Could the government’s planning changes trigger a housing crash?

By Matthew Partridge Sep 10, 2012

Matthew Partridge

Share with
friends:

Comments (59) Print this article

The government wants housebuilders to build more houses.

House prices in the UK remain too high. Many people blame this on the fact that "we live on a small island with a limited amount of space" - so their solution is to build more houses.

The government has decided to offer housing associations and property developers £10bn worth of loan guarantees – in other words, the taxpayer will underwrite loans used for building new houses.

There is also more funding for the FirstBuy scheme, which helps people to raise a deposit for a mortgage. There will also be a ‘temporary' relaxation of planning laws, including both on building new houses and extensions to existing dwellings.

So, is this going to make a big difference to the market?

Possibly - though not in the way that the government perhaps expects...

There is no housing shortage

If you question the sustainability of Britain's high property prices, someone will always tell you that it's simply because we have too many people and not enough homes to go round.

Where next for UK house prices?

However, this isn't strictly true. The population has gone up, of course. But the housing stock has risen too. In fact, according to an interesting report from economic research group Fathom Financial Consulting, while the rate of building decreased over the last decade, the quantity of ‘housing per person' has risen by nearly 50% since 1970, and is still increasing.

Fathom also argues that if there were a genuine shortage of homes, then rents would be much higher. That might sound odd – after all, there's a general consensus that rents are at record levels.

However, this isn't that surprising. If the supply of rental property was roughly stable, you'd expect rents to rise roughly in line with inflation over time. If there was an actual shortage of property to rent, you'd expect rents to rise more rapidly than inflation.

Yet according to Fathom, if you look at the rate at which rents have risen (using the ‘rental cost' measure from the Retail Price Index), they haven't even kept up with growth in disposable incomes: "hardly an indicator of runaway housing demand". 


  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

 


The zombie housing market marches on

So what's really going on? As we've argued before, the real driver of high house prices was the ludicrous levels of credit available to homebuyers available during the decade-long boom. The problem wasn't too many people chasing too few houses – it was too much money chasing an adequate supply of houses.

If this is the case though, why hasn't the market corrected as viciously as we might have expected? House prices have certainly fallen hard in some areas,  but on average, prices are still well out of the reach of many, and sales have collapsed as a result. 

The problem ultimately boils down to the banks. Banks are heavily exposed to the UK property market through residential mortgages. They have no desire to write off dud loans or repossess homes, because it would expose their balance sheets to massive losses. As Fathom points out, in the US mortgage write-off rates peaked at more than 2.5%, and are still just below 1.5%. However, in the UK, they have so far been tiny – not even approaching 0.5%.

This has allowed both homeowners and banks to continue to pretend that their houses are worth much more than they are. However, it also means that there is a huge gap between the prices that sellers are offering and what buyers are willing to pay. This has hammered sales.

In turn that means that housebuilders have no desire to build new homes – because no one will buy at current prices. And in any case, banks don't want to lend money for housebuilding projects, because they already have too much exposure to property.


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.


How the government scheme could hit prices

This means that any attempt to stimulate the economy by building more houses may be a major flop. For example, earlier this year, the government began the NewBuy guarantee scheme, which was meant to lead to up to 100,000 properties being sold with taxpayer-underwritten mortgages. However, just 220 homes have been sold so far.

More to the point, as Fathom notes, there is no genuine shortage of property. In fact, the researchers reckon that in the long term, if the supply of housing rose by 10%, then the ‘fair value' of the average house would drop by 8%.

So given that property is already overvalued on most sensible measures, "a programme of new house building [might] trigger a correction back to fair value, or even below". A publicly-funded house building boom might be good news for housebuilders, but the properties built this way could well end up being sold at big discounts (after all, the builders don't mind what they sell for as long as they turn a profit in the end).

A slide in prices would in turn force banks to start recognising losses, prompting more sales. This could start a downward price spiral.

Of course, this is good news for anyone looking to buy a property. And arguably, a fall in prices is the only way the housing market can begin to go back to normal. Indeed, after significant falls in the US, the market there is finally recovering, with prices and sales starting to rise.

However, it would be a big worry for the fragile UK economy. It's a good reason to continue to steer clear of the British banking sector, for a start. Also, falling house prices tend to make people rein in their spending as the 'wealth effect' goes into reverse. So we'd be wary of the retail sector too.

It's also one more reason why we can probably expect more quantitative easing in the UK before too long – which is why we'd suggest hanging on to your gold,  too.

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

Our recommended articles for today

The rise of the machines

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
The race to automate the workplace is on. James McKeigue, Matthew Partridge and John Stepek look at how you can invest in the robotics revolution and tip four tech stocks to buy now.

A nice ride on rising oil prices

The price of oil is going in one direction only, says Bengt Saelensminde - up. Here, he gives ten reasons why, and explains how to play a rising oil price.

Comments (59)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. HL

    (10 September 2012, 10:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    You're right about gold, Matthew. When governments print money in the hope of repairing a damaged economy, the result is always a disaster.

    How could it not be be ? If handing people bits of printed paper could put things right, Zimbabwe would be the richest country on Earth.

  • 2. MikeKent

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

    In this article you have not mentioned the price of land. To build a good house costs around £80000. Land prices can double that.
    IKEA were going to launch some prefabricated houses for under £20000 but did not do so.
    Getting planning permission for anything that is not 'a house made of ticky tacky and all looking the same' is incredibly difficult. Innovation will solve the problem if innovation is allowed to happen.
    Public sector is always about what do you want to do, well you can't, what was it anyway?
    Manage the market and free up the ability to have houses that people both want, can afford and deserve.

  • 3. AWArchi

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

    A housing cost drop is inevitable. It will be slow and resisted because most people will be unable to face a reduction in the value of their property. The only way forward is to build low-cost housing by any means possible - force developers to build out sites they already hold, use tax-payers money to subsidise Housing Association developments for rental, encourage private investors to do the same (with covenants). force banks to use their new mandatory capital to back projects.... In other words , be revolutionary, not traditional. Mr Cameron, Mr Osborne?

  • 4. Kingbingo

    (10 September 2012, 12:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    There may be enough houses in the country as a whole but not in the areas people want to live, or the stock they demand. There is certainly a shortage of decently sized family homes in the south-east.

    And while bubble era lending may have bid up the prices, the planning restrictions caused no building bubble as is the case in other countries, as a result no crash.

    Houses are significantly overvalued in the sense that in a free market the prices would be lower. But a lot of that has to do with the fact that in a free market the supply would respond to the price mechanism and more homes of the right type would be built in the right places.

    But we do not live in an era of free markets, we live in an era of central planning and restriction. It was recognising this sad truth that made me give up my decade long bearishness and a buy a house. I still prefer a house price crash, but I am also realistic that the market is rigged, heavily.

  • 5. Alec

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

    More taxpayers' money to keep the housing bubble inflated for the foreseeable future so the financial crisis continues!

  • 6. Peter Kellow

    (10 September 2012, 01:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    Mike Kent is absolutely right to bring up land prices.

    It's simple, but land prices are based on property prices. The developer equation is:

    Profit = selling price - build price - land price - overheads

    The banks as Matthew says are cooking the books (a speciality) to keep prices up to maintain the fiction that they are solvent

    The sacrifice in unemployment and lack of growth that the people and businesses have to pay for the banks to hide their insolvency is horrendous

    And the government looses all the tax revenue economic activity that construction could bring so insisting on more austerity

    This is the banks taking priority over everything else in the economy. We are slaves to the banks

  • 7. flyfly

    (10 September 2012, 04:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    There’s a world of difference between the definition of “houses” and “housing”. In terms of “housing” we have plenty. But because most people don’t want a tiny flat with paper thin walls in a soulless building next to a noisy main road, we do have a shortage of “houses”, properties with driveways, gardens and stairs which are inside the front door.

  • 8. Anthony

    (10 September 2012, 04:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    Another risk is the all time low interest rates. When these *eventually* rise the housing market is substantially exposed. Perhaps the main reason the BOE won't raise rates????

  • 9. Laura

    (10 September 2012, 05:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    Flyfly: some kind of cupboard space is always good too. I've seen floor plans for these luxury executive apartments without any built-in cupboards at all. Exactly where are people meant to store their hoovers, buckets, coats and wellies, etc? Are we also to assume that the high flying executives buying these places have no hobbies either? Don't even get me started on the asking prices...

  • 10. Boris MacDonut

    (10 September 2012, 06:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    I'm not sure if this article is just funny or more sinister. I have always had my doubts about Mr matthew's often bizarre theories ,but here I assume he is just toeing the MW party line with the usual wishful thinking HP collapse. Could the few bits of tinkering bureaucracy by the Toffs trigger an HP collapse? No.
    a fundamental failure to understand demographics often catches the MW journos out. Not only is the UK population increasing at about 450,000 per year there is a massive shift to single occupancy that has moved from 17% of households in 1992 to 35% today.... and increasing. To say there is more housing per person now ,than in 1970 is utter rubbish.

  • 11. NeutronWarp9

    (10 September 2012, 06:38PM)  Complain about this comment

    Ignoring Boris's kettle calling the iron black remark, I would suggest to 9-Laura that the sub-minimum wage Help brings the cleaning equipment and with the benefit of dining out (ideally on expenses) and take-outs, kitchen requirements are reduced to space for a microwave and small fridge. Voila!

  • 12. Lena

    (10 September 2012, 06:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    Limiting the population increase would be a good start.
    Serious tax encouragement for industry outside the south east would be another way forward.

  • 13. Glider Pilot

    (10 September 2012, 09:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris MacDonut hit the nail on the head with the fact that due to changing demographics and localised planning restrictions there are not enough houses where they are needed. I love the crazy line ‘the researchers reckon that in the long term, if the supply of housing rose 10%, then the ‘fair value’ of the average house would drop 8%’. Ok first off, 10% of the current housing stock that’s a LOT of houses. Secondly where are they going to go? What does long term mean? By just tinkering with local planning laws prices will not be depressed or real affordable housing be created on a national level.

    If the government wants to light the touch paper to growth they should be looking at the fact that people struggle get a mortgage on unconventional but innovative building methods such as bale, kit, timber and experimental builds all with far higher margins for the developers and realistic price tags for lower income earners.

  • 14. French connection

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

    The main problem is the lack of planning consent for housebuilding. At the stroke of a planners pen, an acre of agricultural land is uplifted in value from £6,000 to around £2,000,000. Currently there is permission for about 400,000 plots, sufficient for less than two years construction if we are to build our way out of the problem. Most of the plots are held by the volume builders who operate as an unofficial cartel, restricting the number of houses built in any year to about 150,000 properties. Freeing up the planning block and preventing the volume builders from hoarding plots would bring down plot prices and with it, house prices. But this would upset the nimbys and the CPRE so there is no hope of a change.

  • 15. votex

    (11 September 2012, 02:03AM)  Complain about this comment


    With ref to the new local private planning laws, people are going to choose to extend rather than sell. The gov are obviously trying to stop the supply of existing homes in order to prop up prices.

    With ref to the FTB scheme extension, the message is loud and clear. "We will not allow house prices to drop, so you will have to find the money somehow to buy the overpriced rabbit hutches that our friends are going to build". continues......

  • 16. votex

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

    ....continued
    With all young generations locked out of owning their own space and still living at home, what better way to control population growth. This also conjures a very clear picture of where the UK is heading;

    scenario 1, tenant laws become biased for tenants and we become a renting nation equal to other eu countries. All part of the eu regulations. Big housing associations as Brown quoted.

    scenario 2, we become a developing nation as in India where half the population is living on the streets.

    Hopefully all the young ones vote en mass next time (for the smaller independents). Other options are to leave the country en mass.

  • 17. Boris MacDonut

    (11 September 2012, 08:05AM)  Complain about this comment

    #13 Glider Pilot. Correct. Nobody seems to express surprise at the idea of increasing the housing supply by 10%. We have 25.7 million houses, flats etc, so it pre-supposes a building splurge like no other. 2.6 million houses is 10 times what is being built at the moment. Even then it would only impact prices by 8%, but surely create such a fillip for the overall economy (a 5 or 6 fold increase in the crucial construction sector alone) the small fall would be irrelevant compared to the renewed spending power of the workforce and demand in the shops. In normal times it would take 8 or 9 years to build these houses by which time we'd have 3.5 million more people to house.

