Fundamental Analysis What Next for U.K. House Prices?

In 2008 I wrote an article for T2W entitled: Housing Boom – is the party over? in which I categorically stated that I expected house prices to fall substantially and that investors should look to invest in the stock market from 2008 onwards. I was right on both counts. House prices in some areas have dropped as much as 25%, while the average stock market index has nearly doubled.

After a decade long boom due to lower interest rates and easy lending, the party finally came to a sticky end for U.K. property prices in 2009. According to Land Registry, property prices in the U.K. rose by an astronomical 200% in a decade.

Five years on, I find it difficult to make a case for increases in house prices in the U.K. based on numerous factors. To start with, the major U.K. banks are effectively owned by the governments, and they are not much more secure now than they were a few years ago. In addition to that, to balance the books, we have had the austerity measures and cut in benefits which could affect general confidence levels.

Admittedly, in 2008 I was expecting a much bigger fall than what we have seen so far! Housing prices in the U.K. have been propped up by the following measures:

  1. Low interest rates meaning that many are able to afford the monthly repayments despite decreases in overall household incomes.
  2. Low rates are keeping ‘forced sellers’ to a minimum as, despite the recession, we have not seen big jumps in repossessions - unlike in previous recessions.
  3. There has been an increase in house buying under shared equity schemes.
  4. Government mortgage guarantee schemes have helped to boost the housing market.
  5. The Euro zone crisis has meant that many wealthy foreigners have been buying homes in the U.K.

So, what are the big stumbling blocks preventing the property market from increasing substantially from now on?

  1. A crackdown on interest only mortgages.
  2. A requirement for higher deposits.
  3. Austerity measures, which could lead to uncertainty in the markets, as well as fear within households, resulting in them not wanting not to spend.
  4. Potential increases in unemployment.
  5. The Euro zone crisis.

In addition to the above, the number of Buy to Let mortgages has been gradually increasing as landlords are cashing in on rising rental income, as well as no sign of mortgage rates increasing in the near future. The low interest rates over the last few years has meant that Buy to Let investors have made substantial profits, many to the tune of millions of pounds, as they snap up properties coming into the market at the expense of first time buyers.

What is ironic is that the government is helping these investors by way of low interest rates, and then also paying them a good return in the form of rents via housing benefit payments to tenants. The current cost of housing benefits to the government is well over £20 billion each year. Local councils simply have no houses left in their portfolio!

Some of the blunders of past government policies, both Conservative and Labour, include selling off gold reserves when it was around $200 and also selling council houses at ridiculously low prices. This has meant that the government has incurred substantial losses from the sale of these assets. Housing is the biggest loss, both in terms of not having those assets on the balance sheets (there were many instances of people buying homes at, say, £30,000 and now these houses are worth over £500,000), and now having to pay substantial amounts in housing benefits!

Despite the fall in house prices in the past 5 years and slow increase in salaries, there is still a mismatch between earnings and house prices and the government is simply not doing enough for first time buyers.

As mentioned before, Buy to Let investors have replaced first time buyers as they are snapping up the properties which come to the market, but for how long? Interest rates cannot remain at these levels and, despite the current economic problems, the move can only be up in the years to come. And, if the rental yields do not keep pace with cost increases, then we can expect a big crash, as there will be major panic amongst Buy to Let investors, many of whom are sitting on big portfolios.

To kick-start the housing market, we need to see an influx of first time buyers, and for that to happen we need to see a fall of at least another 15% in house prices. However, given the extent of the government intervention in the market to prop up the prices, it can be difficult to predict when the next fall will occur.

My opinion on the housing market is do not be fooled. After some stability this year and in 2014, prices are likely to increase, maybe even to double digits. But from 2015/16 onwards, I believe house prices will fall again, and I would not be at all surprised if we see a recession from 2020 onwards.

Governments cannot prop up prices for long, Quantitative easing (QE) has to end some day. So, what will happen when the money taps are turned off without a booming economy in place with low unemployment levels? All they are doing is delaying the inevitable. Eventually, market forces will take over and the landing will be very hard! Very hard indeed!

So be warned!

Jay Lakhani can be contacted at 4x4u.net
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Understanding the supply and demand of money makes me one dimensional now! I suppose that makes me as one dimensional as every Central Bank on Earth.

