What are the prospects for those who rent their homes?

We often look at what the state of play is regarding UK house prices but I think that it is past time for us to look at those finding themselves singing along with Gwen Guthrie.

Cause ain’t nothin’ goin’ on but the rent
You got to have a J-O-B if you wanna be with me
Ain’t nothin’ goin’ on but the rent
You got to have a J-O-B if you wanna be with me

Rather oddly if you take Gwen literally you may well live in Kensington and Chelsea.

 Kensington and Chelsea was the least affordable English local authority in 2016 with a median monthly rent making up almost 100% of median monthly salary.

Of course data from there begs all sorts of questions as it is heavily influenced by foreign purchases hence the nickname Chelski. Although it does show that if you work there you are extremely unlikely to be able to afford to  rent from a private source there. For a wider perspective here are the numbers which were produced by the Office for National Statistics last November.

 In 2016, median monthly private rent for England was 27% of median gross monthly salary. This means that someone working in England could expect to spend 27% of their monthly salary on private rent. London, the South East, East of England and the South West, all had percentages above this level. Overall, median monthly private rent as a percentage of median monthly salary ranged from 23% in the North East, to 49% in London.

Some local authorities are particularly cheap in relative terms.

The most affordable local authority was Copeland in the North West (12%) followed by Derby in the East Midlands (18%).

Although in the former case you may have to glow in the dark to get it ( and perhaps save on lighting and heating too).

 Higher median monthly salaries in Copeland are likely to be the result of a large number of relatively high-paid, skilled jobs at the Sellafield nuclear power station in this local authority.

What about social housing?

People also rent via this route and to the question how much? We are told this.

Average weekly cost of social renting for England in 2016 was £97.84, an increase of 2% since 2015. This is a smaller increase than in previous years, although the cost of social renting has risen by 40% since 2008. The average cost of social renting in Wales has increased at a similar rate, by 39% since 2008.

Which in affordability terms translates to this.

Average weekly social rent cost as a percentage of 10th percentile weekly salary in England for 2016 was 31.5%, a decrease of 0.7 percentage points since 2015. This means that someone earning at the lowest 10% of earnings could expect to spend 31.5% of their weekly earnings on social rent. In Wales for the year ending March 2017, weekly social rent cost as a percentage of 10th percentile weekly salary was 28.1%, a decrease of 0.4 percentage points since the year ending March 2016.

It is a shame that we do not get figures which are directly comparable. I take the point that those in social housing tend to have lower incomes as that is of course one of the main reasons they are likely to be there, but not always. On the measuring stick we are presented with it has got more expensive.

Social rent has become less affordable for both England and Wales since 2003. The differences between average weekly social rent costs as a percentage of 10th percentile weekly salary for England and for Wales have been within 2.3 and 3.9 percentage points since 2003.

What is happening now?

The latest official data on private rents is shown below.

Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.1% in the 12 months to January 2018; this is down from 1.2% in December 2017.

That reduction in the rate of growth has been in place for a while now since the peak at 2.7% in the autumn and winter of 2015. This should not be a surprise as rents tend to move with wages and in particular real wages although sometimes there can be quite a lag.I will come to London which is both something of a special case and a leading indicator in a bit but if we exclude it then lagged rents and real wages fit reasonably well in recent times.

Thus in the current scenario with real wages having been falling we would expect lower rental values. This of course is a possible explanation for the rush to include rents ( which of course do not exist) as a measure of owner occupied housing inflation  in the CPIH. If you were wondering why it gives a lower answer that is it.

What about London?

The official data tells us that it has a different picture to the rest of the UK.

London private rental prices grew by 0.2% in the 12 months to January 2018, that is, 0.9 percentage points below the Great Britain 12-month growth rate.

So it has been pulling the rate of growth lower and there should be “no surprises” as Radiohead would put it about that if we look at the numbers earlier in this article.

Actually others think that the situation is even more different in London.

Average rental values in prime central London fell 2.1 per cent in the year to February according to Knight Frank – and the letting agency says rents in that area have been dropping now for two full years. ( Letting Agent Today).

Fascinatingly we are told this by Knight Frank.

“As new supply moderates and demand strengthens, we expect to see continued upwards pressure on rental values” claims the agency.”

Continued? Anyway we have of course seen if we are polite what might be called over optimism before. This is me quoting the Financial Times on the 4th of November 2016.

Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast.

Actually it got worse.

London tenants face a 25 per cent increase to their rents during the next five years, said Savills, the listed estate agency group. Renters elsewhere in the country will not fare much better, it said, with a predicted 19 per cent rise.

I was far from convinced.

 We know that lower real incomes are correlated and usually strongly correlated with rents which means that a reduction in the rises and maybe some falls are on the horizon (2019 or so if my logic holds).

Comment

As we survey the situation we see a complex picture but a theme is that things have been getting tougher for many. I wonder how much worse things look for younger renters as for example even if the numbers above are the same some of them have student loans to repay? Another cautionary note can be provided by the official data which is far from complete and some statisticians think may be too low by around 1% per annum due to its flawed nature.

