Skip Navigation
 

House Prices Double Every Seven Years

<%=_author %>
By Cliff D'Arcy | 3 January 2008

At least three times in the past month, I've heard or read the following ‘fact':

"House prices double every seven years."

Most recently, I came across this claim in an interview with actress-turned-property-millionaire Fiona Fullerton in last weekend's Financial Times. Alas, while Ms Fullerton may be a successful buy-to-let baroness and author of Fiona Fullerton's Guide to Buying to Let, she doesn't have her facts right.

For property prices to double every seven years, they would have to increase by an average of 10.4% a year compounded. As something of a ‘Statto', I know that this is well above the UK's long-run average. Hence, in order to refute this bogus claim once and for all, I grabbed the house-price data provided by Halifax, the UK's largest mortgage lender.

The Halifax House Price Index (HPI) data go back to 1983 and take in the Eighties boom, the Nineties bust and the return to soaring house prices under this Labour government. Let's analyse these UK-wide data, looking at each seven-year period from 1983 to the present day:

1) Halifax House Price Index, 1983-2007

Start year

End year

% change

1983

1990

118

1984

1991

96

1985

1992

65

1986

1993

49

1987

1994

28

1988

1995

-6

1989

1996

-4

1990

1997

1

1991

1998

9

1992

1999

32

1993

2000

37

1994

2001

54

1995

2002

97

1996

2003

113

1997

2004

132

1998

2005

132

1999

2006

129

2000

2007

(to Nov.)

126

As you can see, the above data encompass eighteen distinct seven-year periods. During this period, the average house price in the UK at least doubled on six occasions (the figures shown in bold). In addition, house prices came close to doubling in 1984-1991 and 1995-2002.

The important thing to note is that five of the above six ‘doubles' have occurred during the latest housing boom. Hence, it's absolutely clear that Ms Fullerton and her fellow property gurus are suffering from ‘recent events syndrome'. In other words, their statements only hold water using data taken from a decade of very strong house-price growth.

Now look at the data for 1988-1995 and 1989-1986, which take in the last property peak and the subsequent bust. House prices actually fellover seven years, by 6% and 4% respectively. That's a long way from doubling, isn't it?

So, only by conveniently forgetting the last property meltdown does the above claim hold true. In reality, these figures show that property prices grew by an average of 7.9% a year between 1983 and 2007.

Now let's check another reliable source of house-price data, from Nationwide BS, which goes back 55 years:

2) Nationwide BS House Price Index, 1952-2007

Start year

End year

% change

Start year

End year

% change

1952

1959

15

1977

1984

147

1953

1960

24

1978

1985

111

1954

1961

37

1979

1986

80

1955

1962

38

1980

1987

89

1956

1963

47

1981

1988

141

1957

1964

57

1982

1989

140

1958

1965

65

1983

1990

92

1959

1966

65

1984

1991

65

1960

1967

65

1985

1992

42

1961

1968

61

1986

1993

29

1962

1969

61

1987

1994

17

1963

1970

56

1988

1995

-11

1964

1971

74

1989

1996

-10

1965

1972

131

1990

1997

13

1966

1973

172

1991

1998

24

1967

1974

166

1992

1999

49

1968

1975

176

1993

2000

60

1969

1976

183

1994

2001

78

1970

1977

187

1995

2002

128

1971

1978

204

1996

2003

143

1972

1979

179

1997

2004

147

1973

1980

141

1998

2005

137

1974

1981

133

1999

2006

131

1975

1982

127

2000

2007

123

1976

1983

134

   

The Nationwide BS sample extends our timeframe to include modest house-price growth in the Fifties and the boom of the Seventies (a time of huge price inflation all round). During these 49 seven-year periods, house prices doubled on 22 occasions, including six recent ‘doubles'. Then again, house prices were fairly tame over long periods, and fell in 1988-1995 (down 11%) and 1989-1996 (-10%).

What's more, the Nationwide BS figures show the price of the average UK property has risen by a compound annual rate of 8.7% since 1952. Again, this is below the 10.4% a year required for prices to double every seven years.

In Summary

Thus, a more truthful statement would be:

"On average, UK house prices double every nine years. However, this is a trend and not a one-way bet, and prices can fall over extended periods."

