How your house might break you

By Bengt Saelensminde Sep 26, 2012

Bengt Saelensminde

Share with
friends:

Comments (30) Print this article

Everyone's got an opinion on house prices. And rightly so. For all but the lucky few, property is the biggest source of personal wealth. And looking at the UK's balance sheet – as we did – property makes up the vast majority of the UK's wealth.

Yet most financial advisers totally ignore residential property when it comes to structuring a portfolio. Irrespective of whether you have a mortgage, or own a property outright. Whether you live in it, or rent it. And even if you never intend to sell your property... a home should be considered as a part of your portfolio mix.

Now, before you start, I know what many going to say. "A house is somewhere to live, I don't care if its value goes up or down – I don't intend to sell it."

I don't believe a word of it. And what's more, whether you consider property a financial investment or not, its value is highly exposed to all the same things as other investments. Today I want to show you why not doing so could prove very costly...

The interest rate time bomb

The vast majority of mortgages in the UK are on a floating interest rate - that is, borrowers pay perhaps a few percent above a benchmark like Libor, or the official bank rate.

But of course, a floating rate leaves borrowers vulnerable to interest rate hikes. In 1980, rates rose to over 20% as the government tried to control surging inflation. And in 1992 they surged to 15% as the government battled with its European currency peg. Even before and after the ERM battle, rates were around the 12% mark.

That could happen again today. So you need to be ready.

I was recently talking to an old family friend that got caught on the wrong side of the 1992 spike in interest rates. Having just built a beautiful new home, his floating rate mortgage threatened to take him down. Believe me, this is a situation you don't want to find yourself in.

With a floating mortgage to pay today, your household expenditure could go through the roof. So make sure you have liquidity. Think about investing in Isas, rather than making overpayments into a pension for instance.

And consider a decent slug of assets that rise with rising rates. Cash would be a good bet – you've not only got liquidity, but returns will go up with the rising interest rate. Though I generally advise 25% fixed interest, arguably somebody exposed to a floating rate liability may want considerably less. Remember, bonds don't tend to do well when rates rise.

If you're highly exposed to a floating rate loan – be sure to balance the rest of your portfolio to accommodate it!

What if you have a fixed mortgage? 

There’s no doubt that a fixed-rate mortgage (where repayments do not vary with market interest rates) leaves a borrower in a safer position. I could be sorely tempted by some of the longer fixes I see on offer today.

There are ten-year fixed deals at, or below 5% available from lenders like Britannia, Woolwich, The Co-operative bank (and more).

In many ways, the biggest danger with a long-fix is deflation. In a Japanese-style deflation, the real value of debt increases. Think about it as the opposite of inflation – where the real value of the capital you’ve borrowed is inflated away.

For every £1 you borrow, you’ll have to pay more than a pound back in real terms... and that’s on top of the fact that you’ll likely be paying higher interest payments than those on a floating rate.


Special report

An exclusive report from The Right Side
"Bankrupt Britain?"


The good news is that bonds do well during deflationary periods. Depending on your age (and when you can start to draw down your pension), you may consider stashing a decent slug of bonds into a Sipp. Or you could consider stashing bonds in an Isa – where interest rolls up tax free. You could even choose some bond issues that mature at times when you want to make repayments on the mortgage.

Inflation-busting assets won’t be as important to you. I mean, if, for instance, two-thirds of your wealth is in property, then you’ve already got a natural inflation hedge. On that basis, it may be wise to use your other financial investments to hedge against a deflationary outcome.

Ownership is a bet, not an accomplishment

As we’ve just seen, whether you’re borrowing fixed or floating, there are considerations for how you structure the rest of your portfolio. But what if you own the property outright? Does that mean you are safe?

Not necessarily...

The point most people miss about a mortgage is that it is tantamount to shorting the currency you’re borrowing. Buying a UK property with a sterling mortgage is to go long property and short sterling. As such, there’s a natural hedge there...

If the UK hits the skids, (and crikey, our national finances are hardly in good shape), then one would expect the pound to take a dive. House prices too. Now, if you’ve got a mortgage, then you’re short the pound. The weak pound would likely cause inflation which would whittle away the real value of the debt.

A mortgage-free homeowner (long-only, as we’d say if we were talking stocks) could lose a fortune. It could put a spanner in the works for anyone planning to retire to sunnier climes off the back of their property.

What could you do to protect yourself?

Though it may sound crazy, taking out a mortgage on the property may not be a bad idea. Especially if that property is rented - since mortgage interest can be offset against rental income for tax purposes.

