Slow but stable(ish) house price growth lies ahead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
▀ UK house price growth is running out of steam. And with household incomes squeezed and the affordability of housing stretched, we think a prolonged period of very modest growth lies ahead. But the prospect of a crash is remote. ▀ At 2.6% in Q2 2017, annual house price growth is presently running at a four‐year low. This is a step change down from the recent peak of nearly 10% in mid‐2014 and average growth of 4% over the current economic expansion. ▀ Three developments are likely to lie behind this slowdown. The first is weak growth in households' real income, cutting the ability to save for a deposit or finance a move up the housing ladder. That said, past periods of sluggish income growth have not always been associated with low house price inflation. ▀ The second is the consequence of recent tax hikes imposed on buy‐to‐let investors and second‐home owners, which theory suggests should be capitalised in lower property prices. ▀ The third and perhaps most important reason is the increasing unaffordability of housing to an ever‐widening sub‐set of the population. The ratio of house prices to earnings is almost back at its pre‐crisis record. And the income of the average mortgage borrower is close to £60,000, more than double the average annual wage. ▀ This third factor has implications beyond price growth, suggesting both a permanently lower level of transactions and a further decline in the number of households with mortgages, continuing a trend which began at the beginning of the century. ▀ But set against these headwinds is the cushion provided by record lows for both mortgage rates and mortgage affordability. Overall, house prices are caught between a lack of traditional drivers of accelerating growth, but equally an absence of forces which have typically caused prices to fall. Hence, our expectation of a period of sluggish, but relatively stable, growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".