One of the ways people are finding to pay more for houses is to switch from the historical use of income multiples to the new measure of ‘affordability’. The former gives the wrong answer, but the latter is great. Progress is good, but it’s worth understanding. When I bought my first house in 1989 mortgage providers would qualify a prospective mortgagee by asking how much did they want to borrow as a proportion of their gross salary[ref]The rationale for gross salary was Mortgage Interest Relief At Source(MIRAS) allowed you to pay the interest from pre-tax salary. Barmy, I know, though notably the United States still has mortgage interest on residential property as tax-deductible I believe[/ref]. You’d typically get a mortgage of 3.5 times a single salary or 2.5 times joint salaries in the case of a couple.
These sound low today. To the extent of being unworkable at current house prices for most people. It made sense 30 years ago, because Britain had just come off a run of double digit interest rates, personal taxation was much higher (the personal allowance nowadays is over a third of the median salary of £26,000, it was lower relative to salaries in the past). It is instructive to observe the relative proportions of mortgage interest and capital repayments over the typical 25 year period at 10% interest rates and the current ~2% rates.
Which is much more like the canonical sudden rush of repayment towards the end that we used to know and love. When you tot up the total amount repaid, the 2% fellow pays 3*gross or 4* net salary, the 10% guy pays 7*gross or 9* net salary[ref]I have assumed the 3.5 times multiple applies to net salary since you don’t get MIRAS any more[/ref]
There’s clearly some case to be made for increasing the income multiple – provided that interest rates stay the same. After all, if we say I was paying the long-run British average of about 6% interest rates over my working life, then had I been earning the average wage, I’d have sunk 6*net/5* gross wages into my house[ref]I earned more than the median wage for nearly a lot of my working life, so this isn’t that bad. However, I am looking for the scale factor, the old mortgage income multiples were workable, many people have paid off their mortgages from then[/ref]. If it’s all different now, and low interest rates are here to stay, then it’s perfectly justified to sink twice as much into a house. In the end it’s what you pay over your working life that matters, and at lower interest rates the total amount paid is less.
So bring it on, let’s run at twice the income multiples that were lent to people 25 years ago. That’s 7* single income and 5* double incomes. Now 7* median single income will buy you my house I believe, so the residual 10% gives you room to may the parasitic costs of moving and all the hangers-on.
This isn’t recommendation or otherwise. Housing still rates as the greatest finance screw-up of my life, so what do I know 😉
Thing is, it’s all different now are the most dangerous words in finance. Secular changes takes years to take effect. QE can’t last for ever. If you’re looking to buy a house as a first time buyer, you may not like Buy-to-Letters who are essentially front-running your heart’s desire. But say what you like about them, they’ve probably got a fair awareness of the mortgage market.It’s the oldest law of the jungle – when the big beasts start looking nervous it’s worth knowing why…
Some of the BTL guys are running scared and fixing
And it appears some of them are running scared and remortgaging now. Had I bought just three years later, the Ermine would probably be a buy-to-letter with a deep belief in the value of housing rather than still feeling it was a Weapon of Mass Wealth destruction – one’s early experiences with an asset class tend to be formative. However, I have recently seen younger BTLers come a cropper with the usual problems, underestimating the effect of voids, and underestimating the chavviness and lack of character of some tenants. As a tenant years ago I only saw the lack of character of landlords, but it seems to cut all ways. The residential housing market seems to bring out a particularly nasty streak in the British psyche – buying and selling houses is pretty horrible experience too. BTL landlords seem to need significant capital resources, and preferably a number of BTL properties to average these lumpy setbacks.
It probably is a bit different now…
But not as much as to justify a doubling of price to earnings. 4 or 5 time single, maybe. The double salary premium might go up a little bit more – mothers return to work quicker now than they used to. Let us postulate that it’s all different now. Mortgages are given on an income multiple of 7 times single salary, but it is required that you have a 10% deposit (ie 90% of the purchase price is advanced to you). Sounds fair enough?
Let’s take a look at what your monthly repayments would be like, assuming you’re on a standard variable rate, ranging from the 1% it’s around now to the 14-16% at the high-water mark of what I saw in my mortgage career.
at 15% you’re paying out more than 90% of your net pay in mortgage. Nothing left to pay bills, council tax and you had better become a breatharian or start scavenging food from bins like Top Cat. Note that you don’t have to see sustained rates like this for several years. Just a couple of years of that can slaughter you unless you have significant savings behind you. It all boils down to the usual question.
I’ve been there – well less than that, but I’ve spent more than half my net pay on the mortgage.
If you’re going to start down that track then at least know what the enemy looks like. This has nothing to do with negative equity, it’s straight interest rates. You need to either have savings, live more frugally, or get a payment holiday. Those savings need to be about two years of running costs. Then it’s a fair gamble, because after two years of 15% interest rates Britain will look very different. The general misery would be such that some government would probably have to do whatever it takes to reduce them, or start dropping money from helicopters[ref]Milton Friedman, 1969 The Optimum Quantity of Money And Other Essays[/ref].
Your aim as that homeowner is to be still standing when all the people around you have been repossessed.
It can be done. But it’s rough being the house between two evicted properties. You do start to wonder when it’ll be your turn. It’s no fun at all…
Frugality is the solution there; by definition. If you were earning more then your earnings multiple would be lower. It’s not something that sits easily with expectations now. And God help you if you have any other debt.
Income multiples will matter again if interest rates rise to historical norms of ~6%. Mr putative 7 times net income multiple will be paying ~50% of his income on the mortgage.
This spreadsheet. I calibrated it against this calculator and derived the formula from Francis Webb’s Mortgage interest calculator template. [ref]I regret to say that I didn’t bother trying to understand the function, simply copied it and tested it against Monevator’s calculator. It was too nice a day to wrangle that sort of detail, so as long as there isn’t s systematic error across both sources it should be right :)[/ref]
I’m done with property now. Even after 25 years the thought of residential property as an asset class brings me out in hives 😉 Good luck all and be careful out there.
What was the dumbest thing an Ermine has ever done in personal finance?
I bought a house in 1989. With an endowment mortgage, a 20% deposit and a 10% interest-free loan from a credit card, which I paid back. The how isn’t the mistake, though it had errors. It’s the when. 1989, and early in my working life.
You can’t go wrong with property. everybody needs somewhere to live. Safe as houses
Bollocks, says the Ermine, with feeling
This is a story from a distant front line for first-time buyers in the first half of their working lives. No prediction about house prices is made or implied, because the market can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent. Most of us will only get three quarter-centuries in our lifetimes, and the first 25 years is wasted on learning how to drive the world, from the mewling and puking stage to young adult, ‘cos humans are slow learners with grand ambitions.
Of all the financial asset classes out there, residential property is exceptionally evil, because we buy the asset class in the first half of our working lives, with borrowed money. For the simple reason that we want the byproduct – it gives us somewhere to live.
If you’re over 35 and think Buy To Let when you hear “house” don’t bother reading this. You are much better capitalised than a FTB, you have more experience, you can make your own risk assessment, and quite frankly if it all goes titsup you have only yourself to blame.
The Ermine is the Ancient Mariner
In Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner the Wedding Guest hears, but does not understand. I was once that Wedding-Guest, in 1989 – people did suggest to me that it might be an unwise time to buy, what with all the frenzy of MIRAS1. But that’s the trouble with housing, you WANT IT, WANT IT, WANT IT so bad. RENT IS THROWING MONEY AWAY, MUST MUST MUST get on the HOUSING LADDER. So you lose your mind. If this tale is a warning for you, you will not heed it, such is the way. But like the Ancient Mariner, I’ll tell it anyway.
I’ve told it before in February when my original 25 year mortgage would have been due, but this one has added analysis to show just how badly it could have gone wrong. Imagine, for a moment, some starry-eyed young pup in the pub talking to his mates
“I’m going to borrow a shitload of money – five times my gross salary, if you please, and I am going to stick it on the stock market, in a FTSE100 tracker.”
Hopefully they’d wrestle him to the ground, or at least ask “are you crazy, man?”
Same pub, same bunch of mates, and he goes “I’m going to borrow five times my salary, and I’m going to buy a house”
And everybody around the table goes “hey that’s fantastic, congratulations you’re getting on the housing ladder, woot” and high fives him.
The Grauniad’s personable Jenn Ashworth tells us that by 31 she’s had 14 addresses. And she’s sick of it. Sorry, dahlink, it’s not that unusual. For an ermine that was
parents (SE london)
Southside (Sth Kensington halls of residence, now demolished)
Earl’s Court shared room three storeys up, gas appliances defective – you lit the oven throwing lighted matches into it
Knightsbridge bedsit sublet from someone who did a runner with three month’s rent. The ermine learns that people steal money
Different and crummier part of Earl’s Court
short stay with parents – 1 hour commute to work, then when I moved to the BBC a 3 hour commute to work. enough to get me out ASAP into
Acton Town house shared with four other guys, deposit stolen by landlord, shower powered off lighting circuit so I had to isolate before getting killed/burnt down.
Southampton student accommodation (I took time out to do an MSc)
Alperton shared with 2
Ealing 2 bedsit infested with black slugs. One month’s rent stolen by landlord
Ipswich digs 1
Ipswich digs 2
first Ipswich house this article is about. This is only the second time I had my own toilet and bathroom 😉
I was in my late 20s then. Having lots of addresses goes with the patch of being young 😉
How did buying a house all go wrong for me?
Let’s cast our mind back to what the world looked like in 1989. Nigel Lawson hadn’t discovered climate change or that money was to be had in denying it but he had discovered money, he was Chancellor. There had been a boom going on ever since the end of Thatcher’s first recession (1980-82), the young Ermine had switched jobs a few times as you do in your twenties and discovered that while London was a fantastic place to be young in I was never going to be able to buy a house unless I got a better job than design engineer for the BBC.