The cash raised by the mortgage could be invested abroad. How about a German rental property for instance? I even read that many properties in the US now look like a fantastic buy.

The more daring diversifier may consider foreign stocks – especially in emerging markets. Or hey – what about using a mortgage to short sterling and go long the ultimate currency - gold?

You need a plan

I’ve rattled through some of the things you may wish to consider if you own property, however it’s financed.

But it’s important to note that every one of us is different. We have different ambitions on what we ultimately want to do with our savings and we have different attitudes to risk. And though I make some assumptions as to how different assets may react to economic events, the truth is nobody can be sure.

The key point I want to get across today is that you should consider long and hard how your assets are protected given various threats – especially inflation and deflation. And because a massive lump of your portfolio is likely sitting in property, it seems unwise not to include it in your overall wealth plan.

Remember, in extreme cases, a poorly diversified portfolio could see you out on the street. At the very least it could make considerable inroads into your wealth. So when you plan your wealth, make sure you’ve carefully thought about your biggest asset!

• This article is taken from the free investment email The Right side. Sign up to The Right Side here.

Important Information
Your capital is at risk when you invest in shares - you can lose some or all of your money, so never risk more than you can afford to lose. Always seek personal advice if you are unsure about the suitability of any investment. Past performance and forecasts are not reliable indicators of future results. Commissions, fees and other charges can reduce returns from investments. Profits from share dealing are a form of income and subject to taxation. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and may be subject to change in the future. Please note that there will be no follow up to recommendations in The Right Side.

Managing Editor: Frank Hemsley. The Right Side is an unregulated product published by Fleet Street Publications Ltd.

Fleet Street Publications Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. FSA No 115234. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do

Comments (30)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Jo Nathan

    (26 September 2012, 06:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    Interesting suggestion to take out a mortgage if one has a house without one. That is really "leveraged lending". To cover the interest, one would need to re-invest in an asset with a yield that is higher than the interest rate on the mortgage. As we know, often higher yields mean riskier assets. Add to the mix another currency and it is really getting way beyond widows and orphans. I guess the main idea is a hedge, but one needs a pretty solid counter-correlation (i.e. when one goes down, the other goes up), otherwise the hedge becomes a ditch inot which you fall.

  • 2. Headhunter

    (26 September 2012, 06:42PM)  Complain about this comment

    All good points but I do wish people respected the difference between "renting" and "letting" a property. I rent a property so can hardly raise a mortgage on it because it belongs to someone else. If, however, I own a property and do not occupy it I may decide I want to earn some "rent" from it, in which case I 'let' it (rather than rent it) to someone else.
    There is no charge for this English Lesson.

  • 3. Prince Harry

    (26 September 2012, 09:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    (I just wrote this on Merryn's blog but it seems to fit here quite well too)
    London school teacher's standard government salary in 1990 approx £17k; cost of a small terraced house in an average affordable London suburb in 1990 approx £60k. Ratio 60/17 approx 3 fold.

    Same scenario today-salary approx £25k; cost of same house approx £250k. Ratio 250/25 =10 fold. By my reckoning, houses are more than 3 times over valued. By all means get on the property ladder, but it's more like a property snake at the moment.

  • 4. Manny

    (26 September 2012, 09:41PM)  Complain about this comment

    3. Prince Harry

    You are the first person I have seen point out this simple maths that everyone just ignores. Maths always cut through all the rubbish. Maths never lies..

    Average wage 26.2k average house price 162k??, no way can the average person repay over 25 years even at 0% even less chance if rates go up. That is precisely why rates will never go up.. it will be the death (financially) of many many people.

    That is why I stick with my view that when all is done 2007 peak -70% is where prices will settle. This takes into count the inevitable undershoot below long term trend

  • 5. Steve E

    (27 September 2012, 01:30AM)  Complain about this comment

    You continue to bash the property market without fully appreciating different conditions outside the South east . I live in the neighbouring 'poor' country north of Watford gap.
    In my own town, taking your own figures, The average wage is still around £26K but I could show you 100+ post war 3 bed houses ready to move in ranging from £75k in poorer areas of the town[not Slums !] up to £120k for brand new 2-3 bed houses in what you might call 'good working' class areas.Flats are even cheaper.We live in a manufacturing town, with average unemployment. Prices of houses, has fallen from a peak in 2007 but only 10-15%These are all affordable by your own calculations.

    Please do not brush all of the country with the problems that London and the south east have.To say prices will fall 70% , even in London , is totally unrealistic.

