Britain's house prices are slowly sinking

By MoneyWeek editor-in-chief Merryn Somerset Webb Sep 10, 2012

Merryn Somerset-Webb

Share with
friends:

Comments (58) Print this article

Another week, another house price survey. The most recent comes from the Halifax, and shows a small fall in house prices in August (0.4%). That followed a decline of 0.7% in July, and a few small rises in May and June. Look back over three months and prices are down 0.3%. Look back a year and they are down about 1%. They are, says the survey, still at around the same levels they were three years ago, and are essentially “treading water”.

A good many people think that is true. It’s not. It isn’t true if you take inflation into account; do that and prices are down more like 4%. They’re also down 25% or so from their peak levels. It isn’t even true in nominal terms unless you happen to live in a few areas of the South East and London.

House prices have been falling for most of us, most of the time for nearly five years now. Prime country houses are down 5% year on year on Knight Frank numbers, for example (so make that 8% plus in real terms) and a quick skim through auction sale numbers will show you that prices in some areas in the north of England are down 40%.

The Halifax reckons its index won’t fall for much longer. Why? The usual reasons: interest rates are low, inflation is not as high as it was, and our unemployment numbers are less awful than expected. This means that “spending power should be on a gradual uptrend”, something that is likely to “support housing demand and therefore house prices”.

Where next for UK house prices?

I wouldn’t be so sure. The resilience of employment is more about part-time than full-time jobs. Incomes are still rising more slowly than inflation (the Vocalink Take Home Pay Index shows pay rising at a rate of 2.3%). And, despite the government’s constant announcements of new ways to make banks lend, mortgages are still both hard to get and more expensive than you might think.

Not convinced? Look at the mortgages available. According to Moneysupermarket.com, there are 25% fewer 90% loan-to-value mortgages on the market than there were a year ago. And the average mortgage fee being charged at the moment is £1,500. In 2008, it was £899. So while supply is high (agent Henry Pryor notes that 30% of sellers are desperate enough to have cut their asking prices), demand is low.

But there are two other reasons why you might think that most price indices will keep drifting downwards. The first is the regular announcements of building plans – this week we have been told of a barrage of ideas, the upshot of which is to be 70,000 new homes.


  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

 


Adding new capacity into markets where falling prices suggest existing overcapacity isn’t usually a good thing for prices (although the multiplier effect of the construction on GDP numbers can be a good thing for governments). Indeed, as the British Property Foundation says in its analysis of the plan, “simply building homes for non-existent buyers has been tried before, in Spain and Ireland, with disastrous consequences”.

The second reason is London. Most indices are being held up by the stunning success of prime central London (PCL) prices – now 14% higher than they were in 2008. But these prices don’t reflect the real economy.

Look at the nationality of the buyers. Demand from the City of London has fallen (very few people are making what they would consider 'real' money any more) with the result that in the £2m plus market only 47% of Knight Frank buyers are from the UK. The rest are from another 61 nationalities, up from 36 in 2008. The point is that buying PCL is more about safe havens than happy homes: chart the yield on PCL against gilt yields and you will see they match up rather nicely. So to assume that prices in London will keep rising, we need to assume that the foreigners will keep coming.

Will they? It’s hard to imagine that 20% of the market will keep being supported by Europeans, as it is now – if you are a rich Italian and you haven’t bought yet, you probably aren’t going to.

The Chinese and the rest might keep coming (various nationalities have various reasons – mostly not good – for wanting their money away from home). But London isn’t as welcoming to other people’s capital flight as it used to be: Knight Frank’s Liam Bailey points to our recent changes to stamp duty and capital gains tax (aimed at foreign buyers) and, given today’s general anti-rich fury, predicts more of the same. It hasn’t made a difference yet. But add it to predictions of fast rising supply (15,000 new PCL units are planned) and a little more stability in Europe, and it soon might.

If it does – and London prices stop rising at today’s speed – it will become increasingly difficult for anyone to keep up the pretence that the UK housing market is 'treading water' or 'flatlining' when it just isn’t.

