Osborne's axe could hit house prices

By MoneyWeek Editor John Stepek Oct 21, 2010

John Stepek

Share with
friends:

Comments (44) Print this article

So now we know. The 'cuts' have been spelled out.

The papers are full of pics of a blood-drenched, axe-wielding George Osborne. You can see why politicians prefer to spend rather than save when these are the headlines they get. I've yet to see news of a new government spending programme illustrated with a caricature of a drunken chancellor relieving himself against a convenient wall.

But when you look at what taxpayers' money has actually been spent on over the years, this would be a far more accurate depiction.

Just take a look at one of the 'victims' of Osborne's axe - the property sector...

Some bad news for the construction industry

My colleague David Stevenson has already put together an overview of where the biggest cuts were made in the Spending Review: What the Chancellor's spending 'cuts' mean for you. So I'd just like to focus on one area that might suffer as a result of 'the cuts' - house prices.

Sure, the threat of higher unemployment might hit prices. But more specifically, cuts to the affordable housing budget might be about to pull a prop out from under the housing market.

The government wants 150,000 new 'affordable' homes to be built over the next four years through the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA - the affordable housing quango). But even if that can be achieved, it's a big drop from the previous target. That was for 155,000 homes to be built over the three years to March 2011.

And the HCA's budget has been slashed too, from £8.4bn for the previous three years to £4.4bn for the next four. The shortfall will be made up by charging new social housing tenants more to rent. So they'll pay 80% of market rent, rather than 50%.

That's bad news for the construction industry. Why? Because with the collapse of house sales in recent years, building activity has tumbled too. And one of the things that's kept it going has been government funding. According to Capital Economics, "affordable housing completions supported by HCA money in the 2009/10 fiscal year were around 47% of all housing completions over the period." In other words, government money contributed to the construction of almost half of the new homes built in Britain last year.

No wonder the share prices of several house builders took a bit of a tumble yesterday.

But wait a minute, I hear you say. If they're building fewer houses, doesn't that mean house prices will rise?

How shared equity schemes have been helping prop up the market

You'd think so. But oddly enough, affordable housing might also have been a key factor in propping up both property sales and prices in recent years. You may have heard of 'shared equity' schemes. This is where a first-time buyer purchases a share of a property - say 70% - and the other 30% remains the property of the developer and the government. There are many such schemes, but this is how it worked under the government-backed HomeBuy Direct scheme, which ended last month.


Special FREE report from MoneyWeek magazine: Don't be fooled - house prices will fall again!

  • Why UK property prices are set to collapse by 30%
  • When it will be time to get back in and buy up dirt cheap property

The other schemes are all variations on the theme. The main point is that a first-time buyer can buy a stake in a home rather than the whole thing. So in the example above they can get a £200,000 home by paying £140,000.

You can see what's happened here. The buyer won't be haggling hard, if at all. They're just glad to have 'a foot on the ladder'. So the overall price paid will be whatever the builder asks for. And as far as house prices go, it looks as though a £200,000 home has been sold, even if it only cost the actual buyer £140,000 upfront.

Indeed, John Messenger, RBS housebuilding analyst told the FT earlier this week that, "the shared equity and HomeBuy Direct (government-financed) housing schemes have been the most critical things holding up the housing market."

But if you get less money going into the affordable property sector, then there will be fewer of these schemes around. And depending on how significant a prop they've been to the housing market, that'll put more pressure on prices to fall.

Some will complain that this puts property even further out of the reach of the poor beleaguered first-time buyer. But I'd argue that it's a sign of how dysfunctional our property market has become that such schemes were seen as a good idea in the first place. The description 'affordable' suggests these loans are aimed at those on low incomes, but the HomeBuy Direct scheme was open to households on incomes of up to £60,000. We're not talking people on the breadline here, or the margins of society.

Could the cuts push house prices back to affordable levels?

Shared equity and 'key worker' schemes might have been well intentioned when they were introduced. But they never addressed the underlying problem of why people were being 'priced out' of the housing market. If it was all about physical supply and demand, then the focus should have been on reforming planning laws so that enough houses could be built to drive prices down.