So I left to come to Suffolk and work for The Firm, at the time a premier research facility for a FTSE100 company. Fantastic place to work, the pay was better and houses were cheaper less expensive than in London.
Young ermine to world – what is this Boom and Bust you speak of? I have no experience of that, so it doesn’t happen…
You know how kids are absolutely convinced you can’t see them if they can’t see you? Well, that sort of thought error doesn’t always stop at 11. I graduated in 1982 into Thatcher’s first recession. All I had seen over my working life was an improving economy. I started in the pits of six months of unemployment as the economy slowly crawled from the wreckage, then getting the first real job, all around the gradual upswing was the backdrop of what I expected of the economy. So I rock up in 1989, and house prices are rising, the economy is booming, everybody is feeling chipper.
That sounds incredibly dumb, now. In fairness to my new colleagues, several of them did even highlight that possibly there might be distorting effects due to this policy which might be something to think about. However, in one’s late 20s you’re so flushed with the grand victory of having spent your first 25 years successfully getting a handle on how the world works. And you haven’t had the stuffing knocked out of you by discovering that your map of how the world works has holes, and by itself doesn’t track changes in the world. So you are smarter that everyone else and invincible. The good news for me was I made that class of mistake at the wheel of personal finance, rather than at the wheel of a car…
So I bought that house. With an endowment mortgage, if you please. Single man, no dependants, so the life insurance aspect of the endowment was worth sod all to me, and The Firm’s pension offered death lump sum anyway. A dead young Ermine would have been worth a lot of money to someone.
My parents, bless ’em, had done their bit for my financial enlightenment – although it seems that these days parents don’t bother to share the hows and whys of personal finance mine did. I knew how mortgages worked and what the difference between and endowment mortgage and a repayment mortgage was. Hell, I even knew what the NAV of an investment trust was and how it could be at a premium or a discount, though I wasn’t to use that knowledge for 20 years. And had been educated in no uncertain terms that an endowment mortgage was a dipstick sort of move. But hey, the LAUTRO saleswoman had pretty green eyes and how can you turn down the promise of a 3x lift on the expected endowment outcome3? It sounded good to me! That’s the trouble, you can know something but not understand it. You can teach knowledge, but you can’t teach wisdom, because wisdom is integrated knowledge. I had always seen things getting better throughout my working life, so I knew that house prices were always going to be rising relative to wages, and I feared getting left out.
Now some of that knowledge was correct, but not for the reasons I understood. House prices were rising relative to wages because of the increasing entry of women into the workforce since the 1980s. Prior to that, a household typically used the man’s wages to pay the mortgage from, but all of a sudden households had more resources available to them, with two incomes coming into the household. What they did with that is throw it down the toilet of inflating house prices, so houses got dearer relative to wages, and everybody moans how hard it is to have children and afford a house these days, because more of the combined household capacity to do work is focused on paid work outside the home. Don’t shoot the messenger – Elizabeth Warren’s book first highlighted to me exactly why I struggled so hard to raise the cash to buy a house. I was a single man, at a decent job, with a 20% deposit and in interest-free loan of 10%. I was fighting couples with two incomes, and that’s not a fair fight, hence the difficulty.
So I purchased the house, settled in, had all the usual shocking costs you have when you buy your first house because you have no furniture (I bought mine secondhand), you have no tools, you have precious little physical capital. I was paying 6.5% on the low start (ARM) loan4, and paid back my interest free credit card loan in one year, as required. What I didn’t pick up was that there was a shitstorm. Incoming. Take a look at this
It covers a period of a little over twenty years, and shows the inflation-adjusted5 to 2012 prices equity, payments and imputed rent of an ermine’s first house
Now every bugger tells you you can’t lose on houses. Take a look at the equity blue line, which shows the difference between the house price tracking the index for that year and what the purchase cost was. For ten long years that line is negative. You can’t lose on houses. Until you do, and then you lose big-time.
In negative equity you cannot move, must not lose your job, and must keep paying the mortgage
Because if you don’t, you get evicted from ‘your’ home, and to add insult to injury, they flog it at a knockdown price, and unlike in the States, they still come after you for the difference. It happened to my neighbours and a few other places in the street. The mortgage company comes along, sticks a notice on your window that this property will be foreclosed on such and such a date, and you’re out on your ear. Oh yeah, and you still have a mahoosive debt that follows you around like a lost dog.
What do all those coloured bars mean?
Although everybody talks about houses as if they were a financial investment and part of your free cash flow, only BTL landlords buy houses as a straight financial investment. The rest of us buy them to avoid paying rent, and give us a place to put all our stuff, watch TV, make love, raise children, all that sort of thing. You can do all that in a rented place too, but since you ‘own’ a house you don’t have to pay rent on the house. Instead you get to pay rent on the money you bought it with. So instead of throwing it away paying it to a landlord you throw it away paying it to a bank.
