³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ discomforts
A bad end to last year in Scotland's residential property market has been followed by a much worse start to this year.
We've got figures out today from Registers of Scotland, the government agency required by law to include every property transaction that takes place, usually within a couple of weeks. These show the first quarter of 2009 saw a drop of 8.7% in the price of those properties changing hands, when compared with the final quarter of 2008.
Look at the year-on-year drop, and it's not quite so bad. Prices were still rising in the first half of last year, if you take this measure, so there's a 6.6% drop in average prices.
Drill down into the figures and you find the value of detached properties have fallen faster than typically cheaper properties. In leafy, well schooled East Renfrewshire, which saw the bubble expand more than elsewhere in the boom times, detached villas have dropped 28% in value during the year. In Edinburgh, detached houses rose in value.
Average transacted prices, meanwhile, went up over the past year in Angus, East Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, Moray and Orkney, though sometimes on the basis of quite small figures.
Terraced homes held their prices better than flats, which saw annual decline of 8.2%. This might be explained by the glut of new-build flats, most obviously in Edinburgh and Glasgow, with some evidence that developers have been dropping prices because they need the cash flow as a matter of survival. In Glasgow, more than 800 flats changed hands from January to March, with prices down 12% on the quarter and 13% on the year.
For those thinking of getting into the market as seller or buyer, the key figure is the 57% drop in the number of transactions over the past year. That demonstrates the lack of confidence in the market, as buyers stay out the market in the classic problem of deflation - the expectation that prices have further to fall, so it makes sense to hold off on a purchase.
The short-term fear of policy-makers is what could happen to the economy if that takes hold across the board. It's a very hard cycle to break, as the Japanese found in the 1990s.
And a further calculation from Registers of Scotland is the total value of transactions, down by 60% in a year. That directly impacts on those in the property industry. They depend on the amount of money flowing through the system, and it's impossible to sustain their employment levels on such a sharp drop.
But this is only one take on the state of the Scottish property market. There are other ways of taking the temperature.
Halifax and Nationwide have their own surveys, which tend to track each other quite closely as they have similar methodologies - taking a typical home in each bracket of the market, and seeing how it is performing in the market.
They agree that Scotland has had a much tougher start to the year than it saw last year, but the overall fall in the average Scottish price looks much steeper than the Registers of Scotland. The most recent Halifax figures, from March, show UK prices down 2% in a month and 17% in a year, while Scottish figures were 14% down in a year, but with a much steeper fall of 7% in the first quarter of the year.
Nationwide registered a 15% annual drop in Scottish prices, slightly less dramatic than the UK figure of 16%, but the drop in Q1 of this year was 5%.
Despite that, from the perspective of those wanting prices to hold up (and remember those wanting into the market take a different view), Nationwide rates Scotland as having been the best performer in holding up prices over five consecutive quarters.
Bear in mind that the average Scottish house is worth more than twice what it was 10 years ago, and 45% more than what it would have fetched five years ago. What matters to most people is how well their house would hold up if they had to move - that is, what could they buy for the money raised by selling? And for Scots, there's good news there.
With prices falling at different rates across the UK - up last month in north east England, while falling fastest in the West Midlands, according to England's Land Registry - the London benchmark has become more affordable.
Five years ago, the average London property would have cost 2.8 times more than the average in Scotland. That has fallen to 1.9 times as much.
And finally, on affordability, there are some significant figures from Halifax Bank of Scotland. Helped by falling prices and even more helped by falling interest rates, the cost of servicing a mortgage has come within reach of many more people starting out on the property ladder.
At the peak of the market in the third quarter of 2007, a typical mortgage payment for a new borrower in Scotland took 37% of disposable earnings.
The average over the past 25 years is 31%. But by the start of this year, that had fallen to 26%.
For those in search of green shoots, that affordability for first-time buyers looks like a good place to focus attention.
If only they had more confidence that prices will hold up.
Comment number 1.
At 5th May 2009, Wee-Scamp wrote:Good grief..... The concept that a typical mortgage payment for a new borrower has fallen to 26% is a good thing is risible. If it had fallen to 15% then that would be a good thing but handing over more than a quarter of your income for what is probably an unattractive box on a cramped suburban estate is just not worth considering.
Prices may have fallen but not yet by anything like enough. Another 20% or so might do it but at the moment nobody in their right mind should consider voluntarily buying a property.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 5th May 2009, oldnat wrote:"Bear in mind that the average Scottish house is worth more than twice what it was 10 years ago, and 45% of what it would have fetched five years ago."
Did you mean 145% of the value 5 years ago? If not, then that figure seems at odds with the other data you give.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 6th May 2009, nedafo wrote:Douglas
I take the view that prices still have some way to fall. I think the key to house prices stabilising is the lenders becoming comnfortable that the bottom of the market has been reached or nearly reached. That should give them enough confidence to start introducing more 90% loan to value mortgages. This is essential to enable first time buyers to enter the market. The fall of house prices per se is not enough; as a first time buyer, finding a 20% deposit for a £100K property is not much easier than finding a 20% deposit for a £120k property. What makes the difference is the availability of a 90% LTV mortgage. I don't think that we can rely on the buy-to-let purchasers restarting the market; too many of these purchasers will have had their fingers burned and the capital appreciation on properties is not attractive. The availability of finance is also a problem for many prospective buy to let purchasers. Any activity in that part of the market will be restricted to buyers with cash who are looking at yields which may be more attractive than other parts of the market. These will be limited in number.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 6th May 2009, jennybookgroup wrote:Well I verify the comment at No. 2 where our house price in 1996 went from 80,000 to 150,000 in 2002.
We deliberately bought small as the prices were unrealistic. Some people have made a lot of money and I guess some will lose a lot if they bought at the top of the market. But I dont think they should be compensated as they made it difficult for the rest of us by paying silly prices for houses.
We had already lived through a period of 15% interest rates and negative equity so were very careful when we bought a house again.
However what I came on to say was that in our area, which is Milngavie, it is very obvious that the nice houses still sell. But any house which has a slight problem with it or is over-priced is just not selling at all. Some houses have been on the market for over a year. I think things have started to pick up a bit though.
So when they say house prices have fallen for example 2%, then that figure ignores the ones which havent sold at all. So the picture is often a lot worse than the figures tell us.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)