If, as we believe, the real problem was overly easy credit and low Bank of England rates, then the government should have focused on why its macroeconomic policies were making shelter unaffordable for even the relatively well-off among the population.

Instead, they took the easy option of tinkering at the edges. And now the concept of 'shared equity' has become just another hurdle getting in the way of property prices falling back to levels that would allow the market to clear.

Certainly the market remains frozen. The most recent data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders showed that the housing market has just had its worst September in a decade in terms of actual lending. Gross lending fell to £12bn in September. That was even lower than in August, which is traditionally a bad month for the market.

The good news is that as pressure mounts for sellers to cut prices, Osborne's cuts might just give the market the nudge it needs to fall back to genuinely affordable levels.

Our recommended article for today

The best play on commodities right now

A sliding US dollar and continued demand is giving commodities a massive shot in the arm. So how can you cash in? Here, Bengt Saelensminde explains a simple way to play surging commodity prices.

Comments (44)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Alex

    (21 October 2010, 11:30AM)  Complain about this comment

    Amazing that a basic necessity of life - a roof over one's head has been allowed by the previous government to become just another way for the greedy to speculate and grow their wealth, whilst the young people of the country struggle to make ends meet.

    Whilst housing is of course a free market it would be lovely if the government were to make taxes on second homes much more prohibitive. That way young people in rural parts of the country (e.g. Cornwall) might actually stand a chance of buying a home in their own area, without being priced out of the market by selfish holiday home and BTL owners.

  • 2. Ted

    (21 October 2010, 11:40AM)  Complain about this comment

    "...I've yet to see news of a new government spending programme illustrated with a caricature of a drunken chancellor relieving himself against a convenient wall..."

    LOL , ROL , side splitting , fabulous , :)

  • 3. JDEvolutionist

    (21 October 2010, 11:52AM)  Complain about this comment

    The unavoidable consequence of change is change itself, so of course Osborne's measures will impact a multitude of society's interests, housing included, it can't be avoided!
    However, providing we are being told truths about the reality of our situation (and I believe we are) then, whether we like it or not, we cannot continue to spend money we don't have and the cut backs are essential and inevitable, both to curtail spending and to reduce debt. Labour, as recent and past experience has shown (why don't we ever learn?), always fouls up our economy and now once again we have to pay for the error of their ways. None of us will like it but unless it's done the future for all will be much worse.
    Providing the coalition means what it says and sticks to its plans there is still hope of prosperity in the future.

  • 4. beardiebloke

    (21 October 2010, 11:54AM)  Complain about this comment

    Cool, so these affordable housing schemes were really just subsidised unaffordable housing schemes. Brilliant.

  • 5. Peter S

    (21 October 2010, 11:55AM)  Complain about this comment

    A lot of my friends have jumped onboard with shared ownership schemes over the last few years... Typically 40% share of a 2 bed, newbuild flat totalling around £180,000...

    Can anyone clarify for me who would take the hit if prices fell? E.g. would the loss be shared 60/40 or are the tenants of these schemes more protected from house price falls than regular homeowners?

  • 6. LERENARD

    (21 October 2010, 11:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    Whilst a drop in house prices will be hugely popular with first time buyers, the property owning class will be very upset at the loss of equity. George Osborne is either politically very courageous or foolhardy. Only time will tell. As for addressing the shortage of housing, we need more land, more investment and less speculation. The planning process needs complete overhauling and housebuilders need to adopt the cheaper and greener high tech designs instead of the mock Georgian or Edwardian which they seem obsessed with.

  • 7. Dilip

    (21 October 2010, 11:57AM)  Complain about this comment

    Youve been going on about the bouse price crash for as long as I can remember, has it happened NO! Last year in your roundtable meeting the only person that was right out of your panel of experts was- surprise surprise- the one that said they were GOING UP!
    Few weeks back he was in another panel and he said they were still going up, while the others said down, I know who Im going to believe in!

  • 8. Andrew

    (21 October 2010, 12:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    Not sure that either of your conclusions is correct. The real cause of high property prices lies in ownership of land. The issues of supply/demand, planning, access to finance and government tinkering at the edges follow from that and, I suspect, a good deal of self interest from those who exert influence.
    The ownership and pricing of land is critical in that the 'planning premium' for development has no foundation for valuation except 'you want it, I've got it, you pay my price'. If we are ever to achieve affordable housing for the mass of the lower end, this has to change. Land for development needs to be allocated by local demand and valued on a basis of 'loss of revenue generation' related to average agricultural or rental yields discounted over a period. This can only be introduced by statute - who will do it?
    We will never have a fair property market unless this issue and control of population is addressed. Government has only ever tinkered at the wrong end.

  • 9. Peter

    (21 October 2010, 12:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    This was typical of the Brown Government, spend whatever it takes to prop up their boom. Now it has been left to the con/lib lot to deflate the mess left behind. Brown walks away without a care.

    I wondered what was proping up house prices and it is revealed more tax paying funds were used to do it.

  • 10. neil

    (21 October 2010, 12:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    So refreshing to read an article that doesn't subscribe to 'house price falls are bad' or 'we need more lending to get the housing market moving again'.

    Of course, these hare-brained schemes to prop up the grossly over-priced housing market are akin to sticking another plaster over a septic wound.
    Hopefully this administration will let the market re-calibrate (while they can still blame Brown for the boom and stand any chance of re-election in 5 years' time) by stopping any further such 'incentives' to first-time buyers, for whom only lower prices make any sense.

  • 11. Elvis Presley

    (21 October 2010, 12:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    There are going to be an awful lot of people who've been conned into buying shared ownership schemes in the last few years that find that what they paid for, say, a 70% share, is now what the property is worth - yet they will still only own 70% of the new lower price. If only they had waited. Who will they demand compensation from?

  • 12. Mervin

    (21 October 2010, 12:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    SInteresting - Social schemes kept the market up. I know several people who purchased shared equity at the price asked and felt grateful.

    The line was you will go to the bottom of the list or not be offered a property again. They then pay a up keep, rent and a mortgage - a bargain but not the new part owner. The associations will not lower their share and sell at a loss so they are captives. Payment default works for the associations as they have a 40% + buffer built in

    Maybe it is time to vent anger at somebody else other than the buy to let landlords. There has been a systematic failure of professional bodies, government departments and ministers, banks... etc to control a huge bubble. Never questioning what preferential tax treatment, low interest and easy credit were doing to the markets was a result of greed, incompetence and short political vision.

    Fundamentally though it has to be the result of government for squewing the market and then not controlling it.

  • 13. Realistbearthemuppet

    (21 October 2010, 12:42PM)  Complain about this comment

    Up, down, sideways, who knows? One things for certain people who've tried to predict are usually wrong. Take those bunch of nutters on HPC. Many have been prediciting 'doom and gloom' for the last ten years, and what's happened? I now notice some of them have 'smelt the coffee' and realise what idiots they've been!

  • 14. nvp

    (21 October 2010, 01:13PM)  Complain about this comment

    Hi John

    The Budget

    At last someone has stood up and finally decided to trim the albatross around our neck - the public sector and associated areas - The Public sector have enjoyed guaranteed pensions, very good salaries for zero or artificial performance targets (at least for the deskbound middle/senior managers who couldnt cut it in the private sector - front line workers are different !) and jobs for life......well for someone who has always worked in the real world of the private sector and bears the scars of 3 redundancies over the last 20 years or so my heart is not bleeding (sorry).....the speeches theme was shared responsibilit y and finally the public sector is going to share the ongoing issues and pressures that the UK private sector have shouldered single handedly for living memory (ooo00 rant over NVP)

    its medicine time for UK plc and this will be respected by the Global economies

    later
    NVP

  • 15. nvp

    (21 October 2010, 01:18PM)  Complain about this comment

    point 2 - Housing

    this is an absolute disaster in short term (3-5 years) for the housing market ....and you will not prise any significant discounts from current middle class owners of property until interest rates rise significantly and they have to ditch or be Repo'd (after being given the allowances of course)

    Hell will freeze over before most owners will sell the family house for less than they wanted to...let alone a loss.........