The red bars represent all the cumulative money I saved through not paying rent to some shyster landlord, estimated at about 4% of the Nationwide adjusted house price and then scaled to 2012 prices by inflation. It is possible these should be adjusted to interest rates, in which case I understate the cumulative benefit of the rent I didn’t pay.
The blue bars represent the cumulative excess that I paid over and above the cumulative amount I would have paid in rent to a landlord6, because I am paying it in rent to a bank. This is also adjusted to 2012 pounds, like the rent. I am buying a great big wodge of Stuff, so obviously it’s gonna cost me more than if I just rented the usage of it for 25 years. You can see that even after 24 years I’ve actually still paid out more than I would have done if I just rented. This conundrum is basically why you rent when you are poor. It’s cheaper, and that was particularly the case at a time of very high interest rates, of which more later.
The lime green bars are the equity in the house, the same as the blue line, but tossed on the debit or credit side of the ledger as appropriate. The value of the rent is the value delivered by the asset, and looking at the blue lines which are the excess paid over the value gotten as rent I would estimate break-even in about 25 years. However, since this is an asset that increases in value and is bought with borrowed money I actually broke even in 2001, when the increasing value of the house added to the accumulated rent I hadn’t paid beat out all the money I had paid to the mortgage company. Note in 2001 I don’t own the house as of yet, it’s just that I could theoretically sell up and breathe a sigh of relief that I hadn’t paid more than if I had rented.
Why was that such a big mistake?
I stayed put for 10 years. Now imagine all the shit that can go on in a life.
You can lose your job. There was a hell of a recession on in the early 1990s. Look at what would have happened in 1993 – I would have been foreclosed, would have lost £20,000 in 2012 money, would be bankrupt and without a roof over my head. No fun at all.
If you buy the house in your early 30s the pitter-patter of tiny feet tends to happen in the next decade. Tragically unromantic, but the years after the first child are high risk years for relationship breakdown. If your house is in negative equity you’re going to take a big hit at a rough time
You have to move for work. Now you get to rent your house out and rent another. There are parasitic costs and voids associated with renting a house out
I was single when I bought that house so I avoided 2 but the other two scared me. For a long time. This graph simplifies things so I assume I have a 100% mortgage. I was dumb, but not that dumb. I had a deposit and an interest-free loan from MBNA, to the tune of 30%, but even so I was in negative equity till about 1995. Negative equity kills you fast and kills you good, because of the leveraged way we buy houses.
Was it just an ermine that got this wrong? No, apparently a million other dumbasses had such an awful sense of timing as I did – but this newspaper article is from 1992, so still in radio silence on the Internet, because the WWW started in 1994.
With roughly ten million mortgage holders, that means that more than one in ten people with mortgages are trapped by debt. They are unable to sell till prices go up. They can’t sell and are stuck. [UBS Phillips & Drew]research analyses house price falls and the number of first time buyers, the group most likely to be in trouble because at least 50% of them took out mortgages of more than 95% of the value of their home.
I had a 30% deposit (ie a 70% LTV). That wouldn’t have helped me in the suckout, though it did shorten the period of negative equity relative to that shown on the chart, by shifting the line up a bit.
So how does that affect Mr Wannabe 2014 house buyer? Houses always go up. Everybody says my house is my pension.
To be honest, I don’t know why everybody says my house is my pension, though RIT has a good take on that subject. It would scare me shitless if I had housing as a large part of a pension, because you need several houses in different areas to get sector diversity, the baby boomers are going to die off in the next 20 years so their houses will be sold and it’s hardly like I’ve seen property as a great wealth store. Everybody else has it as a religion and who am I to criticise other Britons’ religion as long as they leave me be. Fill your boots guys.
If they’d bought a house worth of the FTSE100 on the same leveraged basis and paid their rent with the dividends they would probably be saying the FTSE100 is my pension. It’s buying a long term appreciating asset with leverage and not trading the bugger come what may and not getting marked to market in suckouts that makes houses a good investment – if you stay the course and don’t take those hits in the early days. Look at that chart and note that buying on a high meant I was exposed to the risk of having to sell up and having the house marked to market at a loss for a third of my working life. Safe as houses, guv, safe as houses.
The cyclical rises and falls of the house prices are slower than those of the stock market. Just because it’s a quarter of a century from the last turn of the cycle doesn’t mean it’s all different now, like the mills of God this one grinds exceedingly fine and exceedingly slow… 25 years ago jobs were more stable for the average employee, waiting to pass through the meshing gears of the mill until they turned you out the other side was a realistic option. But look at that 10 year suckout. It’s one of those questions you gotta ask yourself, really…
So what is different this time? It’s not about price, it’s about affordability!
Monevator observes that the house price to earnings ratio is creeping up. Some of the ideas about increasing ratio of two-earner households resonate with Elizabeth Warren’s book about the US situation. So obviously the whole price to earnings metric is hard to make fit these days. The new in word around town is affordability. Don’t worry about the amount of money you are borrowing, that’s just a number, it doesn’t mean anything. Can you afford to pay the mortgage okay?
