House Price Crash___No Soft Landing

Bloombergs are getting bearish on house prices .............

U.K. House-Price `Soft Landing' May Be a Dream: Matthew Lynn June 22 (Bloomberg)

-- For the past year, the favorite metaphor of central bankers and economists who follow the U.K.'s fevered housing market has been the ``soft landing.''

It is a nice phrase, conjuring up an image of a plane coming gently onto the runway, before everyone happily disembarks.

Now it is replaced by grimmer aeronautical metaphors: storms, turbulence, and even crash.

The ``soft landing'' in the U.K. housing market has been canceled. A sharp decline is now more likely. And a housing slump may well lead the economy into its first recession this decade.

The Bank of England now faces a dilemma on interest rates. Having steered the real-estate market down with five rate increases from November 2003 through August 2004, it may soon be trying to pump it up again.

Other central banks are watching with interest. It looks like this experiment in taming house-price inflation is going awry.

``There is certainly some pressure building in the market,'' said Milan Khatri, chief economist at the U.K.'s Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in London, in a telephone interview. ``What we need to see now is whether that is just a response to the interest-rate rises of last year, or whether there is something else going on.''

The noises coming out of the housing market in the past few weeks have been increasingly worrying.

1992 Crash

Last week, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said the number of estate agents and surveyors who reported falling house prices exceeded those announcing increases by 49 percentage points for the quarter through May. That figure compared with 41 points in the three months through April. The result, based on 315 responses and adjusted for seasonal factors, was the weakest since November 1992.

Anyone familiar with the history of U.K. house prices will know that

1992 was the nadir of the last big property crash, when homes lost as much as a third of their value.

Other signals in the real-estate market point to prices cooling.

This week, property Web site Rightmove said June house-price inflation in England and Wales was just 0.2 percent, a five-month low. And HBOS Plc, Britain's biggest mortgage lender, has said house prices fell 0.6 percent in May, the most in seven months.

``It seems probable that we are still only in the early stages of a protracted housing market correction,'' said Ed Stansfield, an economist at Capital Economics Ltd. in London, in a report this month.

Unemployment

Only a robust economy can moderate a house-price decline and the U.K.'s isn't looking so healthy anymore.

Last week, the government said jobless claims rose for a fourth month in May, the longest stretch of increases in 12 years. The last time unemployment had that kind of sustained advance was in the trough of the last property crash.

The British Retail Consortium said June 7 that U.K. stores open at least a year had their worst May sales decline on record. Meanwhile, a widening government deficit will probably prompt tax increases and spending cuts. None of that suggests a turnaround in the economic outlook.

It isn't hard to sketch out the crash. Store sales slump, so people lose jobs. Their houses are repossessed when they can't meet the mortgage payments. That floods the market with properties -- at precisely the same time the buyers have disappeared.

Every market lives on momentum. It seldom stops where it should -- on the way up or down. As prices fall, confidence evaporates. The U.K. housing market seems set to repeat that well- established pattern.

20 Percent Increases

Nobody would question that the Bank of England was right to try to cool a fevered market. House-price increases of 20 percent or more a year were unsustainable. By raising the benchmark lending rate to the current 4.75 percent, it limited inflation.

Still, asset markets are hard to control precisely because they are so volatile. Once a trend is established, it takes on a life of its own.

For the U.K., a quarter-point cut in interest rates later this year may help stabilize the housing market. If it doesn't, something nasty will happen.

Soft landings in choppy weather are tough -- both for pilots and central bankers.

To contact the writer of this column: Matthew Lynn in London at snipped-for-privacy@bloomberg.net.

formatting link
"

Reply to
crowleyalastair
Loading thread data ...

In message , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk writes

It was quite clear that the market was slowing before the rate was increased to 4.75%. In fact, based on reports from the market in the South, I could feel it coming at 4.25% and, had rates stopped there, I think the market would have slowed and we would have had the soft landing we could do with.

Given the supposed experience of the people around the MMC table, and previous statements that interest rates have a delayed effect on inflation of around 18 months, it shouldnt have been too difficult to let things settle before doing what they did.

A quarter point, or even a half point, immediately, would sort things out. Prices are now high enough for people to be thinking twice before buying, even if rates are reduced as above.

Leaving things alone is truly head in the sand stuff, and the chickens will be coming home to roost, in a flurry of feathers

Reply to
Richard Faulkner

I've never believed in the soft landing but anyone familiar with the history of UK house prices will know that the end of dual miras in August 1989 was the nadir of the last big property crash.

Reply to
davidof

Never really understood the fuss - MIRAS wasnt worth that much was it?

The race was on to save the tax relief on the interest on £30,000 IIRC

Reply to
Richard Faulkner

"Richard Faulkner" wrote

Also, never really understood the fuss over stamp duty thresholds - the difference in cost (including stamp duty) of a house at 270K (103% = 278K) and one at 250K (101% = 253K) isn't really that much more than the difference in the asking prices (just 5K more).

So why do people say "I wouldn't pay 270K because of stamp duty - knock 20K off the price" when the price only has to come down **5K** to pay for the extra SD?? [101% of 270K = 273K (not possible, but presumably acceptable to the buyer);

103% of 265K = 273K, the same.]
Reply to
Tim

Never underestimate people's stupidity ! I think this may be the reason why I fairly frequently see that the vendor is offering to pay the duty (when the property is around the 260-280K mark) - no doubt to avoid being beaten down below 250K.

Reply to
John Laird

"John Laird" wrote

Do they offer to pay the whole SD, or just the 'extra' 2% ?

Reply to
Tim

Well you have to remember that in somewhere like the Thames Valley you could buy family homes for under 100K so it seemed like a big deal to a lot of people at the time. I shared a house with an estate agent and he said it was the most amazing feeding frenzy up to the dual miras cut of date in August then... nothing, the phone stopped ringing, customers stopped coming in, he had to keep going out onto the street to make sure that there were still people in the world.

I was out of the country from September that year until 1993. When I returned (to Reading) the change was breath taking - dozens of boarded up shops that were once estate agents and computer recruitment firms.

A hpc will be a good buying opportunity for cash investors and will return the market to some sort of sanity.

Reply to
davidof

I think the Australian housing market is falling ahead of us, has their central bank cut rates?

Roland.

Reply to
Roland Watson

All of it, as I read the details.

Reply to
John Laird

In message , Tim writes

Its the not wanting to pay Gordon Brown syndrome.

eg at 249000 HMG get 2490 and it costs the buyer 251490 at 260000 HGM gets 7800 and it costs the buyer 267800

So an increase in price of 11k costs the buyer 16k, 5k of which goes straight to the government.

Reply to
me

You're far too objective

imo, it all boils down to sentiment. The public merely uses some subjectively objective measure to justify their feelings.

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

" snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net" wrote

So you'd rather pay 251,490 for a house worth 249,000 (ie immediately *lose*

2,490 on your 'net worth'), than pay 267,800 for a house worth (say) 270,000 (with a 10,000 'discount', ie immediately *increase* your 'net worth' by 2,200) -- just to pay less tax??

I'd much rather get a 10K discount and pay 5K more tax (better off overall) ...

Reply to
Tim

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.