House price crash has started says economist

Economist predicted previous recession

House prices crash looming

By Iain Harrison. The Sunday Post.

THE economist who first predicted Britain's 1992 recession warned yesterday that the next major economic crash is looming. Fred Harrison claims Britain's house price bubble will burst by 2007, sparking a savage depression in 2010.

He says the slump will wipe a staggering £800 billion off the value of the nation's housing stock, with Scotland being particularly hard hit. Job losses Executive director of the Land Research Trust, Mr Harrison believes the knock-on effect will result in significant job losses. The fiscal expert has spent 25 years studying the economic cycles of the UK economy. In his 1983 book The Power In The Land he accurately predicted that Britain would be hit by recession nine years later.

Despite submitting his findings to the Thatcher government's treasury select committee, his concerns went unheeded. Harrison's analysis has revealed a remarkably consistent pattern. The country enjoys an economic peak every 18 years. But after the boom years comes the bust. Started already And he claims the drop in house prices has started already and will have fully hit within two years. While recession won't begin immediately, it will be here by 2010. "For 300 years, we've paid on average five per cent for a mortgage," he said. "That delivers a building cycle that lasts about 14 years. "Towards the end of each cycle speculators try to corner the market in land. "They then hold communities to ransom and make a killing by selling the land when people are desperate for it. "As a result a few people get very rich but the effect pushes house prices so high they became unaffordable. "So the housing industry shuts down, building firms go bust, people are sacked and the public stop spending money. "The initial 14-year cycle is followed by about four years of recession." Mr Harrison says the increasing trend towards re-mortgaging is one of the core problems of this boom-bust situation. "People withdraw all the equity in their houses which leads to a ?let's live beyond our means' psychology," he says. Large profits "This helps drive up prices and as a result people think they'll make large profits out of buying and selling so they trade up." According to Mr Harrison, consecutive UK governments have failed to solve the problem of economic booms and busts because economists refuse to take land prices into account when tracking inflation. "The solution is to remove taxes from people's wages so they're encouraged to be more productive," he insists. "People should be aware that the next house price crash will deliver negative equity on a massive scale, particularly in the Edinburgh area. "I would urge them to think very carefully about investing in the property market from now on or they may lose the shirts off their backs." Ed Stansfield, of Capital Economics, backs Mr Harrison's theories on the housing market but falls short of predicting an all-out recession. "We believe house prices peaked at the end of 2004 and by the end of

2007 we will see average prices fall by 20 per cent," he adds.

Boom Bust, published by Shepheard Walwyn, ISBN 0 85683 189 1, is launched tomorrow in Edinburgh at Blackwell's Bookshop, 6.30-7.30pm

formatting link

Reply to
crowley
Loading thread data ...

It would be interesting to know if he has sold his house and is living in rented accommodation :-)

Reply to
Tumbleweed

Why? - I own my house and have no debt on it. Why would I want to sell it and move to rented accomodation based on his prediction?

Reply to
Wireless Reader

In order to buy it back at 10% of its old value (like Japan)? :)

Reply to
Doug Ramage

Surely I would save the rental payments and buy a load of other houses at 10% of their value - when the time comes.

Reply to
Wireless Reader

With what? The value of your house ... that's now 10% of its previous price? ;-)

Jon

Reply to
Jon Green

To see if he is putting his money where his mouth is of course.

There was something similar about 18 montsh ago, some economics professor advised people (in a Times article) to sell up and move into rented because of a forthcoming house price crash , but it turned out he hadnt done so. himself.

Reply to
Tumbleweed

Put the money in the bank and use it to pay the rent on a place. At the rental yields you are getting at the moment in most places, it will go most of the way to covering it.

Then, when the prices do crash, you can buy the house back a lot cheaper and still have money left over in the bank.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

You can't define the length of a building cycle by the time it takes the compounded mortgage interest to equal the value of the original loan.

That's nonsensical.

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

Which is of course not possible... The housing market doesn't work like that, there's no or difficult substitution, if you've got a house you like living in and want to live in that is convenient for everything important to you, selling it is silly, because you can't buy it back...

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Ley

I was not necessarily meaning the same property - although that could be the case if the purchasers got one of those (instant negative equity) 125% mortgages.

Reply to
Doug Ramage

Seemed strange to me too. I went to his book launch last night and he gave a little speech outlining his idea. Unfortunately the place was full of political hacks of a green/socialist hue and all the questions were taken concerning his solution to housing boom and bust. Reading between the lines of his speech (I bought the book but found something else to do last night) this would be that taxation should be redirected towards some sort of land/property tax. Not much was really said on the finance side of it.

Another question I have is that if the boom/bust cycle is based on taxation being skewed away from land/property then why was this as effective as today when prior to 1900, the state's tax take was nearer

5% of GDP than the current 40%?

Perhaps once I've read the book...

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

"Daytona" wrote

I've only read the reviews and the odd precis, but I get the distinct impression that he's a bit of a Nostradamus, only able to predict things after they've happened. For instance, you need a very odd perspective to argue that there's a 14-year property cycle in this country. Prices are usually either rising or falling and the periodicity is more like 7 years than 14 - 1982 - 89, 1989 - 1996, 1996 - 2004.

Reply to
John Redman

"Doug Ramage" wrote

By the time you factor in the transaction costs of exiting and re-entering the market the return on risk starts to look a bit marginal.

If you had a 300,000 house and you sold it and moved into rented, you're looking at 1.75% plus VAT to the agent, plus legal costs, plus removal costs of probably 2,000 plus, more if you're in a cheaper area (more stuff in a bigger place). You then re-enter after n years paying 4% stamp duty, plus another lot of legal and moving costs. Total cost about 24,000, which is

8%. So only if you get an 8% correction do you even break even, and in a falling market you might need to save still mopre because I suspect rents might rise. ISTR buy to let started because rents were so strong compared to mortgage costs - tenants were paying a premium to be sheltered from capital losses.
Reply to
John Redman

In message , John Redman writes

Was 1982 a low, and 1996 the next low, or 1989 a high, and 2004/5 the next high? Looks like 14 years to me +/- ?

Reply to
Richard Faulkner

"Richard Faulkner" wrote

Yeah, roughly, but the more useful period to identify is the trend length and hence the rough moment of trend reversal. In telling us there's a

14-year cycle, he's not telling us very much at all - plus he is bending data to fit his model, because 1989 to 2005 is not 14 years.
Reply to
John Redman

Please post a review, his writing style in the Observer article was turgid bordering on unreadable.

Reply to
davidof

To be fair, a cycle is usually measured peak to peak or trough to trough and so will include one set of both rising and falling prices.

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

When folks talked about a 70 year K cycle, they didn't generally mean that they expected the next crash at market opening on 29th October 1999. I

Cycles are a rough guide to investors looking for a trend, not a tool that will enable them to squeeze the last nanosecond out of a boom.

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

Peak to peak in real terms

1949 - 1973 - 1980 - 1989 - 2005?

Peak to peak in nominal terms

1931 - 1947 - 1951 - 1981 - 1991 - 2005?

Trough to trough in real terms

1948 - 1955 - 1977 - 1982 -1995

Trough to trough in nominal terms

1934 - 1948 - 1954 - 1982 - 1992

(ODPM house prices & RPI)

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.