Now if someone waltzed into a shop selling LED TVs with a credit card and said that, it would be viewed as a personal finance faux pas. Do that for a purchase three orders of magnitude bigger and suddenly we all go hey, that’s cool, don’t look at the price, can you make the repayments?
There is a case that the 3 x single, 2.5 x double income multiples that were the maximum lenders would advance in the past are too conservative now. 25 years ago we were coming off long runs of double-digit interest rates from ’78 onwards. That sort of thing limits the amount of mortgage you can pay off in a 30 or 40 year working life; 1991 was the last time interest rates were in double figures, so for 20 years they have been lower. But the average is closer to 5% than the 0.5% they are now.
I kind of feel the need for Clint again. Take a look at the yellow line, interest rates. Now just like the young ermine didn’t catch on with this whole boom-bust kerfuffle, because he hadn’t seen it, there are no doubt people who are thinking
what are these double-digit interest rates you speak of? I know nothing of such fiscal brutality
Look at the chart. Most of the time it spent at the long-run value of British interest rates of 5 or 6 %. That has a direct bearing on your affordability. The young ermine, though foolish in many ways, had the sense to ask of the mortgage company what would repayments be if interest rates doubles. It’s actually quite easy with an interest-only mortgage which is running alongside an endowment. If the interest rates double, you pay twice as much per month 😉 I figured I could managed that, just. I didn’t expect to be doing that, the very next year. I froze in that place. I didn’t go out much. Then the high interest rates started to depress house prices, and it began to dawn on me that I had made the most stupendous personal finance mistake of my whole life.
It dwarfs the second biggest PF cockup I made, which was a rash two years of major momentum-chasing and trading muppetry in the dotcom boom and bust. I only used ISAs and wasn’t rich enough to fill the first one. I probably destroyed about £7000 worshipping at the altar of Buying High and Selling Low, with a side order of Excessive Churn. I blew about £10,000 in 2012 pounds, but I got something of value in return. Education – it made me ready to learn how to go about things better. There was no bias or scamming in the training course that Mr Market dished out, and more to the point I threw away the money as I earned it. I didn’t borrow it from a mortgage company, and once it was gone it was gone, but I didn’t owe it to anyone.
The stock market has been a lot kinder to me than the housing market, and in a much shorter time, too. True, it delivers a jolly good kicking every so often, there aren’t the slow languorous cycles of the housing market. Perhaps the background radiation of this epic fail remains in my personal finances, because unlike the case for most Britons in my age and ex-income group, my house is not the dominant part of my net-worth, excluding pensions, if I were irrational enough to compute it as part of my financial assets 😉
Interest rates are at historic lows, that’s a good thing, surely?
On interest rates we’re a little off the right-hand side, but interest rates haven’t budged since then. They’re at historic lows. They can’t go any lower, because otherwise the Bank of England would be paying us to borrow money from it. So when you are making the switch from price to earnings (3 x single or 2.5 * double ISTR) you are making a nasty little pact with Mephistopheles.
You are making a bet that things really are different this time, and that for reasons you can’t explain, unlike over the last 25 years interest rates are going to remain at historic lows of a tenth of their long run average for at least the first 3/4 of your mortgage (19 years of a 25-year mortgage). You can afford for ’em to let rip a bit after that, because inflation will have reduced the value of your debt by about half then anyway, plus in an ideal world you’d have paid off some of the capital too.
You’re also making some other assumptions. That your pay will keep up with inflation, which given the power shift from labour to capital may be unwise. That nothing untoward will befall your employment, or if so, then you will be able to find another job at similar or better pay without moving. Unless you live in London, that may also be unwise. If you do live in London you can’t afford to buy a house if you are a prole, or even one of the 99%. Then there’s the risk of the more personal crap that can get in the way of things – divorce, children dropping the second salary for a while and upping your costs. But hey, it’s affordable…for now
You can see what an interest rate hike did for me. Obviously the heave-ho from 7.5 to 14% raised the payment, but it also made the aggregate payments much higher for a while. Look how fast the cumulative overpayments relative to renting ramped up (the blue bars). They only start to yield to the cumulative imputed rent in 2000 over half-way through my working life, and it is probably only about now that the total amount paid in mortgage costs is less than the total amount I would have paid if I had rented. Of course, I now have a fully paid-up house that has a future income stream associated with it – the rent I don’t have to pay.
The risk of being hit by negative equity is highest at the beginning, when you are young, for the simple reason that you haven’t paid off any of the house yet. The amount of total money sucked out relative to renting is highest in one’s 40s. It’s not a personal finance trajectory that is for the poor, and not one that fits well with the costs of having children in one’s 30s.
I can’t yet work out whether this cost peak is an artifact of having eaten that fall in house prices and the high interest rates early on. The fall in house prices is not reflected in the running cumulative costs, however, except as an effect on imputed rent7
what do interest rates do to house prices?
