BoldAsBrass

Yes - and it's the problem with democratic capitalism too. They all take our money and spend it trying to make sure they stay in power.

From the point of view of the banks - they don't care who they lend to - as long as they lend. And the more they lend, the more secure their previous lending is. Until and unless the young people in this country take to the streets to protest about the way the property market (and life) is being systematically rigged against them - nothing will change.

Any chance of making that say 10 picks? I think that's the minimum number of shares I would be happy investing in. I'm happy to stick 10 picks in a spreadsheet and update it say every month to see how it's doing. On the 'just because I haven't made money in the stock market' ... some years ago I got a load of shares in a company that bought a company I was a shareholder in. It was the usual 'shares for shares' deal. I couldn't sell the shares for 18 months and had to sign an employment contract saying I wouldn't leave within 18 months, start up a rival business within 5 years etc. When the time came to sell them it was all a bit frantic and I ended up legging off to Charles Stanley with my share certificates in hand ... so I actually got to meet and chat with a broker - who was a very pleasant chap of about 50 years old who I got the chance to quiz up. We had quite a long chat during which I said ... 'if you know so much about the market, how it works, what moves it etc. etc. - why are you a broker? Why not trade on your own account, make a fortune over a few years and retire?' He just smiled and said something like 'if it were only as easy as that'. You're right by the way - I've never made a penny from a share I've bought - even the bloody Tesco shares in my SIPP haven't moved much in 10 years or more. I'd love to see if you, or anyone on here, can put a portfolio of say 10 shares together - buy and sell as often as you like - and show you can make money. If you can, and other people follow your purchases with purchases of their own, presumably that will only do your portfolio good? As I say, I'm happy to do the donkey work, keep a spreadsheet updated and post it here every month.

Yes, but how often do you back the wrong horse and quietly forget about it? I think it's human nature to do that. If your investments in junior miners had turned out to be a bad investement what would your conclusion have been then? My observation is, I think, a true on - when you hit on something like that it us just as much a matter of luck as judgement. How many people can beat the market on a long term basis? Answer - none. The so-called great fund managers simply find a sector and ride it. The ones that get lucky may be lucky for 20 years. But then things change - their luck runs out and their star falls. Not long before Madoff was found out one of the UK's most respected fund managers paid a glowing tribute to his ability to read the equity markets and described as a leading investor in, and mover of, the New York markets. As we now know, he wasn't investing at all. It's all smoke and mirrors and if you make some money - just be happy you got lucky. If people were actually able to consistently read and beat the markets, they'd suck all the money out of the markets themselves. I think it is fair to say that whenever anyone makes any serious money the first thing they invest in to make sure they hang on to their wealth is ... property.

I have a very jaundiced view of books such as this. Ask 1000 people how they made a fortune from their investments in the stock market and 988 will tell you they didn't make a fortune - they either lost a fortune or lost a little or broke even or made a little. The 1000 of them all have different life experiences, different outlooks, different risk appetites etc. etc. but, somewhere, if you analysed them to the n'th degree, you might be able to come up with general (and, I would suggest, trivial (or obvious)) rules. I think the sensible thing to infer is that the 12 who made a load of money were LUCKY (no specific or rational explanation for their success, just a mish mash of cryptic inferences) and accept the fact that reading how they did it will make no difference whatsoever to your own chances of success. One of the best proofs of this is to reflect on the number of people who have made a fortune (either investing, or in business) and then lost it. You'd think if they were clever enough (had some sort of intrinsic method or system) to make the fortune once, they'd just keep on making it. Ask a 100 people what they invested in after the credit crunch and try and deduce what from the 12 that say gold? And, of course, where are the guru stock-pickers making a fortune? Trying to make money writing stock-picking newsletters of course. I would have thought it was very obvious how to make money from the stock market - become a stock broker.

If they are ever able to retire (why do we all have to work so bloody hard all the time - oh yeah, because the bankers make sure we are permanently in debt) - they will still be paying off the debts taken on by Gordon Brown to fund his client state. That's true. But, each bunch of muppets follows the previous bunch of muppets and inherits their debt. There should be a Golden Rule (heh, heh!) written into the constitution (heh, heh) that makes it illegal for governments to borrow more than a certain amount of GDP and then, it must only be for a defined timescale and must be paid back before the 'borrowing facility' can be used again. (Didn't the Ghost of Kirkcaldy have a Golden Rule ... what was it ... that the government must borrow so much money and employ so many people that no-one will ever vote for anyone else and they'll stay in power forever. Nearly worked too.) This lunatic system we operate under at the moment - paying £120 million in interest every day (how much!) - borrowing an extra £140 billion a year - racking up debts that (like the World War 2 debts) won't be paid off for 50 years or more - is just plain wrong. I do hope that a future generation revolts and refuses to pay the debts. That would soon stop excessive government borrowing in its tracks.

On the whole, yes. If I can't offer him a reasonable chance at life in this country (i.e. I don't really have the money to say to him 'here's a load of cash to get you started - well I do, but that leaves me potless in retirement - if I ever get to retire) ... and this country can't offer him a reasonable opportunity to get a job, buy a house, have a family, live a normal life etc. then, yes, I encourage him to go. Much as I like the idea of one day playing 'Grandad' - with my sons and (in due course) their families near me - I know that this seems to be too much to ask. My wife hates the idea that our sons may have to move abroad and is finding out what the entry requirements are for old farts to Aus, NZ and Canada. I'd quite happily follow them but, in a way, it's a bit daft. They might move to Canada - settle down - and then get a job offer in Singapore or, even, the UK! Who knows what will happen. All I know is that the bloody bankers have a lot to answer for. And I'd quite happily be the one asking the questions.

But nothing much seems to change here. I see the Daily Express has the usual 'House prices to go up 10% this year' headline reported by, yes, you guessed, Assetz 'let's destroy the prospects of the next generation' Property Management (or whatever they are called). It's enough to make you weep - and every time my eldest son sees such a headline, it makes him more determined to emigrate.

Maybe they could do it on a sliding scale. The higher percentage they lend, the more risk the bank takes. With a lid of say 80% to prevent irrational exuberance.

True, but an increase from 80k to 130k is an increase of 62.5%. So, looked at another way, if it is sold now for 80k the new vendors will be rubbing their hands saying 'You'll never believe this but it sold a couple of years ago for 62.5% more than we paid for it.' Too right blame the bank that financed it. Feck them! They are quite happy to lend you 118k one day and then tell you the next that it is only worth 80k and that is what they are going to sell it for. I have to say it again - feck them! The banks should not be able to sell for less than they lent or, if they do, they should take the loss. They'd be a bit damn more careful about how much debt they hang around people's necks then.

Trouble is - in 'rough number' terms - house prices doubled, transaction numbers halved - agents now are making the same money as they did 5 to 10 years ago (depending which part of the country one is considering) for half the work. No wonder, now there has been a shake out, they are not bleating much.

I wonder why Rightmove feel qualified to advise people that interest rates are likely to rise. Do they have the ear of the MPC? I wonder why Estate Agents are not telling people that 'homes are not selling'.

Yes, a reminder that, whatever happens, there is an elite that not only does not suffer, but they seem to benefit from every situation. A couple of years ago I was certain that developments like that would be white elephants, that the developers would go broke, that the half finished developments would stand as a stark reminder of the price to pay for the greed and avarice of so many. Yet, here we are, finished and sold at prices that make you gasp. I ought to be getting used to being wrong by now. How DO people make so much money?

It's been a few years since I went to school in Ealing but, even 40 years ago, the mainline train from Ealing Broadway to Paddington took about 10 minutes. Okay still a hike to the City, but very convenient for the West End. Much of Ealing is leafy and pleasant so I'm not surprised that prices are as insane as they are (well I am - but that's a different matter - the whole country seems to be stark raving to me).

And, as everyone knows, prices are set at the margins. You only need one person earning the requisite money to buy a house - you don't need the whole population earning the requisite money. And thinking in terms of averages etc. doesn't help either - in an extreme situation you might only sell one house a year in a town - but as long as one sells it sets the price for the others. I know this can't go on forever ... I know that in 20 or 30 years time, eventually, sometime, there will not be enough people earning enough money to keep the market where it is ... but, by then, my sons might be getting on for 50 years of age. And if gradual inflation keeps the boat afloat, somehow, in the intervening period - all we are going to see is a change in the structure of home ownership with fewer people owning more properties and more people renting. I think it's a pretty depressing outlook.

And why I bought a few months ago. Certainly, when we were looking for somewhere to buy, the feedback from agents was that the market was being supported by cash buyers. Weird really, for years I laboured under (what turned to be) the illusion that First Time Buyers (or BTL scumlords) were necessary for the market to function. It appears not.

I don't know much about the demands other countries make on would be immigrants. I'm knocking on the door of 60 (years of age) and, a year or two ago, I filled out a form on the New Zealand government web site to see how many points I had. Can't remember the result other than it was 'no thanks'. But for young people, if you have the job skills they want and have some of qualifications to prove this is the case, it seems to be relatively easy. If you're old and you want to retire somewhere they obviously only want you if you can prove you have the means to support yourself. Unlike this country, free health care is not part of the package either. Yes, by 'remainder' I do mean 'undesirables' but only in the sense that other countries don't want them for whatever reason.

Spot on - and that's the bit that really worries me. My eldest lad is a good example. He's a decent lad - very hard-working and reliable (on the job front) and entrepreneurial too. I flatter myself that because he's had a nice upbringing he has mentioned a couple of times that he very much envisages that his future will include marriage and kids. It's the good ones that will emigrate - let's face it no other country wants the (how shall I put it?) 'remainder'.

Yes, but all that will do is ruin the economy - such as it is. What is a 'transfer payment'? Too little too late I'm afraid. House prices may get cheaper but the economy will be on the floor. The economy is based on continuous debt expansion. I'm going to give my kids every encouragement to emigrate - just hope they both end up in the same country and that Mum and Dad can blagg their way in too!

My eldest son is 22. He messed around (education wise) when he was at school but, facing a future in dead end jobs, he is now studying part time for a degree. Yesterday evening he had a friend around - same age as him. She is going to Canada in July because she is in a dead end job in the UK - hasn't got much support from her parents and struggles just to live in a flat share. She is thoroughly fed up with this country and sees no future here. She has a two year working visa for Canada and has no intention of coming back. Two of my son's mates have just gone to Australia. One is a plumber, the other is a car mechanic. They are both in their early 20s and they have both EMIGRATED - they too have no intention of coming back. They mentioned loads of their friends who have either emigrated, are planning to emigrate or simply want to as a vague ambition for the future. We are not talking about 'travelling' here - they all seem to have realised that, for them, this country is - to use their expression - 'fucked'. My son is DESPERATE to go too. He sees no future in this country and is annoyed with himself that he wasted a few years (education wise) and that he won't be qualified (and therefore able to get into another country easily) until he is 25 or so. But, he will go - of that I am certain. He tells me that the main topic of conversation amongst his peers is 'who is going where, who has gone where, how they are getting on, what skills are wanted where, where I hope to go, where do you hope to go, why Canada is better than Australia, or South Africa is better than New Zealand, or the States is the place etc.' I think this ought to be a bit of a wake-up call. There is a lot of talk of an ageing population, demands on health care, costs of pensions etc. ... what the hell are we going to do if 25% of our children emigrate and 25% are unemployed? I've held the view for a few years now that it needs concerted action by young people to do something about the housing market. Talking to my son and his friend yesterday - and listening to their tales of all the people they know who have gone, are about to go, or want to go - I have suddenly realised they are taking a sort of concerted action. They are leaving this country - and my generation - to our fates.

Across the country small falls. Anywhere where people actually want to live (i.e. anywhere vaguely desirable or nice) no price falls at all. Relatively few forced sales. Looking at it from my sons' point of view - they can either try to live where they grew up - which means they will need to earn big money - or they can move somewhere else where property is much cheaper. The problem is, of course, that where property is much cheaper, wages are much lower. So, same problem - housing is unaffordable. Sellers will be able to hold up prices indefinitely before caving in - if they don't NEED to sell. Which means (as we have now) a market with low transactions yet still with enough demand and money available to keep prices up. I just can't see this market correcting under its own steam. It needs concerted action by young people to withdraw from the market - both from renting and buying. And I can't see that happening either. So, one develops an 'every man for himself' philosophy. I'm resigned to selling up in a few years and giving my kids a chunk of money. If I don't need to - great - that will mean the market has corrected. Either way the equity I have 'built up' over the years is illusory - it will either disappear or I'll give it to my children so they can have somewhere to live without a mountain of debt around their necks.

It's an interesting phenomenon. Transactions are low, prices are high and enough people want to buy the property that is available and have enough money to keep prices high. For those people hoping for a house price correction (and that includes me - for the benefit of my kids and everyone else's too) - it isn't looking too hopeful. In the same way that young people ought to boycott the housing market - refusing to buy or rent (if at all possible) - why isn't there a movement to boycott university next year. The powers that be would crumble overnight if they suddenly realized their income for next year was zilch, nada, rien, nothing. No wages, no pension - nothing - just empty buildings and a staff that cannot be paid. Boy there would be a race to the bottom then. Where are the NUS these days? You'd think with Facebook et al they could organize a boycott in a week.

Which kind of suggests that we are not going through economic stress yet. I know when I was looking to rent again last year (before I bought in the autumn) we were facing a rent increase of £500 a month just to stay in the same sort of house. There wasn't much on the market and the decent stuff was getting rented out on a phone call. One of the reasons we bought was that demand for rented property was so high - we felt we'd be lucky to find somewhere half decent to live and we'd pay through the nose for the privilege. That and the fact I was getting progressively more worried about having a stash of cash in the UK banking system.

Ahhh, you have to smile. CALA paid £22m for it and are looking to get £20m for a unique opportunity to develop a landmark - or some such nonsense. Maybe Barratts will offer them £11m. I stayed in a hotel in the highlands somewhere - must be best part of 30 years ago. Barratts were building new buildings in the grounds and were creating a timeshare development. At that time they had a daft advert with a bloke in a Barratts helicopter flying through one of those big bill-board hoardings you get at the side of some roads. The hotel was really out in the wilds - must have been 60 miles to the nearest decent sized town. The site agent used to get dropped there by helicopter every morning and picked up again in the evening. At the time I was a site manager on projects in London. That helicopter was certainly one up on my 1.3L Ford Escort.

A bit like it does now - houses will be a bit cheaper, some people will have had wage inflation - particularly those left in the public sector - others, in growing industries and businesses will have had some wage inflation too - others, like me, will (if still in work) have had no wage inflation and will, therefore, be a bit harder up ... but, generally, it will be a sort of watered down version of where we are now. And, with inflation increasing more in the BRIC nations than in Europe and the USA, wage increases over here will not be seen as suicidal. It seems to me that global inflation is being caused by increased demand for commodities from developing nations and the battle for resources is pushing prices up. This is true for everyone so wage inflation will follow the price inflation in a while. As developing nations' demand for increased living standards continues, their costs and wages will go up, proportionately, more than ours. On the other hand we have a pretty poorly educated workforce these days - the big question for me is where employment is going to come from. Even big new projects have very limited demand for labour - such is the level of mechanisation in every industry. As I see it, we're going to have to go back to working the land - and that is going to mean changes in land ownership and usage. This might take 50 years and a revolution or two though.