Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Parents Won't Have Wealth To Pass On, Report

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8010896/Parents-wont-have-wealth-to-pass-on-report.html

Future generations should not expect to inherit wealth from their parents following the ravages of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, a new report has warned.

Of 6,010 Europeans questioned, just 10pc said they were actively intending to pass on "significant wealth" to their children, according to a survey of consumer finances by Janus Capital Group.

A further 42pc said they had no intention of doing so, while the remaining 48pc said they were unsure.

The survey claimed the financial crisis has produced a generation of under-saving, risk-averse Europeans, which will challenge the future of "inter-generational wealth transfer".

The responses of adults from the UK, France, Germany, Holland, Spain and Italy, showed the financial crisis has "fundamentally challenged the norms of financial wellbeing", according to Ric Van Weelden, head of Janus Capital's European business.

"Specifically, the report highlights how few Europeans are likely to have made adequate provision for their retirement, let alone passing on wealth to the next generation. The financial services industry will have a very different landscape to serve going forward," he said.

Many who were relying upon returns from their long-term investments for later life and to pass down as inheritance have seen values wiped out, and extended life expectancy is placing additional pressure on finances.

Considering most wealth today has been generated by the over expansion of debt it's no surprise that many are fearing there will be nothing left.

Why save money when you can unlock the piggy bank of your home and the bank can help itself to the keys of your house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph...-on-report.html

Considering most wealth today has been generated by the over expansion of debt it's no surprise that many are fearing there will be nothing left.

Why save money when you can unlock the piggy bank of your home and the bank can help itself to the keys of your house.

Article in the Telegraph on Saturday about equity release schemes ... bank lends you 100k secured against your house as a mortgage. Interest is rolled up and becomes payable when you die. At 7% a year the sum owed doubles every 10 years ... you need to check the schemes apparently to make sure the money owed can never exceed the value of the house when you die - otherwise bank has a further claim on your estate.

Banks eh? Don't you just love them. You spend your life paying them interest to buy/live in a house and, as a result, you can't afford to save for a decent pension. When you retire you borrow again from the bank and, when you die, they take all the money back and the whole cycle starts with someone else.

Boy, we are all complete and utter mugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering most wealth today has been generated by the over expansion of debt it's no surprise that many are fearing there will be nothing left.

There will be nothing left because it was created from nothing. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8010896/Parents-wont-have-wealth-to-pass-on-report.html

Considering most wealth today has been generated by the over expansion of debt it's no surprise that many are fearing there will be nothing left.

Why save money when you can unlock the piggy bank of your home and the bank can help itself to the keys of your house.

I think this whole issue about the likely declining average amounts that will be left by todays parents to their children, particularly the demographic of those parents already into their fifties and with children already into adulthood, is not new - but has undoubtedly become an inescapably obvious phenomenon.

Yes, the era of easy lending, etc. has played a large part - but I also think there are deeper, more subtle (and sad) reasons why this sort of 'why should I leave anything to my kids' attitude has grown in the last 20+ years. There have always been a small minority of people (regardless of wealth) who have adopted some sort of 'survival of the fittest' type mentality when telling their children they will get owt but the wisdom they have been passed on, and that they should make their own way in the world, etc etc.

But these have been a minority. Probably since the stone age there has been some desire to leave something material and of some sort of value and use for ones children (even it were a hunting knife, baubles and beads, etc).

I am a 100% aetheist and god plays no part in my life whatsoever, but I have found the arguments coming from various friends and others of various religious persuasions (of verying degrees of observance themselves) who have argued that the wider and accelerating decline in 'morality', especially post-WW2, is in part due to the incresaing absence of 'religion' in society - namely implicitly accepted codes/rules which we live by.

The triumph of 'marketing' in the post-WW2 era, selling goods/services that deep down we all WANT but don't need, has also played a part in people getting their social 'priorities' mixed up.

