Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

The bankers have enslaved us with their high house prices

128 replies

CassandraW · 19/08/2011 07:57

We have just bought my parents house and I?ve been thinking about the differences in our circumstances compared to when they bought it.
Their quality of life was far superior to ours. Mum chose not to work and stayed at home to care for my four sisters and I.
I do not have that choice even though this is our second house like it was for my parents.
My hubby earns more than dad in comparison to the average wage so we should be well off but I have to work because the mortgage is so large.

It seems to me that I am a slave to a bank, while mum enjoyed a much better life.

When New Labour abolished financial regulation by creating the FSA our banks deliberately lent too much money to too many people. They did this to increase house prices.
In 1997 the average house cost only £60,000 but now it costs £160,000. The long term average mortgage rate is 6%. On a 25 year mortgage for every £1 borrowed 92p has to be paid in interest.
The more interest then the more money banks make and the more money they make the more they pay themselves in bonuses. On a £60k house someone had to pay £55k in interest but on a £160k house, the interest is £147k. That means the housing bubble makes bankers an extra £92k in profits on an average house. Just imagine how much extra they are making from all the higher mortgages on all the house sales since they engineered the boom. Even though the base rate is 0.5% banks have not lowered their mortgage rates enough but are making even more profit because they pay savers much less, so their margin is better.

People might think ?yes but look how much money your parents have made?. Here?s the rub. Although it looks like a lot of money ? what it buys is much less compared to what it would have bought before the housing boom. The credit expansion banks used to force house prices up, has created too much inflation. This inflation has eroded the purchasing power of my parents so called ?profit?. They would be no worse off if house prices hadn?t risen so much because although their cash pile would be less, it would buy more.

So the future I face is paying banks a much larger mortgage so they can make their bonuses and spend our money now while it is still worth something. However to do that we both have to work every hour god sends to live in the same house as my parents. It?s not a better house, we just have much more debt to service to buy it. We need the house to double in price just to cover our interest costs. If it goes higher it will just result in higher inflation which will mean any ?profit? will buy less in the future.

The bankers have conned us by allowing joint income mortgages. People have borrowed more which is giving banks more profits. If you look at 3 times main salary plus 1 times second salary, house prices are far too expensive. Though that is what my parents borrowed to by the same house as us. People should refuse to borrow any more than that and wait until house prices decrease, otherwise they are forcing their children into the same life of drudgery, when it?s their time to buy. I would much prefer to work part time and spend more time with the children but in effect I am working all these extra hours just so my bank makes more money.

OP posts:
lachesis · 19/08/2011 18:33

More fool them then, Cassandra. I'm hardly breaking out the violins.

ragged · 19/08/2011 18:40

I agree with Activate (sadly :(). And personally I never for a micro-second believed that property inflation was a good thing (least of all when I actually became a home-owner).

EggyAllenPoe · 19/08/2011 18:45

property inflation is caused by 1)increased demand and 2)supply shortage. increased demand is cause by fewer people living in each existing house - supply shortage is caused by the immense difficulty in getting planning permission for a new build.

so demographic pressure and planning are the cause.

PhyllisDiller · 19/08/2011 18:50

Well, technically cassandraW you could get a 125% mortgage pre FSA regulation. They were around after the last recession to help people in negative equity move house, they would have been withdrawn around about 1999/2000.

As for being coaxed/told/advised by your lender that you could borrow more...that is completely against FSA rules, but with banks only interested in profit is it any wonder it would happen? The sales person (mortgage adviser) you spoke to would be under huge pressure to make sales (or lose their job). Nice industry retail banking.

CassandraW · 19/08/2011 19:42

"The sales person (mortgage adviser) you spoke to would be under huge pressure to make sales (or lose their job)."

Surely that's where the FSA should step in? But they aren't bothered because banks make more money if house prices are higher.

I don't think supply/demand accounts for the rise in house prices because it is an expensive item that people need. Lending is far more important. Events have told us that loose lending more than anything else, leads to higher house prices.

OP posts:
azazello · 19/08/2011 21:04

I think the fact that the tenant protection legislation has been substantially watered down since the 70s and the right to buy Council houses has drastically reduced the publicly owned housing stock is more of an issue. If the only options are to have a series of short term leases paying your landlord's mortgage plus having to find moving costs and deposits every six months plus uprooting children from school etc, most people will try desperately to buy, even if they can't really afford it.

Sort out a sensible and pragmatic tenancy arrangement and house prices will eventually sort themselves out.

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 09:32

I agree with everything the OP has said. The whole market has been manipulated exclusively for profit by those with a vested interest in it. Other businesses tempting us with shiney goods has nothing to do with it - you can't live in a telly, so is not essential.
A home, a safe and consistent place to house and bring up your family in a stable environment is a basic necessity and one which the private rental sector in this country is totally unequipped to provide.
The only choice to achieve a home is to buy, and banks, mortgage brokers and Estate Agents have worked on that basis to continue to drive the market up as much as they possibly can on the basis of the need for a home and the (now in the past) availability of cheap money and plenty of it.