  • 18. Cecil Gorwyn

    (11 September 2012, 07:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    O.K.
    there appear to be two fundamental schools of thought here:

    prices need to fall but wont because of demographics /vested interests/politics camp
    or
    Employment/fundamentals not justified/cyclical effects/bank caution/lack of funding camp

    You can side with either - but look - what will win the day (most probably) ? emotion and desire , or cold hard cash and the numbers from a calculator ?

    I personally would err on the side of the numbers.........
    I might be wrong................

  • 19. Christopher

    (12 September 2012, 09:57AM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 10 Boris.
    As usual your stats don't square with your arguments. You talk about the increase in single occupancy demand, but on other threads talk about the requirement for more than one income per household being the new normal supporting house prices. Not the most watertight argument is it?

  • 20. Boris MacDonut

    (12 September 2012, 05:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    #19 Christopher. I think you'll find these are plain facts. I would not say there is a requirement to have two incomes just that it is a demographic trend. We have few 1950's one earner families. The number of women employed has risen dramatically since 1980 and has increased the ability for many families to borrow larger sums.
    There is also a microtrend of increased numbers of well off single women able to buy their own (smaller) homes. Another growth area is little old ladies. Living to 90+, outliving their husbands, increasing the number of single person households and limiting the supply of homes for sale. Both trends exist side by side and both are increasing. You really must read some Danny Dorling. His book is not called "So you think you know about Britain" for nothing. I'm afraid you betray that you indeed do not know.

  • 21. Christopher

    (12 September 2012, 07:28PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris. The plain fact is that the demographic trend is pointing to a whole swathe of the population younger than you not being able to come close to meeting asking prices. This will matter one day and it is this affordability argument that you lose on time and again.
    I will check out your book recommendation. For what it is worth, I have read 'Chavs'.

  • 22. Critic Al Rick

    (12 September 2012, 09:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    Hi Boris

    Andrew H, in case you weren't aware, has made a recent reference to you on the Blog thread:

    'We don't need more taxes - we just need to collect them better'

    Incidentally, if the truth should hurt me there is no need for you to apologise; in your context, you're just the messenger, albeit sometimes somewhat biassed!

    Now where's that bunker? I could read some Danny Dorling whilst taking refuge.

  • 23. Boris MacDonut

    (13 September 2012, 12:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    #21 Christopher. "Chavs" is a decent contribution to the debate started some years ago by Ferdinand Mount's book "Mind the Gap". Dorling tries hard to give the facts about the UK's demography and geography. His statistical analysis and use of cartograms maps help to reveal the real lies . Try his book "Bankrupt Britain" dedicated to David Cameron and if you really want an informed attack on elitism and the resultant despair do read his very best book , "Injustice".
    #Rick, disagreeing does not make me biased, just possessing a different opinion

  • 24. Phil

    (13 September 2012, 01:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    More naive predictions about the housing market from MW.

    First, there is not a single 'housing market' in the UK. In areas of low economic activity, prices have indeed crashed and are continuing to fall. However, in areas where there are still jobs and economic growth, surprise, surprise, house prices are rising.

  • 25. Boris MacDonut

    (13 September 2012, 08:00PM)  Complain about this comment

    Since not long after the First World War the value of the UK's Housing stock has been a bit more than 3 times GDP. Current estimates at £4,850 billion seem about right with GDP now at £1,540 billion. Oh, that gives an average near £194,000. Wages and salaries only account for 62% of GDP. It is income and wealth that buys houses, not wages.

  • 26. Christopher

    (13 September 2012, 09:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris.Very interesting, but I asked you a question and you did not answer it. Reference 21.

  • 27. Critic Al Rick

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

    @ 23. Boris

    "... disagreeing does not make me biased, just possessing a different opinion"

    Quite right but I didn't mention 'disagreeing'. I put:
    'I also know how adept you can appear at manipulating them [facts and figures] to suit your ends"

    The manipulation to which I refer is mostly about presentation, not necessarily about right and wrong.

    Could the above statement of yours be another red herring? Another manipulative presentation?

    After all ... you can be a very crafty fellow! Don't you know?

