…on the EU Gender Directive. If you haven’t heard about it, this new European law comes into force later this year and will mean that a person’s sex will not be taken into account when insurance premiums are calculated. The European Parliament has decreed that an insurance company basing their premiums on someone’s gender is discriminatory, even sexist, and so they want to impose a level playing field for all.

This may sound fine in theory. What’s wrong, you may ask, with everyone being treated equally? The trouble is that ignoring gender in many cases leads to more losers than winners – especially as it would seem that most premiums will be going up to cover this change.

Frankly, I think it’s ludicrous. I simply cannot see the problem with underwriting a real risk. Car accident figures are not discriminatory – they are gender neutral and are purely documenting the truth. Young male drivers have far more accidents than young female drivers; that is a statistical fact. Why then should a 19 year old girl pay the same insurance premiums as her 19 year old male neighbour, who has a proven higher risk of crashing his  ‘hot hatch’ than she does?

The Gender Directive’s effect on car insurance has been widely reported – but what is perhaps not so well known is how this will affect things like life assurance.  For example, the effects of gender related illnesses will no longer be counted, and nor will the fact that women live longer than men. Result? Critical illness and life assurance cover will become more expensive for women. Meanwhile, income protection for men will also cost more, because historically they had a lower claims record – and thus cheaper premiums – than women. There seem to be few winners in this new, ‘gender-free’ insurance world.

Sooner or later we’ll be told that taking age into account for insurance purposes is ‘ageist’. I’d like to say I’m being tongue-in-cheek - but maybe not!

Common sense underwriting is being taken away. Statistics are there for a reason and we use them to make judgements based on rational thinking, not PC arguments. If you need to review your insurance any time soon, take my advice and do this well before the end of the year (in fact, September at the very latest), when most industry pundits predict that premiums will start to rise by approximately 15%. And definitely get it sorted out before Europe takes a step closer to saying that we’re all EXACTLY the same – which is of course nonsense.

What do you think – am I right to rant? Or do you agree with this new law?

Guest blogger Dr Liz Bentley (meteorologist at the Royal Meteorological Society, founder of the Weather Club and regular media commentator on BBC News 24, Radio 4′s Today programme, Sky News, Radio 5 Live, and BBC Breakfast) looks at how the climate may impact our homes and our everyday lives sooner than we think…

I was asked the other day at the school gates, whilst clenching an umbrella in a heavy downpour, if the drought was now officially over, after all the rain we’ve seen during April. My answer was ‘no’ – it’s going to take more than a few weeks of rain to undo more than two years of below-average rainfall. But, they replied (clearly puzzled), ‘how can we have flood warnings and still be in a drought?’

For a start, there are different types of droughts. Firstly, there is a meteorological drought - a prolonged period with less than average rainfall. Next is an agricultural drought, when the shortage of rainfall occurs during the growing season, with negative consequences on crops – something we experienced in 2011 across some parts of England, which saw their driest spring for over 100 years.

Finally there is a hydrological drought, linked with a lack of rainfall during winter and spring, the crucial time of year when ground water levels are usually replenished. And that’s what we have now – hence the news stories about dried up streams, lakes that look like puddles, and almost empty reservoirs. Since September 2009, there have only been a handful of months with average or above-average rainfall in parts of England, and 2011 was the driest year in England and Wales for 90 years. It’s the hydrological drought that impacts most severely on domestic and industrial use, leading to restrictions such as hosepipe bans.

By the middle of April 2012, half of the UK was officially in drought conditions and the Environment Agency suggested that the drought could last into 2013. Their statement went on to explain that ‘rain during the spring and summer will help to water crops and gardens; [but] it is unlikely to improve the underlying drought situation.’

But can you really have the ‘wrong type’ of rain?  Unfortunately, during heavy downpours, most of the water runs off quickly because the ground is so dry and compacted, causing flash floods. The best type of rain is the steady, persistent stuff that soaks into the ground. But even that’s not much use during the summer months, unless you’re a gardener or farmer, because most of the rainwater is taken up by plants or evaporates before it drains into the earth far enough to top up the groundwater – which is what we really need, as that’s where most of our tap water comes from.

It’s not surprising to hear recent suggestions from Thames Water that we need to reduce our time in the shower from the average seven minutes down to four minutes. The current drought is comparable with the lead up to the severe drought in 1976 – and in fact, current groundwater levels are even lower than they were 36 years ago. I was only a young girl at the time, but I remember when the water supply to homes was cut off and replaced with standpipes in the street. I look back and wonder how my mum coped bringing up three young children with no running water in the house.

I also wonder if history (or meteorology) will repeat itself this summer. If so, we will all need to play our part in dealing effectively with its consequences.

Maybe it’s my age but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to imagine living without the internet – even though I try to explain to my kids what life was like when you couldn’t just Google something. Homework used to involve ‘Looking Things Up in a Book’, or even (gasp) going to an actual LIBRARY, not reaching for Wikipedia and taking it as gospel.

That’s the internet’s biggest disadvantage: it’s the ultimate free speech platform, with unsubstantiated opinion offered as fact. Search engines might be driven by SEO – but whether a piece of information is intrinsically right or wrong is not part of the equation. So however ill-informed a web page may be, the search engine will still offer this up uncritically, without the benefit of a raised eyebrow or quizzical look to say ‘you might want to give this one a wide berth’. Of course, the more ludicrous or unreliable information is easier to spot, but what about stuff that sounds plausible? That’s why consulting ‘Dr Google’ about medical symptoms is highly inadvisable – unless you want to give yourself sleepless nights!

The same principle applies to the property market. We automatically turn to the internet to do our research on house prices and market trends – but could this send us down unhelpful cul-de-sacs? There are so many conflicting and misinformed opinions in circulation, some masquerading as fact and all jostling for our attention. At one extreme, for example, there’s a particular website dedicated to ‘proving’ that property ownership is a fool’s errand, quoting all manner of ‘experts’ to back them up (they’re entitled to their opinion of course, so I’ll give you mine to balance things out – they’re wrong!)

Yet even reliable sources of info can be misleading out of context. We can look online to find how much our neighbour sold their property for (and let’s face it, we all love doing it…) This can be taken as fact: Mrs Jones got £XXX,XXX for her home six months ago. But even if our properties are identical, does that mean we’ll achieve the same price?

There are so many other factors to take into account. Value (and therefore price) is determined by supply and demand, and websites like Mouseprice are just a price ‘snapshot’ in time, nothing more. They can’t tell us how many buyers are looking for properties in our road right now and what they’re prepared to pay for it - the real definition of market value.

So, what am I saying? That a little knowledge can be….well, if not dangerous, then at least misleading, because possibilities for misinterpretation are rife, leading to potentially unsound decisions that can put us at a disadvantage.

In other words, we shouldn’t rely solely on Dr Google to diagnose local market conditions and prices. Internet research is important and a fundamental part of property transactions – but we should use it in conjunction with an experienced human expert with real life local knowledge, who can diagnose the best course of action to achieve our moving objectives.

You may remember the debate between the Government and environmental/historical groups last autumn over the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The main concern was that the Government’s plans for economic growth would be at the expense of the country’s environmental and heritage assets, especially the Green Belt. However, the final version of the NPPF published last week has clarified its intention to balance economic, social and environmental objectives.

The protection of the Green Belt hasn’t hugely changed from the previous policy, and although natural, environmental and heritage assets retain much of their protection, it’s clear that the Government is committed to the planning system providing support to economic growth. There’s a high demand for affordable housing, especially in the East and South East of England. Whilst the finger of blame might point to inward migration, it is primarily due to house building not keeping pace with the economic growth and increase in prosperity of Britain for more than 30 years.

The NPPF encourages and requires positive engagement between all stakeholders in the planning process. Opportunities abound in the new Framework for landowners, developers and local communities alike, but only if all groups understand how to access them. The key to achieving Neighbourhood Plans is for all parties to appreciate the benefit of engaging with each other. There’s little point in a local community preparing a plan which results in a site’s development not being commercially viable. But developers also need to engage with local communities, and create developments that have local distinctiveness and which local people will embrace as part of their community.

There is of course another factor in planning and property development, and that’s the political context. With local elections around the corner, the power bestowed in elected representatives has arguably never been greater, and the NPPF requires these representatives to have a positive attitude to planning. The Rt Hon Greg Clark in the introduction to the NPPF states, “Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives and must not simply be about scrutiny.” Elected members (including parish councillors) for whom objection has been their default position will need to embrace the changes and enter into real dialogue with those who are trying to deliver the economic, social and environmental benefits that sustainable development will achieve.

Exciting times are ahead of everyone, in planning and shaping the places where we live. With the National Planning Policy Framework, the Government has given us all the shared responsibility to ensure we leave a legacy of developments which enhance the economic, social and environmental fabric of the villages, towns and cities across the UK.

Since last week, I’ve been asked by a number of people: how will the Budget affect the property market? Not a great deal, in my view. The Lib Dems (along with the media) have argued that the new 7% Stamp Duty on residential properties over £2m is not far off a ‘Mansion Tax’ – but whether you call it a mansion tax or not, I can’t see what their problem is. It won’t affect the 99.9% of the population who can’t afford £2m houses, and it won’t really be a hardship for those who can.

