James ConeyJul 13 2022

Mortgage market isn't broken but house prices are

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Mortgage market isn't broken but house prices are
comment-speech

So we have another plan to help first-time buyers: the 50-year mortgage that can be inherited by your children.

Do we know how it works? Of course we don’t.

Does the now outgoing prime minister who is, apparently, a fan of these deals? Of course he does not either.

Has anyone told him that when the Japanese tried this idea it ended in dismal failure? Don't be ridiculous.

I was one of the few people in The Times newsroom who recalled that we have been down this road before, in 2014, when a previous Tory prime minister was asked for his latest idea to help first-time buyers.

It’s like long-term fixed rate mortgages. Not only could I recall the last time they were touted, but also the original David Miles report in 2004 that had first put them on the radar of a government desperate to help first-time buyers.

I could not possibly guess how many first-time buyer schemes we have had between then and now.

At the moment we also have the unwinding of some of the reforms brought in after the global financial crisis.

I’m not long in the tooth at all, and I remember clearly what the world looked like before 2007 and that mildly terrifies me.

Still it's all in the spirit of helping first-time buyers.

We have all this because we have a government that is obsessed with the idea that the mortgage market is broken.

No one wants to blame house prices or countenance the idea that our obsession with property is to blame.

The former chancellor Rishi Sunak was asked that very question on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, and did not correct the assertion.

But they should. If UK Finance was doing its job as a lobby group representing the banking industry it would stand up, dispel the myth du jour: the mortgage market is not broken.

First-time buyers typically take out loans of 3.52 times their income – even at the height of the mortgage boom in 2007, when banks such as Northern Rock were lending seven times income, the average first-time buyer was only borrowing 3.33 times.

Since the end of 2020 there have been roughly 34,000 first-time buyers getting on to the ladder every month, a figure not seen since 2006.

Loans have stretched longer and borrowers now spread out repayments over 30 or even 40 years, rather than the conventional 25.

In the first three months of 2010 the average first-time buyer borrowed 67 per cent of their property’s value, according to the Office for National Statistics. By the end of last year, this was 76 per cent. 

Mortgages are flexible and plentiful, and banks have gone to great lengths to stretch affordability to help people get on to and move up the ladder. Actually, the fact that rates have stayed so low for so long and underwriting has improved massively is a success that rarely gets mentioned.

The problem is not mortgages, it is housing. We don’t have enough, and the ones we do have are not in the right places for young buyers.

But no one wants to blame house prices or countenance the idea that our obsession with property is to blame, so instead what we get is yet another first-time buyer scheme.

Contribution rates 

Amongst the mountain of data dumped by the Department for Work and Pensions last week was analysis of the growing divide between public and private sector schemes.

It’s startling that as participation in the private sector has risen, average contribution rates have fallen – obviously driven by the levelling down effect of having millions of new savers making much lower contributions than existing savers.

There are reasons to be angry about the bill we have for public sector pensions, but one thing you have to acknowledge is that these roles have far higher contributions. The scandal is how much more nurses and teachers, for example, pay than civil servants.

Rather than constantly bemoaning the bill for these pensions perhaps it is time to think about levelling up.

Let’s start to acknowledge that private sector contributions rates are far too low and take steps to change that.

Govt implementation not up to snuff

Smart meters sound like such a no-brainer: a digital device that would accurately automatically read your gas and electricity consumption allowing you to budget better.

The policy has been a disaster. The messaging from the start was inept and mis-leading, and the whole thing has stumbled over the technological problems of individual suppliers.

There was no universal standard, which left customers baffled.

Governments are hopeless at implementing this kind of thing.

Good luck with the pensions dashboard.

James Coney is money editor of the Times and Sunday Times

@jimconey