... Has the population halved? No, SO THERE WAS A BUBBLE AND NOW IT'S BURSTING (first dip over). Now because the economy is DEAD we will see another dip... and so on and so on until employment goes up and the Bank can afford to charge interest again.. They are giving away free money right now of course there are some fools that think we're recovering, just wait until reality kicks in! 

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

Oh and I'm glad you're a good landlord, cos you'll be doing it for love not money now.   Hahhaha

gavinb31 said

  • 0 recommendations

Lots of people claiming to know the value of their houses...

Really? Who told you - an estate agent?  Only when it's SOLD, with the cash in your bank - will you really know!

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

cranky, please accept my apologies. I thought you were a reasonable person who might want to debate something. Obviously not, you just want to be rude and shout. My mistake, I'll stop wasting my time with you and leave you to your bitterness.

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

Apology accepted. There's no bitterness here just looking at the facts and watching BTLs get what they deserve.  I own a great house with no mortgage who's bitter?! and when the market crashes I can move up the chain as I've not been greedy. All the best with those tenants and the maintenance.

mjsmokey said

  • 0 recommendations

Well bottoming out or not some people like myself are in a no win situation. Having scrimped and saved I managed to buy my current house some 4 years ago. Now I have an opportunity to get a promotion, but this involves moving. Unfortunately due to house prices falling I'm unlikely to get a return, never mind a decent one, on my investment, wouldn't have a deposit on a new house, don't really want to sell at a loss or with no gain and therefore can't accept a promotion...great world we live in....and yes I know that there are people out there with no jobs and so I should be glad of work never mind a promotion, but if someone is offering you something you've worked for and you can't accept it because economics won't allow you to...how pathetic!

time2go said

  • 0 recommendations

cranky - Are you suggesting that there should be no BTL landlords?

Would this step really bring down house prices to affordable levels?

If that's the case then may be Mr Brown's next step should be to make BTL illegal. This would sort out the current crisis (and allow you to move up the housing ladder despite already living in a 'great house with no mortgage')

I would guess that most BTL landlords are trying to take steps to manage their financial future as best they can. You may think this is greedy, but for many this option is still required. Local Authorities have sold most of their housing stocks, yet they still have an obligation to house those with limited financial means. There are long waiting lists for Housing Association properties (or any left over local authority homes). Most urban local authorities rely on private landlords to enable them to fulfill their housing obligations. Like it or not BTL investors are required to fill the gap that the Government / Local Authority has let develop.

Personally, I would not want someone to suffer (or as you put it 'get what they deserve') just because they are trying to achiev.e something by investing their hard earned money. It is possible if not probable that some may even think that those waiting for the market to crash so they can move into a bigger house is also a greedy trait. POT KETTLE BLACK 

nickpike said

  • 0 recommendations

To answer those who were interested. I new the bubble would burst so sold my house, and will buy back in when prices have bottomed, which won't be for about another 3 years or so.

I've lived through bubble pops before, but this time things will be worse.

The optimists here should look at the wider picture. Economies are screwed.

The housing market will be taken down just like everything else. I'm still sticking to my 50% plus reductions from peak predictions. We have 0.5% interest rates, yet the maket could only really sustain some stablisation.

The government are borrowing unprecidented amounts and the QE amounts are huge. Some time soon this will grind to a halt and interest rates will have to increase. If the market can only stabalise now, it'll be off a cliff when the facts I mention kick-in.

Lending is up, yet total amounts borrowed is still reduced, and these are at levels trundling along the bottom.

I don't understand why people want houses to be so expensive. Any other thing we buy, we all want to be as cheap as possible. Houses got so expensive that they hoovered up the counrty's wealth and locked it into bricks and mortar, then the economy collpsed. If houses were as cheap as possible, think of the extra disposable income availble for a better quality of life, and more wealth flowing provides further investment and jobs. Compare prices with places like the USA, France and Germany. They all like to own property, and probably have just as much of a love affair as ourselves.

Paople who just want expensive houses are fools, or have a vested interest, who just want to sponge off the poor devils taking all the risk for 25 years.