  • 28. Boris MacDonut

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

    #27 Rick. Being correct is not being crafty, just because it upsets the doom agenda.
    #26 Christopher. Lots of youngsters unable to afford a house is indeed a trend. Firstly there will be a lot more of them. London already has 11% more kids than it did 10 years ago, so plenty of demand in the pipeline for 10 to 20 years time. I think most human trends in the modern world are towards a longer life and doing things later; at school until 18 or 22,marrying later, having kids at 40, working until 70, living to 90 or more, so not buying a house until one is 35+ may become the norm, with 35 year mortgages a new normal too.

  • 29. Christopher

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

    Boris. By even arguing this you are in effect stating that houses are overpriced.
    Couples having their first kids at 40 and then working until at least the age of 70 to pay off the mortgage. And you call the rest of us doom-mongers?!

  • 30. Boris MacDonut

    (14 September 2012, 03:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    #29 Christopher. I'm not arguing this, I am stating plain facts. People live longer and most do things later in life. Surely you don't think it is a bad thing that people live longer more full lives, are able to study longer and have a longer childhood and retirement,that women can establish a career, along with some financial and emotional maturity to invest in their kids. I assume you prefer folk to leave school at 16, marry at 18, kids at 22 and house at 24. All a bit too unrealistic and hurried for modern life.
    House are patently not overpriced, they have not been cheaper since 2002.It is confidence that is lacking and people like you serve to make matters worse with your fatalism.

  • 31. Christopher

    (14 September 2012, 05:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris (30). UK life expectancy is 80.4 years according to the World Bank. Err, how can you have a longer retirement when retiring at the age of 70 or more? Nothing you've written here as anything to do with the price of fish does it? Crud of the highest order.
    It is indeed a fact that FTBs are delaying having families and are paying more over a longer period because of cost of house prices versus their total incomes. You post on here and snipe at the elite and at bankers etc but are happy to have profited out of your house - which even according to your own posts on here will be paid by these folk working longer and harder than you will have ever done. Your lack of empathy and I'm alright Jack mentality simply makes you a complete hypocrite.

  • 32. Boris MacDonut

    (14 September 2012, 10:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    #31 Christopher. You stoop to calling me "crud" and a hypocrite.
    I am simply relating stark facts and sorry if they upset your agenda. I do not dispute that average life expectancy is 80. That means some die before they are 40 and some live to be 110.The fact is that when the house price averages you believe in were set in stone ,the good old days of 3 times income house prices and 2.25 times income mortgages, life expectancy was 65 or less and the "average " person looked forward to a couple of years retirement at most.
    In 1960 the average age of marriage was 22 , first child 24, first house 28, retirement 63 and death 68. Now those figures are; 28, 30, 64 and 80. If you could just grasp maths you could then move on to demographics and away from the name calling.

  • 33. Boris MacDonut

    (15 September 2012, 10:39AM)  Complain about this comment

    #31. Christopher....and I object to being accused of an "i'm alright Jack" attitude. I strive to make the valid point that we are all alright, I just use my own pertinent experiences to illustrate it sometimes. You need to drop the gloom, it helps nobody. We are the luckiest people ever to have lived and things getting a tiny bit worse for a short while is of little consequence.

  • 34. Critic Al Rick

    (15 September 2012, 01:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 33.

    No Boris, you in the Public and Cartel, etc Sectors may be alright (for now) but we in the Truly Private Sector are NOT alright now or in the foreseeable future; not without a huge change in attitudes.

    The irony of this situation is that non of the genuine wealth creation comes from outside of the Truly Private Sector. That's why I don't say that the Public and Cartel, etc Sectors are alright in the longer term.

    Once the Parasites within the Public and Cartel, etc Sectors have sucked most of the wealth from the Truly Private Sector they will effectively have killed their Host.

    Selfish and short-sighted comes to mind.

  • 35. Boris MacDonut

    (15 September 2012, 04:26PM)  Complain about this comment

    #34 Rick. Still measuring everything, including progress, in pound notes. The article is about a potential house price crash, which I for one do not expect. Wealth creation is not really relevant ,but I disagree with you there too. Surely the Olymics generated some wealth, all of it publicly funded. As I have said before surely the NHS's great success has been in extending people's life expectancy and indirectly their ability to both work and spend ,again entirely publicly funded. You really are a stuck record as regards this "truly private sector" nonsense. A truly private sector would never have an NHS or an Olympics, just Fagin-like bean counters.