• This article was first published in the Financial Times


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 (58)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Let London Tremble

    (10 September 2012, 07:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    As the Olympics end and the 2012 feel-good factor fades, it's back to austerity, the recession and strikes. Not so inviting for the foreign super rich (with mansion tax looming too). Would it not be justified for the lower tiers of society to react to the higher tiers in a reciprocal manner? Thus, if the super rich act (through financial exploitation) in a way that threatens the lives and livelihood of the underclasses, then would it not be appropriate for the underclasses to threaten the lives of the super rich? That's what the rioters did and what the trade unions will soon be doing. What's astonishing is that it has taken this long to happen.

  • 2. Boris MacDonut

    (10 September 2012, 07:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    Halifax shows two small monthly declines after two modest rises.
    Nationwide has a monthly 1.3% rise. CEBR shows a 16% rise in 5 years. Actual English prices are up 90% between 2002 and 2012.
    Treading water does not mean falling.
    It is desperate to pretend prices may be falling if we look at inflation adjusted figures. This is a poor article trying to justify something that patently does not exist. 62 months of credit crunch and we still await the predicted collapse. HP's are up 382% in 25 years.

  • 3. John Smith

    (11 September 2012, 12:49AM)  Complain about this comment

    Here here! I agree with Boris MacDonut, this website is full of useless facts. Its a headline grabbing site may be its replacing NOTW. LOL

  • 4. Roberto Birquet

    (11 September 2012, 12:50AM)  Complain about this comment

    Property Foundation says in its analysis of the plan, “simply building homes for non-existent buyers has been tried before, in Spain and Ireland, with disastrous consequences”.
    -----------------------
    What utter ignorance of economics from these self- interested dullards. There is plenty of demand for homes, just thankfully not for such ludicrous high-priced houses that caused this five-year recession.

    The only way to get prices down is to allow inefficient markets to do their belated business. But instead we have govt bailing out banks, banks then bailing out borrowers and not repossessing, all of which stops economic recovery as potential buyers cannot buy.

    A perverse world created by a huge confederacy of dunces, including govt, banks, idiotic economists, newspapers, property porn, and property investors who think they have a God-given right to live off others’ labours.

  • 5. Boris MacDonut

    (11 September 2012, 08:12AM)  Complain about this comment

    #3 Thank you John, but I think it is "hear, hear" as in I hear what you say and applaud it. MW likes to talk down the HP and promote the purchasing of Gold.

  • 6. Anton

    (11 September 2012, 11:49AM)  Complain about this comment

    I think it is not smart to use inflation corrected house prices as "proof of falling prices" for 2 main reasons:
    * if you are a home owner (I am not) with a mortgage you benefit from high inflation, so even if house prices are coming, your future mortgage repayments becomes easier (if your income increases - even if this is less than inflation).
    * you should not look at your house as a pure investment, but even if you do, it just makes sense to look at inflation corrected house prices if you can make more more than inflation corrected investments somewhere else. I know you think about gold but it would be too risky to put all your deposit into gold prices. So in that case a better benchmark would be interest rates for a deposit account. I am sure your story would not hold if you use this benchmark.

  • 7. Christopher

    (11 September 2012, 12:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    Anton. I completely agree with your views not to see houses as a pure investment. However, with respect, if inflation outstrips wage increases (which it has been consistently doing for years), your overall house repayments do not get easier as broadly your other overheads will go up. The whole point is that as people have less and less disposable income and standards of living are squeezed. The payments for heating, food, transport and increased taxes (VAT as well as income tax) all has a subsequent knock on effect savings rates and therefore on housing affordability. The people on this thread consistently denying inflation is an important measure are simply sticking their heads in the sand. Prices will down trend for years to come.