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

nickpike, I think you're only looking at half the picture.

"I don't understand why people want houses to be so expensive. Any other thing we buy, we all want to be as cheap as possible."

Yes, but anything that we sell we want to be as expensive as possible, espceically if we have debt secured on it. With the high fees associated with buying and selling houses - 1-4% SDLT, £1,000 plus mortgage fees, 1-3% estate agent fees etc, anyone who buys a house needs it to go up in value if they are going to move to a larger house without saving loads for an extra deposit. As a result, very few people are willing to voluntarily sell a house for less than they bought it plus all the costs of moving, which creates a natural level of house price inflation - economists call it "sticky downward economics". When you add that to the shortage of homes in the UK, it creates an even stronger upward pressure, hence the average rise in prices has been around 8-9% per year since World War 2. The excess credit from 2001-2007 has pushed the market up too far, and now this excess credit has disappeared the market has fallen back sharply, but that doesn't change the long term nature of the UK housing market.

As for the "facts" you mention, "economies are screwed" is a very subjective statement. France, Japan and Germany are already out of recession, and the UK and US are predicted to join them by the end of the year. Recessions are a normal part of any economic cycle and are vital to ensure economies are working correctly in the long term - the fact we've just had a recession doesn't mean we're screwed. The market can only sustain stabilisation at the moment because the interest rate falls aren't having an effect on the mortgage market - most mortgages at reasonable LTVs (75%+) are still at or above the prices they were at two years ago. That's why they've had to use QE - interest rates have decoupled from the wider economy. Personal loans, business loans, credit cards and mortgages have all remained high regardless of what interest rates have done. The only ones that benefit are the banks. As a result, interest rates won't rise significantly again until they are recoupled to the wider economy, which will only happen when banks start to lend at close to LIBOR levels again. As a result, even if interest rates go back up to 5%+, that still won't have a big effect on most fixed rates, which are already at around 5% for all but those with a 40% deposit.

Ultimately, the only factor that you've mentioned that can effectively drive house prices down is if inflation becomes such an issue that interest rates have to go above 6 or 7% to fight it. That may well happen, but I wouldn't bet my house (lol) on it. Even the BofE with its teams of economists and reports and statistics can't predict inflation more than about three months ahead. I'd be interested to know what crystal ball you've got that lets you know that this 'pop' will be much worse than any others, particularly as the last one had interest rates at around 15%! Or is it just wishful thinking so you can buy your house back without making a loss overall?

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

Time2go, i take onboard your point about being greedy. Yes we're all greedy but it's how far some will go beyond others. Expecting to make money out of rising house prices is like wishing for young people not to be able to ever afford a house. Profiting out of a fall, while not nice for those genuine people who felt forced to stretch themselves LTV is only going to help everyone get on or moveup in the long run. The high LTVs will only lose a small deposit or those who got 100% deals nothing! (My concerns are for my children buying houses not me). I just wish like it's been said people didnt see things rising as a good thing, and they'd take the stockmarket out of the housing market. This could be achieved so easily using second property taxation. The only reason government wouldnt do that is sadly because it's the only industry this country has! Also because they're all doing it too, when they're not fip-flopping homes they're renting them out... They thought it was great until they realised it was a false economy propped up by a flawed system.  

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

Correction to my post: it's the only industry this country had!

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

Mjsmokey,  I appreciate your case is genuine. In your position I would rent your house out and sell when things finally recover. Not ideal I know, this is completely my point about property investing pushing up prices, creating a bubble and bursting. This should only happen to real stock not people's lives, there's no need for it.