They make them fall in real terms or at least reduce the rate of increase relative to inflation. Particularly in the Brave New World of gauging how much you will pay according to affordability, rather than a price/earning ratio. Affordability is inversely proportional to interest rates, so as interest rates go up, prices have to fall to stay affordable. You can see that in the negative equity that I suffered at the start, though this may be correlation with the long drawn out 1990s recession. The interest rate spike was cause by Britain being ejected from the ERM – interest rates were raised to try and stop the pound falling, but the Bank of England lost the fight. That is the trouble with economic variables – they are hard to separate and qualify individually.
Why do governments push home-ownership so hard?
Not all governments do. Not even all British governments did until 1980. When I was at school it was perfectly normal for middle managers to live in a council house. Then Thatcher got in, and it’s been a world of hurt from 1980 onwards. When I look at this I can’t help feeling that it is a rum way to run an economy and seems to do a lot of hurt to a lot of people trying to catch up with the shibboleth that you must own your own home. The huge exposure to risk when you are young, the massive suckout of money in one’s 40s to buy the house compared to the rental option. Is this really worth all the pain? At the moment it is because the rental option is really horrible – there is no useful security of tenure in the UK and the army of amateur landlords seem to be patchers and bodgers when it comes to maintenance. It seems the solution to complaints about the state of the place is to get a less discriminating tenant – it is a landlord’s market.
If the government were interested in the maximum quality of life for the most people, it would stop fiddling about in the housing market and fix the alternative, renting. Most of the house-building in the post-war period was done by councils building council housing
and this carried on at a notable rate until it was shut down by Thatcher’s Right To Buy – there was no point in building houses with ratepayers money to flog them off cheap to somebody who was in the right place at the right time. Private enterprise clearly hasn’t picked up the slack, because presumably there is a profit incentive to maximise house prices for new-builds by controlling supply 😉 Or some other reason, but it’s clearly not happening.
Renting in the private sector is miserable. If you favour the tenants too much you get misery for the landlords and then misery for the tenants who don’t have a place, though joy for those who do. If you favour the landlords, as is the general case now, you get misery for the tenants, and drive people towards owner-occupation who perhaps aren’t ready for the financial hit. Owner occupation is much more expensive for the first ten or fifteen years. Calculators like this make me laugh because they are simplistic, assuming a constant interest rate, and constant house price inflation and they also take the equity in the house on the plus side. The only time you get to see the increasing equity in your house is if you downsize. The next time is when your kids sell the house after they’ve come back from the crematorium. Even after 25 years I’m not sure I’m up on the deal yet as far as money spent on buying relative to what I’d have spent on renting is. I do have an expensive asset and I’m done paying rent and mortgage for the foreseeable future, so I’m better off overall. But it was an expensive ride and I took outrageous shedloads of risk. After all, nobody sat me down when quoting for a mortgage and went
Now Mr Ermine, how do you feel about the possibility of losing 33% of the value of this house should you be SOL and lose your job in the first ten years?
Saying yes to that sort of risk that puts you into Highly Adventurous nutcase levels with shares, and yet people become gibbering wrecks if it’s intimated to them that the stock market can do that to you 🙂 Safe as houses, they say, safe as houses… What the hell did the stock market do to get all the bad rap? A financial adviser won’t let you sit down and open your mouth without you taking an attitude to risk test, and yet you can blithely sign up for a mortgage and the only warning you get is
Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage.
No shit, Sherlock. No mention of the risk, eh?
You are about to take the sort of risk that put a million buyers at risk in within living memory – the Bank of England interest rate is at historic lows and could increase tenfold without drifting out of the long run average. Have you thought about what that would do to your repayments, and have you had a word with Clint about it?
Nary a word that this might happen
Housing is, however, not just about money. The excess cost of buying is probably worth it to get rid of AST tenancies, horrible landlords, one month eviction periods, shitty house maintenance and all the other hurt that often comes with amateur BTL landlords. Fixing the rental market probably means building decent social housing, enough to compete down rental prices and set standards, and relieve the pressure on the owner-occupier market. Owner-occupation is much less suitable for a world of shorter-duration or less secure jobs. I don’t know if Thatcher was right in her time but that world is long gone now.
We are scale-blind to extremely short timescales. That much is clear when you try and swat a fly, or watch a sparrow land on a blackthorn bush without impaling itself, as it makes micro-adjustments to its flight path to avoid the might spines. Listen to this whitethroat at normal speed – it sounds pretty scratchy and nasty to me
Now listen to what that presumably sounds like to a real whitethroat, which can hear finer temporal detail than us. All I have done is slowed it by 8 times
That’s still coarse on the sort of timescale that high-frequency trading works. You can’t stay on top of that. The effect happens at long time scales too, we just don’t see things that change over decades as much as we see them if they change day to day, which means that we become increasingly blind to groundswells in finance that have a longer period than a working life. Hence this article, it is a distant report from a receding event horizon. It happened, and it’ll happen again. What makes this worse is that the WWW started in 1994, so for the Internet generation this history is not accessible. I used my local Library’s newspaper search facility to research some of this, and it is uncanny how the themes from 1988/9 seem to be repeating themselves now, and how certain pathologies associated with mortgages seems to be evergreen. Such as stupid berks taking money out of their home equity in the good times to pump up their lifestyle only to come over all surprised when it all goes titsup in crashes. Life has rainy days in it. Save up for them.