    Stagnation rules for the present time...unless someone decides certain segments of the UK property market merits a buy bubble Asset play

    PS will that new Tenant 90% of market rent filter through to any landlords offering their prorties through local council schemes ?
    ...........that sounds tasty !

    NVP

  • 16. Desperately seeking a solution

    (21 October 2010, 01:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    "And the HCA's budget has been slashed too, from £8.4bn for the previous three years to £4.4bn for the next four"

    So if it was a self-defeating waste of money for £8.4bn, is it not still a self-defeating waste of money for £4.4bn?

    My friend has just moved into one of these - there is a flat in his block for sale for £400k. You need to earn a minimum of £60k to 'buy' it. The effective subsidy can be up to around £700pcm (i.e. £700pcm cheaper than buying it outright). So the affordable housing budget is still being used to subsidise people on £60k in order to keep house prices high.

    This gov't is really the same as the last one, but a little bit cheaper.

  • 17. bigbear

    (21 October 2010, 01:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    Realistbearthemuppet, Again you refer to 'doom and gloom'
    Don't you get it? Other than a bunch of very greedy 'baby boomers' trying to sell off the homes bought 20yrs ago+ for peanuts...(to fund their trips around the med and endless G&Ts), the rest of us see a real correction as a very good thing. Even EAs may see it as necessary to start selling houses again in viable volumes....I suspect the fall is happening now....lower offers are being accepted and this will increase over the winter...

  • 18. Tim

    (21 October 2010, 01:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    I think that Andrew is on the right lines. According to a recent New Statesman article 69% of UK acreage is owned by 0.6% of the population or 158,000 families (and much of this acreage, while classified as agricultural, is not productive), while 24 million families have to live on the the four million acres of the urban plot. This must be the underlying reason for high house prices. Answer? Nationalize all land, so that no-one can own a freehold. Existing free-holders would receive long leases under stated conditions, and pay suitable ground rent to the state. Shift some tax to land.

  • 19. Ellen

    (21 October 2010, 02:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    The smarter vendors will reduce their prices now so they dont have to make bigger reductions later. Anyway, does it not make sense that when a vendor needs to sell for less due to market conditions (part or full ownership) he or she will buy their next house for less so overall, its the difference between the sale and the purchase that counts. Added bonus is they pay less stamp duty on smaller amounts.

  • 20. TheCountOfNowhere

    (21 October 2010, 02:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    I can't wait until prices fall so I can buy another buy-to-let investment. The three I have already are doing very well indeed as interest rates as so low.

    I think the cuts were spot on. I suspect there will be a lot more repossessions on the horizon which means lower house prices for investors like me.

  • 21. Niall

    (21 October 2010, 02:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    Interesting John, but I can't agree with the central premise.

    If you remove or restrict the supply of new "affordable" homes, then anyone that can raise a mortgage to buy one will look instead to buy a second hand "affordable" home, thus allowing that seller to move on.

    That driving factor is, of course, the availability of mortgages. And that's a different story.

  • 22. Dean Gould (N.Yorkshire)

    (21 October 2010, 02:59PM)  Complain about this comment

    The article paints an unnecessarily bleak picture I feel. Rents are almost certain to go up given the restructuring of Local Authority housing and amount claimants can now receive.

    This, in turn, will no doubt have a knock-on effect in private sector rental yields.

    Whilst I don't share the same enthusiasm as the TheCountOfNowhere for repossessions it is foreseeable that prices may come down and investors such as this may do very well.

    At least money will be going back to the chancellor through your capital gains taxation.

  • 23. Niall

    (21 October 2010, 03:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    PS My experience is that much of the "affordable" housing sold up until now was massively over-valued compared to similar property in the private sector.

    But surveyors are protecting their backs by continuing with the charade.

  • 24. Know It All

    (21 October 2010, 03:12PM)  Complain about this comment

    NVP . .

