Will Rachel Reeves's mortgage reforms help to ease the housing crisis?
Echoing the complaints of a generation of younger people, Rachel Reeves argues that tenants shouldn't be helping other people to pay their mortgages through exorbitant rents, and instead could be making themselves more financially secure in the long run. It all sounds very appealing, but there are problems, too...
What does Reeves want to change?
She wants to allow banks and building societies to lend money at 4.5 times a person's income, whereas the norm was once about two to three times, and to lower the minimum salary qualification from £35,000 to £30,000 per annum. She will also make permanent the government's mortgage 'backstop' guarantee scheme, which protects banks from default. The Bank of England is also ready to permit the banks to make riskier loans.
Who is it designed to help?
The government says some 36,000 additional mortgages will be approved in the first batch alone. So, quite a few potential voters.
Will it solve the housing crisis?
Obviously not; arguably, it might even make matters worse. In the first place, it is a small move, and there will still be many who don't earn enough, or have the capital available, to take advantage of the looser regulations. They will continue to rent (though the government is introducing the Renters' Rights Bill to give them some new protections).
However, insofar as it does increase demand, it will make housing dearer. As has been well observed, the problem with the property market overall isn't a lack of demand but a long-running shortage of supply. Angela Rayner 's drive to build 1.5 million homes in this parliament will help matters somewhat, but it will take time.
Are there any dangers?
Yes. Memories of the financial crisis of 2008 are clearly fading, because it was the excessive provision of mortgages to sub-prime customers, and relaxed financial regulation, that led to the collapse of the world banking system, triggering a sharp recession and a long-term hit to global economic growth. It could happen again.
For example, if there is a recession, people lose their jobs and the property market slumps (which it will one day), then these overstretched new borrowers are forced to sell their homes at a loss, which will often be suffered by the bank or building society. This in turn will reduce the capacity of financial institutions to lend, and send the economy into a credit squeeze and a downward spiral – not to mention bankrupting the unlucky first-time buyers.
If the government effectively guarantees the loans, losses will be suffered by the taxpayer, and the national debt could be substantially inflated. Eventually, a large portion of the mortgage market could end up nationalised, which carries unacceptable risks.
Not unless the housing market is in a permanent upswing. If not, then it is a potential catastrophe, and one that no government could (or should) survive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Dishing out super-sized mortgages won't solve the problem of high house prices: SIMON LAMBERT
'Up, up, up go the house prices.' That was the TV news reporter's opening line the first time I was invited to go on the television. It was November 2006 and the reason that a much younger version of your correspondent had got ITV's call to comment was that I had reported on a plan by a major lender to offer bumper mortgages. Abbey, at the time the UK's second biggest mortgage lender, had decided first-time buyers and home movers should be allowed to borrow up to five times their joint salary. The early 2000s property market boom was about to hit its peak and an Abbey spokesman said: 'Lending five times salary may sound high but really is something we have to do given what is happening with house prices.' You can read the This is Money article on Abbey's five times salary mortgages here. It noted that while Abbey had made a fanfare about extending its lending, it wasn't alone - some other banks and building societies including RBS and Cheltenham & Gloucester were also offering supersized loans. We had written: 'Some lenders go even higher - Northern Rock said its maximum loan was 5.9 times salary but added that it rarely allows borrowers to stretch that far.' Almost 19 years later, the big financial news this week was that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is planning to allow mortgage borrowers to stretch that far. Rules put in place to protect borrowers in the aftermath of the financial crisis will be swept aside to usher in a new era of bigger mortgages. Banks and building societies will no longer be bound by rules that say only 15 per cent of their mortgage lending can be at more than 4.5 times income. Instead, individuals and couples will be able to borrow up to six times their salary. For a couple on a combined £80,000, this means potential borrowing would rise from £360,000 to £480,000. Understandably, there are some deep concerns about the impact of allowing a pair of near average earners to take on an extra £120,000 of mortgage debt. The ratio of house prices to earnings has fallen from its recent peak, as wages have risen faster than home values - but it remains far higher than the long-term average Stretching your mortgage to the limit in this way dramatically increases the risk of discovering you have overextended your finances, particularly if you come off a fixed rate mortgage term at a time when interest rates have jumped. First-time buyers and those moving up the property ladder also have a habit of discovering that the cost of running their new home comes in at more than they budgeted for. Many of us who are lucky enough to be homeowners will have been there. You take an optimistic view of what your bills and running costs will be to justify thinking: 'Yes, we can afford that home we really want'. Reality bites about six months in. Something that was especially true for those of us who bought in the pandemic and then got whacked by bills soaring in the cost-of-living crisis. When it comes to mortgages, we are in a very different financial world to 2006. It was a lot easier to borrow and overstretch back then and banks were eager to dish out interest-only loans. The eagle-eyed will notice all the banking brands named above didn't make it through the credit crunch-driven financial crisis that arrived in 2008. The banks that are around now are much more robust. Meanwhile, the rules may say six times salary is possible, but that doesn't mean you will get a mortgage that big. Lenders assess now on affordability and if your incomings and outgoings don't tick the boxes, they won't lend you that much. It's also very easy to criticise this from both the comfortable position of being a homeowner and from a top-down zoomed out viewpoint. Whereas, on an individual level, if a prospective borrower is already paying more per month in rent, then who can blame them for being very happy to take on a mortgage instead and at least be working towards owning the property. Nonetheless, I can't help but think this mortgage bonanza is a bad idea, as it will only serve to drive house prices up further. You don't need to be an economic genius to work out that if you lend people more money to buy homes, the price of homes will rise. And this is unfortunate timing, as homes have got more affordable in recent years. The house price to earnings ratio has fallen from its pandemic boom peak, as wages have risen faster than home values. Looked at from a broader perspective, homes are still very expensive though, at about 5.7 times earnings compared to the long-term average of 4.6. Albeit, this long-term average itself has been pulled up by the very high levels over the past 20 years. Ideally, we need a prolonged period of wages rising faster than house prices to correct the market not a short-term fix of bunging people bigger mortgages, Extending borrowing on the demand end also undermines the benefit of building more homes on the supply end. I would argue too high house prices are a root cause of much of Britain's economic ills over the past 20 years. Bumper mortgages only make things worse.
