The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[gradus]

Why is share ownership a good thing?

Because it offers good long term income that outstrips building society and bank interest and is more likely than not to provide capital gains to investors selling. Pre-Thatcher this was largely the preserve of the wealthy. Share ownership also keeps many pension schemes and charities afloat.

[cloughie]

If we leave the EU these are the delusional sh*ts who will be in charge

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/02/brexit-party-meps-turn-their-backs-european-anthem-ode-to-joy

These are the people who those who voted to leave the EU are empowering
I'm not a violent man but.....

Not only is it very disrespectful but we, as taxpayers, are paying them to do it.

[Dave2002]

Because it offers good long term income that outstrips building society and bank interest and is more likely than not to provide capital gains to investors selling. Pre-Thatcher this was largely the preserve of the wealthy. Share ownership also keeps many pension schemes and charities afloat.

You are looking at this from the point of view of someone who is viewing "the markets" as a given, then seeing if you can exploit them. You also state that "it offers good long term income that outstrips building society and bank interest" - but this is not by any means guaranteed. It is possible to lose a lot of money by investing in shares. You suggest that shares are "more likely than not to provide capital gains" - but this is a statement which may be doubtful.

I'll fess up - I have shares. I have profited from some dividends, and also some capital gains, but some shares have gone down faster than lead balloons. Right now most of the shares which I still have are worth considerably less than when I bought them.

Historically shares made sense for Venetian merchants and ship owners, by allowing some to participate, and benefit from, much larger ventures than they could afford themselves. Underlying the enterprises was the notion of trade. Trade was possible before any form of formalised share systems and stock exchanges, though money and money exchange have a longer history. Money and shares make trade simpler, and possibly more efficient, and thus enabled larger scale developments which might not otherwise have been possible.

So yes - shares can be a "good thing", but does everyone have to have them?

Plays such as The Lehmann Trilogy (highly recommended) illuminate some of the presumably "good things" which may come out of a system of share ownership and trading, but also shows how disaster can set in (the Wall Street crash, the more recent financial crisis etc.). The film The Big Short is also good. Are shares only about self interest? Whose?

[ardcarp]

Because it offers good long term income that outstrips building society and bank interest and is more likely than not to provide capital gains to investors selling. Pre-Thatcher this was largely the preserve of the wealthy. Share ownership also keeps many pension schemes and charities afloat.

I think private individuals should be VERY wary about dabbling in shares, and even more wary about crackpot companies that try to tell you their savings products are 'based on shares' and...well, basically if it sounds too good to be true then it is

Professional share dealers now apparently do almost instantaneous electronic buying and selling based on fiendishly clever algorithms [or however you spell them]. Amateurs don't stand a chance.

Anyone remember gas shares [remember Sid?] that were flaunted by Thatcher's lot ? Now worth how much? If they still exist.

[Dave2002]

I think private individuals should be VERY wary about dabbling in shares, and even more wary about crackpot companies that try to tell you their savings products are 'based on shares' and...well, basically if it sounds too good to be true then it is.

Amateurs don't stand a chance.

I pretty much agree with this. It's no good "dabbling" in shares unless you are prepared to lose most (all) of the money.

Sometimes one strikes lucky, and for a while mrs d. managed her own small portfolio which outstripped the "professional" managers. I have had some good luck, and some bad luck - if you can call it that. Quite a lot is down to chance, but not everything. Hot tips in newspapers (even so called reputable ones ...) or investors magazines are often next to useless. Often it's just a form of gambling - and sometimes the punters win.

Note also that the buying/selling fees or any other management fees can be significant and eat away at any putative profits.

I've more or less pulled out of share dealing for the moment, as things are in a pretty bad way - possibly due to ...sh.....

[Cockney Sparrow]

Before I go off for a busy day….
I dabbled a little - very little in shares. Quite a while ago - a friend and colleague was successful at it. But I got out of that as I wasn't willing to study it and be an "active investor" - read the Fin Times, Investors chronicle etc like he did. And still, probably, make poor choices with poor returns after costs and charges.

However, shareholders own the large companies, and are held by pension funds - for example Local authority funds as well as private pensions /insurance companies that administer them. I went to a seminar where it was made very clear that the 10 year term financial advisors talk about is to enable money invested to come out the other side of a downturn/recession. So, for example, if one is saving for retirement - funding one's own pension - its desirable to be in a position to meet the very basic/ essential needs from other income, severely limit spending as necessary, not have to sell up investments, and wait for them to recover their value - which, over the past ?100 years (or whatever period) they have always done.