If we look ahead then the general trend is as I pointed out in November 2016 but as this year progresses there will be winds of change. There are ever more surveys suggesting a pick-up in wage growth but even if understandable caution is applied here due to element of deja vu inflation should fall back meaning real wages will stop falling and then should rise. After a lag that should affect rents.

Meanwhile I would like to remind you that the UK statistics establishment uses the rental data it knows is far from complete to measure owner-occupied housing inflation. This morning they have decided that a fantasy number based on troubled data is better than this.

this means that the RPI is heavily influenced by house prices and interest rates,

Not everyone is convinced this is a bad idea.

 

Me on Core Finance

 

 

 

Advertisements

What are the prospects for the UK house prices and rents?

One of the features of economics and economics life is that no matter how unlikely something is if it suits vested interests it will keep being reinvented. On that topic let us see what the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS has reported this morning.

Nationally, 61% felt landlords would exit the market over the coming year, while only 12% felt there would be a greater number of entrants. Moreover, for the next three years, 52% felt there would be a net reduction in landlords, with only 17% suggesting a rise.

Those of us who feel that the UK economy has been tilted too much towards the buy to let sector will be pleased at that but not the RICS which gives a warning.

Given the likely resulting supply and demand mismatch in this area, respondents predict that over the next five years rental growth will outpace that of house prices, averaging 3%, per annum (against 2% for house price inflation).

As to the deja vu element well let me take you back to November 4th last year.

Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast.

Okay how much?

London tenants face a 25 per cent increase to their rents during the next five years, said Savills, the listed estate agency group. Renters elsewhere in the country will not fare much better, it said, with a predicted 19 per cent rise.

Whilst we are looking back to then there was also this.

JLL, another estate agency group, predicted a 17.6 per cent increase across the UK by 2021, with London rents rising 19.9 per cent, far outstripping predicted rates of inflation.

What has happened since last November?

If we look back I was very dubious about this and pointed out a clear problem.

If you look at the pattern of rental growth it follows the improvement in the UK economy with a lag ( of over a year which is another reason why it is a bad inflation measure) which means that it looks to be driven by improving incomes and probably real incomes rather than the underlying economy. Thus if you expect real income growth to fade (pretty much nailed on with likely inflation) or fall which seems likely then you have a lot of explaining to do if you think rents will rise.

In essence there is a strong correlation between income growth and real income growth and rental growth in my opinion. We now know that so far this has worked because back in November I pointed out that the official measure of rental inflation was running at 2.3% and yesterday we were updated on it.

Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.6% in the 12 months to August 2017; this is down from 1.8% in July 2017.

Shall we check in on London?

The growth rate for London (1.2%) in the 12 months to August 2017 is 0.4 percentage points below that of Great Britain.

So we see that my methodology has worked much better than those in the industry as the phrase “vested interest” comes to mind. If you are struggle to predict capital profits ( house price rises) for your customers then promising some increased income (rents) works nicely especially at a time of such low interest-rates and yields elsewhere. The problem with this was highlighted by Supertramp some years ago.

Dreamer, you know you are a dreamer

If you look at the chart then it looks like the only way is down which looks awkward for the vested interests squad. Care is needed as it is a diverse market with rents in Wales rising albeit from a low-level and a variety of levels as shown below.

the largest annual rental price increases were in the East Midlands (2.8%),…….The lowest annual rental price increases were in the North East (0.4%),

But until we see a rise in real incomes then there seems to be little or no case for a recovery overall. At this point the UK establishment will be getting out the champagne as they will feel they put rents into the “most comprehensive” inflation measure CPIH at exactly the right time.

What about house prices?

As today is a policy announcement day for the Bank of England let us look at what house prices have done during the term of the present Governor Mark Carney. When he arrived in July 2013 the average house price in the UK was £174,592 whereas as of July this year it was £226,185 according to the Office for National Statistics. This replaced a three-year period of stagnation where prices had first fallen a bit and the recovered. So he has been the house owner and buy to let investors friend.

Some of the policy changes to achieve this preceded him as it was under the tenure of the now Baron King of Lothbury that the Funding for ( Mortgage) Lending Scheme was introduced. But Governor Carney could have changed course as he did in other areas. However he did not and I noted back then a fall in mortgage rates of around 1% quite quickly and the Bank of England later calculated a total impact on mortgage rates of up to 2%.

There are of course differences across the country as I looked at on Tuesday where the surges in London have been accompanied by much weaker recoveries all in other areas of which the extreme case is Northern Ireland  But the overall move has been higher and not matched by the lending to small businesses which the policy effort was badged as being for.

So if we now look ahead we see wage growth but real wage declines. We see that there has been an extraordinary effort to reduce mortgage rates from the Bank of England. There was also the Help To Buy programme of the government. All of these factors point to stagnation looking ahead and if anything the surprise has been that the various indices have not fallen further. Should London continue to be a leading indicator then perhaps more patience is needed.

The London* price gauge remains stuck firmly in negative territory, posting the weakest reading since 2008. Furthermore, the price indicator has turned a little softer in the South East of England,  ( RICS)

Comment

There are unknown factors here as for example we could see another wave of foreign purchases in London. The Bank of England could ease policy again however the power of Bank Rate cuts and indeed QE has weakened considerably in this regard. This is because if you look at countries like Sweden and Switzerland then with individual exceptions the bulk of mortgage rates hit a bottom higher than you might imply from the official negative interest-rates. This is in my opinion because banks remain unwilling to pass negative interest-rates onto the retail depositor as they fear what might happen next. So if the Bank of England wants to do more its action would have to be direct I think.

The other road that the Bank of England has been hinting at via its house journal the Financial Times is Forward Guidance about an interest-rate rise. Perhaps we will see more of this today and this is unlikely to support house prices as it would be the doppelganger of the last four years or so, especially of the “Sledgehammer QE” of August 2016. This means that today’s policy move could yet be putting Jane Austen on the new ten pound note. Perhaps the PR spinning around this will manage to put a smoke screen around the fact that there seems to have been a “woman overboard” problem at the higher echelons of the Bank.

 

 

The economics of the 2017 General Election

Tomorrow the United Kingdom goes to the polls for a General Election. Yesterday’s anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy in France reminded us that the ability to vote is a valuable thing that people have fought and died for. Let me repeat my usual recommendation to vote albeit with the realisation that as far as I can see it has been an insipid and uninspiring campaign. Time for “none of the above” to be on the ballot box I think.

Moving to economics there have been a couple of reminders over the past 24 hours that some themes remain the same. From BBC News.

RBS has finally reached a £200m settlement with investors who say they were duped into handing £12bn to the bank during the financial crisis.

The RBS Shareholders Action Group has voted to accept a 82p a share offer.

The amount is below the 200p-230p a share that investors paid during the fundraising in 2008, when they say RBS lied about its financial health.

If you look at the sums you see that the compensation is nowhere near the problem if you feel that there was a misrepresentation back then. Also as there was a 1:10 stock split back in 2012 is this not really an 8.2p offer? As to the theme of there being no punishment for bank directors there is also this.

A settlement means that the disgraced former chief executive of RBS, Fred Goodwin, will not appear in court.

Of course the UK is not alone in such machinations as I note this from Spain today. From Bloomberg.

Banco Popular Espanol SA was taken over by larger Spanish competitor Banco Santander SA after European regulators determined that the bank was likely to fail…..

The purchase price was 1 euro, according to the statement.

Santander plans to raise about 7 billion euros ($7.9 billion) of capital as part of the transaction. ( Bloomberg ).

That much? The situation has been summed up rather well in a reply to the article.

Santander could be buying a time bomb filled with bad debt. What is the CEO thinking? Why should shareholders bail out Popular?! ( @ ken_tex )

We are left with a general theme that the banking sector carries on regardless and simply ignores things like elections. Democracy has not reached the banking sector. There is a British implication as of course Santander is a big player in UK banking and as an aside this sees the first bail-in of a so-called Co-Co bond.

How is the economy doing?

We have the Bank of England with its foot hard down on the monetary policy pedal with a Bank Rate of 0.25% which as far as I can recall has barely merited a mention in the campaign! Amazing how that and £445 billion of QE ( including the Corporate Bonds) can be treated as something to be pretty much ignored isn’t it? Partly as a result of this we are facing a spell of higher consumer inflation which will lead to a contractionary effect on the economy due to the way it seems set to reduce real wages. But again this seems to have been ignored. Of course the Bank of England will be happy to be outside of the political limelight but when it is such a major part of economic policy there should at least be a debate.

Fortunately the edge has been taken off things by the decline in the price of crude oil back towards US $50 in Brent Crude terms and the rally of the UK Pound to US $1.29. This is a factor in the Markit business survey telling us this on Monday.

The three PMI surveys are running at levels that are historically consistent with GDP growing at a robust 0.5% rate, albeit with the slowing in May posing some downside risks to the near-term outlook.

So the economy continues to grow but at a slow pace overall. Of course the Bank of England will be concerned about this reported this morning by the Halifax.

House prices in the last three months
(March-May) were 0.2% lower than in
the previous three months (DecemberFebruary).

The mood of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney will not be improved by this as it refers back to a time before it began its house price policy push in the summer of 2013.

Prices in the three months to May
were 3.3% higher than in the same
three months a year earlier. This was
lower than April and is the lowest annual
rate since May 2013 (2.6%). The annual
rate is around a third of the 10.0% peak
reached in March 2016.

The Bank of England will also be worried by this signal that emerged yesterday. From Homelet.

UK rental price inflation fell for the first time in almost eight years in May, new data from HomeLet reveals. The average rent on a new tenancy commencing in May was £901, 0.3% lower than in the same month of 2016. New tenancies on rents in London were 3% lower than this time last year…….This is the first time since December 2009 the HomeLet Rental Index has reported a fall in rents on an annualised basis. The pace of rental price inflation across the UK has been slowing in recent months, having peaked at 4.7% last summer.

Of course whilst there will be concern and maybe some panic at the Bank of England that the £63 billion of the banking subsidy called the Term Funding Scheme has run out of puff. Meanwhile over at HM Treasury someone will be having a champagne breakfast as they slap themselves on the back for starting a rush to get rents in the official UK consumer inflation measure ( CPIH) last Autumn.

Fiscal policy

Back on the 23rd of May I looked at this.

Labour promised £75 billion a year in additional spending and £50 billion of additional taxes. The Liberal Democrats are also aiming for tens of billions of pounds in extra spending partially funded by more tax. Yesterday’s Conservative manifesto was much more, well, conservative………The Conservatives do not appear to have felt the need to spell out much detail. But they have left themselves room for manoeuvre.

Whoever wins we seem set for a period of higher taxation and higher expenditure but we remain in a situation where there is a lot of smoke blowing across the battlefield. There is of course also this from Labour.

we will establish a National Investment Bank that will bring in private capital finance to deliver £250 billion of lending power.

Comment

This has been an election where the economy has been out of the limelight. In a way this is summarised  by the fact that we have heard so little from the current Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond. This means that many important matters get ignored such as the apparent devolution of so much economic power to the Bank of England. An issue which is important as in my opinion it was captured by the UK establishment and now pursues policies that politicians would be afraid to implement.

Other important issues such as problems with productivity and real wages which have bedevilled us in the credit crunch era get little debate or mention. To that list we can add the ongoing current account deficit.

Yet some markets are at simply extraordinary levels and it is hard not to raise a wry smile at the ten-year Gilt yield being a mere 0.99%! Whatever happened to pricing an election risk? It also provides quite a boost over time to the fiscal numbers as it is well below the rate of inflation.

 

 

Negative interest-rates and QE have created a house price boom in Germany

A feature of these times is that is called easy monetary policy and this is particularly true in the Euro area. There the European Central Bank has a deposit rate of -0.4% and is undertaking asset or bond purchases of 60 billion Euros a month as well. This means that as of last week over 1.8 trillion Euros of bonds have been bought including some 216 billion Euros of covered bonds which support banks and then mortgage lending. Last week we discovered that some countries “have been more equal than others” in terms of where this 1.8 trillion Euros has ended up. From the ECB.

Excess liquidity has been persistently concentrated within a group of banks located in a limited number of higher-rated countries, i.e. around 80-90 % of excess liquidity is being held in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Luxembourg (see Chart 1) and even their country shares have been fairly stable across time.

It is fascinating that a country geographically as small as Luxembourg merits a mention. But Reuters updates us on the two main beneficiaries.

The study shows that 60 percent of the money spent by the ECB and national central banks on buying bonds ends up in Germany, where sellers, mainly UK banks, have their accounts. France accounts for a further 20 percent.

Okay and the consequence of this is?

But the fact that the money keeps accumulating in the bloc’s richest countries rather than flowing where it is needed the most risks undoing some of the ECB’s efforts and shows the European Union’s objective to create a banking union is still far from reached.

This makes me wonder about asset prices in the main beneficiary Germany as after all these QE ( Quantitative Easing) policies are claimed to have “wealth effects”.

House Prices in Germany

Let us step into the TARDIS of Dr.Who and go back to February of 2014 when the Financial Times reported this.

House prices in Germany’s biggest cities are overvalued as much as 25 per cent, the Bundesbank warned on Monday, adding to fears that international investment has helped to fuel a property bubble in the eurozone’s largest economy. The German central bank said that residential real estate prices in 125 cities rose by 6.25 per cent on average last year. In October, it reported that property prices in the biggest German cities were 20 per cent overvalued, suggesting the problem is getting worse.

If we move forwards to March 2016 then this from Bloomberg is eye-catching.

German house prices went nowhere for years. Recently they’ve grown faster than the UK.

So what had they done?

House prices have increased 5.6 percent a year over the past five years, according to UBS, which is double the average annual rate of increase since 1970.

As we see in so many other places the rises were concentrated in the major urban areas.

Prices are rising particularly fast in urban areas, where young people increasingly want to live. A gauge of advertised apartment prices in seven major cities including Frankfurt and Berlin rose 14.5 percent in 2015, the most since 2000, according to Empirica, a research institute.

As to “wealth effects” there was something else which is somewhat familiar to say the least.

So far the biggest beneficiaries have been Germany’s listed residential landlords. Cheap debt has enabled them to snap up housing portfolios and smaller rivals, thereby achieving cost savings through scale

What about now?

The Bundesbank calculates its own house price index which covers 127 cities and it rose by 8.3% in 2016 following 7.6% in 2015 and 5.7% in 2014. So according to its own index then prices must be very overvalued now if they were already overvalued back in 2014. Putting it another way the index which was set at 100 in 2011 was at 141.4 at the end of 2016. So quite a rise especially for a nation which has little experience of this as for example the period from 2004 to 2007 which saw such booms in the UK,Spain and Ireland saw no change in house prices in Germany.

In January my old employer Deutsche Bank looked forwards and told us this.

In 2017, we therefore expect rents and property prices in the major German cities, and across the country as a whole, to rise substantially once again…….Munich remains the most dynamic German city when it comes to property, with its fast-rising population and historically low vacancy rate likely to lead to further price increases for many years to come.

There is an element of cheerleading here which of course is a moral hazard issue for banks reporting on property prices which will not be shared by first time buyers in Germany. Those in Berlin will have particular food for thought.

Property prices in Berlin are now twice as high as they were in 2005 and have reached the level of some of the major cities in western Germany.

As of the latest news Europace have constructed an hedonic (quality adjusted) index which rose by 7.6% in the year to March.

What about rents?

These have risen but not by much if the official data is any guide. The rent section of the official Euro area CPI measure rose at an annual rate of 1.6% in March. Although Frankfurt seems to be something of an exception as Bloomberg reports.

The monthly cost of a mid-range two-bedroom apartment in Germany’s financial capital rose 20 percent in 2017 from a year earlier, while the cost of an equivalent living space in London fell by 8 percent, according to a Deutsche Bank study.

Frankfurt rent rises will of course be particularly painful for Deutsche Bank employees.

Comment

There is a fair bit to consider here but what is unarguable is that the easy monetary policy of the ECB has been associated with house price rises. These are noticeable in international terms but are particularly noticeable in a country which escaped any pre credit crunch boom. Also if we use the Bundesbank data above house prices rose by 41.4% in the period 2011-16 whereas real wages only rose by 6.6% ( Destatis) which is quite a gap! I think we know how first- time buyers must feel and yes there is a fair number as whilst Germany has fewer owner occupiers in proportionate terms than the UK they still comprise 51.9% of the housing market.

It is hard to avoid the thought that this house price boom is what central bankers would call a “wealth effect” from their policies, especially if we note that the liquidity seems to have mostly headed to Germany. Of course some of that will be the equivalent of a company name plate on the door but some will be genuine. Meanwhile as we note wealth transfers and inflation there is of course the near record high bond prices and the highs in the Dax 30 equity index seen last week.

 

 

 

Headline UK Inflation or CPIH is an example of official “Alternative News”

Today is inflation data day in the UK and the National Statistician is about to make a major change. Firstly there is a confession to a current omission in the CPI or Consumer Prices Index ( one which is especially important in the UK economy) and then the detail. The emphasis is mine.

However, it does not include the costs associated with owning a home, known as owner occupier housing costs. ONS decided that the best way to estimate these costs is a method known as ‘rental equivalence’. This estimates the cost of owning a home by calculating how much it would cost to rent an equivalent property.

The new headline measure called CPIH is claimed to include owner occupied housing costs but in fact uses the same methodology as used for Imputed Rents. As the renting does not actually happen they have to estimate which as I will come to later has gone badly. The alternative is to measure real costs and prices such as mortgage costs and house prices which not only exist but are understood by most people. So as a critique we start with the simple issue of why use a made up or Imputed concept when you have real prices available?

Sadly the UK Office for National Statistics has become an organisation which does not want debate and instead publishes propaganda or “fake news”. Here is an example.

(CPIH is…) the most comprehensive measure of inflation

As I have explained earlier it omits house prices and mortgage costs which are for many people substantial expenses and whilst I welcome Council Tax being introduced other housing costs are still missed out.

At the Public Meeting to discuss this the statistician John Wood made a powerful case against the change which was to point out why housing was being singled out to be imputed? Here are his words from the Royal Statistical Society online forum.

The CPI is based on acquisition costs, which is not the same as consumption costs for products (such as cars, furniture, electrical goods, jewellery) that are consumed over many years. I asked John Pullinger at the meeting whether ONS was going to apply the rental equivalence principle to such products and the answer was no. He accepted that they should be so treated in principle but ONS was not going to do so for “practical convenience”. So the only product in CPIH that will conform to the consumption principle will be owner occupied housing.

The problem of measurement

I argued when this saga began back in 2012 that the rental series being used was unreliable but was told our official statisticians knew better. What happened next?

ONS needs to take more time to strengthen its quality assurance of its private rents data sources, in order to provide reassurance to users about the quality of the CPIH.

There was an announcement that CPIH had been some 0.2% too low but the principle that the football chant “You don’t know what you are doing” applies as that series was abandoned and a new one introduced. Let me switch to the regulator’s view from last month.

This matter was considered at the UK Statistics Authority’s Regulation Committee at its meeting on 16 February 2017.

At that meeting, the Regulation Committee decided not to confer the National Statistics status of CPIH at this point in time. This is because although considerable progress has been made, ONS has not yet fully addressed some of the Requirements in the Assessment Report, particularly related to comparisons with other sources, explanations of the methods of quality assurance and description of the weights used in the calculation of CPIH.

I was contacted and gave evidence arguing for such a decision and just to give you a flavour I pointed out that there had just been announced a £9 billion revision to the Imputed Rental numbers which added to so many others that the series is now in my opinion a complete mess.

Also how is CPIH now the headline inflation measure when it is “not a national statistic”? Demotion was grounds for removing the RPI so why does this not apply to CPIH?

