I started worries about pension funds when I discovered how many large funds such as Miners were lodged with Mercury Asset Management. The OH said it was because it had a woman, Carol Galley, who appeared to be its mouthpiece. However, it matters not a whit to me who is doing all the shouting, its the money they are getting

Then I found out that MAM and more especially Carol Galley had turned its back on Rocco Forte in his fight with Gerald Robinson for the Forte business - and of course made herself a nice little earner.
When I heard that MAM had been taken over and the directors had pocketed £multi-million sums I went ape.
Carol Galley was recorded in the Times 100 Rich List in 2006 as having £80m
and all that came from investing and managing other peoples pension funds.

Considering these people were paid a very high salary for doing a job to then get a bonuses for doing that job rankles with the ordinary person in the street.
Just a shame that that sort of money didnt end up with the pension funds that were being used to generate such massive bonuses. Instead all we ever hear from the fund managers is that the stock market has fallen and this has effected the liquidity of the fund, even though the markets are at the same levels as they were 10 years ago.

this inclusion of "affordable housing" has been around for a few years now. but does it work ?

it was suggested that nurses, doctors, firemen, policemen would come under the umbrella as being needy of lower cost housing. except that all those occupations are well paid (sri even nurses). And it is also very fuzzy as to what happens to that initially affordable house goes back on the market - at the full normal price.

this is not helping those on, and more importantly below the average salary of £24kpa who really do aspire to owning their own home, a tangible asset they can live in for the rest of their lives, passing on to their children in the future.

in the meantime local councils will approve a housing estate of 50 houses and then allow a 20% increase with a reduction in plot sizes, facilities, especially in the width of roads all increasing the profit but providing dismal "new" housing that will turn into near slums in the coming decades.

Makes sense to me. The overvaluation of US property is now very slight as prices have dropped significantly and rents have started to rise. Ireland's prices have collapsed given its banking and fiscal woes and are now less overvalued than the UK's, which have not dropped anywhere near as significantly as the US and Ireland. Uk prices could well "correct" themselves through a combination of inflation (which, of course, erodes real prices) and rent increases. We'll see. My inclination is of relatively static UK prices for an extended period.

In the US "affordable" aka "below market value" units usually have some form of covenant that prevents a windfall to the owner on the sale of a unit. In other words, bmv units will sell initially at a discount of, say, 40% and then subsequent sales must be at the same discount to market value.

The Economist report I saw was based upon stats after the third quarter of 2010. Is there something more recent? At that time we had Irish property simply stuck with no buyers and no sellers (plus whole housing estates sitting empty having never been occupied) as nobody could determine value which is why auctioneers are now stepping in to clear the huge backlog and to attempt to provide pointers as to what certain types of property are actually worth now. Likely further significant falls, particularly with Irish austerity measures in spite of paper over/under-valuation.

In the US there's a one huge tail of foreclosed, stall-foreclosed and to be auctioned properties which has still to unravel over the next year or so (the current list that is) so this will provide more negative pressure for those houses and their neighbours. So even if the Economist thinks we are at fair value there is no likely impetus to cause prices to follow rents upwards.

In the UK, there are not enough lending banks and not enough products to provide access for FTBs who provide the mainstay of activity in the housing market. I agree that we are likely to drift from here (fall in real terms) but even though over-valued on paper the Uk probably stands a better chance of price rises than either of the other two for the near term (out four to five years). Reason - housing shortages and no real building going on but inwards migration and fewer leaving. Low interest rate environment and London.

Of course in Ireland anybody who has any sort of skill is trying to leave, mainly to the UK. Was in Glasgow three weeks ago and the place was swamped with Spanish folks, presumably for the same reason - but learning the language first at one of the many English language schools and then seeking employment.

Play around with this interactive graph:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...l_house_prices

Thanks! we're on the same wave-length now.

On BBC today. Housing Crisis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14708841

Same article as Johnh's above which is also available in the Guardian and presumably other syndicated pubs.

We need to get you to read and not just post.

I can't keep up.

I'm trying to contribute.

It seems young bandrui's excellent Location Location Location thread has been "usurped" by a new thread which has the parameter that if you are over 50 where would you want to live regardless of budget.

Well this had me thinking that there are many times when Rightmove postings have been made on here but quoters have responded that the budget was too rich and that is fair comment but we should be posting and commenting on areas that cater to all (within reason) budgets and not just our own. We may be poor or feel we want to act poor but we don't have to dream poor. This would add value, in my view.

I think this change in tack could revive this thread somewhat and it also embraces many queries that have ended up being OPs on entirely new threads, such as beedubya's. For instance, commutability, near the seaside, halfUK/halfUSA, retirement, West Country, countryside, national parks, farmer's markets.

What I find weird in that article is the underlying assumption that it is a problem that more young people are renting. Why is this a bad thing?

It's this dream thing, I think. The media is muck raking because it believes that the consensus dreams of owning its own home but the media in the UK also believes that rent is dead money and landlords are dogs.

Ultimately this does spell trouble though because if the demographic changes and a whole new generation does not get into real estate then what do they have to fall back on in harder times, unless they got a very good rental deal and stashed the saved cash away in some sort of nest-egg which we know is typically not the case. I sense that in nations of renters, such as Germany and France there is much more stability in the rental market and the overall economy already caters to the different circumstances so the prospect of being thrown out on the street is less likely.

And that's the problem... the social "pressure" to "get on the housing ladder" is simply unhealthy. A lot of young people would actually be better off with the flexibility of renting until they have a more stable life than is often the case at their age. But they're often pressured to buy by relatives and friends. So I actually look on an increased percentage of young people renting as a healthy thing, not as some great societal issue.

One advantage (for some) is that a mortgage that repays principal and interest is a kind of enforced saving. Of course, an interest-only mortgage doesn't do this though. And owning does not remove the risk of being thrown out if one is unable to pay the mortgage. In this respect, renting is actually an advantage in that one can tailor the cost of ones housing to income in a more flexible way.