Britain’s obsession with house prices will ruin us all

By MoneyWeek Editor John Stepek Mar 21, 2013

John Stepek

Share with
friends:

Comments (137) Print this article

Estate agent's window © Getty Images

Keeping house prices up is the government's top priority

If you’ve ever had any doubts as to what politicians believe is Britain’s top economic priority, yesterday’s Budget made it very clear. 

It’s house prices. Ever since the crisis began, government and Bank of England policy have been directed primarily at propping up house prices.

Never mind that the housing bubble was a key part of the problem in the first place. Never mind that price falls would be the most effective way to get all these first-time buyers they keep pretending to care about, on to the property ladder.

And never mind that the main reason the US is enjoying some semblance of a recovery is that its own housing bubble was allowed to collapse.

It’s all about winning votes. The chancellor, George Osborne, knows that if he is to have any chance of keeping his job after 2015, house prices have to at least stay stable.

So what’s he planning? And will it work?

The latest government boost for housebuilders and estate agents

The government has already tried various schemes to boost homebuilding and mortgage lending. But its latest moves are the most ambitious.

‘Help to Buy’ comes in two parts. Firstly, the existing FirstBuy shared-equity scheme is being expanded. FirstBuy currently applies to first-time buyers on less than £60,000 a year.

Provided they have a 5% deposit, it allows them to borrow 20% of the value of a new property from the government. The loan is interest-free for five years, then starts incurring interest. This scheme is now being extended to anyone buying a new-build home (to live in, not to rent out) up to the value of £600,000.

More on the Budget

The second part of the scheme will be launching from next year. This one applies to both new and existing homes. Again, buyers need at least a 5% deposit. But in this case, the government will act as guarantor for up to 20% of the purchase price in total. In other words, the taxpayer will stand behind the most vulnerable bit of the loan.

The idea is that if someone puts down 5% of the price, and the taxpayer then guarantees as much as another 15%, then lenders won’t be as reticent about dishing out mortgages. It also means that buyers don’t have to raise such substantial deposits.

The government estimates that up to £130bn-worth of home loans could be “supported” by Help to Buy, over three years. As Nils Pratley points out in The Guardian, that’s “equivalent to the current annual volume of mortgage lending.” And because this money is in the form of guarantees, it won’t “show up as extra government debt”.


  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

 


How do you feel about guaranteeing your neighbour’s mortgage?

In short, the government is trying to bring back the 95% loan-to-value mortgage. And it’s putting your money and mine at risk in doing so.

You can probably guess what our general feelings are about this scheme. As my colleague Phil Oakley put it in a nicely-worded email rant this morning: “I am very annoyed that my taxes are underwriting the profits of housebuilders and keeping the banks solvent.”

And as for monetary policy, “in the meantime, we get a man in from Canada to run the Bank of England, who has just done what exactly? Oh yes, he's stoked a housing bubble and has probably been asked to do a similar job over here”.

I suspect a lot of you might agree with Phil. I know I do.

So how successful will this scheme be? It does depend on the uptake, which is something that many people seem to be ignoring. A lot of property types are talking about a “new bubble” in concerned tones, but we all know they’re really just trying to panic buyers into the market.

The fact is, the FirstBuy scheme hasn’t been a roaring success as yet. The extension beyond new houses might help. But I suspect that the loan element is what puts people off. If a property is unaffordable, getting a loan from the government isn’t really going to help that much.

As for the guarantee scheme – that might have more clout. However, , it’ll involve the government fiddling around with the very regulatory regime that was meant to prevent careless lending in the first place.

As trade magazine Money Marketing points out, banks have to hold “around eight times more capital at loans over 90% LTV than for loans under 60%”. So for this to be attractive, those rules have to be relaxed. Which seems to be going down the same road that got us here in the first place.

In all, I’d wait to see what demand is like when this launches. But I wouldn’t be tempted into the buy-to-let market off the back of this scheme. As for buying a house – that’s a personal decision based very much on your own circumstances.

But bear in mind that if you can only put down a 5% deposit on a house – you are the one who is first in line to take the hit if prices fall and you can’t repay your mortgage. So regardless of what help the government offers today, make sure you could pay your monthly bills if interest rates went a lot higher.

As for savers – the people who are basically funding all this – how can you protect yourself as the government slowly whittles away at your wealth with low interest rates, high inflation, and hare-brained taxpayer guarantees? I look at the problem of financial repression in the latest issue of MoneyWeek magazine, out tomorrow – if you’re not already a subscriber, you can get your first three issues free here.

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

Follow John on Twitter || Google+ John Stepek

Our recommended articles for today

This is Britain’s ‘get out of jail free’ card

Britain is determined to lead from the front in the shale gas revolution - and for good reason, says Bengt Saelensminde. Here, he explains the best ways to profit.

Is the EU right to cap banking bonuses?

The EU has decided to try and end the 'bonus culture' at banks. In this video, Tim Bennett explains the proposal and asks whether it will work.

Comments (137)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Bob

    (21 March 2013, 11:03AM)  Complain about this comment

    The problem is that EAs and surveyors will now begin ramping like no tomorrow and loads of people will buy in. In my area asking prices and sold prices have been rising every year since the 2008 meltdown. West Wales. Nuts.

  • 2. John C

    (21 March 2013, 11:08AM)  Complain about this comment

    With real wages continuing to fall, derisory savings rates and a stagnant economy there still isn't much incentive for first-time buyers - especially as eventually interest rates must rise, then putting further stress on mortgagees' disposable income.

  • 3. Romford Dave

    (21 March 2013, 11:34AM)  Complain about this comment

    I'm more taken with the idea of the 20% 5 year interest free lump limited to new build properties being proposed.

    In an ideal world it would boost demand for modern energy efficient dwellings (as long as builders get past their fixation of designing everything around rabbit hutch proportions) at the expense of the older housing stock.

    A boon to construction activity and a reduction in energy demand at a stroke.

    High energy bills do have the advantage of focusing minds on the cost of running a house rather than it's purchase price, maybe that will finally translate into eradicating the British disease of my home is my cash till.

    Of course that would need the mind of someone who's deviousness is slipperier than that of the slipperiest eel to come up with...

  • 4. Nick

    (21 March 2013, 11:39AM)  Complain about this comment

    Good Article. Osborn and Alexander are realy out of thier depth, I'd rather have Ed Balls in charge. I remember the last housing boom in the late 80's when the Conseratives were in power, that ended with interest rates of 15% and hundreds of thousands of people in negative equity. This is a sitting time bomb, if interest rates have to rise even a mere 2%, there would be carnage.

  • 5. Daikoku

    (21 March 2013, 12:18PM)  Complain about this comment

    Proof that there is actually no hope whatsoever because politicians are hamstrung by votes. Looks like the next bubble is frothing around beneath our feet. Just cannot believe the cynicism/stupidity of Osbourne and Co.

    Solution? Well one thing is for certain, the UK is not a territory or jurisdiction that has long term appeal.

  • 6. Soss

    (21 March 2013, 12:24PM)  Complain about this comment

    "I wouldn’t be tempted into the buy-to-let market off the back of this scheme"

    Are you saying this scheme wil be available to the BTL crowd? Insane!

  • 7. Ellen

    (21 March 2013, 12:26PM)  Complain about this comment

    The government really should let market forces sort out the housing market and deal with insolvent banks separately. If we want to stand any kind of a chance to compete in a globally competitive market, the cost of our essentials, food, fuel and housing, need to be brought closer in line with the rest of the world.

    I am furious at George Osborne jeopardising the future of our children, (and using our taxes and savings to destroy them with) and adding billions to our national debt to pander to those with an interest in keeping this housing bubble going. I feel the country cannot move on economically until this bubble is allowed to deflate (or pop). We need a chancellor who is courageous enough to do the best for the economy and not sacrifice the whole economy to save his own political career.

  • 8. Chester

    (21 March 2013, 12:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    Another "fools classic", and a perfect example of idiot politicians doing what they do best - getting in the way by "helping people"

    The longer house prices remain artificially elevated through more unaffordable guarantees, the longer the inevitable correction in asset prices will take. Common sense tells us that the resulting correction will be even uglier, after yet more debt sustains the unsustainable

    And when the inevitable bust takes down the banks who funded house price inflation over the last 20 years, Cyprus will look like a picnic. There will be no money left to protect savings. And as usual, we will blame bankers, but ignore politicians and central bankers, who have been more culpable in creating our current debt fueled mess than any self serving banker could ever be

  • 9. Tommy Burns

    (21 March 2013, 12:30PM)  Complain about this comment

    As a potential 1st time buyer in the South East with a family I am looking at having to spend at least £400k for a 2 and a half bed house. So that's an 80k deposit. The problem with moving further out is the increase in childcare costs and increased travel.
    I'd love to know how I'm supposed to save that when renting a 3 bed house is £1800 a month and thats cheap for where I am

    Something tells me maybe prices need to fall to more realistic levels. Mind you thats not going to happen as no-one votes for killing the golden goose of home owners....

