The inflation years

Here is a rough transcription of the presentation for people who are hard of hearing. Apologies for the lack of grammar, I am working to improve the automated transcriptions -
Yo dudes in soon be Christmas one chart today this is from the bank of International settlements and it’s been presented by McKinsey global but the basic fact is it from the Bank of England national settlements and they don’t get things while another get things too far wrong on a subject like real house price index 1972 2008 so it’s not too far wrong right that established what the done is tied everyone together for the countries that you’ll see on the right there in 1970 now in 1970 there might be coming off our a housing boom or housing bust but there will been zeroed at the number 100 Sophie go down to 99 any time it’s below the price of housing in that particular country in 1970 but what’s basically lump pointing out with this chart is in most countries these have been the decades of housing price inflation now in if you got housing price inflation that’s quite a lot of price inflation because what’s been happening is that more and more of the household budget has been promised to pay off mortgages or other sorts of housing could rents get pushed up as well obviously so as this happens more and more money is being pushed into housing now housing into strange one it’s in the mentality is being kind of constructing over the last and these couple of decades now properly three since 1980s housing some sort of investment when it’s really am a fake it is is is like more like a car really that there is no reason besides a great height thing or special circumstances that the price how should go up because our law bought me say as long as land was available production costs should be coming down they should have been finding ways of building cheaper houses that they could level some ground round the corner from you and build a house cheaper with better materials make a better house the new cheaper than your house was built in the old days that should have been the way it goes on tour ways houses should be consumables they should be am outgoings because they have to be maintained etc etc but this great meme has swept the Western world and I wonder me self while they are that it’s some sort of investment and often an investment for your retirement which is very strange whining you wouldn’t buy a car for your retirement with you and the really are very similar things or at least should be should be treated as such houses should arm if you really put a lot of money into its maintenance and keep it is the maintenance up very well in other words you put a lot of money into it you might just hold the value but if you don’t maintain it while the value should go down but we can see that from 1970 arm in most all Western countries that the price is gone up radically now we can wonder why and I think we know why but the overall wondering is to why the country should go along with this sort of thing it’s such a waste of money putting extra money promising so much of the household budget into buying a house when really the prices should not be going up at all of some circumstances obviously in a restricted amp area for land and people flooding in the sale and demand prices should go up anyway so since 1970 was startled bottom Germany housing prices are inflation went been taken into account the other sort of inflation CPI type inflation will have been taken into account and Germany is the only one with house prices that are real terms are lowered nowhere 40 years ago to 40s nett 70 123 440 years ago and visited 2008 and Germany has had a little boost since I due to reasons so that they’re probably on the on the zero line Japan have come down from their great boom and are still on their way downwards and probably harming charting never levelled off so be slightly above zero and surprise Switzerland’s prices are haven’t gone up that certainly gone up lately since people were piling into Switzerland/the Swiss franc as so I imagine they have actually gone up a lot I would have thought that Sweden would been higher so I’m quite amazed that Sweden stayed so low that the lowness of Sweden is looking across 150 so even in real terms house prices in Sweden are half as much again 50% more are hundred thingy house is now 150 thing is that in real money inflation all taken into account in real money arm that have gone up 50% which is an awful lot of you know because inflation is taken into account over a am a 40 year power of a incapable of building a better houses in Sweden why are people paying so much for houses in Sweden and then we move on and get and this is why I stress this is from the bank of International settlements Attwood got the USA next with that and then there there house prices where up am doubled this is visibly will way the with