    To quote - "Hell will freeze over before most owners will sell the family house for less than they wanted to...let alone a loss"

    I'm afraid it seems from your comments you have NOT A CLUE how the property market or bubble psychology works. Let me explain for you shall I . .

    People buy and sell at all phases in the market. Just because someones house is worth less than they paid for it does not mean they will not sell. Don't forget the place they move to has also dropped in value too - so it is all relative.

    Also once sustained drops start to take hold many investors will look to sell their property pretty damn quickly - fearing that if they don't sell now then next month the value will have dropped even further. This is called capitulation (or taking your return whilst you still can).

    Does that clarify things for you perhaps?

  • 25. TheCountOfNowhere

    (21 October 2010, 03:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    I would have to disagree with you Know It All. Many investors such as myself have no intention of selling at less than the property was purchased for. Why would I?

    If it providing me with a rising rental income (as Dean Gould points out) and payments on the loan are minimal I can afford to wait the whole term of the mortgage or more before I cash in for retirement.

    What sort of investor sells at a loss?

    As for your point about families you don't seem to have factored in negative equity for anyone that made a purchase during the last decade.

  • 26. Agabus25

    (21 October 2010, 03:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    Re Ellen "...will buy their next house for less so overall, its the difference between the sale and the purchase that counts".

    That is not always true. You have consider what is happening to a buyer's equity and what levels of LTV they will have on a new mortgage. You lose equity at a far faster rate than the overall drop in selling price. You have £20,000 equity in a house worth £120,000 and it drops £10,000: price fall 8%, equity drop 50%.

    Basically if you are funding a move at today's prices and you just squeeze into an 80% LTV but prices fall 10% (your home and the one you're buying) you'll need an 86% LTV which no-one will llend you. Some call it the equity trap.

  • 27. James

    (21 October 2010, 03:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    It's all about credit. Shared equity schemes and the like are just noise.
    Once upon a time, banks would lend a maximum of 3.5x salary. This defined the average house price at a similar level. Then the banks came up with the idea of CDOs - take mortgages, package them up, and sell them on. Cue ever riskier mortgages - 4x, 5x joint salary, self certified "liar loans". Who cares? Pack 'em up and sell 'em on. Ever greater lending = ever higher house prices.
    Then came the credit crunch 2007. Now the banks can no longer get away with it, and have gone back to sensible limits.
    There is a standoff now between buyers and sellers, but sellers can't win. The sellers don’t want to drop prices, but the buyers CAN'T pay current asking prices, because they can't borrow the money to do so.
    Low IR are making the standoff painfully slow, as people can sit in their ivory towers longer than they should. But it cannot, and should not go on forever. Ever rising house prices are unsustainable.

  • 28. Benjamin U.

    (21 October 2010, 03:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    I can't agree better with your analysis; and in addition we might begin to witness an increasing number of sellers, as the retrenchment exercise begins to bite. Effect on housing prices should be a further fall.
    benjamin.

  • 29. James

    (21 October 2010, 03:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    Re: The CountOfNowhere

    > What sort of investor sells at a loss?

    A sensible one, sometimes. Unless you believe investments only ever go up.

    Surely you would sell at a small loss now rather than huge loss later? In this particular situation, you might be making money on the rent, but if your capital is being eroded at a greater rate by house price falls, are you really being sensible?

    The last 10 years have lulled you into a false sense of security.

  • 30. Ellen

    (21 October 2010, 04:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    Hi Agabus25. If everyone had bought their property in the last few years I would totally agree with you but on average, I believe, people move about every 7 to 10 years. Moving house for most people tends to have a lifestyle decision attached to it ie. location, growing family etc. Changes in personal circumstances take years rather than months and those who bought at peak prices mostly would not be moving house any time soon regardless of whats going on in the housing market. They will have paid off part of their mortgage when they want to move and that will be their equity if house prices dont rise before they get to that point. The lack of credit I think reflects the lenders opinion that prices are too high and should things go wrong for
    the mortgage holder, the banks would lose out.
    CountofNoWhere - Are you an estate agent?

