Savings & Investments Attitude

[leicsmac]

Plenty of people in London are perfectly happy commuting in an hour or so to work every day. It's not ideal but the high property prices are part of a dynamic that keeps people in well paid jobs in an internationally renowned city.

Also, London's economy does not thrive on diversity. It thrives on the finance industry, and the glamour and security of the city itself (and its property market) plays a huge part in that.

It's like reading an extract from Russell Brand's book this; lots of great, noble ideas with absolutely no consideration for the knock-on effects on the economy.

 

Perhaps it's time for a shake-up, rather than the exclusitivity, then?

 

'The economy' seems to be the go-to reason/excuse for money to continue to be concentrated in the hands of few people who then refuse to spend it.

 

As I've said repeatedly, housing is a fundamental right and as such should not be subject to an artificially inflated market

[Vicki Vixen]

Plenty of people in London are perfectly happy commuting in an hour or so to work every day. 

 

I don't see too many happy faces on commuter trains.

[MooseBreath]

You also don't need to be earning more than 100k to contemplate buying a home. I know a few couples with combined salaries less than that who bought. You need to save carefully, you may need to wait awhile and you'll need to focus on the right areas but it's not the exclusive playground of the wealthy middle class / super rich that many think.

If you're a couple on close to 100k combined salary then you're right, buying should be easy, but it's a lot more difficult for those on more average salaries. If you're on £25k with a kid at home and wife working part time then you're going to struggle, any less than that and you might as well forget it. Until the country starts building the proper amount of new homes then an ever greater proportion of people on average and even decent wages will be priced out.

[ADK]

People don't go to London for the "exclusivity", it's big because of economies of scale, proximity to central government institutions and also Europe. It's also close to a number of large airports and the centre of the rail network. The high cost of housing is a by product of London's popularity as a business and cultural centre.

 

There really are some daft arguments put out by landlords who simply want to protect their investments.

[fuchsntf]

It is indeed. But it is wrong.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people making money through property development (building, redeveloping, selling on for a profit etc). But buying a house and then getting someone else to pay off the mortgage for you just for the privilege of having a roof over your head is objectionable to me.

 

And as I said, it perpetuates itself by keeping the prices high and making getting on the property ladder insanely difficult for anyone who is single and not made of money.

what a weird thought, if some people didnt invest in property, there wouldnt be those houses in the market where others

can find a roof over their head, because the government isnt helping.

Where do you think houses and properties come from, also if there are no buyers then prices will go down.

What I do find wrong, especially in areas where properties are bought for WEnd or holiday lets at the expense of the local community, forcing local prices up and giving an overrated/overblown house price avg, for that area.

In such places, Cornwall, Wales, etc local government should be involved, protecting the locals from being forced to

pay the same house prices, than outside holiday investers.

[leicsmac]

what a weird thought, if some people didnt invest in property, there wouldnt be those houses in the market where others

can find a roof over their head, because the government isnt helping.

Where do you think houses and properties come from, also if there are no buyers then prices will go down.

What I do find wrong, especially in areas where properties are bought for WEnd or holiday lets at the expense of the local community, forcing local prices up and giving an overrated/overblown house price avg, for that area.

In such places, Cornwall, Wales, etc local government should be involved, protecting the locals from being forced to

pay the same house prices, than outside holiday investers.

 

I did try to qualify my remarks. I don't have a problem with property investments where houses are being built, flipped, restored, sold on etc. I have a problem with people buying to let as a cash cow, when such a thing artificially inflates the market, in the same way as you describe in your second paragraph.

 

And yes, there are still buyers in the market - the problem is they're all rich investors looking to do exactly what I've described above, because they're the only ones who can afford them.

[Sir Fynwy]

I did try to qualify my remarks. I don't have a problem with property investments where houses are being built, flipped, restored, sold on etc. I have a problem with people buying to let as a cash cow, when such a thing artificially inflates the market, in the same way as you describe in your second paragraph.

And yes, there are still buyers in the market - the problem is they're all rich investors looking to do exactly what I've described above, because they're the only ones who can afford them.

Locking so much of the countries wealth such a fixed asset really isn't great for liquidity, I'd prefer people invest in small and medium sized businesses that can grow with improved cash flow.

[Guest ttfn]

People don't go to London for the "exclusivity", it's big because of economies of scale, proximity to central government institutions and also Europe. It's also close to a number of large airports and the centre of the rail network. The high cost of housing is a by product of London's popularity as a business and cultural centre.

There really are some daft arguments put out by landlords who simply want to protect their investments.

You're talking about why people go to London, not why they own property there. And you're also talking about Average Joe, not a Sheikh who wants somewhere safe to stick £50 million and hold parties. These are the people driving up property prices.

[Jackirius]

Some golden rules that people should not deviate from:

5. Financial advisors are just salesmen of their products, they have little interest in you and cannot be trusted. Talk a good game, but too many examples of them lining their own pockets at your expense. Avoid them as much as you possibly can. I have real horror stories here.

 

Financial Advisors can no longer make commission from selling certain products, it is now all done on a flat fee for recommending each product. They are now legally obliged to offer impartial advice to all their clients. (Studying for my CISI exams)

[Vicki Vixen]

Half of London retirees are to turn their pension pot into buy-to-let next year - the housing situation is only going to get worse

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/pensions/half-of-london-retirees-will-turn-pension-into-buy-to-let/2016221.article

[lavrentis]

To even think abou buying a home in London i'd say you need 60K salary

[Rob1742]

Financial Advisors can no longer make commission from selling certain products, it is now all done on a flat fee for recommending each product. They are now legally obliged to offer impartial advice to all their clients. (Studying for my CISI exams)

One question then please?

If they get you to do a private medical policy will they get a commision?

If they get you to do I'll health insurance policy will they get a commision?

Just wondered if these types of policies now no longer carry commissions?

My distrust of them comes from when they try and put these add ons.

Interested to know

[johnny the fox]

If the value of people's homes fell it would only be a paper loss. They'd still be paying the same mortgage as they were before. Unless I'm missing something I can't see how it would cause any kind of collapse. Buy to letters would get their fingers burned but that's the risk they take. The government should be about steering the market towards providing affordable homes, not steering it towards buy to letters protecting their profits.

Fook me.... when I read " the government should be about steering the market"  I breakout into a cold sweat.... allowing here today, gone tomorrow politicians (most whom know fook all about business) to "Steer" any kind of market is folly of the highest order. the track record of governments interfering in any market forces has been disastrous...governments are there to regulate under laws  not "steer" markets..

[Babylon]

My best investment was P.P.I.

I've claimed enough for an extension,new car and a small Caribbean Island.

I've never had PPI so forgive the ignorance, but surely you would only get back what you had actually paid for it in the first place? So they were only returning your money (plus interest)?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Financial Advisors can no longer make commission from selling certain products, it is now all done on a flat fee for recommending each product. They are now legally obliged to offer impartial advice to all their clients. (Studying for my CISI exams)

 

 

One question then please?

If they get you to do a private medical policy will they get a commision?

If they get you to do I'll health insurance policy will they get a commision?

Just wondered if these types of policies now no longer carry commissions?

My distrust of them comes from when they try and put these add ons.

Interested to know

 

Well, within the context of the thread "Savings & Investments" Jackirius is completely correct, as since the Retail Distribution Review became effective at the beginning of 2013, providers of retail investment products cannot offer commissions to intermediaries. 

 

Rob1742 is also right in that commissions can still be paid to intermediaries for the sale of assurance products including the types mentioned.  Commission seems to be seen as a dirty word to many people but if someone's giving you advice in a professional capacity, they don't do it for free - as well as the usual overheads of premises and support staff (if they have them) they all have to pay fees to the regulator and of course professional indemnity insurance should they f**k up to the client's detriment, in marked contrast to the all those dishing out bloke down the pub advice in this thread.  If you want to pay your adviser a fee rather than them receive a commission from the product provider they'll almost certainly be willing to accept this, but as this comes direct from your pocket most customers aren't especially keen on this.

 

Most life/health assurance providers pay intermediaries commissions as they don't want the hassle and responsibility that goes with giving customers financial advice (and if it's a product you can buy direct from the provider it probably won't be any cheaper, but their margins will be better as they don't need to pay an intermediary). Financial advice is now very tightly regulated - it's true that in years gone by unscrupulous 'advisers' had very sharp practices but in this day and age that is very hard to get away with - for any length of time, anyway.

 

Whether you're taking out a product that pays a commission or remunerating your adviser through an adviser charge (which can be deducted from the sum invested or contribution by the provider, so feels like commission to all intents and purposes) your adviser is obliged to disclose what they're getting paid before you proceed, and most contracts have cancellation rights that mean you can back out within a set period if you change your mind.

 

If you're after an adviser, like with picking any professional I think it's always a good idea to get a recommendation from someone than just plucking someone from the Yellow Pages (remember that?)

[notnow john]

I've never had PPI so forgive the ignorance, but surely you would only get back what you had actually paid for it in the first place? So they were only returning your money (plus interest)?

Exactly right but the interest is 8%.

[Rob1742]

No issue with commissions, or a fee for advice. But without giving out my personal situation, the ones I have seen have blatently tried to line their own pockets.

The issue for me is that my situation was blatent, but for others it would have been harder to see.

Difficult to show the true extent without the detail, but believe me the advice by a number of them is criminal.

[ozleicester]

Fook me.... when I read " the government should be about steering the market"  I breakout into a cold sweat.... allowing here today, gone tomorrow politicians (most whom know fook all about business) to "Steer" any kind of market is folly of the highest order. the track record of governments interfering in any market forces has been disastrous...governments are there to regulate under laws  not "steer" markets..

 

To be fair, the "in the know" genii of the financial industry have done a pretty fair job of fvcking us all over, why not let the pollies have a crack?

[SMX11]

To be fair, the "in the know" genii of the financial industry have done a pretty fair job of fvcking us all over, why not let the pollies have a crack?

Don't believe what the 'pollies' say about the financial crash. They instigated the over regulation and allowed these 'too big to fail' banks.

[Alf Bentley]

Don't believe what the 'pollies' say about the financial crash. They instigated the over regulation and allowed these 'too big to fail' banks.

 

"Over-regulation"? "Under-regulation", surely? The politicians were certainly guilty of that - and of allowing banks "too big to fail" - but the banks hardly covered themselves in glory, either, lending on dodgy sub-prime mortgages, over-leveraging their debts by inventing dodgy financial derivatives in their greed to make ever more profit at the expense of financial security etc.

[ozleicester]

Don't believe what the 'pollies' say about the financial crash. They instigated the over regulation and allowed these 'too big to fail' banks.

 

 

"Over-regulation"? "Under-regulation", surely? The politicians were certainly guilty of that - and of allowing banks "too big to fail" - but the banks hardly covered themselves in glory, either, lending on dodgy sub-prime mortgages, over-leveraging their debts by inventing dodgy financial derivatives in their greed to make ever more profit at the expense of financial security etc.

 

The financial regulations were a result of lobbying by the banks and financial institutions, the pollies my have passed the laws, but, as you suggest, they are not experts and they can only act on the advice given by supposed "experts".

 

Im not a defender of politicians, but the people to blame for the GFC were,

First, the banks and their greed,

Second, the Bankers and their greed and

Third, the public and our greed.

 

To this day there are thousands (millions?) of people are still suffering as a result of banker greed and its time that the creation of , and the distribution of wealth is removed from profit driven greedy individuals and put into the hands of people with an aim to improve the world for all, not just the 1%.

[MooseBreath]

Global equality will make every westerner a lot poorer though, you're aware of that?

"It's not greed that drives the world, it's envy."

- Warren Buffett

[Alf Bentley]

The financial regulations were a result of lobbying by the banks and financial institutions, the pollies my have passed the laws, but, as you suggest, they are not experts and they can only act on the advice given by supposed "experts".

 

Im not a defender of politicians, but the people to blame for the GFC were,

First, the banks and their greed,

Second, the Bankers and their greed and

Third, the public and our greed.

 

To this day there are thousands (millions?) of people are still suffering as a result of banker greed and its time that the creation of , and the distribution of wealth is removed from profit driven greedy individuals and put into the hands of people with an aim to improve the world for all, not just the 1%.

 

Wouldn't disagree with too much of that, Oz, including adding Joe Public into the equation, except to say that it's also the job of politicians to ensure that the greed of vested interests doesn't destabilize the economy. Politicians in many countries, particularly the US and the UK (and red and blue govts alike) failed to do that - indeed they oversaw and legislated for the liberalisation of financial markets that allowed the banks' actions to have the effects that they did.

[ozleicester]

Global equality will make every westerner a lot poorer though, you're aware of that?

"It's not greed that drives the world, it's envy."

- Warren Buffett

 

To be fair, thats a pretty random statement and not based in any kind of fact.

 

The world still produces more food etc than it needs and we could easily improve the lot of all without plunging us all back to the stoneage.

[MooseBreath]

To be fair, thats a pretty random statement and not based in any kind of fact.

The world still produces more food etc than it needs and we could easily improve the lot of all without plunging us all back to the stoneage.

It's not random at all. Take all global wealth and divide it equally and you'll find every citizen of a developed nation takes a massive hit. That's an imperfect way of looking at it because it relies on current incentives that wouldn't be available in a fully equal economy, so the reality would be even worse for you and I.