  • 8. MJ

    (11 September 2012, 01:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    I buy renovate and sell property. I bought one property last year and sold after being on the market 5 days for fifty thousand profit. This years project has sold in 7 days for thirtyfive thousand profit....so I suppose the market got worse!?
    We love to wallow in bad news in this country.....lets get positive! It's a strange recession where people still have luxuries like that Costa coffee on your desk!

  • 9. commentator

    (11 September 2012, 01:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    Just as the sum comes up every day, so Boris MacDonut can be relied on for yet another puff piece telling us how the overleveraged capital sink called the UK residential housing market can defy economic gravity. The remarkable thing is how badly this market is performing given the trillions of financial support that have been thrown at it in the form of ZIP, QE and hot money fleeing the imploding Eurozone.

  • 10. Prince Harry

    (11 September 2012, 06:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    @8 MJ
    erm..£50k to £35k is a 30% reduction in profit. Hello?
    Lets get positive and realise that the property boom is over and now it's time to clear up the impoverished mess it's left the majority of us in.
    Wake up and smell that coffee, you'll bringing it in a flask next year...

  • 11. Prince Harry

    (11 September 2012, 06:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    @8 MJ
    erm..£50k to £35k is a 30% reduction in profit. Hello?
    Lets get positive and realise that the property boom is over and now it's time to clear up the impoverished mess it's left the majority of us in.
    Wake up and smell that coffee, you'll bringing it in a flask next year...

  • 12. Boris MacDonut

    (11 September 2012, 06:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    #12. As third in line to the throne you should not betray an Under 35s love of Friends in your comments. The property boom has been all but permanent other tahn April 2005 to April 2009. If you were either daft enough or duped into buying in those years you are several quid out of pocket. For any other 25 year period from 1970, on a 90% mortgae you'd be quids in. That is,one would own a house worth more than the total amount laid out.......and you've had somewhere to live. Even in the few bad years the max loss over 25 years is £22,000 for the average house. Do not believe this doom nonsense. Motivated by cynicism and it is very,very misplaced.

  • 13. Prince Harry

    (11 September 2012, 07:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    @13 The long term ratio of average house price to average salary is about 4. That ratio is more like 8 now. The prediction of returning to the ratio of 4 is motivated by common sense and wisdom. It would be cynical to believe the few property tycoons that still exist (mostly foreign with vulgar sums of money from dubious means) will continue their tax-dodging games in light of new tax laws. Not to mention the post-Olympic return to double-dip recession, strikes, job cuts etc. that all make the UK very unattractive to wealthy foreigners. So, like, hello? Whatever, Prof...

  • 14. MJ

    (11 September 2012, 08:35PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Prince Harry.....How can making 50k clear profit on one house and 35k clear profit on another in 12 months be a 30% reduction it's 75k extra in the bank! Please explain?

  • 15. Prince Harry

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

    Those figures are just anecdotal. No evidence. I could say that I buy property for a living and since the banking crisis have made a loss of £100k a year. We need figures backed up by reliable sources. By the way, 35 this year is 30% less than 50 last year. But then, property bulls would conveniently ignore that.

  • 16. MJ

    (11 September 2012, 09:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Prince Harry......are you calling me a liar?

  • 17. Christopher

    (11 September 2012, 10:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    MJ. If your gains are made off the back off hard work, genuine graft and a degree of risk then any gains you make can be justified and applauded. However, the bulk of the property market is made up of owners who have simply watched the valuations of their properties rise out of all proportion to the overall income growth of earners, including the younger lot coming through. It might take another decade or so to realise that this younger lot can't prop up the zombified market. Many property owners in the meanwhile simply sit there and pontificate about how the property price rises are justified and are somehow permanent and normal. They are not. The whole price bubble was as unsustainable as the fraudulent banking boom that fed it and outside London, prices are unwinding by the day.
    Meanwhile the rest of us are incredulous that posters like Boris hates bankers, but approves of the unearned wealth they generated for him by pumping up the supposed value of his house.