  • 36. Critic Al Rick

    (15 September 2012, 05:00PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, you are so utterly typical middle class Public Sector; you think money grows on trees and/or can be conjured out of thin air.

    Yes, the NHS represents wealth of the nation. So did a lot of other institutions (aka 'family silver') before they were sold-off. And what were they exchanged for ... money. And why were they sold ... effectively to compensate for Balance of Payments Deficit. Why has overall debt increased ... to compensate for more Balance of Payments' Deficit.

    Why is the Truly Private Sector on the sacrificial alter ... to compensate for even more Balance of Payments Deficit. Why does the Balance of Payments' Deficit need compensating ... to provide money to stage an Olympics, to sustain the NHS, an ungrateful Public Sector and a greedy Cartel, etc Sector.

    There will be a House Price crash before the Parasites' Host is 'dead' or before the Public Sector is decimated or before the Cartel, etc Sector has undergone a reality check.

  • 37. Boris MacDonut

    (15 September 2012, 05:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    #36 .Rick. But you said no genuine wealth was created outside the private sector. That is patently wrong. It is also rather odd to refer to me as shoert-sighted as I seem to be one of the few contributors on here ever to mention the long term. Most investor types want immediate results and can only think in months not decades.

  • 38. Critic Al Rick

    (15 September 2012, 06:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, there you go, manipulating to suit your ends! I didn't say you were selfish and short-sighted; I was referring to the Parasites.

    Yes, I thought you might (nit) pick-up on that one. By creation of 'genuine' wealth I meant anything consistently contributing positively towards the Balance of Trade (to include self-sufficiency negating imports e.g. farming).

    I am amazed you didn't criticise my comments regarding Balance of Payments; maybe I'm getting through at last.

    So you see dear Boris, in the longer term if not before, we are doomed. Sorry if the truth hurts!

  • 39. Boris MacDonut

    (15 September 2012, 09:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    #38 Rick. Surely the provision of a healthy and long lived cadre of workers and consumers contributes positively. I think you are too quick to condemn.

  • 40. Christopher

    (15 September 2012, 10:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris. I know I am lucky, not least because there have been no terrible world wars for me and my generation to get sucked into. The thing I object to is being lectured to by you on the absurd magic formula that a 100 year house price history will simply repeat itself again, even to the nearest percentage. On the same measure, what will our pensions look like, what will fuel cost be and how will our currency look versus the spending power of emerging economies after dropping 30% since 2008? The reality is that the UK is not the 5th largest economy anymore, while the average FTB age is closer to 37 because of deposit requirements. In biology class I also once learned that having kids at 40 is also not ideal. So it seems that adapting to new information is far more important than grasp at dodgy stats to support your own blinkered agenda.

  • 41. Boris MacDonut

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

    #40 But Christopher, I don't have an agenda. That is my whole point. I seek to undermine the daft agenda's put forward by,among others, yourself. The ridiculous certainty with which you contend things will unfold, the total conviction that you know what will happen. It is a lie that many investors tell themselves as they cannot admit to being fooled by randomness.
    I have not suggested the next 100 years for HP's will repeat the last. My scenario (on a different thread) envisages prices only rising at one tenth of what they did in the past. A reasonable assumption given they could double, treble, quadruple or even halve. But sufficient to show that only modest gains are required to shatter your doom predictions.

  • 42. Critic Al Rick

    (16 September 2012, 12:30AM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 39.

    Boris, I hope I am wrong. But can you see either:

    a) the Public Sector volunteering for real austerity

    b) the powers that be (TPTB) and their cronies volunteering to relinquish their greed?

    I can't. The Truly Private Sector (TPS) is the easy target; the sacrificial lamb; the entity representing the ever increasing damage to that proverbial can.

    Whether it be via incompetence or conspiracy we are not the only country in this predicament. The so-called good times for the West are on their way out.

    For all your condemnation of money the trends of improving health and increasing lifespan will reverse while the wealth and the genuine wealth creating ability is sucked out of the TPS.

    If any have an agenda, they are TPTB. And make no mistake they don't give a damn about you and me other than as slaves.

    Why should any of us wish for a doom scenario?



