UK housing: remember who told you so?

Monday, January 03 - 2005 at 11:20


UK housing: remember who told you so?
Back in April last year my predecessor in this column warned UK property investors to get out quick. This prescient commentator attracted more than a few irate emails from those who thought they knew better. Now UK house prices have been falling for several months, and those that bought this year have lost serious money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But there is much worse to come. All you really have to do is to look at rental yields in the UK which are now below 5%, and fell as low as 2% in some extreme cases at the height of the housing bubble. This is simply far too low to make it worth owning, maintaining and letting a property – unless you believe capital growth is inevitable.

You also only had to look at the loony prices people were asking for shoebox-sized accommodation in the UK. Even the most brilliant interior designers were struggling to find sufficient space for the residents to breathe.

No after 10 years of rising prices a UK property market 'correction' was about four to five years' overdue, and that means it just has to be a big one, probably the biggest on record. We are at least back to the early 1990s, and a 40-50% retreat in prices is on the cards.

It will not happen all at once. From 1991 to 1993 UK house prices fell remorselessly under the pressure of surging interest rates, and the expected bounce back never happened – until 1996. So what has gone up will take quite a long time to come down.

The fact that interest rates are nothing like as high as in the 1990s makes no difference, because actual house prices are so much higher than they were then. Now we face a market that is coming to terms with reality and which will panic in the reverse direction.

That is what the 41% fall in mortgage applications during December means. Imagine the impact of a 41% fall in customers on any market. A collapse in mortgage demand can mean only one thing for house prices.

It is self-fulfilling. As soon as a customer believes a price is falling they will wait until it does, and then perhaps decide to wait for a further fall.

So what do you do if you still own UK property? You can either choose to ride-out the cycle and enjoy the rise in rentals that such a collapse in house sales will produce. Or you could decide to cut and run, perhaps throwing your home into an auction.

Property is a long-term investment – and some would say the definition of a long-term investment is one that has gone wrong – so the option of riding-out the storm may be attractive if you can afford to do it, and wait until the property cycle comes around again.

However, if your finances are overstretched then taking-it-on-the-chin now may prove less expensive than agonizing for another year or two before doing the same thing.

The danger is that what we have seen so far is just the tip of an iceberg. When an investment bubble bursts in a major asset class it is not something that you want to get caught up in. Remember the NASDAQ crash of 2000 and the massive losses on Internet stocks?

So a cool assessment of the outlook is called for by UK home buyers who got caught up in the collective illusion that you can not loose on buying bricks-and-mortar, despite the very clear and painful experience of the early 1990s.

Again we saw the madness of crowds in an investment mania – and watch for the UK government to cut and run for an early General Election before people fully realize what is happening.

http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/51523.html
 
41% reduction in mortgage applications in December!!! My God! that is an amazing statistic. I would hate to be neg gearing over there right now...interesting times ahead for the Brits.

For those relatively new to property investing and are neg geared, i hope you have a high sleep at night tolerance.
 
What has negative gearing got to do with it!! If you are a buy and hold investor property prices could half and it makes not one iota to your cashflow position, assuming rents don't reduce and interest rates don't rocket up.
 
Assuming??

Wouldnt be great paying money out of your pocket every month for an asset thats worth half its value than when you bought it. Now thats what i call intelligent investing :D

If you ever need to sell a property or two for whatever reason that might arise, like not being able to keep up the negative geared interest payments or a rise in interest rates, youre gone.

I know in the long long term it will come back but what fun in the meantime.
 
But negative gearing doesn't mean you have to paying money out of your pocket each month!! I have a few negative geared properties and with the rent income plus tax advantages less outgoing interest payments and other bits and pieces they are actually CASHFLOW POSITIVE! They actually make me money each month. You are in the same situation if property prices fell by half say if you were positive or negative geared. You underlying asset has decreased in value. If you had to sell in either circumstances it would probably hurt.
 
OK lets not split hairs and be pedantic about this. The definition of negative gearing usually means you are paying out more on a property than you are receiving in rent. I dislike getting into the fine minutiae of property inevsting.

The type of cashflow you are referring to that relies on non cash deductions...etc..only works well when you are in a high tax bracket, if thats not the case forget it.

The fact is if you are paying out money and you cant keep up the payments and need to sell youre in trouble. If your pos geared by a bit more than 20c a month you mostly ride out most eventualities.

An analogy is owning a share that pays a decent yield of say 6%. You dont care what the share price is doing because you are interested in the yield to pay the margin lend costs, knowing that eventually long term the share price will rise.

If the yield is say 2% then you are buying for cap. growth and then you do care what the share price is doing and if the share price has halved then you'll be concerned. Its investing 101.
 
QUOTE: I dislike getting into the fine minutiae of property inevsting.

Well i'm afraid it is all part of it! And it is not splitting hairs. I have both negative and positive geared property. They are all cashflow positive. My rents have increased nicely over the last 12 months, so all are now even more so! But of course you are right if you were heavily negative geared and and it was costing a sizeable sum each month to support a property that was decreasing in value AND you had to sell. If you don't need to sell and hang on for the long term, as with shares, you will be rewarded. I went through the sharemarket "correction", kept most and they are now worth a fair bit more than I paid for them. No different to property.
 
The UK property crisis in the early 90's ws the result of two things - interest rates that rocketed up way too quickly and plummeting house prices. It meant that many investors who had been CF+ became CF- and simultaneously achieved negative equity in their houses. That was a true housing crash.

Only a moron would say that it can't happen again or that it can't happen here. BUT. Think for a moment - homebuyers who have bought with jumbo mortgages and first homebuyers who have borrowed to the limit only need a small interest rise to radically affect purchasing decisions to slow down the economy. So I don't see it happening any time soon.

I admit that if I was CG-oriented I'd be selling right about now. However, I ain't. And if I was CG-oriented I would have sold at what I identified as the peak of the market (mid to late 2003). Oops.
 
Actually the UK rental property "buy to let" market has some fresh news that may cause it to rise again at least in the short-term- the government has just announced new tax perks starting in April 2006 that mean that one will be able to buy rental property or even one's PPOR using one's personal pension and therefore get tax relief on it. (if PPOR you would have to pay rent to your pension fund yourself). The pension fund will have to pay stamp duty but there will be no CGT and no tax on the profits (with a limit of up to 1.5 million pounds in the fund).
Billed as a huge taxgive-away to higher earners and not what one expects from a Labour government here. I will be looking into it in more detail over the coming year.

Also, not so many people negatively gear over here, as it's harder to gear yourself up. At least not officially, as you need a 20% deposit and a rental income that will cover your payments in order to get a buy-to-let mortgage, the potential rental usually being assessed by an agent I think.
People have got around that by lying about their income and using management agents to provide their rental assessment who lie about the potential rental income. These are some of the ones who may suffer.

Personally it would be in my interest for the much talked of crash to occur (I wish :) ), but I can't see it happening. Houses in the village (population 2500) where I currently rent are still selling at the asking price without even having to advertise.

Harpic
 
I dream of a UK property crash - regret selling my flat in 2000 and I would like it back!

the earlier points over CF+ vs CF-... I too am confused why people that have CF+ property feel so immune from a crash. To ignore the plummeting value of the asset and focus on the cashflow and say its all ok is madness.
 
Ausprop said:
I dream of a UK property crash - regret selling my flat in 2000 and I would like it back!

the earlier points over CF+ vs CF-... I too am confused why people that have CF+ property feel so immune from a crash. To ignore the plummeting value of the asset and focus on the cashflow and say its all ok is madness.

I think there is confusion between +ve geared, -ve geared and CF+ and CF-.
My argument is that in certain circumstances (and as was said before, if you are in the higher tax bracket), then you can be still CF+ and -ve geared.
It would not matter whether you were very highly CF+ or CF- a plummeting asset value, and here we are focusing on property, is of course a concern. But unless you are a speculator, a prudent property investor looks at the big picture and the long term benefits and if property is chosen wisely, and as past history has shown will provide good returns over time.
 
Ausprop said:
I dream of a UK property crash - regret selling my flat in 2000 and I would like it back!

the earlier points over CF+ vs CF-... I too am confused why people that have CF+ property feel so immune from a crash. To ignore the plummeting value of the asset and focus on the cashflow and say its all ok is madness.

I agree with ya there. When the price of a property you own falls your loosing money no matter what your perception is.
 
likewow said:
An analogy is owning a share that pays a decent yield of say 6%. You dont care what the share price is doing because you are interested in the yield to pay the margin lend costs, knowing that eventually long term the share price will rise.

If the yield is say 2% then you are buying for cap. growth and then you do care what the share price is doing and if the share price has halved then you'll be concerned. Its investing 101.
I'd call that analogy a prime subject for "Going Broke 101". Buying shares on margin and not being concerned with the price movement as long as you have a yield higher than your interest costs.
 
Ausprop said:
I dream of a UK property crash - regret selling my flat in 2000 and I would like it back!

the earlier points over CF+ vs CF-... I too am confused why people that have CF+ property feel so immune from a crash. To ignore the plummeting value of the asset and focus on the cashflow and say its all ok is madness.

Im not saying ignoring the plummeting value of the asset but the idea is to not have to sell at those times.

If a person -for whatever reason- cant make the interest payments by neg gearing they will have to sell their asset at greatly reduced price. If you can hold the asset through bad times by pos gearing you can rely on profiting from good times and having the rent covering the interest payments goes along way toward that.

Bad econonomic times and property cycles are inevetiable and i know i would rather be cashflow pos. the neg. geared during these times.
 
WaySolid said:
I'd call that analogy a prime subject for "Going Broke 101". Buying shares on margin and not being concerned with the price movement as long as you have a yield higher than your interest costs.