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
World's fastest electric scooter nicknamed ‘The Turbo' set to hit the streets - what could possibly go wrong?
The world's fastest e–scooter has been unveiled – and it can reach dizzying speeds of up to 100mph. The vehicle, dubbed The Turbo, is the brainchild of UK company, Bo. Oscar Morgan, CEO at Bo, said: 'As The Turbo development progressed, we realised that we were creating a monster. 'E–scooters have been revolutionising how people move locally, but they are yet to enter the leagues of mainstream automotive culture. 'The Turbo is part of our mission to elevate these futuristic electric vehicles into the top tier of automotive performance.' Thankfully, the hefty cost will likely put off most potential buyers – The Turbo has an base price of $29,500. Bo spent 18 months developing The Turbo, which is crafted out of aerospace grade aluminium. At the heart of the vehicle is a 'cutting–edge powertrain', featuring a 24,000W dual motor propulsion system. Meanwhile, the main battery is 1800Wh – large enough to supply fast–charging to 1,500 iPhones simultaneously. So, while most e–scooters you see on the roads today have a range of around 15–40 miles on a single charge, The Turbo can travel up to 150 miles before you need to plug it in, according to Bo. The company carried out its first test runs at the famous Goodwood Motor Circuit. Across 20 runs, piloted by professional racing rider, Tre Whyte, the vehicle clocked in a top speed of 85mph. For comparison, the speed limit for e–scooters in the UK is currently 15.5mph. However, Bo isn't stopping there. The company now hopes to break the 100mph under Guinness World Record Supervision. Harry Wills, CTO at Bo, said: 'Having successfully completed the shakedown process on race tracks here in the UK, and with a high level of confidence in the stability and rideability of The Turbo, we are now initiating a process to increase the output and speed from the vehicle until we achieve our target.' A 'limited run' of Turbo commissions is currently in development, with a base price of $29,500. However, not just anyone can buy one.
South Wales Guardian
17 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Britain and its people are not safe, former Nato chief warns Parliament
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), said the UK is lacking in ammunition, training, people, logistics, and medical capacity. He told the upper chamber: 'Bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in and have to survive in, this is what I firmly believe: we are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. 'This country and its people are not safe. 'The British people are faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competitions spilling over now into conflict, with constant grey zone attacks on our mainland, and with Russia – often with the co-operation of Iran, China and North Korea – challenging the existing world order. 'We simply in this country are not safe.' The Labour peer wrote the review alongside the former commander of the joint forces command, General Sir Richard Barrons, and defence adviser Dr Fiona Hill. Artificial intelligence, drones and a £1 billion investment in homeland missile defence all form part of the review's plan to keep the UK safe in the face of threats from Vladimir Putin's Russia and the rise of China. As peers debated the review on Friday, Lord Robertson said: 'When we say in the report that we are unprepared, it is an understatement. 'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare. 'Over the years, and I suppose I must plead guilty to that as well, we took a substantial peace dividend, because we all believed that the world had changed for the better.' He continued: 'Sadly, we were not alone in that. There may have been over-optimism, but at worst, wishful thinking, but the brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia three years ago was a savage wake-up call for all of us. 'This world we now live in has changed out of all recognition, and we have got to change as well.' Lord Robertson told the upper chamber he is 'confident' the review will 'intimidate our enemies, inspire our friends, invigorate our defence industry, and make our country safer'. Conservative shadow defence minister Baroness Goldie pressed the Government to be specific about the amount of money and timing needed for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP. She said: 'In this exciting and brave new world for defence, the elephant in the room is money, and none of this excellent aspiration proposed by the review means anything without attaching pound signs to the proposals. 'Ambition must translate into specific financial commitment.' Former military chief Lord Stirrup said the Government's spending would need to be restructured to be 'anywhere near 3.5% of GDP for defence by 2035'. 'There is no sign of any urgency on any side of the political divide on addressing this crucial matter,' the crossbench peer added. Former top diplomat Lord Hannay of Chiswick said forms of soft power such as overseas aid and the BBC World Service should be prioritised alongside hard power. 'We really do need to take another look at the hard power soft power balance, recognising that we need them both,' the crossbench peer said. Conservative former defence minister Lord Soames of Fletchling said the British people needed to be told what they should do in the event of a cyber attack that knocked out the internet and phone networks. Lord Soames, who is the grandson of Second World War prime minister Sir Winston Churchill, called for the public to have food stocks at home. He said: 'I believe that unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence, charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack.' Meanwhile, Tory peer Lord Harlech, who is a reservist, said the Government needed to pay more attention to the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. He said: 'For too long, we have treated reserves as an afterthought. A just-in-case solution. Too often called on at short notice, handed out outdated kit, sidelined from training opportunities and then expected to deliver at the same standard as regulars. 'If we are to rely more heavily on the reserves, as the review suggests, then we must be honest about what that actually requires. 'It means giving them the same standard of equipment, no more trickle-down hand-me-downs. It means equal access to courses and training opportunities. 'Too often, reserves find themselves bumped off areas by cadets or even airsoft groups. That is not how a serious military trains.' Labour's Baroness Goudie criticised the review for failing to mention gender, adding: 'The exclusion of women from peace process does not lead to stability. It leads to a relapse.'