Should I not buy then?
Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent
Search me guv. London, for a start, is a different place. I’m not in that league. I left London 25 years ago because I was too poor to live there. You’re competing against foreign money treating London real estate as a reserve currency, and there’s a lot more of the rest of the world’s 1% than there are Londoners. It’s not a fair fight. I could earn enough as a single man to fight the DINKY couples but the 1% are way out there, sometimes you gotta know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em. For most people London falls into the latter category.
Elsewhere, you buy a specific house in a specific part of the UK, subject to local conditions. I personally wouldn’t buy right now, but then I haven’t lived with AST tenacies and scummy BTL landlords[ref]I’m sure there are some decent landlords. It’s just that I never ran into them and from what I hear most tenants don’t either. OTOH I’ve heard from some landlords about some seriously chavvy tenants. Shame that so much money changes hands and both parties seem to be pissed off with the deal[/ref] for a long time. I can see how that makes people prepared to pay over the odds. Maybe it really is different this time.
I learned something writing this and analysing the costs – in particular that when you buy a house with a mortgage you commit to ongoing higher outgoings for over twenty years – that’s real money you have to earn and pay out. It’s true that the break-even point was 10 years in my case, but my spending was still higher than it would have been renting to 20 years. The break-even point is brought forward by the nominal value of the house, which is only realised when you die or partially on downsizing.
I didn’t have any idea when I started down the mortgage track that this was the case. I earned enough and was lucky enough to dodge the negative equity bullet to get away with it, but it could easily have gone a different way, and then the ermine would not have been retired. Safe as houses – think of those million people in negative equity in the early 1990s. I was started down this track of thinking by Paul Claireaux’s blog post on House Prices Now – he has some other charts of interest there, and a far better grounding in the financial technicalities, where I’ve just lived it. His summary?
What I conclude – is that (in broad terms) UK house prices have gone into outer space!
There is a general message that when buying investments one should take valuation into account. That is doubly the case if you are going to buy it leveraged – and a house is one of the few assets Joe Public buys on margin. Negative Equity is what happens when you get that wrong, and being foreclosed, going bankrupt and having the debt chase you is what happens when you get that wrong and lose the ability to pay the mortgage. Only you can say if getting away from those crappy landlords is worth the risk.
MIRAS is a historical piece of Government fiddling in the housing market being changed where they didn’t tax you on the interest paid on a mortgage. Interest rates and tax rates were much higher in the 1980s than they are now ↩
short-term Government interference leading to a pulse in demand just before an election. Any connection with Help to Buy is of course specious scuttlebutt and should be ignored. Of course. ↩
in those days money halved in value every ten years. So that 3 x lift was pretty much breakeven after 25 years with free investment risk chucked in, but optimism and being a smartass is one of the privilege of the youthful, eh. Boy was I taken for a ride ;) ↩
I used the low start loan so I’d have a chance to pay back that interest free credit card. It was the correct use fo an ARM loan – the young ermine got the details right, it was the big picture that I made a hash of. ↩
To track the house value I used the Nationwide house price index for old properties, East Anglia section. The house was a two-up two-down built in 1840, the Nationwide are pretty accurate because scaling the price I bought at forward to 2012 gives pretty much the value Zoopla gives for a similar joint in a similar area. To track inflation I used the January of the year figures from this Guardian spreadsheet. For the Bank rate I took figures from the Bank of England and did the manual calculation to get the yearly interest rates, and assumed a mortgage was 1% more. I estimated rental prices as 4% of the yearly house price, which would fit for now. I moved around the middle of the period, so the second half of this is a simulation. ↩
I had to subtract what was already indicated otherwise the overall picture would be wrong. When the blue bars disappear, it will have finally been cheaper in terms of money paid out to have bought, not rented. ↩
Update 22 April – a house just like mine has gone up for rent across the way, so I looked up how much it would cost to rent. The imputed rent assumption is pretty damn close, it’s nice to get a real-life confirmation of the cost-modelling. ↩
I’ve never had any dealings with HL, because the Ermine is a cheapskate when it comes to platforms, and Hargeaves Lansdown has the rep of being a high-cost full-service shop. However, given that that nice Mr Osborne seems to indicate that we can now draw our pension funds in full subject to regular taxation, I want a SIPP. Held in cash, possibly, though I need to reflect on that at my leisure. The rationale is here – although I can’t draw it as of yet, I’m not far from the 55 cutoff.