  • 10. RR

    (21 March 2013, 12:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    500325

  • 11. Joe Public

    (21 March 2013, 12:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    A lot of MPs have BTL so why wouldn't they do this and keep their investment safe? A lot of the media have BTL so why wouldn't they welcome this?

    Thank you to the article for pointing out some of the dangers to Joe Public.

  • 12. SteveBee

    (21 March 2013, 12:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    #9 Tommy Burns
    I can not agree with you more. We need to follow the US route - let houses find their correct price level. If we did it would cause grief for those who bought at inflated prices - but it would at least start the system again rather than leave it in zombie land! Currently we are protecting those who have borrowed too much + landlords + "my home is my pension crew".... at the expense of the young.

    ... PS not in your position - older - own my own house - have savings etc - but recognise your position and argument.

    Good Luck

  • 13. J Barrows

    (21 March 2013, 12:45PM)  Complain about this comment

    I think that this is Osborne cynically stoking a huge problem for the country and the next in-coming government; creating another bubble in housing will ultimately lead to currency crisis because there is no more money with which to bail out the banks again

  • 14. Never Learn

    (21 March 2013, 12:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    Surely only a variation on the American schemes ,when people took on a house that they really could not afford in the long term.

  • 15. RR

    (21 March 2013, 12:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree with this article. The government is trying to mislead us that supporting house building somehow will bring about economic growth. If growth was the main objective, then they government should have done more to get funds to small business.
    The true aim is to keep house prices at the present unsustainable levels. That will ensure that the value of the mortgages held by banks as collateral will not drop thus preventing an increase of the banks’ debt. The same as in keeping interest rates low, thus preventing mortgage defaults, the drop of property prices. This of course is subsidized by savers, pensioners etc,
    In conclusion supporting the banks has been the main preoccupation of the present government. Whatever else they tell the public is SPIN.

  • 16. Justin

    (21 March 2013, 01:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    Here we go again, charging towards the big debt meltdown. Anybody with a job, savings, a pension and equity had better watch out, they are going to take it away to prop up the banks. But it will all end in tears.

    This country is doomed. Very sad.

  • 17. Myki

    (21 March 2013, 01:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    stoking up another housing bubble on top of an uncorrected housing bubble seems like madness. on the flip side, more people moving houses means more house alterations & DIY, more new furniture sales, more tool & van rental, more white goods sales etc which primes the general economy into more consumption and therefore more prosperity and tax revenues. who gains from this in the long term? those born outside the UK who stay for maybe 5-10 years and time selling just right thus returning to their home nation loaded with cash? the rich who can afford to dump property on the market as and when they wish?

  • 18. Myki

    (21 March 2013, 01:18PM)  Complain about this comment

    i have to pinch myself some times to realise the governing party are actually right wing capitalists. with so much state intervention and ownership of the banks, bond markets and now up to 20% of peoples homes, these seem more like a communist policies to me

  • 19. Ghantoo

    (21 March 2013, 01:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    People with BTL loan,guarenteed by taxpayers and savers pay 0% interest for five years while for those with student loans no such relief. The government has got their priorities wrong.

  • 20. Tommy Burns

    (21 March 2013, 01:24PM)  Complain about this comment

    #12. SteveBee

    Thank you. I had the chance to buy in 2007 pre family but seeing as 2 bed flats were still at way over 7x salary (5x for both of us at the time) it seemed like it was a huge gamble.

    Obviously if I'd known that everything possible would have been done to help me I'd have gone all out and got a house!

    Its just frustrating. The majority of my friends bought between 2006-2012 so they are in the other camp and will suffer if we have corrections. At least at 31 I've got a chance to maybe get something when this sorry mess corrects itself

  • 21. Andy

    (21 March 2013, 01:29PM)  Complain about this comment

    What a complete waste of time this scheme is. I'm a potential first time buyer and wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. It's just a scheme to fleece desperate young families into paying over the odds for an already overpriced new house. George it's not the mortgages that are the main problem - it's the ridiculous asking prices for property in the first place.

    I voted Conservative but am very disappointed with what they have actually achieved. Where is the business bank they promised? - still in development. Where is the investment in infrastructure, exporters and things that can actually earn our country money - again very little to show for it. Honestly stop tinkering round the edges. Your priority is to do something for UK industry, UK business and UK exports (do this and the rest will sort itself out).

    And what's the alternative? Edd Balls and his band of whining idiots, without a credible alternative to offer or a positive word to say about anything? Heaven help us.

  • 22. Xcllranderson

    (21 March 2013, 01:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    Yet another harebrained scheme, but why should we be so surprised? The three main parties hold a consensus on property, i.e. that the higher the price the wealthier we are. Unfortunately, it will ultimately end in ruin for us all. There are, and always have been two possible outcomes - either salaries double or in some cases treble to realign with property prices or property prices crash. I know which is the more likely.

  • 23. brian

    (21 March 2013, 02:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    The proposal is completely harebrained . Prices rose to artificial levels in the boom fed by unregulated self certified earnings practices and by mad lending approaches like Northern Rock 120% mortgages. This led to very high prices and high differentials between property types . The whole thing is ( apart from central London) now finally subsiding ; prices and differentials are very gradually reducing - which can only benefit my 'hard working' children . The Government is taking totally the wrong action at the wrong time - supporting high prices ( & profits) on new houses and forcing back up the prices on existing stock- it's laughable - and as others have said, the outcome is to reinforce the UK obsession with houses and speculative gains which is part of the explanation for the country's fast economic decline.

  • 24. Justin

    (21 March 2013, 02:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    As we said before, the only ones to truly benefit from these policies are the banks, i.e. this governments' friends. They make money and fat bonuses out of selling debt to gullible people, thus putting them into a sort of financial bondage. Many ordinary folk have fallen for this. They have been sold a pup. This illogical and desperate race to get on the so-called housing ladder. It's called a ladder because it implies that you should trade up to a larger property, thus taking on an even larger mortgage that benefits you know who... Unfortunately, the UK's economy has become dominated by this financial sector and it's elite, so they will continue to promote debt for their short-term gain. Unless people start to realise this and stop this merry go round, we are all doomed.

  • 25. Novice

    (21 March 2013, 02:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    Couldn't agree more with the article and comments.
    The intriguing question is, will ordinary people ever join up
    the dots and say enough? Or will "Events dear boy, events",
    simply drive this insanity to its inevitable conclusion?

  • 26. Ellen

    (21 March 2013, 02:48PM)  Complain about this comment

    I have spent a good deal of time today trying to reduce my exposure to sterling. I don't like doing this as I want this economy that I live and work in to prosper but government policy is working to the detriment of it own citizens.

    I don't much like the policies that are coming out of the US but at least they are in the enviable position to hold the worlds reserve currency. Also they have had their housing correction. Asia generally pays its way in the world and the Eurozone is, at least trying to keep value in it citizens purchasing power and allowing overinflated housing bubbles down. George Osborne stands alone making housing unaffordable his primary policy - and trashing sterling to pay for it.

  • 27. Changing Man

    (21 March 2013, 03:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    I thought I was "Dunroamin" but the prospect of a guaranteed loan for me to trade up to a £600,000 home with a 5% deposit? The signboard is going up at the weekend! Break open the Beaujolais Nouveau, it's 1984 again! {"Money for nothing.......!} :)

  • 28. Jay

    (21 March 2013, 03:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    Are property prices too high?

    Given supply and demand, planning constraints, land values, mortgage availability, wage levels, unemployment, material costs, population increase, government intervention, buy to let, desire for one's own home etc, prices can only be exactly as they are. Unfair?

    Change can only come with a new system. Here are some ideas...

    Pass on all property entirely free from one generation to the next.
    Inherit only one property per person.
    No one to own a property, domestic or commercial, unless they use it.
    End all rent seeking, landlordism, REITs, etc.
    The State, by law, to provide a free development site to anyone to build their own house or start a business.

    A nation of free owner-occupiers would make a difference. Vast amounts of capital tied up in property and rent would be released into the economy for re-allocation for true wealth creation. Chancellors wouldn't have to prop up a land tenure system which basically exploits its citizens.

  • 29. modsap

    (21 March 2013, 03:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    If the object of this budget is to leave Labour with an even bigger problem than the Conservatives inherited, then it's a good one - but certainly not a moral one.

  • 30. jrj90620

    (21 March 2013, 03:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    Maybe you all have money illusion.Maybe housing prices aren't too high.Maybe your fiat currency,even though it has been devaluing, is still valued too high.I think you should compare housing price increases to gold,commodities and other real goods.Not against a moving target,fiat currency,that is constantly devaluing.