To be able to pay Financial Advisor fees, which are high (they are highly regulated, highly paid, come with compensation schemes etc) then you need substantial assets. But if you don't have that sort of money, but some - then its just as important if not more to be able to get help to invest it where it will be safe, and keep its value / improve on it for the long term future. Folks in this situation are a happy hunting ground for fraudsters and unregulated "advisors" introducing you to dodgy schemes (= no compensation scheme). Consumer programmes abound with these. A R4 programme :

Money Box "Bridging the 'advice gap'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005sxv

Millions of people need financial advice but don't get it according to a damning report out this week. It's called the 'advice gap' and includes people who need advice about investment or pensions but can't afford professional advice and people who need free advice on a variety of money matters but don't know where to get it. We discuss how to make financial advice more accessible to everyone.

If anyone has money to invest, then a spread of investments is much safer than buying/selling individual shares. The point about fees, costs and charges is well made - over decades (think a 30 year old putting money into a pension account) this makes a very significant difference.

There are platforms where the charges are low, but the investor has control and choice over funds - which themselves spread the investments over different sectors. They usually have online access. I was told by accountants that Vanguard shook up the US market with low charges and are now here. A family member uses Aviva. Here is a site listing various providers:

https://comparetheplatform.com/

Putting money into National Savings or cash deposits has its place for enough for immediate or "rainy day" needs. Above that level interest rates will mean that their real value will go down as the years go by. Doesn't seem like interest rates are going to improve any time soon.

Got to go now…..
p.s - Edit - (Just going). Have to say, my first port of call in the search for information on money matters is moneysavingexpert.com. They may have some more info about what to do with money in various amounts....

[Dave2002]

Surely some of those whom you state never benefit from Tory governments are amongst those who bought 4.5 million council homes at quite considerable discounts, although I can't find any easily available stats on this. Similarly, in 1979 just 3 million people owned shares, 7pc of the adult population. By the end of the Eighties one in four people – 12 million adults – owned shares and I would have thought that many in the categories that you list would be included in that number. Not I would have thought miniscule numbers. As for thinking of oneself, well plainly it is not absent from most people's consideration, even Socialist supporters. Securing a family's future by owning a house instead of paying a lifetime of rent to a council and providing something for one's children in due course has bridged all mainstream political views.

Why is home ownership a good thing?

[teamsaint]

Why is home ownership a good thing?

Well, without overturning the whole system ( which might be a good idea ) and in a world of reducing pension provision, it provides for those with a house owned outright, a valuable bulwark against poverty.

The systems of rental and ownership in places like Germany rely on the faith of the people in the system to provide excellent pensions. Our system is built on home ownership or subsidised social housing, along with more modest state pension provision.

And , since the system isn't going to be overturned I guess, I'll believe that in general renting as opposed to buying is a good idea when the very rich sell off their property assets.

[Dave2002]

Well, without overturning the whole system ( which might be a good idea ) and in a world of reducing pension provision, it provides for those with a house owned outright, a valuable bulwark against poverty.

The systems of rental and ownership in places like Germany rely on the faith of the people in the system to provide excellent pensions. Our system is built on home ownership or subsidised social housing, along with more modest state pension provision.

And , since the system isn't going to be overturned I guess, I'll believe that in general renting as opposed to buying is a good idea when the very rich sell off their property assets.

Alan Johnson - the former Labour MP - clearly thought that home ownership was a good thing - at least for him and his family, after Thatcher - but the right to buy policy has had severe impacts. It has removed significant assets from public ownership, and arguably led to the current housing crisis, or at least not mitigated against it, by significantly reducing the number of homes available to rent. One of the real jokes of the current UK housing is the notion of "affordable" housing - which in the south east for many people should be treated as "barely affordable". Also developers are allowed to build such "affordable" housing to a lower standard than other homes, and they often deliberately segregate such homes from others which they try to sell. This is hardly a way to set up communities - and might be considered as ghettoisation.

I'm not against home ownership, but I think that treating houses as assets which the "rich" (which probably includes me - though I'm not really) can speculate with is not a good way to provide shelter. There are other problems with the UK housing situation.