  • 18. MJ

    (11 September 2012, 10:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Christopher. I do as I and my father before me did, take a run down wreck of a property, completely refurb to a very high standard and sell for a reasonable price usually under the 3% stamp duty level.
    One of the problems with the property market has been people from other walks of life such as IT workers deciding that they should be property developers and looking at this as a get rich quick scheme. I do a good job for a fair price.

  • 19. Mick

    (12 September 2012, 02:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    MJ in your first post you said you sold a house after 7 days - now you say you give a "wreck of a property" a complete refurb to a very high standard. haha - i think you're lying.

  • 20. Boris MacDonut

    (12 September 2012, 05:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    #18 Christopher. More misplaced doom. Prices are up 360% since 1987. Even a 20% fall (very unlikely)would leave most homeowners quids in. Not sure about the unearned wealth bit. I, like many, have paid monthly for 25 years and simply retained the payments in brick form. My dislike of bankers stems from their inherent low morals and pocket lining activities, overpaying themselves for lendiing a few quid to we ordinary folk.
    #20 Mick. I think he means 7 days from putting it on the market after the refurb'.

  • 21. MJ

    (12 September 2012, 08:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    Oh and to rub salt into your wounds I've never had a mortgage and drive a black Porsche 997/911, I have no loans of any kind, spend lots of time in Australia, France and the USA. The HSBC love me I have a "Premiere" account with them and I always get asked into the managers office for a nice chat. I work hard and don't whine! One other thing you will find property has always been expensive relative to peoples earnings. Perhaps people should stop cigs and alcohol etc and save for a deposit. It obviously "sucks" to be you! hahahaha

  • 22. LA

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

    @MJ - fair play mate you and I are in the same game...a tough game at that - some of the micky mouses (eg IT & Teachers etc) have now been flushed out thank goodness. I do now think prices will stall long term however...say 10years...am gearing up for rental returns rather than sales. good luck

  • 23. MJ

    (12 September 2012, 10:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    @LA....I reckon you are not too far wrong there. I never like property "booms", it's always better when the market is slow and steady. A little rise just above inflation each year is best, that way you get the chance to build real value into a property the oldfasioned way and make a real profit. I'm not too sure about other areas but where I'm based at the moment there is a mini boom, I'm struggling to purchase my next project, I keep getting outbid and I refuse to pay over the odds!
    I was in property during the last recession starting in the late 80s, we were still buying cheap in 98 before things picked up again, in my opinion this recession still has at least 5-6 years to run.
    What really bugs me is how people in the UK love to talk things down, people in the US are a lot more optomistic.
    The best of luck to you too, a very clever man once told me that all you need in life is good luck! And I always wish for people what they wish for me. ;)

  • 24. Christopher

    (13 September 2012, 09:21AM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris. No need to portray me as a doom-monger. My opinion is that house prices outside London will down trend for years, not that they will crash. And the quids in you refer to has to be paid for somehow. Where do you think the 'pocket lining exercise', that is the money earned from these huge house price increases comes from?

  • 25. Ellen

    (13 September 2012, 10:53AM)  Complain about this comment

    I happen to believe that house prices are being held artificially high in order to allow the bank repair their balance sheets. Government initiatives to underwrite new builds are as much about employment as they are about housing and if buyers opt for new builds, they help stimulate the economy more than if they pay a large amount of money to an older couple to enable them downsize and retire on the proceeds.

    However, even in the medium term, the economic strategy to burden younger people with huge student debt, high rents, high taxes, exclusion from owning a place of their own and, likely, making it difficult for them to start a family. Why would a bright young man or woman stay in the UK to have so little to look forward to?

  • 26. Van

    (13 September 2012, 11:51AM)  Complain about this comment

    Halifax prices are down 32% in real terms (CPI) since peak.
    I've whacked it all into Excel:

    Aug 2007: £199,612
    Aug 2012: £160,256

    Inflation: Aug 2007 - Aug 2012 has been about 18%
    (2008 = 4.7%, 2009 = 1.6%, 2010 = 3.1%, 2011 = 4.5%, 2012 = 3%)

    Total real fall = 160256 / 199612 / 1.18 = 0.68,

    ie 68% of the Aug 2012 real price.

