Showing posts with label house prices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label house prices. Show all posts

What Mark Carney should be telling you about your career plans


By Neil Patrick

Unless you are particularly interested in the financial markets or economics (as I am) you probably didn’t pay too much attention to the news that the Mervyn King shaped hole at the head of the Bank of England had been filled (partially at least) by Canadian Mark Carney.

Mr Carney has a very good record we are told, having steered Canada’s economy skilfully around the economic crisis that swamped the US, UK and the Eurozone from 2008 onwards.

He’s wasted no time either in putting his stamp on the way the Bank of England conducts itself, and the first of his measures is the announcement that from now on the Bank will issue what he calls ‘forward guidance’ on its plans for interest rates.

Carney used the same ‘trick’ in Canada. On the face of it, it’s no bad thing; it allows businesses and markets to get a greater level of confidence over the medium term environment and consequently plan better and have fewer short term shocks to cope with. So in principle, I think this is a good thing.

But in practice, right now in this climate, it’s quite another. That’s because he’ll almost certainly be telling us all to expect near-zero interest rates for many years to come.

What he should be saying is that interest rates will have to rise one day, that the government is too deep in debt to keep most of its promises and that as soon as the cheap debt disappears i.e. as soon as any sort of economic recovery starts to happen, real wages will not rise for years.

So was Mr Carney really the saviour of Canada whilst the rest of the west fell into recession? The Bank of Canada first used the forward guidance idea in 2009. Carney slashed interest rates promptly but also pledged to Canadians that this low rate environment would remain in place for a long time to come.

The policy was credited with helping Canada steer its way around the recession and paved the way both for the creation of Carney’s reputation as one of the world’s cleverest central bankers and ultimately him getting the transfer deal from Ottawa to London.

But I suspect that the true value of Mr Carney’s measures have been massively over-hyped. The reality I think was that Canada’s salvation was as much due to the innate conservatism of its banks, high commodity prices and the fact that Canadians carried on happily spending and borrowing, as it was by anything that the central bank said.

To put it another way, are we really sure we are comparing apples with apples here?

So whilst I think this question remains open to debate, I am quite definite that this forward guidance obscures the emergence of a really dangerous situation for most working professionals.

Let’s not forget that 0.5% interest rates are an aberration. They have not been this low for the last 300 years. At some point in the future they MUST rise again. So if you’ve become used to paying your mortgage or business loan or whatever at today's rates, try doubling or trebling that monthly cost and ask yourself how comfortable you’d be in that situation?

If the answer is 'not very', you need to start doing something about it right now.

Next, let’s not forget either that the Bank England does not control the prices that you pay for the financial products and services you buy. UK banks have had a hard time as we all know, and whilst you may smugly argue that they got what they deserved, the fact remains that they will be using every trick they can muster in the coming years to generate profits again. The demise of free banking is already on the horizon and you can fully expect that as central bank base rates rise, customer prices will rise at least as fast and probably faster.

The next point is that as we all know, the UK government is in a state of near cataclysmic debt. It has the biggest deficit of any country in the developed world and simply cannot expect to continue without huge future reductions in spending. And as you’ve probably guessed, this means you can expect to see the costs of pensions, education and healthcare increasingly passed on directly or indirectly to you.

Last but not least, the growth of the last two decades in the UK was based mainly upon debt and house price growth which meant almost everyone felt they were getting richer. We weren’t, it was an illusion and only the ongoing supply shortage and of course the latest government house buying subsidy madness is keeping house prices from collapsing to their true value.

Only one thing really creates real wealth growth and that is rising productivity, and whilst some recent reports point out that this has increased slightly in recent months, it’s a far cry from being any sort of major turnaround. So, without the artificial stimulus of rising debt, real wages are unlikely to rise any time soon and may even continue to fall.

Couple this with the outlook for living costs I’ve outlined above and you can see that if you want to see any sort of improvement in your standard of living, or even just maintaining the one you have now, you’ll need to have a plan to earn a great deal more money over the coming years.