Prices for everything is driven by affordability. Perhaps you should watch Storage wars as you would learn an important lesson. It doesn't matter how much somebody wants something (demand), they have to have the money to pay for it.

Do you get it? You can rant and rave about a shortage of houses but that still doesn't drive prices up. People who can't afford to buy a house would rent instead, keeping a lid on prices.

How much would the average house in the UK be worth if people had to put down a 50% deposit and there was no Government assistance? How much would a house be worth right now if mortgage interest rates were 15%?

Keep ranting about funnymentals.

I think you prove my point!

I'm sure you don't mean your off the cuff remark below.

I'll leave this exchange with you as it isn't going anywhere we haven't been before.

Best regards (y)
 
Short term price bubbles do occur. Yes.

However, long term fundamentals determine prices. Because the supply of houses are inelastic there is a longer term of adjustment.

One can observe any number of factors in the price fluctuations of houses.

Not disputing all the inputs and factors.

Good interesting article. Read the last paragraph and it simply make inferences pointing out house prices remain above rents and incomes and leads to an uncomfortable conclusion house prices in many countries still have room to fall.

One can not generalize like this imo. Spain has had a major adjustment. UK somewhat of an adjustment perhaps not as much as desired. Factors, countries and pretty much everything else is different.

NT being NT has peddled his angle I know that house prices have almost zero to do with real supply and demand of housing and almost everything do with supply and demand of credit, which is distorted by Government for Political purposes.

Each to their own.

Thats because he is right.
There is no physical supply problem with housing in this country.
There is an aspirational supply problem.
Think about that.

Its all about want, not need.
Want spare bedroom as office.
Want bedroom for each kid.
Want garage.
Want own flat.
Want larger house.
Want flat / house in desirable location.

Don't want lodgers.
Don't want to share with relatives / friends.
Don't want to live in undesirable location.
Don't want ex-council.
Don't want to rent.

All the things people don't want now, are things that people routinely did in the 1970's,
back then they couldn't afford choice, choice was removed.
Same as now, difference is people won't accept it, not when ludicrous
credit gearing is available.

Now do you get it?
There is ZERO problem with physical supply.
The above points are examples of aspirational supply 'problems'.


There are plenty of houses to give everyone in this country a roof over their head.
Don't believe me?

Liverpool:
http://liverpool.gov.uk/housing/homes-for-a-pound/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...-Liverpool-to-be-sold-for-just-one-pound.html

Stoke on Trent:
http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/content...ng/empty-homes/cluster-homes---next-stages.en
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-22247663
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/22/houses-1-pound-charity-empty-homes

Thats just 2 examples of specific cities, there are plenty more.
There is no physical supply problem.
Its purely aspirational - nobody wants to live there until regeneration is complete.

The bubble has been fueled by that location location location mentality,
and banks, unrestrained by legislation, only too willing to fuel the bubble with
excessive income multiples and low or no deposit.

That bubble burst, then the Govt. decided to fill the role of the banks in
securing sub prime loans for muppets to win votes.
Despite evidence and comment from - IMF, U.S. sub prime crisis,
most other euro nations having legislation to prevent excessive income multiples
and so on.

I fail to see how you can still argue that there is a real physical supply problem after reading that.
 
Last edited:
Thats because he is right.
There is no physical supply problem with housing in this country.
There is an aspirational supply problem.
Think about that.

Its all about want, not need.
Want spare bedroom as office.
Want bedroom for each kid.
Want garage.
Want own flat.
Want larger house.
Want flat / house in desirable location.

Don't want lodgers.
Don't want to share with relatives / friends.
Don't want to live in undesirable location.
Don't want ex-council.
Don't want to rent.

All the things people don't want now, are things that people routinely did in the 1970's,
back then they couldn't afford choice, choice was removed.
Same as now, difference is people won't accept it, not when ludicrous
credit gearing is available.

Now do you get it?
There is ZERO problem with physical supply.
The above points are examples of aspirational supply 'problems'.


There are plenty of houses to give everyone in this country a roof over their head.
Don't believe me?