    Still another 5 years to go at this rate, though. It was a HUGE bubble and was always going to take even longer than the last slump to unwind.

  • 27. Boris MacDonut

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

    #27 Van. Your fag packet maths is only relevant to cash buyers or those selling to pay for retirement. For those taking a mortgage it is the cost of paying it off over 25 years that is significant. For the typical house and average mortgage this has fallen from 9.2 times average income in 2007 to 7.2 times now. Buying a house is at the cheapest since 2002.

  • 28. Van

    (13 September 2012, 04:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    #28 Boris, the price is the price.

    If I buy a car on HP it isn't a cheaper car because interest rates are lower. It's the cost of the finance that is cheaper, the cost of the purchase is the same.

    But yeah, if you want to talk about low interest rates, talk about low wage inflation too. A large debt incurred today remains a large debt in the future. No housing ladder, and those at the top won't have anyone to sell to. Flipside to everything.

  • 29. Boris MacDonut

    (13 September 2012, 05:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    #29 Van. No, you are wrong. People do not buy cars (depreciating assets) over 25 or 30 years, rather two or three.
    The actual cost of buying a house over say 25 or 30 years is reality for most FTB's. The differnece now is to buy a typical house for cash you'd have to stump up £195,000 to buy the same on an 85% mortgage over 25 years you'd pay £252,000 but at approximately 2023 prices. You are fundamentally wrong.
    A "large debt" incurred today withers to very little in a generation's time. Prices are up 49,000% in 80 years.

  • 30. Boris MacDonut

    (13 September 2012, 07:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    #30 My mistake. 49,000% is the 100 year HP growth. 80 years is only 32,700%. In the short term the long term always wins. My dear old grandad bought a house in 1938 for £1,000, it sold in 1988 for £150,000. He repaid a total of £2,400 to buy the property by 1960. If housing only grows at a tenth of that rate in the next 50 years a typical house will still reach £3 million or make about £4,700 a month ! Even at the current doubling every 18 years an average house adds £28 a day.

  • 31. Prince Harry

    (13 September 2012, 09:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    @31 Extraordinary figures Boris! £4,700/month? I don't know about your area, but in my leafy north London suburb on the northern line zone 3, I notice quite a few reductions of up to 10 and even 20%. Have a look at property websites. Doesn't it all depend on which area? Prime London like Mayfair just goes up and up and is mostly unoccupied havens for the billionaires, so it's irrelevant for 99.9% of us. Normal areas, however seem to have stalled and won't be rising much soon given the austerity measures about to kick in. One day prices might shoot up again, but not for quite a while when you look at the bigger economic problems lurking in Europe and the UK.

  • 32. Christopher

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

    Boris. You did not answer my question, again (25).
    Tell us where the income growth comes from to support this incredible, meteoric rise (31)..?
    Or save yourself the trouble and embarrassment. The support does not not exist (clue: it was crazy lending). Just because your precious stats point to a bullish history does not mean prices will not fall steadily for years. Past performance is not an indication of future performance.

  • 33. Boris MacDonut

    (14 September 2012, 01:03PM)  Complain about this comment

    #32 Harry! Christopher. Do you do this on purpose? Deliberately missing the point. These are not extraordinary figures as I have used a scenario where prices only rise at one tenth of the rate they have for the last 80 years. So instead of the 32,700% achieved 1932 to 2012 they will only achieve 3,200%, a massive reduction by historic standards and sustainable with very modest growth indeed.
    #Harry £4,700 is the average over 50 years not what you'd expect to get now. By 2060 you'd be getting £10,000 a month.
    #Christopher are you suggesting the 5th biggest economy on Earth will not grow at all in the next 5 decades. You are the type that is easily fooled by randomness. I did answer your question, the answer is in the long term prices will (as always) burgeon.

