What is UK property really worth? Here are three ways to find out

By Phil Oakley Aug 02, 2012

Phil Oakley

Share with
friends:

Comments (77) Print this article

Most of us have a view on Britain's housing market.

For some, houses are ridiculously expensive. Others take the view that the only way is up, as we are a small island with a shortage of houses. Ask someone the value of their own house and you usually find that they think they know best.

But how do you value houses or flats objectively? Here we take a look at some of the most popular valuation methods – and what they say about UK house prices today.

1. Estate agent valuations – 'how much do you want it to be?'

One of the simplest ways to estimate the value of your house is to ask an estate agent. There's lots of money to be made selling houses, so most agents will gladly give you their opinion free of charge.

But when you understand how they come up with a figure, you could argue that their estimate isn't worth that much anyway.

You see, there isn't anything complicated about how most estate agents value properties. A good estate agent will know what's going on in the local market. So they will know what properties similar to yours are selling for.

Say you live in a three-bedroomed detached property in a leafy suburb, and a similar house round the corner sold for £300,000 three months ago. Don't be surprised if your house is given a similar price tag, provided the style and condition are similar.

But how do you know if the estimate is realistic? Well, you don't.

Agents often overvalue houses to win business. In fact, arguably, they don't value properties: they estimate what they think they will sell for. This can often be a long way away from what the property may actually be worth.

What someone was prepared to pay three months ago might be quite different today, especially given the shortage of mortgage finance these days. Cash buyers might pay different prices, as they are not dependent on a lender's valuation.

There are some sanity checks though. A good way of comparing valuations is to look at the price per square foot/metre of living space on sale. Be careful not to include areas such as garages as living space though, and measure your property carefully.

Most sale brochures give you the area of the house so that you can compare the costs per square foot. If your agent's valuation looks way out of line on this measure, then you need to do some more research.

2. Price / earnings ratios: how useful are they?

Comparing average house prices to average earnings has long been seen as a good indicator of property valuations.

After all, most people need an income to buy houses and pay mortgages, so looking at prices in relation to what people earn seems to make sense.

Halifax has a dataset on the price/earnings (p/e) ratio of UK houses going back to April 1983 (see chart below).

UK house price / earnings ratio

UK house price / earnings ratio

Source: Lloyds Banking Group

At the moment, the average UK house price, according to Halifax, is £165,738 or 4.3 times average earnings.

As you can see, during the late 1980s boom, prices peaked at five times earnings. In 2007, the ratio was nearly six times.

Contrast this with the decade from the early 1990s when the ratio was nearer three times, and the average since 1983, which is just over four times.

So if you think the p/e is a good measure of valuation, you can probably say that houses are certainly not screamingly cheap right now.

But just how meaningful is the house p/e ratio? Some argue that the increase in two-income households since the early 1980s makes the measure meaningless.

Others point to the fact that two incomes are needed to buy many houses - when often in the past they could be bought with one - as an indication that houses are still too expensive.

Then there is the relationship between interest rates and p/e ratios. Just as falling interest rates have led to bull markets in shares and bonds in recent years, the same argument has been made to justify higher property prices.

Low interest rates made monthly mortgage payments more affordable. Rental yields attracted hoards of amateur landlords. Banks could put more money in people's pockets to buy houses, and so prices could go up.

The banks may have stopped doing that now, but the government is also putting money into schemes such as 'New Buy' to prop up the market.

Mortgage payments as % of take home pay for first time buyers

Mortgage payments as % of take home pay for first time buyers

Source: Nationwide

The low interest rates argument has some good points. You could certainly argue that ultra-low interest rates are the main reason why house prices haven't fallen further.

With lots of distressed mortgages already out there, small increases in interest rates have the potential to push many households over the edge and into default on their mortgages.

Never mind what would happen with interest rates back at 5-6% - a rate that is quite possible if inflation takes off, or bond investors get fed up receiving peanuts to hold our government's growing debt pile.

Will the p/e ratio on UK houses go back to three times again? Who knows? But the ingredients are certainly out there to push it lower. And interest rates can only really go higher from here.


  Property Report

'Don't be fooled... house prices will fall again'

A MoneyWeek special report opens the lid on the UK and US property market, revealing what's really going on, how it affects house prices, and what you can do to profit from this.

A must read for anyone interested in the property market

 


3. Price to rents or rental yields: houses are like other investments

For me, this measure is probably the best way to get a handle on how much houses are really worth. By valuing houses on the basis of the potential rental income you can get from them, you can compare them with other investments such as shares, bonds or savings accounts.

You can calculate the rental yield of a property by dividing its annual rental income by its market value. According to LSL Property Services, the average monthly rental is £718, or £8,616 per year. Divide this figure by the average house price of £165,738 and this gives a rental yield of 5.2%.

But what does that mean?

Well, this is a higher yield than a few years ago and looks quite good compared to savings accounts. It has also been going up of late, helped by rising demand for rented property as more and more people struggle to get mortgages (although shouldn't that also tell you something about house prices in itself?).

But it doesn't mean that houses are good value. In fact there are good reasons to think exactly the opposite.

You see the 5.2% quoted yield comes before deducting most of the costs that landlords face. These include things such as insurance, maintenance and repairs, periods when the property is not rented (voids), agency fees and tax.

I've spoken to landlords and looked around property websites to see what the typical costs of these items are. When you factor them in, the maths of renting out property in the current market look horrible, frankly.

Is buy-to-let worth it?

% of rent
Monthly rent £718
Annual rent £8,616
UK average house price £165,738
Gross rental yield 5.20%
Annual rent £8,616 100%
Insurance premiums -£215.40 -3%
Replacement/maintenance -£861.60 -10%
Voids (one month's rent) -£718 -8%
Agency fee -£861.60 -10%
Net income £5,959.40
Net yield 3.60%
After-tax yield at 20% tax 2.90%
Mortgage costs 60% buy-to-let at 5% -£6,975.99
Net Income after mortgage costs -£1,016.59

According to my calculations, someone buying the average house in the UK without a mortgage and renting it out would make a 2.9% after tax income return when a prudent estimate of all costs is taken into account.

This looks very unappealing. You can buy real estate investment trusts (Reits) on the stock market, stick them in an individual savings account, and get dividend yields of 5-6% without all the hassle.

But the numbers look even worse for someone buying the house with a buy-to-let mortgage. Based on a loan-to-value of 60% over 25 years, you can expect to pay around 5% on a repayment mortgage. This equates to £581 per month and means the investment is loss-making at current prices.

Yes, you can boost returns by cutting out letting agents and hope that your tenants will be capable of paying higher rents year-in, year-out in a weak economy. Or you can take a look at the hard facts – houses still cost far too much.

 

 

 

Recommended video

Tim Bennett looks at some of the most popular house price surveys and explains the differences between them, how they work, and how useful they are as a guide to house prices.

• Watch all of Tim's video tutorials here

Comments (77)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Boris MacDonut

    (01 August 2012, 05:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    There is so much tommy rot written about housing. Housing is worth what someone will pay at the moment of exchange.
    Yesterday I heard an "expert" on radio4 expound that for every mile travelled between centralLondon and central Manchester HP's fell by £1,000. It is 180 miles form one to the other. Average central London price is £520k , Manchester price is £170k. I make that nearly £2,000 a mile !
    Some expert.

  • 2. Dominic Farrell

    (01 August 2012, 07:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    Firstly, you’d have to be nuts investing in a buy-to-let property which only yielded 5.2%, although London is an exception to this.

    Averages are all very well, but to take the average rent and the average house price is misleading.

    The article doesn’t take into account that presently, at auction or through receivers, investors can purchase properties substantially below market value with double digit yields common and mouth-watering ones not uncommon.

    In my view, there has never been a better time to invest in property. The banks aren't lending, the economy is struggling and more people are renting.

    As a result, yields are rising.

  • 3. Roberto Birquet

    (01 August 2012, 08:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    Three certainties in life: Death, taxes and Boris posting crap about UK houses being cheap or affordable.

  • 4. NIck

    (01 August 2012, 09:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    It will be a slow movement towards logical house prices. Now everybody has accepted that houses do not go up and prices are going down.
    When more and more buyers start bidding with that in mind (the ones who do not consider it probably will not get a mortgage) then more prices will drop..

    Just hold your cash and wait.

  • 5. Phil Oakley

    (02 August 2012, 06:47AM)  Complain about this comment

    @Dominic

    The points you make about auctions supports the view that house prices elsewhere are too high. The prices received by distressed sellers in auctions are more representative of their true value if double-digit yields can be achieved by buyers.

    When the rest of the market is allowed to function properly, my guess is that prices could fall a long way. The government and the banks are doing their best to make sure that this does not happen. I'm not sure that some bank balance sheets could cope with a substantial reduction in house prices. There's no money left to patch them up if this happens.

    Regards

    Phil




  • 6. Kenmei

    (02 August 2012, 09:35AM)  Complain about this comment

    Rents and house prices should be considered differently. Rent is a direct function of income and supply. House prices are a function of income, credit availability, supply, expectations, interest rates. Disposable income is falling, credit availability is constrained, supply is adequate, expectations are to the downside and interest rates are as low as they can go, therefore there is nothing that will drive a rise in house prices. The risks are therefore to the downside.

    Using a proprietary valuation model I estimate that the average house price should be around £130,000 +/- 12.5% (averages are, of course, misleading, but I’m not buying at the moment).

  • 7. Shed

    (02 August 2012, 11:04AM)  Complain about this comment

    You all miss something important - the herd mentality.
    At my local pub everybody considers themselves an expert on the housing market (whereas only at London dinner parties does everyone consider themselves an expert on complex financial derivatives). House prices go up because the 'pub experts' think they will. They come down because...........

  • 8. Simon

    (02 August 2012, 11:12AM)  Complain about this comment

    Sadly the whole analysis is flawed from the outset. It is a nonsense to compare average rents with average property values - you need to compare them with average values of properties that are rented out. If that is done then you will get a more realistic yield of around 6.2%. Also a well managed property will not be empty for one month a year and you do not pay agents fees when the property is empty!
    Methinks a few hundred thousand private landlords understand the economics of buy to let better than Mr Oakley!

  • 9. Eddie

    (02 August 2012, 11:17AM)  Complain about this comment

    It is, frankly, insane that the average price of a property in London is 360k and the average salary around £34,000 (26 outside London). The whole market is propper up by the Bank of England doing politicians' bidding, the buy-to-let investors, foreign buyers and second-homers. Property is just not worth what it is selling for now: some properties are now worth 100 times what they were worth in the 1970s. Crazy. Just nuts.

    Crash is a-coming one day - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually the emperor will be exposed as stark B naked - and the housing market will be knackered too! Good. It will be about time.

  • 10. Phil Oakley

    (02 August 2012, 11:53AM)  Complain about this comment

    Just to be clear. The 5.2% rental yield is the one quoted by LSL in it's latest buy to let report for England & Wales.

    It is based on 18,000 properties. They have calculated this yield by dividing £718 monthly rent times 12 by the £165K capital value. It is based on properties that are rented out.

  • 11. Jon

    (02 August 2012, 11:59AM)  Complain about this comment

    Where is the writer getting his UK salary data from?

    "At the moment, the average UK house price, according to Halifax, is £165,738 or 4.3 times average earnings."

    165738 / 4.3 = 38543. I thought the average UK salary was around £26k, which would make houses a lot less affordable by this measure.

    Am I missing something here? Would genuinely appreciate if someone could explain.

  • 12. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 12:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    #3Roberto. Which bit of my post is suggesting housing is cheap? Is it the £520,ooo price for central London? Which bit is crap? Is it the £17o,ooo for central Manchester?
    FYI Housing cost relative to income is only about 5 percentage points above the average of the last 30 years. Hardly a disaster,or do you seek to exaggerate for effect?

  • 13. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 12:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    #11 Jon. Average UK salary is about £28,500 according to HMRC. But houses are bought with income of all kinds (along with asset sales and inheritance). Income is just shy of £34,000 per adult.
    Halifax HP's are wrong. They only look at a limited range of smaller and mortgaged houses. Land Reg' has the average at £224k, easily found on the BBC your money pages.

  • 14. Gazza

    (02 August 2012, 12:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    The article comments that the Price to Earnings ratio is prob of less importance as an indicator since 1980's as there are more 2 earners per household. I bought my first place at age 19 (back in late 70s) and the mortgage could be 3x mine, or 3.5 times myself and my partner.

    The availability of credit at higher ratios simply allowed house prices to artificially inflate. We are now seeing a correction, and p'raps we should consider 3x and 3.5x as being sustainable in the longer term.

    My kids, with jobs that prob have an equiv salary to what I earned back then, have no hope of getting on the housing ladder. Be interesting to see the profile of those people who are selling at the mo - what proportion are baby boomers, wishing to downsize, but finding there is no demand for their larger houses. My recommendation to my kids ?...wait, house prices are going to come down, buy later.

  • 15. Simon

    (02 August 2012, 12:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    The last LSL report I saw mentioned 5.4% as the yield - and this was after allowing for voids - so my point stands and you have significantly understated income. although I believe true yields even after voids, should be closer to 6%.

  • 16. Phil Oakley

    (02 August 2012, 12:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    Hi Simon,

    The 5.4% figure in the report refers to the latest annual total return for rented properties based on income and capital gains. This total return figure does take into account voids.

    Best wishes

    Phil

    http://www.lslps.co.uk/documents/buy_to_let_index_jun12.pdf

  • 17. Phil Oakley

    (02 August 2012, 12:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Jon 11

    The p/e ratio of 4.3x is taken from the latest Halifax house price report. I agree with your comments about the implied level of average earnings and what it means for valuations.

    Phil

  • 18. Simon

    (02 August 2012, 12:28PM)  Complain about this comment

    Phil - your comment "This total return figure does take into account voids." - my point precisely - so do not deduct a further allowance for voids in your analysis!

  • 19. Phil Oakley

    (02 August 2012, 12:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    Simon

    Just coming back on this average total return figure of 5.4%. This is according to LSL is based on rental income of £7719 and £1166 capital gain.

    Given that average monthly rents according to LSL are £718 or £8616 per year, the £7719 income figure suggests that voids are indeed an issue and account for about 10% of gross rents which is more than one month's rent.

  • 20. Stephen Griffiths

    (02 August 2012, 12:42PM)  Complain about this comment

    Is anyone going to mention the growing inequality created by the artificial propping up of the market? Those that already own can by a second house to rent out much more easily than a young FTB can get into the market. Whilst the government shuffles around with pathetic fixes and conjuring tricks to help FTBs borrow way more than they can afford to...they could really help young people by allowing the market to correct properly. At the moment the reason the banks won't lend to FTBs is because they know that it's risky at these prices.

    We all know house prices are unrealistically high. Let those that borrowed too much take the hit and come out wiser. Let the market work. Give young people a chance to own a property.

  • 21. Jim C

    (02 August 2012, 12:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    "And interest rates can only really go higher from here."

    Sorry, Phil, interest rates are no longer controlled by the market but by the Bank of England's QE. Buyers' strike of UK gilts? No problem, Uncle Merv will step in.

    You've already stated that if interest rates rise, many homeowners will be driven to default. This is politically unacceptable... which is why the only way for interest rates is... down.

    I suggest you research 'financial repression' - we're in for artificially low interest rates, and high (and understated) inflation.

    House prices may well come down in terms of PPP, but not nominally, as the political costs would be too high.

  • 22. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 02:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    #6kenmai.
    House prices are more a function of location,nationally and internationally as well as general wealth and demographics.
    The most important of the points you cite is not income,but supply.

  • 23. Stephen

    (02 August 2012, 02:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    Correct me if I'm wrong or stupid but...

    Including transaction fees the cost of buying the 'average house' is around £170k.

    According to the Sunday Times FTB best buy mortgage from first direct is 4.19% 10% deposit.

    Assuming that you have a spare £17k lying about you would need a mortgage of £153k, which (at 4.19%) = £824 pm Repayment or £534 interest only.

    So setting aside £824 pm I would rather pay £534pm interest to the bank and repay the capital in order to have something to show for it after 25 years than £718 to a landlord and a savings of £106pm

    2 further points:
    1)The rate would need to be above 5.6% before the interest would be greater than the rent.
    2) According to the BBC salary calculator £26k equates to a take home of £1,684.47.

    Lastly as someone who lost their job in 2010, was forced to sell up and move abroad I hope (pray) that the bears are right, interest rates go up and there will be bargains in the future.

  • 24. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 03:11PM)  Complain about this comment

    #23 Stephen. You are wrong. The cost of buying the typical house in the Nationwide survey is £170 if you pay cash up front. For those on a mortgage it is much more. Taking a weighted average of the nationwide and LandReg' figures gic=ves average UK HP at £195k and the typical mortgae as £112k at say 4%. The total paid over say 25 years is £253,000 or approx £22,000 up front and £80o a month for 25 years. With a 90% mortgage it would be £120 more each month.
    But you are right. Buying is ALWAYS better than renting.

  • 25. Labradorn

    (02 August 2012, 03:35PM)  Complain about this comment

    Housing is a straight forward supply and demand situation, no supply, some demand. This is skewed further by home owners not willing to lower prices, Governments legislation (no land and raising build costs, code 4/5, red tape etc) and taxing the hell out of new property (aggregate levy, section 106, affordable housing, utility supply costs, not forgetting stamp duty). On the demand side we have cheap loans probably for at least the next 5 years and affordability, the income ratio is a meaningless calculation, it is disposable income which counts and the other costs as a proportion have gone down over the last 20 years so there is more available to spend on property. We also have increasing population and a demographic change of more students and people living alone and longer. There are plenty of buy to let mortgages at less than 3% and I agree with previous comments who would be after an average return I would not buy at less than a 12% return.

  • 26. Jim C

    (02 August 2012, 03:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris

    "But you are right. Buying is ALWAYS better than renting."

    Not if you see the value of your house decline by 25%... as was the case in the US.

    NO investment is foolproof. Housing has had a good run, with artificially low credit and supply constraints bidding up prices, but if the BoE's monetary inflation pushes up the price of food and energy, people will have less to spend on mortgages.

    I expect UK house prices to be fairly stable nominally but to lose out to commodities. Yes, the price of your house won't decline much.. but if you're paying £5 for a cup of coffee at Costa and you grocery bill has doubled, you won't be feeling much 'wealth effect'

  • 27. Stephen

    (02 August 2012, 04:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris - regarding your comment the interest on 195K at 4.2% = £682 which is still less than the rent.

    My post was merely trying to point out that from a mathematical point of view it is cheaper to buy than rent given the current numbers, which would make property desirable.

    The obvious questions are can you secure a mortgage and what will happen to interest rates.

    As I alluded to earlier I neither own nor rent in the UK so I'm wanting prices to drop but I fear as JimC pointed out that they're going to go sideways.


  • 28. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 05:37PM)  Complain about this comment

    #26 Jim C. Don't be ridiculous,all rent is dead money. Even a small return on a house is still a return. In the last 25 years HP's are up 185%. So a £100k house in 1987 is now at £285K. A 25% fall would put it at £214k ,still up 114%,or a gain of £380 per month. What I think Stephen is saying is as long as the capital and interest is less than £380 above the rent for said house one is quids in. If you had rented for 25 years and invested the extra £380's elsewhere would you be £185k up?

  • 29. Jim C

    (02 August 2012, 05:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris,

    Unless you've got a time machine and are planning going back '25 years' to 1987 and indulging in a levered house buying spree, it's prices going forward that matter.

    And, yes, even "a small return on a house is still a return" - but if house prices drop 25% compared to everything else over the next five years, your return won't be a small positive, it'll be large negative, compared with if you'd waited and rented and invested elsewhere.... and THEN bought.

    As your retrospective gains unwittingly illustrate... timing is everything.

  • 30. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 06:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    #29 Jim C .Who buys houses for just 5 years? Even if HP's rise at only one third of the last 25 years in the next 25,they will hit £320k by 2037. So buy a house for £195k now, pay £253k at 2024 prices (halfway through the mortgage) and end up with £318k (admittedly at 2037 prices).
    Even if HP's stay still you'd pay off the mortgage and have an asset worth £195k. The renter will have nothing except his smug misplaced dignity.

  • 31. Jim C

    (02 August 2012, 06:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris

    If one is fairly confident that prices will go down relative to other things, then the idea is to rent and invest in other things with more upside potential than housing until the price differential plays out, and THEN buy.

    Would you rather buy a house for, say, 10,000 ounces of silver now, or rent for 5 years and buy the same house for 5,000 ounces of silver?

  • 32. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 09:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    #31 Jim C. The article is about what UK houses are worth, not are they a good investment vehicle. The vast majority are bought as places to live in. the article is inaccurate as the charts stop nearly a year ago. Current mortgage payments to take home pay are under 29% (on the low side). It also says most people need an income to buy a house and then refers to earnings instead. Pay only makes up 65% of UK incomes.
    There is never a wrong time to buy only a wrong time to lose faith. As long as a house is held for a decade you will never lose compared to renting. I have failed to find a single ten year period when a buyer would lose overall.

  • 33. Mark H

    (02 August 2012, 11:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    There's a couple of things that never seem to get discussed when MW do property articles..
    1) Why is there such an obsession with the averages? Since when did any individual property deal conform to those averages? You have to judge every deal in it's own right. As with the stock market, each house is different, as is each share. Not recommending investment in property based on the general market is as ludicrous as not recommending a particular share based on the level of the FTSE 100. As with any investment, the skill is working out which stock/property is undervalued and gives you a margin of safety (a la Ben Graham) and waiting for time to do it's thing, whilst collecting rent at the same time. If the numbers don't stack up then don't buy it. There are good areas for buying property and bad areas, same as there are good sectors and bad in the stock market, and good individual houses or stocks vs. bad. Making generalisations using averages is pretty lazy journalism!

  • 34. Mark H

    (02 August 2012, 11:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    2) The huge difference with property vs. most other investments is leverage. You can't compare gross yield or even net yield on a property with yield on a bond or in a savings account unless you're buying property for cash. Most people buy using mortgages. If we say that most BTL mortgages are about 75% LTV right now, that means that your return on your initial money invested is actually 4 times greater because you only put down 25% (obviously i'm not including transaction costs and fees here). Therefore property blows most other comparable investments out of the water on a pure yield/income basis. And I certainly can't think of any other investment that you can leverage that much with such low risk that a bank would actually lend the money to you for it!

  • 35. Jon

    (03 August 2012, 10:53AM)  Complain about this comment

    #13 and # 17 Boris and Phil, thank you very much for explaining the income data.

    The point about income/earnings being more than just salary is very interesting as it essentially means that only those fortunate enough to either...
    1) Earn an above average salary or
    2) Have external sources of income e.g. inheritance
    ...can afford to buy a house.

    Would be interesting to how the proportion of "earnings" that comes from salary varies over time. Currently the huge discrepancy between average salary and average "earnings" essentially means that today's house buyers are being subsidised by their parents. So house prices are being propped up by the prosperity of the baby-boomer generation. Presumably this can't be sustainable, as eventually this needs to be replaced by genuine economic growth (growth in salaries).

    Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I am neither a property investor nor an economist so probably talking nonsense!

  • 36. Neil

    (03 August 2012, 11:17AM)  Complain about this comment

    I have a large portfolio of residential buy-to-let houses in the north west. The article analysis doesn't even begin to expose the reality of this awful business.

    Gross Yields are nonsense. At best, you can average 10 out of 12 months of rental income from tenants who can or will pay the rent. Repairs and Maintenance are significant costs. Tenant management, councils, tradesmen, deposit schemes... I wouldn't wish this business on my worst enemy... Oh, and rapidly falling values taking anything bought since 2004 below its value when bought (and probably into negative equity too)

    Don't let any of the sharks and scammers selling property courses con you into getting into this business. Do Anything else ! I think the example of higher returns from reits etc. summed it up...

  • 37. chris

    (03 August 2012, 12:18PM)  Complain about this comment

    If you rental yield is lower than your costs (particularly the mortgage) then it's simply cheper to rent, or am I missing something?
    While in most of the UK it's not the case at the moment, a lot of 'Prime London' property gross yields at only 3-4%+ To me this is the sign of overvaluation but surely lots will claim it as a sign of low risk (only in a way that they will rent out easily)).

  • 38. Barkingmad

    (03 August 2012, 04:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    If you were deciding whether to buy a property today or rent - which is best over the next 5-10 years. Of course paying rent is 'dead' money but it's no different to an interest only mortgage if the house value remained static.

    Yet owning the property carries the (real) risk of it going down in value. Take the example above and you are effectively 'paying' someone to live in a house you own and taking the extra risk of the property going down in value.

    Let's say it dropped 20% over the next 5 years and you could be losing £33k in capital value and over £5k in the difference between the rent and interest payments (and that would only widen if / when interest rates go up).

    At the end of the day the decision comes down to do you think house prices will be higher or lower than today in 5 years time and a lot of the data seems to point negative.

  • 39. Ellen

    (03 August 2012, 04:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 1, 12, 13, 22,24, 28, 30 & 32. Boris - You must be heavily invested in property!! You sound desperate to talk it up! Or an estate agent possibly. Supply is only one side of the tediously cited and misused term 'supply and demand'. If you are acquainted with this high school economics graph, you would know you have to find the equilibrium of supply and demand to fully satisfy the market (where they both meet). And any high school economics student will be able to tell you that it's not been allowed to happen - yet!

  • 40. NeutronWarp9

    (03 August 2012, 04:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    1-Boris MacDonut.
    The article is referring to value (presumably 'open market value'), as opposed to worth; which is simply value to a particular individual - however cuckoo they might be.
    The 'price' is sloppy street-talk dude for how much money is exchanged in consideration for ownership of the property.

  • 41. Barkingmad

    (03 August 2012, 04:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    Neil raises some of the 'realities' and I think 1 month 'empty' per year is optimistic - I know people who do buy-to-let and realistically it's much higher in that they are either empty for longer or they have to accept a reduced rent and it does not factor in the risk of non-payment. I'd say voids and non-payment would be nearer -20% than -8%.

    Most landlords continue because they either cannot sell the properties without taking a loss or because the value they put on the property was the original price they paid - not what it is worth. You buy a property for £100k many years ago - it may be worth £200k now so you have to do your yield calculations based on it's present day value.

    Buy to let was great for a while when landlords did not even care if the rents covered their interest only mortgages as they were making on the capital appreciation - but today with banks insisting on larger deposits, interest rates effectively as low as they can go it's not so rosy.

  • 42. rishi

    (03 August 2012, 04:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    @27Stephen

    in ur comment (27) u say that interest on avg mortgage of £682 is still less than avg rent £718 which means buying is cheaper ...!!! with buying comes insurance cost ... rnd £30-60 a month. Add to that a years maintainence £50-100 per month on avg. (insurance + maintainence are done by landlords in rented props) put the two together and you get more realistic cost of buying at £750-780.
    Also another thing that ur forgetting is that when you rent the deposit that you save (£17k to buy avg house) can yield 4% in fixed deposits (HSBC offers one) which is approx £50 per month ie avg rent then becomes £718-50= approx £670
    so the diff between buyin and renting at these historically low interest rates is around £100 in favour of renting (plus u get to keep ur 17k deposit!)

    if its good now it can only get better when rates go up in 3-5 yrs and consequently house prices plummet or stay stable nominally.

  • 43. Barkingmad

    (03 August 2012, 04:26PM)  Complain about this comment

    Also the table above assumes 20% income tax - I'm generalising but I'm sure a lot of landlords are high(er) rate taxpayers so 20% would be the best case - so for many the actual position is even worse.

    Someone also raised the issue of leverage - but it's double-edged - yes when things are good it allows you to make bigger gains but 'today' you could put down a £33k (20%) on your average house above - the house drops 20% and you are wiped out. If you invested the £33k in shares and they dropped 20% at least you only lost 20%.

  • 44. Barkingmad

    (03 August 2012, 04:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Dominic - "In my view, there has never been a better time to invest in property. The banks aren't lending, the economy is struggling and more people are renting. As a result, yields are rising."

    The banks aren't lending - well that scuppers most people wanting to invest in property then?

    Then you factor in not getting paid (a real and almost certainly rising risk for all landlords) or having to accept lower rents, house prices dropping significantly, interest rates rising (they can't really go down any further).

    Also if house prices were to drop / interest rates remain stable - yes it helps landlords with their mortgage cost but their capital value may drop and it may tempt more people out of renting and into owning.

  • 45. Critic Al Rick

    (03 August 2012, 05:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    Go to: www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/house-prices-and-sales/search-the-index.

    Pop in such details as area or postcode, period from 01/1995 or later, results format. You'll see what average selling prices were each month over your selected period.

    Selling prices in the areas I have looked are down over 20% from peak (for detached properties) and the current trend is gradually down.

  • 46. Critic Al Rick

    (03 August 2012, 05:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    Off topic, but:

    If you're going to rent take my advice and rent through a bona fide rental management agency rather than risk submitting yourself to the vagaries of the landlord's self-administered maintenance management system, should, indeed, such a system exist!

    Perhaps someone could tell me how to get my landlord to administer maintenance in accordance with the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement without him/her taking the infamous landlord's revenge - 2 months notice of termination.

  • 47. Gary Ash

    (04 August 2012, 11:21AM)  Complain about this comment

    If you're going to rent take my advice and rent through a private Landlord rather than risk submitting yourself to the vagaries of an overpriced letting agent. Amongst many other rip offs they perpetrate, their self-created fees for 'renewing your tenancy agreement' (half an hours work costing hundreds of pounds) is really just money for old rope.

    And you can forget about them coming to repair faulty white goods or fix defective locks. The sooner letting agents disappear the better.

  • 48. Boris MacDonut

    (04 August 2012, 02:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    #38 B'Mad. Too many "ifs" and too negative as usual. Why is 5 years relevant? Most mortgages are taken over 25 years. The typical house is owned for 17 years. HP's should always be well up over 17 to 25 years even if they fall in the short term.
    #39 Ellen. I own one property and am no estate agent, just a realist. If you read my posts you'll see I spurn economics as a failed pseudo-science. Demand is less important. There is little demand for van Goghs but they command a huge price.......
    #40Neutron. The headline says "worth". Only you could claim it means something else.

  • 49. Boris MacDonut

    (04 August 2012, 02:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    My dad Maurice MacDonut inherited a hous ein Devon in 1990 valued at £90,000. It is now worth £2750,000. He has live din it "rent free" for 22 years. Are you saying he would be better off having sold it in 1990 and renting in the meantime? Ridiculous.
    Doris MacDonut's sister bought in 1997 for £160,000 and has paid out £210,000 on the mortgage ,ending up with a home worth over £400k. That is somewhere to live for 15 years and an extra £30,000 ,she must be livid she didn't see the light and rent.

  • 50. Boris MacDonut

    (04 August 2012, 03:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    #49 OOps that is £275,000.Maurice isn't that lucky!

  • 51. Ellen

    (04 August 2012, 04:34PM)  Complain about this comment

    @48. Boris. Without deliberately trying to insult your intelligence, the market for VanGogh’s is a very specific market with, I would guess, an extremely inelastic demand curve (you can charge what you like) if two buyers are in the running.

    The amount of income available and the availability of substitutes make buying housing much more elastic and so, price sensitive. While the banks were lax in handing out credit, sure, this made demand less elastic. But now with the breaks on credit, growing unemployment and recession - renting (the alternative) is a much more feasible option for very many people. But banks (with the collusion of government) attempt to keep demand inelastic with low interest rates and QE and a campaign to ensure a shortage of supply through the massive forbearance project by the banks. This is to hold up the value of their mortgage book and pretend the asset values on their balance sheets read the word ‘solvent’.

  • 52. Boris MacDonut

    (04 August 2012, 05:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    #51 Ellen. I thought banks wrapped up their mortgage books and sold them on. The value to the finace industry is the stream of income from the mortgage , not the asset value of the house. That is only relevant when they foreclose. Surely with low interest rates the income stream is much lower. Not sure where you see the collusion here. A credit famine, unemployment and a recession have not really dented the massive gains of the years 1994 to 2007. You doom-mongers keep telling me the slump is coming. I've been waiting for 5 years as of August 9th. So far my house has lost 8% of its 2007 headline value and i'm saving £300 a month on mortgage payments.

  • 53. martyn

    (04 August 2012, 07:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    Oh dear, Boris. Such misplaced smugness and arrogance. Where to begin?

  • 54. Zerost

    (04 August 2012, 10:11PM)  Complain about this comment

    Average selling price (land registry) £162k, average asking price (rightmove) £242k. Here we have the two camps of the debate. What property is actually worth vs what some think property is worth.

    The gap is massive and helps to explain why some cling on to the belief that there is never a bad time to buy property.

  • 55. Boris MacDonut

    (04 August 2012, 10:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    #53. Nothing of the sort. I am not being self-satisfied, simply pointing out that the doom agenda is plain wrong. I am sorry if the truth hurts. I do not believe the pessimism and am rather peeved at repeatedly having to explain why.
    #54 Zerost. You should compare average asking price to the accurate seeling price at the ONS of £228k, it conforms to the 93% of asking price that is now expected....the new normal.

  • 56. Critic Al Rick

    (05 August 2012, 11:21AM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, sorry to disillusion you, but it can be seen from the Land Registry House Price Index that the average selling price of detached properties in Somerset is down from peak by over 14%.

    I suspect ONS figures are corrupted by, if nothing else, statistics from certain areas in London.

  • 57. Stephen

    (05 August 2012, 12:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    Well this is a popular thread

    @42 Rishi,

    I agree wholeheartedly with you comments and think that you would be crazy to follow the never been a better time to buy advice that one poster wrote.

    I was only pointing out from a FTB (not landlord) perspective that if:

    a) If nothing were to change to house prices or interest rates for perpetuity and
    b)given the original averages used by the editor, not Boris,

    You would be paying £534pm interest, adding your mean combined expenses figure for insurance/maintenance of £120 you are looking at £650 pm. Which is about par with your figure of £670 for renting and saving.

    After 25 years you would either have a house or a large pot of money.

    Clearly my first assumption is a crock of XXXX, I was just number crunching, rather than crystal ball gazing.

  • 58. PV70

    (05 August 2012, 12:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    Small island, shortage of houses etc argument is laughable at best, but has been used to manipulate the masses. House prices rose 1998-2007 due to easy credit. They haven't fallen much for a very simple reason: all time low interest rates. At the current rates, most people can afford their mortgages.

    I'd like to find what percentage of mortgages are still interest only. This is yet another time bomb waiting to explode. Eventually it will unless a) economy starts improving soon and b) high inflation starts eating debt.

    UK housing market is currently in a deadlock stage. Few people can afford to buy at the current prices but most sellers don't have to sell, for now.

  • 59. Draxman

    (05 August 2012, 01:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    Property is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. No more and no less. An estate agent can give a 'valuation', but it's really no more than an estimate of what it might fetch. If nobody is willing to pay that price, it isn't worth that.

  • 60. Boris MacDonut

    (05 August 2012, 03:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    #56 Rick. Cheddar is only my fictional home, like my name. I live in an identical house to one fiurther up my street that sold for £525,000 in October 2007 and has just sold for £485,000 in May 2012 with no extra money spent on it. I am stating facts, not trying to be smug, just relating what I have direct experience of.
    #58 You have the facts backwards. Easy credit came about because HP's were rising not vice versa.

  • 61. PV70

    (05 August 2012, 03:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    #60 Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

  • 62. Sandra

    (05 August 2012, 05:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    London is still an attractive market. Six out of 10 landlords are looking to expand their property portfolios by the end of the year and London continues to be an attractive market.

    http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/property/residential-property/six-out-of-ten-landlords-looking-to-boost-property-portfolios/3027.article

  • 63. PV70

    (05 August 2012, 05:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    #62 Article that doesn't say anything meaningful, purely based on 'research' by mortgage brokers. Hmmh...

    Many similar articles make BTL sound really easy which it isn't. I agree that having money in a savings account doesn't make much sense at the moment.

    BTL, however, requires more work and is riskier. There are void periods and not every tenant pays the rent in time. There's been a lot of talk about rising rents. However, even this money must come from somewhere. I can't see how inflated rent increases could be sustainable in the current climate, resulting in more tenants falling into arrears.

    On another note, many London hotels seem to have priced themselves out of the market during the 2012 Olympics. Is this because everyone decided to rent a flat for two weeks, making speculative landlords richer?

  • 64. Critic Al Rick

    (05 August 2012, 08:26PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 60. Boris, my apologies for jumping to conclusions; I should have worked that one out for myself. S-o-o-o-o ... having given you the benefit of the doubt ... and not wishing to be rude ... you might embrace being a 'wind-up merchant' afterall! Cheers.

    Of course when the London housing bubble bursts it will have a knock-on effect over most of the country, the effect probably being roughly inversely proportional to the square of the distance from London. So I hope your 'Cheddar' is not near London.

  • 65. Ian

    (05 August 2012, 08:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    My ex-neighbours paid £174K in 2008 for their semi. Around £30-35's worth of upgrading later the property has just been sold - for £168K! No exceptional circumstances just a very expensive reality check. Be careful out there, particularly with the impact of reduced housing benefits imminent.

  • 66. zerost

    (05 August 2012, 09:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    London property sales for properties over £2m are down 24%.

  • 67. Boris MacDonut

    (05 August 2012, 09:45PM)  Complain about this comment

    #64 Rick. My Cheddar is nowhere near London.But I am fond of cheese.
    #65 Ian. The rule of thumb for upgrades is they add 50% of the spend to value. So your friend has seen an 11% fall in value. Not too alarming in the circumstances is it? Their main loss is in deciding to upgrade (around £18,000) not the property sale.

  • 68. Barkingmad

    (06 August 2012, 04:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris - "I live in an identical house to one fiurther up my street that sold for £525,000 in October 2007 and has just sold for £485,000 in May 2012 with no extra money spent on it."

    So to use your example - that 'lucky' person has 'only' lost £40k in about 4 1/2 years - plus 4% stamp duty (another £21k) - so minus £61k over that period.

    An interest only mortgage and rent would probably have fairly similar - so someone renting would be around £60k better off?

    I'm not saying property has not been a good long-term investment (historically) - but by your own example it's not been good in the last 5 years and a lot of the indicators are not very positive for the next 5 years either?

  • 69. Boris MacDonut

    (06 August 2012, 06:11PM)  Complain about this comment

    #68 Barking.I'm talking about myself. I have not moved or incurred any Stamp duty only lost a paper 8%. I am still well up on the deal having bought in the mid 90's. Rent on a similar house round here is £1600 a month. Interest on an 85% mortgage would be around £1450. Your argument is only relevant to those who would have a large IO mortgage and even then only applies in the short term as the long term always wins.

  • 70. Barkingmad

    (07 August 2012, 04:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris - your calculation is flawed / over-simlified - the rent may be £1600 per month - but you can't compare it to a mortgage based on 85% of the value as you are also losing interest on the other 15%.

    Having bought in the 90's you may be 'up' - good for you - but you have also lost a big chunk of change over the last 4-5 years). So your less fortunate neighbour has found it much more expensive to buy than if they had rented over the same period.

    Using your example again - they have lost a big chunk over the last 4-5 years and it could take another 4-5 years (or more) to even get back to where to where they were. The point is there are a lot of negative indicators that means there is a good chance house prices may well be flat / drop over the next few years.

  • 71. Barkingmad

    (07 August 2012, 04:45PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris - also interest rates are currently very low and unlikely to go (much) lower - if anything over the next 5-10 years I would expect them to go up. So re-do your calculation with a 6% mortgage rate and a equivalent interest only mortgage may cost over £2400.

    The point being - your neighbour found house ownership 'very' expensive over the last 4-5 years and someone buying now could well see house prices fall (further) as well as interest rates go up.

  • 72. Boris MacDonut

    (07 August 2012, 10:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    #70&71. Barking. I am talking about myself. I do not hahve an 85% mortgage and nor do millions. I have lost nothing at all over the last 4 to 5 years other than the nice warm glow of a possible sale (that did not take place) at a slightly inflated price. I am still up on the deal like anyone who sticks at home ownership for a serious length of time. You don't just want the moon on a stick you want it yesterday. All you have succeeed in laboriously pointing out is that a few people who chose to rent foer the past 4 years may not be any worse off than those who took an IO mortgage. Fair enough but even those on IO have a massive headstart when the price rises resume.

  • 73. Barkingmad

    (08 August 2012, 10:36AM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris - the reality is had you sold 5 years ago and rented since you would probably be in a better financial situation. Had you bought 4-5 years ago and be selling now you are clearly taking a very significant hit.

    As an interest only mortgage and rent are broadly similar in cost you have to ask yourself if over the next 5 years is there more chance of house prices going up, down or perhaps staying the same. Personally (and of your you will probably disagree) but I think there is more chance they will drop further over the next 5 years and 'at best' may be worth about what they are today in 5-10 years.

  • 74. Barkingmad

    (08 August 2012, 10:41AM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris - the problem is many people (and perhaps yourself included) are not willing to accept a paper loss is still a loss. It's similar to people who hold on to shares in the 'belief' that one day they will recover rather than cutting your losses now.

    Of course we can all be wise after the event but those people who bought 5 years ago are in a much worse financial position now - realistically if they had a 80-90% mortgage most of their own money (deposit) is now wiped out which may make getting another mortgage even more difficult.

  • 75. Eco Nomics

    (08 August 2012, 12:48PM)  Complain about this comment

    Some good posts there, having read them I have to say top marks to Barkingmad and Ellen with the most credable and common sense opinions. As for Mr Donut what a load of tripe.

  • 76. Van

    (22 August 2012, 11:02AM)  Complain about this comment

    I've thought quite long and hard about this, and have concluded that this model unfairly represents the bull case.

    you have to remember that for -£1k/year, you will own the house at the end of your investment. That's £25k outlay over the life of a mortgage, and for a return of £165k (assuming flat prices).

    By contrast, if you pay 1k into a year into a REITS vehicle returning 5%pa and compound it over 25 years, you end up with just £48k after 25 years. The BTL still wins, thanks to the leveraging model.


    But, tilting it in favour of the bull case, we know that we live in an world where central banks create inflation, and it's highly likely that the nominal price of the average housing will be higher than £165k at the end of the mortgage term, even despite their current modest (real term) overvaluation. And, as we have seen, rents are still under increasing pressure, so there is some firm support underpinning current prices.

  • 77. Anonymous

    (27 October 2012, 07:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    brillant piece of information, I had come to know about your web-page from my friend hardkik, chennai,i have read atleast 9 posts of yours by now, and let me tell you, your webpage gives the best and the most interesting information. This is just the kind of information that i had been looking for, i'm already your rss reader now and i would regularly watch out for the new posts, once again hats off to you!
    Thanx a million once again,
    Regards,
    property valuation

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.


>