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?

Property market is back to normal

Published 17 August 2009 in Make good property decisions

The property market had an extremely rare period of abnormality, but has now returned to its old self

There is no such thing as a normal property market in the way that most people think of it.

It is not normal for the market to rise so strongly, as it did for more than a decade up until a couple of years ago. However, if the market had done something completely different it wouldn't have been normal  either. There is no such thing as normal in that sense.

For the same reasons, the markets weren't behaving abnormally either. Markets behave in all kinds of ways that sometimes are (or seem to be) rational and at other times aren't.

What is a normal market?

My definition of a normal market has little to do with the direction it's going, and nothing to do with whether it's over- or under-priced. What I call normal is a market that's unpredictable. It is normal for the market to be impossible to call with any certainty except over the very long term.

Economists from Nationwide, Halifax and the Council of Mortgage Lenders try to call it regularly, and inevitably get it hideously wrong, forcing them to 'adjust' (i.e. make totally new and different) forecasts.

Those organisations clearly have an interest in supporting house prices.

However, economists from organisations which are more likely to be impartial usually get it badly wrong, too. The Economist and Capital Economics, for example, don't have a good record of regularly getting it right. Actually, no one does, which should tell us all something very important about making, or relying on, forecasts.

A recent example of a normal market

Consider that as much as six years ago some economists, as well as many homeowners or wannabe-owners, were saying that the market was overheating and had to correct soon.

That 'soon' didn't occur for another four years, as prices continued to rise rapidly until something (the credit crunch) finally kicked off a fall. In the meantime, almost anyone who held on from six years ago would still today get a significantly higher price for their property than back then.

We couldn't have known exactly when prices would fall, nor how much. Very few people got the timing right and, as usual, most of those who did were lucky.

I'm yet to find anyone who can call the market well on a regular basis, whether from my readers or from professional economists, and I've been looking for years.

(If you find such an oracle be sure to tell me as I'll pay for this creature's services in my articles, although no doubt it'll be snapped up by a big bank, lender or housebuilder before long, earning tens of millions.)

A more recent example of abnormal

So that's normal: a market we can't reliably predict.

I describe abnormal - and this may surprise you - as the opposite of my definition of normal. That is: one which we can predict.

There was a brief period - and by brief I mean not much more than six months - where we could predict the direction of the market reliably. This is extremely unusual.

What happened back in 2008 was, prices had been falling heavily for around nine months. By itself, that means nothing. Just because the market's moved one way for nine months it doesn't mean it'll continue.

However, over the same period we had something extraordinary. In normal times, there is enough conflicting data to make forecasts unreliable, yet, over this period, there was no conflicting data at all.

Everything was pointing viciously downwards.

Oil prices were extremely high, and unemployment and insolvencies were rising, but that's all that was up or moving up. Credit availability had plummeted, GDP was falling, confidence was collapsing, banks were failing, stock markets were diving, commercial property prices were plunging. I have to stop, but only because I've run out of synonyms for falling.

These things were not just happening in the UK, but globally. This means we couldn't rely on the world to give us a boost.

Under these exceptional circumstances, it was possible to call that the market would fall further for the foreseeable short-term future, as I eventually wrote about in December last year. (Read No forecast means more house price falls.)

The easiest forecast I ever made

Indeed, that one back in December was the only forecast I've made for years.

Strangely, when I was saying the market was abnormal and at its easiest to call for many, many years, some of the companies with a vested interest in keeping prices up, namely Nationwide, Halifax and the CML, refused to predict it.

Halifax used the bizarre excuse that it had just joined Lloyds as its reason, but the other two said the market was too 'turbulent'.

It's interesting how, when property or stock markets begin a downward trend, those companies with a vested interest use words like 'turbulent' or 'volatile'. Those words mean going up and down all over the place. What's so volatile about consistently plummeting markets?

If you consider that the only organisations that make forecasts public are the ones that use it to get their names in the papers, doesn't that tell you something? Most economists know to stay the hell away from the forecasting business.