Liverpool:
http://liverpool.gov.uk/housing/homes-for-a-pound/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...-Liverpool-to-be-sold-for-just-one-pound.html

Stoke on Trent:
http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/content...ng/empty-homes/cluster-homes---next-stages.en
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-22247663
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/22/houses-1-pound-charity-empty-homes

Thats just 2 examples of specific cities, there are plenty more.
There is no physical supply problem.
Its purely aspirational - nobody wants to live there until regeneration is complete.

The bubble has been fueled by that location location location mentality,
and banks, unrestrained by legislation, only too willing to fuel the bubble with
excessive income multiples and low or no deposit.

That bubble burst, then the Govt. decided to fill the role of the banks in
securing sub prime loans for muppets to win votes.
Despite evidence and comment from - IMF, U.S. sub prime crisis,
most other euro nations having legislation to prevent excessive income multiples
and so on.

I fail to see how you can still argue that there is a real supply problem after reading that.


That's like telling the man in Africa there is all the water he can possibly want at the North Pole. :)

I did indicate there are empty homes - Over 700,000 homes in England are empty, and around 270,000 of those have been empty for over 6 months. Where are the empty homes? investing £160 million in bringing over 11,200 problematic empty homes back into use as per government stats.

Why don't squatters in London want to go on squat in one of those empty homes up North?

I think Newcastle is a fantastic place to live and have spent little time up there. But such is life I've ended up due South. Never planned these things. Life just happens.

Sometimes people get into red mist and to spite their faces will cut off their noses.

LOOK I REPEAT - I consider your factors as reasonable, true and accurate factors as well as that article you've put up. Why you guys keep banging your drums supply of housing is not important beggars belief.

Ok so you are expecting house prices to adjust and come down to what ever long/term average income/rent/mortgage ratios you think it should be. BIG DEAL. Knock your selves out. In the long run we are all dead. :cheesy:

What have you guys got in your bonnet that says supply is of no consequence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9406877/Census-reveals-housing-shortage.html

SHOCKING! :eek:

As for the original article by Jay for What's next for UK house prices? There is no mention of housing stock / supply at all. I was going to give 5 but he is basically pushing one view - his view. So I deduct 5 marks for not considering supply and deduct 4 penalty points for a biased article. I gave it 1.

Sorry if it upsets your logical thinking processes but that's life learn to deal with it.

If you choose to buy it. Do so. Sell your homes whatever in anticipation.

He does mention he was expecting much bigger falls but believes the market was propped up by umpteen factors. AND yes they are valid points but nevertheless the article was one sided as you guys are pushing the same piece of string.

Now after all that out of curiosity I'd be interested to know which county you live in? ;)
 
:rolleyes: Go back and read that post again.
I said there is an aspirational supply problem.

If people share with relatives, lodge, live in places they wouldn't by choice,
there are enough houses.
To a certain extent they are already doing that - staying at home longer etc.
Everybody wants a champagne lifestyle on beer money - that is the real problem.

Oh and if the which county do you live in comment is a ruling class tory snipe,
barking up the wrong tree mate.
Born in an average area in northern England, lived in council houses when younger,
went to state school.
So stick that up your pipe :LOL:
Background and class is a non issue - its irrelevant.
I'm a realist not an idealist.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: Go back and read that post again.
I said there is an aspirational supply problem.

If people share with relatives, lodge, live in places they wouldn't by choice,
there are enough houses.
To a certain extent they are already doing that - staying at home longer etc.
Everybody wants a champagne lifestyle on beer money - that is the real problem.

Oh and if the which county do you live in comment is a ruling class tory snipe,
barking up the wrong tree mate.
Born in an average area in northern England, lived in council houses when younger,
went to state school.
So stick that up your pipe :LOL:
Background and class is a non issue - its irrelevant.
I'm a realist not an idealist.

No! There is a real supply problem.

If there were no green belt rules and permitted developments, land would be much cheaper and there certainly would be many more houses built where people wanted them.

I'm off the same block as you so take it easy LV. However, you are not a realist from the sound of your posts imo. You can't fix unrealistic housing price problem by telling people how or where they should be living. As for my question which county you live in - I was wondering whether you were going to heed your own recommendations and buy up in Liverpool or Manchester that's all. John o' Groats even?

I don't like London either as we have managed to move out finally. Dream come true... Sadly I have to work in London but not for long. Planning great escape very soon. :)
 
No! There is a real supply problem.

If there were no green belt rules and permitted developments, land would be much cheaper and there certainly would be many more houses built where people wanted them.