When I researched the original article I looked at Cavendish Online, for a stakeholder, which would be the cheapest. But they wanted me to fill in forms sent through the post with all the money laundering fun and games of certified copies of this and that. There’s not enough time for that given that the end of the tax year is tomorrow so I didn’t fancy my chances with the post. Online is the way to go.I would have thought a SIPP wouldn’t need all that garbage because presumably they go to HMRC and go ‘have you got any records of this geezer with national insurance number xxx name An Ermine living at this address. If it matches, fine, if not the alarm bells go off and somebody sends a SWAT team out. But no.
So I attempted with TD Direct, on the principle I already have an ISA with them, so all the know your customer malarkey has been done already. Had a go a couple of days ago, they seem to have lost the application, and certainly haven’t asked me for any money yet. In the unlikely event they find it and do something I’ll tell them they’ve missed their chance under the 30-day cooling off rule, basically for gross incompetence 🙂 They know what the end of the tax year is all about, FFS, and although I normally expect people to get their act together about the end of the tax year for ISAs and SIPPs it’s not like Osborne gave us huge amounts of notice to process what’s changed and how to use it.
Since I am a canonical example of somebody who can use a short DC pension to my advantage I want some. And since I have no income, the most I can lob in in a tax year is £2880, so missing out this tax year costs me £720 (less running costs). As a minor snarl, why is it that whenever I fill in a form and it has status of employment, do they have no entry of Gentleman of Leisure? I am not employed, and I am not unemployed either. I’m not down the Labour Exchange claiming JSA. At least HL had the ‘other’ category.
So I take a leaf out of Boardgamer’s book, and figure I may as well give it a go.
Obviously I simulated the effect of their charges; there are no opening charges, but there is a 0.45% p.a. hit on all investments (including shares!!!!) and there is a stupendous £354 flexible DD/exit charge. So be it, there’s still a win from the £720 the taxman lobs into the pot, and since these are savings I will be living on anyway I may as well park them in a pension and get my tax back from them – it beats the hell out of the interest on any cash savings account I can get.
Now I have to say that as I went through the application I saw why HL gets its rep as a slick operation – they took the cash via a debit card, opened the account, allowed me to defer investment choices to later and the whole experience was a lot better than the un-joined-up mess that TD were offering. They may still manage to make a muddle somewhere but so far so good. Even with that shocking exit charge the simulation indicates I am good for about a 16% ROI on cash over the next three years after costs and assuming 3% inflation. 5% p.a. real return is worth getting out of bed for. Presumably all the know your customer crap is coming my way, but at least that can be done at my leisure after the deadline.
Using Hargreaves Lansdown’s website brought it home to me just how crappy all the low-cost platform websites I’ve used were. TD Direct probably just about get the wooden spoon award for usability, though I don’t really get on with Charles Stanley that well either. CS looks prettier but I still get lost in it. III’s was serviceable but the funds selection was truly horrible, hopefully they’ve improved it since I told III to sling their hook for ramping charges.
Noticed more dust in the air and it’s a git to get off the windscreen. Apparently a little bit of the Sahara is paying a visit, so the wipers are sanding the glass. The reports in the grauniad seems to be particularly dire, however – I walked four miles today, partly in search of the perfect black car to take this. Can’t say I felt particularly like this mother and child – it must be really bad in The Smoke!
Leanne Stewart, from Eltham in south-east London, described feeling breathless after a routine half-mile walk to her son’s school this morning.
“I’ve been doing the usual school run about half a mile from my house, which is usually quite an easy walk, but I’m still breathless now,” she said. “I could feel my chest getting tighter and tighter and my son, who’s eight, had to stop and have his inhaler.
What I really wanted was a classic black Beemer with the dust on the bonnet but we clearly don’t have the wealth or the drug dealers in my part of town
with London and East Anglia in the boresight of the winds bringing this sand
It’ll be interesting to stick a microscope slide outside tonight and try and catch some of this stuff and see if it looks like miniature sharp sand. It’s a shame that I didn’t try that when we had those lovely aircraft-free skies with the volcanish ash clouds from Eyjafjallajökull
So just where does this pinky-red dust come from? Dr Steven Godby, a drylands expert at Nottingham Trent University, thinks he has the answer:
The Sahara is the largest desert in the world and contains a number of significant dust source areas. Looking at satellite images captured last Thursday and Friday it seems the dust was generated from two source areas, one in central Algeria close to Tamanrasset and another in southern Morocco to the south of the Atlas Mountains.
To generate dust storms large numbers of silt-sized particles are needed for the wind to pick up and transport and these two areas have been identified as dust ‘hot spots’ in the past.
All this talk of the winds from the south making the old ones feel lethargic brought this old Grace Slick tune from the cusp of the 1980s to mind 🙂
Postscript 4 April – I got my Beemer in the end
I left a microscope slide out in the garden for 24 hours to pick up some dust. The dust looks reasonably sharp and spiky through a microscope. It’s been a long time since I’ve driven a microscope, and the Ermine student microscope is probably not really up to the job 😉