j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on May 14, 2014 13:17:49 GMT
At the suggestion of a fellow contributor on here, I'm starting a new thread on possible house price bubbles in the near to mid future.
I've read & heard few articles/debates recently that prices are simply unsustainable as they are & must come down in line with average earnings. Couple that with our insatiable appetite to all be home owners & some of these economists might finally get one of their predictions right!
What are the thoughts on this matter out there?
|
|
|
Post by cautious on May 14, 2014 16:20:45 GMT
I think that the base rate will not rise until after the election because I do not believe that the B of E is that independent of government pressure,
I think Mark Carney is telling the truth that they will rise slowly, and probably up to 5% ish,
I think the bubble is mainly in London and its environs, fuelled by foreign investment,
I think as average income earners are forced out of London to buy, that bubble is / has expanded out from London,
I think the government like house owners, especially in a ageing population, as they have a nice asset to fund future health care (not to mention making us more responsible and traceable),
I think that if the economy continues to recover, if houses are built (15,000 planned in East Herts where I am), and Osbourne continues to fund deposits, the bubble will not pop but slowly deflate.
I hope
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on May 15, 2014 12:08:44 GMT
I've said on other threads that I think there's an automatic assumption that lending against property assets is a necessarily safe. If a property backed term is more than a year or two then there's a pretty substantial risk of a property market correction before it is paid off - its going bonkers here in London and it can't last. Even with high LTV, during corrections, property can be impossible to sell even at a discount as we saw in Spain.
I also think as lenders pile into P2P as they are the high interest rates must fall to levels which are a bit more affordable for borrowers - we've been spoiled over the last year or two
For me a few hundred into handbags at 9% seems sensible
jack
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 790
|
Post by angrysaveruk on May 16, 2014 11:14:46 GMT
I think the value of property in the UK is over valued by most measures. There are a large number of people out there with mortgages they have no hope of repaying. If rates rise this will obviously force some people to sell and push down prices, however how long rates will remain at record lows is anyones guess. As long as the US can bully the rest of the world into using the dollar as a reserve currency while they continue to print money I think rates will remain low, although there are some signs that this is coming to an end: www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/12/fed-great-deceiver-paul-craig-roberts/ In my opinion the next major financial crisis will be the dollar losing its reserve currency status and gold prices going balistic, although that could be a decade off.
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on May 16, 2014 15:15:47 GMT
I tend to hold a somewhat contrary view about house prices and the drivers behind the various bubbles we have had. The majority view is that prices rises are driven by the a lack of available property - supply and demand, my personal view is that whilst is some effect from supply issues they are very small and the key drivers come from the over availability of cheap money that has been lent with no real assessment of the borrower's ability to pay let alone pay through out the life of the mortgage with all the fluctuations in interest rates that that might bring, the view that property is more of an investment than it is a home and the drive from Estate Agents to push up prices ever higher combined with in house brokers.
The conventional view to curing the issue of affordability has either been to build 'affordable' homes, distort the market by giving stamp duty holidays or as the government is currently doing underwriting 95% LTV mortgages (which is all very well if you don't think house prices are over inflated). None of these are anything more than short term sticking plasters that allow governments to appear to be doing something: affordable homes are only affordable the first time they are sold unless there are special terms in the deeds/leases that restrict the resale price or restrict the types of buyer (nurses, teachers etc) the prices will increase in line with the rest of the market. Stamp duty holidays, underwriting of high LTV mortgages etc all have the reverse effect increasing prices rather than making properties more affordable.
There are inklings that the FCA is starting to share some of these views with their new mortgage tests but as yet these are still flawed and are geared to lending in order to allow people to afford a property, rather than letting people have a loan that they can afford to pay back.
Until we move to a position where Governments keep their hands off the housing market and concentrate on limiting mortgage lending to what people can practically and reasonably afford then we are going to get bubble after bubble.
As it stands we have a large number of people of have mortgages that they can barely afford and although lenders have not dropped their interest rates down to match the BoE base rate, you can pretty much guarantee that once the BoE rate starts to rise lenders will start to increase their rates, may be not in line with the BoE rates but there will be increases. It is at this point that we will start to see stresses with borrowers going into arrears and defaulting on their loans. How far the market will then fall back will very much depend on how much government start to lean on lenders in order to stop repossessions and how far the FCA go with their affordability tests and how rigorous they are in enforcing them.
|
|
acorn
Posts: 118
Likes: 23
|
Post by acorn on May 16, 2014 16:19:11 GMT
In this area, house prices are quite high and are certainly out of step with local income levels. Many small towns and villages have "affordable" housing schemes so that young people can stay in the area where they have grown up. These are often part buy/ part rental schemes that tie the purchaser into paying very high rents for 5 years before they can sell so are not really "affordable" in the long term. Rents are around £600 a month for a small 2 bed terrace or £850 for an average 3 bed semi, which is far more expensive than a mortgage. I agree that it all seems to carry on as before with boom and bust, with people chained to huge debt or huge rental payments.