I'm off the same block as you so take it easy LV. However, you are not a realist from the sound of your posts imo. You can't fix unrealistic housing price problem by telling people how or where they should be living.

I don't like London either as we have managed to move out finally. Dream come true... Sadly I have to work in London but not for long. Planning great escape very soon. :)

Wot ?

So, those living in central London who are on housing benefits to the tune of say 2k a month should be supported by me, the tax payer, to carry on cos that's where they want to live. :LOL::LOL::LOL: Yeah, obviously, i'll vote for their right....... NOT
 
No! There is a real supply problem.

If there were no green belt rules and permitted developments, land would be much cheaper and there certainly would be many more houses built where people wanted them.

I'm off the same block as you so take it easy LV. However, you are not a realist from the sound of your posts imo. You can't fix unrealistic housing price problem by telling people how or where they should be living. As for my question which county you live in - I was wondering whether you were going to heed your own recommendations and buy up in Liverpool or Manchester that's all. John o' Groats even?

I don't like London either as we have managed to move out finally. Dream come true... Sadly I have to work in London but not for long. Planning great escape very soon. :)

This is increasingly looking like an argument over definition.
You say there aren't enough houses, me CV and NT say there are.

My definition of enough houses - the vast majority have a roof over their head.
Your definition - a roof over their head that they desire.

If there literally aren't enough houses, where are all the tent cities, cardboard boxes etc.
Obviously that exists, but it is not a massive issue affecting a large % is it.

People can no longer afford what they desire, truth is they never could.
Its a simple and harsh economic truth - that is it.
 
This is increasingly looking like an argument over definition.
You say there aren't enough houses, me CV and NT say there are.

My definition of enough houses - the vast majority have a roof over their head.
Your definition - a roof over their head that they desire.

If there literally aren't enough houses, where are all the tent cities, cardboard boxes etc.
Obviously that exists, but it is not a massive issue affecting a large % is it.

Government policy is obvious, housing supply is not. I hadn't been living in England for very long when the house price boom of the late 90's and early 2000's started. It was obvious to me that it was Government policy that was causing it, I didn't study housing stock at all. The property bubble was a worldwide phenomena, it wasn't unique to Britain. As I said, property prices are unlikely to collapse; instead the price of everything else is going to rise, so nobody is going to be any richer. A house in 1981 was 23K, today it's 170K...the average person is no better off. Rising house prices are nothing more than a transfer of wealth, from the buyer to the seller. The net effect on the economy is zero. Atilla believes wholeheartedly in the wealth effect nonsense.
 
Wot ?

So, those living in central London who are on housing benefits to the tune of say 2k a month should be supported by me, the tax payer, to carry on cos that's where they want to live. :LOL::LOL::LOL: Yeah, obviously, i'll vote for their right....... NOT

I'm against housing benefit. If unemployed they should be housed where ever government sends them.

If they are economic migrants and they have no jobs then they obviously need to go back to their country where ever they've come from after a certain grace period to find work. Give it 6 months.

They can always search from their home European town wherever it may be over the internet.

I bet that'll upset a lot of Conservative voters all living off BTLets... (y)
 
Good grief. :sleep:

The circus is in town. :LOL:

Good evening y'all now. (y)
 
JAI HO !

Guess i am the last person to complain about the housing benefits! :
I own 5 properties in London, all are rented out, all the tenants are on Benefits paid for by the government
and what's more the UK government has subsidised the mortgage rates, have got it on a long term Fix.

the author makes logical points, but so long as there is State intervention the prices are UNLIKELY to collapse!
All I can say is "JAI HO"
 
Guess i am the last person to complain about the housing benefits! :
I own 5 properties in London, all are rented out, all the tenants are on Benefits paid for by the government
and what's more the UK government has subsidised the mortgage rates, have got it on a long term Fix.

the author makes logical points, but so long as there is State intervention the prices are UNLIKELY to collapse!
All I can say is "JAI HO"

True, but state intervention will not and cannot last forever.
They are propping up a market that was in decline - partly due to
inflation and partly due to falling valuations (not London though).

Either way, a fall in prices in real terms is a lot lore likely than prices
continuing to rise, once state intervention ends.
 
True, but state intervention will not and cannot last forever.
They are propping up a market that was in decline - partly due to
inflation and partly due to falling valuations (not London though).