Finally, I suspect that recent weakness in the housing market is set to continue, and that non-trivial house-price falls will be a feature of 2008. So, before buying a property, take a long, hard look at long-term price trends in the local area. Otherwise, if you take only the good years into account and ignore the bad years, then your retirement master-plan could come unstuck!

More: Get a handsome home loan with our award-winning mortgage service | Buy Now, Pay Later Mortgages| The True Cost Of Buying A Home

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool.

At 07:38 on January 04 2008, GJPountain said:

I would very much like someone to compare the same 7 year periods with the Ftse 100. As people generally say that property is the best investment but I'm sure I've heard that long term equities are.

At 07:59 on January 04 2008, ngata said:

Thanks, Cliff, for crunching the numbers.

Fools should know that the fall between 1988 and 1995 was entirely predictable five months before it started. House prices then, as now, were becoming unaffordable at the very time a plump butterfly, Chancellor Lawson, flapped it wings. He announced in his March budget that double mortgage interest tax relief for unmarried couples would end, in August, for new buyers only. It was entirely predictable that cohabiting couples would rush to buy, inflating prices further. Then the pool of buyers was doomed to dry up. I made money betting on a fall in house prices.
I'm taking bets again. A different butterfly has given notice that CGT will drop for short term investment from 40% to 18%. The straw landlords of the Borrow-to-Let brigade must be hoping that prices hold a little longer. From April 6 the market will be flooded with sellers, and devoid of buyers as they try to take whatever gains they have made. I'll wager that the fall over the next seven years will be bigger than 88-95.

At 08:05 on January 04 2008, waterfly said:

I think your point about doing local research is very relevant. As a nation of pessimists we do tend to think in national terms. The downturn may affect some property types and in some areas or 'boxes' in the country as a whole. Looking in the estate agents windows in Saffron Walden you could be forgiven for thinking the market is still very bouyant. As a statty, you know very well that such broad brush numbers can only indicate broad brush trends.

At 09:05 on January 04 2008, applesarehot said:

if you're investing for the long-term, then surely property still represents good value. Especially if its your own home as well. I still prefer the thought of money going to pay off a mortgage, and owning a house once its paid off, rather than simply paying a landlord rent, with little or nothing to show when you move out.

At 09:23 on January 04 2008, lberbm3 said:

The info was very useful, however it wouild have been interesting to see the inflation adjusted returns would have been fantastic. This would show the real return on property

At 10:10 on January 04 2008, brickedin said:

"retirement master-plan could come unstuck!" - Says it all really - don't pay into a pension pay into bricks, let future generations pay more for an ever shrinking overvalued pile of bricks to fund your pension. So basically steal your kids future so they can bust a gut paying your pension! A truly noble master-plan!

At 10:13 on January 04 2008, miguelathome said:

It should be rememembered that whilst property is an asset it is also a liability. Houses are not owned and maintained without expense and the annual running costs, rates and taxes plus maintenance amount to a not insubstantial sum. Also those purchasing by mortgage pay a very large sum in interest. These costs seem rarely to be taken into account when painting a rosy picture of huge gains and easy money. Buy a house to live in by all means but this obsession with its value is best avoided.

At 10:25 on January 04 2008, mrfilps said:

My wife and I bought a house with three self-contained flats in Germany two years ago, we secured a rate with a German bank of 3.85% on a 100% mortgage fixed for 26 years, and the rental income covers all normal running and maintenance costs, although we have invested an extra £5000 in improvements. With predictions that the German property market over the next 10 years will begin to turn the same way as the UK one has over the past 10 years, we are hoping to get a really good return on our investment when the mortgage is paid off or else have a secure and regular retirement income from rent. Investing in property is surely the most sensible thing to do to secure your children's future, not make it less certain! Doe anyone else have German property investments and what are your thoughts?

At 10:52 on January 04 2008, thebemused1 said:

Great article Cliff! It's good to see a reasoned analysis as a foil to the headlong rush into buying property <'cus you just cannot lose> - except I have been around long enough to know you can!

From an investment point of view it would be really interesting to map house price growth against the FTSE and RPI - any chance of a bit more number crunching for a future article? Also, anecdotal evidence suggests that London bucks the downturn due to high levels of unsatisfied demand and the rapid churn of people moving in and out. Again it would be good to see how London fares against the rest of England.