  • 0 recommendations

I am baffled by the constant assertion that we have a shortage of homes in this country, hence the inevitable upward pressure on prices.  Perhaps in places like London that's true, but throughout Britain there are huge numbers of properties sitting unsold and unlet, often for months or even years.  Many of these are the poxy boxy little "luxury apartments" so beloved of BTL landlords in recent years and which you now don't seem to be able to shift for love nor money, largely because they appeal only to a very narrow category of tenant, but there are also plenty of good family homes sitting empty with For Sale or To Let signs outside.  We've just bought and are about to move, having negotiated a fairly good but not cutthroat deal as cash buyers.  There's every chance our new home will lose some value on paper in the immediate future, but that's irrelevant - it's a home, not an investment, and we intend to spend a good few years there, so the value is what we gain from it as a family, not as investors.  (The "value" of any asset is utterly meaningless until you find someone who's willing to pay you for it!)  As for our old home, it's on the market for 20% less than it was supposedly worth 2 years ago, which seems about right in the current climate and is still much more than we paid for it 13 years ago.  If it doesn't sell fairly quickly we'll probably let it to make it pay for itself, but I have no desire to do so in the longer term and don't think I could ever come to see one big lump of bricks and mortar as a sensible investment for a large proportion of my total wealth.  I see no realistic prospect of substantial capital growth from it for years to come, and judging from the experience of friends who use property to generate a lettings income, the net gain is not large considering the time and effort required to do the job properly.  I just can't see evidence of the so-called housing shortage, so I can't believe in property values continuing to appreciate because of high demand. I'd rather sell, take the cash, and actively manage it, spreading it between investments yielding a mix of capital growth and income.  No crazy bubble "profits", but hopefully no disasters either.

cranky said

  • 0 recommendations

I wouldn't worry about the house you've bought losing too much either hopefully you got 20% off the 2007 price even if it falls another 10% inflation will correct things in a few years, nice to hear not everyone sees property as a short term investment. Sure it's an investment for when we retire if we can downsize and have some nice holidays give the kids some money etc.. Let's just not allow houses to get out of control and stress people out.

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

LovelyLeeLoo yes, it does seem strange that there is a shortage when so many properties are empty. The problem is that for lots of these homes no one knows who the owner is, or the property is so dilapadated as to be practically uninhabitable. In these cases the owner is often unwilling to spend extra on fixing it up, and also unwilling to sell it at the low price needed to account for the poor state. Of course arguably the bigger problem is that house prices have risen so fast in recent years that many people simply don't want to rent out their investment properties as they are worried the tenants will damage them. So they keep them empty, which only increases the shortage of supply and increases upward pressure on house prices.

If you can't see evidence of the housing shortage, I suggest that you read the Barker Review of housing in the UK:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/barker_review_report_494.pdf

According to the economic and financial analysis in the review, the UK needs to build an additional 120,000 houses per year just to bring price inflation back to 1% above inflation. Of course that's based on the 125,000 houses completed in 2003 - recent estimates indicate that there will only be 87,000 new housing starts in the UK in 2009, so that's 160,000 less than the government predicts we need just to keep house price inflation under control.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/housebuildingq22009

Do you still believe there's no shortage?

Also, be careful when attempting to find investments that offer capital growth - all investments that are based on capital growth are vulnerable to bubbles. If you find an investment that looks like it will offer significant growth, chances are lots of other people have found the same investment and will pile into it, creating exactly the bubble you are trying to avoid. Like I said in an earlier post, recessions and bubbles are all part of free market capitalism - if you want the faster growth in the good times you have to take the adjustments in the bad.

  • 0 recommendations

Swarbs; yes, I'm aware that government policy is driven by information like the Shelter survey and statistics on household formation, and I suppose they have to go on the data they have.  I also fully accept that there are areas in the UK where demand has outstripped supply in recent years, leading to ludicrous local bidding wars of the type seen in London and the South-East.  But I still question whether, in the country as a whole, the statistics reflect the real situation, or whether they are being distorted by social changes in the way we live and the way we own and use property.  20 - maybe even 10 - years ago I'd have agreed wholeheartedly that there was a huge problem with technically empty properties which were nevertheless uninhabitable because of dilapidation or owner choice, and this distorted the true number of homes available.  But the property development and house price booms of recent years have made potential fix-up projects far thinner on the ground and brought thousands of buildings, rural and urban, back into use. I see relatively few empty wrecks these days - but lots and lots of new-build apartment blocks, freshly refurbished or converted older houses, flat conversions and the like, all standing forlornly empty with a forest of estate agents' boards outside them.  A decade or so ago you couldn't pick up a newspaper without reading about families jammed together miserably in single rooms in grotty B&B hotels because there was no social housing for them but not now - is there still a problem of that magnitude?  And if the problem's not so much one of not enough houses to go round, but rather that the existing housing stock is unavailable because speculators are holding onto it in the hopes of a profit, then surely legislation to make it more attractive to fill those empty buildings is the answer?  Yes, poor financial investment choices carry risk like everything else, but at least there is protection for savings and investments (to an extent anyway) if you pick wisely.  Owners of unsaleable buildings in negative equity are on their own.