  • 34. Boris MacDonut

    (14 September 2012, 02:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    At 2.4% annual growth it takes 25 years for HP's to double. Since 1962 HP's have doubled every 8 years or at 4 times that rate.
    Buy a house for 200,000 now on an 80% mortgage at an average 6% innterest rate over 25 years. You pay out £334,000 (monthly mortgage£974) and by 2037 you own an asset worth £400,000 and have had somewhere to live. Rent over the same period is about £355,000 at prevailing averages and you have nothing to show for it at the end. Only if interest rates exceed 10% does the fictional FTB lose anything ...i.e pay more than £400k. To do well on a house purchase needs only modest rises.

  • 35. Prince Harry

    (15 September 2012, 12:11AM)  Complain about this comment

    @35 Why shouldn't interest rates go above 10%? They have in the past. 15% in the 70s during our last conservative government and we saw 40% drops in house prices-even in London. That £200,000 house you buy today could easily drop to £120,000 in a few years before any rises. It's all about timing and right now, unless you're in the Mayfair billionaire set, it's just too soon to get into owning. Ofcourse, an estate agent will never admit that to you...

  • 36. Boris MacDonut

    (15 September 2012, 10:33AM)  Complain about this comment

    #36 Harry. When interest rates were above 10%, from 1976 to 1994, House prices were rising at unprecedented rates due to the inflation. HPs quadrupled in just 17 years. I agree rates may rise, but the house will likely triple in value rather than merely double.

  • 37. Andrew

    (17 September 2012, 11:44AM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris please tell us you have something better to do with your life than posting your endless made up statistics on here? Honestly, we are all no doubt aware of your point of view by now and are all probably fairly convinced that your point of view must come from some sort of vested interest. Once again, surely you must have something better to do with your life?

  • 38. Boris MacDonut

    (17 September 2012, 06:51PM)  Complain about this comment

    #38 Andrew. Should I apologise or just stop. I assume you'd rather hear the sound of your own voice.......more reassuring than being challenged or questioned or offered an alternative. I'll tell you what, every time you post I'll ignore you that way you can stay in your comfort zone.

  • 39. Andrew

    (17 September 2012, 09:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris "Should I apologise or just stop"? . . . . . I think that to 'stop' would probably be the best of those two options Boris - for your sanity and ours. I think you've made your point by now.

  • 40. Ian S

    (18 September 2012, 11:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    I pose some simple questions of economics. If in the long term house price growth continues to outpace GDP growth doesn't this imply the absurdity that at some point in the future all of the resources of the economy will be consumed by housing? Clearly this will never happen and therefore even the most bullish commentator has to believe that the correlation between growth in the economy and housing must revert back to an equilibrium? In my opinion the generational disconnect between the two has been propelled by once and for all changes in a variety of economic factors e.g. womens' participation in the workforce, record availibility of credit/cheapness of said credit, ability for "ordinary" folk to use leverage (the new breed of BTL). None of the above factors will be repeated to the same degree (indeed some may reverse for example a generation saddled with debt from uni struggling to find further credit) and therefore this will result in a trend back to equilibrium.

  • 41. BoredBear

    (18 September 2012, 01:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    This article misses the fundamental assumption that wage inflation is following index based good & services "inflation". It isn't.

  • 42. Andy

    (18 September 2012, 07:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris MacDonut is an estate agent I believe....
    He has lots of time on his hands at present....

  • 43. Cisk

    (19 September 2012, 09:54AM)  Complain about this comment

    Property prices rely on supply & demand, interest rates, wages etc.

    Interest rates are historically low, and yet mortgages are still hard to come by, and prices (in real terms) are best level, worst falling.

    Picture a situation where interest rates start rising, wages growth is outpaced by inflation and the level of foreign buying (in London) reduces, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that prices will soon start falling.

    If you disagree with this, what justification is there for them to rise?

    There will always be opportunities for renovating property etc, I'm talking about the wider market here.