  • 31. CountofNoWhere

    (21 October 2010, 04:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    James - investments are not risk free I agree but can you show me one period in the last 60 years where house prices were actually worth less in the long term? There was a fall in the last recession and they grew at an astonishing rate afterwards. They have fallen during this recession and they will increase in value again. You cannot possibly believe that prices will reduce and stay low leaving a big peak where 2007 is. Bricks and mortar have been the safest investment since the dawn of time and that is not going to change as the population increases on this island.

    Ellen - no I am not an estate agent, just someone that recognises that buying low and selling high makes money. If you can rent it out and have someone else pay down the debt in the meantime all the better.

  • 32. James

    (21 October 2010, 04:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    In real terms (inflation adjusted), prices did not reach the 1990 peak prices until 2003, by which time they were on the credit bubble rocket which took off in 2001. (This corresponds to the introduction of a model which allowed the rapid pricing of CDOs and a rapidly escalating volume of CDOs being traded). Based on that, it might be 2020 before you can sell your houses for the prices you could get today (2007 being this bubble's peak)

    > just someone that recognises that buying low and selling high makes money.

    This is exactly what I am saying. You obviously bought low, but you seem to be refusing to sell high! Or if you "won't sell for less than you paid", maybe you didn't buy low after all, as surely if you bought in the early 00's this wouldn't be an issue.

  • 33. Agabus25

    (21 October 2010, 04:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    Ellen,

    It's just maths not a comment on the market. If someone has 20% equity either by paying down debt or by rising values, the hit from falling prices is exactly the same on their equity. The average home mover has 34% equity according to the CML so there will be plenty of people who do only have 20% equity and, therefore, vulnerable in this way. A lot of people have not paid off much of their debt: interest-only borrowers, people making equity withdrawal, people paying back shared equity loans etc etc. Whatever the reason is for lenders restricting, they are where they are and if they won't lende an 86% LTV, that is that.

  • 34. Novice

    (21 October 2010, 05:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    'Bigbear' I am constantly surprised at the bile extended to towards the "Babyboomers" - of which I a member (58)

    I put it to you that my generation is NOT the main culprit
    of this immoral obsession with the price of property and getting something for nothing.. it is the generation directly after the
    baby boomers; (45-30) who have created this wasteland of selling ever-more costly housing to each other.
    Don't poo poo: I sold a flat to a btl'er in his thirties - both my 30 something nephews are also doing it - you would do it - such is human nature - greedy, self interested. When I was young this country had a thing called Industry, Manufacturing - not now, we have exported it to the far east. Come on youth, get the broader picture - we are only puppets of the banksters who created these market conditions.
    Put up interests rates I say, this government should have the balls to let the housing market fall, while it's early days in its mandate.


  • 35. Novice

    (21 October 2010, 05:32PM)  Complain about this comment

    Should have said Bankster spivs and colluding governments
    on both sides of the Atlantic who have in any case created these market conditions

    There.

  • 36. Know It All

    (21 October 2010, 05:41PM)  Complain about this comment

    TheCountofNoWhere . .

    So you can afford to sit it out can you? Rental income will make it a good investment will it?

    So the average house is worth around 160k. If that just drops by just 5% a year you will have lost 8k.

    Does your rental income cover that? What about the extra costs of mortgage interest, tax, a couple of vacant months, agency fees, service charges and some basic repairs? Still making money?

    Now if you get a bad paying tenant, or property prices slip by say 6-10% a year then things start to get really interesting. Didn't they slip by 3.6% in September alone?

    Loosing money doesn't sound like a great investment to me which ever way you look at it.

  • 37. TheCountOfNowhere

    (21 October 2010, 09:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    Not sure what your problem is Know it All. I gross about 3k a month from my investments. In the event the economy collapsed nobody could buy a house anyway. I'd be laughing (again).

    I missed the point where you told me where the same investment wouldn't have paid off during the last 60 years.

  • 38. zenith

    (21 October 2010, 09:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    What sort of investor sells at a loss?
    An investor who is experienced and not in denial! Baby boomers think property is a good investment, because of huge gains made from 2000 to 2007, yet between 1990 & 2000 they did not keep pace with inflation.

    The value of property will fall as the Baby boomers start to sell BTL or downsize homes to get money for their retirement or die and there estates become subject to inheritance tax forcing sales. The Baby boomers are just starting to retire and their mortality rate will also start to rise steeply over the coming years. One way or another they will be heading for the exit at the same time!

    There were ~25% more 40-60 year old's in 2006 than in 1981, yet there were over a million fewer children in 2006, than 1981, causing an increase in properties coming to market for many years. There are also fewer 20- 40 years to replace the baby boomers and they have less equity built up than baby boomers had at the same age.

  • 39. victor sizer

    (21 October 2010, 10:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    Since government figures state that home ownership is 71% across all classes and sizes and values of residential homes, only 29% are renters. This home-owning majority will never allow any government to cause long-term (15-20 years) house prices to drop below the published rate of inflation (either index) because any such fall would cripple 100% of the nation's home owners. House prices have always moved in line with or just above the long-term rate of inflation. If there is a 3, 5, 7 year stagnant price or lower price period, later house price rises will ALWAYS catch up with the compound inflation of that period. This fact is proved by official house price figures since 1927.

  • 40. victor sizer

    (21 October 2010, 11:32PM)  Complain about this comment

    Zenith is right that a sound investor will wait for the house market to move through it's long-term cycle (on average, 15-20 years) but nobody can ignore the fact that capital(ism) or owning capital means that homes are just another capital item like companies, shares, jewels, machinery, intellectual property, patents, royalties, income earning capital, subject to demand and supply CHANGES, long-term, making house prices vary.
    Most of the mainly ill-informed BTL fanatics, falsely believed house prices always go up, over the short term, so most BTL fingers were severely burned.
    In fact, house prices always go up - but only over the long-term cycle and only just around the rate of inflation (but not necessarily at the same time, or in the same year, or years, as the inflation) - so keeping real value/purchasing power.
    Easily verified by the last 50 years of published house prices and inflation rates.
    The demographics have little to do with a populations need for housing.

  • 41. Nickyboy

    (22 October 2010, 08:29AM)  Complain about this comment

    I think most people here seem to be in agreement of one thing - there is no point in buying a property for the next 5-10 years based on the current state of the economy which means that we will have a massive shortage of buyers compared to sellers.
    People will continue to rent and people like the count of nowhere will not lose, but I dont think they will gain either. Rental prices will stay static but inflation will erode people's savings more and more. I would be hedging my money on defensive stocks or merely keeping it in as higher rate interest account as possible. Cash is king at the moment!

  • 42. Peter

    (22 October 2010, 03:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    Thanks for a commonsense article - which strikes a notably sane note by comparison with the mainstream media.

    I guess there are a lot of people like me who are stuck in expensive and shabby rented property waiting for house prices to return to a level that seems sustainable.

    It makes it all the more annoying to see the government keep on trying to manipulate the market so that it won't clear.

    Will UK housing ever be allowed to return to sanity?

  • 43. Barry Clark

    (22 October 2010, 11:25PM)  Complain about this comment

    I for one would like to see a tax on the BTL/Landlord market. There are far too many people making tax free money from paying off there own mortgages. A simple re-classification of any rent becoming earnings would ‘pop’ the slowly deflating bubble, allow the kids of toady to get the starter home of yester year and allow the banks to lend again. Yea there would be some collateral damage but I think in the long run we would all benefit.
    I am total aware that the high cost of housing is more than just the BTL market but I suspect that it has a large impact on the lower end of the market.

  • 44. SarahBell

    (25 October 2010, 03:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    Barry Clark - by collateral damage I assume you mean just about every homeowner in the country? What impact do you think that would have on the economy?

    Landlords run a business and provide much needed housing to people who do not earn enough to buy themselves. Lets face it if you cannot afford to buy now while interest rates are so low then you should have thought of that when you were at school and worked a bit harder instead of whining about it now.

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.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>