  • 31. JOHN RICHARD

    (21 March 2013, 03:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    WHAT IS BRITAINS OBSESSION WITH BUYING A HOUSE - unemployment is strongly linked to the lack of movement of job-seekers - jobs do not come to you - you have to go seek it, and if it means moving, do so - but - availability of rental accommodation is key - this new initiative will just lock the young down. Is this why immigrants succeed where locals don't ?

  • 32. Justin

    (21 March 2013, 04:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    Changing Man, I would do the same, but I'm too nervous about this UK housing market and the prospect of being left high and dry with a huge mortgage. What if the bond market blows up and interest rates go up? House prices would crash and all bets are off. The economy is already on maximum stimulus and there is no ammunition left to boost it further. The problem is that this stimulus is only aimed at helping the zombie banks. All that money (debt) is tied up in unproductive areas such as housing that do not create real growth in wealth (you can't export houses). I certainly would not put my faith in this government and the new Canadian BoE Governor. They only care about short-term things such as getting re-elected in 2015.

  • 33. Nick

    (21 March 2013, 04:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    Thank you John for writing down the bleeding obvious. Hopefully if it's written down enough times the message will start to get through..

  • 34. alec

    (21 March 2013, 04:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    This is a one policy government "prop up the housing market". Nothing else matters. Steal from savers, steal from pensioners, steal from taxpayers (high inflation and only going to get worse). Bailing out the banks with tax payers money, funding for lending with taxpayers money and now funding for mortgages from the the taxpayer. You thought Brown,Balls and King were bad enough, now you have got these idiots, Cameron and Osborne as well as King. Cheap credit, cheap credit, cheap credit, the ruination of the country.

  • 35. thomefan

    (21 March 2013, 05:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    As someone who has saved for years to get a decent sized deposit this makes me nervous. Seriously - I despair with this country ... over priced houses, rising cost of goods & services, declining moral values and a reliance on debt.

    What this country needs are lower house prices not higher ones - this would mean we would have more money to spend in the shops, who could then employ more people, which hopefully would help support the economy. As a nation we would be more competitive and any future growth will be built upon solid foundations. Oh well, b*ll*x to all that sense - let's just repeat our mistakes!

  • 36. Yogi

    (21 March 2013, 05:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    This is so smart I am impressed and none of the above got it, the country earns about 50% in tax on each new house sale (not enough space to go into detail) and the cost is an off balance sheet guarantee, the risk of default is small so don't worry this is a good deal for everyone. House prices are not to high compared to replacement cost so the only way to get them down is to manage supply by building more and reduce taxes / legislation on house costs, my real worry is they have not got on top of the planners/nimbys who work together to thwart improving the economy and every bodies lives.

  • 37. RP Brum

    (21 March 2013, 06:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    This scheme is NUTS. All that needs to be done to entice buyers in to the market is to make it illegal for a couple to own more than 3 houses. All of the buy to let properties currently owned by investors would come to the market and renters would become owners during the inevitable but short-term dip. How is our nation being served by wealthy retirees scooping up all of the first time buyer type properties. Instead, our Government has just put us all on the hook for a new £130Bn exposure.

  • 38. Peter Kellow

    (21 March 2013, 09:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    No one seems to have referred to the other prong of this two pronged policy to prop up the banks and screw the rest of us namely giving the BoE the nod to buy up duff loans.

    So the banks will be able to take dodgy debt off their books and further prop up the housing market

    As the late great Jim Morrison said: "No one here gets out alive"

  • 39. alec

    (21 March 2013, 09:51PM)  Complain about this comment

    #37 House prices are artificially too high because the government will not let the market work. Most people know that interest rates should be around 7.5% in the real world and mortgage rates would reflect this. House prices would drop with a huge bang and then they would be affordable based on average earnings. Unfortunately, this would mean a great deal of pain for those reckless borrowers who speculated at the height of the property boom. As far as London is concerned, the figures are distorted because it's become a parking lot for mostly foreign money.

  • 40. Aff

    (22 March 2013, 12:45AM)  Complain about this comment

    Buying bitcoins is a bit tricky in UK pounds unfortunately. I've bought them recently using localbitcoins.com which seemed to work pretty well though. Your purchase can be protected by an escrow service. You need to download a bitcoin wallet to store them. There are different versions, the standard one needs to spend a long time catching up to the bitcoin network and processing all the blocks but that doesn't matter too much, the bitcoins aren't really stored on your computer, what you have is the private keys to unlock your ones which are in the blockchain on the network. The key can be written on paper if you prefer.

  • 41. MADMAJoe

    (22 March 2013, 02:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    Thanks John, Off the top of my head and thanks for your GREAT Education work :) ...this sounds (from my familys and my experience from the GFC), to be a reasonable solution ...BUT from my "knowledge" ...Please tell me your thoughts ...to control the greed ....A CAP on housing interest rates say 10% ...would protect homeowners. THANKS .... JOE the MONEYCLEVER M.S.I. Black Belt for KIDS and Familys Brighter Futures !!

  • 42. Mick Finn

    (22 March 2013, 05:04AM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree with Alec this is 'Alice in Wonderland' stuff. House prices are only where they are because interest rates have been kept artificially low and the policy makers are effectively rigging the market. It does no one any favours encouraging this nonsense whilst silmutanously ignoring inflation. Until the market finds a clearing level we can't start another cycle of growth, so we end up like the Japanese with a permanent zombie economy propped up with cheap money, a lopsided housing market, and scarce recources being diverted to sustain a mirage. The longer you put off the necessary adjustment the harder and more destabilising to the economy it is going to be when it inevitably comes.

  • 43. adams

    (22 March 2013, 09:36AM)  Complain about this comment

    This article is spot on . The political class and most of the media have decided that our ridiculously inflated house prices are a "good thing" and would hate to see the bubble burst . If interest rates go up the tawdry Coalition will have to default on our vast debt .
    Better to keep robbing savers (who do not seem to be bothered by the fleecing they are getting !!!!!!!!!! ). The LibLabCon are the enemy now . We have to get them out of OUR Parliament . I support UKIP .
    This status quo is killing us . Have you not noticed ??????

  • 44. Justin

    (22 March 2013, 09:37AM)  Complain about this comment

    Mick Finn, this artificial housing market has already destabilised the UK economy. That is why we have no growth, high graduate unemployment and a younger generation that is expected to pay the debts of the older generations way into the future. These debts will drag on our economy for decades to come.

    This government is making it worse by trying to stop the inevitable correction in house prices. When bad lending decisions are not corrected, the errors perpetuate and the economic machine comes to a halt.

  • 45. Mick Finn

    (22 March 2013, 10:33AM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Justin

    I agree with what you say. It amazes me that a party who are supposed to believe in 'market forces' and sound money principles would come up with such a stupid idea. Reading all the posts here it is quite obvious that it is not going to end well. Yes, I think you are correct that the economy has been destabilised, but this is more to do with economics at the moment, housing is a different matter. A meagre 1 per cent rise in interest rates would see a lot of chickens come home to roost.

  • 46. Sammy

    (22 March 2013, 11:22AM)  Complain about this comment

    What we are all witnessing is a Government that is fast running and probably ran out of ideas....we as a nation are sink in depth and we all should be praying that major lenders to the Central Bank of England continues to keep their interest low then the commercial banks will also keep their own rates too low. Although I am not sure for how long they can continue because having an increasing balance of trade deficits can only edge us closer to the possibility of defaulting on debt. This was the signal raised by the recently lowered credit ratings. The moment major lenders sense the possibility of default, lending rates will automatically head northwards and then the real chaos will begin. God helps us!!!

  • 47. Terry

    (22 March 2013, 12:32PM)  Complain about this comment

    The country's main aim should be to increase exports and to do this we need to reduce our cost base. The main cost in a household budget is housing so the govt and B of E need to stop supporting artificially high house prices. To date this has been done by low interest rates but now we have these schemes to encourage potential buyers to purchase at inflated prices.This is a political move to buy votes, not an economic one to encourage export growth.

  • 48. Terry

    (22 March 2013, 01:12PM)  Complain about this comment

    The scheme to guarantee 20% of a mortgage is an old practice. In the 1960's onwards building societies typically required a 5% mortgage but insisted that 20% of the mortgage be guaranteed by an insurance company. A borrower would have to pay the IGP (insurance guarantee premium) as a one off initial payment at application stage. In those days building societies (not banks) had arrears but rarely suffered ANY loss. Where the property had to be taken in to possession then the property had to fall in price by 25% for the lender to incur a loss. During the 60's prices were stable but from the early 70's to 1989 prices increased dramatically so further reducing likelihood of a loss. The IGP was 2% of P.P. At some stage ,not sure when,IGP's were abandoned. My question is why doesn't the housing finance industry revive the scheme (through ins companies) and why has the govt done so, but effectively asked everyone of us to pay the premium.

  • 49. Justin

    (22 March 2013, 01:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Terry

    Yes, the government's short-term gain for the electorate's long-term pain. They are dangling a short-term carrot and the electorate will probably fall for it. When the electorate realises it is too late, it will be too late!

  • 50. Steve

    (22 March 2013, 01:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    This scheme is madness. If house prices are too high, they should be allowed to fall. It is as simple as that. And, yes they are too high.

  • 51. Andy

    (22 March 2013, 02:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    Here would be some novel solutions:

    The government to provide interest free loans to the house builders to build affordable housing. Not flats, not luxury 4/5 beds but good quality 2/3 bedroom homes with storage and parking that are ideal for FTB's and small families. These homes cannot be sold by the developer to the BTL crowd or as a second home.

    A large tax be added to second home ownership (if you can afford a second home then you can afford to pay a large whack of tax on that home). This would benefit hugely the young families in popular tourist destinations who have been completely priced out of their area.

    Better rights for tenants, ending the standard shorthold tenancy and providing more security for young families. Look to Germany for a good example of how this works very effectively. This would allow young families to rent and to take a stake in their communities, meaning that to buy is not the only route to stability.

    Too much sense perhaps?

  • 52. La La Land

    (22 March 2013, 06:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    I don't believe there is a housing shortage. It is just that BTL's grab all 1 to 2 beds as soon as they come on the market pushing up prices and causing more people to only be able to rent. Also we have not stopped or will be stopping soon immigrants coming into this country. Bosses want to be able to hire cheap labour so they can pay theirselves millions to kept up with the Bankers . The U.K. is starting to look like a Third World country and our smartest are leaving in droves. Please can we start writing to MP's and Newspapers before the lights get turned off.

  • 53. Daisy

    (22 March 2013, 06:35PM)  Complain about this comment

    Completely Nuts!!!! This is not prudent government.

  • 54. Kawasakifreak

    (22 March 2013, 08:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    I despair.

  • 55. jackanory

    (22 March 2013, 09:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    Sorry I value you site but I feel my right to view my opinion is being censored! "This is money! Which bit did you see as forbidden? House prices over valued(led like lambs to the slaughter)? Banks committing fraud and needing to be jailed?(they are laughing in our face!) savers and pensioners being fleeced?(we will be in their place one day) or the Goverment being totally currupt? (labour and torries!) TIME TO SAY NO this is money" Thanks Money week, keep up the good reading

  • 56. tel

    (23 March 2013, 10:57AM)  Complain about this comment

    I think before i say its a good idea to have a government guarantee; i would like to see the actual wording of the document; i am suspicious that there will be ways of the guarantee not being met, so the Banks will not accept them and will still lend on their own criteria. Beware Government guarantees i have seen them before, they are never what they seem.

  • 57. madgie

    (23 March 2013, 11:19AM)  Complain about this comment

    Those who believe their house value is their cash till are not thinking. Where would you live if you sold your house? In the gutter?
    We saved for 10 years to buy our house and did not need a mortgage as we bought something we could buy outright. Have absolutely no intention of moving.

  • 58. Eddie

    (23 March 2013, 11:40AM)  Complain about this comment

    Spiralling house prices have hurt this country - its people, its fabric, its fairness.

    In the last 40 years wages have risen 10 fold and property 40 fold - so a lot of the socalled growth of the past was utterly reliant on house price rises.

    That a semi in a London suburb is half a million is obscene.

    Mass immigration, buy to let invetsors, second homers, investment from abroad, low interest rates etc etc. All created a bubble which all political parties (and selfish greedy pig mortgage holders) wanted. Politicians pandered to voters.

    It's the great British public that created this mess by demanding these policies for their short term gain rather than the longterm good of this country.

    Maybe we'd be better off with a China-style dictatorship actually? I wouldn't trust the public with anything, so why should people have a vote to encourage a house price obsession and bubble like this?

  • 59. Boris MacDonut

    (23 March 2013, 11:49AM)  Complain about this comment

    #40 alec. Why should interest rates be 7.5%? From 1692 to 1968 they hardly ever exceeded 4% for more than half that time were 2%. Why do you feel the normal level is 7.5%? It has virtually never been at that level. From 1968 to 2008 it fluctuated between 4% and 14% and averaged 8.6% but was rarely at or near 7.5%. A better argument is for rates to return to their long term (1692 to 2008) average of 3.8%. We are returning to the norm, not departing from it.

  • 60. Boris MacDonut

    (23 March 2013, 12:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    #59 Eddie. In 1973 average income was £2,300 and now it is over £33,000 so that has risen by almost 15 times, not 10.
    It is income that buys houses, not wages.
    1973 House price was £8,250 and is now about £200,000 so these are up 25 times not 40. The cost of buying a house on an 80% mortgage over 25 years was £16,000 and is now £262,000 so has risen at almost exactly the rate of income by 15 times.
    The cost to earnings ratio is a bit higher today by around 10%, i.e it costs about 10% more relatively to buy a house, but then we are so much richer, food and many other goods are much cheaper than in 1973 and our houses are centrally heated with indoor loos and the like.

  • 61. A.mug

    (23 March 2013, 12:33PM)  Complain about this comment

    Yet another great article, with excellent accompanying comments that display very nicely the continuing despair for our government.

    I'd be very concerned about any buying into any scheme the government's offering me, particulary as they have a very good track record of looking after themselves and the banks, while cr@pping from a great height on the rest of us.

    My endowment mortgage ends in a few months, with the usual endowment shortfall, so in spite of me continuously chipping away at the mortgage I still have to stick my hand in my pocket. The goverment could have helped us, but they slapped an unrealistic deadline on complaints, ensuring most fell at the first complaint hurdle.

    It dawned on me years ago that MPs are only interested in themselves, while savers are treated with contempt. They give you no incentive to save, encourage debt, and in this case unstable mortgage debt.



  • 62. jrj90620

    (23 March 2013, 04:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    I sure wish,we,in the U.S., had inflation of only 3%.You guys are fortunate.Our inflation has averaged over 6-8%,for the last several years and most bank accounts pay less than 1%.

  • 63. LA46

    (23 March 2013, 08:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    The Robbery for Lending scheme is totally irresponsible and idiotic at best. Goverment message to new-borrowers: Buy now, pay later! Yeah, right...heard that one before! Incredible! The yanks must be pi$$ing themselves with laughter at our muppet government...!

  • 64. jackanory

    (23 March 2013, 08:26PM)  Complain about this comment

    Intersts rates from 1979 to 1992 (13 YEARS!!) only went below 8% for 1 month and at it's high hit 17%!
    From 1971 to now the average rate has been 8.1% and thats with the last 4 years at an artifical rate of 0.5%!
    If you liserned carefully Osbourne him self said that if inflation went out control intrest rates would have to rise!
    They will

  • 65. Boris MacDonut

    (23 March 2013, 10:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    #65 jackanory.Why should the period 1979 to 1992, when rates were historically high, be seen as the norm?
    My earlier post #60 was slightly wrong .The rates from 1694 to 1967 exceeded 6% on four occassions totalling only about 25 out of 273 years. It averaged only 4.7%. Over the whole period the long term average is nearer 5.7%. A return to the long term norm would likely add about 3% to the typical mortgage rate, or £290 a month in interest payments.

  • 66. carol42

    (23 March 2013, 10:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    When we bought our first house in 1976 we paid a 5% deposit and an insurance guarantee to protect the building societyagainst loss. I agree with Terry, why not bring that back rather than the Government supporting the loan? Our first, second and third house, the third bought in 1996, were all within 3 X times my husband's salary. When we sold the last one it had tripled between 1997 and 2007, it was ridiculous and I never before saw houses increase at that rate. My current house was bought at the top of the market but that's housing, win some, lose some and I do not intend ever to move again.

  • 67. Le Brit

    (23 March 2013, 11:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    MacDonut where were you living in 1973 Albania?? All new houses in the UK had indoor lavatories and central heating and if you bought one with four bedrooms you got two lavatories.
    The proposed scheme is a typical Gordon Brownism pay now and suffer later, most of all keep it off- balance sheet like all the PFIs which are coming home to roost. Check out the costs to the NHS of all the PFI's they have entered into. Edd Balls would be proud of this proposal no wonder he hasn't critisised it.

  • 68. Sid

    (24 March 2013, 05:21AM)  Complain about this comment

    @63 jrj90620

    We also have inflation in this country running at between 6 - 8 per cent. Just nip down a local supermarket.