the way the Bank of England national settlements has dealt with it and have drop down what 25 maybe 30% across-the-board and Mrs 2008 and are now all we can can plug-in to what I’ve been doing in many of these are or what are they world economic news is at US has prices look like they’re levelling off and if the data were the common economy was good enough United States would economy would I think the house prices would hold on/start going up now it’s only going to be because the world economies are on a downward trend in that golden pulldown the United States economy and bring down the United States house prices so we can think of the United States and they have gone from 210 to 180 why should they be 80 more why should they not now go back down to the 1970 prices what’s so different now than they where in 1970 was and is more housing in the United States is no reason at all why there house prices should be up there and that’s the whole overall things I’m talking about here why you should these house prices be up there and they go to hold up their because the powers that be are governments and specially central banks I can to try and hold them up there because the overall economy via the banking system would take a big crashing if the house prices started tumbling more but it’s like Han plate spinning they have a natural propensity to fall down is and has prices have a natural natural propensity to go up they have a natural propensity to go down and sources central banking forces mainly or banking forces in in the boom can get them to go up but generally they have propensity to go down and about the United States Italy and France and then Canada we know that the Canadian boom which has just started to turn now and what can happen what so to keep it up why should Canadian house prices stay at Norway slightly different there was sensible to laughter 1990 imagine oils got something to do with that Australia and housing boom which has started to crack but the central bank of Australia who seem very bright bunch of bunnies are doing all they can to keep it from crashing starting a spiral to pull it down low they are now withdraw them lowering interest rates and going to try and keep them up Ireland used to be up in the did they happen now I thought they were in the lead once but we know that they’ve crashed down 5060% and again you think well that’s it you can’t go down further than 50 or 60% yes you can is no reason that Ireland should still now be all there in 2008 be further down now double the prices they were in 1970 in factories as does the raised a definite and changes in Ireland that they are house prices on sale in the mind should be higher but not much much much higher Netherlands there is no reason at all I can’t I can’t think the Netherlands hasn’t changed that much it’s a desirable place they are productive but why should house prices be three times more than they where in 1970 UK the same day short of land are not building houses but to be 3 1/2 times more than they where in 1970 bizarre and it’s good to take an awful lot of manipulation to keep the house prices up their Spain have started to come down now that they’re coming down slowly and Belgium at the top same as the Netherlands advocate actually Belgium have got a not very working French part and an efficient that such speaking part am but they’ve is no reason they should be up there at all and what will happen if they come down over will have to happen to keep them up an awful lot is contact have to happen to keep them up central banks are going to be central to it obviously because is really not much central governments can do it must be down to the central banks they are going to have to pump somehow huge quantities of money into the hands of the people so they can afford to keep paying their mortgages a and have enough money out there that new people coming into the scheme will buy houses at annual and never rated rate from the people had already have them but it must be central bank action and that goes back to 1970 what the chart shows is an awful lot of crash possibilities those all of those are spinning plates that have to be manipulated up because their natural propensity is now to come down we have had for decades 40 years of inflating housing prices on the block on a mean that there it’s a good investment that prices can’t come down but it was never like that and in a written economic it’s not like that they are consumables that really should cope always down in price like Doesn’t mean economic sit right but what really has changed to make housing such a good investment arm from 1980 onwards nothings changed not really except more mortgages have been given more easily to more people have taken the meme up and bought the houses at elevated prices and forced other people to buy them even more elevated prices and that is a Ponzi scheme

