In the UK, where the annual increase in house prices amounted to approximately 4 per cent the second quarter this year, the ratio of debt to disposable income is around 150 per cent. In Sweden, house prices have more than doubled in the past decade, with a par-ticularly strong increase in metropolitan regions. Part of the explanation is that household incomes have also risen rapidly in this period. It is reasonable to assume that house prices follow income in the long run. What gives some cause for concern is that house prices and household debt have both been rising very much faster than income and have continued to do so this year. At the end of the second quarter this year, house prices had risen by more than 7 per cent and house-hold debt by over 10 per cent compared with a year ago. Since 1995, house prices and debt have both risen over 40 per cent more than income. The pertinent issues have mainly been whether there are “bubbles” in the housing market in the sense that house prices have deviated markedly from what can be motivated by underlying factors such as disposable income and interest rate costs, and whether households have taken on too much debt in relation to their future ability to pay. Another question that has come up in recent years in Sweden, as well as in England and elsewhere, is why the strong credit growth and rising house prices have not been accompanied by increased consumption.
Provided households’ borrowing decisions have a rational basis and accordingly include realistic assumptions about future interest expenditure, there is nothing to suggest that higher interest rates will have drastic consequences. This applies to the effects of increased interest expenditure on house prices as well as on consumption. Still, one cannot disregard the risk that some households have been over-optimistic about their future incomes and the future level of interest rates. More than 70 per cent of new lending is currently arranged at a variable interest rate. Moreover, the present level of interest rates is considerably below what the financial markets assume it will be in time. So the households that choose to stick to a variable rate must count on considerably increased interest expenditure further ahead, if interest rates develop in line with market expectations. Furthermore, during the past year the credit spread between a risk-free government bond and a housing bond has been virtually nil. All in all, mortgage institu-tions have therefore been able to offer very low rates even for fixed-interest loans. The combination of high house prices and low interest rates has meant that many households have acquired very large liabilities. In that interest rates have been pushed down by a large variety of partly temporary factors, it is not inconceivable that their level will double. That may entail a heavy burden for many households and one cannot be sure they realised this when they decided to borrow so much.