Northern Ireland Quarterly House Price Index Reports

[BelfastVI]

Let’s take a look at that then. The progressive currently will lend you 3.75 joint or single incomes on its products over 80% LTV. I'd imagine that the income multiple will be smaller if you need to borrow 95%. A two year fix at 90% will have a fixed rate of 5.79%.

So assuming you want to borrow £161,500 (5% deposit) you'll be paying £1030 per month on a 25 year repayment. This is not taking into account maintenance costs, insurance, fees etc

So this couple/person will have to earn at least £45300 per annum. If single the net pay without pension, student loan deductions etc would be £2750.

Am I the only one that thinks £170K is a scary amount of money?

So you think there should be no houses sold at over £170k?

[BelfastVI]

i would be more than surprised if the full ballkelly figure goes through

after all they state that they adjust the figures for house type etc

and joe public will hear what the meedja headline screams at them!

and of course this one will not make its mark at all in the report

http://www.mustbesold.com/index.php?option=com_propertylab&task=propertysearch&&type=forsale&minprice=1&start=0&perpage=50&live=1

rock on!

What do you mean by adjusting the figures?

[Shotoflight]

Difference of opinion. Down 5% - see link below. Apologies for poor linkage.

BTW if NIHE sales at the lower end of the market, under the right to buy scheme, have fallen from an average of around 1700 (or more) per annum to less than 50, surely this will skew figures upwards? Also of course no auction figures.

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media1/research/regional_house_price_map_page.asp

[BelfastVI]

BTW if NIHE sales at the lower end of the market, under the right to buy scheme, have fallen from an average of around 1700 (or more) per annum to less than 50, surely this will skew figures upwards? Also of course no auction figures.

I hear people have also stopped buying expensive houses too. Will that Skew the figures?

Edited May 27, 2010 by BelfastVI

[Shotoflight]

I hear people have also stopped buying expensive houses too. Will that Skew the figures?

define expensive.

[Malthus]

define expensive.

All houses in Northern Ireland

[Shotoflight]

You're right there. The report shows 20% fewer houses sold or sale agreed by EAs from Q4 09 to Q1 10 (1,000 to 800) with a disproportion of new builds where sellers may have been realistic, bankrupt or both. Unless the spring bounce happened in the last 7 weeks and I missed it, it looks like it's not going to. Buyers perhaps have caught themselves on - the banks certainly have.

[Belfast Boy]

All houses in Great Britian and Northern Ireland

Corrected that for you.

[2buyornot2buy]

So you think there should be no houses sold at over £170k?

No. What I am suggesting is that for people buying a 170K house, trying to find a loan with the lowest deposit requirement is just laughable.

If you have to ask you can't afford it.

edit- spelling

Edited May 28, 2010 by 2buyornot2buy

[Malthus]

Corrected that for you.

[Mrazik]

Latest out: http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2010/5294.html

[pajd]

Recovery in NI Housing Market to be Slow and Highly Variable Suggests Survey

1st September 2010

Recovery? You mean high prices meaning more debt for those wanting to own a home?

The survey showed that over the previous year there had been an annual weighted rate of price growth of 2.4% but compared with the first quarter of the year the overall average house price actually showed a weighted decline of 2.5%.

According to the authors of the report Professor Alastair Adair, Professor Stanley McGreal and Dr David McIlhatton: The findings of the current survey highlight the erratic and uneven behaviour of the current housing market.

On the positive side the small rate of annual price growth and the higher volume of transactions are welcomed signs. However, the weaker price performance during the spring quarter suggests that recovery of the housing market is fragile."

Eh? So high prices are a good thing? Idiot!

The price statistics are based on a sample of 1,009 transactions in the second quarter of 2010 appreciably larger than that for the first quarter of the year, which suggests a pick-up in transaction volume during a traditionally active quarter for the housing market.

Is this the spring bounce then?

The economist Alan Bridle, Head of Economics and Research at Bank of Ireland Northern Ireland, said: While recent evidence may indicate that average prices have returned to a more sustainable level, the impact on the housing market of impending spending cuts and budgetary restraints in Northern Ireland suggests the price risks are still to the downside. There is now a realism that a recovery to pre-crisis levels will only occur over an extended period of years.

The survey indicated that the market is becoming increasingly affordable, with 61% of properties selling at or below £150,000.

Errr no this isnt affordable to most people

For Derry/Strabane the overall average of £119,185 declined by 24.3% over a year, suggesting that the extent of price decline might be greater than anticipated. Average price levels across the market were consistently lower, though the detached bungalow sector increased in average sale price over the quarter.