I also note that this phenomena of leaving little/nothing to ones children seems to have its roots in the U.S ? I vaguely recall a controversial book in the late 1990's with the title 'Die Broke', or such like, openly espousing that people carefully manage their money so that when they die they have nothing to take to the grave - since you cant spend it there!

I spoke recently to someone who was saddened reflecting on how his grandparents, of modest means, consciously left not just all their money (a modest amount) but also cherished possessions - whereas his parents were already making clear in no uncertain terms that everything they have is theirs, earned by them, and they were entitled to 'enjoy it'. His 'sadness' wasnt out of a sense of entitlement and that there would likely be no meaningful inheritance as he is already married, self-sufficient, financially responsible, etc. His sadness was more at seeing a form of greed having overtaken and changed his parents behaviour in the last 15+ years - and their simply not relating to what they were doing and how it was so 'different' from that practised by people of their age group for generations previously. He despaired that, in all likelihood, they would sooner sell off unwanted material items to raise money first - rather than give their children first refusal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole issue about the likely declining average amounts that will be left by todays parents to their children, particularly the demographic of those parents already into their fifties and with children already into adulthood, is not new - but has undoubtedly become an inescapably obvious phenomenon.

Yes, the era of easy lending, etc. has played a large part - but I also think there are deeper, more subtle (and sad) reasons why this sort of 'why should I leave anything to my kids' attitude has grown in the last 20+ years. There have always been a small minority of people (regardless of wealth) who have adopted some sort of 'survival of the fittest' type mentality when telling their children they will get owt but the wisdom they have been passed on, and that they should make their own way in the world, etc etc.

But these have been a minority. Probably since the stone age there has been some desire to leave something material and of some sort of value and use for ones children (even it were a hunting knife, baubles and beads, etc).

I am a 100% aetheist and god plays no part in my life whatsoever, but I have found the arguments coming from various friends and others of various religious persuasions (of verying degrees of observance themselves) who have argued that the wider and accelerating decline in 'morality', especially post-WW2, is in part due to the incresaing absence of 'religion' in society - namely implicitly accepted codes/rules which we live by.

The triumph of 'marketing' in the post-WW2 era, selling goods/services that deep down we all WANT but don't need, has also played a part in people getting their social 'priorities' mixed up.

I also note that this phenomena of leaving little/nothing to ones children seems to have its roots in the U.S ? I vaguely recall a controversial book in the late 1990's with the title 'Die Broke', or such like, openly espousing that people carefully manage their money so that when they die they have nothing to take to the grave - since you cant spend it there!

I spoke recently to someone who was saddened reflecting on how his grandparents, of modest means, consciously left not just all their money (a modest amount) but also cherished possessions - whereas his parents were already making clear in no uncertain terms that everything they have is theirs, earned by them, and they were entitled to 'enjoy it'. His 'sadness' wasnt out of a sense of entitlement and that there would likely be no meaningful inheritance as he is already married, self-sufficient, financially responsible, etc. His sadness was more at seeing a form of greed having overtaken and changed his parents behaviour in the last 15+ years - and their simply not relating to what they were doing and how it was so 'different' from that practised by people of their age group for generations previously. He despaired that, in all likelihood, they would sooner sell off unwanted material items to raise money first - rather than give their children first refusal.

I don't know about religion. Morality can exist without religion. However, I do think there's a major correlation with the decline of stable communities and societies. This can be a good thing - there is less hidebound convention which in the past undoubtedly stifled many people's talents and made life a misery for thousands if not millions. But it also means that people no longer feel part of the past and the future of their communities and even of their own families. Short-termism is king, in economics, policy, and relationships, whether between groups or between individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole issue about the likely declining average amounts that will be left by todays parents to their children, particularly the demographic of those parents already into their fifties and with children already into adulthood, is not new - but has undoubtedly become an inescapably obvious phenomenon.

Yes, the era of easy lending, etc. has played a large part - but I also think there are deeper, more subtle (and sad) reasons why this sort of 'why should I leave anything to my kids' attitude has grown in the last 20+ years. There have always been a small minority of people (regardless of wealth) who have adopted some sort of 'survival of the fittest' type mentality when telling their children they will get owt but the wisdom they have been passed on, and that they should make their own way in the world, etc etc.