Either way, a fall in prices in real terms is a lot lore likely than prices
continuing to rise, once state intervention ends.

Yes -remember Tory Boy telling people to rein in their debt. That was until someone whispered in his ear that personal debt pushes demand and holds up prices. However, people are nervous about jobs, wages held down but other prices (utilities etc) rise. The elastic will snap back soon and house prices will have to settle to their true value (perhaps later in London as outsiders push up prices of housing thus distorting value). They can juggle house prices but there is a real danger the govt . (establishment) will run out of sticky plaster and the whole artifice will simply collapse.
 
Yes -remember Tory Boy telling people to rein in their debt. That was until someone whispered in his ear that personal debt pushes demand and holds up prices. However, people are nervous about jobs, wages held down but other prices (utilities etc) rise. The elastic will snap back soon and house prices will have to settle to their true value (perhaps later in London as outsiders push up prices of housing thus distorting value). They can juggle house prices but there is a real danger the govt . (establishment) will run out of sticky plaster and the whole artifice will simply collapse.

Just heard some Arabian wishing to buy off the internet without even visiting the property - in Ickenham!

There is so much money that all asset values will be adjusted subject to S & D.

Property prices will maintain value. One also gets to benefit of usage and dare I say 'happiness' living in ones castle. (yes I am aware of inflation, nominal and real values and net worth Mr goldfinger :LOL:).


It's going to be a long wait (y)
 
A Conservative government subsidizing and intervening in a market.

All those lives and communities ripped apart for an ideology in the 1980's.
 
This whole thread makes me laugh.

A house is somewhere to live...
Who gives a carp what the price is from month to month except for those who are up to their necks in it and obviously completely over leveraged with their debt fuelled living.
 
This whole thread makes me laugh.

A house is somewhere to live...
Who gives a carp what the price is from month to month except for those who are up to their necks in it and obviously completely over leveraged with their debt fuelled living.

hmmm.........
Millions of home owners wish to profit from it and use it as retirement pot.. so it matters
We now have NOT thousands but over a million + BTL investor properties, so it matters
and yes there are million+ morons out there who are over leveraged, so it matters

so YES it does matter
and yes the economy is driven on this
Fear and Greed!
 
hmmm.........
Millions of home owners wish to profit from it and use it as retirement pot.. so it matters
We now have NOT thousands but over a million + BTL investor properties, so it matters
and yes there are million+ morons out there who are over leveraged, so it matters

so YES it does matter
and yes the economy is driven on this
Fear and Greed!
I'm pretty sure he was aiming that at a normal residential buyer,
not BTL.

The only time it applies to a normal residential buyer is with negative equity,
which only arises due to low deposit requirements.

Even with BTL, if you can't service the debt at higher rates, or negative
equity is an issue, you are over leveraged.
 
Last edited:
hmmm.........
Millions of home owners wish to profit from it and use it as retirement pot.. so it matters
We now have NOT thousands but over a million + BTL investor properties, so it matters
and yes there are million+ morons out there who are over leveraged, so it matters

so YES it does matter
and yes the economy is driven on this
Fear and Greed!

Micawber is known for asserting his faith that "something will turn up". His name has become synonymous with someone who lives in hopeful expectation. This has formed the basis for the Micawber Principle, based upon his observation:

"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."

When I were a lad....if you didn't have money for something you wanted, you simply didn't get it. So I had a think about it and decided the only way to achieve anything was to save up and that's what I did.

From age 18 to 21 when others were continually in the pub on benders or tripping abroad on holidays, I managed to save approx 10k, of which I put 6.5k down on a 16.5k house and spent the other 3.5k on improvements and furnishings. So I was set on the right track from the get go. From memory, the mortgage payment each month was about 97 quid inc insurances. Easily affordable provided people do things the right way around...save first...spend later.
 
Last edited:
Micawber is known for asserting his faith that "something will turn up". His name has become synonymous with someone who lives in hopeful expectation. This has formed the basis for the Micawber Principle, based upon his observation:

"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."

Exactly, living within your means is an alien concept to most Brits.
Germans are totally different, much less take up of credit,
less personal debt, and their housing market is not as borked as ours.
Neither is their economy for that matter, which says a lot.
 
Top