Good news for me

Average house price by region Q2 2010 Location Average Price

Northern Ireland -All £163,459

Belfast - All £185,281

North Belfast £129,699

South Belfast £272,917

East Belfast £179,604

West Belfast £149,394

North Down £209,732

Lisburn £195,836

East Antrim £129,678

L'derry/Strabane £119,185

Antrim/Ballymena £135,431

Coleraine/Limavady/N. Coast £149,299

Enniskillen/Fermanagh/S.Tyrone £129,871

Mid Ulster £137,628

Mid & South Down £158,777

Craigavon/Armagh £124,488

Looks like the decline continues in the West. Why is the East rising?

Edited September 1, 2010 by pajd

[Malthus]

Detached house 18.8% £295,445

Interesting as I haven't seen a detached house in that price range sell in the last 3 years in my area

[BelfastVI]

Looks like the decline continues in the West. Why is the East rising?

I along with others in here have been saying for a while we will have separate markets in NI.

Parts of NI, manly west of the Bann grew faster than the rest. To me it is obvious that they will fall the most.

The traditional strong housing areas - Lisburn, Moira, Bangor, South Belfast etc will remain in demand. Other areas that became popular, purely because people were priced out of where they wanted to live will suffer the most as the few that do want to buy in this climate choose to buy in the good areas. These, once called 'up and coming areas', will continue, in my view, to decrease as the other areas stabilized and even grow.

This twin market will continue for years and, sometime in the future (wont attempt a time-scale) these good areas will return to the 2007 prices, in monetary value but the 'up and coming areas' will struggle for much, much longer. It makes total sense to me that the market, geographically speaking is returning to historical geographical demand and geographical price difference.

Now, whilst saying that, I would question the 13% (or what ever it was) price rise in the Belfast area. Up until recently it was only the low end of the market that was moving. I don't just mean cheaper houses in the sense but the lower quartal of the normal market. Whilst most surveys have ways of preventing this concentrated activity from distorting the overall moving average too much it cant be totally prevented. What had started to happen, in the first half of the year was the commencement of movement in the second hand market, which includes the middle market properties. I say had as I have to be honest and admit that things have been very slow in the four weeks after the July break and it is only the last two weeks that we have seen any footfall and bookings.

I believe this increased activity in the mid-market sector has 'distorted' the moving average up, just as I believe the lack of activity in this sector allowed a distortion of the moving average down previously. There is an argument to say you can only judge the market on the actual sales that take place and therefore there is no distortion at all. However the reported increase of 13% in Belfast is not, in my view reflected by an increase in selling prices on the ground but rather an increase in the sale of more expensive houses. Ironically the sale of these more expensive was no-dout only triggered by massive drops in the same houses. However, this can manifest itself, in these reports as an increase in the average selling price.

Something else has changed. I believe, up to about Easter, the people in here had a very legitimate case for press bias. I could clearly see how things were presented in a sunny-side up sort of way. However, that has changed dramaticly. I sometimes think it is a Tory policy to get out and over emphases bad news. Then the actual facts, when the appear wont seam so bad. How do you get the people to accept cuts of 20% - answer convince them that 30% is coming. Perhaps I am giving them too much credit - how could you change the whole media system at once? But then I thought its easy. You just change a few - they all copy the story anyway.

In the BT yesterday we had a lead on the economy from some chap who is involved in the voluntary sector. Perhaps a very capable chap but not normally someone who the BT would take a scoop from on the future of the NI block grant. It may not have been the person they wanted but it was the story.

Last week, some think tank (who I never heard of) believed the recovery was going to happen in the next two years. (that should have lost them their credibility right there) They also thought the economy would be swimming with money as the banks would release the QE cash they were hiding. Again one for You Tube, at most. They concluded with a throw-away remark that the BoI would perhaps have to lift the interest rate to maybe 8% to control all this cash and stop inflation. Hold on - someone is saying interest rates could rise to 8% - lets run with that.

Lilico says: “he believes this will be followed by a boom leading to the strongest economic growth since the 1980s.Once the economy gets growing sustainably[2012], there will be a huge expansion in the money supply, which will lead to inflation.”

Most of the papers left all this out and just run with the 8% interest rates bit.

Whats this all got to do with the UUJ report.

I strongly doubt that the media outlets will inform the good people that the main 'traditional' housing areas are doing quite well (relativity speaking) and it is only the areas that quite frankly never should have boomed that are still contracting. and as Alan Brindle says, will continue to do so.

[R + R]

I along with others in here have been saying for a while we will have separate markets in NI.

Parts of NI, manly west of the Bann grew faster than the rest. To me it is obvious that they will fall the most.

The traditional strong housing areas - Lisburn, Moira, Bangor, South Belfast etc will remain in demand. Other areas that became popular, purely because people were priced out of where they wanted to live will suffer the most as the few that do want to buy in this climate choose to buy in the good areas. These, once called 'up and coming areas', will continue, in my view, to decrease as the other areas stabilized and even grow.

This twin market will continue for years and, sometime in the future (wont attempt a time-scale) these good areas will return to the 2007 prices, in monetary value but the 'up and coming areas' will struggle for much, much longer. It makes total sense to me that the market, geographically speaking is returning to historical geographical demand and geographical price difference.

Now, whilst saying that, I would question the 13% (or what ever it was) price rise in the Belfast area. Up until recently it was only the low end of the market that was moving. I don't just mean cheaper houses in the sense but the lower quartal of the normal market. Whilst most surveys have ways of preventing this concentrated activity from distorting the overall moving average too much it cant be totally prevented. What had started to happen, in the first half of the year was the commencement of movement in the second hand market, which includes the middle market properties. I say had as I have to be honest and admit that things have been very slow in the four weeks after the July break and it is only the last two weeks that we have seen any footfall and bookings.

I believe this increased activity in the mid-market sector has 'distorted' the moving average up, just as I believe the lack of activity in this sector allowed a distortion of the moving average down previously. There is an argument to say you can only judge the market on the actual sales that take place and therefore there is no distortion at all. However the reported increase of 13% in Belfast is not, in my view reflected by an increase in selling prices on the ground but rather an increase in the sale of more expensive houses. Ironically the sale of these more expensive was no-dout only triggered by massive drops in the same houses. However, this can manifest itself, in these reports as an increase in the average selling price.

Something else has changed. I believe, up to about Easter, the people in here had a very legitimate case for press bias. I could clearly see how things were presented in a sunny-side up sort of way. However, that has changed dramaticly. I sometimes think it is a Tory policy to get out and over emphases bad news. Then the actual facts, when the appear wont seam so bad. How do you get the people to accept cuts of 20% - answer convince them that 30% is coming. Perhaps I am giving them too much credit - how could you change the whole media system at once? But then I thought its easy. You just change a few - they all copy the story anyway.

In the BT yesterday we had a lead on the economy from some chap who is involved in the voluntary sector. Perhaps a very capable chap but not normally someone who the BT would take a scoop from on the future of the NI block grant. It may not have been the person they wanted but it was the story.

Last week, some think tank (who I never heard of) believed the recovery was going to happen in the next two years. (that should have lost them their credibility right there) They also thought the economy would be swimming with money as the banks would release the QE cash they were hiding. Again one for You Tube, at most. They concluded with a throw-away remark that the BoI would perhaps have to lift the interest rate to maybe 8% to control all this cash and stop inflation. Hold on - someone is saying interest rates could rise to 8% - lets run with that.

Lilico says: “he believes this will be followed by a boom leading to the strongest economic growth since the 1980s.Once the economy gets growing sustainably[2012], there will be a huge expansion in the money supply, which will lead to inflation.”

Most of the papers left all this out and just run with the 8% interest rates bit.

Whats this all got to do with the UUJ report.

I strongly doubt that the media outlets will inform the good people that the main 'traditional' housing areas are doing quite well (relativity speaking) and it is only the areas that quite frankly never should have boomed that are still contracting. and as Alan Brindle says, will continue to do so.

was the Ballykelly 300 odd included in the "survey"?

rock on!

[BelfastVI]

Recovery? You mean high prices meaning more debt for those wanting to own a home?

Its very important to be able to look at things from all sides. Someone said that's makes me a liberal and I'm not sure I totally like that.

However, this year there were only 4,000 house purchasers and, I guess about half of them were FTBuyers. I cant think of one reason why those, or any FTB'er would want higher prices, that is until they take ownership. Them, I would dare say would like their wee house to at least hold its value and perhaps rise with any inflation.

However the report is for the readership of more than that 2,000, or so FTB'ers or the (hopefully) many thousands more potential first time buyers waiting in the wings.

There are over 700,000 occupied houses in Northern Ireland and I would suggest about 500,000 of them are in private ownership. Alot of them are bought at historical prices and perhaps don't even care about growth but I would suggest few, apart from those receiving houses under inheritance would want further decreases.

Eh? So high prices are a good thing? Idiot!

What he said “On the positive side the small rate of annual price growth and the higher volume of transactions are welcomed signs". And this is something most would welcome going forward into the future, I accept that FTB'ers and those not in a chain (which are normally included in the former) may like to see lower sales volumes and further drops. You have to accept that not everyone is looking at it from that viewpoint. He is not, in anyway proposing that prices will return to the madness of 2007, in anyway and I think his choice of words was totally acceptable.

[Bill Poster]

Its very important to be able to look at things from all sides. Someone said that's makes me a liberal and I'm not sure I totally like that.

However, this year there were only 4,000 house purchasers and, I guess about half of them were FTBuyers. I cant think of one reason why those, or any FTB'er would want higher prices, that is until they take ownership. Them, I would dare say would like their wee house to at least hold its value and perhaps rise with any inflation.

However the report is for the readership of more than that 2,000, or so FTB'ers or the (hopefully) many thousands more potential first time buyers waiting in the wings.

There are over 700,000 occupied houses in Northern Ireland and I would suggest about 500,000 of them are in private ownership. Alot of them are bought at historical prices and perhaps don't even care about growth but I would suggest few, apart from those receiving houses under inheritance would want further decreases.

What he said “On the positive side the small rate of annual price growth and the higher volume of transactions are welcomed signs". And this is something most would welcome going forward into the future, I accept that FTB'ers and those not in a chain (which are normally included in the former) may like to see lower sales volumes and further drops. You have to accept that not everyone is looking at it from that viewpoint. He is not, in anyway proposing that prices will return to the madness of 2007, in anyway and I think his choice of words was totally acceptable.

That is very balanced of you.

I cannot see why the School of Surveying compile this report as it is at best an imprecise generalisation and at worst misleading. They put great effort to dispell the notion of averages in valuation theory and then produce this study regularly.

[BelfastVI]

was the Ballykelly 300 odd included in the "survey"?

They made no direct comment on this, which was disappointing. I am not sure what region it would fall into. However the commentary is interesting:

For the Coleraine/Limavady/North Coast region the overall average price of £149,299 was down over a year by 18.3% continuing the trend in the previous survey. Major contributors to this decline were the very low average prices of terraced/townhouses at £77,750 and apartments at £103,788.

For Derry/Strabane the overall average of £119,185 declined by 24.3% over a year, suggesting that the extent of price decline might be greater than anticipated. Average price levels across the market were consistently lower, though the detached bungalow sector increased in average sale price over the quarter.

They may be hinting at it in Coleraine. If Apartments are £103k Townhouses are relatively low at £77k. Normally they are priced above apartments (although there are some strange priced apartments in the north coast). I would suggest that something has pulled the average Townhouse price down to the £77k and the glut of Ballykelly property, sold at between £35k and £60k may well be what they are hinting at. Townhouses are normally at, or slightly below the regional average. In this region it is only at 50% the regional average of £150k.

[BelfastVI]

That is very balanced of you.

I cannot see why the School of Surveying compile this report as it is at best an imprecise generalisation and at worst misleading. They put great effort to dispell the notion of averages in valuation theory and then produce this study regularly.

When you produce a report like this, or any of the several other reports it cares little what commentary or analysis you offer to explain anonymity the press and most of us for that matter want to know one thing - has the average price fallen or now. and by how much. You can try to explain the low sample pool or the distortions in the market at the moment but it doesn't matter. The 'money shot' for the papers is the %drop.

I agree these reports can be misleading but what other way is better. The Nationwide and the Halifax are based solely on the properties they lend upon, which, for the nationwide is less than 10%. They also concentrate more on lower priced properties so some could argue it is even more misleading. The CML issues reports which cover 90% of all mortgages issued. should be more accurate as you can be sure the transaction has taken place. However it gets little coverage. The government issues reports which takes its data from, amongst other places, Land Registry. Its figures, which must be accurate are consistency above those issued by both Nationwide and Halifax and again are rarely quoted.

[Bill Poster]

When you produce a report like this, or any of the several other reports it cares little what commentary or analysis you offer to explain anonymity the press and most of us for that matter want to know one thing - has the average price fallen or now. and by how much. You can try to explain the low sample pool or the distortions in the market at the moment but it doesn't matter. The 'money shot' for the papers is the %drop.

I agree these reports can be misleading but what other way is better. The Nationwide and the Halifax are based solely on the properties they lend upon, which, for the nationwide is less than 10%. They also concentrate more on lower priced properties so some could argue it is even more misleading. The CML issues reports which cover 90% of all mortgages issued. should be more accurate as you can be sure the transaction has taken place. However it gets little coverage. The government issues reports which takes its data from, amongst other places, Land Registry. Its figures, which must be accurate are consistency above those issued by both Nationwide and Halifax and again are rarely quoted.

I can't really propose a better way of reporting in a nutshell market activity. I have spent years ignoring studies such as these and had forgotten why until I read this news item today.

If Stan the Maths Man hasn't come up with a better way of presenting the figures after all these years then it is probably as good as it gets.

[BelfastVI]

Are you referring to the Land registry figures supplied for the UK mainland? AFAIK they do not include NI.

The only fair method of reporting on house sales is for a fully transparent Land registry online and free to be available to the citizens of Ni in the same way it is available to the citizens of every other part of the UK.

There is no political appetite for transparency in the rulers of Stormont. One day NI will be allowed to catch up on its neighbours and nepotism and secrecy will be swept away. Hopefully in my lifetime but I doubt it.

I think you are reading a little too much into storment. Its more down to the software system they employ and the way they do things. They can compile data which the department uses in its reports but it was not meant for open web enquiries. The cost or replacing the system with one that could, is unlikely to be met in the future. I don't think its a matter of security. The name of the purchaser need not be revealed.

[BelfastVI]

I can't really propose a better way of reporting in a nutshell market activity. I have spent years ignoring studies such as these and had forgotten why until I read this news item today.

If Stan the Maths Man hasn't come up with a better way of presenting the figures after all these years then it is probably as good as it gets.

But what better way is there. they break the figures down over different house type and again over different geographical areas. Bar listing every single sale and allowing you to analyse it yourself what better way is there of doing this.

[yadayada]

these good areas will return to the 2007 prices, in monetary value [Not a chance

I believe this increased activity in the mid-market sector has 'distorted' the moving average up, just as I believe the lack of activity in this sector allowed a distortion of the moving average down previously.......rather an increase in the sale of more expensive houses. Ironically the sale of these more expensive was no-dout only triggered by massive drops in the same houses. However, this can manifest itself, in these reports as an increase in the average selling price.

[b]Surely they make some allowance for statistical bias of this kind, and if they don't, they should.[/b]

I

Edited September 1, 2010 by yadayada

[R + R]

They made no direct comment on this, which was disappointing. I am not sure what region it would fall into. However the commentary is interesting:

They may be hinting at it in Coleraine. If Apartments are £103k Townhouses are relatively low at £77k. Normally they are priced above apartments (although there are some strange priced apartments in the north coast). I would suggest that something has pulled the average Townhouse price down to the £77k and the glut of Ballykelly property, sold at between £35k and £60k may well be what they are hinting at. Townhouses are normally at, or slightly below the regional average. In this region it is only at 50% the regional average of £150k.

dont know either which geographical entitity BK falls into in the "survey"

doesnt really matter whichever one it is the average price should have fallen through the floor!

and if included in the NI average should have made a rather large hole in it!

now why would the words " houseprice survey" become associated with toilet paper in my wee brain?

perhaps the "experts" reckon we

rock on!

[BelfastVI]

dont know either which geographical entitity BK falls into in the "survey"

doesnt really matter whichever one it is the average price should have fallen through the floor!

and if included in the NI average should have made a rather large hole in it!

now why would the words " houseprice survey" become associated with toilet paper in my wee brain?

perhaps the "experts" reckon we

rock on!

I guess its a something to do with what Yadayada is pointing to.The Ballykelly units, appears to have brought the average for Townhouses from almost £100k down to £77k (for the whole region). This in turn will, to a lesser extent bring the average price for that region down. Which in turn will, to a lesser extent again bring the overall NI price down.

All these surveys are set up in a way to prevent 'anomalies'(if I could call it that) having an overbearing effect on the whole result. It cant totally box it off but the overall average for NI is not unduly pulled down by particular activity in one area. In the same way next quarter, as there hasn't been a Ballykelly mark 2 the average should not show a return or massive rise just because that anomaly has disappeared.

There is sometimes a lot to be said for also printing the 'raw' average. Nationwide use a raw average for their district breakdown of NI and it is always higher than the overall 'boxed off' (for the want of a better word) average. But I understand the need for it.

I use the word anomaly to describe Ballykelly. However, they were open market sales between willing sellers and willing buyers and shouldn't be considered an anomaly. However, the statistical analysis of most modern surveys are set up to limit the overall effect of 'spikes' in one field.

I will try to find out how they handled the Ballykelly sales.