But these have been a minority. Probably since the stone age there has been some desire to leave something material and of some sort of value and use for ones children (even it were a hunting knife, baubles and beads, etc).

I am a 100% aetheist and god plays no part in my life whatsoever, but I have found the arguments coming from various friends and others of various religious persuasions (of verying degrees of observance themselves) who have argued that the wider and accelerating decline in 'morality', especially post-WW2, is in part due to the incresaing absence of 'religion' in society - namely implicitly accepted codes/rules which we live by.

The triumph of 'marketing' in the post-WW2 era, selling goods/services that deep down we all WANT but don't need, has also played a part in people getting their social 'priorities' mixed up.

I also note that this phenomena of leaving little/nothing to ones children seems to have its roots in the U.S ? I vaguely recall a controversial book in the late 1990's with the title 'Die Broke', or such like, openly espousing that people carefully manage their money so that when they die they have nothing to take to the grave - since you cant spend it there!

I spoke recently to someone who was saddened reflecting on how his grandparents, of modest means, consciously left not just all their money (a modest amount) but also cherished possessions - whereas his parents were already making clear in no uncertain terms that everything they have is theirs, earned by them, and they were entitled to 'enjoy it'. His 'sadness' wasnt out of a sense of entitlement and that there would likely be no meaningful inheritance as he is already married, self-sufficient, financially responsible, etc. His sadness was more at seeing a form of greed having overtaken and changed his parents behaviour in the last 15+ years - and their simply not relating to what they were doing and how it was so 'different' from that practised by people of their age group for generations previously. He despaired that, in all likelihood, they would sooner sell off unwanted material items to raise money first - rather than give their children first refusal.

Good post - and am seeing the same thing too. Yet another baby-boomer phenomena??

If you go to the USA you often see bumper stickers on the backs of huge Recreational Vehicles proclaiming that " i am spending my childrens inheritance"

I'm still not sure what my attittude will be when i hit 65 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure what my attittude will be when i hit 65 :)

We just won't have children. Avoid the expense of raising them and the issue of how or whether to leave them anything. It's a pity it's not really an option anymore for people of my generation (unless you want a life on benefits) but this is the cost of the greed and incompetence of those that went before. I'm not convinced we'll be spriritually poorer for it either, apparently having kids can be 'rewarding' but it's not an obviously good move to me.

This is their bill. No grandkids, your line ends with us. Nice one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole issue about the likely declining average amounts that will be left by todays parents to their children, particularly the demographic of those parents already into their fifties and with children already into adulthood, is not new - but has undoubtedly become an inescapably obvious phenomenon.

Yes, the era of easy lending, etc. has played a large part - but I also think there are deeper, more subtle (and sad) reasons why this sort of 'why should I leave anything to my kids' attitude has grown in the last 20+ years. There have always been a small minority of people (regardless of wealth) who have adopted some sort of 'survival of the fittest' type mentality when telling their children they will get owt but the wisdom they have been passed on, and that they should make their own way in the world, etc etc.

But these have been a minority. Probably since the stone age there has been some desire to leave something material and of some sort of value and use for ones children (even it were a hunting knife, baubles and beads, etc).

I am a 100% aetheist and god plays no part in my life whatsoever, but I have found the arguments coming from various friends and others of various religious persuasions (of verying degrees of observance themselves) who have argued that the wider and accelerating decline in 'morality', especially post-WW2, is in part due to the incresaing absence of 'religion' in society - namely implicitly accepted codes/rules which we live by.

The triumph of 'marketing' in the post-WW2 era, selling goods/services that deep down we all WANT but don't need, has also played a part in people getting their social 'priorities' mixed up.

I also note that this phenomena of leaving little/nothing to ones children seems to have its roots in the U.S ? I vaguely recall a controversial book in the late 1990's with the title 'Die Broke', or such like, openly espousing that people carefully manage their money so that when they die they have nothing to take to the grave - since you cant spend it there!

