Shared ownership is generally referred to by the Government as ‘homebuy’, but can also be called ‘part buy/ part rent’. Namely, you generally buy a percentage share of a property owned by a housing association and then pay rent on the remaining share that you do not own, hence: ‘part buy/ part rent’. It is possible to buy a small share initially, such as 25%, and gradually buy the remaining shares in the property in a process known as ‘staircasing’. Not all schemes work on this basis and there are a number of variations on the shared ownership theme, such as Open Market home buy, and other ‘shared equity’ schemes where no rent is payable.

If you are just starting to research shared ownership mortgages/ homebuy schemes, and have not yet been accepted by a housing association, then as your first port of call, you need to get yourself a shared ownership agent. They will then be able to tell you whether you qualify for a shared ownership scheme and take you through how to register for a shared ownership scheme in your area.

Once you have been accepted you have to take in consideration a few of the following – The size of deposit, if any, you are putting down – it is possible to buy 100% of a share and there are lenders out there who will consider this (but the lender will normally require your lease to have a special ‘mortgage protection clause). You also need to think about what share you are looking to buy in the property (e.g. 25%, 30%, 50%) and the rent you can afford to pay on the share you do not own (if any).

A few facts to remember when buying shared property are – Shared Ownership Mortgages make buying a home more affordable because you buy part and part rent your home, Homebuy refers to the Government’s range of Shared Ownership Schemes. And your local housing association manage shared ownership schemes in your area.

Mervyn King – the governor of the Bank of England – has always expressed his opinion regarding the Bankers’ role in the recent financial crisis.

Giving evidence to the House of Commons Treasury committee, King once again risked the wrath of the financial services sector as he blamed them for the necessity of the government’s planned spending cuts. He said that people who had lost their jobs & businesses as a result of the crisis had every reason to be angry & he was surprised that there wasn’t more anger being expressed by the public.

“The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it,” he said. “Now is the period when the cost is being paid, I’m surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has.”

Questioned regarding lending by the banks to the economy he responded: “The figures are clear — the banks are delivering a negative volume of net lending. Credit conditions have improved for big companies, but there’s little sign that the situation has improved for small and medium-sized firms. I understand why the people running those companies still feel under great pressure.”

During the hearing it was evident that it is the opinion of the members of the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England – the body responsible for setting interest rates – that the crisis will have a long lasting impact for the UK economy.

Asked by one MP when living standards would recover King responded by saying: “The research makes it clear that the impact of these crises lasts for many years. It is not like an ordinary recession, where you lose output and get it back quickly. We may not get the lost output back for very many years, if ever.”

King also said that while a “squeeze on living standards is inevitable, that the distribution of the pain is a political choice”.

When questioned on inflation he King once again stated that raising interest rates as a gesture of the Bank of England’s anti-inflation resolve would be self-defeating.

As the session came to an end King announced that it was the 20th anniversary of his joining the Bank of England & that he could never have imagined the events that have occurred in Britain over the last few years. He concluded by saying, “I don’t intend to leave until we have persuaded this committee that we have a framework in place to ensure that such a crisis cannot happen again.”

In a sharper than expected fall its been announced that the UK economy shrank by 0.6% in the final quarter of 2010

The revision was said to be due to worse than expected performances from industry & service sector firms which fell by 0.7%. Consumer spending also fell & it was only the higher levels of government spending that balanced the shrinking economy by contributing growth at a rate of 0.7%. The Office for National Statistics has continued to maintain that 0.5%of the decline was due to the harsh weather conditions in December – the coldest on record.

The figures are particularly concerning given the huge cuts in government spending which are about to be implemented.

The shadow chancellor – Ed Balls – criticized the government’s plans to cut the deficit: “2011 should be the year when the British economy grows strongly and the recovery is secured. Yet the early signs are that the Tory-led government’s reckless decision to abandon Labour’s plan to halve the deficit over four years has seen the economy take a turn for the worse.

“We now face the worst of all worlds – unemployment and inflation both rising, growth stalled and consumer confidence collapsed. And this is before the government’s extreme fiscal tightening really starts to bite.”

Brendan Barber – general secretary of the TUC – said: “The government’s hope of an upwards revision of growth has been dashed. It’s time to wake up and smell an economy in big trouble. We need a plan B that doesn’t send it over the edge with deep rapid spending cuts.”

Despite the many concerns expressed, the treasury reiterated its determination to tackle the budget deficit, a spokesman for the Treasury saying: “The chancellor said that the fourth-quarter growth figures were disappointing and today’s revision doesn’t change that fact. It also doesn’t change the need to deal with the nation’s credit card – the country is borrowing more this year than is spent on the entire NHS.”

The new figures once again draw attention to the duality of issues facing the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England over interest rates. It is now clear from the minutes that three members voted for higher rates at February’s meeting, with one member calling for more quantative easing.

Vicky Redwood – senior UK economist at Capital Economics – said, “The slight downward revision to UK GDP might give the more hawkishly inclined members of the MPC reason to pause for thought,”

The days when world banks would pump their money into the thriving Irish economy seem long gone.

Growing so rapidly on the back of low business taxes between 1995 and 2007, overseas banks saw money to be made and seized at the opportunity.

Such was the national success, a property boom erupted just after of this period of massive growth which crumbled soon after it began.

The Irish government has already bailed out the banks for approximately £39bn to accommodate the debt left by the failed property market, resulting in near-nationalisation of the lenders.

With such a massive bailout already hitting the country hard, analysts fear that the Republic is far from safe waters.

Eurozone finance ministers revealed that  ”further reforms and stabilisation measures may be appropriate [for the Republic of Ireland's banks].”

The overseas banks that offered such high levels of finance, and in turn, helped to worsen the boom and bust situation in Ireland, may have to bear some of the brunt of the losses.

Figures collated by the Bank for International Settlements reveal that approximately £107bn is still tied up in Irish banks, with German and British banks owed the most; between £25bn and £28bn each.

The budget deficit in Ireland is predicted to be at 32% of GDP and experts are concerned that propping up the banking sector may be a step too far.

Some have suggested that Ireland’s government may be better off if it passes some of the debt back to the European banks.

Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Brian Cowen, has already rejected this option, due to the Irish reliance on outside investment.

If Ireland passes the debt back to the European banks, it could cause greater trouble in years to come, as investment may not be so forthcoming.

David Bulk, analyst at BGC Partners, believes that Irelands government may need to pursue option 3, an emergency bail-out by the EU.

Such a move would come at a price, however, as economic decisions would have to be handed over to Brussels.

“Irish banks are already having huge problems raising funds [from overseas],” Mr Bulk explained.

“Default on their overseas loans and no-one will give them even two bob again. And when the Irish government instead looks at raising taxes, it has very little room in which to manoeuvre.

“For example, they can’t touch their famed 12.5% corporation tax. Otherwise all the overseas firms will simply say ‘thanks very much, Ireland today, Poland tomorrow’.

“I’m hearing they’ll introduce Ireland’s first [household] property tax, but that isn’t going to raise enough for the government.”

Bank of Ireland Global Markets’ chief economist, Daniel McLaughlin, has a somewhat more positive outlook on the situation.

“The interesting thing about all this is that Ireland produced a five-year fiscal plan in 2009, which was accepted by the EU, and we haven’t deviated from that,” Mr McLaughlin revealed.

“So it is not as if Ireland has done something at variance with what the EU required. That may be puzzling a lot of people.

“The difference [between the Irish Republic and the UK] is that we are a tiny, and as a result 85% of the government deficit is funded from abroad.

“So taxpayers will have to pick up the bill for everything, it is hard to disagree with that.”

Mr Bulk is concerned that Irish taxpayers will find it near-impossible to burden both debts.

“The Irish government is chancing its arm, thinking that things will improve and they won’t need the EU bail-out.

“I say to them, Rumpelstiltskin, in your dreams.”

Where does one go for financial advice nowadays? More and more, it seems that decent impartial financial advice isn’t easy to come by – after all, as impartial as people claim to be, quite often you can’t confirm this yourself.

Because of this, the best way to get properly impartial advice is to make as many enquiries as possible yourself. Your bank might tell you that they have a great deal on a loan or a credit card, but you might find that by making enquiries elsewhere, you could get a far better rate or deal on what you want, which is where services like price comparison sites can really play to your advantage.

Just by tapping in a few details and hitting that button, you can view details on a huge number of deals on the product you’re looking for, ranked to be as close as possible to the parameters you set in the first place, and many of which you can apply for directly.

Of course, this is all well and good, but who do you turn to if you don’t know what you want? Well, the advice given to you by your bank can normally steer you in the right direction, just don’t assume that they will be able to offer you the best deal – often they will be able to, due to a special “existing customer rate” or similar (This is often true for loans, as your bank has a greater knowledge over your financial dealings), but quite often it can be worth shopping around – especially in the case of cash ISAs at the moment, where some banks are offering just .05% interest rates and standard savers often offering little over 3% – Which, when you consider that, according to moneysupermarket.com: “A higher rate taxpayer needs an account paying at least 6.17% in order to earn a positive return [on their savings], while someone in the basic taxband needs to be earning at least 4.62%” Means that at the moment, finding the best place for your money is even more important than ever.

There is a lot to be said for carefully considering your financial position, learning about the different options available and then choosing the one most appropriate to you. True enough, this may not be the quickest way, but do you really want to rush into what could be a very important financial decision? moneysupermarket.com can make this decision easier, offering not only detailed price comparison, but a wealth of other information that can help you decide on what product and what type of account is right for you.

The US unemployment rate has risen above 10% for the first time in 27 years, leaving the US in a state of despair.

President Barack Obama will hold a jobs summit on Thursday, focused on job creation.

Although he has included business leaders amongst the 130 experts attending the summit in Washington, Republicans in Congress will opposed to any major spending plans.

President George W Bush has already frustrated them by spending billions on bailing out the banks and car makers.

The “big government” image and creating big financial defecits to be paid for by future generations are unpopular in Washington.

Economy.com’s Mark Zandi believes deficits are a major worry, but we can’t afford to be concerned about it now.

“That’s a problem not for 2009, not for 2010. That’s a problem for 2011, 2012 and beyond,” he says.

“We have to make sure that we don’t go back into a recession, because if we go back into recession, the cost to taxpayers will be even greater.”

“The deficits will be measurably larger, so I think it’s important to spend more money now.”

According to Mr Zandi, government spending needs to be aimed at assisting local government offices, as with tax funding falling, many employees are at risk of losing their jobs.

President Obama is on the look out for new ways to combat unemployment.

Unemployment benefits usually run out after six months in the US, but have been extended because of the highest unemployment rates.

Mr Zandi believes continuing with providing benefits to the unemployed as essential to maintaining demand, as those with no money make no purchases.

That situation could develop into a ‘catch-22’, downward spiral, as consumers that don’t consume, results in businesses cutting their workforce, causing more unemployed with no money to spend.

Another area where Mr Zandi feels the government can make a unique contribution is providing credit to small and medium-sized businesses.

Banks are still cautious over lending after the credit crisis, but have always given capital to start-up companies to help them expand, and these new businesses usually provide America with the majority of new employment.

Mr Zandi believes that “it’s clear that even when the economy gets back on its feet, we’re going to have very high unemployment in many parts of the country for a long time to come.

“One reason is that the people out of work don’t have the skills and education necessary to be employed in the jobs of the future.”

The UK’s Yorkshire and Chelsea building societies are said to be in “advanced talks” over a potential merger.

The Chelsea is the fifth and the Yorkshire is the second largest building society in the UK.

If a deal is reached, it would rival the Nationwide as big mutually owned mortgage and savings institution.

In August, Chelsea revealed a half-year loss of £26m after it had assigned £41m to cover to mortgage frauds.

The Chelsea has 35 branches and 700,000 members, while the Yorkshire has almost t three times as many members at 2 million and over four times as many branches, with 143.

The Chelsea building society announced, “the board of Chelsea has been undertaking a detailed review of the society’s activities, operations, financial position and corporate structure”.

“As part of this, Chelsea has considered the potential benefits to members and other stakeholders of a merger and this has culminated in discussions with the Yorkshire.”

The talks of a deal are being seen as a rescue package for Chelsea. New chairman Stuart Bernau has been analysing the business and viability over its independence.

In 2008, it reported a loss of £39m which was the highest recorded loss by a building society. £44m was written off due to huge investments in two failed Icelandic banks.

Another £15m was written off by the Chelsea after buying a mortgage broker in 2007 whose business collapsed during the credit crunch.

Building societies differ from banks and stock-market companies, as they are owned by their members, and struggle to regain reserves if they suffer heavy losses.

The Chelsea went on to reveal that “for a merger to proceed, the boards of both societies would need to be satisfied that it will be in the benefit of each society’s members”.

“The merger would also be subject to approval by each society’s members and the FSA.”

It has yet to be revealed if a merger would provide a windfall to the members of both societies. A spokeswoman for the Chelsea said that such details were yet to be discussed.

Several takeovers of building societies have been made since autumn 2008 in an attempt to save them from problems brought on by the global financial crisis.

In September last year, the Nationwide began its takeover process of both the Cheshire and the Derbyshire, then the Yorkshire made a move for the Barnsley building society, with the Skipton taking control of the Scarborough.

The most important factor when choosing to manage your personal finances effectively is time. A greater time investment will almost always result in a greater financial return.

Therefore the sooner you start to manage your finances, the greater return and financial ease you will feel in the future. Many people fail to plan ahead, which results in struggling to juggle finances at a later point in life.

Money management should focus on four primary questions:

1.       What financial goals would you like to achieve?

2.       When can you expect to achieve them?

3.       What finances do you currently have?

4.       What level of risk would you make to achieve these targets?

Choosing somewhere to live is an essential in everybody’s lives, and therefore, buying a house will be the biggest financial purchase that people will make. The financial investment into a home will affect all your other finances.

Making big decisions on your lifestyle will affect your financial goals. If you consider a luxury holiday to be one of life’s essentials, you will have less money left over for savings and investments.

When do you want to retire? What expenses do you currently have? Deciding what your priorities are will help to determine what money you will have left.

It is worth assessing your current liabilities, as these expenditures and assets could be reduced or sold and free up money for the future.

Calculate how much spare money you have so that you can form an investment plan. Investments can vary dramatically. Some are high risk for higher reward or loss, and some are low risk for a steady growth on investment. It’s up to the individual to decide what level of risk you are prepared to make.

Once these considerations have been made and your plan is in places, it’s important to assess the decisions you’ve made and how they affect you on a day to day basis. You plan may be too restrictive, leaving you with not enough money to live on, or perhaps you could make greater short term sacrifices to benefit you in the long term.

A small amount of time spent on your current finances can be highly rewarding for your future.

The US economy saw its first growth in over a year, rising to an annual rate of 3.5% between July and September.

Experts believe that a major spending plan by the US government which featured a scrappage scheme to encourage the car sales market has been the main cause of the upturn.

Some economists believe that there could be more setbacks lurking ahead, despite the official statistics showing that the recession is over.

A spokesman at the White House announced that recent economic progression was “a welcome milestone” but it would take more time for a full recovery to be recognised.

The US economy had risen 0.9% in relation to the previous three months, whereas the UK economy remained in recession, unexpectedly dropping 0.4%.

Hugh Pym, the chief economics correspondent for the BBC, revealed that the growth rate of 3.5% was greater than the 3.3% predicted by most experts.

He continued:”The sheer scale of the stimulus in the US has made a big difference, it was much bigger in percentage terms than that in the UK.”

“That the US, the powerhouse of the world economy is growing once again, is good news for the global economy has a whole.”

The last time the US economy grew was in the second quarter of 2008, by an annual rate of 2,4%.

The National Bureau of Economic Research will reveal the full extent of the US economic climb from recession when it analyses all the factors.

Some factors were significantly responsible for helping US economy during the third quarter, according to the Commerce Department.

The spending on durable manufactured products rocketed up at an annual rate of 22.3% which was the highest quarterly figure since 2001 and was spearheaded by the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ scheme helping new car sales.

Consumer spending increased on housing products by 23.4%, the greatest quarterly surge in 23 years, and came as a result of an improving housing market.

The big increase is considered by many to be due to the government’s $8,000 tax credit provided to first-time house buyers.

Government spending increased by 7.9% as stimulus spending spread and exports saw their biggest rise since 1996, rising by 21.4%.

Brian Bethune, an economist for HIS Global Insight stated that “it’s good to have the economy growing again.”

“But we don’t think that rate of growth is sustainable because it is distorted by all the government stimulus.”

“The challenge here is to get organic growth – growth that isn’t helped by fiscal steroids.”

However, unemployment is at a rate of 9.8% and a sharp fall came in September in the car sales industry as a result of the popular car scrappage scheme coming to an end in August.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre of Economic Policy Research believes that “you can say that the recession is over, but it sure won’t feel like that.”

“There is a lot of downward momentum that isn’t going to go.”

Plans to split British bank Northen Rock in two which would allow for its partial sale has been granted by the European Union.

The divide would result in two separate banks forming and are already being described as the “good” and “bad” banks.

The “good” bank would offer new lending, retain some of the existing mortgages and hold its savers’ money.

The “bad” bank would be used to repay the existing government loans and hold the remaining loans.

 Decisions made by the EU to accept the move are seen by Northern Rock as “an important and positive step.”

Changes to the existing setup will be made towards the end of the year.

The EU revealed that the good portion of the bank would be expected to grow and then be sold to third party, with the bad bank allowing its assets to dissolve then becoming liquidated.

The good bank may be sold prior to the general election next year with potential buyers being speculated already, with Virgin and National Australia Bank, owner of Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank, among the interested parties.

EU Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, believes that the move would make the bank a good long-term option, revealing that “this decision demonstrates once again that the EU’s state aid rules provide an appropriate framework to allow state support for a sustainable restructuring of banks without giving individual banks an unfair competitive advantage.”

Whilst Jonathan Todd, European Commission spokesman, said caps would need to be applied for the duration that the good bank remains owned by the public.

Some of the caps include a balance sheet reduced to a quarter of its size prior to the crisis, not being the market leader for loan interest rates, a cap set to limit its lending to one-third of Northern Rock’s 2008 levels and also a cap on retail deposits to be slightly lower than the pre-crisis level.

An investigation was engaged by the EU into Northern Rock in April 2008, two months after its nationalisation.

The results from the investigation showed that the UK government was kept at a “necessary minimum”.

By 30 June, the bank had paid back approximately half the taxpayers’ £26.9bn loan and will gain a further £8bn from the government during the end of year restructuring.

The EU stated that the restructuring would reduce its market share to below half of its pre-crisis level and “correct the excessive expansion of Northern Rock pre-crisis.”

Northern Rock released a statement, saying “this approval is an essential requirement of the planned legal and capital restructure, which is central to the business plan for Northern Rock.”

“The restructure will strengthen the capital and liquidity position of Northern Rock significantly, and offers value for money to taxpayers” and it would be “business as usual” for its customers.