Here comes the next phase of the UK housing bust

By MoneyWeek Editor John Stepek Jul 13, 2010

John Stepek

Share with
friends:

Comments (45) Print this article

The housing market in Britain seems to be invulnerable.

Even the worst post-war recession seen in Britain – with a 6.4% peak-to-trough fall in GDP, even worse than the original estimate of 6.2% – couldn't keep prices down for long.

According to The Times, house prices in the UK fell by around 20% from peak (October 2007) to trough (February 2009). Since then, the average price has risen by 15%. That means they've already retraced slightly more than half of the original slump.

You can't go wrong with bricks and mortar, as the old saying goes.

Well, we'd reserve judgement on that one. Because it looks like the housing market is having another wobble…

Sellers are returning to the market in droves

We've already seen Halifax report that house prices have fallen for three months in a row. This morning, the latest survey from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) is in. And the data for June suggests the price falls will continue.

Recommended reading

For a start, sellers are coming back to the market in droves. Property prices have been helped over the past year by a slump in the number of people putting their homes on the market. The recent return of sellers is to a great extent down to the scrapping of the Home Information Pack (Hip).

This might seem odd – after all, the cost of a Hip is hardly significant in the grand scheme of property transaction costs. But in fact, it makes perfect sense. The prospect of shelling out several hundred pounds to attempt to sell your home may not have been a big deal when the market was buoyant.

But when you've no idea whether anyone will make an offer you're happy to accept, that few hundred pounds suddenly becomes quite a large hurdle. 

Now that people can put their properties back out there to 'test' the market at no cost, they are jumping at the chance. According to Rics, the number of sellers is rising at its fastest rate since May 2007.

But the number of buyers is drying up

Meanwhile, the number of queries from buyers fell, for only the second time since 2008. Indeed, according to one agent, "sellers now exceed buyers."

More sellers, fewer buyers – we all know what that adds up to. And indeed, agents reported the weakest price rises seen since last July. Perhaps more significantly, more agents expect prices to fall than to rise – that's only the second time this has happened in the past year.

Meanwhile, accountancy group PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) reckons there's a 50% chance that 'real' house prices (i.e. adjusted for inflation) won't recover their 2007 peaks until after 2020. Now, I find these sorts of forecasts hard to take seriously. We've no idea what'll happen in the next ten years – if this turns out to be correct, it'll be as much luck as anything else.

But John Hawksworth of PwC does make a good general point when he notes that: "Housing is a risky asset that is not guaranteed to generate positive real returns in the future even though this has been the pattern in the past."


Special FREE report from MoneyWeek magazine: When will house prices bottom out - and how will you know?

  • Why UK property prices are going to fall 50%
  • When it will be time to get back in and buy up half price property

The FSA is getting tough on the home-loan market

As if all this wasn't enough, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is now getting to grips with the home loan market. And about time too. A staggering near-50% of the home loans doled out between 2007 and the start of 2010 "did not require proof of earnings," reports the FT this morning.

Even more worryingly, the watchdog also found that 46% of households holding a mortgage between 2005 and 2008 "either had no money left or had a shortfall after mortgage payments and living costs were deducted from their income."

The FSA is suggesting – quite sensibly – that banks should check that people can afford to pay their loans before they take them out. They are also suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to take out interest-only loans unless they can afford to repay the capital too.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders is up in arms of course. And there's no doubt that added regulation will have unintended consequences and make it harder for some people to get loans. That's why we're not generally keen on regulation as a solution.

As my colleague Merryn Somerset Webb has noted, if we had decent financial education in this country we wouldn't need all these rules. People would be able to take an informed judgement based on the likely path of interest rates, the current level of house prices, and their own job security, in order to decide for themselves whether to take the risk of using an interest-only loan.

But given that banks just nearly destroyed the global financial system by lending irresponsibly to would-be homeowners, you'd think they might have considered putting some of these measures in place themselves by now. Even tougher borrowing criteria will of course make it harder to fuel any continued rise in house prices. But would that be such a bad thing?