I spoke recently to someone who was saddened reflecting on how his grandparents, of modest means, consciously left not just all their money (a modest amount) but also cherished possessions - whereas his parents were already making clear in no uncertain terms that everything they have is theirs, earned by them, and they were entitled to 'enjoy it'. His 'sadness' wasnt out of a sense of entitlement and that there would likely be no meaningful inheritance as he is already married, self-sufficient, financially responsible, etc. His sadness was more at seeing a form of greed having overtaken and changed his parents behaviour in the last 15+ years - and their simply not relating to what they were doing and how it was so 'different' from that practised by people of their age group for generations previously. He despaired that, in all likelihood, they would sooner sell off unwanted material items to raise money first - rather than give their children first refusal.

Great post. Seems with the breakdown of marriage passing down the wealth just isn't a priority any more. Short-term is the way people live nowadays- all the way. A guy I know his parents broke up, his father's new wife has taken his inheritance. His parent keeps asking him where are my grand kids? He has nothing and no means of buying a property or having a family . WHAT DO THEY EXPECT TO HAPPEN?

Edited by workhou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the article does not appear to take into account is the level of support given by parents before death. Is today's deposit from the bank of Mum & Dad the money that in yesteryear would have been passed on as an inheritance? Likewise are parents supporting children through university in an effort to reduce debts at the start of their adult lives?

If you've helped them with college, and pump primed the purchase of the starter home, surely the balance of your wealth is yours to do with as you see fit?

I am working hard on passing on a substantial overdraft to my kids :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole issue about the likely declining average amounts that will be left by todays parents to their children, particularly the demographic of those parents already into their fifties and with children already into adulthood, is not new - but has undoubtedly become an inescapably obvious phenomenon.

Spendthrift kids could also play a part is some cases. Why not enjoy the money yourself if you're certain your kids will just blow it on crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprising that the report didn't conclude by saying give the financial sector your money to invest to make sure you have money to leave your next of kin (i.e. churn, dilute, waste, malinvest, off book account, incompetentise, lobby money, buy new headquarters, pay for massive wages and pensions and expenses, carpet and furnish offices, pay for our Ferraris and yachts etc etc etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article in the Telegraph on Saturday about equity release schemes ... bank lends you 100k secured against your house as a mortgage. Interest is rolled up and becomes payable when you die. At 7% a year the sum owed doubles every 10 years ... you need to check the schemes apparently to make sure the money owed can never exceed the value of the house when you die - otherwise bank has a further claim on your estate.

Banks eh? Don't you just love them. You spend your life paying them interest to buy/live in a house and, as a result, you can't afford to save for a decent pension. When you retire you borrow again from the bank and, when you die, they take all the money back and the whole cycle starts with someone else.

Boy, we are all complete and utter mugs.

I do suspect that a fair number of interest only mortgages people have taken out in recent years are to be paid off with inheritance money. If the inheritance money doesn't turn up, the bank have 25 years of your interest payments, and the property as well. Anyone would think these interest only mortgages had been set up to achieve exactly that.

If you do have the money after 25 years, after 40% inheritance tax, the trick isn't going to work the second time around because no new money is going into the pyramid scheme.

So, yes, I'd concur - the current generation (aged < 30) will be the last ones to inherit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no surprise to anyone.

There are progressively fewer jobs and 'job life expectancy' is also in decline - people are on the scrapheap earlier - all reducing the ability to build up a pension. Pensions and saving schemes are also nothing like they were in the seventies.

Remember the phrase, 'the silver haired rich' ? That was around in the seventies. As far as I can remember, that was the peak for people retiring well.

There is also the effect of high house prices. When kids are unable to leave home, parents are unable to downsize and have considerably higher overheads than otherwise. Kids who live at home, even at 30 plus, never buy their own bread, toothpaste or whatever, have you noticed? I know very many parents in this position, with kids who have little chance of ever owning their own place.