Thanks again and keep up the good work - we need you :o)

At 10:54 on January 04 2008, stuartpetergraha said:

Surely to compare housing returns as a percentage is largely meaningless. I pay about 30% more than my brother who rents. So to look objectively as house prices returns, only the percentage paid over renting should be used, as if I didn't buy I would have to rent. When we look at the 30% of payments figure, the return is quite acceptable. We could then look at the return on a tracker fund for the balance and compare shares and houses.
I have bought and renovated, monthly payments about 30% above my brother, plus another 20,000 (over 4 years on renovations). I have a house my family are happy in, we have a vegetable garden, can repair my car in my garage and have a bbq when we like. My brother has been moved on and stopped from having a vegetable garden, planting apple trees and has had his lease not renewed as he did his own car repairs (without oil strains)the owner didn't like it.
House prices tended to follow the economic cycle, they are too high now, but when they drop back they are worth buying. My kids will have my house as their inheritance and in another few years it will be mortgage free. The it wil be about 30-40% less than the rent on a similar property.

At 10:54 on January 04 2008, Swarbs said:

One thing I've noticed is that, when people talk about buy to let property, they always ignore the rent, which adds an extra 4-5% to the annual returns, or more if you buy wisely. In contrast, when talking about returns from shares, the figures are always "with dividends reinvested" i.e. including the dividend yield which is around 3.5% for the FTSE 100. Ignore dividends for shares or add in rent for property and property will come out a couple of percent ahead of shares.

I accept that the rent is often used to cover the mortgage, but the mortgage is used to gear up your investment to the point where the returns can be astronomical. E.g. invest £15k in a £100k property with an £85k mortgage and if the price doubles in nine years you make £100k profit which is a return of over 600% on your original £15k.

I should point out that I've invested in both property and shares, and am happy with the returns from both. I just wanted to see what people think about this, and add my tuppence to the debate!

Matt

At 10:54 on January 04 2008, LearsFool1 said:

Well done Cliff on looking at the true picture. On one hand the property market is dependent on simple supply & demand economics, with supply (nationally) insufficient for demand (nationally). This is how the buy to letters justify their investments. Agreeing with ngata, waterfly and miguelathome wholeheartedly, would like to add; the current uplift is based on 'puff'. As we have seen 'unreal' money. If the supply of lendable money is depleted or better tested to ensure its lent to those who can pay. Those who wish to buy but have lower sums to offer will force the prices down. As those who must sell are forced to accept lower sums, this is passed on to their purchase and (at last) we see realistic pricing.

Some property yes, but keep a mixed portfolio. I smile inwardly when the BTLs say 'oh no, wouldn't risk the stock market'! Mmmmmm I've made 65% in the last three years, and no maintenance costs and tenant hassle!

At 10:56 on January 04 2008, stuartpetergraha said:

Surely to compare housing returns as a percentage is largely meaningless. I pay about 30% more than my brother who rents. So to look objectively as house prices returns, only the percentage paid over renting should be used, as if I didn't buy I would have to rent. When we look at the 30% of payments figure, the return is quite acceptable. We could then look at the return on a tracker fund for the balance and compare shares and houses.
I have bought and renovated, monthly payments about 30% above my brother, plus another 20,000 (over 4 years on renovations). I have a house my family are happy in, we have a vegetable garden, can repair my car in my garage and have a bbq when we like. My brother has been moved on and stopped from having a vegetable garden, planting apple trees and has had his lease not renewed as he did his own car repairs (without oil strains)the owner didn't like it.
House prices tended to follow the economic cycle, they are too high now, but when they drop back they are worth buying. My kids will have my house as their inheritance and in another few years it will be mortgage free. Then it will be about 30-40% less than the rent on a similar property.

