Two schemes could mean £11million investment in East Lancashire housing (From Lancashire Telegraph)

The work is likely to focus on the Daneshouse and Accrington Road areas of Burnley; Whitefield area of Nelson; New Line area of Bacup; and Spring Hill area of Accrington. Have they just forgotten to state where the 141 homes are located in the Blackburn area..?

Too many people live here and there’s not enough industry to support our needs because it‘s all gone abroad. Poor housing schemes of the past have produced the obvious problems of today. All that governments seem able to do ‘no matter of the colour of banner they wear’ is to blame everyone else for the mess we‘re in. They’ve all been there and all have had the opportunity to have done something good have they not?

So the next time you see your MP or your friendly councillor ask them why they’ve allowed all of this mess to happen? Then purely for personal interest ask them what planning have they made for their own future and where do they live now? I can guarantee the answer to be a lot rosier than yours.

Question: What have David Cameron and Tony Blair got in common? Answer: Loads of money. But they all have loads of money so why does politics remain a class ‘thing’ when all are seeming to be floating in the same lifeboat. It’s the lifeboat that your not being rescued in!

Life’s just a game, played by those that have and always will be!

Way off topic i know but I see once again no comments are allowed on the accrington asian taxi driver convicted and sentenced for serious sexual assault on a female passenger disgracefull censorship by this newspaper.

This country still produces a great deal of wealth. This is allocated through a system that produces winners (and a few very big winners, it must be said) and losers (a very large and sizeable majority).

One of the greatest fibs every perpetrated on the British people was David Cameron’s assertion that “We’re all in this together”. This was blatant nonsense, but sadly a lot of people fell for it. They now know differently.

It is a game to them, you see. You count for nothing.

The question is what does an individual do now?

The answer, I think, is to become a member of the resistance by breaking some of the chains and playing the game selectively; at the same time start building your own lifeboat but this is a darn hard thing to do because there are so many things drilling holes in the keel and, of course, what is suitable for one person is not suitable for another.

One cannot say more than this because it is illegal to do so – it would constitute unauthorised financial advice for which one could be held liable and receive a very large fine or be sent to prison.

district01 & Kevin have this all worked out, very impressive posts, I feel a revolution is in the making, Nahh no one in this country has a back bone it won't ever happen.

The British are very tolerant, docile and easily led. They are not revolutionaries.

The North is suffering, but by the same token we don’t help ourselves. My conclusion from this is that things will not change any day soon, so all-in-all there’s not much hope.

We’re living in exceedingly dangerous times, in my view. This calls for reading widely, thinking critically and independently, and then acting accordingly.

A lot of the commentators on the LT website are castigating the rich. I have no problem with true wealth creators getting rich, but folks on very modest means can get their act together and have a very comfortable life if they put their mind to it. It takes thought, sacrifice and determination but folks can get there in the end. Why do so many not do this? I have no idea.

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote: ‘The rich are different from you and me’. Ernest Hemingway glibly riposted: ‘Yes, they have more money’. As Ian Murray pointed out: ‘ .. if Hemingway made the better joke, Fitzgerald had the greater truth.’ (Investment Trusts, Winter 2011, p.18).

The point being made here is that the rich are not only rich because they have more money, but they are rich as a result of managing their wealth in an adroit way. As strange as it may seem there are ways of putting your thrupence with the rich and if one can set aside £30 for investment then one can invest alongside Lord Rothschild.

Alternatively there are other funds where the managers have all or most of their personal wealth invested in them. In short, and unlike banks, they make money for you rather than from you.

A glance at five typical funds shows 5 years NAV returns ranging from 15.8% to 79.9%, excluding income. I should add that the trust delivering the lowest return over 5 years has delivered 179.3% over 10 years. How many endowment policies and with profit bonds have delivered those sort of returns? Not many, I dare bet.

Kevin, Colne wrote:
The British are very tolerant, docile and easily led. They are not revolutionaries.

The North is suffering, but by the same token we don’t help ourselves. My conclusion from this is that things will not change any day soon, so all-in-all there’s not much hope.

We’re living in exceedingly dangerous times, in my view. This calls for reading widely, thinking critically and independently, and then acting accordingly.

A lot of the commentators on the LT website are castigating the rich. I have no problem with true wealth creators getting rich, but folks on very modest means can get their act together and have a very comfortable life if they put their mind to it. It takes thought, sacrifice and determination but folks can get there in the end. Why do so many not do this? I have no idea.

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote: ‘The rich are different from you and me’. Ernest Hemingway glibly riposted: ‘Yes, they have more money’. As Ian Murray pointed out: ‘ .. if Hemingway made the better joke, Fitzgerald had the greater truth.’ (Investment Trusts, Winter 2011, p.18).

The point being made here is that the rich are not only rich because they have more money, but they are rich as a result of managing their wealth in an adroit way. As strange as it may seem there are ways of putting your thrupence with the rich and if one can set aside £30 for investment then one can invest alongside Lord Rothschild.

Alternatively there are other funds where the managers have all or most of their personal wealth invested in them. In short, and unlike banks, they make money for you rather than from you.

