Housebuilders' shares are tanking. Now is the time for the government to build a million homes

A screen showing a crashing stock market. Admittedly, it's from Nanjing, in 2007; but we liked the picture, so. Image: Getty.

Among the biggest losers in the stock market turmoil that has followed last week’s Brexit vote have been Britain’s housebuilders. Persimmon fell by a staggering 40 per cent on Friday morning, and closed the day 27.6 per cent down.

The scale of the selling reflects the building industry’s acute sensitivity to market sentiment, and the fragility of its business model, which is dependent on already-high demand being maintained indefinitely.

With a period of house price stagnation and even decline now highly likely, builders are in trouble. Having purchased several years’ supply of land in a rising market, they are now going to struggle to turn as big a profit on new home sales as buyers revise down what they are prepared to pay – or hold off buying altogether.

That is going to happen almost immediately – there is already anecdotal evidence of buyers reducing their offer price or pulling out of sales – in response to the sudden sense of economic uncertainty. But it will be very much intensified if there is an economic downturn, wages are squeezed and, eventually, interest rates go up to combat inflation.

That house prices may fall is not in itself a bad thing: many people, including myself, have been willing this for quite some time. House prices have been racing away from wages for much too long now, benefiting existing homeowners at the expense of future generations, and a correction is well overdue.

The difficulty is what comes next, which by now we know well: housebuilding output will fall as developers turn off the taps. This has been the construction cycle that has repeated over and over since the 1970s. Builders only build on any scale in a rising market. As soon as demand falls, and prices drop, build-out rates plummet while developers wait for confidence (meaning: prices) to return. The long-run trajectory of house prices is only ever upwards.


It is this cycle that has led us into the housing disaster that we find ourselves in 2016, with a shortage of homes, high housing costs, declining levels of home ownership and the rise of the rentier landlord.

Now is the moment, if ever there was one, for this cycle to be broken, finally and completely. For the government to introduce a package of counter-cyclical support for housebuilding that floods the market and holds prices down in perpetuity. Without it, the government’s ambition of building a million new homes by 2020 – which was always improbable and in any case insufficient – is now dead in the water.

The new policy should consist of a public sector building programme which, as a minimum, guarantees the building of 100,000 homes a year over and above the output of private builders. It will probably need to involve local authorities taking over the sites that developers have in the pipeline but may now become economically unviable.

The big housebuilders will have to reset their expectations of future price growth and probably take a hit on the landbanks they have already built. This will be hard on them, but no investment is risk free and the public interest must come first.

The public sector homes could be either made available for social housing, and the building costs recouped over the coming decades in rent (Capital Economics has modelled such a scenario). A cheaper, and therefore more politically palatable approach, could be to sell them into owner-occupation, with most of the costs recouped immediately and reinvested year after year; I calculated in a recent report that this could be achieved with a single upfront investment of £15-20bn. Realistically, we need a combination of social rent and owner-occupied housing – and so some hybrid of these two scenarios would probably be most appropriate.

This approach would not only begin to make inroads into the country’s housing shortage; it would also provide what should be a welcome fiscal stimulus as the economy enters a rocky period. There are expectations of a further cut in interest rates in the short term and possibly a new round of quantitative easing. But the levers of monetary policy have been worked almost to their limits already and the cost of borrowing is at a record low – 10-year gilts hitting less than 1 per cent this morning. The Treasury should take advantage while it can.

The government has a lot to contemplate right now. A housebuilding programme should not be seen as peripheral to the challenge of the coming months, but central to it.

Daniel Bentley is editorial director at the think tank Civitas. He tweets @danielbentley.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

The ATM is 50. Here’s how a hole in the wall changed the world

The olden days. Image Lloyds Banking Group Archives & Museum.

Next time you withdraw money from a hole in the wall, consider singing a rendition of happy birthday. For today, the Automated Teller Machine (or ATM) celebrates its half century.

Fifty years ago, the first cash machine was put to work at the Enfield branch of Barclays Bank in London. Two days later, a Swedish device known as the Bankomat was in operation in Uppsala. And a couple of weeks after that, another one built by Chubb and Smith Industries was inaugurated in London by Westminster Bank (today part of RBS Group).

These events fired the starting gun for today’s self-service banking culture – long before the widespread acceptance of debit and credit cards. The success of the cash machine enabled people to make impromptu purchases, spend more money on weekend and evening leisure, and demand banking services when and where they wanted them. The infrastructure, systems and knowledge they spawned also enabled bankers to offer their customers point of sale terminals, and telephone and internet banking.

There was substantial media attention when these “robot cashiers” were launched. Banks promised their customers that the cash machine would liberate them from the shackles of business hours and banking at a single branch. But customers had to learn how to use – and remember – a PIN, perform a self-service transaction and trust a machine with their money.

People take these things for granted today, but when cash machines first appeared many had never before been in contact with advanced electronics.

And the system was far from perfect. Despite widespread demand, only bank customers considered to have “better credit” were offered the service. The early machines were also clunky, heavy (and dangerous) to move, insecure, unreliable, and seldom conveniently located.

Indeed, unlike today’s machines, the first ATMs could do only one thing: dispense a fixed amount of cash when activated by a paper token or bespoke plastic card issued to customers at retail branches during business hours. Once used, tokens would be stored by the machine so that branch staff could retrieve them and debit the appropriate accounts. The plastic cards, meanwhile, would have to be sent back to the customer by post. Needless to say, it took banks and technology companies years to agree common standards and finally deliver on their promise of 24/7 access to cash.

The globalisation effect

Estimates by RBR London concur with my research, suggesting that by 1970, there were still fewer than 1,500 of the machines around the world, concentrated in Europe, North America and Japan. But there were 40,000 by 1980 and a million by 2000.

A number of factors made this ATM explosion possible. First, sharing locations created more transaction volume at individual ATMs. This gave incentives for small and medium-sized financial institutions to invest in this technology. At one point, for instance, there were some 200 shared ATM networks in the US and 80 shared networks in Japan.

They also became more popular once banks digitised their records, allowing the machines to perform a host of other tasks, such as bank transfers, balance requests and bill payments. Over the last five decades, a huge number of people have made the shift away from the cash economy and into the banking system. Consequently, ATMs became a key way of avoiding congestion at branches.

ATM design began to accommodate people with visual and mobility disabilities, too. And in recent decades, many countries have allowed non-bank companies, known as Independent ATM Deployers (IAD) to operate machines. The IAD were key to populating non-bank locations such as corner shops, petrol stations and casinos.

Indeed, while a large bank in the UK might own 4,000 devices and one in the US as many as 12,000, Cardtronics, the largest IAD, manages a fleet of 230,000 ATMs in 11 countries.


Bank to the future

The ATM has remained a relevant and convenient self-service channel for the last half century – and its history is one of invention and re-invention, evolution rather than revolution.

Self-service banking and ATMs continue to evolve. Instead of PIN authentication, some ATMS now use “tap and go” contactless payment technology using bank cards and mobile phones. Meanwhile, ATMs in Poland and Japan have used biometric recognition, which can identify a customer’s iris, fingerprint or voice, for some time, while banks in other countries are considering them.

So it’s a good time to consider what the history of cash dispensers can teach us. The ATM was not the result of a eureka moment of a single middle-aged man in a bath or garage, but from active collaboration between various groups of bankers and engineers to solve the significant challenges of a changing world. It took two decades for the ATM to mature and gain widespread, worldwide acceptance, but today there are 3.5m ATMs with another 500,000 expected by 2020.

Research I am currently undertaking suggests that ATMs may have reached saturation point in some Western countries. However, research by the ATM Industry Association suggests there is strong demand for them in China, India and the Middle East. In fact, while in the West people tend to use them for three self-service functions (cash withdrawal, balance enquiries, and purchasing mobile phone airtime), Chinese customers consumers regularly use them for as many as 100 different tasks.

Taken for granted?

Interestingly, people in most urban areas around the world tend to interact with the same five ATMs. But they shouldn’t be taken for granted. In many countries in Africa, Asia and South America, they offer services to millions of people otherwise excluded from the banking sector.

In most developed counties, meanwhile, the retail branch and the ATM are the only two channels over which financial institutions have 100 per cent control. This is important when you need to verify the authenticity of your customer. Banks do not control the make and model of their customers’ smart phones, tablets or personal computers, which are vulnerable to hacking and fraud. While ATMs are targeted by thieves, mass cybernetic attacks on them have yet to materialise.

The ConversationI am often asked whether the advent of a cashless, digital economy heralds the end of the ATM. My response is that while the world might do away with cash and call ATMs something else, the revolution of automated self-service banking that began 50 years ago is here to stay.

Bernardo Batiz-Lazo is professor of business history and bank management at Bangor University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.