  • 6. Ubear

    (27 September 2012, 09:20AM)  Complain about this comment

    Regarding a mortgaged home as part of your portfolio is nonsense; it is a liability, period, because it costs so much extra to pay for via a mortgage.

    I have a mortgage because it is a lot cheap, more stable residency, and gives some return, than more expensive rents for the same size property, even after maintenance and insurance costs.

    Any value I get later, if I sell it, is a bonus, and when it is paid off, it will free up a significant amount of money for investing, while I am still earning.

    Yes, I pay into a pension and own plenty of allocated Bullion, and may sell some Bullion to pay off the mortgage early.

    No, I don't plan to remortgage later, because housing likely have lost a lot of value by then.

  • 7. Tom F

    (27 September 2012, 10:45AM)  Complain about this comment

    Need to consider the time element of having paid off the mortgage which is as important as the financial.

    Time to not have to work, time to persue other interests. The ability to maximise ones interests outside of the rat race.

  • 8. Journeyman

    (27 September 2012, 11:18AM)  Complain about this comment

    It is really nice to have a lovely home, a reasonable pension that is "enough", two year's living money in ISA's and no net debt.Oh, and I can work too which is nice because I like the buzz and the people. I am SO lucky and very thankful but I worked bloody hard to get there. Increasing the mortgage to gamble that I'll be better off is just going to create stress that I don't need. Inflation or deflation? Who knows. What I do know is that I have a roof over my head, food on the table ( some grown in the garden) and a happy family. I recommend that as a worthwhile target.

  • 9. Boris MacDonut

    (27 September 2012, 11:38AM)  Complain about this comment

    Bengt is being a bit frugal with the facts here. In 1992 interest rates hit 15% for precisely 5 hours. In 1980 they hit 20% for a few weeks. By 1982 they were back under 14%. By 1995 one could get a mortgage at 7% and the rates have been there or lower for 17 years. The poll of predictions has rates at just 1.07% in 5 years time. Yes rates rose from 8.5% to 13.75 % between 1989 and 1992. But a rise of this amount only adds £470 a month to the typical mortgage. It may "wipe out" a few but would not be a crisis(many would just extend the mortgage term to cope), and it is all pretty unlikely as at today's date.
    More worrying is the report that almost 30% of 55 year olds expect to use equity from their home to fund old age. A lot of downsizers flooding the market in 5 to 10 years time.

  • 10. Joe Wilson

    (27 September 2012, 11:40AM)  Complain about this comment

    What I've never understood is why individuals can't buy a secured fixed rate swap separate from a mortgage loan rather than being stuck with 100% fixed or 100% variable.

    I know it is going to take me 15 years to pay off my mortgage - I would like to de risk some of that by taking out a fixed rate swap.

    Swap rates are very low at the moment - long term fixed rate mortgage rates still reflect the atypical funding conditions we are in with mortgage rates well above base rate and inflation expectations.

    So I would be better off with a variable mortgage (that I can change as competition returns) and a fixed rate swap that locks in current low interest rate expectations.

    Anyone know how I can do it?

  • 11. Wonderer

    (27 September 2012, 11:46AM)  Complain about this comment

    Those who did not see Housing Cycles before, may wonder why people are saying house prices may fall so big!! I have seen 3/4 cycles. House prices will settle down according to affordability, which only means the price you pay and the interest rate you can afford to pay. There is no other black magic in here. House prices must adjust to this basic facts. You can calculate your housing prices now.

  • 12. Boris MacDonut

    (27 September 2012, 11:50AM)  Complain about this comment

    #3 Prince Harry is distorting statistics. 60 divided by 17 is 3.55.
    London teachers's salary is now over £40,000, so the true ration is nearer 6 to 1. What he ignores is the actual cost over 25 years and how that relates to pay now rates are much lower. In 1990 the unlucky teacher paid interest at 13% ,now she pays just 4%..In 1990 the cost to earnings ratio was 7.8 to 1 ,now it is7.4 to 1...it is actually cheaper now. But that level of honestywould spoil Harry's agenda.
    #4 Manny. I know you like simple maths. So re,ember over 25 years someone on £26.2 k will earn £770,000 take home pay and be on the line for a total of £240,000 for the house and an 85% mortage. It will be even cheaper if his wife works too. A HP of £60,000 would only arise if rates hit 30% or more.

  • 13. Chip

    (27 September 2012, 12:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    Well done Boris.