As the FT's Martin Wolf pointed out in a recent piece calling for a land tax to curb speculation, it's "bizarre" that "newspapers hail upward moves in the price of a place to live – the most basic of all amenities." To alter our country's vulnerability to the property cycle would require a lot more than just tighter controls on borrowing.

But the chances of anything more radical happening seem very slim – there are too many vested interests dependent on the existing system. So expect the boom and bust cycle to continue (read land tax specialist Fred Harrison's 2005 piece for MoneyWeek in which he predicted the 2008 crash. And for now, we're in 'bust' mode.

Our recommended article for today

Can the moon really boost your investment returns?

According to some people, the movement of the moon affects the way markets behave. And that can be used to time your trades. But does the theory bear scrutiny? Merryn Somerset Webb investigates.

Comments (45)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. chris horne

    (13 July 2010, 11:58AM)  Complain about this comment

    whilst i like your commentaries and opinions i wonder how acurate your speculations are

    you print in this article that hips were only valid a few months they were in fact valid all the time the property was being marketed and could also be used if there was a break in marketing if you went back on the market within 12 months.....this is now dead and buried anyway but if you get something as basic as this wrong HOW RELIABLE IS YOUR OPINION OR COMMENTS ?????

  • 2. Steve P

    (13 July 2010, 12:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    My my, you seem so keen to talk the housing market down, worryingly ecstatic in fact at people losing money on their homes, and annoyingly smug that you have your 'we told you so' moment.
    Millions of people are under water because of the trouble in the housing market, yes many through their own bad judgement, but equally many through necessity. Any market exists purely on confidence, and by constantly shouting 'look out below' you are doing your readers and others no favours at all. It would be nice if you could stop so obviously enjoying the misfortune of others.

  • 3. chasbmw

    (13 July 2010, 12:08PM)  Complain about this comment

    Other bearish indicators might include proposals to reduce the costs of housing benefit, not only the headline costs of renting 4 bedroom houses in london, but I would expect that pressure will be brought onto local authorities to reduce the rents paid to the landlords of housing benefit recipients. These rents are currently set at a local authority level but paid for by central govt, I would guess that central govt will pass the costs back down to a local level.

  • 4. When

    (13 July 2010, 12:37PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Comment 2 Steve P

    I dont get the impression this article is smug, just pointing out some possible faults that may effect the housing market.

    I read enough hype from the Dail Express on there front page when price rise in a month!!!

    What I do get is that you seem to be rather bitter in any negative statments regarding the housing market?

  • 5. Tony Whitehead

    (13 July 2010, 12:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    One way of controlling the property cycle would be to introduce a variable rate mortage tax. At the moment only BoE base rates can be used to make lending expensive and shut off demand - which is not always possible when raising interest rates might be bad for the wider economy. A separate mortage tax - put up or down .25% a month like BoE rates - could control housing demand while leaving other economic elements unscathed. Couldn't call it a mortgage tax though - something along the lines of 'crash preventer levy' might work better!

  • 6. Durham

    (13 July 2010, 12:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ steve p
    seems like you have made bad jugements on your assets,what about the real victims,savers,FTBers,the prudent.let the falls commence get the over indebted out of the way,and lets stop trying to prop these poeple up it's costing us a fortune.
    house price falls=great news. "LOOK OUT BELOW"welcome home normality.

  • 7. Bilbo Biggins

    (13 July 2010, 12:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    "Millions of people are under water because of the trouble in the housing market, yes many through their own bad judgement, but equally many through necessity".

    Boo hoo Steve P, you pays your money; you take your chances. Whether they have been genuinely mis-sold mortgage products or greedily sought to join the HPI 'free-money'; all these people have done is help inflate the property bubble. Unfortunately, there will always be a wave of suckers in any Ponzi scheme - those that bought between 2005-2008 are the suckers.