  • 43. Boris MacDonut

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

    #42 Rick. You well know my views on this. The very rich and their tax havens are well protected. I am unsure about lifespan being reversed and of course I am totally opposed to the public sector accepting "austerity", just to appease those who made poor choices. I remain an unapologetic enemy of the posh kids, their defenders and their system. I will not accept that we are doomed or even due a "return to normal". The world has changed. In their greed the wealthy have allowed ordinary folk access to credit. That is the major change of the past 20 years and it is a Pandora's box. The rich wanted a few more quid but ultimately will reap a whirlwind, the poor have made greater advancements than in 2 millenia.

  • 44. Christopher

    (16 September 2012, 04:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    Yes Boris. Close your eyes and it will all go away. A genuine, non-sarcastic, Good Luck!

  • 45. Critic Al Rick

    (16 September 2012, 06:50PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, you quite rightly refer to a Pandora's box. It is precisely the contents of this that is bringing about the doom scenario.

    I empathise with your condemnation of the 'posh kids', as well you ought to know. But your manner towards those who you deride as having "made poor choices" betrays, as Christopher @ 31. mentions, an "I'm alright Jack mentality", thereby tarring you with the same brush as the 'posh kids' making you "a complete hypocrite".

    I'll have you remember that those who you refer to as having "made poor choices" includes the self-employed, the real backbone of the nation. And without a backbone, how well do you think the arms and legs will function? As well as in a communist state?

    Some future to look forward to! Whilst sheltering the Public Sector from austerity you are supporting the 'posh kids'. Whilst not supporting those who "made poor choices" you are aiding and abetting the 'posh kids'.

    Maybe you are selfish and short-sighted afterall.

  • 46. Boris MacDonut

    (16 September 2012, 07:25PM)  Complain about this comment

    #45 You heard it here first. Rick believes it a poor choice to be self-employed. Mine is not an i'm alright mentality, but it is one that is happy to defend the public sector against those who would punish it in lieu of punishing those who really matter. I'm pretty sure most of us are sick of being told we are parasites by people without the first clue about economics or socio-demographics. The idea that the public sector should bear the burden of austerity is motivated by an odious right wing dogma and too many are happy to chip in rather than accept they made poor choices in life. In the short term the long term ALWAYS wins.

  • 47. Critic Al Rick

    (16 September 2012, 08:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    Reducing the Public Sector is not primarily aimed at eliminating Parasites (though, by my definition, there are many harbouring there, and they would be the preferred targets), it is about reducing the financial burden on the Truly Private Sector, the ones Boris terms as those having "made poor choices".

    Unfortunately, the sole action of reducing the Public Sector does not have the desired effect. It would only have the desired effect if taxation were de-coupled from incomes and expenditure; and if accrued wealth were subject to taxation instead. And the 'posh boys' would not like that.

    So the 'posh boys' continue to 'divide and rule'.

    So, Boris, how are those who 'made poor choices' going to make a stance against the 'posh boys' without the suitable cooperation of the Public Sector?

  • 48. Christopher

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

    Boris (45).
    Very lame indeed. You prove time and time again that you don't have the slightest clue how the world really works. A little bit scary actually.
    Goodnight.

  • 49. Boris MacDonut

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

    #47 Rick. I think you have misunderstood what I deem a poor choice. A lot of the ire aimed at public sector workers stems from a belated realisation by many private sector workers that they have not made sufficient provision for their old age. Sometimes due to poor advice and often due to either a failure to realise how much they should put aside or a preference for jam today. This choice was not open to public employees who were told at the outset they would be given lower salaries, but the employer would contribute sufficient for a decent pension. This was compulsory and automatic so individuals cannot be blamed.
    People respond to incentives. Some choose safe and predictable others choose risky and profitable, but should not turn around and moan when it doesn't go their way. Broad shoulders Rick. Admit you made a mistake.
    #45 Christopher. I'll let that one go and wait for you to prove that you have a better grasp of the world than I do.

  • 50. Critic Al Rick

    (17 September 2012, 12:50PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, I've noticed that whenever you are faced with a difficult question(s) you retaliate with a red herring.

    OK - your red herring:

    No Boris this is not about my pension provision, it is about the pensions of most of those in the TPS, you know the one's whose Private Pension Schemes have been and are being pillaged in order to, amongst others, payout Public Sector pensions.