High house prices have had very damaging social consequences in so many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but..but... the boomer logic that houses would only ever go up was founded on circular money that they received from their parents and speculated on positive assets...hang on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but..but... the boomer logic that houses would only ever go up was founded on circular money that they received from their parents and speculated on positive assets...hang on...

I'd disagree that it was a 'boomer ethic'.

For most people, there never was an idea of speculating in property. And it was Mrs T who deregulated the age old principle that you could only release home equity for home improvement - basically what started the rot. I don't know why there is such a 'boomer blame culture'. It was the liar loaners and property porners who fuelled the whole idea of speculating with your home. It is actually a very recent phenomenon.

And, back on topic, I am sure the Government thought it was a wonderful idea . . everyone's house can become their pension, solving the whole unfunded pension crisis. Just too bad that not everyone owns a home, that now even fewer are likely to own a home, and that the whole ponzi scheme fell apart anyway.

More to do with Brown economics than ethics, I'd suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree that it was a 'boomer ethic'.

For most people, there never was an idea of speculating in property. And it was Mrs T who deregulated the age old principle that you could only release home equity for home improvement - basically what started the rot. I don't know why there is such a 'boomer blame culture'. It was the liar loaners and property porners who fuelled the whole idea of speculating with your home. It is actually a very recent phenomenon.

And, back on topic, I am sure the Government thought it was a wonderful idea . . everyone's house can become their pension, solving the whole unfunded pension crisis. Just too bad that not everyone owns a home, that now even fewer are likely to own a home, and that the whole ponzi scheme fell apart anyway.

More to do with Brown economics than ethics, I'd suggest.

i didn't say the word 'ethic' anywhere...

??

anyway, yeah I was being inspecific using the word boomer, true

the general logic (not ethic, logic) or opinion or accepted wisdom in the late 90s was that recycled intergenerational wealth would maintain high house prices, just so happens that the generation in the core political (hence voting in labour 3 times in a row and hence GB) and economic stage was the baby boomers, which is why I ascribe this to their generation, which I agree is quite general

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't say the word 'ethic' anywhere...

??

anyway, yeah I was being inspecific using the word boomer, true

the general logic (not ethic, logic) or opinion or accepted wisdom in the late 90s was that recycled intergenerational wealth would maintain high house prices, just so happens that the generation in the core political (hence voting in labour 3 times in a row and hence GB) and economic stage was the baby boomers, which is why I ascribe this to their generation, which I agree is quite general

Oh right . . . I misquoted. Logic not ethic. My bad.

(Though at the end of the day, the thought process was neither logical nor ethical . . . too funny :) )

I don't think many people at the time, of whatever generation, would have withstood the property porn/liar loan barrage. It was fairly relentless. And you make a good point about 'intergenerational wealth'. It was a fairly cynical and well documented aim of Labour to tap this, while giving everyone a feelgood factor by making getting into debt 'the right thing to do'.

It's all so crazy in retrospect . . . and sinister too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right . . . I misquoted. Logic not ethic. My bad.

(Though at the end of the day, the thought process was neither logical nor ethical . . . too funny :) )

I don't think many people at the time, of whatever generation, would have withstood the property porn/liar loan barrage. It was fairly relentless. And you make a good point about 'intergenerational wealth'. It was a fairly cynical and well documented aim of Labour to tap this, while giving everyone a feelgood factor by making getting into debt 'the right thing to do'.

It's all so crazy in retrospect . . . and sinister too.

indeed, no worries

however, the relentless pressure was a conversation between the politically dominating generation and itself, maybe anyone would have fallen for it, but that doesn't exonerate responsibility of the particular 'anyone'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed, no worries

however, the relentless pressure was a conversation between the politically dominating generation and itself, maybe anyone would have fallen for it, but that doesn't exonerate responsibility of the particular 'anyone'

Well, I like to give ordinary people the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think ordinary people 'dominate', of whatever generation. Only the political classes, with the collusion of the media.

I don't believe the majority of ordinary people were 'gung ho' for either war or property killings, as indeed the Blairs were. Their personal priorities did shape the mentality of Government and the mood of the time.

