House Price Crash

10:51 GMT
8/2/5

In view of Land Registry showing actual losses for the first time please take note of this thread and proceed with caution,



WARNING FOR FIRST TIME BUYERS IN THE UK
2005 is not the right time for first time buyers to enter the housing market.

The United Kingdom is currently experiencing the biggest property boom of all time. Over the last few years, many have seen these
rises and have been advising young people that they should get on the property ladder before it is too late and if they don’t buy a
house now, they may not get another chance ever again. This factsheet attempts to cast light upon some of the popular myths that
surround the housing market in the UK and urges people who are thinking of buying their first home to be cautious.

MYTH 1: HOUSE PRICES ALWAYS GO UP
Many people believe that house prices can only go up. This is simply not true. Ask somebody who bought a house at the height of the late 1980s boom and they will tell you otherwise. As the
Nationwide graph below shows, since 1972, there have been a
number of house prices booms. These booms are always followed by some form of crash.
The historical trend is shown in red and the
real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) figures are shown in blue. Currently,
house prices are almost 50% above the historic trend.
Graph source: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm

MYTH 2: RENTING IS DEAD MONEY
Many people will tell you that renting is “dead money” and you are just paying your landlord’s mortgage. The reality is that interest
payments on a mortgage is ALSO dead money. If you purchase a house in 2005, it is highly likely that your property will start
decreasing in value as soon as you have bought it and it may take many years before it returns to the price that you paid for it.
In the majority of cases, it is cheaper to rent the house you are living in
than to buy it and pay a mortgage. While you are renting, you can
save each month towards a deposit.

MYTH3: THERE WON’T BE A HOUSE PRICE CRASH
One argument put forward by the so-called “vested interests”
groups is that that there won’t be a house price crash because interest rates and unemployment are low. During the house price crash of the late 1980s/early 1990s, the high rate of unemployment
was an effect of the falling house prices, rather than the cause of it.
Interest rates were cut a number of times during the crash, but this did not prevent prices from falling in most areas. House prices
can fall regardless of unemployment and interest rates.
The Bank of England’s view is that house prices are overvalued by
approximately 30%, and it is for the reason that prices are likely to fall.
Over 90% of first time buyers are now priced out of the market - many people simply can’t afford to buy at the current prices, and
many more are unwilling to buy at massively inflated prices.
It is highly likely that UK house prices will gradually fall back to the
historical average level before people start buying again.
The UK housing market depends on first time buyers! Mortgage lending has dropped to a 10 year low.
In the graph below you can see the average house price to
average earnings ratio. We are again at a peak where the
average house costs nearly 6 times the average wage:
Data source http://www.hbosplc.com
FACT 1: HOUSE PRICES HAVE BEEN FALLING
SINCE JULY 2004
From 1996 to 2004, house prices have risen substantially.
However, since July 2004, contrary to what many people
believe, UK house prices have actually been falling in real
terms. You may have read contradictory articles in the press
claiming that house prices are both rising and falling and it is hard to find out what is really happening. The truth is that many of the articles you read are produced by a party with a vested interest in the rise of house prices in the UK. These vested interests include money lenders and estate agents who benefit
from higher interest payments and transaction fees. The press are notoriously bad at presenting the “bigger picture”. During
the house price crash of the late 1980s, there were countless articles suggesting that house prices were rising, when they
were clearly falling over a number of years. History has proven that house price crashes do not happen over night; they tend to
be long and drawn-out affairs that last a number of years.
House prices may even go up in the middle of the crash, but the long term trend is downwards. February 2005 is just the tip of
the iceberg.
FACT2: RENTING IS THE SENSIBLE OPTION
House prices in the UK have been falling since July 2004 and it is widely anticipated that they will continue to do so for some time.
There will be a time when house prices become affordable again, but house prices need to fall significantly before we
reach this point. Many believe that early 2005 will be looked at as the worst time to buy, as the market is only just past it’s
peak.
As a general rule, renting is currently cheaper than the mortgage payments required to purchase the same property.
The question on many people’s lips is “when is the right time to buy?”
The recommended option is to wait until average house
prices have reached the long term average and think about
buying then.
LINKS
http://www.propertyfacts.co.uk independent data about the UK housing market
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk an open forum discussing whether the UK housing market will crash
http://www.nethouseprices.com database of historical UK house prices, searchable by postcode or address
 
i121,

I'd say that alot of that post is applicable to certain markets in Oz as well. Having said that, I'm a firm believer that there will always be gems available in any trend of any market, so it probably pays not to be totally dismissive...

Was any of that taken from an article ? If so, is there a link for it ?

Thanks,
Ad(ios).
 
Last edited:
investor 121,
good post,if as you say property has gone backwards from july2004
then at some time the bottom value line will come into the picture,
when do you think this will happen.
good luck
willair..
 
Where lies the bottom?

I'm not sure when the bottom will be reached but these things always seem to overshoot look at the chart below, it is very important because it is a guide to how house prices follow mortgage approvals by about 6 months. Remember mortgage approvals less than 90000 per month=falling house prices.

Study the chart carefully then consider this, Mortgage approvals of 77,000 for Nov 2004 were some of the worst on record, actually a steeper fall than in the last crash. We have heard in the news that this figure has recovered but take that news with a pinch of salt. Although the Dec figures were 83000 they were made up with a 24% seasonal adjustment.The real figures were 66000. Why is this so bad? because Nov's 77000 contained only a 2% seasonal adjustment. Also Januarys will contain a 33% upwards seasonal adjustment so be prepared. Like I say I don't know where this is going but be careful. Many professionals and industry bodies use approvals as their yardstick , thankfully because of the internet we can all share this information.


SEE THIS LINK:http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=159
 
I'm a victim of these myths myself. I bought in England in 1988- for £50,000, on a 100% loan. When I left in 1990, the house was worth £43,000, despite a lot of renovation- I couldn't afford to sell it. It was a drain on our resources for some years afterwards- and I couldn't claim negative gearing against my Australian income. I sold it in 1999 for £57,000- hardly the stuff of wealth creation.
 
geoffw said:
I'm a victim of these myths myself. I bought in England in 1988- for £50,000, on a 100% loan. When I left in 1990, the house was worth £43,000, despite a lot of renovation- I couldn't afford to sell it. It was a drain on our resources for some years afterwards- and I couldn't claim negative gearing against my Australian income. I sold it in 1999 for £57,000- hardly the stuff of wealth creation.

Ouch :(
Whereabouts did you buy this gem, GeoffW?
 
Jacque said:
Ouch :(
Whereabouts did you buy this gem, GeoffW?
That was in Southampton- a terrace built in 1892. It wasn't anything fancy, but it was our first house as a married couple, and the first house our daughter ever lived.

That was probably typical of house prices at the time. I didn't recognisxe when we bought the signs of a boom cycle which would not last. We didn't buy quite at the peak, but not too long before.

I recognised when I sold that we were at the beginning of an up cycle then- but I needed to spend a substantial amount of money to keep it going, and it was something we could not afford to do. As it turned out, the cash injection we received (becuase we had paid off a fair amount) helped towards getting out of a substantial hole dug by the ATO.
 
duncan_m said:
Any idea what it'd be worth now?
It's hard to tell- and I haven't ever checked until now. There seem to be comparable properties for about £100,000. A big improvement, but still nowhere near the "doubling every 7-10 years".
 
geoffw said:
It's hard to tell- and I haven't ever checked until now. There seem to be comparable properties for about £100,000. A big improvement, but still nowhere near the "doubling every 7-10 years".
You can check actual UK property sale prices 2000-2004 on http://www.ourproperty.co.uk

I just looked at a few that I used to have:
Higham, Rochester. I paid £10,000 in 1977, it sold Dec 2000 for £127,500, and again June 2002 for £157,500 ( I sold for about £30k in about 1980)
Strood, Rochester. I paid £40,000 in 1997, it sold Dec 2002 for £80,000 (below market value)
Strood, Rochester. I paid £108,000 in 1998, it sold Jun 2000 for £125,000
Chatham, Kent. I paid £13,000 in Mar 1996, it sold Nov 02 for £27,000 and again Feb 04 for £45,000. I sold it in 1997 for £15,000 !

Here are a few example sales in that last street (they are flats)
22-Nov-02 14 Connaught £27,000
9-Feb-04 14 Connaught £45,000

18-Jan-02 4 Connaught £36,500
19-Dec-02 4 Connaught £53,000

19-Mar-01 6 Connaught £26,000
9-Jul-03 6 Connaught £52,000

15-Mar-02 8 Connaught £25,000
19-Dec-02 8 Connaught £44,995
 
Last edited:
geoffw said:
It's hard to tell- and I haven't ever checked until now. There seem to be comparable properties for about £100,000. A big improvement, but still nowhere near the "doubling every 7-10 years".