  • 44. Andrew

    (19 September 2012, 02:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Andy "Boris MacDonut is an estate agent I believe....
    He has lots of time on his hands at present...."

    Yes that would make sense, and it kind of fits with the typical 'hot air and half truths' that most estate agents seem to love.

  • 45. Boris MacDonut

    (19 September 2012, 05:26PM)  Complain about this comment

    #42 , Andy/Andrew. Sorry to disappoint, I am not an estate agent. They are a rather frowned upon trade. As I have mentioned before, not being greedy and having decided I have "enough" I work part-time. The time is worth more than the money. You should try it and stop gazing at the world through £ signs.

  • 46. Andy

    (21 September 2012, 11:28AM)  Complain about this comment

    #45. Boris MacDonut "You should try it and stop gazing at the world through £ signs."
    Boris, there's only one person on this thread looking at the world through £ signs, and it's not me or Andrew. Your property ramping with endless 'hot air and half truths' is testament to that!

  • 47. Ian S

    (21 September 2012, 10:48PM)  Complain about this comment

    Any chance of an intellectual debate here - repost below if anyone is prepared t0 comment...
    I pose some simple questions of economics. If in the long term house price growth continues to outpace GDP growth doesn't this imply the absurdity that at some point in the future all of the resources of the economy will be consumed by housing? Clearly this will never happen and therefore even the most bullish commentator has to believe that the correlation between growth in the economy and housing must revert back to an equilibrium? In my opinion the generational disconnect between the two has been propelled by once and for all changes in a variety of economic factors e.g. womens' participation in the workforce, record availibility of credit/cheapness of said credit, ability for "ordinary" folk to use leverage (the new breed of BTL). None of the above factors will be repeated to the same degree and therefore this will result in a trend back to equilibrium.

  • 48. Boris MacDonut

    (22 September 2012, 10:12AM)  Complain about this comment

    #47 .Ian. What a strange suggestion. That having absorbed a number of "once and for all changes "the housing market should reveet to how it was before those changes took place. The history of the future will be littered with surprises just like the past and they have tended towards good news in recent decades. what equilibrium do you see it reverting to ? That pertaining in 1960 or even 1860!

  • 49. Critic Al Rick

    (23 September 2012, 03:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    Now look out for red herrings, misrepresentations and exaggerations from the Boris camp.

    I wonder what the good news is to which Boris @ 48. refers the housing market has tended towards throwing up in recent decades:

    In the absence of positive Balance of Payments and latterly with a derth of available saleable 'family silver', collateral to fuel the continuance of incompetent governance and an inefficient and over-bloated Public Sector, maybe? The delay of financial armageddon? Or just the perceived swelling through £ signs of Boris' potential estate?



  • 50. Boris MacDonut

    (23 September 2012, 06:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    #49 2 You chaps are the limit. I will give Ian the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he is not used to my posts. If he was he might remember that I totally denounce economics as a failed pseudo -science. Equilibriums....pah! Stop trying to impose patterns, trends and equations on what is at best a random series of surprises. I'd like to know what special ratio your economics tells us should pertain both today and in say 10 years time. Please,please, please don't say 3 times income.
    Rick. I did not mention housing. I was referring to the history of the future. The good news is, among other things, the massive decline in violence , the huge increases in life expectancy, the general uplift in wealth for 80% of the world's population, travel, health care, education,security of tenure, technology.........

  • 51. Ian S

    (23 September 2012, 07:32PM)  Complain about this comment

    51 Boris - Thanks for patronising me from a position of low-intellect and pseudo argument. I note that you choose not to answer any of the more "diificult" questions in my first post. Let me spell it out and ask a SIMPLE question. If the economy for arguments sake grows at 2% over the long term and house prices grow at a "Boris rate" of say 5% then within 50 years house prices will have increased by 11 fold while the economy as a whole will have increased by a factor of less than 3. All my original question was asking was whether this actually is tenable and possible in the long term or have recent disconnects been due to one off factors? A clean and simple intellectual question which I'm happy to have analysed but instead a wind up merchant throws insults and flippant abuse. Once again if you read my original post I talked about reversion to an equlibrium where one off factors haven't repeated - no mention of a magic 3x multiple. I await your considered and well articulated response.