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

LovelyLeeLoo, yes there most definitely is still a problem of that magnitude. I guess the only reason it's not being publicised at the moment is because it's been going on for so long that it's no longer news. In fact, if anything it's gotten worse with the UN condemning the state of housing in the country:

http://www.gmcvo.org.uk/?q=node/1478

Shelter saying social housing levels are at a fifty year low:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8142111.stm

And 130,000 children are currently in temporary housing due to the shortages:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Housing_shortage_has_left_130%2C000_children_homeless_-_Clegg&pPK=ba3f5bf3-dc7b-45d3-b998-67b55f8fc66f

The problem is a combination of not enough housing for the population (21 million properties and almost 25 million households) combined with a massive fall in the amount of social housing available: the number of social homes is down by 10% over the last ten years and waiting lists up 70%. The majority of the people on these waiting lists are housed in private rented accomodation - I have a family of four in a two bedroom flat that I rent out. So that's a flat that isn't available to buy or let, taking housing out of the private market and increasing the upward price pressure.

As for the empty homes, according to:

http://www.emptyhomes.com/whatwedo/campaign_agenda.html

there are currently 762,000 empty homes of which around half are long term empty (so around 380,000). That's only around 2% of the total housing stock, so probably not particularly noticable. Particularly because, if you read down to the bottom of that link, you find that around 100,000 of those are owned by the public sector! If you assume that around another 100,000 are owned by speculators who don't live in them, then less than 1% of homes in the UK are so dilapadated as to be unusable. I do totally agree with you that legislation is needed to bring these homes back to usefulness, but it's difficult to see how that could be achieved. The concept of the government telling someone what to do with a property they own is likely to provoke a lot of controversy and may not be all that effective. One of my relatives lives outside London and owns a second home there that he uses for business. Problem is, he's so rich that any tax penalties probably won't make a difference to his choice.

Regarding the investment choices, as far as I'm aware there is only really protection for savings. As long as you're not using leverage (i.e. debt), your downside risk is pretty much the same whatever you're investing in. Shares and bonds can be affected by bankruptcy and any other asset will tend to vary by at least as much as property. The only additonal risk with property comes if you borrow to fund your investment, when you run the same risks as if you borrow to buy shares, gold or anything else. But that's purely due to the leverage, not the nature of the investment.

Arthurian said

  • 0 recommendations

Swarbs [Above] is Right, I sold a 'Spare' house just on a year ago, the cash has since brought in £4,000-00 in interest after tax. There are NOW more unemployed, More in the 'Pipeline', the ONLY employment in prospect [Outside London & the Southeast is the Army [Bound for Afghanistan.]

The 'Payback' for the Government printing money 'Fiscal Easing' is scheduled to take place AFTER the Election, Things WILL then get far worse, Public Jobs [& Contracts] will go/be cancelled then on a larger scale, as will public sector efficiences impact employees in that sector.

Depending on interest levels then [2011/12/13] a larger number of Mortgage Defaults can be expected, CURRENTLY ONLY THE LOW LEVEL of Interest Rates have kept defaults on mortgages down, even a 5% to 6% rate will stretch/break many people.

How to 'Save Yourself' if you have a large mortgage?

Pay off ALL OTHER DEBTS ASAP [Especially Credit Cards] PAY THEM OFF, [Not move them about.] DO NOT INCUR further debt, then Reduce your mortgage with ANY spare cash. in five years things will improve a bit.