OK thanks, fascinating look back at the history of a different market.
 
duncan_m said:
OK thanks, fascinating look back at the history of a different market.
This thread made me look back at a house in the UK that we had. I went past it in 2000, and it looked the same as it did back in the 70's

From it's original new build cost price of £5,000 in 1963 to its last actual sale price in 2004 of £205,000, it has averaged an annual growth of 9.48% per year over 41 years. Even taking the 2000 actual sale price of £127,500 it had still averaged 9.15% over 37 years.
 
In the original post, myth 3 says the Bank of England believe housing is overpriced 30%.

Banks never cease to amaze me. The reason property gets overvalued is because banks are prepared to lend money for houses to the level of banks' valuations!!! When was the last time anyone got a loan approved for a house with a contract price 30% above a bank's valuation?

The 30% overvaluation is the banks' creation.
 
The best bit about this original posting to my mind is that they point out the truth that rent and interest are equally dead money.

Like a few others, I choose to rent on an equalalent yield of 3%. I own properties thay yield way greater than that and my interest is tax deductable where if you own a house the interest is not deductable.

I always cringe when I hear the ads on the radio saying that rent money is dead money.

cheers,
RightValue
 
I've been in Maidenhead (Berkshire) for a year and this place is just one big boom. The river properties are always out of reach £1m+, 1 bedroom flats are £130k+.
However with the cheap interest rates I was still considering buying - to live in, because the interest is less than the rent.

£130k @ 5% interest = £6500pa. (that's a 100% loan)
Rent @ £625pm = £7500pa, which leaves £1000 spare for body corp.

You pay the land/council tax regardless of whether you own it or not.

This doesn't factor in an increase in interest rates however - that is the risk I see.

But the current state of the market here I see as not being as overbought as Australia - you'd be lucky to get 5% rent these days in Sydney

However I don't see myself here for more than another two years, and having only 1 year's address history here doesn't make me very good at bargaining with UK lenders and I don't want to pay an ex-con's interest rate.
Besides, My risk level is reached with the Australian exposure I have already.

Is really interesting though watching the market and the very laisses faire operators that have sprung up in the industry.
The self-documenting loans are common where people are encouraged to make up their income to be 25% of the house price - to just get within the criteria boundaries. These borrowers will face a lot of grief when the interest rate rises.

Dan
 
dantheman said:
Is really interesting though watching the market and the very laisses faire operators that have sprung up in the industry.
The self-documenting loans are common where people are encouraged to make up their income to be 25% of the house price - to just get within the criteria boundaries. These borrowers will face a lot of grief when the interest rate rises.

Dan


Yep owning is a better option on positive geared properties, its just that (as you mentioned) you can't find one in a decent suburd in a large city in Australia and havent been able to for a few years.

Self Documenting loans are in OZ as well called Low Doc loans, where you do not have to prove your income.

However lying about your income is fraud.

I use Low Doc loans for a variety of reasons (due mostly to large amounts of salary sacrifice into Super and inome splitting between entities - which turns loan officers faces pale) but if push comes to shove I can always prove the income. Interestingly one broker actually reduced my income on Low Doc application to more of an industry average, even though he knew I earned what I had stated.

I know that some brokers in OZ encourrage people to increase their income on the low doc loans so that they can get the deal done. I just hope they realise what the implications may be later on if they ever get done for complicity in a fraud if the borrower goes belly up and sues them and their firm for putting them in the position (ie a home loan they could not afford when interest rates rise) that they lose everything.

I agree that many of these people will be hurt if rates rise too much.

cheers,
RightValue
 
"I agree that many of these people will be hurt if rates rise too much.

cheers,
RightValue"

But how much is too much? I recall that someone on the radio stated that .25% today is the same as 3% back when interest rates were in the double digits. !!?!!??
 
I'm not sure about the .25% = 3% line. Actually I am - it's BS.

Realistically, when interest rates hit 18% then 3% = 1/6th of the current rate. That's about equivalent to 1.1% in the current environemnt. HOWEVER, those who borrowed to the hilt at 4.75 honeymoon rate, hoping that something good would turn up and are now on 7% and staring 7.5% in the face (yeah, I reckon two 25 basis point rises in reasonably quick succession) must be sweating.
 
Back
Top