  • 14. danguee

    (27 September 2012, 01:24PM)  Complain about this comment

    #12. Boris

    Much better maths, Boris (though possibly slightly biased from the opposite perspective). If your figures are correct and genuinely comparing apples with apples then, yes, she is getting her property 'cheaper'. However, that 13% was at at time of exceptionally high interest rates just as now we're in historically low interest rates - and yet the cost of her property is only slightly cheaper. It would take only a couple of percent added onto this low rate to dramatically escalate the cost.

    I think the only conclusion - making allowance for where we were and where we now are in the history of interest rates - is that property is still overpriced in the south - but only by a modest margin

  • 15. Boris MacDonut

    (27 September 2012, 01:50PM)  Complain about this comment

    #14 danguee. Doris MacDonut's friend is a teacher so we have the salary scale details. The other stats are from the DCLG and HMRC.
    Broadly housing is the same overall price relative to pay. What P Harry does not mention is teacher's pay has fallen relative to pay in general so using a teacher distorts the figures the way he wants.
    For those buying with a mortgage the real "price" is the total outlay over 25 years compared to the retained value of the house in 25 years time. As long as this is not massively out of kilter then it beats renting every time.....even for teachers in London. Total cost is the same, interest rate is much lower now so the capital element is realtively inflated in 2012 and deflated in 1990, but a crisis it is not.

  • 16. Christopher

    (27 September 2012, 03:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris 9: "More worrying is the report that almost 30% of 55 year olds expect to use equity from their home to fund old age. A lot of downsizers flooding the market in 5 to 10 years time."
    Finally. Correct. Who will be buying these places and at what price? It's what I have been trying to get across to you for weeks and months!

  • 17. Boris MacDonut

    (27 September 2012, 03:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    #16 Christopher. You miss the point. They will shift demand towards the cheaper end of the market. The freed up equity will lead to more consumer spending but higher prices for housing generally.

  • 18. Realist

    (27 September 2012, 07:08PM)  Complain about this comment

    #17 Boris. The demand for cheaper or more expensive houses will be exactly the same. Why, because the people who are buying the house of the 'downsizers' are selling there 'cheaper' houses. With regards to this situation, there also won't be any higher consumer spending, as the 'upsizers' will have less money.
    The only thing that will effect spending is an increase in wages or a drop in house prices and it doesn't take a economist to work out which one it will be in the near future.

  • 19. Boros MacDonut

    (27 September 2012, 08:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    #18 Realist. But what of the market where downsizer and FTB collide? That's two people wanting one asset. Have you never watched cash in the attic? It bids prices up.
    I think you have missed the point here. teh downsizers free up equity at a time of life when they have time to spend it. The people who may buy their house will still be at work and have differnet aspirations and spending priorities. There is a strong chance the economy will be revived by the grey pound in 5 or 6 years time.

  • 20. Critic Al Rick

    (27 September 2012, 09:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 17. Boris

    No, you miss Christopher's point: who will be buying the 'downsizers' properties at a price which will leave the 'downsizer' enough money to compensate for private pensioners' loss of pension via pillaging to continue the support for Parasites (rich, poor and intermediate)?

    Given the global economic situation can you see the remuneration of the average potential 'upsizer' increasing faster than his/her extra expenditure on essentials; those goods and services largely under the corrupt control of rich Parasites?

    Admit it Boris, the West for the foreseeable future is in irreversible decline; it is 'burning' whilst the corrupters 'fiddle'.

    It may not suit your agenda but the fantasy bubble TPTB have blown will burst. As I see it, they've lost control ... tick tock.

  • 21. Boris MacDonut

    (27 September 2012, 10:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    #20 But Rick.I was referring to the average 55 year old. These people on average bought their first house in1982 and will have spent no more than about £70,000 to acquire a house worth £300k. Downsizing to say £200k frees up quite a lot of money andof course there is always plenty of demand. The "worry" I refer to is is for FTB's being priced out of an ever upward market.

  • 22. Prince Harry

    (27 September 2012, 10:59PM)  Complain about this comment

    @12 Boris. A teacher 'starts' on about £25k in London now. About £17k on 1990. Need to compare like with like. Also, it's incredibly risky to calculate your future mortgage payments using current interest rates which are at a historical low. They're going to go up at some point soon and stabalise at the longstanding 5%. Or do you think Cameron is some sort of philanthropist helping the poor?! Ha!

  • 23. Tom O'Neill

    (27 September 2012, 11:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    I find this discussion polarized along misleading lines.

    I've been looking at properties locally (very good area of central London) for several years. Quality bears no relation to price, on a global scale.