The ONLY Debt to incur at present is in getting a USEFUL degree or qualification that IMPROVES your earning/employment capacity, OR [for a rare few] in setting up a business of a very rare type that can grow in a recession. [Poundland, Debt Recovery, Salvage etc.]

Remember, it is better to be a 'Pessimist' [& Wrong] than overly 'Optimistic' [& get badly caught out'.]

As an 'Old Codger' who has survived several recessions I can vouch for that!

seonag said

  • 0 recommendations

There is no doubt the UK  property market is in a mess, fuelled by individuals' greed, the trend to own one's own house, the lack of sufficient suitable properties to suit the population, all driven by the need to have a roof over one's head.

Predicting the future has become a lottery.  One only has to look at the diverse views expressed here. 

However, I haven't noticed any posts which take global warming into account (apologies if i missed these posts).  Even ostriches with butts in the air have heard of global warming, whether it is factored in or not.

It is only a matter of time - and a very short time at that - before we lose land and properties on a huge scale to rises in sea levels.  This will be happening globally, not just in the UK, although being a small and already overcrowded island does not augur well for us.  These changes will also happen far quicker than governments can legislate for, although for governments I am tempted to type ostriches, as they have long been aware of this situation yet seem not to be taking the essential steps to prevent it.  The same can be said for many individuals.

How will THIS affect the housing market?  I wouldn't bother about making any predictions as to values.  There will be millions of deparate people taking their own desparate measure to survive as society as we know it breaks down. 

Short terms views, i.e. 2 - 5 or even 10 years are quite pointless when one considers the bigger picture.

Of course, I do appreciate that each individual has to consider their current housing needs but ignoring global warming and other environmental problems is not the answer.  The cost/value of property will be the least of our worries in a few year's time.

  • 0 recommendations

Swarbs

Oh, and people are buying houses right now - 38,000 in July. Why?

Because they want somewhere to live and houses are in short supply.

They'd rather buy somewhere now than sit and whinge about it until the

next boom starts and they're left behind again. It may not be right, it

may not be fair, but until the supply situation is sorted out it's how

the UK property market works.

------------------------------

Swarbs, that's a bit of a joke right?  I'm impressed by all of the facts given in response to this article, but why is it that no one wants to discuss how the market is actually funded and the dark, dirty, secrets behind the boom which led to the financial and economic crisis that we face today?

Yes, 38,000 did buy in July, but compared to what a few years ago?  100,000+ every month? 100 - 120,000 mortgage approvals every month compared to approximately 40,000 now?  Why is this?  Of course, a number of mortgage providers have been lost to the market, but the banks are not lending now in the same way as 2007 for one simple reason.  They know that fraud was one of the main drivers of the market up to 2007 and I can guarantee you one thing, that when you reach a state of 45% of mortgages being of the no income check type on the back of record mortgage lending and a record level of prices being achieved, you do not need to be a genius to figure out what is going on.  It is one massive ponzi scheme that encouraged moral hazard.  Amazingly it still does, as one bank reported recently that self-cert fraud was on the rise again, because of the difficulty people were facing with getting mortgage funding.

The real problem here is that the true level of fraud has been covered up and this has been the case ever since the BBC first exposed the self-cert fraud problem back in 2002.  There can be little doubt however, that this fraud and the willingness of the banks to loose lend prior to 2007 was a major driver of prices and allowed the market to keep going up.  It is my assertion therefore, that while you can discuss the fundamentals of property shortages (or not), population explosion (or not), not building land anymore, etc, etc, the real driver, as always, is the availability of credit and the willingness of banks to finance the market.  However, they are now shellshocked and we now have a lending market where the banks are trying to recover from having their fingers burnt and they probably don't even know the level of the potential problems to come from the loose lending years.  Do they know the true extent of fraud from the tens of thousands of no income check mortgages they gave since 2000 (at least)?  We can only guess, because this is pretty much a closed book for public discussion.