  • 69. James Pond

    (24 March 2013, 08:20AM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, what on earth are you on about? You quote statistics and then repost to say you got these wrong but here's some new made up statistics. You've made a complete joke of your own argument - an 'own goal' if you like. Please spare us from your incessant posts. FYI average earnings are (and have been for quite a few years) around £25k. You can't cherry pick only those in full time employment to suit your agenda.

  • 70. Statler and Waldorf

    (24 March 2013, 08:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    At the top of the credit boom banks were lending or 'helping' first time buyers on an average ( or below average ) wage secure a mortgage of 7 to 8 times their income on a magnolia new build flat. Or selling them an interest only mortgage ( some people I expect reading this will remember the endowment mortgage scandals of the 80's ). In reality many of these loans were never going to be paid back ( much like US sub prime ), which begs the question why did lenders ever give them out in the first place.

    I agree with le Brit, this scheme has Gordon 'no return to boom and bust' Brown written all over it.

  • 71. Mick Finn

    (24 March 2013, 09:27AM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris

    Have you worked out yet what would happen to the uk economy if interest rates went up to 3.5 per cent or anything like that. A scheme like the one being devised at the moment is going to make interest rate rises even less likely to happen.

  • 72. jackanory

    (24 March 2013, 12:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris,
    Im looking at the modern day not at 300 years ago when society was completly different. Alec is correct intrest rates should be running at 7.5% now, they run at 4.5% above inflation. QE and 0.5% intrest rates are nothing but plain theft

  • 73. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 03:13PM)  Complain about this comment

    Now this is interesting.
    #68.Le Brit. I was brought up in rural east Devon. My grandparents had an outside loo until 1976. I went to school with farters's kids who had no electricity, no TV,no phone, no hot water. I find you an offensive oaf to seek to ridicule poverty.
    #70 JamesPond. My first post was quoted from memory. On checking I found I was a bit out, that makes me fairly close at first stab and accurate on checking. It is frankly embarassing that you quote the Daily Mail wage average of £25,000. UK GDP just exceeded £1,580,000,000. That is £33,400pa for everyone over 18. There is no rule to say you can only buy a house if you have a wage, and in fact only 42% of homes are mortgaged.

  • 74. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 03:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    Sadly a lot of folk on here need to do a lot of reading. History, demographics and economics, with a bit of geography too.
    #72M Finn. If rates revert to 3.5%,then mortgage rates may rise by 2%, costing the typical mortgagee £190 a month. So, thank you yes, I have thought about it. Around 10 million people would have about £2000 a year less to spend. About 1.3% of GDP would be diverted into extra interest commitments.
    #73 jackanory. What makes 1979 the modern day but 1967 not? Is it your desire to pick dates to fit your agenda? Interest rates are at 0.5% that is what they are. Nicole Sherzinger weighs 8 stone whether or not you think she should weigh 12 stone. If you are going to talk nonsense at least make it interesting or believable.

  • 75. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 03:34PM)  Complain about this comment

    #74 Many apologies MW but post 74 should refer to farmer's kids. The children of the horny handed sons of toil, not the flatulent. Hilarious as this error may be my point still stands.

  • 76. James Pond

    (24 March 2013, 05:42PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, unlike us, you seem to have done a lot of reading and also a lot of thinking. It's no wonder your mind seems completely addled with conflicting information. Perhaps you ought to put down your books and get out into the real world for a minute. Otherwise with your spouting of this percentage and that percentage every time we have a housing debate, you might be in danger of being defined by a psychologist as having some form of 'Statistical Tourettes'?

    Boris I don't mean to sound harsh but you need to understand that you don't simply get average wages by dividing the GDP of the UK by the number of workers. The latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26,500 in the year to April 2012. This is the figure on which property price to earnings data is historically measured. I'm also inclined to believe the ONS figures rather than your calculations - sorry.


  • 77. jackanory

    (24 March 2013, 05:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris,
    what are you talking about? the date you stated was "1692", they where still burning witches in those days. It seems to me you agree with the goverment that fleecing the savers and the pensioners is the right thing to do! Even in the 1800's they were guillotining people like you

  • 78. James Pond

    (24 March 2013, 05:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    Maybe we should all stop giving Boris a hard time. It can't be easy being brought up by a Flatulent Farmer with a Horny Hand in the depths of rural Devon in the mid 70's. It's a miracle he's still alive and well to be posting on here really!

  • 79. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 06:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    #77 James P. Shocking. D you really advocate not reading books? I suppose that is obvious from your feeble reply.
    I have NEVER mentioned wages. I am talking about income. The available income in society in any one year is indeed the same as its GDP. So I'm afraid it really is as simple, as dividing GDP by the number of adults. Wages make up less than 60% of UK income. Do you honestly think only wages buy houses? No wonder you are so badly misled.
    #78 jackanory. You have not answered the question. On the one hand you advocate a reversion to a long term mean . On the other you choose the long term to mean the years 1979 to 1992, which were abnormal years. The last witch in England was hanged (mistakenly) in 1684. Only Scotland and some Europeans burned witches.
    #79. I don't see it as a hard time. I see it as educating the poorly informed. Your own posts are a case in point.

  • 80. jackanory

    (24 March 2013, 07:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris
    I too can dredge the internet for the anwsers of time past! But as I have more important things to get on with i'm not going to waste my time! The question/ bottom line is do you agree with the theft the goverment is proceeding with? And if your answer is again what ever it is, is, then "If you are going to talk nonsense at least make it interesting or believable"!
    P.S where do you get info dating back to 1692?

  • 81. Andrew H

    (24 March 2013, 07:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris,

    Where do I start with your latest misuse of statistics?

    Using GDP per head to measure affordibility of housing is a non-sequitur as it completely ignores income distribution (this is not something I usually make reference, as I leave that to left wing authoritarian types like yourself to froth at the mouth over, however it is useful for this particular point).

    Investments and assets are overwhelmingly held by the higher net worth individuals, not the lower to middle demographic.

    Wages are the main source of income for people outside the top few percent, and their home is their main asset, therefore median wages are a far more useful denominator in determining the affordability of housing.

  • 82. Andrew H

    (24 March 2013, 07:59PM)  Complain about this comment

    ..continued...

    As for interest rates, this is a little more complicated.

    To get started, interest rates are the price of money, and should represent the availibility of savings and deposits on which banks can lend.

    Given that the UK is indebted to the tune of 500% of GDP (private + corporate + public) I would assert that there is indeed a critical lack of savings, and that interest rates should reflect this.

    Without savings there can be no investment, and no continued improvement in living standards (i.e. rising GDP), however the government is hell bent on subsidising banks that have over lent, and consumers that have over borrowed (government subsidy has allowed banks to offer forebearance to the over indebted), and our economy has stagnated because there is a lack of saving to fund investment in new means of production.

  • 83. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 08:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    #81 Jackanory. It helps that I am a proper historian. I use something called books. You can't be taken seriously spouting stuff like 1979 to 1992 was normal. It wasn't. You suffer from assuming your own personal experience is the most important and as it is all you know, it is all that is worth commenting on. You are wrong.
    You can get useful historic data from the Uk public spending website, the ONS, the Bank of England and the Guardian newspaper. If you want made up pap I'd stick to the Daily Mail.
    #82 Andrew H. No. Absolutely not. The UK has 25.5 million homes. 4 million are council houses. Of the rest, there are only 8.8million mortgages and 1.6 million buy to lets.The rest are owned outright, overwhelmingly by the richest half of the country. One must look at all income avaiable to buy houses, not just what the average Joe is paid.

  • 84. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 08:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    #83 Andrew H. The figure is down to 490% now. Barely 170% of this is Personal or Government debt. All the rest is corporate and bank debt. Companies borrow huge sums from abroad in order to gain a tax avoidance hit on the interest. Often paid to an oversea subsidiary. At the same time the FTSE 250 are sitting on an£800 billion cash pile. You see, there are savings. It's just companies won't use it and meanwhile they invent fictitious borrowings to avoid tax. The problem is not the government ,it is banks and large corporates....it is greed. The big five banks gave over £1million each to 800 staff this year.Rather than lend it out

  • 85. jackanory

    (24 March 2013, 08:37PM)  Complain about this comment

    YOU STILL HAV'NT ANSWERED THE QUESTION!!!!!!
    I'l give you a link to help you out and it's not from 1692!http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/interest-rate
    P.s I dont read the daily mail, But i like thier comic strips, its alsmost like reading your posts, but I guess you do as you know their thought process!

  • 86. James Pond

    (24 March 2013, 08:45PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, since you love your statistics I've got some new ones for you gleaned from Google just like yours:

    The British eat 196,000 tonnes of sausages every year. 87% of British households buy sausages. The average household buys sausages 12.8 times per year. 50% of sausages are eaten at evening meals. The peak day for sausages to be eaten is Saturday.

