Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 11th May 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Teresa Hunter: Why the Bank needs to cut the interest rate by 0.5%



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 April 2008
HOMEBUYERS are facing the most treacherous days in memory, with the risk of the UK sliding into a 1990s-style property slump increasing by the hour.
Mortgage lenders hiked borrowing costs pretty much across the board last week, and increased the hurdles required to qualify for a loan, with the best deals now only available with deposits of up to 40%.

Youngsters and other borrowers who took on
mountains of debt over the past couple of years haven't a cat in hell's chance of remortgaging at a decent rate.

Some are already seeing their repayments rise sharply by up to £1,000 per month. Where on earth do you find another £1,000 per month? Even more established borrowers with smaller loans are having to find hundreds of pounds more monthly.

I hate to tempt providence, but without some drastic rate-cutting action, soaring repossessions on a par with the last recession look inevitable.

When the Bank of England meets this week, it is expected to cut the interest rate by 0.25%, if at all. This will do nothing whatsoever to either bring down borrowing costs, or make it easier to get an affordable loan.

Nothing less than a 0.5% cut is essential to avert a crisis. Even this may do little to cut costs, but it may encourage banks to stop behaving like scalded cats.

We are now paying the most expensive mortgage rates since mass homeownership began. Labour loves to throw taunts about the days of 15% mortgage rates in Conservative faces. But the truth is that today's borrowers are being fleeced at significantly more penal rates.

Labour conveniently forgets that when mortgages peaked at 15%, most were tax-deductible. Basic tax at 33% left borrowers actually paying 10%.

With the key mortgage-setting rate (which is not the base rate but Libor, the rate the banks charge to lend to each other) currently at 6%, many borrowers will soon find themselves paying something in the region of 7.5%, unless Libor is brought lower.

The gap between 10% and 7.5% doesn't give much to boast about.

But it is much worse than that. When borrowers were paying this notional 15% but actual 10%, inflation was running at 11%. In other words, we were paying negative interest rates because annual wage inflation quickly wiped the pain away.

By contrast today, with inflation at 2.5% and salary increases pegged at that level, borrowers are paying 5% real interest rates, which will take years for inflation to erode. Ouch.

The strain on household budgets is showing. Debts on credit cards and overdrafts last month rose faster than at any time on record; a clear indication that families cannot meet their bills. It is only a matter of time before increasing numbers begin to drown in a sea of debt.

Other savings have slumped. According to the Prudential, pension saving has halved. This is all seriously alarming, and it is time the Treasury and Bank of England acknowledged the perilous pass they have brought us to.

They are directly responsible for encouraging millions to take on massive debts by setting a framework which allowed mortgages to be priced too cheaply. This triggered a property bubble and lured millions into a nightmare debt trap. Surely culpable in its creation, the bank now has a duty to do everything it can to avert this crisis.

To be fair to the Bank of England, the Treasury forced it to set interest rates by shadowing the CPI inflation index, in which housing costs are stripped out. History will judge this a major strategic error which kept interest rates too low for too long, feeding a credit binge which pushed house prices up for an unprecedented 15 years, amid boasts that we had abolished the cycle.

If only I had a pound for every time I've heard politicians and financiers make that boast over the years. When will they ever learn you never bust the cycle?

The International Monetary Fund last week warned that governments and central banks could have done more to prevent property bubbles, and could do more to ease the current lending constraints. Something of an understatement in the context of the UK.

So all eyes will be on the Bank of England this week. It is not oblivious to the horrors facing borrowers, having predicted that the credit crisis will worsen over the next three months, with half of all lenders expected to ration loans.

To avert catastrophe, lenders must be made to open their doors again, and for that we have to get Libor down. An interest rate cut of 0.5% is the very least first step necessary.

Of course there are risks. But as my doctor always says, diagnosis is about prioritising the various risks and treating the one which looks most critical. Right now that has to be the prospect of a property crash.





The full article contains 834 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 April 2008 10:34 AM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: SOS Business Columnists
 
1

traprain,

06/04/2008 10:48:20
Time to smell the coffee Teresa!
"The MPC should do nothing. A rebalancing of income and spending will not occur if the MPC simply tries to ameliorate current distress."
2

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 06/04/2008 13:54:24
.5% is wee in the sea in the current climate, if rates were .5% or less it would still not solve the immediate problem of fear among lenders who are hoarding cash because they don't know what is coming next.
3

Arnie,

06/04/2008 17:09:27
I also think the boe needs to drop rates quite dramatically to improve liquidity in the markets, the trouble in boe remit is to control inflation rather than react to troubles in the markets and inflation is out of control so no big drops likely.
4

Redhat Sly,

Morayshire 06/04/2008 19:53:13
Looks like Teresa's been well and truly suckered by this credit crunch.

The banks won't lend to banks.... a very convenient way of pushing up mortgage rates to recover profits lost on US sub prime markets.

Can Teresa please explain why cutting interest rates will help anyone except banks? The last rate cut in February has seen savers lose income but mortgage rates have increased! Cutting interest rates is just giving banks more profit as they are not passing it on to their mortgage customers.

If we start slashing interest rates it will line up the next set of debtors who will borrow more than they can afford and face financial difficulty next time rates go up. Not to mention inflation spiralling out of control, haven't you seen Zimbabwe? Fancy paying a few million for a loaf of bread?

5

ColinG,

London 07/04/2008 00:26:19
This emotional claptrap does not deserve the time of day. The decision of the bank cannot be based on some ridiculous appeal for the bank to have sympathy for some people who will struggle financially over the next few years. The bank has no responsibility to manage house prices or the affordability of mortgages. Everyone was very happy when the bank stood aside and allowed house prices to inflate rapidly during the last 10 years and now that a long overdue correction is likely suddenly intervention is flavour of the month. Acquiring assets is risky. The bank cannot and should not attempt to reduce that risk now as it would create a massive moral hazard problem that would have much greater consequences than those that will occur without intervention. The banks job is to manage inflation which, without careful management, will become a serious problem in the next 1-3 years and if not managed now will likely lead to double digit interest rates in the not too distant future. Watch people squeal then!

If that (rational) argument doesnt convince you, heres another. Banks will not cut mortgage rates even if the bank cuts by 0.5%, a number of them are capital deficient and need to rebuild quickly. The easiest way to do that is increase the margin between what they pay for capital and what the charge for it (mortgage rates). All a cut will do is transfer wealth from savers to banks with no effect on mortgage holders in the near term. This is an implicit subsidy to the banking industry and should be strongly resisted. Ben Bernanke in the US has already done this and with the benefit of time this will come to be seen as a mistake.

Sorry folks, theres no easy way out of this, if people have bought overvalued property they are just going to have to live with the consequences...caveat emptor
6

Geed,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 13:29:11
“HOMEBUYERS are facing the most treacherous days in memory, with the risk of the UK sliding into a 1990s-style property slump increasing by the hour”. I’m sorry, why is the prospect of cheaper, more affordable and realistic house prices considered to be treacherous for homebuyers? It is a time for rejoice and celebration for sensible FTBer’s and savers. Sanity is returning to the market and all the speculative driven, debt laden over-geared individuals and families are learning a hard lesson, a lesson, due to their own misinformed greedy actions, that can’t be avoided. No matter how many times you tell a young child that the fire is hot, they will only learn once they have touched it and felt the pain.

I would argue if you had to take out a 100% LTV mortgage, even a 90% LTV mortgage or interest only (effectively renting from the bank) that you probably could not afford to buy. There is nothing wrong in renting; I have done so for the last 9 years. But many (I agree that not all), were seeking to gain out of the massively rising value of property in the last 10 years, this has now gone into reverse and all must bare the consequences of such events.

I must ask you, Teresa, why you think having a 40% down payment on a home should not be rewarded? These individuals who have been prudent and saved this amount know the value of money, they have worked and saved hard and have been penalized by this government and the banks lax, immoral lending practices over the last 10 years. Banks are now offering reasonable IR’s (Interest Rates) on saving accounts and are rewarding those customers who are less risky and have more collateral. Its wonderful news and it may teach our younger generation the old adage “if you can’t afford it, you can’t have it”. Simple really.

Your comparison of IR’s over the years is trivial. People cannot afford to buy homes anymore Teresa irrespective of the IR’s. The average wage in Britain is circa £22K (ONS), the average home is £180K (Natio
7

Grow up Teresa,

Notts 07/04/2008 13:47:22
Why do newspapers employ journalists who are so incredibly stupid that not even the readers are fooled by their nonsense. Prices are overvalued and need to come down a long way. People who have bought homes will still have homes - the value of the home is largely irrelevant. The only people that will be really affect are 1) FTBs who will be much much better off, and 2) BTLers who will be much, much worse off. In other words it will be a very good outcome. Damn near perfect. So stop your moaning and scaremongering and embrace the future. Idiot.
8

Geed,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 13:49:17
THE REMAINDER OF MY COMMENT....(Nationwide and falling fast). That is 8.2 times the national average wage! The long term trend is 3.5 times national wage, either our salaries need to increase by around 100% or property needs to crash by around 50%. I suggest a combination of both over the next 5 years will ensure that the 3.5 factor long term figure is achieved once again.

Do you truly believe that CPI at 2.5% is a true reflective state of the current inflationary pressures that the average person needs to deal with? To even quote this figure to back up your lame arguments for a rate cut surely is an indication of the desperation in your comments. Oil doubled in price last year and inflation is at 2.5%, don’t insult my intelligence.

But this says it all really; “They are directly responsible for encouraging millions to take on massive debts by setting a framework which allowed mortgages to be priced too cheaply. This triggered a property bubble and lured millions into a nightmare debt trap. Surely culpable in its creation, the bank now has a duty to do everything it can to avert this crisis.” So why are you getting on your soapbox bleating “Slash rates, make credit cheaper so we can re-inflate the bubble”? This contradictory comment is your best yet! You have quite rightly pointed out how we got into this situation in the first place and then suggest that the best way to avoid this crisis is to panic slash IR’s and start pricing mortgages cheaply again and encourage millions more to take on extra debt to cover their existing debt. Ludicrous nonsense Teresa.

You go on…..“To avert catastrophe, lenders must be made to open their doors again, and for that we have to get Libor down. An interest rate cut of 0.5% is the very least first step necessary.” Teresa, as I have pointed out, the catastrophe is cheap credit, the catastrophe is unsustainable credit fuelled asset bubbles, the catastrophe is all the young generations that will be a slaves to their debt long
9

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 07/04/2008 13:57:09
The entire CDO market has collapsed and securitisation of mortgages is likely to follow it into the hole. The simple fact is that mortgage finance will in future depend upon depositors rather than capital markets, as Northern Rock discovered to its cost.

Those depositors however have been largely absent during the credit bubble due as dissaving ran its course. In order to reverse this, interest rates should be raised rather than dropped. It will hardly create more money for new mortgages to discourage those few savers left just when they're needed.

We're also at the end of a three-generational credit cycle and the overborrowed are headed to catastrophe whatever we do. The economy is now for all intents and purposes now dependent on savers rather than borrowers.
How much sense does it make to cut the income of those savers by reducing interest rates?

Finally, Japan started its debt-deflationary collapse in 1989. Property prices finally turned up again this year after falling by 90%. Japan's government cut interest rates to zero and spent huge amounts cushioning its banks.

The question for us is do we want to be like Japan and face 18 years of falling property prices or would we rather get it over in four years? If the latter, then stop bailing out banks and start raising interest rates to flush all the bad debt out of the system.
10

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 07/04/2008 14:04:12
#7: Don't worry about the BTLers being worse off. Aren't we continually being told they're in it for long-term investment?

Those holding stocks at the peak in 1929 saw them regain their value if they were long-term investors. Of course they did have to wait until 1954.
11

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 07/04/2008 14:47:25
Geed allows as how: "The long term trend is 3.5 times national wage, either our salaries need to increase by around 100% or property needs to crash by around 50%."

ABN Ambro last week published analysis that UK property is the most overvalued in the world and by 50% over fundamentals (IMF says 30% overvalued as does Capital Economics).

Givern that markets overcorrect on the way down as well as the way up, things could get interesting...
12

Geed,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 16:55:06
A Friend of Fernando Poo @ 11. Nice, So my theory of 50% falls don't look as sensational after all. By the way I hope you don't make fun of your freind's name?
13

House Price Crash,

UK 07/04/2008 16:57:45
I am very well prepared for the coming event(s)

I have bought a new fridge and it is stocked up with the finest beers and wines. I have bought some very nice expensive food and have prepared 50 invitations.

I AM PREPARED FOR THIS PARTY. AT LAST FIRST TIME BUYERS CAN REJOICE I AM SOOOOO HAPPYYYYYY!!!!!!

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE OTHER DECENT PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO KNEW THIS WAS A MASSIVE FRAUD WELL DONE.

BUY TO LET SCUM CAN GO EAT ****
14

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 07/04/2008 18:17:40
#12 Geed: What's largely been missed by the people who said for the past few years "There is no housing bubble" is that what we've had for a quarter century is a credit bubble. This means that the denouement will be very different from the standard 18-year UK housing cycle, though the timing is such that the end of the three-generational credit cycle is coinciding with a downturn in the 18 year housing cycle.

The first difference is that the initial price fall won't be driven by rising interest rates and unemployment, but will be driven by debt-deflation of which a lack of available credit is a symptom.

The size of the fall is likely to be different. Typical falls in the primary asset of a credit bubble are between 50% and 90% from the peak (e.g Wall Street stocks fell 89% at the end of the last major western credit bubble in 1929 and Miami house prices fell by 75% in the equivalent bubble there in 1926). Japan came in at the upper end of this with 60% to 90% house price falls there 1989 to present (depending on location).

We're likely to see falls in most western countries except Germany (They've already had 50% house price falls). This is possibly the first global credit bubble.

It's likely to take longer. Things can take four years if left to themselves and up to four times longer if governments interfere to try to delay or stop the debt-deflation. Government interference is also expensive in raising cleanup costs from 1% of GDP to 13% through 60% (according to a recent World Bank study into 113 systemic crashes).

The aftermath will be different too. People will neither seek nor be offered credit, and will teach their kids the same (that's why it's 3 generations). When the next bubble starts in 2050 or so, the primary asset will be different. I don't know what it will be, but it won't be domestic housing. The once-bitten twice-shy thing will play out there too.

They may cause chaos, but credit bubbles do have a certain pattern to them.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.