None of this means that house prices will inevitably fall, but there is one thing which I can predict with 100% certainty.  We are not going back to 100-120,000 mortgages/sales a month anytime soon, unless the banks go back to loose lending, encouraging moral hazard and fraud again.  If this happens, then the systemic risk next time is not worth thinking about, because I doubt whther there will be an answer.

So, where is the next "boom" you talk of coming from?  One that is happening on 30,000 sales a month?  Yes, I can see that, because these are the people that can afford it, but then the market will be an elitist enterprise which most will never be able to afford to buy and most will never be able to sell into, because of the fiction of maintaining price levels achieved during the loose lending and fraud years and now based on low sales.  

Is it surprising that housing market VI's and bulls do not want to talk about this, but prefer to keep on about prices bottoming out and the green shoots of recovery?  I think not.

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

SevenPillars, I believe we've discussed this before in depth, and my opinions haven't changed. Your figure of 45% of mortgages being carried out without income checks sounds impressive, but doesn't support any claim of widespread mortgage fraud in the UK market. The highest figure I could find for the total value of the fraud is £700 million:

http://www.glitec.co.uk/2008/04/mortgage-fraud-levels-up-to-700-million-a-year/

Whilst this may sound impressively large, when you consider that in 2008 the total gross mortgage lending was over £260 billion, mortgage fraud only makes up around 0.3% of the total value of the market. That's much less than the total level of arrears, so I fail to see how it can be a major factor in driving the market down.

You are completely right that the main driver for the market is the availability of credit, and I agree that cracking down hard on self cert would greatly reduce the amount of credit. But I don't think that would necessarily reduce prices. Instead, as is happening at the moment, I think it would just push transaction levels down even lower, as people would still be unwilling to sell their properties for less. In addition, given that the government is committed to increasing lending levels, I don't think they'll act to take away such a massive slice of credit until the economy and the property market have shown much more than green shoots of recovery.

Also, I disagree that loose lending practices were the main driver for the boom. The main driver was the massive amounts of money that flowed into the UK from wholesale funding markets, and the competition amongst banks to get some of this money and lend it out cheaply. Self cert was only one of the ways they used to attract customers, along with 100%+ mortgages and the use of 'affordability' rather than salary multiples. The main problem is that liquidity has gone, and no one knows what level it will come back to. As you've rightly stated, we won't get another boom to match the last few years without a similar massive flow of liquidity from somewhere. But that still doesn't mean that we won't get what we've seen over the last few months: above inflation growth in prices with low transaction levels because there's more demand for properties and mortgages than there is a supply of mortgages to go around. So only the most well off people can get mortgages, and hence bid the less well off people out of the market. Oh, and I never said there would be another boom - especially not in the short term. I just think that in the long term all the important figures point to above inflation price rises. Whether that happens in the form of more boom and bust or steady growth is anybody's guess...

  • 0 recommendations

Swarbs, yes this has been discussed before, but I do think that the question of loose lending and mortgage fraud has been under-estimated and downplayed too much, in that the ongoing debate about house prices still seems to revolve around the traditional arguments of fundamentals like shortage of property, population growth, the Brits obsession with property, etc. The problem that I have with this is that the crucial issue of how lending was relaxed and now isn't, appears to be presented as a side issue, when actually it is essential to the whole market. We now see a more regulated market, with banks less willing to offer more generous mortgages (i.e. 5x salary+), which may be considered loose lending, as well as the death of self-cert.  Thus if you are bullish on the market it is no good to simply say as some do that a shortage of property coupled with population growth will drive it forward.  It won't if the banks don't fund it.

On the question of fraud in the market, I would argue that the fact that it is so difficult to get to the truth of this does not support the argument that it is small scale at all.  In fact, the opposite.  The 45% figure of no income checks came from the FSA.  In 2002, the BBC Money Programme came to the conclusion that mortgage fraud was widespread even then.  The article that you posted shows that the police looked to set up a "specialist unit" only in 2008.  I would say that the very fact that house prices continued to go up 10-20% per year and self-cert become more popular after 2002, speaks for itself.  Are we to believe in the honesty of human nature here?  Therefore, I think that the 0.3% figure for mortgage fraud is a fiction, but given that the banks are keeping these details largely to themselves and obviously, they are not going to go back over their self-cert books and check every mortgage given over the last 10 years, the chances are we will never know.  However, the reason why this is important to the mortgage market, is that banks are unlikely to repeat the same mistake again, at least not for a decade or so, or until they can say "it's different this time". 

As for loose lending, I would say that your final paragraph actually supports my argument that the banks practices were loose and relaxed, certainly compared to the way traditional mortgages were given in the past.  Now, for some, offering 5x+ salary mortgages without income checks may not be considered "loose", but required because of the market conditions of recent years and how the definition of affordability had changed.  Well, I would say that is fine, the banks should be allowed to do this if they wish. However, I would also say that when they get in trouble because of it, they should get no taxpayer help.  Let them go under, they know where they stand. I would protect the savers and that's it.  The banks deserved everything they had coming to them, but the Government and BoE would not allow the free market to bring them to book. They made it very clear that systemic risk outweighed moral hazard, so I think we all know where we stand.  This is almost like giving a green light to the fraudsters out there at the expense of those of who are honest. Heaven forbid that we allow the free market to work, especially when it means house prices falling, we can't allow that can we?

So now we have this silly situation where powerful VI's are trying to keep prices at levels reached during a period of relaxed or no regulation, of loose or more relaxed lending and a level of fraud that we have no way of really knowing the truth about, although the lenders themselves have now gone back to funding the market in a more tradtional, regulated way. How is that supposed to work accept for a minority of well healed earners with big deposits?

As for the next boom, I think you did mention this in the paragraph that I quoted.  My only question here is that for anyone who believes there will be another boom you really do have to account for how it will be financed. I did not actually say that prices would fall, but I agree with you that they could go up on lower sales. However, I wouldn't want to be a seller in this market, you could end up waiting years to get a buyer at current price levels. 

  • 0 recommendations

The latest mortgage fraud estimates reported below.

Huge increase in mortgage fraud, report police.

Sunday 30 August 2009

This is just the tip of the iceberg, as the mortgage lenders haven't really got around to investigating it yet.

Estimate, £1billion domestic, £5billion, commercial.

This I suspect doesn't even include the little innocent fiddles of exaggerated income levels on many self-cert loans given over the last 10 years.  Most of the investigations to date seem to have concentrated on criminal gangs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/30/mortgage-fraud-increase

And dodgy brokers and landlords.

Mortgage fraud: How lenders have been caught out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6066663/Mortgage-fraud-how-lenders-have-been-caught-out.html

I expect much more to come out in due course, once the investigation moves beyond the tip of the iceberg. Does anyone else get the impression that the UK housing market is a little like the Titanic right now?

  • 0 recommendations

The next boom will be financed by Asia. China will be the dominant country this century and until they get state pensions/job seekers etc., their citizens will need to save somewhere.

Swarbs said

  • 0 recommendations

SevenPillars, I'm still unconvinced by how much of a problem any fraudulent mortgages may be. Taking out a fraudulent mortgage isn't like a Ponzi scheme or other fraud - you have to make the interest payments every month or risk repossession. So even if people have exaggerated their income, they most likely won't have done it to such an extent that they are completely unable to afford the mortgage. I know that's a big assumption, but it just seems common sense that people won't risk losing their home and all their possessions and facing bankruptcy by massively overstretching themselves. And I think that's borne out by your figure of £1 billion: that's still only half a percent of the total gross mortgage lending per annum. Like I said before, I think the whole self cert thing is just one facet of the excess global liquidity that fuelled the boom - that liquidity is gone because of the 20%+ losses made on US sub prime, not because of the 0.5% loss made on self cert mortgages in the UK.

You say: However, the reason why this is important to the mortgage market, is

that banks are unlikely to repeat the same mistake again, at least not

for a decade or so, or until they can say "it's different this time".