But beyond the property market, the so-called ‘Granny Tax’ has also generated a lot of headlines. This refers to the tax allowance for pensioners, who currently start paying tax at a higher income threshold than younger people – and George Osborne has announced that this age-related tax break will be phased out.

By calling this Budget measure a ‘Granny Tax’, the media seem to be suggesting that it’s a tax on being old. No – this tax break for the over-65s is effectively taxing other people for being younger. That’s ageism in reverse. My personal opinion is that there should be a level playing field, with all taxes related only to a person’s ability to pay. Using age is a blunt and meaningless instrument – you may as well say “let’s have a tax break for people with blue eyes”. Surely it’s better to give more targeted help to those who need it, regardless of their age?

The hard truth is that with more people living for longer, the state will need to fund increasing levels of health and state support – so we simply can’t afford to turn a blind eye to the inequality preserved by this higher tax allowance. I am no apologist for Osborne and I certainly don’t always agree with the Government (I can frequently be heard ranting at the news) but in this instance I think they’ve got it right. We’re told by the media that younger people already struggle to pay off university loans, find a job and buy their first home – how can the media then think it’s fair to support a pensioners’ tax-break which effectively discriminates against the young?

Perhaps I’ll think differently when I’m 65+. But I’d like to think that I wouldn’t welcome a tax allowance that was based on my age, not my needs and income, and that discriminated against my children.

What do you think?

So the Halifax (the UK’s biggest mortgage lender) will raise its Standard Variable rate (SVR) from 3.50% to 3.99% on 1^st May. You may be tempted to say, “So what?”, as the news has been greeted with indifference in the street and apparent shock in the mainstream media. But in fact the increase was not unexpected, nor is it bad news – far from it.

It certainly came as no surprise to the mortgage industry.Why? For a start, it was inevitable after the Halifax recently raised its SVR cap from 3.5% to 3.75%. This new SVR of 3.99% just brings them into line with a number of other lenders, and is still below the SVRs of lenders such as Santander at 4.24%.

The underlying reason, though, is that the cost of borrowing has increased, and with the base rate looking as if it will remain low for a good while yet (possibly even for a couple of years), lenders need to obtain their margins from increasing their rates, regardless of base rate movements. The Halifax is just the first of many – in fact, the Bank of Ireland has already followed suit.

I’m expecting to see other lenders raise their SVR rates sooner rather than later - and this in its turn will spark a rise in remortgage activity as homeowners reassess their current mortgage deals. So the rise in SVRs is in fact good news for customers as they’ll be prompted to reduce their mortgage outgoings, (rather than just sitting on their current SVRs), and it’s good news for lenders and intermediaries too. Everyone’s a winner.

Like clockwork, at the start of every month, our latest new recruits take part in our company’s induction course – and at some point during this four–day process, I get the chance to talk to them. They’re usually an enthusiastic, motivated bunch, and it’s always a pleasure to meet them, even (or especially) when their questions are challenging or make me stop to think.

At the last induction, for example, one new starter asked me what made me strike out on my own and start Romans in 1987 when I was only 20 years old. I paused and thought back to myself 25 years ago, complete with 80s haircut and glasses. It seemed to me that because I was optimistic of success (as was Peter Coles when he joined me a few months later), I believed our new venture would indeed be successful – so in essence, as I explained at the induction course, we were inspired by the confidence of youth. And would I do it again? In a heartbeat!

Then another new starter asked me: “But who or what inspires you now?” The answer is simple: Steve Jobs. If you haven’t read his biography yet (see my blog from November), I can highly recommend it. Not only does the book illuminate the workings of a brilliant business mind and Jobs’ passion for delivering a quality product – it also casts light on his all-too-human characteristics. He was pig-headed, prickly and sometimes difficult to work with. He could be arrogant. Like everyone else, he made mistakes, both personally and professionally. But he openly acknowledged his own weaknesses, and tried to learn from these mistakes, however hard the lessons.

Above all, he was committed to doing what he believed in and to living each day to the full. If you haven’t got time to read the book, watch this video of Jobs accepting his honorary degree from Stanford University in June 2005. After talking about how he dropped out of college but still successfully ‘joined the dots’, he refers to his 2004 cancer diagnosis and reminds the graduates that their time on Earth is limited, and that they have to make the most of it. “There is no reason,” he says, “not to follow your heart.”

I urge you to watch this video and let me know what you think. And tell me – what inspires you too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

Take a stroll down any High Street right now, and there seem to be far too many empty shops, with the media reporting that the situation is getting steadily worse. In truth, UK vacancy rates remained stable last year, at around 14% – but there were big regional differences and some well-known retail brands went into administration, including Barratts, Focus DIY, Peacocks and Habitat.