Smoothing

There is a further problem which is that the UK monthly rental series is erratic and would send out very different messages from month to month. Accordingly each month we do not get that month’s data but a stream from the past to “improve” the data. The first issue is that it is not that month’s data as claimed but this has another problem which is that it takes a long time for changes in the economy to show up ( around 3 years). This is two-fold and the opening effort is that rents take time to respond to economic changes in a way that house prices do not. Next the data is smoothed so it takes even longer to pick it up. What could go wrong here?

Today’s numbers

If we look at the numbers released this morning we would expect our “comprehensive” measure of inflation which now has housing costs or CPIH to push above CPI.

Average house prices in the UK have increased by 6.2% in the year to January 2017 (up from 5.7% in the year to December 2016), continuing the strong growth seen since the end of 2013.

So CPI was?

The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) 12-month rate was  2.3% in February 2017, compared with 1.8% in January.

Should we be nervous before looking at CPIH? Er no…

The Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH, not a National Statistic) 12-month inflation rate was 2.3% in February 2017, up from 1.9% in January.

So owner occupied housing costs make no difference at all? Not only is that embarrassing it comes under the banner of Fake News in my opinion. Actually Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation made a good point earlier.

https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/843760157494595584

So what is the point of the switch other than to claim you are representing something which you are not?! If we think of the period since the early 1990s the argument that there has been little or no inflation from the housing sector is a very bad joke.

Retail Price Index

This has been dropped from the Statistical Bulletin which is very poor from the UK’s statistical bodies as after all being “not a national statistic” has been no barrier to the advancement of CPIH. Here are the numbers.

The all items RPI annual rate is 3.2%, up from 2.6% last month. • The annual rate for RPIX, the all items RPI excluding mortgage interest payments (MIPs) index, is 3.5%, up from 2.9% last month.

For all the barrage of abuse it has received if you look at UK house prices it continues in my opinion to provide a better snapshot of the UK situation than CPI or CPIH.

Let me also mention the “improved” version or RPIJ which was pushed for a couple of years by our statisticians as it is now RIP for it. More than a few were led up a garden path which now is on its way to be redacted from history.

Comment

Regular readers will be aware that I have been predicting a rise in UK inflation for some time even during the phase when the “deflation nutters” were in full panic mode. Once the oil price stopped falling we were always coming back to this sort of situation and of course there has been the fall in the value of the UK Pound which in my opinion will lead to higher inflation of the order of 1.5%. If we look at today’s producer price numbers with output price rising at an annual rate of 3.7% more of that is on its way, sadly as we now face the fact that real wage growth has ended and will soon be negative even on the official inflation numbers.

Meanwhile as I have given a lot of detail today on the inflation changes let me end with something very prescient from Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: “If local authorities don’t send us the statistics that we ask for, than government figures will be a nonsense.”
James Hacker: “Why?”
Sir Humphrey Appleby: “They will be incomplete.”
James Hacker: “But government figures are a nonsense anyway.”
Bernard Woolley: “I think Sir Humphrey wants to ensure they are a complete nonsense.”

Update 2:45 pm

Someone has a suggestion about why there was such an official rush to include Rental Equivalence in the UK inflation numbers.

What is happening to UK house prices and rents?

Now we are a few months down the road from the vote in the UK to leave the EU we can take a look at the state of play in the housing market. For example is it on its way to an 18% drop in house prices as suggested by the former Chancellor George Osborne? Or was that forecast one of the reasons he is now a former Chancellor? Of course if so that begs a question as to how he can be earning circa £30,000 a speech. One thing we do know is that the Bank of England under the Governorship of Mark Carney did its best in August to keep the home fires burning.

This package comprises:  a 25 basis point cut in Bank Rate to 0.25%; a new Term Funding Scheme to reinforce the pass-through of the cut in Bank Rate; the purchase of up to £10 billion of UK corporate bonds; and an expansion of the asset purchase scheme for UK government bonds of £60 billion, taking the total stock of these asset purchases to £435 billion.

I suppose the purchases of corporate bonds are the one feature which did not help house prices, especially the frankly bizarre purchases of the bonds of foreign companies. But the rest was very house price friendly and we were also promised “more” by Governor Carney although he now tells us that he meant “more” in a “less” sort of way in the same fashion that his Forward Guidance of higher interest-rates turned into a cut in reality.

Where are we now?

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS has reported this morning.

The headline RICS price balance came in at 30% in November, it’s highest reading since April, with more respondents in most areas seeing some increase rather than a decrease. For the second consecutive month, the strongest growth was reported in the West Midlands and North West of England.

An interesting regional picture, do readers agree? Looking ahead we are told this.

The near term outlook for prices remains broadly similar to October with a net balance of 14% of surveyors expecting an increase over the coming three months, and some growth expected across most parts of the UK.

There is of course something of a moral hazard in looking at surveyors views which I think is highlighted below.

However, the largest proportion (63%) think that prices are currently around fair value. The South East contains the largest proportion (58%) of contributors who take the view that prices are above fair value at present.

Only 58% think house prices are too high in the South East?

Halifax

The Halifax house price report was released yesterday although these days it is under the Markit banner and it told us this.

