Mortgage brokers’ revenue is anticipated to climb at a compound annual rate of 4.5% over the five years through 2024-25 to £2.3 billion, including estimated growth of . Rising residential property transactions stimulated by government initiatives and rising house prices have driven industry growth. However, mortgage brokers have faced numerous obstacles, including downward pricing pressures from upstream lenders and a sharp downturn in the housing market as rising mortgage rates ramped up the cost of borrowing. After a standstill in residential real estate activity in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak, ultra-low base rates, the release of pent-up demand, the introduction of tax incentives and buyers reassessing their living situation fuelled a V-shaped recovery in the housing market. This meant new mortgage approvals for house purchases boomed going into 2021-22, ramping up demand for brokerage services. 2022-23 was a year rife with economic headwinds, from rising interest rates to fears of a looming recession. Yet, the housing market stood its ground, with brokers continuing to benefit from rising prices. Elevated mortgage rates eventually hit demand for houses in the first half of 2023, contributing to lacklustre house price growth in 2023-24, hurting revenue, despite a modest recovery in the second half of the year as mortgage rates came down. In 2024-25, lower mortgage rates and an improving economic outlook support house prices, driving revenue growth. Mortgage brokers’ revenue is anticipated to swell at a compound annual rate of 5.3% over the five years through 2029-30 to £2.9 billion. Competition from direct lending will ramp up. Yet, growth opportunities remain. The emergence of niche mortgage products, like those targeting retired individuals and contractors, as well as green mortgages, will support revenue growth in the coming years. AI is also set to transform the industry, improving cost efficiencies by automating tasks like document verification, risk assessment and customer profiling.

With the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent financial crisis on Wall Street in 2007 and 2008, economies across the globe began to enter into deep recessions. What had started out as a crisis centered on the United States quickly became global in nature, as it became apparent that not only had the economies of other advanced countries (grouped together as the G7) become intimately tied to the U.S. financial system, but that many of them had experienced housing and asset price bubbles similar to that in the U.S.. The United Kingdom had experienced a huge inflation of housing prices since the 1990s, while Eurozone members (such as Germany, France and Italy) had financial sectors which had become involved in reckless lending to economies on the periphery of the EU, such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Other countries, such as Japan, were hit heavily due their export-led growth models which suffered from the decline in international trade. Unemployment during the Great Recession As business and consumer confidence crashed, credit markets froze, and international trade contracted, the unemployment rate in the most advanced economies shot up. While four to five percent is generally considered to be a healthy unemployment rate, nearing full employment in the economy (when any remaining unemployment is not related to a lack of consumer demand), many of these countries experienced rates at least double that, with unemployment in the United States peaking at almost 10 percent in 2010. In large countries, unemployment rates of this level meant millions or tens of millions of people being out of work, which led to political pressures to stimulate economies and create jobs. By 2012, many of these countries were seeing declining unemployment rates, however, in France and Italy rates of joblessness continued to increase as the Euro crisis took hold. These countries suffered from having a monetary policy which was too tight for their economies (due to the ECB controlling interest rates) and fiscal policy which was constrained by EU debt rules. Left with the option of deregulating their labor markets and pursuing austerity policies, their unemployment rates remained over 10 percent well into the 2010s. Differences in labor markets The differences in unemployment rates at the peak of the crisis (2009-2010) reflect not only the differences in how economies were affected by the downturn, but also the differing labor market institutions and programs in the various countries. Countries with more 'liberalized' labor markets, such as the United States and United Kingdom experienced sharp jumps in their unemployment rate due to the ease at which employers can lay off workers in these countries. When the crisis subsided in these countries, however, their unemployment rates quickly began to drop below those of the other countries, due to their more dynamic labor markets which make it easier to hire workers when the economy is doing well. On the other hand, countries with more 'coordinated' labor market institutions, such as Germany and Japan, experiences lower rates of unemployment during the crisis, as programs such as short-time work, job sharing, and wage restraint agreements were used to keep workers in their jobs. While these countries are less likely to experience spikes in unemployment during crises, the highly regulated nature of their labor markets mean that they are slower to add jobs during periods of economic prosperity.

FOCUSONLONDON2011: HOUSING:AGROWINGCITY

With the highest average incomes in the country but the least space to grow, demand for housing in London has long outstripped supply, resulting in higher housing costs and rising levels of overcrowding. The pressures of housing demand in London have grown in recent years, in part due to fewer people leaving London to buy homes in other regions. But while new supply during the recession held up better in London than in other regions, it needs to increase significantly in order to meet housing needs and reduce housing costs to more affordable levels.

This edition of Focus on London authored by James Gleeson in the Housing Unit looks at housing trends in London, from the demand/supply imbalance to the consequences for affordability and housing need.

REPORT:

Read the report in PDF format.

https://londondatastore-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/fol/fol11-housing-cover-thumb.jpg" alt=""/>

PRESENTATION:

How much pressure is London’s popularity putting on housing provision in the capital? This interactive presentation looks at the effect on housing pressure of demographic changes, and recent new housing supply, shown by trends in overcrowding and house prices. Click on the start button at the bottom of the slide to access.

View Focus on London - Housing: A Growing City on Prezi

HISTOGRAM:

This histogram shows a selection of borough data and helps show areas that are similar to one another by each indicator.

Histogram

MOTION CHART:

This motion chart shows how the relationship, between key housing related indicators at borough level, changes over time.

Motion Chart

MAP:

These interactive borough maps help to geographically present a range of housing data within London, as well as presenting trend data where available.

MAP

DATA:

All the data contained within the Housing: A Growing City report as well as the data used to create the charts and maps can be accessed in this spreadsheet.

FACTS:

Some interesting facts from the data…

● Five boroughs with the highest proportion of households that have lived at their address for less than 12 months in 2009/10:

1. Westminster – 19 per cent
2. Wandsworth – 17 per cent
3. Camden – 16 per cent
4. Lambeth – 14 per cent
5. Southwark – 13 per cent

-31. Harrow – 6 per cent

-32. Havering – 5 per cent

● Five boroughs with the highest percentage point increase between 2004 and 2009 of households in the ‘private rented’ sector:

1. Newham – 17 per cent
2. Greenwich – 11 per cent
3. Enfield – 10 per cent
4. Camden – 9 per cent
5. Harrow – 8 per cent

-32. Islington – 1 per cent

-33. Bexley – 1 per cent

● Five boroughs with the highest percentage difference in median house prices between 2007 Q4 and 2010 Q4:

1. Kensington & Chelsea – 29 per cent
2. Westminster – 19 per cent
3. Camden – 15 per cent
4. Islington – 14 per cent
5. Southwark – 10 per cent

-31. Newham – down 9 per cent

-32. Barking & D’ham – down 9 per cent