But where next for house prices?

Do you expect me to make a prediction after everything I just said?

For the past few months there has been a variety of information pointing different ways. Yes, it is still looking very bad for us indeed, but there are enough mixed data and sentiment (in the UK and from abroad) to make the picture not so clear cut.

Prices are still too high - if you believe the affordability argument. Knowing - or believing - that doesn't make predictions any easier; it doesn't mean they're going to fall again over the next 12 months.

Prices are too low - if you believe the supply and demand argument. Knowing - or believing - that doesn't matter, because it still doesn't mean they're going to rise over the next 12 months.

That's the unpredictability of markets. In normal times, there is too much that we don't know, as I believe most economists - the ones you never hear from - would agree.

Maybe you think I'm soft for calling at such an easy time as last winter but not at any other time? Making a call in normal times would be the soft option for me, as it would be bowing to pressure to do so when I don't believe it's possible.

We'll still keep trying though!

None of this will stop people trying to predict the market. We simply have too much financially at stake and so we really want to know!

If you're going to continue to make your own forecasts, try not to fall into the usual traps of getting patterns to fit how you want them to and of ignoring counter-arguments. Do your best to consider all the evidence, not just evidence that suits what you want or supports your existing views. Indeed, try to play devil's advocate for a while to take your view apart.

At the very least, I hope that exercise will make you question the usefulness of forecasts, but if you find it works and manage to call the market right over the next few years, I may have some work for you!

Most importantly, remember always to consider what you can afford when you make a big housing decision, and allow a decent-sized safety net in your calculations. It's much more important than forecasting.

Need to move but can't sell? Don't panic! | Cheap Chinese mortgages arrive in the UK

Compare mortgages through 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

time2go said

  • 0 recommendations

Purchasing your home to live in (not an investment in my eyes)- I think you need to consider affordability of repayments. A house is truly only worth what someone is prepared to pay for THAT house in THAT area. Surveyors are under pressure to under value, as the banks have been burnt, Estate Agents want to over value so that people will start to put their homes on the market (and they will get their business, and needless to say commission)

Purchasing property as an investment- Like any investment, be prepared to stick it out for the long haul and only invest money you can afford to lose.

So the last paragraph of the article is a good starting point.

  • 2 recommendations

The supply and demand argument is somewhat flawed considering there are over three quarters of a million empty homes in the UK. See http://www.emptyhomes.com/

damicol said

  • 0 recommendations

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. These professionals so called will never make a balanced judgement  simply because of thier own vested interests

But to say that no one could make any reasonable forecasts, well thats something else.

 Im sure somewhere some people are thinking about it, weighing the pros and cons and analyzing data that fits all the economic circumstances of the day and it would be interesting to see  if aanyone  would actuaally be prepared to  nail thier colours to the mast and maybe have a competition to see who gets it right and  who is far far from the mark and compare with halifax nationwide etc

Maybe I should be th one to kick it off as I suggested it here, as I do have definate thoughts on that . Im happt to be judged how far i got it wrong as we go on

Next 9 to 12 months starting now I expect a fall in value of another 12 to 14% then a gradual falling off over the next 6 months as inflation starts to kick in and then an ever more gradual fall for another 12 to 18 months falling in real terms accounting for inflation another 15 to 20% over that time. then a period of stability and   with little fluctuations  with out prices breaking upward in any trend until at least spring 2014

  • 0 recommendations

Most people on seeing this article's title would expect to read some new information about how people are now starting to buy and sell houses again in reasonable numbers.

At the moment, those desperate to sell are selling for well below market rate, and those desperate (and able) to buy are paying far more. Everything else is sitting there and not moving. That's not a normal market in my book.

However, Neil's definition of normal is volatility. As the market is always volatile, by Neil's definition it is always normal. I hope that nobody takes this "normality" as an indication that now is as good a time as any to buy/sell a house.