The causes are a combination of weak consumer confidence, rising unemployment and the explosive growth in online shopping, which has transformed the UK’s retail habits for ever. Consumers have also been under more pressure in 2011, during which wages only rose at half the rate of inflation, and for some retailers, a challenging Christmas may have been the final straw. As a result, High Streets across the country are going through a painful transition period. So what does the future hold?

Despite the gloom, I’m optimistic that the High Street will adapt and survive in the long term, just as it did when supermarkets first appeared in the 1950s. Products that can be bought more easily online (DVDs, music, books etc) will continue to lose their High Street presence, but there’ll always be items where the physical look and feel/fit will keep them in the ‘real world’ – think phones, clothes and shoes. The personal service factor will keep some businesses on the High Street too, such as estate agencies.

Things also go in cycles, as I’m fond of saying to my kids (who inevitably roll their eyes at me). We’re now seeing the return of some traditional shops that were first driven out by the supermarkets: butchers, bakers and greengrocers, for example, but with a nod towards the ‘quality local/organic produce’ angle. And that’s not all – when I first started out as an estate agent in the 1980s, many empty residential properties were being turned into shops and offices, because it made more financial sense. But now, some landlords who struggle to let business premises are finding that a ‘return to resi’ would be more lucrative, and so we’re seeing more High Street infill with residential units converted from (or built on the site of) former retail or commercial units.

So that’s why I’m confident our High Streets are here for the long haul. I recognise that people can be wary of change – but it’s about evolution, not extinction.

So the base rate didn’t change…no surprise there then. But the £50 billion of quantitative easing (QE) has created a few headlines over the weekend – chiefly along the lines of ‘printing money’, which brings to mind the image of Mervyn King personally cranking out paper notes from an ancient printing press. But what really is QE and what are the pros and cons that have been most widely quoted in the last few days?

Firstly, the £50 billion is electronic rather than physical – noughts on a spreadsheet, if you like – and the Bank of England uses this newly created money to buy government bonds (debts) from the banks. This potentially has three effects – good and bad, depending on your viewpoint and/or circumstances:

1. QE may stimulate the economy by giving the banks more reserves, which effectively means they can lend more money – on the assumption that there are hordes of willing borrowers out there.

2. QE lowers the long term interest rate on government debt, which influences the market price for all interest rates. It does this because bonds pay fixed interest – however, if the bonds cost more through increased demand but are still paying out the same amount, the effective interest rate decreases. This then lowers the interest burden on anyone with debt (and potentially encourages business investment).

BUT lower interest rates also reduce the returns from savings and pensions. This particularly hits hard for those who are retiring soon, as the amount of pension they can buy with their pension pots is decreased – hence lots of press coverage (and politicians) saying that quantitative easing will ‘rob pensioners’.

3. QE may risk stimulating higher inflation. That’s according to some commentators anyway, who think that more money chasing the same amount of economic activity will cause inflation to rise. But a more nuanced view is that excess money alone is not the sole cause of inflation and we can avoid it if the right measures are taken at the right time.

What do I think? That there’s been some media hysteria about QE which has obscured the probable reality –  it will be effective in helping to keep the UK’s interest rates low, but ultimately will create neither a lending boom nor Zimbabwe-style levels of inflation. We won’t be shopping with wheelbarrows full of worthless banknotes just yet.

What are your thoughts on this?

We have some fantastic news to share – as of 1^st February 2012, the highly successful Maidenhead and Windsor estate agency Atkinson & Keene has joined the Romans Group, further expanding our 17 branch network in Berkshire, North Hampshire and Surrey.

We’re delighted to welcome Atkinson & Keene into the Romans family. Our companies have long-standing connections – I worked with Tim Atkinson and Nigel Keene before I founded the Romans Group in 1987, back when I was a fresh-faced young agent. We’ve shared a mutual professional respect for many years, and I’ve watched with admiration as Atkinson & Keene has become a market leader in Maidenhead and Windsor over the last 18 years. So when we were looking to expand in these two areas, our first thought was to seek a dialogue with Nigel and Tim.

Nigel and his team will continue to work from their existing offices in Maidenhead and Windsor, still delivering the same outstanding service to their many loyal customers. Nigel has commented publicly that “this is excellent news for both our current and future customers. I’m enormously proud of what we have achieved with Atkinson & Keene and I see our future partnership with Romans as a natural evolution. With very similar values and principles, the Romans Group is in the ideal position to help fulfil the dreams Tim and I had when we first started our business: to be the estate agency of choice in Windsor and Maidenhead. I’m relishing the prospect of seeing Atkinson & Keene moving to the next level.”

Atkinson & Keene will continue to trade under their own name as part of the Romans Group for the foreseeable future. Welcome aboard, Nigel and everyone else in your team. We’re very much looking forward to working together and enjoying the new shared horizons created by this exciting move.