Skip Navigation
 

How Bad Was The Last Housing Crash?

Cliff D'Arcy
By Cliff D'Arcy | 25 January 2008

Although it started over eighteen years ago, I recall the last property slump very clearly. The cracks in the property market started in the summer of 1989, when I was still at university in London. Being an impoverished student prevented me from getting on the property ladder. Thus, I was fortunate to miss out on the late dash to buy property and the price falls that later followed. Phew!

However, in mid-1992, my girlfriend (who later became Mrs D'Arcy) and I decided to buy our first home, with some helpful financial support from her father. Eventually, we found a little house that appeared to be right up our street (pun intended). It had been on the market for £100,000 without success, leading the sellers to drop the price to £90,000.

Given that property prices had been falling steadily over the previous few years, I knew that buyers were in a good negotiating position. Hence, I offered the sellers £15,000 less than the asking price, or £75,000. It turned out that the house needed some damp-proofing work, which I paid for by agreeing a further £2,500 reduction. Thus, I bought for £72,500 against an original asking price of £100,000. That's a 27.5% reduction, which isn't bad, agreed?

(Although I may have timed my entry to the housing market almost to perfection, that's more than I can say for my exit. Since selling my house in the spring of 2005, it has risen in value by perhaps 30%. So, I'm a long way from being a property guru!)

Still, my own experience of buying a property during a downturn provided me with an interesting lesson on how low prices can go when sellers get desperate. But how does my personal anecdote compare with the rest of the UK's property crash? Let's take a look, using the quarterly house price index (HPI) figures provided by Halifax, the UK's biggest mortgage lender:

Across the UK, from peak to trough

According to the Halifax HPI, here are the figures for the top and bottom of the housing crash for the UK as a whole:

High/Low

House price (£)

Q2 1989

69,850

Q3 1995

61,115

Difference (£)

-8,735

Change (%)

-12.5

Therefore, in the 6¼ years between mid-1989 and the end of September 1995, the average UK property lost an eighth (12.5%) of its value. However, most of this fall occurred from 1989 to 1992. House prices then drifted up and down during 1993 to 1995 before setting out on a twelve-year winning streak.

So, that's the situation for the United Kingdom as a whole. Now let's find the individual peaks and troughs for each of the UK's twelve regions (in alphabetical order):

East Anglia

High/Low

House price (£)

Q4 1988

86,493

Q1 1993

57,200

Difference (£)

-29,293

Change (%)

-33.9

As you can see, the property market peaked earlier in East Anglia than it did in the UK as a whole, and prices started to recover much earlier, hitting a low in early 1993. However, the plunge was much more painful in the fens, with prices dropping by more than a third in 4¼ years. Ouch!

East Midlands

High/Low

House price (£)

Q2 1989

65,862

Q3 1995

52,618

Difference (£)

-13,244

Change (%)

-20.1

The East Midlands peaked and bottomed out at the same points as the UK as a whole, but the decline was steeper at a fifth (20%). Thus, homebuyers in this region suffered a bit more than those in the UK generally.

Greater London

High/Low

House price (£)

Q4 1988

105,234

Q1 1993

75,832

Difference (£)

-29,402

Change (%)

-27.9

London peaked six months earlier than the rest of the UK and began its recovery in early 1993 - 2½ years ahead of the rest of the UK. Today, many people view London as a housing ‘fortress' which will avoid much of the pain to come. Alas, history tells a different story, with a peak-to-trough loss of 28% in just 4¼ years. Yikes!

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland is an interesting case, as it largely avoided the boom and bust experience elsewhere. This is in part thanks to its geographical separation from the rest of the UK, and partly due to the political and social situation that existed before ‘The Troubles' ended. Indeed, apart from a 0.9% drop in 1989 and a 2.5% fall in 1992, NI property prices have risen every year since 1984.

Amazingly, the average property in the Six Counties is now valued at £216,255, compared to £197,071 for the rest of the (much higher-earning) UK. Thus, in my view, the housing bubble in NI is under the greatest pressure and will burst spectacularly. The outcome will be far from pretty!

