Three cheers
January 24, 2008Thanks for visiting! If you like what you're reading, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed.
I’ve come across a really good comment in the FT the other day and have kept the page on my desk at work every since - with the intention of sharing it with you guys. Due to copyright issues I won’t be able to recite the whole article here (nor would I want to), so I’m just going to quote you the best passages.
The original comment was written by Jonathan Guthrie and was published in the FT on Thursday, January 10th. The heading reads “Three cheers for falling property prices”.
“The assumption that rising house prices are good is deeply embedded in our culture. A belief in witches was too, years ago.”
“We pay a heavy price for the delusional comfort that comes from owning expensive homes, both in loan charges and distorted personal priorities.”
After discussing the amazing property returns we have seen in the UK over the last 12 years (160% on average, 193% in London), he observes the following
“Such inadvertent financial coups confer bragging rights at dinner parties from Barnet to Bromley. Yet the tiramisu-scoffing asset allocators could only realise their swollen capital if they relocated permanently to Barnsley.”
“The main beneficiaries of steep prices are therefore footloose retirers […] fly-by wrinklies too mean to sling younger relatives a few grand towards their own homes.”
He continues to wonder why people could possibly interpret rising house prices as something positive…
“[…] given that disposable income would, all things being equal, rise if mortgage costs fell. More Britons could then afford the ultimate contemporary status symbol, a full tank of petrol.”
…and examines the consequences of such an attitude…
“Television makeover mavens have shown soi-distant developers how to make a packet by tarting up a basement bedsit and advertising it as a garden studio.
Buy-to-let investors have piled into residential property in […] Balkan towns whose names they cannot pronounce.”
And he finally concludes
“My hostility to national property bingo reflects ambivalence at my own commonplace success in it. Like many Britons, my annual capital gains after costs have been equivalent to almost half my salary for no more effort than a little light decorating. But I am no richer as a result, unless I sell up and sleep in a ditch.”
His opinion is so different from the often-recited press view that you instinctively want to disagree with him. However, you come to realise quite quickly that he has an awful lot of perfectly valid points and the more thought you give his argument, the more you’ll see his point.
If you’re intrigued and want to read the whole article, you should still be able to access it here, but I’m not sure whether or not you might need a subscription? In any case, enjoy!









Unfortunately, there are still a few obstacles in the way before we can set foot into our first property. I don’t need to tell you that prices in Central London are astronomic, that interest rates have seen lower levels and the credit crunch has substantially tightened lending criteria.
However, buying a property with someone else is a major commitment and is nothing that should be decided on the fly. Instead, no matter how well you think you know the person you want to buy with, a legal agreement is a must. This should cover all eventualities regardless of how unlikely they seem at the time of purchase.
unt you want to borrow, you should not forget that you will also need to be able to meet your monthly payments. It is no help if the bank is comfortable lending you 6x your current salary if you’re left with a mortgage payment that eats up 75% of your current salary. Hence when considering the mortgage you want, you should always think about other monthly outgoings that you have (council tax, utility bills, phone, broadband, credit card payments, food, insurance… there’s a long list!) and what amount you will have left over after all those payments are taken care of.
This means, no matter how long the mortgage is taken out for, the underlying amount you owe the bank never reduces. Depending on how well (or badly) the property market is performing, you might be forced to sell your house for less than you bought it for, hence owing the bank more than the proceeds from the sale. Moreover, the interest-only option means that the house you’re living in will never actually become yours - it’s effectively the bank’s property.
The process for determining how much more money you could borrow if your parents (or other blood relatives) are included in the deal, is fairly complex and varies between the different lenders. Sometimes your parents will only be liable for the shortfall (i.e. the difference between the property value and the mortgage amount you’ve been granted on your own) while in other cases they would potentially have to be able to cover the full amount should you default (i.e. be unable to meet your mortgage payments).