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

    That chart is well out of date in finishes at the end of 2007 at the start of the falls. The first house I bought in1975 cost £17,500. A very similar house was recently sold for £125,000 . (May well be less as that was the asking price) Now according to this site http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html what I paid is now worth around £140,000 in real terms.

    Wonder if they are comparing the average house then and now? For if they are it is not like for like. There were a fair number of very small Victorian terrace houses, and back to back, houses around in 1970. There were also the post war prefabs. The new houses were not insulated, wiring and heating more basic and I doubt if there was any broad band connections, solar panels, heat pumps, double glazing etc. 

    I can never quite understand why houses hold value, perhaps they aren’t really like a car. You can live without a car, but hard to do (in this climate) without a roof over your head. It is a necessity and you maintain it in working condition, or most do. I suppose you could live in a caravan, and they don’t hold their value.

    Why can’t we build houses cheaper? Well for a start the Planning System restricts availability of land (rightly or wrongly). Also ever tried to get Planning Permission for an industrialised pod for somewhere in the Cotswolds?

    Perhaps there is a housing shortage in many countries?

    If you think about it; it is very difficult to standardise housing, shape of sites, ground conditions, general topography. They had a good go at it in the 60s, tried to do it on the cheap and we now have the problems. There is a lot to recommend, concrete blocks, timber and insitu concrete. Very flexible and fairly cheap. When you try to industrialise major components well there is a trade off. Also if you consider the life span of a traditional house against that of some of the more novel forms of construction then there is a cost over life span consideration.

  • John_by_the_creek

    Dear Mr. Mystic:
     
    I’m more than a bit surprised that the US fell-out in the lower section of the chart.  It would have been nice to have seen a chart like this, with an even longer time frame; say one hundred years.  I’m wondering if maybe the post war period may not be skewing the European data.  I’m guessing that European house prices may have been suppressed for a few decades after the war, as the Euro economies recovered, then resulting in what appears to be a dramatic surge from the 1970′s onward.
     
    Here is a link to a chart showing 100 years of US house prices:
    http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-housing-prices-since-1900.html
     
    The post war years in the US saw the advent of the GI bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill) which provided access to “zero down” mortgage credit (backed by the government), and house construction/ marketing as never seen before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York). 
    I think you are correct in saying there is no reason to view a house as an “investment” (although it is probably a decent inflation hedge).  But like so many other “consumer goods”, it’s the marketing campaign that determines demand (the “modern” public has little perspective of, or interest in ”history”).  Toss-in a flood of available credit to the masses, and the baby-boomer motto of “I deserve it”, and it’s easy to understand how we got here.  I read a while ago that house prices pretty much track the overall inflation rate in the long term.  At current prices, this suggests that either they could fall more, or stay flat for a very long time.
     
    Regarding your comment to the effect that “house prices should be falling with the advent of new building techniques and technologies”), in a way they have been here in the US.  Manufactured housing (AKA - pre-fabs, factory built, mobile homes, house trailers, etc.) have made incredible advancements in the last 40 years.  Many are “cheap” to buy, are spacious, and offer fantastic energy efficiency.  But they suffer from two problems.  They are not as “aesthetically pleasing” as a traditional home, thus the “upwardly mobile” crowd view them with contempt.  And because they are generally viewed as “shelter for the less affluent”, many municipalities prohibit them via draconian zoning laws (they would depress property values in the neighborhood).  Lip service is always given to “helping the poor”. But when push comes to shove, “just not in my back yard”.
     
    It was all a very nice “anomaly” for several generations, but reality always reconnects with silly perceptions.  The “cheap energy” anomaly has lasted for six or seven generations, and that too appears to be coming to an end.  If the masses are grumpy about falling house prices, just wait till they are faced with “rolling-back” their entire lifestyle.  I’m guessing all forms of tranquillizers and anti-depressants will soon become over-the-counter medications.

    • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

       For some reason I loved, `shelter for the less affluent`.  It kinda summed up the modern art of not calling something something it is.  I can just see some well meaning young lady talking to someone who immediately translates it in his head as `cheap house` and looks at her as though she was from the moon. 

      I did a single long shot on this to show the weakness of the people in the face of what we could call lots of things, but `advertising` will do here.  (meme changing)  The whole mental perception of `what a house is` was changed by people who would profit from that change.

      It is a big sticky-out example of the power of advertising …… and how we, as a people, are completely taken over by it.
      It takes basically born-stubborn contrarians to resist.

      This is why we are now, not people, but consumers.                              (hello John)

      • axionication1

        Jumping in. You appear to be entering the meme on ‘meme changing’.
        I like that direction & wish you would explore it more.

        The credit needed to be utilised in order to be…well…credit.

      • John_by_the_creek

        The euphemisms do become absurd, but for some reason, a large portion of the public seem to take comfort in them!  Is an ”STD” and less bothersome than “VD”? 
         
        Yes, yes, on the “consumer” thing!  But as the froth of the credit meringue deflates, I’m guessing more and more people will become cognisant of the other aspects of their existence.