There was a period where house prices and wages were stable for quite a long time but I think the economy at that time was not driven by everyone having to consume, consume, consume!
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 16, 2014 17:09:38 GMT
... The conventional view to curing the issue of affordability has either been to build 'affordable' homes, distort the market by giving stamp duty holidays or as the government is currently doing underwriting 95% LTV mortgages (which is all very well if you don't think house prices are over inflated). ....Stamp duty holidays, underwriting of high LTV mortgages etc all have the reverse effect increasing prices rather than making properties more affordable. ... Until we move to a position where Governments keep their hands off the housing market and concentrate on limiting mortgage lending to what people can practically and reasonably afford then we are going to get bubble after bubble. ... Well I'm not sure that is the 'conventional' view of solving the issue of affordability: its certainly the view that would be held by those that think that political intervention is the answer. but it would hardly be the 'conventional' view of economics. I would fully agree that it is close to stark raving bonkers to think that the answer to a house price problem (if we agrees there is a house price problem) is 'meddling' measures which improve the ability of people to either secure higher borrowing or reduce cost of acquisition while not actually tackling price: all of these things will drive prices up not down. Its just another form of 'cheap money' or has the same impact as cheap money which just means more people chasing the price up. However, I'm not sure how a government focus on "limiting mortgage lending" sits with the Govt "keeping their hands off the housing market". It is just another form of govt meddling/attempt to manipulate the demand side of the market. And ultimately will just freeze out more people. There are surely two things which should be separated: long term trends, and short term bubbles. I'm afraid there is no getting away from the fact that in the UK the housing market has a supply/demand problem, caused by combination of demographics, geography, geographic distribution of opportunity/wealth, and joe publics "I'm alright jack" which politicians are too cowardly to face up to , and so prefer to cook up short termism populist policy instead of real long term strategy. Geography: The UK is a relatively densly populated country compared to many (De, Fr, USA for example). Especially once you exclude building towns on top of the Scottish highlands. Geographic distribution of opportunity: its a sad fact, though not unique to this country but probably exacerbated by the size of the UK, that the opportunity for jobs/wealth etc. is concentrated in a small number of areas e.g. south east Demographics: at one end you have people staying single for longer, and at the other end people living for significantly longer occupying what were previously family homes. QED the demand for housing units increases. In any normal market supply responds to demand, as much as external constraints allow. And yet house building in the UK is at a low level and behind the long term demand trend. And that's because of the external constraints which exist i.e. restrictions on where we allow development. If you are sitting pretty on the property ladder for sure you don't want a new housing development built on that field, and politicians will barely risk suggesting that the precious green belts should be reviewed, or even consider that they may be counter productive by forcing development on precious green space within existing urban areas. But if one is sitting pretty and arguing for 'not in my back yard', just bear in mind what one may be condemning others to by restricting their access to housing opportunity, and on ourselves in terms of a dysfunctional housing market. Noone (well except developers perhaps) want the whole of the UK built on, but the fundamental result of the supply/demand imbalance cannot be dealt with without tackling the supply side. Of course short term bubbles are also caused by both access to cheap money and the view of property as a significant asset class. But the latter is itself is made worse by expectations of the long term supply/demand balance. No doubt someone will now come on here with quantitive facts that show my observations to be completely wrong.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on May 16, 2014 17:28:06 GMT
BB, I think you are pretty much spot on and this is borne out by how regional the bubble is. We have a combination of (1) a fundamental supply/demand imbalance where the money is (mostly the south-east), plus (2) crazy short term policies stoking the flames.
(1) is not going to change any time soon. (2) probably will change but not until after the election, when rates will have to go up.
I would be very cautious about lending against residential property at the moment. Commercial property is better but still risky, which is why most of my p2x money is at TC and RS, with a much smaller amount on AC.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on May 16, 2014 18:34:11 GMT
BB, I think you are pretty much spot on and this is borne out by how regional the bubble is. We have a combination of (1) a fundamental supply/demand imbalance where the money is (mostly the south-east), plus (2) crazy short term policies stoking the flames. (1) is not going to change any time soon. (2) probably will change but not until after the election, when rates will have to go up. I would be very cautious about lending against residential property at the moment. Commercial property is better but still risky, which is why most of my p2x money is at TC and RS, with a much smaller amount on AC. All valid points but, take London for example, do you really think if you have an ltv of say 70% on a loan backed by a resi property, that [property could lose 30%+ of its value in a very short space of time? If memory serves right, when we had the adjustment after the 2008 crash, the only immune place was the capital & probably major cities. I'll happily be corrected, in which case I will seriously think of shifting some of the money into other non-prop assets as you've alluded to.