North West

High/Low

House price (£)

Q2 1991

60,787

Q4 1995

52,158

Difference (£)

-8,629

Change (%)

-14.2

Property prices in the North West peaked much later, with the top arriving two years after the UK peak. Then again, they began recovering at roughly the same time. However, NW prices dropped slightly more than the UK as a whole, down a seventh (14%) over 4½ years.

North

High/Low

House price (£)

Q4 1991

54,968

Q3 1995

48,750

Difference (£)

-6,218

Change (%)

-11.3

The North did rather well in the last property downturn, with the average price peaking much later at the end of 1991. However, prices started rising in Q3 1995, in line with the rest of the UK. Thanks to its shorter ‘property recession', prices in the North declined a mere ninth (11%) during its setback. That's a slight improvement on the UK in general.

That's the first six regions of the UK out of the way. In part two of this article, I look at the remaining six regions: the South East, South West, Scotland, Wales, the West Midlands, and Yorkshire & Humberside. See you there!

More: Get a marvellous mortgage via the Fool | How Often Do House Prices Fall? | House Prices And The Double-Edged Sword

Comments

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

At 08:03 on January 28 2008, NZJenn said:

Not directed at the author, just a general comment... Does anyone else feel that all these experts (appearing on tv, etc) predicting a housing crash are fueling panic and thus actually contributing towards creating a housing crash?

At 08:39 on January 28 2008, selfimportant said:

What happened to the West Midlands?

At 08:43 on January 28 2008, TimTomII said:

It amazes me that there is the thought that a House should always be a bank. Houses are homes and if you are lucky enough, after having a home for a few years, to find it has increased in value - GREAT. We are in a phase where expectations will need to be re-calibrated so we value our houses for what they are (shelters), and the comfort they offer, and not just for what we sell them for compared to the price they were bought at. No one likes to overpay for anything but if you can afford what you have, and it is a home you enjoy living in, then be satisfied with that for now even if the market price drops 20-30%. This idea of always making money out of property has become an obsession. It's not healthy. The roof over your head is a necessity not a business.

At 08:50 on January 28 2008, CodeGimp said:

For the past few years there have been property "experts" from Sarah Beeny to "Kirsty & Phil" who appear to have contributed towards this property bull market. One hand giveth, the other taketh away I guess. What's the problem? :-)

At 09:07 on January 28 2008, Anfauglir said:

TimTomII, I quite agree. Sure - your house may be worth £££££s - but so what? To realise that wealth you either have to sell it (and then spend the money on another house) or you have to borrow against its value (so you no longer own as much of the house).

At 09:14 on January 28 2008, Boydey said:

I think 'The Fool', are just joining-in with the "lets all have a good recession" brigade. If we keep talking about it, it will happen.

At 09:49 on January 28 2008, grhall said:

If people take the time to look at housing market statistics over the last umpteen years, they will realise that after every 10-12 years, generally speaking, house prices double. There will always be the time where prices drop and there is a slump but house prices will always go up. I'm actually thinking about buying a second property and all this talk about properties dropping in price don't bother me as I know if I hang on to mine for a longish period, it WILL go up in price.

At 09:53 on January 28 2008, seansonofbig said:

If you want to look at long-term house price rises, you will see that a graph plotted against the long-term average shows housing 40-50% overvalued, a very similar number to the ratio of average price to average wages. It's not people talking the market down, but us reaching the point of unsustainability in supporting it with nothing more than hot air.

At 10:11 on January 28 2008, magonzacha said:

Yes, absolutely agree with NZ Jenn comments. Because of USA housing problems all these professional comments tend to force a situation that here in England maybe is not the case, things are very different from USA here.

At 10:14 on January 28 2008, ArtemisFowl said:

The Warren Buffet approach there from grhall (last post) - although I believe he didn't make his initial fortune using that strategy. Longer cycles than the 12 year cycle identify (the accumulation and then) the need to un-wind debt as the trigger of a long (10-20yr) downturn. We are now more heavily in debt than ever with the liquidity crises still rapping up. The only ones with and cash are in Asia. Traditionally there shoud now be a re-alignment of capital and resources - with alot of ecomonic power transferring to Asia: nothing new there. People often talk about demographics as being the backbone of housing demand - true, but that isn't the same as high price inflation. House prices rise in good part because finacial institutions lend more and more money. If we are about to experience of world banking crisis then the recovery rules that applied in '89 etc may not quite repeat - because at least in some part, the Asian banking system will be calling the shots (they may not be quite a stupid and greedy of western bankers - although they probably will be once we dangle a nice new beamer in front of them!). Regarding talking the market down - that is bound to be a factor when markets are almost totally based on confidence with capital values in many sectors based in income generated from consumers which the consumers cannot afford spend - apart from their personal balance sheet being buoyed by burgeoning property values - based on freely available finance. The whole thing is a pack of cards waiting for someone to notice that naked Emperor.

At 10:14 on January 28 2008, AdAstra100 said:

Surely the real issue is Negative Equity rather than the increase in value of the house. If you are a first time buyer then you will be at greatest risk particularly if you borrow more than say 75% ( that being a figure which, if the the Fool reports correctly, would have kept you out of negative equity in most regions during the 89 slump). Borrow more and you had better hope you bought in near the bottom and not want to move for, say, 5 years to ride out the slump. If you need to move to a bigger property the answer is still not to take a loan which exceeds the 75% after you have added any carried over equity (hopefully positive)that way you still have the room for a 25% drop before you actually start to lose real money. At the other end of the scale, downsizers may well see their profit reduced on a 'last but one' sale but if you have ridden a few slumps using the above maxims then you should still be fortunate and the final purchase will have reduced in price. 75% loan! I hear the cry! Well that is what it used to be unless you paid the excess loan premium to get additional funding a situation where 'they' clearly knew you ( and their investment) would be at risk. So perhaps there was a sound basis for the limit after all! Regards AdAstra

At 10:18 on January 28 2008, AdrianStannard said:

My sentiments TimTomII and seansonofbig - overvalued and unsustainable, unless we want to become like Italy, where most people rent. And the situation has come about because at least 50% of MPs are landlords - they like to see the immigration-fuelled population increase push demand through the roof, with little chance of building enough new houses (for good reason, every new housing estate requires a careful rethink of infrastructure - roads, schools, the burden on water supplies and electricity - maybe you need to build a new power station etc).

At 11:03 on January 28 2008, GTM15 said:

I think your comments about house prices are in Northern Ireland are right on the money. The bubble was inflated by speculative investment from the cash rich Republic of Ireland and now since their own property price bubble is deflating the market in NI is going to have to return to a more grounded position. Developers in a nearby town of Lurgan Co-Armagh have been discounting houses by up to £50,000 to try to restart sales which have all but dried up. Only limited sucess. I agree there needs to be a substancial readjustment before we return to a healthy market.

At 11:13 on January 28 2008, FAZERSIX said:

WRITTERS/TV ETC OF COURSE THEY ARE FUELING THE HOUSING CRASH, WHICH WILL NOT HAPPEN IN MY OPINION, FOR THE THE REASONS BELOW ( ITS NOT A CRASH ITS A SLOWING )


100% WRITTERS FORGET INTEREST RATES AROUND LATE EIGHTIES EARLY NINETIES ROSE TO AROUND 16% ( SO COMPARE TODAYS ).

INTEREST RATES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TODAY, HOUSES IN THE NOTTINGHAM AREA ARE NOT OVER PRICED BY 20% AS PER RECENT COMMENTS ON THE FOOL SITE.

YOU CAN BUY A VERY NICE SEMI IN THE NOTTINGHAM AREA FOR £100/£125K SO HOW CAN THEY BE 20% OVERPRICED, LETS GET REAL INTEREST RATES GOVERN HOUSE PRICES AND THE HOUSING RENTAL MARKET, AS HOUSING RENTS RISE THEN HOUSING MARKET PRICES HAVE TO RISE, THINK ABOUT IT !

UNLESS THE HOUSING RENTAL MARKET COLLAPSES, 20% IS UNREALISTIC AS IS THE RENTAL MARKET CALLAPSE !

SORRY ABOUT MY SPELLING FAZERSIX

At 11:15 on January 28 2008, AdrianStannard said:

Re-adjustment might be nothing more than wishful thinking, now that lending criteria is tightening up. Usually what happens in these scenarios is those at the bottom of the ladder will find it harder to get a mortgage to take advantage of lower prices, whilst those with plenty of money see an opportunity to snap up a load of houses on the cheap, boosting their portfolios even further, and therin creating an even bigger divide between supply and demand - thats precisely what happened in the early-mid '90s. Our government will do nothing to curtail that behaviour, because most of them are at it. Who would imagine a Labour government would be behind making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer!

At 11:21 on January 28 2008, AdrianStannard said:

Not entirely true Fazersix - the last few years have seen an oversupply in the rental market - because so many bought into the borrow-to-let hype, and Tony just couldn't get the immigrants in fast enough to raise demand even higher. Rents have stayed almost constant in most areas of the country for the last decade compared to a near-doubling in house prices. Thus much of the demand in the housing market which bouyed prices was based on pure hype - it cuts both ways. PERHAPS YOU WILL LEARN TO WRITE WITHOUT LEAVING THE CAPS LOCK ON IN FUTURE.

At 11:33 on January 28 2008, AdrianStannard said:

BTW yes it is true that interest rates rose to around 16% - but that was for a comparatively short period - and for that particular period, like now, was not a time that low-income first-time buyers could take advantage of. Prior to the early 90's the country had access to relatively cheap houses - and low prices meant they were less susceptible to fluctations in the base rate. In many cases house prices are 7 times their value in the 1980's, therefore a 7 times higher change in mortgage payments whenever interest rates vary.

At 12:14 on January 28 2008, Kimmerblee said:

I think we are all missing one vital point here. Gordon Brown pilfered £50bn per year from the pension funds leaving a lot of people facing penury in retirement. Those who could, grabbed their pension pot and bought property as the only way to ensure a cash rich retirement. Until such time as the pension crisis is sorted and people's confidence in pension funds return, it wont stop those with pension pots buying property which will bouy up the market. I think prices will decline, but its not going to be anywhere near as much as is predicted.

At 12:16 on January 28 2008, levelspirit said:

The article has generated a lot of comments but surely the problem is that we are all far too eager to try to be ahead of the game with listening to so much so-called expert opinion. The problem in the 1980s was a ridiculous boom fuelled by irresponsible lending/borrowing. A change in taxation (Aug '88) although apparently trivial in absolute value was enough to alter demand by first time buyers and the cheaper districts were hit first by a slowing of the market and this worked its way through to the more expensive properties. The influence of high interest rates clearly impacted heavily on the situation for a while and made the problem more acute. We now have a problem fuelled by a realisation that there has been irresponsible lending (firstly in the US) and obviously this has been happening in the UK too. The so-called experts are worried that they are exposed and it is the threat that they will have to start to lend more responsibly that is now fuelling uncertainty. So the problem seems to be that the irresponsible (or desperate) borrower is being squeezed out of the market and that should bring stability back in the longer term. Maybe the solution would be for some legislation and control in the lending market. What about a financial services agency that is not in the pocket of the insitutions?

At 12:22 on January 28 2008, Nickolarge said:

I bought a studio flat near Heathrow for £47,500 in 1990 and got no offers on an asking price of £38,000 in late 93.

At 12:55 on January 28 2008, thebemused1 said:

Hmmm. Lots of diverse opinions, but facts are facts guys! The housing market has witnessed a rate of growth that is unsustainable in the longer term. Whether that results in a significant slow down or an out and out fall in prices, only time will tell. Having suffered in both the 80's housing crash and the dotcom collapse in 2000, I