  • CSArichardo

    I think if you are a company in Canada (incorporated or not) you can depreciate a building at 4% per year.  A car at 30% per year.  Because of the low depreciation rate on a building it really makes the comparison our Mystic is making difficult for the average Joe to visualize but in the big picture he is absolutely correct !   Your home should be declining 4% per year unless you are putting at least that into upgrades.  Clearly some type of Ponzi scheme going on.

    http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/slprtnr/rprtng/cptl/dprcbl-eng.html

  • http://www.richnewbold.co.uk/ Richard

    House buying is a funny subject. It seems, although I largely ignored them, there’s a whole new set of rules that people apply when folks are house hunting and most of them are related to how good an “investment” a property is. I understand that for most folks buying a property is likely to be the biggest purchase they make and is a serious matter, but when did folks stop asking themselves if they could be happy living in a particular house and start asking how good of an investment it is? I’ve never looked at my house as an investment and do not care what it’s resale value is.

    • http://www.richnewbold.co.uk/ Richard

      Also, more on-topic, does the increase in the size of properties over the past 40 years factor in to the price rises at all? I hear that in the US the size of the average home has pretty much doubled. Although that trend is also reversing.

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283

      • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

         I’m sure the rise in the sizes of houses is (or at least should be) factored in there somewhere.
        But, even if it isn’t, as you say, we all know that the reasons for by a house seem to have changed.

        I put this in here to link it to the bankers (and as to Johnny above, advertising).
        Just like people change their cars, or any of all sorts of unnecessary spending, it `could be` put down to manipulation by `business`.
        They do it.
        Banks have done it.
        We can say that everyone has been a winner, because all sorts of wonderful things have been bought by the people (and it has made them ever so happy~?).
        GDP has zinged along.

        I’m sure it would have gone on forever if it it could.  Everyone and everything getting bigger and better ………….. but, there seems to be some `reality` getting in the way.
        Strange that~!
        (and such a shame~!!)

        • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

           I think you are well off mark on this one, does the average person really consider their home as an investment portfolio? A few deluded souls perhaps, but I think consideration of local schools, safe garden for children and journeys to work are more important. In most the nesting instinct is stronger than the desire to build empires.

          Most see renting as a poor alternative that lacks security and limits what they can do, own cats, alter, extend. People seek security.

          I am sitting in a Victorian house and in my opinion this house is better able to service the needs of those living in it now than the day it was built. The sloppy aspects of Victorian construction have been made good, no iffy damp proofing, proper sealed windows, no draughty, rotten timber ground floors or multiple fire places. It even has plumbing that works and electrical wiring. People repair their houses and invest in them, the basic structure lasts, that is why they hold value. There is no reason why this house could not be lived in 300 years from now.

          If you want houses that do depreciate like other consumer goods then you need to look at temporary structures, or the likes of caravans. These are difficult to maintain long term. They fit in with the consumerist model.

  • Nic

    Really People five comments?

  • TheModernMystic

    I am sooo tired of busting my ass every day searching the interwebs for fresh stuff just to have a bunch of trolls come on here, steal my stuff without commenting and rush down to the bars to pretend they are smart to pick up young women. It is coming to an end people.

  • safeinsuburbia

    What you are saying is in line with Denninger.  He said historic prices were 3 to 5 times income.  Now it’s around 7 or 8.  Thanks to the easy credit.  Going to be hair-raising the decline and possible overshoot to the downside.  Unless, somehow, this is a “new normal”.  Last I checked, gravity works the same.

    • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

       Where I am the average house costs £98,000 when last I looked, seems about right if not on the low side of 3-5 times income.

      Also back in 60s -70s food and many goods where a lot more expensive in real terms than they are today.

      • Anne Panne

        This is a chart over the  change in the distribution of expenses in Norwegian households from ’58 to ’09: The red one is housing, the darkest blue is food and transportation lightest blue.
        Note that the housing costs were lowest in ’73.

        • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

           Was it this one you wanted~?
          (When it is up on the website, you cursor over it and if cursor turns to hand, then click….It should open on new page, then it can be `right mouse clicked`, `saved as` to your computer ……. and then here `+Image` will ask where to get the image from). 

          ((very sorry if you know all this, but something else went wrong~!)).

        • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

           Interesting graph as is the maps below it on the link. I believe that housing includes water, electricity, oil, gas and other fuel.

  • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

    I should mention a few another reasons why it is difficult to reduce the cost of new buildings.

    Legislation, some good and some adding a whole unproductive layer of administration. Certificitates and form filling. Daft policies written by people who have not the slightest idea of what they are doing. They have created an utter mess, a labyrinth. Needs to be simplifies and that would result in large savings. 

    Government bodies related to building that are ‘self financing’, ie they pass on the cost of their inefficiencies to the construction industry and also act as a drag on production.

    Monopoly, private sector, service providers. What some charge would make a banker blush.

  • Emmazedbend

    Excellent presentation I have been thinking about this quite a bit recently, I am in charge of my Mothers affairs and will need to sell her house when the time comes and I’m worried the bubble will have burst by that time (next 2-4 years). I asked the neighbours opinion as to whether I should get the garden ‘done’ he said don’t bother it won’t add ‘value’ to the house, but perversely putting a few licks of paint around the place will.
    I saw a documentary about the 70s and even in the early 70s in some parts a house price spiral was starting to happen – among the Middle Classes in certain areas, buying up run down (formerly grand) town houses.
    It all seems to coincide with the departure of manufacturing and the availability of more credit; could some one have sat in a room and planned it all? or was it organic?

    • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

       You have it with  “…….and the availability of more credit”.

      After WWII, Bretton Woods was the thing.  It included very restricted capital (money) restrictions.  After US did a gold window slam down, everything changed …. capital restrictions were lifted and money started flying about.

      What happens when you `free` people from restrictions~?
      (yup, they go a bit over-the-top~!)

      Money is `good` that can be sold to people like beans.  So, the free people sold that money like beans. 
      Everybody was hippy happy~!
      ~?~

    • ModernMystic

      So what exactly are you saying???

  • ModernMystic

    More Comments People!!!!!!

    Let’s keep talking

  • Camilo

    The  presentation is good  and it has his point, but it’s not easy for me to see houses just like a liability. You can live without a car and by a fraction of the price of buying ( + maintenance + insurance) travel in public transportation lets say 300 vs 50 per month. The same does not apply to the house, every month you are forced to pay to live in a house and the price of renting or buying is very similar (20%), and the result at the end of 20 or 30 years is very different because if you were buying you own the place and your monthly costs are considerably reduced even considering the maintenance.
    After retirement it’s very good to own a place as we assume that due to the reduced costs you will live better.
    This chart is not taking into account other factors that can “justify” the current price of the house. In the case of Spain in the 70 we were in a dictatorial state and the country’s  economy was very different for what it is today. I would say that Spain did not fully benefited from the boom that France or Germany had since the end of WW2, it was on a different plateau.

    • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

       Spain still is on a different plateau (as you are now finding out).

      • Camilo

        You’re right the economy in spain is nowhere near from Germany, we still need to check if we are at the 90 level or somewhere near 300 relatively speaking ( as the graph works in % terms).
        Just for extra information today is possible to buy some properties in Madrid for around 100 k€, that gives a monthly mortgage around 400 euros over 30 years, and if we want to rent it the price is around 550-650 euros. The big problem that the banks and constructions companies have is with the properties that were built in some small villages around Madrid that were supposed to cost 300-500 k€ and no one wants now….maybe when they will cost 50k€ they will sell them (and be broken).

        • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

           Yes, countries capital cities will all be somewhat protected from the house price destruction.
          (or other real centres of capital inflows).

          Pull the village ones down and fill a big valley with the used concrete.

          It all seemed like a wonderful thing at the time, eh~!?

  • Tekkie

    A house is not a car, bad comparison there. People need a space to live, they don’t need a car. What drives a house price… not the house like Mystic says, its for the most part, the land it sits on. In this way of thinking, houses will always go up (or at least over a said period of time) as the demand for a need (the house/housing, not a damn car???) will go up with population. I wonder how the price of a house has risen in regard to population in the uk???

    Come on mystic, you can do better than this twaddle.