    Shelter is a necessity; getting a mortgage which bears no relation to one's income is not. Heard of renting?

  • 8. Dyllda

    (13 July 2010, 12:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    You do seem to consistently wish for the worst - whether it be the housing market in the UK or your resolutely pessimistic - and wrong- stance over the last 18 months on equities. Your argument that more sellers are coming onto the market because of the scrapping of HIPS is nonsense. As any property investor will tell you prices drop (and they will fall without doubt in the next year or so) only when people are forced to sell their homes. Sellers 'testing the market' because of the scrapping of HIPS do not fall into the category of 'distressed' sellers and will therefore have no effect on moving prices one way or another. To be taken seriously you should know this (and get your facts right on HIPS!)

  • 9. Bertha Vanation

    (13 July 2010, 12:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    Steve P

    John Stepek isn't 'talking the market down', he is simply reporting current and relevant facts & trends that impact on all our lives. Isn't this the job of a journalist,?

    If our press deliberately withheld, distorted or manipulated data (as is the case in most of the world, including the US) to suit an specific agenda, I'm sure you'd be the first to complain about 'free speech!

  • 10. Howard

    (13 July 2010, 01:24PM)  Complain about this comment

    John comments are quite factual. Anyone who doesn't agree with the article could express their "pro-house price" opinions here.

    In short, we had a housing bubble, and the bubble hasn't been burst far enough.

    In an ideal world property should be a common good and at a minimum cost to tax payers.

  • 11. Bob Sleigh

    (13 July 2010, 01:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    Again, this is more good news for the man in the street.

    People seem to think these days that owning property is the be all and end all in life.

    We used to own a house (well the bank owned most of it to be honest) but we sold it two years ago and are now renting. The surprising thing with renting is that we've now got total flexibility back in our lives.

    It's a breath of fresh air not having to worry about leaky roofs, plumbing and washing machine repairs. If we have a problem we just phone up the landlord and he comes round and sorts it out. We have a lot more spare time and much, much more spare cash.

    Our friends say that paying rent is dead money but when you compare it to an interest only mortgage. Well that really is dead money!

  • 12. Austin Tassletine

    (13 July 2010, 01:35PM)  Complain about this comment

    PWC (sounds like some kind of upmarket toilet I have always thought), are correct I think. But I wonder how much they have copied this from the CASS Business School who actually said 2023 before they recover 2007 prices.

  • 13. Nick Harland

    (13 July 2010, 01:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    I'm a great supporter of Merryn but to say that financial education is all that is needed, not regulation, is to say that with perfect information markets should behave rationally - and we know they don't. So, even with such education people will still persuade themselves that for a few pounds more they could have an extra bedroom and that the difference can be sorted out with a little belt tightening, it's only human nature. And who has been selling mortgages without proof of earnings - financial professionals, of course! The current problems are driven by ambition and greed, as usual, so bring on regulation and save people from themselves.

    As for unintended consequences, why not try rent hikes: more people having to rent but because they cannot afford a mortgage there is a distorted supply/demand correcting measure? And there are others.

  • 14. David A King

    (13 July 2010, 02:33PM)  Complain about this comment

    Meanwhile on Planet Greater London....Being a big fan of yours and Capital Economics I did sell my 6 bedroomed house in Favart Road London SW6 for 1.1m in 2002( most commentators where full of doom and gloom )- If I had let it at 25k per annum and was now selling it would fetch at least 2.2 million.If it dips 10 % it was still absolutley the wrong decision.Regards David

  • 15. Bob Roberts

    (13 July 2010, 02:37PM)  Complain about this comment

    I think we are on the cusp.... is cusp the right word? No, brink would be more apt.

    As ludicrous as it appears, people putting their houses on the market, for sometimes hundreds of thousands more than they paid for them, appear to have been put off by HIPs costing a few hundred pounds.