    Yes, our profligate Govts (of whatever colour) have maxed out UKplc credit card, sold-off most of UKplc 'family silver' and are now raiding the wealth of the Truly Private Sector. And you have the gall to call that "bad luck" and "poor choice".

    The biggest mistakes I ever made were assuming all other people had the same high standards as myself. The longer I live the more I realise how greedy, lacking in integrity, dishonest, selfish & short-sighted a lot of people are. The example comes from the top and a lot of people do not have the moral fibre to resist being dragged down to the level of the LCD.

  • 51. Critic Al Rick

    (17 September 2012, 02:33PM)  Complain about this comment


    I'll tell you something else dear Boris:

    The TPS, Host to the Parasites, isn't a bottomless pit. You might be alright (Jack), but are you considering your children, grand-children and great grand-children?

    Real austerity now, including a proper House Price crash, may lead to a worthwhile future for your great grand-children.

    So all those apparently doting Public Sector parents who are so anxious as to how many A* Grades their wonderful (artificial) 'genius' offspring attain for themselves to bask in reflected glory are either largely selfish or decidedly short-sighted, probably both.

    The self-employed and others in the TPS understand the expression - damage limitation exercise. The featherbedded Public & Cartel,etc Sectors pass any potential damage to themselves onto the TPS for them to absorb. Well, Boris, when the TPS has been destroyed the Public Sector will be next in line; bar the Gestapo, etc or equivalent.

    So, don't judge others by your own sordid standards!

  • 52. Boris MacDonut

    (17 September 2012, 06:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    #50 Rick . Utterly bizarre, are you on something? I never once mentioned your pension provision, but it seems you are able to read that in to my post , is it paranoia?
    #51 Rick. You've lost it now. Put the crayons down and don't accuse people of being "sordid" simply because they disagree with you. It is unbecoming.

  • 53. Critic Al Rick

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

    Red herrings, misrepresentations and exagerations seem to be the ploys of those losing an argument; attack is considered the best form of defense, eh Boris?

  • 54. Boris MacDonut

    (18 September 2012, 07:34PM)  Complain about this comment

    #53 Rick. Before your usual side-tracking to condemn the public sector the article was about whether the Governements meagre planning alterations would lead to a Housing crash. I believe no. You have offered no opinion only callow sniping about red herrings. I can only assume by your vitriol that you disageee with me and predict a house price crash. Time will tell who is right and who has lost the argument, but it is one I have been having for 5 years and am moderately amused by the doom-mongers persistence. The mighty crash that has been just about to happen for the last 63 months.

  • 55. Critic Al Rick

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

    I rest my case!

  • 56. Boris MacDonut

    (23 September 2012, 06:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    #55 Rick. Rest it on what? A tissue of hope and might be. I guess when a major downturn comes, even in 20 years time, you'll say "I told you so".You need to revisit whatever misinformed you 5 years ago, give your specs a wipe and take another look at reality. At this point in time the doom-mongers have lost the argument and they have a 50:50 chance of being rightr over the next decade. A betting man would call that 3 to 1. No wonder you are so touchy when taken to task, you are very likely to be wrong.

  • 57. Critic Al Rick

    (24 September 2012, 05:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    Me - touchy? Pot - kettle.

    Assume all that you want about me Boris; afterall, you're patently in the habit of making assumptions.

    Concerned, yes. Touchy! In the longer term it would have been better for the majority if we'd had a proper House Price crash 5 years ago; better still, 7 years ago.

    I am concerned because the longer the can is kicked down the road, barring a suitable miracle, the greater will be the explosion when that can is finally ruptured.

    I suspcct I could tell you until it was obvious to even some academic economists that propping-up artificially high house prices is contributing towards exacerbating Budget and Balance of Payments Deficits before you might concede it.

    You assume that conjuring money out of thin air will see us through this crisis. Get real!


  • 58. Boris MacDonut

    (24 September 2012, 09:37PM)  Complain about this comment

    #57 Rick .We've had the correction. Houses are 19% cheaper than in 2007 and ratios are back to 2001/02 levels. Interest rates are not expected to budge until 2017. The crisis is over.I can only sympathise that it was never as bad as you'd hoped for.

  • 59. Critic Al Rick

    (25 September 2012, 05:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    I rest my case!

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.


>