I disagree. As long as you margin only 2/3 of your shares and avoid a call and the company is not going out of business -blue chips only- (yes i know blue chips can go out of business but lets not get silly about it), you can actually buy more at the reduced price to increase your % yield, knowing that the share will rise eventually. Unless of course the company is in terminal decline but you wouldnt be buying shares in that company for starters and they probabaly wouldnt be paying dividends if they were in that position.

When the share price does recover you can expect high yields at the 8%-12% level from your averaged share price. Its the only time 'averaging down' your price is acceptable.

Ive done it and plenty of successful investors follow this strategy.
 
Poor analogy

likewow said:
I disagree. As long as you margin only 2/3 of your shares and avoid a call and the company is not going out of business -blue chips only- (yes i know blue chips can go out of business but lets not get silly about it), you can actually buy more at the reduced price to increase your % yield, knowing that the share will rise eventually. Unless of course the company is in terminal decline but you wouldnt be buying shares in that company for starters and they probabaly wouldnt be paying dividends if they were in that position.

When the share price does recover you can expect high yields at the 8%-12% level from your averaged share price. Its the only time 'averaging down' your price is acceptable.

I've done it and plenty of successful investors follow this strategy.

So presumably the negatively geared property investor can just use the same low LVR strategy and be perfectly placed to avoid any changes in the economic enviroment.

Can you tell me one well known investor who buys shares on margin then averages down when the share price falls, or who advocates this strategy (besides yourself)?
 
WaySolid said:
So presumably the negatively geared property investor can just use the same low LVR strategy and be perfectly placed to avoid any changes in the economic enviroment.

Can you tell me one well known investor who buys shares on margin then averages down when the share price falls, or who advocates this strategy (besides yourself)?


If a property investor was using a low LVR strategy he wouldnt be neg gearing, thats if i understood that correctly.

Who said anything about a 'known' investors? I said successful investors and i know a few that have used it as it is a valid strategy.

The strategy is used for a yield rather than growth play. But with all yield plays (including pos. geared property) the growth does come eventually.

Who advocates it? One very well known person i know of is Alan Hull from Actvest who advocates it for asset class shares rather than trading/investing shares. The point is you are buying the asset for the yield or income and are not really concerned with the share price, only if the opportunity to buy more at a lower price to increase your eventual yield.
 
Last edited:
likewow said:
If a property investor was using a low LVR strategy he wouldnt be neg gearing, thats if i understood that correctly.

Who said anything about a 'known' investors? I said successful investors and i know a few that have used it as it is a valid strategy.

The strategy is used for a yield rather than growth play. But with all yield plays (including pos. geared property) the growth does come eventually.

Who advocates it? One very well known person i know of is Alan Hull from Actvest who advocates it for asset class shares rather than trading/investing shares. The point is you are buying the asset for the yield or income and are not really concerned with the share price, only if the opportunity to buy more at a lower price to increase your eventual yield.
A property investor can be negatively geared with a low LVR say 66%, think of low yielding resi property. It was your analogy between property and shares, not mine. Were you using an example of 66.6% for the share gearing? (2/3 shares??) The most my margin lenders give is 70% and that is only on a smaller range of shares. So that is hardly giving you much room for your averaging down play. Would it make sense to compare the property investor with the share investor if they were playing with completely different LVR's?

Can you please tell me where Alan Hull advocates averaging down when you are buying shares on margin! I understood he was trading trends longer term and would imagine he has very strict rules for stopping loss, though I haven't read any of his books.

Buying shares on margin because they are "solid blue chips" for the yield and not being concerned with the price, then buying more if the price falls is a very interesting strategy. I'm amazed if Alan Hull advocates anything like that.
 
Last edited:
WaySolid said:
A property investor can be negatively geared with a low LVR say 66%, think of low yielding resi property. It was your anology between property and shares, not mine. Were you using an example of 66.6% for the share gearing? (2/3 shares??) The most my margin lenders give is 70% and that is only on a smaller range of shares. So that is hardly giving you much room for your averaging down play. Would it make sense to compare the property investor with the share investor if they were playing with completely different LVR's?

Can you please tell me where Alan Hull advocates averaging down when you are buying shares on margin! I understood he was trading trends longer term and would imagine he has very strict rules for stopping loss, though I haven't read any of his books.

Buying shares on margin because they are "solid blue chips" for the yield and not being concerned with the price, then buying more if the price falls is a very interesting strategy. I'm amazed if Alan Hull advocates anything like that.

As far as neg gearing with an LVR of 66% being possible, well anything is possible but lets stay within the realms of sensible investing.

As you know the reason for putting a high deposit (33%) into a property purchase would be to lower the repayments to at least be neutral geared and hopefully positive. Anyone that neg gears after putting in 1/3 cost of a low yield (high priced) property wouldnt be called a sensible investor imho and probabaly has more money than sense.

You sound surprised that such a well regarded investor as Alan Hull does advocate that strategy and you are proved wrong. He does advocate it and just because you havnt heard of the strategy doesnt mean it doesnt exist or isnt good. Look at his course notes around page 36/37 i think. They are available from his web page.

http://www.alanhull.com/download/download.html
 
Back
Top