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on May 16, 2014 18:47:07 GMT
Talk about the North and south divide..........................
I am currently selling the 4 bedroom house I grew up in. OK, it's been modernised at a cost and is the current spec that people want. Selling price is £1.3 million (already up 50k from three months ago - madness!).
I am currently sitting in the office where I work, which is no more than 50 feet from the back door of my 3 bedroom picture postcard stone cottage. My business turns over around a quarter of a mill a year and makes me a very nice living from it. I could buy this business (inc residential) two and a half times for the price of the house.
One is in Hertfordshire, a half hour from London, the other in Derbyshire, a half hour from Sheffield. Guess which one is which.
I've got another business in East London - that's being run by a manager now. Wild horses wouldn't drag me back South.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 16, 2014 19:09:15 GMT
Talk about the North and south divide.......................... .... I am currently sitting in the office where I work, which is no more than 50 feet from the back door of my 3 bedroom picture postcard stone cottage. My business turns over around a quarter of a mill a year and makes me a very nice living from it. I could buy this business (inc residential) two and a half times for the price of the house. One is in Hertfordshire, a half hour from London, the other in Derbyshire, a half hour from Sheffield. Guess which one is which. ... Are u taking offers on your business and cottage ? :-)
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on May 16, 2014 19:54:58 GMT
Are u taking offers on your business and cottage ? :-) Everything is for sale if the price is right..............
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on May 16, 2014 22:43:06 GMT
BB, I think you are pretty much spot on and this is borne out by how regional the bubble is. We have a combination of (1) a fundamental supply/demand imbalance where the money is (mostly the south-east), plus (2) crazy short term policies stoking the flames. (1) is not going to change any time soon. (2) probably will change but not until after the election, when rates will have to go up. I would be very cautious about lending against residential property at the moment. Commercial property is better but still risky, which is why most of my p2x money is at TC and RS, with a much smaller amount on AC. All valid points but, take London for example, do you really think if you have an ltv of say 70% on a loan backed by a resi property, that [property could lose 30%+ of its value in a very short space of time? If memory serves right, when we had the adjustment after the 2008 crash, the only immune place was the capital & probably major cities. I'll happily be corrected, in which case I will seriously think of shifting some of the money into other non-prop assets as you've alluded to. Well, yes. The impact of the 2008 crash on house prices was relatively mild. In the 1990s housing crash, the peak-to-trough fall in average prices was 37% in real terms, of which 20% took place in a single year (see here: www.housepricecrash.co.uk/indices-nationwide-national-inflation.php). And these are averages. In some locations, or for forced sales (as in the event of a foreclosure), falls were much higher. The falls were smaller in cash terms, but I think the real-terms fall is more relevant to today, when inflation is much lower. London was not immune, although the crash was shorter and sharper there. I moved out of London in 1991. I had to take a 20% cut on the asking price (which was already well below the peak), and then saw the value of the house that I bought in Bedfordshire fall by a further 20% while London prices stabilised . One of the triggers for the 1990s crash was rising interest rates caused by the sterling crisis. The crash began in 1989 when base rate hit 14% (nearly doubled from 12 months earlier). But it continued even after interest rates were cut to below-crisis levels, following sterling's exit from the ERM in September 1992. There is no room to cut interest rates now, but plenty of room for them to rise!
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on May 17, 2014 11:12:13 GMT
I think most of the contributors to this thread are on the same wavelength and summed up well by BB and Pikestaff. However there are another couple of factors which may also have an impact one way or another on the house price bubble. Firstly the recovery in the buy to let market probably encourage by low interest rates and rising rentals. In most parts of the UK it is not too difficult to acquire a property spend max 5% of cost on tarting it up and then getting a rental of 6%+ of original cost. Buy to let mortgages are still available well below this figure and if you get your sums right it is still possible to make a good margin after all costs are taken out. Plus with a rising market there is the potential for capital growth in the future. I know a lot of people got their fingers burnt a few years back but most because they bought at the top of the market. it is also worth noting that whilst house prices fell during the recession rentals did not fall anywhere near as much by comparison.
A further factor is that of incomes. I have a very strong feeling that a point will be reached shortly where wages and salaries will inevitably start to rise. At what rate I don't know but just like house prices it is likely to accelerate as we have seen in the past. This again will put pressure on house prices.
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on May 17, 2014 11:22:19 GMT
At some stage, everyone, the government, FCA, lenders and borrowers will have to face up to reality and adopt Mr Micawber’s principle: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery." In other words live within their income.
I’ve no idea how long this will take but the principle is as sound today as it was when Dickens wrote it and applies not just to buying a house but to how you manage your finances in general and that includes the government itself, you cannot continue to “kick the can down the road” indefinitely.
|
|