At 11:22 on January 04 2008, Keule1 said:

This sounds like a good investment, the german government seem to be dragging their heels as far as introducing a property based pension solution as part of the "Riester Rente"(State subsidised Pension), which is supposed to replace the housing subsidies (Eigenheimzulage) which fell away at the beginning of 2006, but I think legislation will be introduced in the next few years. This will encourage the german public to buy their own homes which so far they certainly haven't been as active as the British. Another tax legislation in Germany which certainly speaks for an increase in property investment is the new tax laws coming into effect in 2009 "Abgeltungssteuer". This enforces a blanket 25% tax on all profits made on shares, bonds , Investment fonds, and some life insurance policies but not on property or property trusts. So german small investors should see a chance of avoiding these extra taxes through an investment in property.
The only thing I can think of which speaks against an investment in German property is the possible demographic problems Germany may face in future years of a falling population, but thats more a really long term view.
I hear quite often of British and Americans who are buying property in Germany at the moment, the trend hasn't really kicked in with the German public although I do notice in the city I live in - Berlin - that new estate agents offices are opening up all over the place. I myself have recently bought a flat in Berlin and would be very pleased if the returns would match those of the british boom over the last ten years.

At 11:38 on January 04 2008, yocoxy said:

I need to declare a vested interest with a couple of buy to let properties but as Swarbs points out, an investment of less than £15K in a property worth £100K is geared so that potential returns (and losses) are quite dramatic. Based on Cliff's modified statement, I'd be happy to double the £100K value of the house every 9 years against and investment of under 15K (average return over 9 years on these figures of over 600%) a trifle better than shares I'd say (I have both both the way and accept ups and downs in both).

A completely different argument and one that I find wildly foolish rather than Foolish is to sell your home, pay rent to a landlord and miss the mere 9 year doubling effect on your asset. If you invest the value taken from the property sale in shares, you need to deduct your rent from the profits before crowing about such a great plan.

That said, I expect to see property prices on a gentle slide for a year or two but as a long term investment it doesn't worry me in the slightest and as a home owner it's a no brainer.. Is paying rent beyond retirement really a defendable strategy?

Let's seperate the buy to let discussion from the 'sell your home and pay rent for life' one because in my view, one is worthy of Foolish debate, the other is foolish in the extreme.

PS It's gonna rain tomorrow, er tomorrow, er tomorrow.... aha here it is.. see I was right when I predicted a shower (and a house price drop)!!

At 12:23 on January 04 2008, Mortgagemuppet said:

Fact: £1000 invested in the UK stock market in 1983 would have generated a better return than the same £1000 invested in bricks and mortar for the same period (source: a Fool article in 2007).

The UK housing market is predicated on greed: the greed of estate agents, property developers, the media (who generate millions in advertising revenue from said estate agents, property developers etc)and the buying public who happily acquiesce in this always sun-tinged con.

And for every pessimistic 'the housing market's going to crash' article, there will be 10 more talking it up. I'm in the PR and communications business, so I should know.

I shudder when I see advertising, aimed at UK investors, promising guaranteed rental income and double-digit growth. Who says? Who believes these claims, claims that would have every regulatory watchdog in the land coming down on the perpetrator like a ton of bricks? How can advertisers / developers get away with making such claims and on what historic basis do they make them?

Nowhere in the world would people beggar themselves (and I include myself)chasing some notional pot of gold at the end of an equally notional property-always-goes-up in value rainbow other than in the UK and, increasingly, to rely on property as a cash-cow to fund everything from holidays to retirement. What a gamble!

Why do we suspend all reality when buying the over-priced asset that is British property? Share tipsters will tell us to avoid a particular stock and we'l generally follow that advice, but merrily ignore that level of caution when buying something that is probably overpriced by 50%!

Personally, I am hoping for a return to sanity. Whether that is a full-blown housing crash or similar catastrophe, so be it. Then perhaps we can go back to doing sensible, grown-up things like putting money into the bank or a pension.

Or perhaps an era where families are happy to live together under one roof, without the pressure to 'get on the housing ladder or the opportunity will be lost for ever', forcing our children to get into a debt cycle which will be with them for decades.

Doesn't sound like a very sensible investment to me.....

At 13:01 on January 04 2008, DownTheBoozer said:

Nice article Cliff. I admire your persistence in warning UK fools about 'one way bets', whatever the investment may be – even when recently rising markets can make you sound like nothing more than a broken record.

I have to agree with a couple of posters here that comparing a buy to let investment and using your home as a pension should be calculated carefully and according to your own situation.

Anyway, my tuppence to this debate is the old adage that an 'investment' is all about timing. Get it right and you'll make money. Get it wrong and you won't.

A viewpoint that only re-enforces Cliff's point of course...

At 13:42 on January 04 2008,