    Get your chops around that old boy whilst you no doubt work out a way to link the number of sausages eaten with the affordability of UK housing. Bangers and Crash maybe?

  • 87. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 09:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    #86 'anory.What theft are you on about?
    #87 Pond. I see you've given up trying to put together an argument. Frankly it is mainly about statistics. That is what helps us understand what is really going on. Not ill-informed gut instinct. You seek to trivialise what I've said by quoting sausage related facts, how childish. How can you possibley disagree that GDP buys houses? If the UK's GDP halved I would expect House prices to fall. It really is that simple, do have a go at understanding it before you fire off any more abuse.

  • 88. Andrew H

    (24 March 2013, 09:42PM)  Complain about this comment

    @Boris,

    Corporate debt excluding financial companies is running at 100% of GDP or approximately £1.5 trillion pounds, which is nearly twice the figure of nominal savings you stated (I'm afraid Paul Krugman only tells half a story), in aggregate corporations owe, they have no surplus (same with households, same with government too).

    With regard to rich people owning homes, prices are set at the margins, in support of this point, the rise in price of land and property was directly tied to the availibility of credit i.e. as people were able to borrow increasing multiples against their income the price of land and property increased.

    This is no longer the case, and the government are unable re-inflate the credit bubble without risking a dreadful currency crisis or runaway inflation.

  • 89. Andrew H

    (24 March 2013, 09:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    Someone who is looking to buy a home outright as an asset rather than a home, will be looking for a decent return on their money, as it stands net rental yields (certainly where I am) struggle to beat inflation, and with the prospect of voids and bad tenants, BTL as a business model is a lot of work for little return.

    Property made sense when prices were rising (i.e. when self certified mortgages were all the rage and capital appreciation could offset poor rental yields), by and large this has ceased, and as such returns are solely provided by rents, and which are of course constrained by wages.

    Property prices are over valued for both middle income families and "rich" investors.

  • 90. James Pond

    (24 March 2013, 10:03PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris what, what?

    GDP does not buy houses - debt buys houses. That's why due to lax lending (and here's some more statistics for you), house prices between 2000 and 2007 grew by around 200%. GDP on the otherhand only increased by around 50% during the same time - most of this increase driven by - yes you get it now, more debt.

    It would seem it's you who, despite all your Googled statistics, don't even seem to understand the fundamental principles? Maybe you ought to drop the Brothers Grimm and start reading some different books?

  • 91. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 10:05PM)  Complain about this comment

    #89 Andrew H .You ignore the asset value of UK companies.
    The UK is worth nearly £8 trillion and has debts of around 95% of that figure. A lot ,but not critical.

  • 92. Boris MacDonut

    (24 March 2013, 10:11PM)  Complain about this comment

    #91 James. No. Debt helps to buy some houses, usually for poorer people at the start of their house ownership. The UK's private housing stock is worth £4,250 billion ,but secures mortgages of only £1,230 billion, a rate of less than 30%. You seek to paint this as a grim statistic. It is not.

  • 93. Andrew H

    (24 March 2013, 10:20PM)  Complain about this comment

    @92, Boris,

    Yes, assets inflated in price by the expansion of credit, which as they rose in value secured further credit, and so on, the same assets that governments are desperately trying to maintain in value through deficit spending and money printing, lest a large number of banks and corporations are shown for the bankrupts that they are.

  • 94. James Pond

    (24 March 2013, 10:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    Yes but Boris, the long term average for cash sales in UK housing is 25% versus 75% for mortgage (debt) purchases. This kind of blows your argument out of the water doesn't it?

    Increasing percentages of cash sales recently (around 35% in 2011) are a symptom of the very low volume of sales, the gross un-affordability of housing at current prices (except for the rich), and reflect a deeply unhealthy housing market.

  • 95. jackanory

    (24 March 2013, 10:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    james pond - Im still laughing now, is it 73.22845%?
    Boris - Dont you see it???
    I have great interest in my money and my property and this is why I have started to read Money Week. I also check the net inculding the link i'v given to you, the BBC business reports, RT - Max keiser and many more. The way I see it Inflation has driven down the value of the pound Caused by QE. Intrest rates have stripped £3000 a year from every £100,000 put into a savings account and also combined driven up house prices. If the interest rates was at 7.5% as it should be grouth would be achived by x £2 of every £1 put in savings and in buildng of new houses upon of a drop of 20+%. The key to all are problems are to let poperty prices fall and not to encourge more into the mess by selling overpriced debt!

  • 96. James Pond

    (24 March 2013, 11:08PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris . . . . , Boris . . . . . ?

    Nearly an hour and no response? Maybe the nurses have come to put him to bed?

  • 97. Sidney Rough Diamond

    (24 March 2013, 11:28PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Boris

    Although I rarely agree with anything you write, I do enjoy your posts if not for the comic value, occasionally you do come up with some interesting things. However like a lot of people who have been indoctrinated into orthodox left wing thinking much of what you write is frankly wrong. Like a great many so called intellectuals you use matter of fact arguments, statistical bullying, and basic text book theory to mask your own ignorance and the fact that quite often you simply don't get the point. Also like a great deal of so called educationists you presume that because something is written in a book it must therefore be true . Not once have I read any of your posts that constitute free thinking or originality, all I have read is a vain attempt to push your very narrow minded agenda. Sometimes we learn most when we actually LISTEN!!

  • 98. Andy

    (25 March 2013, 02:00PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 98. Sidney Rough Diamond.

    Hi Sidney. I'm afraid it doesn't matter what arguments you put to Boris, he'll always find a statistic or 'fact' to counter with. I think that the fact we are on a ZIRP with further QE a dead cert may well keep the house price bubble inflated but at a terrible cost to the economy. Inflation is eating away at wages and savings at a frightening rate, so I think any sort of recovery is a mere pipe dream. As I said once before to Boris his house may well be worth 10% more in 3-4 years, however a litre of petrol will be £1.70 (20%+ more than now!) At the moment we just have zombie banks and some zombie companies. In a few years the whole economy will be zombie!

  • 99. Sidney Rough Diamond

    (25 March 2013, 03:00PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Andy

    Thank you. Yes I realise what Boris is like, he will turn everything into an incomprehensible battle of statistics, or facts ( i'm sure sometimes just to bore people into submission ) which is a shame because elsewhere in MW there is some thoughtful comment, and you can gain some vital information reading other posts. I find this very useful when making decisions as I have all but given up on the mainstream media. I agree with everything in your post. I think we are in for a very difficult decade which is why it is important to make the right decisions based on 'sound information'.

  • 100. James Pond

    (25 March 2013, 03:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    Thanks Sidney, looks like Boris has given up on this article and moved on to try and lecture some other more gullible souls. Looks like even he has the good sense to know when he's beat. Heaven forbid perhaps he's run out of statistics?

  • 101. Orb

    (25 March 2013, 04:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    In defense of Boris, as SRD @98 infers, he does come up with some interesting info. & I have no reason to believe such info is 'pulled from a hat'. Also, I've noted a few occasions where the MW editors show him respect! Personally, I value the way he broadens the debate - Thanks Boris!

    On the other hand, again as SRD infers @98, he appears often to struggle applying theory to practical: ceteris paribus & all that! Just as successful business leaders have a way of 'feeling out the market' whilst not always being the best academics, so a good economist can successfully 'feel out' the economic environment - sorry Boris.

  • 102. Orb

    (25 March 2013, 04:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    This new scheme must work to inflate house prices as the turnover increases, which is likely to spur more economic activity as new home owners go out and spend, but it is NOT what we need in terms of the type of correction the USA enjoyed. They seem to admit the real problem: the size of deposit needed so the FTB (more often than not) at the end/beginning of the chain can complete. An even greater future disaster looms.

    I enjoy 'A Place In The Sun'; the UK seems to consistently offer poor value for money in the middle to top end, & rubbish weather to boot!

    Incidentally, as careful shoppers ('read the tin' types), we've noticed almost all the groceries we buy have at least doubled in price in the last 5 years - an average annual increase of nearly 20%!

  • 103. Boris MacDonut

    (25 March 2013, 04:56PM)  Complain about this comment

    #98-101. Sidney, Andy & James. Spoken like true investors. You have a fear of being opposed. I am offended that you think I do not have original ideas. The whole point of reading widely is to inform those ideas and I often go out on a limb. I'm sorry you think that quoting facts and statistics is in some way wrong. I suppose you prefer blind faith and the quiet certainty that you are always correct. Without knowledge to back up these certainties you have to fall back on closed minded belligerence, and an agressive evangelical response to anyone who points at the Emperor and says he is naked.
    Please stick to your wild uninformed speculations and I will reserve the right to point out when you are wrong . However painful that may be.

