David Prosser's Outlook: The real victims of the housing market crisis need all the help they can get
Thursday, 28 August 2008
His colleagues in the housebuilding industry won't thank him for his honesty, but Taylor Wimpey's chief executive, Pete Redfern, hit the nail on the head yesterday in admitting there is little the Government can do to fix the housing market. While several of Taylor Wimpey's rivals have called for a government bail-out of their beleaguered industry, Mr Redfern concedes that a suspension of stamp duty or even a cut in interest rates would not restore the market to health.
He is quite right. The housing market slump began when mortgage availability was credit crunched, choking off demand for property. A massive Bank of England liquidity package has not improved mortgage market liquidity and, in any case, the housing slowdown has now spiralled out of control. Britain's economic slowdown is a product of a collapse in consumer confidence that was in great part caused by the housing market's decline. But that slowdown now has a life of its own and is feeding back into the property sector's problems.
Moreover, while Mr Redfern didn't say as much yesterday, his fellow chief executives have no right to expect the Government to intervene in support of shareholders in our major housebuilders. There has been no shortage of good times for the property sector in recent years and builders ought to have been preparing for a leaner period.
Instead, the Government's priority should be to protect the real victims of the economic slowdown – those who face the prospect of losing their homes because they can't keep up with mortgage repayments. In the current housing market climate, these borrowers don't have the option of selling up before the bailiffs arrive and they need all the help they can get.
This isn't what the Treasury wants to hear, but delivering that help is going to require spending some money. A quick and easy option that would help many homeowners get through a difficult period would be to offer more generous income support to help people pay mortgage interest. Currently, struggling borrowers don't qualify for the benefit for nine months and even once they do, it may not cover their interest payments in full.
Extending income support does not have to be a total giveaway. One option, for instance, would be to require borrowers to repay some or all of the benefits they receive once their finances recover.
There is also merit in exploring mortgage rescue plans, an idea floated by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) and backed yesterday by the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable. These schemes are already being trialled by local authorities and housing associations on a very limited basis in different parts of the UK, but offering them more widely will require a slug of funding from central Government.
The idea of a mortgage rescue plan is that borrowers struggling with their repayments sell part of the equity in their homes to a social landlord. They continue paying the mortgage on what they still own, plus some rent on the equity sold. There are, in principle, real attractions to these schemes. Above all, the borrower gets to stay in their property. They also get a capital sum for the equity given up, which may enable them to pay off other debts. And offering the schemes through housing associations and local authorities should mean fewer homeowners end up taking out the dodgy "sale and leaseback" plans available from more unscrupulous lenders in the private sector. These operate in a similar way but often prove to be total rip-offs.
As the CML points out, however, Mr Cable's vision of a standardised and regulated mortgage rescue plan is not without difficulties. The biggest of these is the one that stymied the Conservatives in the early Nineties, when they though a very similar scheme would help up to 20,000 borrowers facing repossession. What the Tories discovered was that even with housing associations charging very reasonable levels of rent on the equity they bought, the combined mortgage and rent bill for homeowners was very often higher than the single mortgage repayment they had previously been unable to make. Rather understandably, take-up was somewhat limited.
More positively, since the early Nineties a handful of housing associations have come up with solutions to this problem. And the Scottish Executive committed £25m to mortgage rescue plans north of the border last week – the results of its initiative will be worth watching closely.
However, we shouldn't kid ourselves. The CML expects repossessions to rise significantly in the coming months and to reach about 45,000 this year. The sort of ideas being kicked around might reduce that figure by a few thousand at best (though it's difficult to imagine ministers getting their act together quickly enough to make a difference in 2008). That would be a welcome reduction, of course, but hardly indicative of a panacea.
Competition will heat up for price comparison sites
Blessed are the middlemen. Or at least that's the view of Moneysupermarket.com, the price-comparison website whose share price has halved since its flotation a year ago despite a series of mostly encouraging trading updates. Yesterday's interim results did not disappoint either – the founder and chief executive, Simon Nixon, is entitled to feel pleased with profits that have more than doubled.
Price comparison sites are benefiting from the economic slowdown because more people need to shop around for everything, from home energy to credit cards. This has compensated for a fall in demand for mortgages, previously a decent source of income for Moneysupermarket.com, where the housing market's woes have reduced those looking for home loans.
Given all this, why does the market remain so unconvinced by Moneysupermarket.com? Well, despite its undisputed market dominance, the company is pretty titchy compared with some of those now eyeing the price-comparison sector and licking their lips. Even if the thought of aggressive competition from Tesco, already in this market but now expanding its presence, does not scare Moneysupermarket.com, the much-rumoured entry of Google should.
Earlier this summer, Mr Nixon sent the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund packing. It had made a very preliminary approach, but Moneysupermarket.com's founder is convinced any bid made while the company's share price remains at the current depressed level would seriously undervalue the business he has built.
Fair enough, and the Canadians have not returned. Still, if Google or Tesco decide a bid for Moneysupermarket.com represents their best chance of moving into this sector with conviction, Mr Nixon may find it harder to say no.
The beginning of the end for Sir Fred at RBS?
Will Stephen Hester's appointment yesterday as a non-exec at Royal Bank of Scotland hasten the departure of Sir Fred Goodwin, the chief executive?
Mr Hester has been brought in to beef up the RBS board, criticised for failing to hold Sir Fred to account over his determination to press on with the purchase of ABN Amro, despite the credit crunch, as well as this year's humiliating £12bn rights issue. Along with two other new heavyweight non-execs, he brings valuable banking experience to the board.
Sir Fred deserves credit for having the guts to accept such formidable figures. But after last month's disastrous interim results, which included a £6bn writedown of assets, he may not get it.
RBS shareholders have stuck by Sir Fred. But the man himself – renowned for his fierce will – is likely to bridle at being more closely monitored. This is the price of survival, but Sir Fred may not feel it is worth paying.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
24 Comments
Amazine site
Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by state water heater censible | 31.08.08, 21:36 GMT
Cool blog
Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by state water heater parts | 31.08.08, 21:35 GMT
'Instead, the Government's priority should be to protect the real victims of the economic slowdown those who face the prospect of losing their homes because they can't keep up with mortgage repayments.'
Those people who overtaxed themselves borrowing up to 125% mortgages at 6x income are NOT victims! It is they who have kept this bubble afloat. The victims will be us tax payers and our children who will have to foot the massive bills to bail out the irresponsible!
This government, Broon et al are barking mad if they for one minute think they can buy votes by buying out the irresponsible. 1st time buyers are voters too!
Posted by sophie smith | 31.08.08, 09:38 GMT
The real victims are the taxpayers who will be fleeced to fund any bail-out, and those who hold savings in sterling.
Posted by H Thomas | 30.08.08, 02:39 GMT
THank God people can see what's going on. But who is going to be the one to actually tell Brown and Darling face to face that they have meddled enough. And now the once sanguine, wise and worthy Vince Cable is supporting only one sector of society it seems. I am a young single educated worker - I've incurred no personal debt ever. Perhaps I'm missing a trick. Tax and benefit and lounging about pretending to be thick is the truly intelligent option
Posted by lou | 29.08.08, 12:03 GMT
I agree about the comments regarding renters. More needs to be done to protect them. I have been moved on because the owners thought they could make easy money by selling at the peak of the bubble. Those houses are still up for sale and losing price fast.
The people leaving comments have more savvy than those in the article. It's worrying when you see these highly paid individuals broadcasting complete drivel.
Fortunately, Labour has bust the economy and cannot borrow anymore. I say fortunately because it means that the complete bunch of amateurs cannot waste any of our money on people who have no business acumane.
The hosing market is in meltdown, and I'm waiting for the bottom and then I'll buy without a mortgage. BTW, I hope all the banks go bust as well. Bankers (is that rhyming slang?) have wrecked western economies. They should all be held responsible.
Posted by Np | 28.08.08, 19:10 GMT
The author is probably correct. A reduction in rates or removing stamp duty is not going to 'save' the inflated housing market. It's on its way down and the falls have only really just started. Confidence based on the availablity of cheap credit has gone with the removal of the cheap credit. The falls should approach 20% plus by the end of this year on an annualised basis.
The folly of basing the UK economy on inflated house prices to drive debt based consumerism is coming home to roost. Unfortunately it's still very early days into this downturn and when unemployment rockets and the immigrants go back to Poland etc things should get much worse. Based on previous crashes the market should fall for maybe 4 years before stagnating for a couple and then rising again as the next round of scamming the home buyer begins. Worst case scenario which is probably likeliest however is that the UK will go the same way as Japan and take over a decade to 'recover'.
Posted by CHRIS | 28.08.08, 11:10 GMT
For so many years I have had to listen to smug gets telling me how much profit their property (bought with 100% mortgage interest only) has made them, and how I am so stupid for not borrowing 10 times my income. I refuse to bail these greedy scum out now. David Prosser can shut the hell up. The man deserves a kicking.
Posted by inbreda | 28.08.08, 11:03 GMT
What about the people who rent and are evicted because the landlord defaults? What about the renters who are evicted for little reason? What about the renters who do not have their tenancy renewed because the landlord wants to sell? What about those who can't afford a house? What about those on council house waiting lists? You want to protect idiots taht borrowed irresponsibly? WTF?! I can smell a journalist with a vested interest> Got many BTL flats have we? People who are stupid enough to over borrow (i.e. are greedy!) deserve to suffer for the rest of their lives.
Posted by inbreda | 28.08.08, 10:58 GMT
Those who have chosen to borrow beyond their means are not to by viewed as victims, unless the author means that they are victims of their own stupiditiy. The facts were there for all of us to read and research: house prices follow an 18-year cycle and 2005-2007 was the "Winner's Curse" phase when prices were bid to utterly speculative, meaningless levels. Anyone buying in this phase was taking an immense risk. Property is as risky an investment as any other.
The problem is that we all need a roof over our heads as a matter of necessity. This is why housing shoud be properly regulated and taxed more efficiently to even out the speculative boom-bust cylce and allow ordinary people to acquire the shelter they need at a fair price. Property speculation shoud be made illegal and mortgage-lending should be heavily regulated to prevent a future property bubble from forming ever again. For now, however, we'll just have to suffer the consequences of the bubble and take what's coming to us.
Posted by M Brodie | 28.08.08, 10:47 GMT
24 Comments