A glance at five typical funds shows 5 years NAV returns ranging from 15.8% to 79.9%, excluding income. I should add that the trust delivering the lowest return over 5 years has delivered 179.3% over 10 years. How many endowment policies and with profit bonds have delivered those sort of returns? Not many, I dare bet.

Kevin, firstly, I must ask how this all fits with the report on housing renewal in East Lancs. Secondly, having issued your own caveat against giving unauthorised financial advice, you then go on to do exactly that. Thirdly, you do not specify what type of investment fund you are quoting performance figures for - investment trusts or unit trusts? I will assume investment trusts as you have quoted above from Investment Trusts periodical. Readers should be aware that investment trusts are a type of higher risk investment and could lose their capital. It is not quite as easy as Kevin makes out, which seems to be just looking up the top 5 funds and piling your hard earned money into them. If that was the case, every IFA in the country would have an easy job and have thousands of remarkably happy clients. Investors in investment trusts need to understand that they are higher risk for two key reasons - they are investing in the shares of one company (which invests in other shares) and the trust gears up through borrowing. So not only are the managers investing your money, they are investing the bank's money also. They are not charities and they do make lots of money out of you (like the banks), examine the charges very carefully. Finally, be aware that you might well be required to pay income and/or capital gains tax on the proceeds.

How much more money is going to be thrown at the Daneshouse area of Burnley. Since the riots in 2001 this area has had millions pumped into it for both housing and social/community projects, and what is there to show for it? Row after row of boarded up houses, row after row of turf where houses used to be, unemployment through the roof and drugs, prostitution and anti social behaviour rife, not to mention groups of youths driving round the area harrasing and intimidating lone females.

In a nutshell it has been demonstrated that this area is beyond repair so why should any more of tax payers money be wasted on fruitless projects in this area?

we must stop this rise of the housing association as prime stakeholders, just look at the power grab going on right now :
Selective Licensing of Private Landlords
https://www.lifeinth
emix.info/2012/02/se
lective-licensing-pr
ivate-landlords/

Merlin, Hi!

Those are good questions. My comments were in response to observations made by others rather than in relation to the story directly, and of course I should have emphasised that my comments were not intended as investment advice. It was rather remiss of me to omit this point and in regard to the posting below I reiterate that the comments that follow constitute opinion not advice.

Investment trusts are like all investments in business, including oeics and unit trust etc – they carry the potential for capital loss, although I would argue that the closed-end structure of an investment trust has some advantages over an open-ended structure.

I never advocated picking the top 5 performing trusts, nor would I ever do so. That sort of approach belongs in the mainstream press. The idea that investing in one investment trust constitutes high risk is true up to a point, but a great deal depends on how well a person does their homework. It is true that a trust can borrow money and some have come undone in spectacular fashion doing so, but like all businesses if the borrowing is sensible and used at the appropriate juncture then the business may prosper exceedingly well.

The main point I was making, and which that appears to have got lost somewhere, is that there is a flaw at very heart of a great many commonly used investment products and it’s this: how can an investor overcome the agency problem and ensure that those charged with managing their money do so in the best interest of the investor?

In short: how can you ensure a common bond?

The industries’ standard model is to pay the money manager or management group a handsome salary or fee and then additional payment can be made if is performance is exceptional. So, if the fund performs satisfactorily the manager is paid well and if the fund does exceptionally well the manager is paid a very great deal indeed. But what happens when the fund performs poorly? Answer: the manager or management group gets paid quite handsomely regardless.

This strikes me as a heads they win, tails the investor loses; and I suspect that plenty of investors with endowment policies, with-profit bonds and pension products can attest the validity of this observation.

There are some investment trusts where the directors and managers that manage the trust have most of their personal wealth and their families riding on the success or otherwise of the trust. They have opened their cheque books and bought the shares in the market, not been given them as options at a substantial discount to the existing price. In other words when they invest money it is their money they are investing and an outside investors’ money is riding on their coattails.

This means that the interests of the directors and managers are closely aligned with other, perhaps small, investors. It is true that they are not a charity but by the same token these trusts tend to have interesting characteristics: they eschew gearing, they don’t market or advertise their wares in the press – too costly (perhaps this is why the mainstream press give them so little attention), annual reports are printed black on white with few if any pictures –again too costly. Portfolio turnover is low, for the same reason. Often, they don’t pay commission to intermediaries (maybe this is why IFAs and banks might give them a wide berth). Some are run from quite modest offices without a veritable supporting organisation structure – again keeping the costs of running the show to a minimum.

Of course this model does not guarantee superior performance but it does establish without question the common bond that is sadly lacking in many investment products.

Perhaps you will allow me to quote the director of one such trust: ‘Ultimately our secret is the same as it has always been. We are managing our own money. It speaks for itself that our six Directors and our Investment Adviser each have well over £300,000 of their money invested in the company and they and their families have total holdings worth £21m. If we get it wrong we do not just ‘lose the game’ or slip in the rankings. We ourselves suffer financially. A great deal is written about performance fees and incentives in the fund management world. We don’t want them, and we don’t need them. Having one’s own money on the line is the greatest incentive of all.’

I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily but if I haven’t then I’m sure you’ll come back to me.

Best wishes

Kevin