  • 104. Boris MacDonut

    (25 March 2013, 05:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    #102 Orb. Thank you for the vote of confidence. I try to get a range of stats and a feel for the closest to the truth. Many "facts" are skewed and any good historian knows that and tries to see all sides of an issue. That said,I am not a professional academic. I have a day job. I am an historian who works for a living in the real world. Something called the law.
    It is so disappointing that so many, like those I irritated on this thread, simply do not wish to hear the truth. At heart I am sure this is Britain's fundamental problem ,a load of cloth-eared, self -assured children.

  • 105. Boris MacDonut

    (25 March 2013, 05:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    #102 Orb. Thank you for the vote of confidence. I try to get a range of stats and a feel for the closest to the truth. Many "facts" are skewed and any good historian knows that and tries to see all sides of an issue. That said,I am not a professional academic. I have a day job. I am an historian who works for a living in the real world. Something called the law.
    It is so disappointing that so many, like those I irritated on this thread, simply do not wish to hear the truth. At heart I am sure this is Britain's fundamental problem ,a load of cloth-eared, self -assured children.

  • 106. Andy

    (25 March 2013, 06:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    @104/5/6. Boris MacDonut
    Quote "Please stick to your wild uninformed speculations and I will reserve the right to point out when you are wrong . However painful that may be.
    At heart I am sure this is Britain's fundamental problem ,a load of cloth-eared, self -assured children."

    Hi Boris. You needn't worry, I don't think many of us will find your thoughts of us a problem any more than wondering where the Sun will come up tomorrow. Although as to your comments above maybe it's the other way around eh?

  • 107. Andy

    (25 March 2013, 06:12PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, you are obviously entitled to your theories, and if they are correct you will come out of the other end of the current financial whirlpool with your wealth grown handsomely. Most of us cloth eared self assured children are trying to work out what we need to do to in terms of finances for the future (do we invest in a, b, or c...) Most of us on here think you are a property bug, so you have a vested interest in talking about the past history of housing booms and a vested interest in talking property up. You may be right, but many on here think you are wrong and the economic picture is far bleaker than you and many politicians make out. We would take your advice at our peril...

  • 108. James Pond

    (25 March 2013, 06:59PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris a property bug - good chance I'd say. Would be interesting to hear what you actually do Boris? Are you a BTL investor by any chance?

  • 109. Boris MacDonut

    (25 March 2013, 07:25PM)  Complain about this comment

    #107-108. Andy & James. Blimey you don't listen do you. Or is it a problem with reading too? I own one house. I am an historian. I earn money in the legal profession. These things are irrelevant. I am pointing out facts and you seem overly concerned with why I must be a selfish leech like yourselves. I am not.

  • 110. Sidney Rough Diamond

    (25 March 2013, 07:52PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ Boris

    I have no problem with opposing views, it makes for healthy debate. I am also not surprised that you have tried to demolish so many ot the opinions written here. You are welcome to your opinions, however to imply that someone needs some sort of re-education simply because they do not share the same views as you is lamentable.

    I have read a lot of your opinions on issues like debt, the likely trajectory of housing, the economy and interest rates with much interest, and you seem to misunderstand the true nature of the economy. As Andy points out many of us are simply looking at ways to organise our financial future amidst the current malaise, and given the instincts we have.

    If the future is as benign as you presume I will certainly tip my hat to you Boris, if it is not, I will be glad that I did not take up your advice and your offer of education.

  • 111. Boris MacDonut

    (25 March 2013, 08:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    #11 Sidney. I offer no advice. I simply put poeple right when they are wrong. As so many of you openly admit to not reading and actively sneer at books, this is quite a regular requirement.
    I do not imply that you need re-education, just to read more widely.

  • 112. James Pond

    (25 March 2013, 09:13PM)  Complain about this comment

    I've looked at whats going on and my opinion is that we're in for another fall in house prices.

    Most people under 25 are either unemployed, renting at ridiculous prices, on low wages or part time incomes, or paying off massive student debts. This is set to get worse now that tuition fees of £9k a year are factored in. Most will not be buying a house any time soon.

    In addition, immigration is falling, the banks are still tightening up on mortgages (more banks announced pulling IO mortgages today). Despite all of this how will that mean that prices continue to increase as you suggest? Please don't say that we're a small island and there is a shortage of homes. That was the case in Japan and property crashed there by over 80%.

    Boris you say we are all wrong but how can you be so sure that you're right? Please don't say statistics as we all know that statistics can easily be manipulated to suit whatever anyone wants to prove.

  • 113. Boris Macdonut

    (25 March 2013, 10:47PM)  Complain about this comment

    #113 James. Your doom agenda has left you believing your own rhetoric. I am not sure I am right, just confident that you are wrong. House prices will rise because GDP and thus incomes will rise. There will be more people as immigration continues, more people live longer, more retire and recieve lump sums, more endowments mature and are recycled, more kids are born (London alone needs 90 new schools). The Help to Buy initiative gaurantees £130billion of lending, the Funding For Lending schemes underwrites £60 billion more, there is more competition among lenders, a shortage of homes. Mortgages and homes are more affordable than anytime since 2002.
    CEBR expects a price rise of 19% in 5 years . I am more conservative but 30% in 10 years is realistic given long term trends. This would add £135 a week to the average home. Of course it could well be a lot more but I expect much more modest growth than the 1970 - 2010 period.

  • 114. James Pond

    (25 March 2013, 11:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, in what way do you believe that affordable housing for young families is a Doom Agenda? I'd say that your prediction of prices continuing to spiral out of control was actually the 'Doom Agenda'.

    I agree with you that prices will rise over the very long term, it's just that at the moment we are still way at the top of the biggest bubble in history and you should perhaps expect a bit of a fall before they eventually recover. Maybe the fall will be steep? Maybe if the government has its way there could be 20-30 years of continual stagnation and stalemate until wages finally catch up and the pound has sufficiently de-valued?

    What is laughable is you say that property has never been more affordable since 2002. Are you aware that in 2002 the average Income to house price ratio was 1:4. Currently it's in the region of 1:6, plus the banks are reluctant to unless you have a large deposit. Hilarious!

  • 115. Sidney Rough Diamond

    (26 March 2013, 07:52AM)  Complain about this comment

    @ James Pond

    It is futile locking horns with Boris on matters like this, it will only drive you increasingly insane. Let Boris be right. It is worth remembering that it took a full 8 years for the last property bubble to deflate. The current bubble is larger, and took a lot longer to create. There are all kinds of factors in play which will mean housing at its current level will become increasingly unsustainable . Below inflation pay rises, rising inflation, rising food & fuel costs, continued austerity ( there are huge tax rises & cuts pencilled in for after the next election ) then you can't rule out a sterling crisis, or a serious inflation issues if the BOE continue to print money. Policy makers will try to keep interest rates at zero indefinitely, however it is not inconcievable that 'events' will force them into a change, then all bets will be off. We have never in history been in a situation like this before, I'm surprised that a historian like Boris didn't point this out.

  • 116. Paul, Tw1

    (26 March 2013, 11:17AM)  Complain about this comment

    #Boris, zzzzzzzzzz, copy and pasting statistics from google again, so so boring. Ok Boris your correct, you know everything, we are all inferior people and you should be recognised for your hard work as a property ramper. Give Boris an O.B.E?

  • 117. Andy

    (26 March 2013, 11:55AM)  Complain about this comment

    From the 2013 budget statement;
    UK imbalances and relative economic performance
    1.11 It has been estimated that by 2008, as the crisis hit, the UK private sector had become the most indebted in the world.
    Deleveraging has since weighed on UK growth. Some progress has been made, with private sector debt falling by over 40 percentage points of GDP since its peak in the first quarter of 2010. (Debt and deleveraging: The global credit bubble and its economic consequences McKinsey Global Institute, January 2010)
    Private sector debt 2010 peak = 475% GDP
    Private sector debt 2013 current = 435% GDP!

  • 118. Andy

    (26 March 2013, 12:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, we've barely scratched the surface despite the central banks redefining the value of money! Where is this growth going to come from especially as we shrink the state?
    I predict that if you are correct and property increases in value by 30% in ten years, oil will then be $250 per barrel! A 150% increase....
    Shares in Exxon might be a better inflation hedge!

  • 119. Andy

    (26 March 2013, 12:17PM)  Complain about this comment

    PS Don't take my investment advice! The price of shares may go up or down, bla, bla, bla.

  • 120. Boris MacDonut

    (26 March 2013, 09:08PM)  Complain about this comment

    #116 Paul. I have never copied and pasted anything. Please point out where you think I have. I rely on good old fashioned knowledge, and use books and the internet to verify my facts.
    You make my point perfectly. Lightweights like yourself assume nobody could possibley know stuff and must be plagiarising it from elsewhere. You may be that lazy.I'm not.