    I have been house hunting since 2007 and up until the last month there was a dearth of property for sale in my area. Now, there is a flood coming on the market but often for ludicrous asking prices. I kid you not, but people asking 100K or 200K more for a house that they only bought in 2006/07. Oh, they put a new bathroom or kitchen in.

    But for the first time in this crisis I can sense people getting scared. In my part of the World, Wales, 70% of the jobs are public sector and, boy, there is going to be a massive cull here in jobs starting in 2011.

  • 16. Ravi

    (13 July 2010, 02:37PM)  Complain about this comment

    Getting mortgages by giving false details is a fraud. The banks turned a blind-eye to the fraud during the property bubble because they were making money on these mortgages. Giving easy mortgages and 100% to 125% mortgages (Northern Rock’s BIG IDEA) are ludicrous. Easy-credit and irresponsible lending are the main reasons for the unsustainable increase in property prices.

    Checking borrowers’ income and responsible lending are not difficult to do, but the banks ignored the simple rules of lending.

    Blaming the recent financial crisis on some “Global Event” is a cheap excuse. The government and the banks are responsible for the disaster.


  • 17. Austin Tassletine

    (13 July 2010, 02:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Bob Roberts:
    "But for the first time in this crisis I can sense people getting scared. In my part of the World, Wales, 70% of the jobs are public sector and, boy, there is going to be a massive cull here in jobs starting in 2011. .."

    I doubt it. The real wastrels will never be culled...They are too near the heart of the matter and the 'economy'.

  • 18. ricardo

    (13 July 2010, 03:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    Wow !! There's nothing that prompts so much activity on this blog like an article about the housing market. It really seems to get the blood up. I guess it's difficult to keep calm if you're up to your neck in it. It's nice being calm.


  • 19. Barry

    (13 July 2010, 03:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    Interest article.
    I can'thelp but disagree. Even though I am a home owner, struggling to make ends meet I believe more regulation IS required to control the mortgage markets. Too long have we relied upon the home as being the only way to get significant 'pension growth'. Until this market is regulated and controlled we will continue to see people fail to save for pensions and rely on speculation to provide for their old age and mortgage companies will continue to take unnecessary risks with the markets.

  • 20. ricardo

    (13 July 2010, 03:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    ...oh, and Ravi, you're absolutely spot on with your comment :

    "Blaming the recent financial crisis on some “Global Event” is a cheap excuse. The government and the banks are responsible for the disaster."

    The last government failed miserably in their first and primary duty, to save people from their own excesses.

  • 21. Dodge

    (13 July 2010, 03:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    Let's hope house prices do fall to more sensible valuations. That would solve 2 problems
    1. Lack of affordable housing in the UK
    2. Irritatingly smug property owners boasting about how much money they've made at dinner parties

  • 22. Dyllda

    (13 July 2010, 03:51PM)  Complain about this comment

    To Howard : "John (sic) comments are quite factual." John's comment are:

    1. not factual - another correspondent has already corrected him about HIPS not expiring after a few months and it is nonsense to say that those now putting their house up for sale because HIPS have been scrapped are serious sellers let alone distressed sellers. House prices will only fall when people are forced to sell at a lower price. This is a fact not idle speculation to support a pre-formed view.

    And I am not 'pro-house price' - as you put it just an intelligent investor who believes in rationally assessing things. House prices will fall over the next two years as unemployment rises but by how much will depend on a number of factors not least where you live. As long as Mr Septek keeps scaring of those who know no better then all the better for those like me who back their own judgements to show a profit!

  • 23. kenlondon

    (13 July 2010, 04:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    i would focus on interest rate and inflation rate to predict the trend of house prices. Pounds may weaken further if interest rate stays low and imported inflation may be an issue. i can't see many landlords holding on to properties in negative spread scenario (rental income less than mortgage)...

  • 24. rikrok

    (13 July 2010, 04:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    Steve P you misunderstand markets. They exist on supply and demand.
    Confidence follows either of those.
    There is always confidence because there are bears and bulls in each market.
    It seems when bears are confident and you are on the wrong side of the market you call it smug.

