The problem is that housing costs rise to suck every spare penny of income from pretty much everyone so very few people have spare money to put into those isas.
European governments see the demographic timebomb coming, so they massively incentivize their citizens to invest in a primary residence, treating it as forced savings. This inflates local real estate values to ridiculous levels, especially while interest rates are low.
However, incentivizing your citizens to take leveraged bets (big mortgages) on a single piece of real estate is...not great.
This means the investment portfolio of the average European citizen is ONE specific apartment (zero diversification), and negative yielding sovereign bonds (via government pension funds).
Since most European mortgages are not fixed rate, it will be interesting to see what happens as interest rates start rising in Europe.
While the bonds will start paying better interest, that mortgage exposure might start to wreak havoc on the average citizens finances...
It's the second time I see this on HN. However, the reality seems more contrasted. From [1]:
"A striking feature of the credit market in the euro area is the very large heterogeneity across countries in the granting of fixed versus adjustable rate mortgages. Fixed rate mortgages (FRMs) are dominant in Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands, while adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) are prevailing in Austria, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain."
For numbers there are some graphics around p.19
[1] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2322~0ed0879d...
Something I didn't realise until recently was in the US it's normal to have a 30 year mortgage with a fixed rate from the start, rather than a fixed rate for a few years and then either a variable rate or requiring a remortgage. My understanding is that most mortgages in the Netherlands tend to be 5-10 years fixed rather than lifetime.
In the UK I feel there's a lot of distrust of stock markets amongst normal people, partly because the FTSE doesn't grow (back in 2000 it was about 7,000, today it's about 7,500), and that's the one reported on the normal news. There's no widely reported "FTSE dividend reinvested" measure.
Add in the mortgage mess from annuity mortgages where people were sold the idea they could have their cake and eat it too, ended up without enough money to repay their mortgage at the end. Throw in the pension collapse of Equitable Life, the pension fraud from Maxwell, the stock "boom" in the 90s where normal people bought shares, driven by the selloff of nationalised industries, and then seeing those shares vanish in 2000 and never really recovering and you get a general distrust of private hands managing money, and a preference to trust the government.
This meant people put their money into houses starting in the late 90s, which combined with increasing household income as new families became dual-income led to increasing house prices and a snowball effect. Even 2008 didn't really impact, as it was mainly sold as a US problem which had an effect on the UK, but not a major one.
The UK government (any colour) will do anything to keep house prices growing as that's how you get votes.
Makes complete sense given interest rates are zero right now. However, if the ECB keeps getting surprised by inflation (like the Fed is in the US), interest rates may have to be start rising in fast, dramatic fashion.
You can be in the top 1% by income in London and still simply not be able to afford a small family home.
Home equity wealth inequality in crippling.
Nor can we assume that the exceptional stock market returns of the past 15 years will be repeated, which means we need to save more for the same result.
I feel great pressure to earn a high wage in order to save a lot of it into a pension. This feel like a matter of survival.