some good material here, but seems somewhat unfinished - e.g. confusing double entry re UK, lack of france, italy, plus anywhere beyond europe and its immediate neighbours (e.g. malaysia - previously tipped by PS).

Hi Dan Couple of points. The UK has a double entry because back at the end of 2006 we forecast on cities, but for this update we have focused on regions. On Malaysia, we didn't so much tip it, as suggest it as an option for the less risk averse investor. When we were over there looking at the possibility of deals, it didn't work for us. As for the 'unfinished' feel, it is an update on the 2006 end of year forecasts and not our definitive forecasts - at least that's how I understand it.

Hi I agree with many of the figures quoted but I'm not sure how these are consistent with the figures that are used for the ROI projections. For example, in Wroclaw, the model last year assumed a growth rate of 13% + 5% = 18% for the next 5 years. Clearly this has changed due to a slow down but are you saying: a) the 18% growth rate reflects an average over 5 years b) the developments PS have chosen are expected to outperform the market. The projections in the spreadsheet usually highlight double digit growth over a 5 year period(and often quoted as conservative estimates) but clearly there needs to be a degree of consistency I think with your future expectations as indicated in your latest predictions. Hope this makes sense! Regards

Hi Sanj I can't comment on your specific point here, I shall let Simon T or Robin B respond, but in general, YES, we expect PS chosen developments to outperform the market - that's why we choose them.

This is great analysis PS, and thanks for sharing with us all.... To me 2008 will be about spotting pockets of growth, and avoiding potential areas of decline, and hanging-in there tight on what you have. Chris.

Hi Ben Any views from Simon/Robin B regarding the growth predictions in the cashflow spreadsheets? Regards

Any further comments from PS in respect of my post of 11 October? regards

Sanj, Essentially i agree with what you say - they should be consistent. Your points (a) and (b) are correct in most cases. It would be crazy if we predict 5% growth in a market for the next year then in the investment report say it will be 50%. However, there are often local factors about the deal / area which may mean we expect the price to grow faster than the market average, hence sometimes the figures do not look consistent. At the end of the day no one can really predict with 100% accuracy the future (well i've not met anyone yet) so these figures are a guide and should be used as such. Its important to keep in mind the bigger picture when investing so that you choose investments with the right fundamentals rather than worrying about whether the predicted growth is eg 16% or 18% per annum. Regards, Simon.