  • 121. James Pond

    (26 March 2013, 09:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    Sidney, you are right. You can't teach an old dog new tricks is quite apt in this situation. I've yet to hear a solid argument for anything come from Boris. I think he just tries to baffle everyone into a bloody submission with a relentless barrage of statistics and numbers gleaned from Google or his somewhat out of date book collection.

    I'm not just saying this because I disagree with Boris on the housing market. I'm saying this because sometimes I think even a Cambridge professor would struggle to understand some of Boris's posts. Maybe I would actually agree with some of what Boris says if I could cut through the hot air.

    Sorry Boris but I've said what I think, I've enjoyed it but I am signing off now. I'll leave it up to you to argue in your unflinching way that bananas are red, the world is actually flat and that the moon is made of cheese despite all the evidence to the contrary. Good luck :)

  • 122. Orb

    (27 March 2013, 12:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    It's a real shame that contributors to the MW debates often feel the need to pander to each others' posts in aggressive defence. Would the contributors be considered of such character were they not hidden behind a screen? Probably not.

    It's just as much a shame that credible contributors don't see that by embarking on such irrational behaviour, they discredit their contributions.

    While SRD points out a few very important factors in #115, he/she lays into Boris' weakness like a playground bully! And while Boris provides credible statistics, he uses derogatory terminology!

    Can't we just keep the thought-provoking clean?? Parliament's the right place for such behaviour!

  • 123. Duncan

    (27 March 2013, 01:35PM)  Complain about this comment

    Britain's biggest problem is that it has been easier in recent years to make money from a rigged housing market than to earn it by developing a business. This proposal will help perpetuate this situation and put off yet further into the future the date when we roll up our sleeves and attempt to compete with other industrial countries.

  • 124. Sidney Rough Diamond

    (27 March 2013, 02:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    @ 122 Orb

    You make some very fair points. I have nothing personal against Boris, and I apologise if I have offended him in any way, or come over as a bully, Sorry Boris. I realise from his posts he has indeed got great deal of knowledge, and pure volume of his posts indicate someone who works very hard, which is a admirable quality. I also aknowledge that his derogitory manner and insistance that everyone is wrong, does solicit some inappropriate responces. Although I do not agree with many things Boris says ( this housing debate is one ) there are however some times when he does talk sense. I thank you for pointing things out, and now sign out .

  • 125. Boris MacDonut

    (27 March 2013, 06:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    Trawl around a bit. You'll find I don't comment where I have nothing to add. Only where I see something is wrong. I do not think everyone is wrong , but I do like correct inaccuracy. Statistics are important. I try hard to get the most accursate available. It is a shame that so many hate hearing the truth.
    One would think that investors ,of all people, would want to know the truth not base their investments on irrational prejudices.
    Some weeks ago I pointed out that there are 100,000 Russians in Cyprus, with about £20 billion.Now everyone knows. I think these facts add value and it bothers me not if they upset a few.

  • 126. La La Land

    (27 March 2013, 11:21PM)  Complain about this comment

    Reading through all the comments I was disappointed to read so much abuse between commentators. Please keep the posts polite at least. The consensus is that the Government is financially punishing the wrong people. Today a policeman went to jail for a considerable time for disclosing information to the media. How come all these bank fraudsters are still getting bonuses instead of going to jail? And now just to make things worse MP's are coming up with idiotic schemes to further indebt the Tax Payer and we are still doing nothing. I wish I was young enough to emigrate to Canada instead of looking forward to a miserable future here. Perhaps we would have had less Q.E. if we had kept out of Irak, Afganistan and Libya or maybe Wm Hague thinks we can print some spare for Syria?

  • 127. Orb

    (28 March 2013, 10:10AM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, perhaps you take things too personally? You quote previous examples of your accuracies... does anyone really care?

    "Only where I see something is wrong" - according to what source ref? And what about your criticism of contributors' opinions? (especially political!) - aren't we all entitled to our opinions?

    Perhaps you consider it a 'win' when other contributors 'give up' on you; but is it really in the greater context? Or is it a loss of character credibility?

    A blog for economic/financial debate is no place for courtroom tactics.

    Apologies to you La La Land; but it looks like this blog has mostly petered out now.

  • 128. Boris MacDonut

    (28 March 2013, 11:52AM)  Complain about this comment

    #127 Orb. I fear House Price debates get a bit emotive as many have a personal interest. I seem to make a lot of folk quite cross by sticking to my assessment that prices will rise modestly as so many seem to hang their hat on a massive crash. That crash has been promised for nearly 6 years now mand shows no sign of transpiring. The doom mongers are even suggesting it is still 4 or 5 yeasr off. We'll believe it when we see it.

  • 129. jackanory

    (28 March 2013, 12:45PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris,
    The only reason properties might increase in value now (but only in the short term) is because the goverment is instigating the Mae and Mac scheme all over again. That was a huge mistake and caused the 2008 crash in the US! They havn't learnt anything from history and we going to be in for a hell of a big fall if the "Help to Buy" scheme is allowed to proceed! Saying that if we stay on the same heading now we are still going to see falls when interst rates rise, just not as large.

  • 130. Orb

    (28 March 2013, 01:11PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, I cannot agree re 'the property crash that will never come'. Prices outside of London - or including non-'millionaires row' London - have largely remained static or declined slightly (as previously researched by the MW team) since their 2009 lows, which itself was a drop of around 15%+ from the 2007 highs.

    In addition, the £ has dropped spectacularly against several other significant currencies... if you were an Kiwi for instance, the same NZ$ for 1 UK house in Oct 2008 would now buy you almost 2 of the same UK houses today! That's what I would consider a 'crash'.

  • 131. Andy

    (28 March 2013, 05:24PM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree Orb. House prices have to some extent already crashed depending on what you compare them to, just not in sterling terms. I feel sorry for those that could really do with a house price crash to get into the market. Ironically for me as a 100% equity owner a 50% price drop would be good too, as I could move to a better property with my savings and no extra mortgage! That won't happen though as any UK government is going to ensure they can inflate away their huge debts. We'll end up paying one way or another!

  • 132. Crazy Town

    (28 March 2013, 08:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    Judging by the amount of posts on house prices, it goes to show this is what sells MW. Everyone's obsessed.

    Unfortunately I disagree with the majority here. You should walk into desirable areas and just see the demand and money on the table. Prices may well go down in self built towns up north but certainly not in London et al.

  • 133. Romford Dave

    (28 March 2013, 08:43PM)  Complain about this comment

    Maybe it's the majority that disagree with you Crazy Town....

    If quantity's the driver of what sells MW, house prices trail in a lowly fourth position, way behind the minimum wage, Scottish independence and tax avoidance.

    Maybe it's the diversity that drives its success?

    And the quality of the comments of course ;)

  • 134. NeutronWarp9

    (28 March 2013, 11:14PM)  Complain about this comment

    Surely gold must be in the top 4 hot topics? House prices is always very entertaining but nobody knows what will happen. Ultimately, I expect a steady house value trend downwards in real terms rather than a crash - always assuming events can continue to be 'managed'.
    As for the lessons of history, all one needs to do is ask an historian for his or her views on a current subject and evaluate their answer. I have found many whom pretend they are history experts are often either hopeless romantics, self-important fantasists or nutters.

  • 135. Romford Dave

    (29 March 2013, 12:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    I've yet to meet a hopelessly romantic historian Neutron, one day perhaps.....

    You would have thought gold would be the leading contender or even investing in Japan, but neither appeared in the statistics compiled by MW for the most commented on blogs which ultimately was the information I used to identify minimum wage as the winner.

    Mind you, we all know how statistics perform when tossed into the pot with lies and damned lies so maybe gold is being suppressed even here!

  • 136. Boris MacDonut

    (29 March 2013, 03:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    #134 Neutron. There is no such thing as a history expert. But sadly far too many folk think they are investment experts.

  • 137. j barrows

    (23 April 2013, 12:16AM)  Complain about this comment

    I really cannot understand the hare-brained thinking behind this guarantee scheme: stoke a mini bubble on the back of an uncorrected bubble, then after three years cut away the legs supporting the mini bubble by removing the guarantee element...???? .... leaving the status quo as higher house prices; FTBs even more stretched as the government no longer gives 15%; banks demanding even bigger deposits of FTBs/ less likely to lend given higher prices:earnings ratios. This is madness. The housing market will grind to a halt as soon as the guarantee element is withdrawn and likely go into reverse (exposing the taxpayer to loses) because of the aforementioned pressures. If FTBs can't buy, the merry-go-round stops. The government is basically saying that henceforth it will have to be permanently involved in guaranteeing mortgages and will be reliant on ZIRP as far as the eye can see to keep prices so high.

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.

>