  • 52. Critic Al Rick

    (23 September 2012, 09:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 51. Boris

    I make no apologies, afterall this thread is concerned with house prices ... not violence, life-expectancy, general uplift in wealth for 80% of the world's population, healthcare, education, security of tenure, technology, etc. Nevertheless, point taken.

    That the economies in the West are almost as good as if in terminal decline comes as no surprise to me. And as Ian S infers there is a rational connection (qualitative if not quantitative) between house prices and economy; so:

    a) in the shorter term expect the economy to head towards oblivion as house prices are artificially propped-up, and

    b) in the longer term expect house prices to follow the economy further towards oblivion.

    And before you expound about 'the real world' I suggest what TPTB and certain others think they are in is in reality 'an academic fantasy world'.

  • 53. Boris MacDonut

    (23 September 2012, 10:38PM)  Complain about this comment

    #52 Ian. But I answered post 47 by pouring scorn on it. I do not believe the certainty you propound in comments like "clearly this will never happen" and "none of the above will be repeated". I'm not sure where you conjure up, a "Boris rate" for HP growth. The most I have ever suggested is 22% in the next 10 years. The other rates I have mentioned have been hypothetical, deliberate underestimates to show how for instance one only needs growth of about 2% pa for HP's to double in 35 years.
    You doom-mongers do get cross when someone disagrees with you. It's like you have a phobia to good news. We are richer than ever before so can afford to spend more when buying a house.
    It really is as simple as that.

  • 54. Ian S

    (24 September 2012, 11:23AM)  Complain about this comment

    54 Boris

    "Clearly this will never happen" was with reference to a scenario where all the resources of the economy are consumed by housing - I would be interested if you disagree that this stament is not axiomatic?

    "none of the above will be repeated" is a (deliberate) misquote - I actually said "none of the above factors will be repeated". Now unless you believe that a trebling of women's participation in work since the war to current 70%+ can be repeated (that's 210% Boris) then once again I would argue that my statement stands "logical" rather than bombastic "scorn" driven analysis.

    Finally I have spotted you as the resident wind up merchant - where do I claim my prize?

  • 55. Critic Al Rick

    (24 September 2012, 12:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    Ian S

    Do you see where I get "red herrings, misrepresentations and exaggerations" from?

    Another tactic is to completely avoid replying to certain questions and certain arguments.

    Boris

    Regardless, your presence on these boards, by me if nobody else, is truly appreciated!

  • 56. Ian S

    (25 September 2012, 11:45AM)  Complain about this comment

    I note the mods have removed Boris's potentialy libellous comment and my complaint - good work!

  • 57. noodles

    (25 September 2012, 04:41PM)  Complain about this comment

    honestly guys this article is about house prices sinking not about getting one over each other. House prices are definitely sinking and take this from someone who is renting and looking to buy. I have a good deposit and can actually get a mortgage. I in the last couple of weeks i have dealt with these parasites called estate agents and in the space of a 5 minute conversation had a house price reduced by £75,000. The agent didn't even call the vendor to discuss this reduction so was it already decided to put the house on the market at a vastly inflated price and then knock off a whopping amount should anyone show any interest. I have also had to deal with an agent who tried to get interested parties to out bid each other and this has back fired so the house is still sitting on the market. Please lets get real here house prices will fall once estate agents stop overpricing properties.

  • 58. Boris MacDonut

    (27 September 2012, 12:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    #55 .Ian S. While none of the factors will repeat, for obvious reasons. Other demographic and sociological factors will occur. Economics cannot predict much, usually due to failures to comprehend the real world. Indignation at being challenged is your only hope of reassuring yourself you are right. I love the bit about low-intellect too. Do such accusations help reassure you?

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.


>