“House prices in the three months to November were 0.8% higher than in the previous quarter. This increase followed little movement in prices on this quarterly measure in both September and October. The annual rate of growth also increased, rising for the first time for eight months, from 5.2% in October to 6.0%.

So we see little sign of an 18% drop although we have seen a slowing in the annual rate of house price inflation from 10%. However an annual rate of 6% is still well above both ordinary inflation and is around treble growth in average earnings. So whilst we do not have the data for the earnings to house price ratio I can see on the chart provided that we are at 2006/07 levels which were supposed to be unaffordable weren’t they? Of course interest-rates are much lower now but we have also have seen real wages fall and not fully recover.

What about rents?

The official view is that the growth in rents has been slow. For example here are the latest numbers which are similar to wage growth.

Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 2.3% in the 12 months to October 2016; this is unchanged compared with the year to September 2016.

As growth in rents has been much slower than house prices the UK establishment is desperate to put the former in its consumer inflation numbers. However whilst there are obvious issues with any definition of poverty this from the Joseph Rowntree Trust poses a challenge to the establishment complacency.

The number of private renters in poverty has doubled over the last decade. There are now as many private renters in poverty as social renters. Rent accounts for at least a third of income for more than 70% of private renters in poverty.

Whilst there may be a variety of causes these are worrying numbers for a recovery although they do only take us to 2014/15.

In 2010/11, the number of landlord evictions and mortgage repossessions were both around 23,000. In 2015/16, there were 37,000 landlord evictions and 3,300 mortgage repossessions. 58,000 households were accepted as homeless in 2015/16, an increase of almost 50% compared with five years earlier. The most common cause of homelessness is the end of a shorthold tenancy or rent arrears.

There is also a concluding sentence with which I can only say “Hear! Hear!”

What about London?

The Guardian reported this yesterday.

On Monday, property firm Knight Frank said prices in prime London postcodes had fallen by 4.8% in the year to November, and were set to end the year 6% down. In Chelsea, prices have dropped by 12.6% over the past year, it said, while around Hyde Park values are down by 11.2%. It forecast that across the market prices will remain flat in 2017.

An estate agent saying prices will be flat? With the obvious moral hazard in play that sounds like a fall to me. Volumes have also fallen but I note that the Guardian numbers have been challenged by Henry Pryor on Today on Radio 4 earlier. He says that one company sold 9 new-builds above £5 million as opposed to that being the total. He also argues that prices have been falling for a while.

Some agents suggest prices in parts of London have fallen 35% below their peak levels of 2014 but these are perhaps exceptions…At the very top of the central London market homes where homes cost over £5 million prices are down 11% on 2015 & 19% on 2014 levels.

If there is a trickle-down effect then it is in play right now. Although care is needed as of course these prices rose into the stratosphere and if you like we are reversing the recent pattern of Monte Paschi.

Comment

If we look for ch-ch-changes we see the clearest signs of a change is gonna come in London. Volumes have dropped and as we note that prices were falling at the top end anyway it is clear that “the only way is up baby” has been replaced on the record turntable by “Fallin'” as Alicia Keys moves Yazz on. As this has strong international influences we wait to see how they play out as existing owners have lost out from the lower UK Pound £ but new buyers can buy more cheaply. With real wages coming under pressure from higher inflation and therefore likely to fall in 2017 we should see national house price growth slow and maybe even a fall or two. That’s the best piece of new first time buyers have seen for quite some time.

As to rents I do not change my view from November 4th.

As we look forwards the UK is so far doing okay for economic growth (0.4% to 0.5% per quarter on the evidence so far) but I expect a rise in inflation in 2017 which is more likely to subtract from that via its effect on real incomes than add to it. We know that lower real incomes are correlated and usually strongly correlated with rents which means that a reduction in the rises and maybe some falls are on the horizon (2019 or so if my logic holds).

Perhaps that is why they are putting imputed rents in the headline consumer inflation number from next March! Although with the establishments record on Forward Guidance maybe not…

 

 

UK rents are going to surge. Really?

The issue of rents is something which has two main drivers to attract our attention. The main one is that whilst the UK often likes to think of itself as a nation of home owners the fact is that more and more people are renting this days. Within renting there has also been a shift as fewer council houses (for foreign readers UK local authorities used to have a largish stock of housing but have much less now) are available and more people rent privately. There is of course something of an irony in the fact that in this respect we are becoming more like our European neighbours. Also there is the issue that our establishment and statisticians are trying to push a measure of inflation (CPIH) which takes owner occupied houses and imagines they are rented out and then puts that in the inflation numbers. Of course they also use such numbers to impute a rent for the income version of the GDP numbers. What could go wrong? Actually quite a lot if you go to the Royal Statistical Society to debate such issues as I do.

What is going to happen to rents?

The Financial Times has published some analysis today although you may note the last 4 words of the sentence below.

Rents in Britain will rise steeply during the next five years as a government campaign against buy-to-let investing constrains supply, estate agencies have forecast.

Okay by how much?

London tenants face a 25 per cent increase to their rents during the next five years, said Savills, the listed estate agency group. Renters elsewhere in the country will not fare much better, it said, with a predicted 19 per cent rise.