  • 25. Supermarine Blues

    (13 July 2010, 04:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    Property prices are to a certain extent also a function of rentals; as rents increase, mortgages look more attractive.

    Which gives lie to Bilbo's assertions; in the poorer London areas, people would have been better off buying rather than renting in that period. Which many did.

    And remember, most people CAN still afford their 'liar loan' mortgages; the default element is still the minority.

    We've had years on negative equity before, and it wasn't fun for the repossessed. But for those who rode on and weren't talked into selling on the cusp of the recovery, it mattered not a jot.

    So there will be great opportunities round the corner, once prices fall. The main cause of which will (as in 1974) be a credit squeeze of a totally political nature.

  • 26. Steve P

    (13 July 2010, 04:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    Ouch.
    Seems like I've been a bit unfair to JS here. Many of you rightly judged that I am on the wrong side of this downward spiral. Borrowed to buy a flat for parents, both have since died, have no choice but to sell. Sorry to John, I let my 'bitterness' (thanks 'When') get the better of me.

  • 27. Mike

    (13 July 2010, 05:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    I have believed Money Week's assertions on house prices for years but when this article follows yesterdays saying that the printing press will be cranked up again, then I can only assume that JS is suffering from short term memory loss. It is the money printing which has saved house prices but as Dominic Frisby points not in gold terms i.e house prices have fallen 70% against gold

    Therefore, to a large extent house prices have crashed we just forgot to get paid in real money.

    So John, money printing can stop house prices crashing and you think that politicians will be too tempted not to print more money.

    Printing or house price crash that is the question.

  • 28. Tom

    (13 July 2010, 06:12PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Comment #2

    I live at home with my parents because I live in Reading and can't afford to move out. I simply can't wait for prices to become even semi-reasonable. Home owners bought into a delusion that prices could and would increase forever. En masse, that meant that first time buyers were priced out. It is only fair that people bear the burden of their bad investment decisions; we first time buyers dont even have the luxury of that!

  • 29. 51ck-6-51x

    (13 July 2010, 06:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    John Stepek said, 'the watchdog also found that 46% of households who had taken a mortgage out between 2005 and 2008 "either had no money left or had a shortfall after mortgage payments and living costs were deducted from their income." '
    - After reading various takes on the 46% figure I decided to have a read of the consultation paper, I discovered it's actually 46% of households holding a mortgage between 2005 and 2008.
    [http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_16.pdf section 2.6]
    You were closer than most reporters I've seen though :)

  • 30. Supermarine Blues

    (13 July 2010, 06:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    Seems a shocking 46%.

    But where's the fig. for the early 'nineties, or whenever, for comparo?

    98.4% of all stats are made up on the spot. Vic Reeves.

  • 31. george

    (13 July 2010, 08:25PM)  Complain about this comment

    Don't shoot the messenger because you don't agree with what he's saying, and you are scared of the truth and the impact that may have.
    Property professionals (including myself) know exactly what's happening but most won't admit it openly because it could jepodise their job or investment portfolios.
    The start of the crash back in 2008 has simply been averted with the political measures of QE and unrealistically low IR's, which have suppressed unemployment and public spending cuts thus far.
    Good investors who looked at property like any other investments saw this coming and most will now wait for two or three years before they take a view. I have properties but will not do anything speculative now, the risks are too great.
    Whether you like it or not the crash will be resumed and only when the economics of home/property ownership fall back into historical trend will we see a recovery.

  • 32. Simon

    (14 July 2010, 07:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    The reason the banks have not introduced stricter lending practices themselves is because they do not want to hurt the housing market, because the collateral they hold forms a large part of their balance sheets.

  • 33. Jim

    (14 July 2010, 09:25AM)  Complain about this comment

    Interesting comments.

    I think the only comment missing is that bankers/investors and there friends are likely to have property themselves.

    Think of the well known people who own properties. Tony Blair, so I understand has a few.

    So will they try let the market fall or try to keep prices stable or going upwards.

  • 34. Harold Gough

    (14 July 2010, 11:43AM)  Complain about this comment

    Your comments about the effect of the scrapping of HIPs are only partially correct and miss the main point.

    The cost was not significant to those committed to selling. However, as a very choosey buyer, I found that it made buying very difficult.

    This is because in the pre-HIPs day a large proportion of the houses on the market were there to test the market. These included many of the more interesting properties, thus giving much more choice. As they were available on a speculative basis, such properties would maintain their price, thus (those which sold) keeping the average price higher than under the HIPs regime for a given state of the market.

  • 35. JAW

    (14 July 2010, 12:59PM)  Complain about this comment

    All the problems with housing... boom and bust, non-affordability, the struggle to pay the mortgage, huge depletion of personal finances with consequent effects on family well-being and stability and subsequent lack of consumer purchasing power effecting the wider economy, the despised speculative element... all these problems can be solved by one simple measure... as a society we must pass our houses onto the next generation entirely free of charge.

    The houses are there, they have been paid for.. so why do we make each generation pay for housing all over again, time after time? It seems unnecessary, cruel and mercenary.

    A simple law: You pass your house on free of charge, and free of inheritance or gifts tax, to anyone you choose, relative or friend, but only to those who have never owned a property before. Result: most people will own a free house and in turn pass it on free to the next generation. The economy becomes liberated!!

  • 36. John Stepek

    (14 July 2010, 04:08PM)  Complain about this comment

    My sincere apologies for the careless comment on Hips renewal - that's been corrected. I've also corrected the point about the FSA looking at mortgages held, rather than taken out, between 2005 to 2008. I read that section of the review too quickly - partly down to disbelief that the figures could be so high. (To see the stats first-hand, see: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_16.pdf).

    On the QE (money printing) point - house prices were mainly saved by interest rates being slashed, making existing loans cheaper to service. QE helped in as much as it helped push down sterling, encouraging foreign buyers. It may also have lifted sales indirectly via bankers’ bonuses. But QE didn't boost mortgage lending significantly - the banks aren't lending this printed money into the wider economy. With rates as close to zero as they can get, there's no room to cut mortgage costs further. More QE may have an impact on stocks and bonds, but I'm not sure house prices would benefit.

  • 37. John Stepek

    (14 July 2010, 04:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    Steve P - sorry to hear of your situation. It brings home the point that property is about far more than investment, and puts our damaging obsession with ever-increasing prices into perspective.

  • 38. charlesdb

    (14 July 2010, 04:48PM)  Complain about this comment

    'Jaw' are your serious? I've seen these kind opinions expressed before - for instance houses should be passed on without paying IHT. Have you any idea of how distorted investment decisions would become? It's bad enough that your private dwelling can be sold on without paying CGT. ' John Stepek' frankly, I have seen no evidence of price falls here in London - the opposite in fact. People know that when push comes to shove, the market will be rigged by Government to keep the mortgage lenders solvent. To compare house prices to Gold is whistling in the wind and hear the derision of anyone trying to get onto the property ladder.

  • 39. Mike

    (14 July 2010, 06:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    John,

    Thanks for addressing the point about QE (money printing). I realise that mortgage lending is down (massively) and as I have pointed out (to my wife) to such an extent that you could argue there is no longer a fully functioning housing market.

    However, I believe the QE has saved the housing market as it has stopped the wave of liquidations and forced sales that would have been necessary without it and the other forms of easing that the banks have been granted.

    The problem is we don't know what mad scheme will be next. To stop the 'deflationary spiral' as described by Irwing Fisher (I think!)

  • 40. Michael

    (16 July 2010, 06:11AM)  Complain about this comment

    The same is true of property. If you have a property worth £500,000 and sterling has lost 75% of is value over three years but the price of the house is still £500,000 then the value of that property has been devalued by 75%.

    If sterling should fall to zero then the value of that same property is zero. It is simple mathematics. One of the money morning newsletters edited by John got just about right when he said. In another four years you will be able to by the average priced house for just 80 ounces of gold. Now what people will say that is because gold has risen. No it is true that gold dose go up in value, but not by that much. The rise in gold prices reflects more accurately the drop in value of sterling.

  • 41. Michael

    (16 July 2010, 06:12AM)  Complain about this comment

    As my old mathematics teacher used to say when a pupil gave a number as an answer, Ten. “Ten what? Ten houses, ten cars, ten hens, ten sweets, ten buttons. Ten what?

    The same is true of property. If you have a property worth £500,000 and sterling has lost 75% of is value over three years but the price of the house is still £500,000 then the value of that property has been devalued by 75%.

    If sterling should fall to zero then the value of that same property is zero. It is simple mathematics. One of the money morning newsletters edited by John got just about right when he said. In another four years you will be able to by the average priced house for just 80 ounces of gold. Now what people will say that is because gold has risen. No it is true that gold dose go up in value, but not by that much. The rise in gold prices reflects more accurately the drop in value of sterling.

  • 42. Beta Adjusted

    (16 July 2010, 08:33AM)  Complain about this comment

    Money printing isn't enough. Why not more discussion on wage inflation (required) and more austere credit environment (this is an interesting question: bank breakups haven't happened and whilst credit has been tightened it still seems there is a question mark over whether this will worsen/improve and we haven't seen much impact on house prices yet). I believe the former is the most important point, surely we must see wage deflation next which cannot be good for FTBs or indeed any other buyers other than the cash rich.

  • 43. Dave

    (16 July 2010, 03:08PM)  Complain about this comment

    Difficult, I think, when your editor in chief plunges back in to the market to continue to 'warn' readers of the continued perils of being a home owner in this way (as house purchases should always balance the personal position/ investment decision)? Continued policy action by governments worldwide have corrupted the 18 year cycle that FH describes and - whilst there will be a return to the long term trend across the relevant metrics - it's not clear whether this will occur by via an undershoot ending in Q3 2011 (the end of the 18 year cycle) and subsequent rise or (potentially following further supportive QE) with little or no undershoot over the medium term. Money Week will take a view as to whether or not the unbalanced permabear stance has, any longer, any resonance with those that have followed both the market and MW's analysis over the current cycle.

  • 44. Michael

    (16 July 2010, 07:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    QE is just a magician’s trick to make the numbers look good. An illusion. Why not more discussion on wage inflation? In fact we have whole scale inflation in the UK. Because if the value of sterling keeps falling and prices and wages remain static. Then in real terms we have inflation brought about by the collapse of the currency.

    QE is doing more than just paying the bad dept of banks; where it be the result of sub-prime, prime or commercial property. QE is preventing the wholesale collapse of the currency. However, it doesn’t actually create any real wealth and if you borrow money the general rule is you have to pay it back somewhere along the line. The big question is for how long can we keep bluffing our way out of recession and start to address the real issues of real wages for work that actually creates real wealth.

  • 45. Andrew Wales

    (23 July 2010, 01:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    House prices cant "crash/drop significantly" when interest rates are 0.5%.

    This is a ridicously low figure and unlikely to increase to above 3% (still historically low) within the next 2 years plus.

    Sure there are a few factors which would suggest there's downward pressure on house prices but without borrowing costs being much higher then the market will absorb the other downward pressures, due ultimeately to us living on an island and there being a shortage of building new properies.

    There's more likely to be a chance that pockets of regions will have their own little downward trends.

    You article containts no strong facts, its just merely a guess and a bad one at that. Or perhaps you can prove you've sold your own home and you're now sitting on cash waiting for it to collapse. Then I''d give your "prediction" a lot more credit!

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.


>