Skip to main content

Now the Crisis really begins

The UK property market is unusual. Firstly, owning property is considered the norm: Britain did not have the wrenching changes caused by the second world war that gave a folk memory to much of the rest of Europe of losing everything as borders shifted to and fro. Secondly, the proprietorial feeling of "his home is his castle" made home ownership the social norm. Latterly, as Sterling devalued, Property prices through the 1970s stayed stable in real terms, but gave the illusion of go-go returns. In the 1980s, as inflation cooled and the Pound stabilised, a real boom set in. In the end the boom became a mania. Even after a crash that was largely caused by poor quality mortgages, the UK property market has continued to climb. Now, despite the deliberate attempt to support the mortgage market as well as the wider corporate debt market through ultra-low interest rates and "quantitative easing", the various ratios measuring "affordability" of housing look a bit stretched. If we took interest rates at the 5% that is the average base rate for the Bank of England since it was founded in 1694, then valuation measures are historically stretched.

So, you might have thought that the news of a one month fall in UK house prices would be greeted with something of a shrug. In fact, as we know, and despite the fact that prices still remain (slightly) ahead over the year, there was rather a feeling of shock. The fact is that the Brits are still in deep denial over what has happened to them. Over the course of an economic cycle, inefficiencies and imbalances build up, and eventually it takes a recession to clear inventory, and force restructuring, and that is certainly what has been happening in the corporate sector. In UK residential property, however, there are still significant distortions. Although we are told that there is a shortage of property, it is still estimated that there are 700,000 empty properties in the country. Furthermore, the credit-fed boom in the housing market is coming to an end as the British banks are forced to deal with the consequences of their own profligate lending. The availability of cheap finance has fallen substantially.

Then there is the consequences of the UK government intervention in the banking market. Britain has essentially doubled its national debt and is now running record deficits at levels barely seen even in time of war. Unless the British government can cut the deficit very quickly, it will face drastically increased interest charges and far more difficult spending decisions within 2-3 years. The coalition really has no alternative but to drastically slash the budget. The consequences will take a lot of money out of the economy and in the short run will probably increase debt still faster. But whatever any government says about the current situation there is one unpleasant truth: major cuts are needed, and given the growth in the public sector over the past few years, this means a substantial increase in unemployment.

So there you have it: increasing unemployment coupled with a reduced availability of mortgages means a down swing in the UK housing market from their recent highs.

So how low can it go?

Some of the rise in prices is clearly the result of a classic speculative bubble: people buying-to-let, people doing up older properties for sale- one only has to see the plethora of housing programmes on British television to see a speculative mania in full cry. Of course people do need to have a roof over their heads, but in many other countries that roof would be as likely to be rented as to be sold. There is of course a similar property market to the UK: the US, and here the omens are not good. it is difficult to talk about national averages, but several US regional markets have seen price falls of between 20% and 40%. Even that would only take UK property prices down to the levels of the late 1990s. It may well be that housing suffers a market capitulation, once prices start to fall, and we could go from housing bubble to housing panic.

Even if it does not work out like that, it is hard to be enthusiastic about UK property as an investment. The IMF continues to argue that UK property prices remain substantially over stretched. It seems inevitable, despite every hope to the contrary, that a correction is looming. After all it has happened virtually everywhere- now most spectacularly of all in Ireland. The bursting of the Irish property bubble has been brutal and has destroyed the Irish banking system, and quite possibly even the credit of the Irish Republic itself. Given the large presence of Irish investors in the UK, it would be surprising if their forced withdrawal from the UK market did not have a substantial cooling effect.

OK, I am talking my book: I sold my London flat last year and I have now relocated to Tallinn, where prices fell 60% over two years and where valuation measures now look highly discounted compared to the neighbouring Finnish market. I may return one day, but I have clearly taken the risk that London prices continue to fly and that I am essentially shut out of the housing market, at least in the South East of England. However I think that this is a risk I am prepared to take- the upside is probably low, while the downside is potentially very large indeed. This is one unusual market that I do not see the profit in playing.


Lord Blagger said…
Then there is the consequences of the UK government intervention in the banking market. Britain has essentially doubled its national debt and is now running record deficits at levels barely seen even in time of war.


What are the consequences of the intervention?

There are two, QE and the cost of nationalisation.

QE is basically repoing bank assets, with a haircut. Ie. The government has lent banks money with a given interest rate, secured against assets. It lends less than the value of the assets, the haircut. So unless there is fraud on the valuation, there is no cost.

That just leaves the NR, the B&Bs, the non casino banks that went bust. The sort doing the nice savings and mortgage business. ie. Vince is barking mad when he thinks the UK banks that went bust were investment banks.

Here the losses are around the 22-23 billion on current mark to markets.

In comparison, the total government debts are around the 5,000 billion mark when you include pensions[1]. The deficit is 160 bn a year.

So its not the banks. That's just a distraction from government creating a boogey man that isn't them. When the banks were taken over, Labourites were banging on about how they were going to make cash from them. You can't make money and blame them at the same time unless you've been on the funny pills

[1] The 770 bn figure for civil service pensions as of 2008 mentioned on the news last night is a scam. It was 775 bn quite a few years ago, and with all the spending and new government jobs, its not going to drop, is it? Watson Wyatt put it at 1.2 trillion. If you take the previous figure, and compound at a low interest rate, you also get 1.2 trillion.
Liberal Eye said…
It may be the 'Wil E Coyote' moment of British banking when, despite the govt's best efforts, the market crashes with incalculable consequences for bank balance sheets and the rest of us.

Will the banks be bust again? Will they call on the Govt guarantees?

We certainly live in interesting times.
Jim Baird said…
"Unless the British government can cut the deficit very quickly, it will face drastically increased interest charges and far more difficult spending decisions within 2-3 years."

This is untrue. The British government is a sovereign currency issuer in a floating rate regime. As such, the interest rate it ays is not market-determined, but administered by the BoE. For such an entity, there are no purely financial limits to spending or borrowing - the only limits are those of the real economies ability to produce.

For more info about the modern monetary system and it's applicability to government deficits, go to
SYHUK said…
Just like the slow take supply of property in the UK, buyers and sellers remain cautious making the market fairly static. Good thing that stimulus programs such reduction in VAT, interest rates and banking bailout helped homeowners to be in-control in the recession period.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo