UK house prices rose by 7.3% year-on-year last month, reports Halifax. That’s not enough for Boris Johnson. He’d like them to go higher. How do we know? Because this week he announced a new plan to raise demand for them – and barring a sudden explosion in supply, a sudden rise in demand will push up prices. The idea – to introduce a state-sponsored scheme of long-term, fixed-rate, low-deposit mortgages – isn’t all bad. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have long-term fixes in the UK. It isn’t how our system currently works. Our banks tend to borrow and hence lend out over much shorter cycles; and we have a dug-in system of using mortgage brokers to find products – they too prefer to flog us loans every five years rather than every 25. But it’s perfectly possible – and sensible too.
The trickier bit is the idea of making these mortgages 95% loan-to-value (LTV), with the government guaranteeing the 5% deposit. The detail is not clear here (at all), but the idea that government should guarantee deposits is not new (the endless and awful Help to Buy scheme has set the precedent). However, it still misses two points.
The first is that deposits aren’t just there to protect lenders (a problem that can be easily solved by re-introducing some kind of mortgage insurance) – they protect buyers too. If house prices fall, 5% is not much of a margin between security and the sleepless nights of negative equity – that’s why lenders (already buried under mortgage holidays) are retreating from high LTV loans right now. Johnson says he wants everyone to feel the “joy and pride” of home ownership. Neither exists in a negative equity crisis.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
The second is that while it is clear that raising the cash needed to buy a house is hard, it isn’t just the deposit. It’s also the stamp duty. Buy a home in England or Northern Ireland for £400,000 (in normal times – houses under £500,000 are stamp duty exempt for now) and you’ll pay £20,000-£40,000 in deposit. That’s hard enough to save. But the stamp duty is another £10,000 – in cash and due on completion. You can’t add it to your mortgage.
So here’s an idea for a libertarian government that wants to step out of more markets than it wants to step into – and that wants to prove it is less in thrall to the lobbying skills of housebuilders than its predecessor (no one wins from a house-buying subsidy more than a supplier of houses). How about skipping the “guarantee this and guarantee that” approach and just abolish stamp duty?
This isn’t a time for losing tax revenue, but you could replace the losses either with a small capital gains tax on primary homes (at least then you are taxing the people in the deal who have the money already) or by switching the stamp duty payment to the sellers (again, the ones who already have the money).
You can argue (I have – see here) that cutting stamp duty does not necessarily cut the overall cost of a house (the seller just puts the price up to the new level the buyer can afford). But it does (like Boris’s plan) at least reduce the cash-upfront problem and hence open the market to more cash-poor buyers. It’s a lot easier too – and based on recent events it seems that the very last thing this government needs is to attempt to create any new and even-a-little-bit-complicated schemes involving spreadsheets. Enough of that.
-
Tycoon Truong My Lan on death row over world’s biggest bank fraudProperty tycoon Truong My Lan has been found guilty of a corruption scandal that dwarfs Malaysia’s 1MDB fraud and Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto scam
-
Why undersea cables are under threat – and how to protect themUndersea cables power the internet and are vital to modern economies. They are now vulnerable
-
Inflation may be slipping but there is still plenty of misery aheadEditor's letter Inflation may be a little lower than last month as the prices of petrol and diesel fall back, but it remains structural and long-term, says Merryn Somerset Webb. And there are no painless solutions.
-
Beat the cost of living crisis – go on holidayEditor's letter As inflation rages, energy bills soar and the pound tanks, what’s a good way to save money this winter? Go on holiday, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How capitalism has been undermined by poor governanceEditor's letter Capitalism’s “ruthless efficiency” has been undermined by poor governance, a lack of competition and central banks’ over-enthusiastic money printing, says Andrew Van Sickle.
-
Don't be scared by economic forecastingEditor's letter The Bank of England warned last week the UK will tip into recession this year. But predictions about stockmarkets, earnings or macroeconomic trends can be safely ignored, says Andrew Van Sickle.
-
The biggest change in the last 17 years – the death of the “Greenspan put”Editor's letter Since I joined MoneyWeek 17 years ago, says John Stepek, we’ve seen a global financial crisis, a eurozone sovereign debt crisis , several Chinese growth scares, a global pandemic, and a land war in Europe. But the biggest change is the death of the “Greenspan put”.
-
The wolf returns to the eurozone’s doorEditor's letter The eurozone’s intrinsic flaws have been exposed again as investors’ fears about Italy’s ability to pay its debt sends bond yields soaring.
-
Things won't just return to normal – that's not how inflation worksEditor's letter You might think that, if inflation is indeed “transitory”, we just need to wait and everything will return to “normal”. But this is a grave misunderstanding of how inflation works, says John Stepek.
-
The public may have reached its limit for tax risesEditor's letter The UK tax burden is now at a 70-year high. And, while there may be some reason to hold off on cuts right now, taxes are too high because the state tries to do too much. Perhaps it should do less, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