Single landlords who have only one or two properties - perhaps houses or flats they have previously lived in - can provide a useful service, but they cannot operate on the scale of much larger organisations which can benefit from economies of scale. We are starting to see some private housing in the form of retirement villages (I hope I don't end up in one ... but ....) in which either the housing is owned or rented.

In the US I really liked the condominium model which operated in California, as it provided substantial numbers of houses within a community, and there were communal facilities - such as swimming pools, gyms etc., and IMO aided social mobility. Because of the size of the areas, and the general similarity of the housing, maintenance was handled efficiently by a smallish team (say 7 people), so problems were kept to a minimum.

What I really liked was the ability to take out a contract, and not be locked into a long commitment to pay rent, as in the UK. This greatly aids social mobility. One month lets are a real possiblity.

In Sweden, where I also have lived, one can "buy" a flat, but actually it is a sort of half way house between full ownership and renting. What one buys in the right to live in an apartment, which can be sold on. [Though you might think that's very similar to buying or leasing a flat in the UK.] Also, in Sweden any capital gains are taxable, so there is not such rampant inflation of house prices as in the UK. Again, apartment living in Sweden may provide some benefits, apart from just the actual living space, such as a sauna.

Owning a home clearly is a good thing in so far as it enables people to live and work comfortably, but it also represents a liability/responsibility for some people, as they struggle to keep their house (home) well maintained, and many people are vulnerable to the rogues and/or incompetents who will happily take money to do renovations to a very poor standard. Alternatively, over the last half century or so, people have turned to DIY, which is not always a fun hobby, and sometimes leaves properties in a worse state than they started with. DIY electric wiring and plumbing are potential hazards, though regulations are probably reducing some of the issues from the past. Gas work is completely out of bounds! One thing which home ownership permits is the ability to decorate, at least internally, to the taste of the owners. It also ties people down to one location, which may be a good thing, but can also be something which prevents people from moving on, if they are unable to buy and sell their homes at times which are good for them.

There are pros and cons.

[LMcD]

I think private individuals should be VERY wary about dabbling in shares, and even more wary about crackpot companies that try to tell you their savings products are 'based on shares' and...well, basically if it sounds too good to be true then it is

Professional share dealers now apparently do almost instantaneous electronic buying and selling based on fiendishly clever algorithms [or however you spell them]. Amateurs don't stand a chance.

Anyone remember gas shares [remember Sid?] that were flaunted by Thatcher's lot ? Now worth how much? If they still exist.

I think the relevant comparison would be with Centrica shares, which are currently just above a recent (early July) 21-year low of 86 p.

[gradus]

Why is home ownership a good thing?

Mortgages usually get redeemed; rent lasts forever. I won't speak for others but it worked for me.

[Richard Barrett]

Why is home ownership a good thing?

The thing about home ownership is that the home owner immediately (for the reasons teamsaint mentions) has a strong interest in the value of his/her property appreciating, and therefore in the very processes which make that same home ownership more difficult for succeeding generations, in government policies which facilitate that, and in the idea that having stuff somehow entitles you to have more stuff. But the logical extension to your question is really "why is any kind of ownership a good thing?"

[Jazzrook]

It's unlikely to make any difference but Tory members should read this before voting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/oxford-bullingdon-club-boris-johnson-sexism-violence-bullying-culture

JR

[LMcD]

It's unlikely to make any difference but Tory members should read this before voting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/oxford-bullingdon-club-boris-johnson-sexism-violence-bullying-culture

JR

I suspect that a significant proportion picked up the envelope(s), opened it (them), removed the voting form(s), voted (once per form) for the man of their choice, placed the form(s) in the envelope(s), sealed the envelope(s), and posted it (them) - possibly before the next local collection!

[Serial_Apologist]

I suspect that a significant proportion picked up the envelope(s), opened it (them), removed the voting form(s), voted (once per form) for the man of their choice, placed the form(s) in the envelope(s), sealed the envelope(s), and posted it (them) - possibly before the next local collection!

It was being said on the radio the other day that all the signs were that party members were already voting in large numbers, even though the local party gathering discussions, designed to expose any weaknesses in each candidate, were far from over. This to me says as much as I need to confirm my strong impression of the Tory grass roots, because with Labour most members would at least be waiting to hear all the arguments to the finish before deciding.