We then get a reminder of what is driving this according to Savills.

Efforts to damp the buy-to-let market, including a stamp duty surcharge and plans to limit tax relief on mortgage interest payments, are pushing investors towards “higher yielding, lower demand markets”, meaning the areas of highest demand, such as London, face tightening supply. Yields in cheaper areas of the country tend to be higher.

Here are their estimates for the numbers.

Savills said the number of mortgaged buy-to-let investors purchasing new homes was set to drop by a third to 80,000 by 2018, recovering slightly to 90,000 by 2021. Cash buyers, many of whom are investors, will drop by 18 per cent by 2018.

Ah “investors” some would call that rentiers. Also it would appear that estate agents in general are keen to put rising rents in our minds.

JLL, another estate agency group, predicted a 17.6 per cent increase across the UK by 2021, with London rents rising 19.9 per cent, far outstripping predicted rates of inflation.

Let me for the moment simply point out the tactical issue that if those planning to rent property are switching out of London then presumably that will put downwards pressure on rents elsewhere as the FT has missed this.

House Price Stagnation

As we mull the obvious moral hazard in the analysis above we might advance expecting house price rises to be forecast to match the rent rises.

Savills said prices would be flat in 2017 in the capital and elsewhere…….“We think sentiment will be affected as there is more of a realisation of what Brexit means for earnings, for the economy and for employment,” Mr Cook said.

Mr.Cook has just provided a critique of his own rent forecasts as of course the trends for earnings and employment will affect them too. Also there has to be some jam tomorrow to go with today’s dry toast.

Savills predicted a year of steeper growth — 5.5 per cent — in 2019 as uncertainty around the Brexit negotiation process abates, bringing total UK house price growth to 13 per cent in the next five years.

Ah so just like the Bank of England perhaps! If the numbers have gone against you claim it back in 2019 and then hope that when we get to 2019 everyone will have forgotten it.

What is happening to rents?

Last week we were updated on the official data.

Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 2.3% in the 12 months to September 2016; this is unchanged compared with the year to August 2016.

It was kind of the ONS to make my case that this is flawed measure for inflation for me.

residential house price growth in Great Britain has typically been stronger than rental price growth, with an average 12-month rate of house price inflation between January 2014 and August 2016 of 7.3%, compared with 2.1% for rental prices.

But if we go back to rents there is a clear problem in the forecasts made today. If you look at the pattern of rental growth it follows the improvement in the UK economy with a lag ( of over a year which is another reason why it is a bad inflation measure) which means that it looks to be driven by improving incomes and probably real incomes rather than the underlying economy. Thus if you expect real income growth to fade (pretty much nailed on with likely inflation) or fall which seems likely then you have a lot of explaining to do if you think rents will rise. If 2017 turns into a difficult year with higher inflation then 2019 would be a rough year for rents if past patterns hold. Or up seems to be the new down yet again.

At a time like that renters are more likely to be singing along with Lunchmoney Lewis.

I got bills I gotta pay
So I’m gon’ work, work, work every day
I got mouths I gotta feed,
So I’m gon’ make sure everybody eats
I got bills!

As a technical point it is only in England that rents are rising.

Private rental prices grew by 2.5% in England, fell by 0.1% in Scotland and grew by 0.1% in Wales in the 12 months to September 2016.

Actually if we move to Mortgage Introducer the situation for rents in London seems to be seeing ch-ch-changes.

London rents fell by -0.11% in October, with major falls occurring in Westminster (-1.86%), Kensington and Chelsea (-1.81%), Richmond upon Thames (-0.99%) and Camden (-0.93%).

Actually the index here showed that there are very different situations across Scotland.

Aberdeen (-13.22%) and Aberdeenshire (-9.03%) saw the greatest rental falls  as they were both hit by the dramatic fall in oil prices since mid-2014.

But Edinburgh City rose by 5.63%.

Comment

There is a lot at play here. Sadly one of them is the increasing way that the media reproduce what are in effect not far off press releases and call it journalism, As we look forwards the UK is so far doing okay for economic growth (0.4% to 0.5% per quarter on the evidence so far) but I expect a rise in inflation in 2017 which is more likely to subtract from that via its effect on real incomes than add to it. We know that lower real incomes are correlated and usually strongly correlated with rents which means that a reduction in the rises and maybe some falls are on the horizon (2019 or so if my logic holds).

Also an argument in favour of rental yields rising needs to address why in an era of negative interest-rates and bond yields they should be exempt? Oh and as to lower supply of houses for rent well the FT did not seem to think so only three weeks or so ago.

Rightmove, the property website, found rental listings had risen by 6 per cent in the three months to the end of September compared to the same period last year. The rise in supply was even more pronounced in London, where it climbed 15 per cent year on year.

These issues have increasing importance as the phrase “Generation Rent” implies as I expect millennials and those younger to increasingly rent rather than own things. This is an example of back to the future or perhaps a life cycle as I recall my grandparents and for a while my parents renting items such as TVs and later video recorders from places such as Radio Rentals. We do however have a new name for it as renting comes under the sharing economy does it not?

Meet the new boss,same as the old boss?