The general population has accepted the market as long as money could be borrowed for a purchase, and if prices continue to rise it gives everyone a sense of wealth and wise investment.
Buyers have had very little to no chance of affecting the market apart from maybe negotiating a small discount on the asking price. The market now however has come to the end of the road and it will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

manchurian · 20/08/2011 09:33

You can't argue that the bankers who offered you excessive mortgages are the ones taking home the big bucks and ploughing it into the property market.

Mortgages are handled by the commercial arm of a bank, but its the investment bankers pulling in the money. They may all add to the bank's profits but the bankers with big bonuses rarely have anything to do with commercial mortgages.

And I agree that the consumers are themselves to blame. The banks were only responding to demand in the market.

Young people today seem to think that they have a god given right to buy their own home. And they want to buy it on their own. When my parents bought their first house it was when they got married, there is no way that they could have afforded to buy their own house as a single in their mid 20s.

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 09:37

I think the average age of a first time buyer is mid to late 30's. Who are these people in their 20's who feel they have a 'God-given right' to own a house?

minipie · 20/08/2011 12:06

Cassandra having a place to live is a basic necessity. Buying a place rather than renting is not.

However I do completely agree with azazello that reform of tenancy rights is needed. We need far more long term (3 yrs+) leases for a start as we see in European countries.

lachesis · 20/08/2011 12:40

I agree with minipie.

Tortington · 20/08/2011 12:44

but tenancy righte are being eroded not the other way around

who do you have your mortgage with

twinklytroll · 20/08/2011 12:46

I agree no one needs to own a house, we lost money selling our old house and so we are renting. I don't feel like we are in any way deprived because of that.

I agree it is hard to feel secure as a tenant, we have been lucky but I know others who have had to constantly move on as landlords sell either by choice or when facing bankruptcy.

twinklytroll · 20/08/2011 12:48

In fact I am wondering if we will ever buy, watching an elderly relative who has scrimped and saved all his life. He has sold his house and has about £400K in the bank which is now paying for his care. It is not making him happy and he keeps talking about all the things he wished he had done.

OTheHugeRaveningWolef · 20/08/2011 12:55

It's the other way round. Property equity represents the retirement savings of a huge proportion of the UK population. If there's a huge correction - as there should be - in house prices then a big chunk of the population lose their pensions. Hence the government can't afford to have property prices tank. The Bank of England is actually enslaved to house prices, not the other way round.

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 13:40

I thought I was paying into my pension plan for retirement income, no?
Relying on some poor bugger to come along and saddle themselves with an enormous mortgage for 40 years to pay single-handedly for my retirement seems a bit stiff.

Financial planning is all about having a diversified portfolio - pension plan, shares, a home, no debts on retirement, some cash.

The BoE have allowed this mess to develop. It was obvious. But hey, as long as they were making truckloads of money while the sun shined, I guess they could turn a blind eye to the soaring debt problem.

Renting is more expensive than buying these days, with zero stability/protection. I think I may move & buy a beautiful big house in the Austrian Alps with a swimming pool. This country is an embarrassment in so many ways.

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 13:58

could be in for Christmas!

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 14:02

actually this is more what I meant No comparison to what I'm looking at locally.

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 14:03

If I rent out our 3bed semi it would give us a nice little income......

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 14:10

That second one has four apartments - 2x2bed and 2x1bed to rent out, directly on the ski-lift, all year round mountain interest.

My next post may very well be from there.

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 14:11

Could sell the 3bed semi for pocket money now......

TheBride · 20/08/2011 14:17

Can someone define what they mean by "bankers"? Hopefully everyone realises that interest rates are set by the Bank of England which is owned by the government and is not a mortgage lender.The main reason house prices are so high is that interest rates are very low. There has also been some irresponsible lending, but that's not the main reason.

The other reason for house price inflation is that houses are one of the few investments where you can gear up (borrow) to buy. You can't do this with asset classes such as shares (well you can, but it would be hard to get an unsecured loan for three times your salary). This meant that a lot of people were tempted into buying i investment property as a faster way to increase value than shares

eg- you buy £100 shares for cash. They go up 10%. Your return is £10, or 10%

You buy a house for £100, using £10 of your own money and borrowing £90. The house goes up 10%. Your return is still £10, but you have doubled your money.Your return is 100%.

Let's also not forget that the Labour government were absolutely LOVING the increase in property prices. Who gave a shit about the other stuff like Iraq and trivial stuff like that when they'd just "made" £100k on their house?

mylovelymonster · 20/08/2011 14:24

I think people's thinking at the moment is - I have saved £50k. I am earning above average salary at £50k, I can borrow £150-200k. For £200-£250k I can buy............a two bed terrace with no parking, and be paying £1500 per month for the privilege.....Hmm

Doesn't really make a hill of beans how we got here - we are here, and it doesn't look good.

TheBride · 20/08/2011 14:28

I know that. We're up the creek but what I'm saying is that blaming investment bankers is just wrong, because actually it's nothing to do with them this time.

aliceliddell · 20/08/2011 14:49

Have to bear in mind that rent is more expensive for the same thing (per week) with no security and nothing in the end. So mortgages make sense even if you can't really afford it, because you can't afford rent either