HOUSE PRICES ARE CRASHING

tinyurl.com/55eke

House prices showed their biggest fall for four years last month, the latest sign that the property boom could be over.

Halifax reported that prices dropped 1.1 per cent in October. This knocked about £2,000 off the value of the average home and dragged the annual rate of house price inflation down to 18.5 per cent.

The country's largest mortgage lender said prices had now fallen by an average of 0.4 per cent in the past three months.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates five times since last November.

Martin Ellis, chief economist at the Halifax, said: "The interest rate hikes have taken impetus away from housing demand and first-time buyers continue to be held back." He expects prices to fall further.

The gloomy outlook for the property market helped to persuade the Bank's monetary policy committee to hold interest rates yesterday at

4.75 per cent.

Ed Stansfield, at Capital Economics, said he believed "the speed of the slowdown" in house prices would "reinforce the growing belief that interest rates have peaked".

The latest figures back up several reports suggesting that the number of new mortgages approved by lenders slipped by up to 20 per cent between April and October.

There have also been reports that estate agents and removals companies have begun to cut back on staff.

Economists at Goldman Sachs now expect house prices to fall between 10 and 15 per cent in the next 18 months.

"Hard data are now bearing out what surveys and anecdotal evidence before that have been indicating for some months," said Ben Broadbent, an economist at the investment bank.

Other economists ruled out a housing market crash and said that prices were more likely to stagnate than slump.

There was some good news, with the Halifax saying that the "fundamentals" of the market remained sound. "Employment and household incomes, two very important drivers, continue to grow," said the bank, adding that the small number of available houses, especially in the South, "will also underpin the market".

The Halifax said that the property boom had resulted in "the value of housing assets exceeding the value of outstanding mortgage balances by £2,200 billion at the end of 2003.

"This represented a more-than-doubling in housing equity since 1998 and was well above the £900 billion at the end of 1989."

However, there are "tentative" signs that the ratio of house prices to earnings may have peaked.

Houses cost 5.57 times average earnings in August, compared with 5.63 times in July.

Meanwhile, the recent interest rate rises have increased mortgage payments to 19 per cent of the annual earnings of new borrowers in the past year, up from 14 per cent.

Nevertheless, in 1990, the figure was 34 per cent.

F P D Savills, the estate agent, said borrowers were taking out smaller mortgages, with the average loan to first-time buyers now representing 77 per cent of the value of the property.

"It is perhaps no surprise," said a spokesman for the estate agent, adding: "While many first-time buyers would probably like to take a 90 per cent or 95 per cent loan, they would simply be unable to service the monthly mortgage costs."

The monthly cost for someone paying off a 95 per cent loan on an averagely priced property on a six per cent mortgage is currently £1,050 a month and for London it is £1,600 a month.

Reply to
sam1967
Loading thread data ...

I wonder by what reasoning your brain moved from statements such as;

"Economists at Goldman Sachs now expect house prices to fall between 10 and 15 per cent in the next 18 months." and, "Other economists ruled out a housing market crash and said that prices were more likely to stagnate than slump."

to an all capitals subject of ; "HOUSE PRICES ARE CRASHING" ...with a particular emphasis on the word 'crashing'.

When you grow up are you planning to be a journalist on the Daily Mail perhaps?

Reply to
Tumbleweed

why deny the evidence ? the prices are falling.

Reply to
sam1967

Why evade the question?.....I'll make it easy for you. Where in that article does it talk about a house price crash (other than where it says there wont be one?)

Reply to
Tumbleweed

I am saying there will be a crash and I will be right, regards

Reply to
sam1967

wrote

... that looks like scope for further house price increases of: 34/19-1 79%!

[If people could afford 34% in 1990, they can afford 34% now too.]
Reply to
Tim

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Tim said

They couldn't!

And they probably still can't. However we are a long way from a 'crash' situation, unless everyone decides they want to sell up and rent, or sell up and live in a tent, or sell up and move to mainland Europe. Of course some people (typically those interested in acquiring one or more houses) would love to 'talk up' a crash. 8>.

Reply to
GSV Three Minds in a Can

Not quite so, I'm afraid. People now have additional costs, such as satellite/cable TV, internet and mobile phone subscriptions, and additional capital costs (microwave; PC; mobile; ...).

I'll grant that, if sufficiently motivated, people can and will manage without paying for these things, but they do take up a significant percentage of income these days.

What they can't manage without paying is the direct and indirect tax burden (local + national), which is very markedly higher than it was in

1990.

And it gets worse. Because of the house price bubble we've been experiencing over the past few years, there's now no chance of a basic rate taxpayer being able to afford a first mortgage. Two BRTPs buying as a couple still wouldn't make it, unless they're buying a rabbit hutch in need of updating. Now, to buy the average home in the UK, your sample couple's got to have at least one higher-rate taxpayer, so you've the additional income taxes (not to mention the increased NI) at the higher rate, too.

Ain't no way you'll be able to spare 34% of gross income any more, for a first mortgage. Sorry.

Jon

Reply to
Jon S Green

Whew, that's all right then ! Had me worried for a minute there.

I thought going back to the days when only FTBs earning a third more than the average salary could afford to buy was a retrograde step for the housing market. It just goes to show how much I know.

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

Inflation was a lot higher then, so it was only 34% for a few years before pay rises made the payments a lot more affordable.

People could struggle along for a few years not repairing or replacing anything and so on. Now, when they have to do it for a lot longer, it isn't so easy.

The other difference is that at the moment interest rates are just above the low point on the cycle. It wouldn't take much of an increase in interest rates to push mortgage repayments to 34% of income. The interest rate wouldn't be that high by historical standards.

And of course, they couldn't afford 34% then.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

Credit card debts were lower in 1990.

Reply to
John Redman

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Are you saying that sam1967's snipped article has incorrect figures?!

AIUI, the proportion was even higher than 34% in the 1970's - and yes, it

*was* paid so (in other words) *could* be "afforded".

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

I'd suggest that's rubbish. If people stopped "needing" all those things that were expensive luxuries 30 years ago, they'd easily be able to afford

50% of salary on housing.
Reply to
Tim

"John Redman" wrote

Good point - making it even *harder* for people to afford 34% in 1990, and even *easier* for them to afford 34% now.

[Had they paid for more of their previous purchases (prior to 1990) on credit cards, & kept a balance, they'd have more money "leftover" to pay their mortgages in 1990!]
Reply to
Tim

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

I said that they *could* afford it - not that they'd necessarily *decide* to.

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Many people say that they are just now "peaking" at the moment !

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Agreed - but wouldn't that then tend (in the medium-long term) to give higher inflation, removing your earlier point?

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Are you saying that the figures sam1967 quoted are incorrect?!

Reply to
Tim

"Jon S Green" wrote

That's the problem with people nowadays.

"I *must* have this, I *must* have that. It's not fair I can't afford the other" !!!

"Jon S Green" wrote

Rubbish. I do so myself!

Reply to
Tim

wrote

So you are retracting the subject of this thread?

You are now saying that there *will* be a crash, not that it has already started ("are crashing") ??

Reply to
Tim

How on earth did you persuade your mortgage company to lend you that much money? What happens if interest rates go up a couple of percent? Can you afford it then?

cd

Reply to
criticaldensity

As long as they're not crippled by student debts.

cd

Reply to
criticaldensity

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Tim said

Depends on your definition of 'afforded' I guess .. They couldn't save enough for their old age, they'd go broke if they had pay 34% for mrtgages for more than a year or two, and they (we) were eating tranquillizers by the handful to stop from worrying about it. By my definition they couldn't afford it. I was there, paying it, and I know =I= couldn't afford it.

You need to get out more .. we were talking gross salary IIRC. After taxes average people only HAVE about 60%-70% of their gross salary, from which they have to eat, travel, get clothed, and suchlike.

Reply to
GSV Three Minds in a Can

"criticaldensity" wrote

Quite easily - it was within 3x salary.

"criticaldensity" wrote

You tell me what I'll be earning then, and I'll let you know! ;-)

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.