Hardtruth said

  • 0 recommendations

Well Neil your main conclusion seems to be that forecasting is a waste of time.  Think that and I suggest you've never owned or run a business because forecasting is at the core of decision making, especially for investment.  Fully accept it has its drawbacks and inaccuracies which is why forecasting based on historical data and trend extrapolations is usually the safer bet.

From a housing and real estate perspective Fred Harrison is about the best out there, i.e. consistently calls it closest and is then vindicated when the results are in.  Sort of a modern day Cassandra - he calls it but no one listens.

  • 0 recommendations

I think the empty homes doesn’t vitiate the supply and demand argument, if anything it actually supports it: the inefficiency of our systems in matching these empty properties with the people who want somewhere to live means that supply is even more constrained than it otherwise would be, whilst demand is still growing at a constant, or even accelerating, rate. The property market in the UK seems to be failing in this area in creating the most efficient system for matching resources to needs. Given that the local authorities, rather than the market, are the bodies responsible for this area, it’s not that surprising: local authorities in London at least have a long legacy of grossly mismanaging the property portfolios in their ownership regrettably, so it’s hardly surprising that they have not adopted a proactive agenda in respect of empty properties either. 

charles125 said

  • 0 recommendations

Surely the government should keep a register of the number of properties owned by both individuals and companies, and how many are rented. This would give a good guide to the extent of property speculation.

Unfortunately in most parts, first time buyers are up against people wishing to invest who can afford to pay a premium over the actual 'living accomadation'.

A local house was bought for £35000 on the death of the owner, 'done up' and put on the market shortly afterwards for £85000.

This happens to many of the 'cheaper' properties, making it very difficult indeed for first time buyers.

How about a very substantial extra tax on second and subsequent homes owned?

matchmade said

  • 0 recommendations

charles125: this proposed tax on second and subsequent homes - will this apply to buy-to-let properties? Why do you want to penalise tenants, onto whom the cost of the tax will be passed on? What about couples who own their own homes as single buyers and have since got together, and decide to rent out one of their homes? Why penalise them? How about properties being assembled to create a development site? Why do you want to penalise developers who are grinding their way through the planning process and trying to put together a site to build new homes or places for people to work?

Life has always been difficult for first-time buyers, and long may it remain so. No-one has the right or the finances needed to own their own home; if anything, too many people in this country insist on buying, when they don't have the money to maintain the house or pay the mortgage when times get hard. We should be encouraging the buy-to-let market and changing the culture that says home ownership is one of the main priorities in life. That cultural attitude condemns the 30% of people who rent council housing or privately as somehow inadequate, when in fact they are being perfectly sensible, not saddling themselves with an "asset" they can't afford and which prevents them easily changing jobs or moving around the country as they wish.

There are a myriad reasons for houses being left empty: for example, the owner doesn't want to let it out because he or she's afraid that the house will be damaged and our feeble laws to protect the rights of landlords and other people who are owed money will be flouted. Or perhaps the owner is in prison, or in a retirement home, or working or travelling abroad. Or maybe the owner can't afford to renovate the house. Or perhaps the owner died and their estate is grinding its way through probate, which can take more than two years to complete, or is subject to a legal dispute, which means the trustees can't go around letting out the house when the ownership is unclear. Or perhaps, as I've done, the property is empty for a few months while another house is being sold to raise funds to renovate  the empty one: I couldn't let the property out for less than 6 months because a) few people want this, and anyway b) legal protection with short-term tenancies is very,very poor, so I might have let the place to a nutter and then be trapped with court action, damage, and more financial losses.

This 750,000 figure is banded about, but no-one ever breaks it down into different categories, or looks at the churn rate: how many of those houses are empty for more than a year? It will probably be much, much less than 750,000.

matchmade said

  • 0 recommendations

Actually, I tell a lie: there are some statistics at http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulinformation/stats/statistics.html. It is striking that for my own area, Reading, there are supposedly 2,153 empty homes (3.34% of the housing stock), of which 2,028 are privately owned, but only 428 have been empty for more than a year.

There is no further breakdown in the statistics to explain *why* they are empty, but I've just rung Reading Council's Empty Homes Officer and he says the vast majority are not really "empty": they are up for sale or sitting in housing chains. He said that no more than 200 of the 2000 properties are real problematic cases, empty for more than a year, and very few of those are run-down basket cases in need of renovation.

  • 1 recommendation

matchmade, I agree that from a lifestyle perspective renting is equal to buying, and if I had a social landlord I might find it near-impossible to justify purchasing a house. I assure you that I have no cultural bias towards home ownership.

However, I know for a fact (because my landlord told me) that my rent pays the mortgage on the house I live in. This is the case for the majority of private tenants. Renting an asset that essentially never wears out for more money than it would cost to buy said asset simply does not make sense. Not only that, but I can be turfed out at 2 months' notice. This buy-to-let market that you so cherish is in fact making life murder not just for the first-time buyers that you despise, but also for tenants, as landlords seek to cover their over-leveraged costs through rent charges, and get away with it because the other landlords are either in the same boat and can't afford to undercut or simply enjoy the windfall rents.

This is not a question of culture. it just makes sense financially and for the sake of security for private tenants to try to buy. Those other countries that are "culturally" inclined to rent rather than buy have security of tenure, rent boards to limit rises, almost total freedom for tenants to decorate as they wish and make the home their own, and social housing that has not been systematically dismantled. Does this not rather suggest that the obssession with home ownership is political rather than cultural?

Your motivation for dispensing this advice is pretty clear: as a landlord and property speculator yourself, you want a more ready supply of mugs to give you money and fund your lifestyle and retirement.

Hillocks said

  • 0 recommendations

Rightoncammander, if it makes no sense to rent "an asset that essentially never wears out for more money than it would cost to buy", why are you doing it?

If it's because you can't get a mortgage because of your credit rating then your landlord is providing an essential service for you. If it's because you can't afford the total cost of running a house, which is far more than the mortgage, again he is providing you with a home that you could not afford to live in otherwise.

If your claim that landlords charge more than the cost of a mortgage were true they would only have tenants who are unable to get mortgages because of their financial circumstances or those who value the flexibilty of renting.

maryj said

  • 0 recommendations

Hillocks

rightoncommander is correct that rent would be almost to the cost of mortgage repayments. People have not bought and are renting for the reasons you give but also because as people were saving deposits, prices rose faster than they could save. This was largley driven by the BTL as they already had the deposit in the increasing equity of their first home.

time2go said

  • 0 recommendations

Maryj, you are right that the BTL caused much of the upturn in prices. However, THE BANKS are to blame for allowing them to use the equity as a deposit to purchase another property. This helped increase THE BANKS profits and helped pay the bonuses. When things went belly up, those with highly leveraged properties suffered and are suffering. Yes may be they were being led astray by greed, but who created the greed.... again THE BANKS or you could say the Government for not steppping in sooner. Let's face it if the governement had done anything to stop this practice when times were good... they would be criticised by the press as being 'Anti Capitalist'... and the banks would threaten to leave the UK. Where would that leave this country? We rely on Finance and Financial products to keep the UK turning over (as we certainly can't rely on manufacturing anymore)

Unfortunately, it looks like THE BANKS are at it again!! Now you are in even more need of a hefty deposit now that the 100% and 95 % loans have gone. All looking Grim :-(

Barbie said

  • 0 recommendations

Have a look at gregpytel.blogspot and you will see why the price of property has increased - basically cheap mortgages with low deposits which were part of a huge pyramid selling operation.  It may well be that those people who are in rented accommodation are the lucky ones!

Johnny5 said

  • 0 recommendations

I'll tell you one thing Matchmade when people get their hands on any half decent council house in the south east they don;t go anywhere let alone ever ever let it go ! Because it's cheap, they get it for life. If they start earning 100k a year they still donlt get kicked out... So much for your view of the mobile, savvy council house tenants.....sorry but what tosh.. Homeowners are far more likely to move...

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 Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels