Britain’s biggest economic disadvantage - our property market

By MoneyWeek Editor John Stepek Oct 26, 2012

John Stepek

Share with
friends:

Comments (33) Print this article

It’s official - Britain is no longer in recession.

The economy grew more rapidly than expected in the third quarter of the year, rising by 1% rather than the 0.6% everyone had thought.

Of course, these figures probably over-exaggerate the bounce, just as earlier figures over-exaggerated the decline.

The truth is the GDP figures aren’t useful for much. They’re historic, and they are revised so regularly as to be essentially worthless, except for political point-scoring.

It’ll take more than an Olympic-sized bounce to get Britain – and the rest of the world – out of the hole it’s currently in…

Global growth is too slow to help Britain out of its hole

Just as the British economy was posting its best economic growth in years, companies listed in Britain were running into trouble.

British companies are issuing profit warnings are at their highest rate since 2008, according to Ernst & Young. Companies issued 68 warnings in the three months to the end of September.

As the Financial Times notes, there are two main reasons for the jump, and neither has much to do with the UK. 

Firstly, emerging markets are no longer the treasure troves they once were. On the one hand, growth is slowing down in emerging economies, as China in particular slows rapidly.

On the other, there’s far more competition. With everyone viewing emerging markets as the ‘next big thing’, most companies want to do business there. So just as the economies are slowing down, there are more and more rivals competing for what business there is.

This slowdown in emerging markets might not be a problem if somewhere else in the world was picking up the slack. But that’s not happening. Europe is still in the doldrums, and there’s no obvious sign of a rapid turnaround on the horizon.

It’s not just British companies that have been warning of a slowdown. Major US firms – including logistics group FedEx, machinery giant Caterpillar and chemicals maker DuPont - have been blaming the slowing Chinese economy for disappointing earnings. Even the mighty Apple managed to disappoint analysts with last night’s earnings figures.

In short, global growth is slowing, and our politicians and central bankers seem to be at a loss as to how to deal with it.

Britain’s housing market has left the economy paralysed

Ben Bernanke – the world’s top central banker - is not the type to admit to uncertainty, or the possibility that he might be wrong. His solution is usually to do more of what he’s already been doing. So if growth continues to deteriorate, you can probably expect to see a ramp-up in quantitative easing from the direction of the US.

But Sir Mervyn King has always been a more sober-minded chap. It doesn’t stop him from pursuing the same policies as Bernanke, but you sense that his heart’s not really in this great academic experiment into the limits of monetary policy.

He and other members of the Bank of England have warned that the Bank isn’t going to rush into printing more money in November. And it’s not just because of the GDP bounce. It’s because he’s not sure it can solve Britain’s problems. 

King reckons – and I wouldn’t disagree – that the basic problem is the banks are still sitting on too much bad debt. The debt needs to be recognised and its value written down (or written off). The banks then need to be patched up. All that needs to happen before banks are willing to lend again.


Sign up for a 3-week FREE trial of MoneyWeek
and get the following free as well

"The only financial publication I could not be without."
John Lang, Director, Tower Hill Associates Ltd


“In the 1930s, faced with problems of sovereign and other debt similar to those of today, the pretence that debts could be repaid was maintained for far too long. We must not repeat that mistake.”

However, we are repeating it. The trouble is, the “significant writing down of asset values” that King refers to, would involve allowing house prices to fall. In Britain, house prices are the single most important economic indicator, politically speaking. When house prices are falling, governments lose elections.

It’s why public policy, the tax system, and central bank activities, are all horribly skewed towards propping up the property market. Yet with the banks aware that they are over-exposed to an over-valued sector of the economy, they aren’t going to be keen to lend more until the risk is no longer so high.

This unravelling could take a very long time to play out. We can’t expect rampant global growth to help us out. So the Bank of England will continue to have to walk the line between allowing ‘too much’ inflation to get into the system, and keeping rates low enough to cushion those with large debts. That leaves Britain vulnerable to nasty external shocks.

The US is heading for inflation

But what about the US? As we’ve said regularly, the one big advantage the US has had over the UK and Europe is that its central bank was unable to prevent house prices from crashing. It was painful, but it leaves them in a better position today. Its banks have had to go through some level of purging process at least.

However, they still have a central bank that is dead-set on pumping more money into the economy. If the banks are no longer black holes sucking money out of the economy, then what impact will that have on inflation?

I was speaking to regular MoneyWeek contributor James Ferguson about this the other day. James has consistently and correctly argued ever since the financial crisis that UK and US government debt would remain good investments – a bold call at a time when the rest of us have preferred to avoid them.

But James thinks the time has come to dump any US Treasuries you hold. Why? He believes that the latest incarnation of QE in the US will be genuinely inflationary. That’s very bad news for bonds (fixed incomes become less attractive when inflation is rising). But it could end up being bad news for stocks too – inflation only has to rise to high single digit levels before stocks start to wilt under its pressure.

You’ll be able to read more about why James thinks the big bull market for US Treasuries is over in a MoneyWeek cover story very shortly. If you’re not already a subscriber, you can get your first three issues free here.

• This article is taken from the free investment email Money Morning. Sign up to Money Morning here .

Follow John on Twitter || Google+ John Stepek

Our recommended articles for today

Ireland's 1.6 billion-barrel oil awakening

The discovery of 1.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil has sparked hopes of an oil rush off the shores of Ireland. Here, Tom Bulford looks at the prospects, and the small-cap oil companies hoping to cash in.

Africa's 'lion economies' wake from their slumber

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Forget Asia. Population growth, improving governance and the rise of a middle class mean Africa is now the continent to watch, says Matthew Partridge. Here, he tips the best stocks to profit

Comments (33)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Barry

    (26 October 2012, 11:29AM)  Complain about this comment

    Over-exaggerate? There is no such term.

  • 2. Guy

    (26 October 2012, 12:00PM)  Complain about this comment

    Barry, that was the one thing you chose to comment on? Great contribution, take a bow.

    John, interesting article - if inflation kicks in hard (with so much QE money washing round can we keep a lid on it?) there aren't many assets that will look good. NS&Is inflation-linked savings will do well for those who hold them and maybe gold's in for another run. Whatever happens, it's not looking like much fun!

    Guy

  • 3. Me

    (26 October 2012, 12:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    The problem with over priced housing does look insurmountable.

    The banks should be forclosing on non performing mortgages, but where are the people to live whose houses are repossessed - thanks to the UK's mass immigration there is a lack of property in the areas where there are jobs.

    The government would be obliged to house those with children - more welfare payments.

    Who would buy the houses - buy to letters? Are the banks able to absorb the losses on these properties.

    The problems are endless - thank you Gordon Brown

  • 4. Jockey Wilson

    (26 October 2012, 12:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    Very astute article. If only the BoE had let a proper correction occur then Blighty would be firing on most cylinders by now. Instead as you say there is paralysis because the last things banks want to do is lend against overvalued assets - hence the requirement for large deposits currently for house purchases. And dragging out the recovery is a dangerous game; certain other countries which have permitted more full corrections will recover more quickly and then sterling won't be looking so clever - hey presto there will be significant other inflationary pressure as it is dumped.

  • 5. Elo

    (26 October 2012, 12:38PM)  Complain about this comment

    Marvin King may not print money in November but he still perform a lot of QE by buying up goverment bonds and by that create a bubbel that will brake some day. When that happen we will be broke and/or close to hyper inflation. US will have serious inflation, yes but not hyper inflation so Mr. King is more aggressive (stupid) than Bernanke.

  • 6. jockey wilson on fire

    (26 October 2012, 12:41PM)  Complain about this comment

    Central bankers are criminals. If companies tried to price fix or rig markets they are subject to massive fines and prison for the individuals involved. But here we have central banks conducting the biggest price fixing / market rigging exercise in history and in plain sight, in order to maintain grotesque missallocation of capital in unproductive assets so as to protect bank shareholders and bond holders. Bank shareholders should have been wiped out and bond holders scalped too before governments stepped in. It is a travesty and represents theft on an unprecedented scale. Whatever happened to free-market principles?

  • 7. Fatbackwards

    (26 October 2012, 12:50PM)  Complain about this comment

    In response to ME. In actual fact if we need a politician to blame we should be looking at Thatcher. Between the wars and after the labour gov of 45 vast amounts of public money were spent on housing. Call it social housing or whatever you like the stock was owned and maintained by the community. young families lived in social housing on very modest rents while striving to save for a deposit on a home of thier own. Thatcher came along and we lost another of the 'family jewels'with disastrous consequences. This fuelled a spiralling of house prices as demand outstripped supply. unscrupulous people were buying homes to let further fuelling demand and reducing supply. it is now cheaper to buy than to rent but of course only for those who can afford it. this also means that as the economy as a whole declines more and more people are out of work and the bill for supporting unemployed families rents is also spirally out of control.

  • 8. LERENARD

    (26 October 2012, 02:12PM)  Complain about this comment

    Governemnt policy has been to rig the housing market to keep present owners, buy to letters and the banks happy. The cost to the country is a spiralling housing benefit bill as both employed and unemployed are having to claim to keep a roof over their heads. This runs counter to the free market which would have seen prices fall as in the US if our politicians had allowed it to. A return to affordable social housing would be a better option than allowing this madness to continue.

  • 9. Boris MacDonut

    (26 October 2012, 06:12PM)  Complain about this comment

    #7Fatbackwards is, of course ,right. I have avoided mentionng the T word over the past two years but let's face facts. The Thatcher years sowed the seeds of the destruction we are reaping.
    MW is conspicuously silent on this obvious fact.
    #8 Lerenard. You are posting on a site dominated by smug, know-it-all free marketeers. Be a bit careful with imploring folk to return to social housing as it smacks of centralist control and that does get them in a lather. They prefer trusting their ammoral marketplace and really do get cross if anyone mentions social engineering or that their dearly held beliefs may amount to "madness".

  • 10. Boris MacDonut

    (26 October 2012, 06:12PM)  Complain about this comment

    #7Fatbackwards is, of course ,right. I have avoided mentionng the T word over the past two years but let's face facts. The Thatcher years sowed the seeds of the destruction we are reaping.
    MW is conspicuously silent on this obvious fact.
    #8 Lerenard. You are posting on a site dominated by smug, know-it-all free marketeers. Be a bit careful with imploring folk to return to social housing as it smacks of centralist control and that does get them in a lather. They prefer trusting their ammoral marketplace and really do get cross if anyone mentions social engineering or that their dearly held beliefs may amount to "madness".

  • 11. Jo

    (26 October 2012, 07:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    "But Sir Mervyn King has always been a more sober-minded chap"

    Don't you believe it It is all a one world bankster's club. If King was different, then he wouldn't have kept the interest rates so low when the housing bubble was in progress. In the US house owners get ripped off, in UK, the savers. Do they really think we won't notice that it is a worldwide scam? The poster @6 has the right idea.

    The UK central bank was given a free reign when Brown got in, but I agree that the criminal elite's plans for us became obvious/unveiled when their Thatcher puppet was elected.

  • 12. Jo

    (26 October 2012, 07:35PM)  Complain about this comment

    @11 "The UK central bank was given a free reign when Brown got in,"

    Sorry I meant Blair

  • 13. Phil

    (26 October 2012, 08:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    'This unravelling could take a very long time to play out'

    At last, someone at MoneyWeek gets it!

    House prices will eventually come down to 3-4 x joint income (note: *joint* income, not single income, unless banks turn the clock back 30 years and base lending on the salary of the highest earner only). But it's going to take many years.

  • 14. NeutronWarp9

    (26 October 2012, 09:03PM)  Complain about this comment

    1-Barry.

    Your contribution is useful, is an exaggeration.
    Your contribution is inspiring, is an over-exaggeration.

    As for social housing, perhaps the under-class will take anything that is 'free' (in the sense that somebody else is paying for/subsidising it) but many people have swallowed the aspirational narrative of the Thatcher years: ambition, conspicous consumption, hard work and a ruthless, selfish streak.

  • 15. Romford Dave

    (27 October 2012, 10:24AM)  Complain about this comment

    Poor old Mrs T, she's even blamed for the sins of the Fathers despite evidence to the contrary being widely available.

    http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/archive/maths_worksheets/uk_house_prices.doc

    Overlay the periods when an alleged socialist party was in government, and it seems they were anything but. Who would have thought it, Labour the party of the people, as long as you own a house.......!

  • 16. Not_quite_as_smug_as_you_know_who

    (27 October 2012, 11:02AM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris’ claim that the site is dominated by smug know it all free marketers is a gross-exaggeration!

    It's actually dominated by smug know it alls, perhaps MW could tell us who the most prolific poster is, so we might establish who the smuggest of all is?


  • 17. Boris MacDonut

    (27 October 2012, 12:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    #16 I see my point at post #10 has been proven right. The free marketeers do get cross.It is either fear of confronting the fact they may be wrong or just an inability to bear criticism.
    I would protest that I am no know-it-all, just well enough read to put a lot of people right.

  • 18. lorne st loyal

    (27 October 2012, 04:08PM)  Complain about this comment

    it was a close run thing but "just well enough read to put a lot of people right." wins the smug award....

    "It's actually dominated by smug know it alls" wins the angry free marketeer award.

    Maggie, Maggie Maggie, Out! Out! Out!

  • 19. Boris MacDonut

    (27 October 2012, 04:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    #18.LstL. I don't accept that sobriquet. I am not self-satisfied, nor am I self-righteously complacent, far from it. Smug simply does not fit the bill here. I challengene pomposity and I do seek to point out blatantly incorrect statistics. It sometimes annoys, but that is no reason not to do it.

  • 20. NQASAYKW

    (27 October 2012, 05:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    I must decline the accolade also LstL, I'm not a free marketeer, angry or otherwise, I'm not really sure how you reached that conclusion from what I posted?

    What I would say though, is even if I was the most liberal of free marketeers, I'd still baulk at the unfettered use of smug as a humorous nickname ;)

  • 21. Roberto Birquet

    (27 October 2012, 08:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    “In the 1930s, faced with problems of sovereign and other debt similar to those of today, the pretence that debts could be repaid was maintained for far too long. We must not repeat that mistake.”
    ------------------
    The governor is a walking, talking parody of economics. Surely Merv, five years into the credit crunch and with the economy still nowhere near returning to its top (it took just four years in the 30s), that mistake has been repeated via this and the last govt policy of guaranteeing the banks, allowing the banks not to repossess.
    As the Donuts of this world show, people will never accept the boom is over until they are forced to by people buying repossessed houses sold to the highest bidder. The length of this recession is down to the policy of bank guarantees. And so the damaging belief in property as a one-way better endures.

  • 22. Roberto Birquet

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

    Lower house prices means affordable homes. People can bid and buy at the prices they can pay, thereafter spend money on carpets and the like, boosting that side of the economy. Lower prices mean lower deposits are required so FTBs are not forced to save for several years, and rather can go out shopping - boosting the consumer economy.
    Lower house prices brings torn bank balance sheets. Tough! If the banks are insolvent, take them into the public sector for no recompense, and stay there till solvent via ridding themselves of bad debts.

    Those who took on enormous debts in a ponzi scheme can bloody well pay them off or go bankrupt, too. We shouldn't run an economy and suffer recessions to bail out spivs. The future requires higher wages (demand side reform), so people spend more money they have than have to borrow.
    Romford Dave. Mrs T has a lot to answer, so too Blair, her follower.

  • 23. Roberto Birquet

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

    Me 3
    The banks should be forclosing on non performing mortgages, but where are the people to live whose houses are repossessed? - thanks to the UK's mass immigration there is a lack of property in the areas where there are jobs.
    --------------------------
    No. It is simple maths. The house gets repossessed, and sold to the highest bidder. That person moves in, vacating wherever they are renting. Those whose were repossessed can move into the vacated rented property. Simples!

    There will be a lag in which the repossessed property is empty, so force banks to sell to a timetable. The banks need a kick up the arsenal, not all this millionaires' welfare.

  • 24. Definition

    (28 October 2012, 06:55AM)  Complain about this comment

    smug   [smuhg]
    adjective, smug·ger, smug·gest.
    1.
    contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.

  • 25. Romford Dave

    (28 October 2012, 08:10AM)  Complain about this comment

    Roberto, she is clearly answerable for her mistakes as every other politician in a similar position is, but that doesn't mean she's responsible for everything wrong in the country as some would try to have us believe.

    The purpose of linking to the graph was to show that house prices were steadily rising before she had taken office and continued more or less on the same trajectory whilst she was PM. Stupidity took hold because of actions Greenspan had taken elsewhere, which coupled with the indelibility of you can't go wrong with property ingrained into the UK psyche, lead to where we are now.

    The failure is with those charged with Governing the country during the mania phase indicated on the chart, tbh it's merely a coincidence that it happened to be Labour, had the Tories been in office I'd imagine the outcome would have been pretty much the same regardless of any protestations otherwise.

    Short memories and even shorter tempers obfuscates reality.

  • 26. nick

    (28 October 2012, 08:20AM)  Complain about this comment

    #7 "it is now cheaper to buy than to rent"

    This may be technically true over 25 years, but on a daily finding-the-money basis it certainly isn't (especially outside London).

    It would cost me £1200+ a month to get a mortgage (with 65% LTV) on the 3 bed semi I rent for £750. Yes the interest is marginally less than the rent (~£680) but you still need to find an extra £450 a month. Not many people can afford to take a 25 year view of their finances.

  • 27. lornestloyal

    (29 October 2012, 10:09AM)  Complain about this comment

    #definition - thanks for the clarification.

    I'm sorry NQASAYKW



  • 28. Lupulco

    (29 October 2012, 03:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    t

  • 29. Lupulco

    (29 October 2012, 03:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    Subsidised social housing, it used to be an argument in the 60's how the poor buyer was subsidising the Council Tenants
    No mention how much subsidy the taxpayer gave these homebuyers, %rate tax relief at whatever their highest tax rate was, in some cases 60-70%. Councils are not allowed to cross-subsidise Council Housing, rents had to cover cost of Council Housing
    Mrs T sold off, at less then 60% of cost, Council owned property to tenants, 50% was in turn sold off to BTL
    Housing Benefit was a farce to subsidise the BTL. Rents must be Commercially set? But HB paid most of this rent, or no one could afford to rent them
    Those that could pay the commercial rent, bought their own property on the new private estates, hence the only people who lived on Council estates were the people who got maximum HB, leading to the sink estates and all its problems
    Now HB, take 30%+ of the Governments Social Welfare bill, more if you include the cost of keeping the lid on these sink estates

  • 30. Romford Dave

    (29 October 2012, 04:45PM)  Complain about this comment

    Here's some analysis from the Smith Institute which gives a more detailed view of UK housing for those interested in looking beyond a headline: -

    http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/file/The%20End%20of%20the%20Affair%20-%20implications%20of%20declining%20home%20ownership.pdf

    Makes David Cameron's insistance that there is a cap on housing benefit the most appropriate course to take in reducing the burden on the taxpayer, as rents charged by landlords will inevitably fall to whatever the maximum HB is.

    Less rental return, less attractive to buy-to-letters, lower house prices?

    Appropriate socially engineered socialism that should be acceptable to all but the most avaricious

  • 31. Critic Al Rick

    (29 October 2012, 04:48PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 29. Lupulco

    Interesting and I'm sure there's an even more interesting conclusion to your comments but I'm not quite 'seeing' it.

    Please continue for the benefit of 'the visually impaired'.

  • 32. jack

    (01 November 2012, 07:34PM)  Complain about this comment

    let it fly!

    The control freeks should stop trying to control whats out of control and let the cards fall where they may!

    Brown was the only man that could have stopped this happening!

    He didn't and he will go down in history as one of Britain's worst ever leaders and chancellors.

    Tony Blair is now a multi millionaire, is that a stupid man?

  • 33. Paul

    (21 November 2012, 11:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    I'm late to this article but I just wanted to make a point. In the comments, Boris MacDonut refers more than once to "free marketers" and how we can't admit our theories don't work. Well, we've tried the opposite (in practically every form possible) for the last 100 years or so with utter disaster from economic collapse to the deaths of over 200 million people. What we've had is state-controlled capitalism... corporatism a.k.a. fascism.

    We've never actually tried capitalism and yet it gets the blame!

    As I wrote to the RIIA recently... every time a free market starts to develop it is clapped in irons by the authorities and the life is slowly squeezed out of it. As the prisoner dies its captors and tormentors claim it is dying of natural causes.

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.


>