    What holds the prices up is the influx of foreign money. Probably tax-avoiding, offshore, non-dom,no stamp duty, no CGT on exit.

    Even the price of the tiniest bed-sit in Carlisle depends on this PCL slush-money.

    As a cash-buyer, I'm holding back. Any eurozone weakness (e.g. Spain reverting to the peseta) will attract tons of non-mortgaged cash from the UK housing market.

  • 24. Critic Al Rick

    (28 September 2012, 01:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 21. Boris

    But Boris, that's my point, I don't think you need "worry" about potential FTBs being priced out forever.

    Also, whilst a £100K lump sum received by a public sector pensioner may be a worthwhile receipt now, it would only represent a worthwhile receipt to a pillaged short-sighted private sector pensioner at current IRs.

    But yes, the 'grey' pound to which you have referred is contributing towards saviour to Parasites now but every 'grey' pound sucked-up by Parasites is also contributing towards loss of freedom for the majority.

    And it is loss of freedom for the majority forever that worries me.

  • 25. Boris MacDonut

    (28 September 2012, 01:51PM)  Complain about this comment

    #22 P Harry. I agree you must compare like with like. But you are muddling your salaries. Average teacher salary is now £37,000 and in 1990 was £17,000. Starting salaries in Outer London are now £25,100, in 1990 they were not £17,000 ,but nearer to £13,000. You have quoted the average 1990 salary, not the starting salary. Better to use general income figures. 1990 £15,200, today £33,000. So to buy a house over 25 years at prevailing rates in 1990 would cost £118k giving a ratio of 7.8 to 1. Now it is £248k so a ratio of 7.4.Thus it is cheaper now.
    My Doris was a teacher of some 6 years standing in 1990 and she earned precisely £12,400 a year. She is most aggrieved to hear that youngsters in the smoke were getting 40% more! Oh and please tell us in which years the "long standing 5%" applied.
    #Rick. You are correct. It smacks of desperation for many in the private sector. I am not being unsympathetic, just trying to point to demographics....again.

  • 26. Critic Al Rick

    (28 September 2012, 03:38PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 25. Boris

    I take it you mean 'downsizing' smacks of desperation for retirees in the private sector. Well, I doubt it's a new phenomenon for most; furthermore, most would have been reckoning upon it as part of their pension plans anyway.

    The act of desperation will be in their acceptance of lower offers on their houses than they would previously have envisaged.

    Don't make the mistake of thinking the Public Sector and the Cartel,etc Sector will be immune from the demise of the Truly Private Sector.

  • 27. Prince Harry

    (29 September 2012, 11:37AM)  Complain about this comment

    @25 Boris-re:'long standing 5% interest rate. Look at the figures on this table: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/Repo.asp You'll notice how since 1975 the average is more like 10%! It's only since 2008 that it came down from 5% to today's 0.5%. The table suggests that we're in a moment of government desperation to get buyers buying in an unprecedented crisis. Interest rates can only go up from now and they'll have to with inflation so rife. Buy now and you'll wish you waited...

  • 28. Boris MacDonut

    (29 September 2012, 08:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    #27 P Harry.Really. I'd actually say there is no better than a 50:50 chance. In fact interest rates could well go to zero, before going back up. My reason for doubting "the long standing 5%" is that this only pertained in the years 1721 to 1820. Since then rates have been at 5% for precisely three of the 191 years. They have fluctuated massively but only ever exceeded 10% in the period 1973 to 1992 and even then not for the whole period, yet you wish to have this seen as the norm. A freakish 19 year interlude out of 318 years of rate setting, yet you want us to embrace the worst case scenario as a natural level. Once again I accuse you of unecessary gloom and despond.

  • 29. Robin

    (02 October 2012, 09:30AM)  Complain about this comment

    Houses are not investments. They are homes.

    As long as people purchase houses for investment purposes rather than as a place to life, we will constantly have major issues with housing.

    Just because a house is worth double today than it was 10 years ago, you get the same utility from living in one. And you pay about the same rent, which means yields are down on ten years ago.

    It is a massive con that house price inflation makes people richer. It makes people who sell houses richer, just as long as they don't buy, which means they are homeless.

    And it makes the banks richer, as mortgages are greater in value.



  • 30. JimW

    (02 October 2012, 01:42PM)  Complain about this comment

    My sister has to pay something like £34,000 a year to keep her husband in a nursing home and will have to downsize to help pay the bills.

    I think that anybody who invests in a property for there old age had better consider the health issue.

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


>