As to whether the brainwashed generation should take responsibility . . . hmmm . . . difficult question. They took a view in the light of the prevailing philosophy, over which they had little control.

But to get back on topic again, the net result is that millions are stuffed with no provision for retirement. This is not a fault of individuals, but of Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting this. I recently bought a house which came with a small detached cottage. Stretched ourselves a bit to get it but have come to an agreement with my dad to sell them half of the cottage. This helps me get the mortgage down a bit and will mean that I can provide him/mum with a place to live right next to us should the time come when they need it. I'm hoping that I've stumbled upon a rather nifty solution to the generally fvcked up intergenerational relationships in this country. Basically he gives us some of his savings now; we give him/mum a place to live when they need it. All done at arms length; he can do what he likes with the proceeds of his own house sale. I hope he enjoys it. He deserves to for not putting all his eggs in the property basket like the rest of his deluded generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do suspect that a fair number of interest only mortgages people have taken out in recent years are to be paid off with inheritance money.

...would suggest that many don't even know their mortgage is not reducing and will never be paid off....the product is most likely to be used by unethical brokers / lenders who ease the monthly payment through for approval to acquire their commission and keep to sales targets ....and to those borrowers that do understand they believe the loan will be paid of by future equity growth (HPI)..... after all the monthly repayments are 'pleasantly' low...... :rolleyes:

Edited by South Lorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole issue about the likely declining average amounts that will be left by todays parents to their children, particularly the demographic of those parents already into their fifties and with children already into adulthood, is not new - but has undoubtedly become an inescapably obvious phenomenon.

Yes, the era of easy lending, etc. has played a large part - but I also think there are deeper, more subtle (and sad) reasons why this sort of 'why should I leave anything to my kids' attitude has grown in the last 20+ years. There have always been a small minority of people (regardless of wealth) who have adopted some sort of 'survival of the fittest' type mentality when telling their children they will get owt but the wisdom they have been passed on, and that they should make their own way in the world, etc etc.

But these have been a minority. Probably since the stone age there has been some desire to leave something material and of some sort of value and use for ones children (even it were a hunting knife, baubles and beads, etc).

I am a 100% aetheist and god plays no part in my life whatsoever, but I have found the arguments coming from various friends and others of various religious persuasions (of verying degrees of observance themselves) who have argued that the wider and accelerating decline in 'morality', especially post-WW2, is in part due to the incresaing absence of 'religion' in society - namely implicitly accepted codes/rules which we live by.

The triumph of 'marketing' in the post-WW2 era, selling goods/services that deep down we all WANT but don't need, has also played a part in people getting their social 'priorities' mixed up.

I also note that this phenomena of leaving little/nothing to ones children seems to have its roots in the U.S ? I vaguely recall a controversial book in the late 1990's with the title 'Die Broke', or such like, openly espousing that people carefully manage their money so that when they die they have nothing to take to the grave - since you cant spend it there!

I spoke recently to someone who was saddened reflecting on how his grandparents, of modest means, consciously left not just all their money (a modest amount) but also cherished possessions - whereas his parents were already making clear in no uncertain terms that everything they have is theirs, earned by them, and they were entitled to 'enjoy it'. His 'sadness' wasnt out of a sense of entitlement and that there would likely be no meaningful inheritance as he is already married, self-sufficient, financially responsible, etc. His sadness was more at seeing a form of greed having overtaken and changed his parents behaviour in the last 15+ years - and their simply not relating to what they were doing and how it was so 'different' from that practised by people of their age group for generations previously. He despaired that, in all likelihood, they would sooner sell off unwanted material items to raise money first - rather than give their children first refusal.

I've been a Christian (protestant reformed) for nearly 42 years now and, as I'm not that far off retirement, I own my own house, have some savings & no debt. My goal is to leave as much as I can to my kids. I can't say what my viewpoint would be if I was an atheist. I expect the desire to pass wealth on to one's kids isn't driven by religous beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.