Of course no-one in the government or the Bank of England wants to highlight these points – after all who wants to hear this sort of truth? The reality for most of us is that we will have to work harder, save more and spend less. That’s the sort of forward guidance that Mark Carney ought to be giving us.

UK: One million young unemployed? No, that’s just the tip of iceberg…


By Neil Patrick

Whilst this blog is focussed on job and career matters for mature professionals, we all know that the global jobs crisis is also hitting young people exceptionally hard. And in the UK, still-inflated house prices and cautious bank lending means many remain living at home with their parents sometimes to 30 years of age or more.

But this isn't just a tragedy for the young. Unemployment and underemployment amongst the young has a profound impact on their parents' financial sitautions too.

The average age of first-time UK house buyers is now 35 years old, according to a survey by Post Office Mortgages. This compares to 28 ten years ago, and 30 five years ago.

In the early 1960s, the average age was 24.

The survey also found that half of all prospective first-time buyers believe that it will take them ten years just to save enough to raise the deposit to get on the property ladder.

With the average price of a first-time property at £137,500, the average deposit required is £27,500.

Now I actually think that this is not such a bad thing. Irresponsible lending and borrowing particularly in the US and UK housing markets are one of the major root causes of today’s western economic woes. So a sizeable deposit requirement and the self-discipline and sacrifices required to achieve this would seem to be a good thing, right?

Well not exactly. You see, whilst it might be tempting to imagine young people working and saving hard and finally reaching a position where they can finally afford that deposit down payment, that’s not what is happening in reality.

In the vast majority of cases, the deposit isn’t found in this way. So where’s is it coming from? Family. The bank of Mum and Dad - if you are lucky enough to have parents with £30,000 or so just sitting around with nothing better to do. 


So if you are one of the lucky few, this deposit hurdle isn’t a problem at all. And in fact, if you can persuade your parents that it’s just impossible for you to save so much on your income, a big deposit is arguably even less of a hurdle than a small one.

Ironically, this large deposit requirement creates a new generation of young home buyers with absolutely no personal stake in their home investment! And with interest rates so low, the monthly payments are very easy - for now…

And how many do you think have budgeted for a possible interest rate rise on their repayments…I don’t know either, but I’d be willing to take a bet…

Once we see any sort of upward movement of interest rates, then everything will start to look very wobbly.

So this is the uptown story.

Moving downtown, there’s a whole different story playing out.

The recent National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) study shows the jobs situation for 16 to 24-year-olds is much worse than even the raw unemployment figures of 979,000 suggest.

The lack of job opportunities for young people during the downturn is brought into stark relief when we consider the fact that nearly a third of those counted as being in work are actually “underemployed”, according to NIESR.

So whilst nearly a million are completely out of work, many times more than this are not getting as many hours work as they’d like.

Of those in the age group that did have jobs in 2012, 30% wanted to work more, according to authors David Blanchflower and fellow economist David Bell. They report that that standard unemployment figures - which have fallen overall in the past year - failed to give a proper picture of “labour market slack” in the economy.

In the whole UK workforce, the proportion of the workforce who were jobless or underemployed rose from 6.2% in 2008 to 9.9% in 2012, according to an index calculated by the researchers, while over the same period the unemployment rate rose from 5.8% to 8%.

Even if there were an upturn in demand, employers would be likely to extend the hours of existing workers before taking the risk of hiring new young employees.
 
So the overall picture is that total hours worked in the economy have increased since the start of the recession. But this conceals a fall in incomes, due to the use of cheaper part time contracts by employers.

So we have a two speed society amongst the under 30s. One group that thanks to modest family wealth, are enjoying a comfortable cruise through the recession. And a second much larger group who are facing a very uncertain future with low incomes and little prospect of achieving even the modest living standards that were accepted as normal in the west until the last few years.

So in different ways, both groups are remaining highly dependent on their parents and families well into their adult lives. But with growing job and income insecurity amongst the baby boomer parents, how long before even this fragile arrangement collapses?