But you already mentioned that some banks have begun reintroducing self cert mortgages - in the current market they make at least 3% profit on their loans with LIBOR at 0.7%, so I think they aren't too concerned about the potential for 0.5% of their loans being fraudulent. Time will tell if this turns out to be a major issue on the scale of the sub prime mortgage fraud, but it nothing I've seen so far implies that it will be.

The whole systemic risk vs moral hazard thing has been done so many times - the government will always come down on the side of avoiding systemic risks regardless of moral hazard. They did it with the New Deal in 1929, Japan in the 1980s, the dot com boom in 2001 and they'll continue doing it. No government is willing to sit on its hands and let the market sort it out - the majority of people demand that they do something, and so they do something.

"How is that supposed to work accept for a minority of well healed earners with big deposits?"

Precisely the point I made - the market currently only works for the minority of well heeled earners with big deposits. At current levels only 400,000 properties will trade hands each year - that's 2% of current housing stock and requires only 1.6% of households to buy a property. Even in the current crisis, the top 20% of earners in the country can still easily afford to buy and sell as they please. If they move house on average once every 10 years, the market stays exactly where it is, and moves upwards with inflation and under supply and demand pressures. Heck, in the current market a fair few of the properties are probably going for cash, which further reduces the demand for credit. The market's broke, but it's broke when stuck in high gear...

  • 0 recommendations

Swarbs, I actually agree with much of what you are saying, although I do think that our conclusions of the consequencies may be very different.  I will give a few examples to show this.

You mentioned how someone may have exaggerated their income by only a small amount which means they can still afford the mortgage.  I agree, the chances are that most mortgage fraud may be of this type, but think of the effect that may have had on keeping house prices at artificial levels.  After all, if you exaggerate your income by £5-10,000 a year, that probably gives you £15-40,000 more property than you would otherwise be able to afford.  This type of fraud may never be exposed, because the people doing it can still afford the repayments.  The fact is, it's still against the law and it has contributed to keeping house prices up and stopping the honest from ever getting on the ladder.  It is also impossible to prove accept through mostly anecdotal evidence which suggests it was widespread.  I think that had the market been properly regulated and policed from around 2000, house prices would probably have been around 30% lower at the high of 2007.

I didn't actually say that banks have begun to re-introduce self-cert loans, what I pointed to is that it has been reported that it still seems to be popular as a form of fraud now that the lenders have actually tightened up on the loans they give, simply because it is more difficult to get a mortgage now.  However, the banks are now on guard against it.  I did read one article recently which stated that there are currently only 2 providers still dealing in self-cert mortgages, although I'm not sure how true this is (unfortunately I can no longer find the link).

I also agree on which side the Government will come down on when there is systemic risk.  However, it is the moral hazard that has been allowed to happen that results in systemic risk, so those with the power to do something about it should not be allowed to get away with simply saying that they could not see it coming.  Perhaps our MP's were too busy filling out their second home applications and getting their mortgages payed by us to care?  The fact is that as long as house prices were going up, no one, except Vince Cable, said a word when it would not have taken much to scare the banks into behaving more responsibly.  The problem is they don't seem to learn the lessons of the past very well and I suspect that after a brief period of remorse it is likely to happen all over again.

As for the current state of the market I agree that prices could continue to go up (in fact are currently reported as going up) on lower sales to those that can afford at these price levels.  Unfortunately, these price levels were reached by a very different type of lending market which fortunately I don't think we will see again for some time to come.  Unfortunately, there are social consequencies to this of course in that if there were problems of delivering housing need when sales were of the order of 100-130,000 every month, think about what it means now that sales are around 40-50,000.  Just a pity that there are powerful vested interests that do not want to allow the free market to take its natural course in a properly regulated and policed market.

Join the conversation

Please sign in or register to add a comment or recommend.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Typical
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard Platinum with 16 Month BT Visa

0% for 16 months
(2.9% fee)
Typical 16.9% APR (variable) Apply

Virgin Money Credit Card MasterCard

0% for 14 months
(2.98% fee)
Typical 16.6% APR (variable) Apply

Egg Visa

0% until 1st Oct 2011
(3% fee)
Typical 17.9% APR (variable) Apply
W3C  Thank you for using The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse