No grand cellars, decrepit oak barrels or eccentric tuxedo-clad owners. Instead, an understated, white-walled office on a narrow road just off Baker Street. This is the modern reality of wine collecting, trading and investing.

Wilkinson Vintners was founded twenty years ago by Patrick and Fiona Wilkinson. And save for a shelf of ancient-looking wine bottles in the corner – which Patrick is quick to rearrange when we point our camera at it, in order to emphasise a particularly impressive vintage, I can only presume – the London HQ looks much like any other office.

Putting money in fine wine has grown in popularity over the past decade, spurred on by the declining returns of more traditional investments. But the wine investment industry (or to use the preferred Vintner term, trade) has not been without its problems. A recent BBC investigation estimated that as much as £100 million may have been lost by investors over the past four years following the collapse of several bogus investment firms, as we covered in This scam has cost victims £100m in four years!

Tony Levene, a journalist who has written extensively about wine scams for lovemoney.com, says wine investment fraud works by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge the general public has about fine wines. Companies cold call consumers promising huge returns, and claiming in-depth knowledge of the sector. When the investment falls through, you lose your money and they make tracks.

“A 23 year old at a [wine investment] business that has been running for two months is not an expert in my book,” says Levene. “They take your money; are the bottles there? Maybe yes, maybe no – who knows?

“A problem with wine is that I don’t even know what the right price for any bottle of wine is,” he continues.

But there are genuine experts out there that do know how much a bottle of wine is worth, regardless of what it tastes like.

Vintage investments

Investing in wine is no modern phenomenon. Connoisseurs of the grape have been realising the extra-imbibition potentials of a good bottle for years now. Historically, collectors would purchase crates of the latest vintage, let it sit in the cellar, pop the corks on a few after the years have passed, and sell-off the rest for a healthy profit for the home.

The domesticity of this process may now have ended, but the logic is the same. And what’s more, as an investment, wine has a few unique characters that make it especially attractive. The Inland Revenue classes wine as a ‘wasting chattel’, a term carried over from ancient tax regimes to describe a product that will ultimately deteriorate in value. As such, profits from wine are exempt from capital gains tax.

Wine is also unique among investments as it is in constantly depleting supply. Put simply, as bottles are quaffed, the price of the remaining stock rises. Ian Elton-Wall, head of Private Sale and Purchasing at the fine wine merchants Wine Networks, sees a happy overlap between drinkers of fine wine and the investors.

“For the drinkers there is more pressure on supply [as new investors enter the market and start buying] which has focused people’s attention on getting the wine that they want. We’ve seen pricing development at the same time as consumer development,” he says.

I go on to ask Elton-Wall the basic, layman question: does it matter what the stuff tastes like? “Only if you’re a collector-drinker, rather than an investor,” he replies. So if the highly respected wine brands (Chateaux, I correct myself) bottled up any old dishwater, people would still buy it?

“Brand is critically important,” he says, unsuccessfully holding back laughs at my question.

Indeed, for pure investors, what the wine tastes like is redundant. All that really matters is the price – something that is influenced predominantly by the views of one American critic.

Picking a winner

If you’re after a financial equivalent, critic Robert Parker is the Warren Buffett of the wine investment world. What he says goes.

Parker’s key publication is the The Wine Advocate, a newsletter he founded in the late 70s. An attorney by trade, Parker brought across a 100 point system he initially learnt at law school to rank the quality of wine – most predominantly, bottles from the Bordeaux region of South-West France. It’s this wine that should be the prime concern for any newbie investor.

Paul Bowker, a director at Wilkinson Vintners, believes that Parker transformed wine criticism. “The Holy Grail for any wine is to be given 100 points by Parker. The minute he does this, the wine shoots up in price,” he says. So are Parker’s ratings now something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of wine investment? “Well, yes, to an extent,” Bowker replies, “but there are now several other balancing journalists. Really strong demand comes when they are all in consensus.”

These balancing journalists are essential sources of information for anyone thinking about getting into wine investment. Robert Parker will always be the overarching authority – but any rookie investor should also consult critics like Jancis Robinson, James Suckling and Neil Martin for additional insight.

The 1855 wine classification that separates out Bordeaux wines into first to fifth growth is another essential resource. “Take that classification and concentrate right at the top of it,” says Patrick Wilkinson, founder of the Vintners that shares his surname, “you need to buy the greatest wines, in the greatest years”.

Wilkinson also believes strongly in the importance of doing your own independent research: “buy a copy of Decanter magazine, in the back of which you’ll find the wine prices, some of the biggest wine merchants also advertise in there.

“One should be extremely cautious if you are cold-called. This should be a decision you are making yourself,” says Wilkinson.

Avoiding the scams

 This is especially important if you are considering putting money into en primeur. The wine equivalent of financial futures, en primeur is a method of buying up stock that is still in the barrel. This allows the investor to purchase wine at a cheaper price. However you have no guarantee that the wine will retain its value when it comes to be bottled.

Investing in en primeur can also expose you to heightened levels of fraud. As no physical bottle is purchased, bogus companies will make false assurances about the stock they have bought. This makes it especially important to know and trust your merchant.

En primeur wine is often placed directly into a bonded warehouse after it is bottled.  This means that you will not pay VAT or duty on the wine, though an annual storage fee to the bonded warehouse will be due.

Wilkinson Vintners recommend that all investors set up an account directly with a bonded warehouse to guarantee that you get the wine you pay for. Yes, not being able see and physically touch your alcoholic investment may seem aesthetically dissatisfying. But then again, who ever said wine was solely for drinking?

‘One of the best pianos for jazz music in Europe’ is how Mark Thompson lovingly begins describing the contents of his North London recording studio. Housed on a quiet residential street in Haringey, Snap Studios has built its reputation on its use of vintage gear. But the financing method used by the business is anything but retro.

Around eight months ago, Thompson took out a loan through the peer-to-peer lender Funding Circle, to help grow the business overseas. An experienced businessman, he had always been loyal to one major high street bank – even forging a friendship with his bank manager, Ian. But now Ian had retired, and disillusionment with the modern, faceless world of banking led Thompson to try a new form of borrowing.

“I like the concept of feeling that human beings were investing in the business… It’s sharing the adventure with all and sundry, rather than just dealing with a faceless computer,” he said.

Human touch lending

Funding Circle works by putting savers in touch with businesses who need a loan – credit checking the borrower fully along the way. It is one of a handful of new online money marketplaces bringing something of a human touch back to banking. Since its inception in August 2010, Funding Circle has financed over 650 loans worth more than £28 million to businesses.

James Meekings, co-founder and director of the lending site, said: “You get to support small businesses and really see what your money is doing. I think that gives a different appeal to the service that you can get through any other financial product.”

And the returns available to the saver aren’t bad either. Funding Circle currently offers a gross yield of 8.3%, minus 1% for fees. However lenders do have to factor in the risk of borrowers being unable to repay their loan.

The lending portal only allows established and creditworthy businesses to borrow. The companies that are accepted are also graded from A+, indicating a very low risk, to C, indicating an average risk. The estimated bad debt across these bands ranges from 0.6% for top ranked companies to 3.3% for the medium ranked ones. This allows lenders to manage the risk they take on.

Investors are also encouraged to ask questions and probe the businesses. This can serve to reaffirm their financial credibility and establish their business morals.

The future: regulation?

But Funding Circle isn’t the biggest fish in the peer-to-peer pond. That title goes to Zopa: an online marketplace that has arranged over £190 million of loans between individual members since 2005. Like Funding Circle, the site credit checks all borrowers and grades them according to risk.

Zopa’s CEO Giles Andrews is also chair of the Peer-to-Peer Finance Association, a self-regulatory trade body comprising of his own business, Funding Circle and RateSetter.com. The association was set up to ensure high minimum standards across the industry and to lobby the political interests of the sector – one of which is to gain endorsement from, and eventually appropriate regulation by, the Government.

“Our businesses are all about building trust we’ve all been working hard to be as transparent as we can and doing what we can to promote trust. But obviously regulation would be a considerable help in that regard,” says Mr Andrews.

But so far all the peer-to-peer industry has got from the Government is an endorsement of their rules and codes of practice by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

For Rhydian Lewis, CEO of the peer-to-peer lender RateSetter.com, part of the explanation for this reticence on the part of the Government is the current fragile and rapidly changing financial climate.

But he also pointed out that this was not the only reason: “[The Government] seems to be keen to cut down on what they perceive as red-tape and are keen for businesses to grow and they may feel that at this stage – particularly with our self regulatory code in place – peer-to-peer has a good chance to grow outside of that.”

We don’t need the banks

So where next for peer-to-peer? Well, regulation or no regulation, the industry has certainly been boosted by a widespread feeling of disenchantment with the mainstream banking sector that is unlikely to fade fast. As Funding Circle user Mark Thompson puts it: “It was quite nice to say to the bank: no thank you, we don’t need you. You may need us in the future, but we don’t need you just at the moment”.

As for who will need who several years down the line. Only time will tell.

We see them every day, passing them in the street, on the bus, on the TV, across the internet and on each other. Brands. Modern life is dominated by them. So much so that for several people, spending habits are tailored around, and devoted to, the products of a relatively small set of massive companies – and, of course, the brands that are indistinguishable from them.

Among the biggest of these companies is Apple.

Addicted to Apple

Last Friday saw tech-hungry shoppers congregate outside Apple’s flagship Regent Street store to be among the first to get hold of the new third generation iPad. Some had been camped out for over 40 hours before the store eventually opened for business.

One person waiting in line had just arrived in London for her honeymoon and had come down to the store early as her new husband was keen to be one of the first to get hold of the iPad.

Shoppers were greeted with cheers from Apple staff as they entered the store to purchase the device, before posing with the new tablet for press photographers. But when questioned about their dedication to Apple and keenness to be one of the first to get the new iPad, surprisingly few cited the technological developments of the tablet as a reason.

One shopper lovemoney.com spoke to who had been camped outside the store for over 24 hours said: “It’s not really about Apple, it’s more about having a laugh with guys you’ve met at previous launches… it’s a community thing.”

When asked how he afforded to fork out for the expensive new gadget – it has a starting price of £399 and a top price of £559 – he simply replied: “I work very hard.”

Communities and individuals

As purse strings tighten across the country, the question of why so many people choose to spend their hard earned cash devotedly on certain brands is as interesting as how they afford it in the first place.

For Hannah Bouckley, editor of the mobile news and reviews site Recombu.com, the tech credentials of Apple’s gear only partly explains the company’s devoted fan base. “Apple is a very secretive company, so when a product comes there’s an element of surprise for fans,” she says.

“Product launches are almost like events now, people want to go down three or four days before, it’s become an experience in itself.”

Barry Dwyer, a senior lecturer in marketing at London Metropolitan Business School, also sees the community feel generated by Apple as an essential component of the brand’s success. But he thinks the real crowning achievement of the company is how it still manages to maintain a one-to-one relationship with the customer.

“Apple has marketed their products by making people think what they’ve got is a unique niche product, when in fact the company sells to a huge mass market,” he says.

And this personal ethos is also at the core of a new campaign recently launched by another huge worldwide brand: Starbucks.

Got your name on it

Unveiled with a morning of free lattes for all, Starbucks’ latest campaign promises to personalise the in-store experience by writing every customer’s name on their cup.

“Have you noticed how everything seems a little impersonal nowadays?” the campaign’s advert asks. “From now on we won’t refer to you as a latte or mocha, but instead as your folks intended, by your name.”

This obviously has the advantage of enabling the baristas to accurately match coffee to customer. But according to Mr Dwyer, in-store practicality is not the only reason Starbucks have brought in this new promise.

“By putting your name on it, Starbucks are making that small cup of coffee unique to you. And if you can do that with a homogenous coffee, you’re going to make your customers feel special and you’re going to get them coming back time after time,” he says.

But if customers do keep coming back time after time, it could well hit them in the wallet.

According to research carried out by VillaWare a heavy coffee drinker will spend over £2,000 every year on around 21 weekly cups of the black stuff. Even an average drinker will get through between six and eight cups across the working week, spending £452.28 each year.

A Starbucks latte may not cost nearly much as an Apple iPad. But as a brand, it’s still got the potential to bankrupt consumers if they keep coming back for more.

Fresh experiences

For big brands it all comes back to experience. Starbucks and Apple no longer just flog coffees and computers; they sell a way of life. Products are turned into feelings and shops into living, breathing, commercial theatres.

For Jo Hodges, course leader of BA Advertising at London College of Communication, while successful brands and products operate together and are virtually indistinguishable to the consumer, they do still exist somewhat individually.

“Brands like Apple and Starbucks have an ethos, something that is above and beyond the product itself,” she says.

“Every decision they make gives a feeling that they give a damn and that they care. What they do is bigger than the sum of the products themselves.”

Robert Powell reports on the growing threat of ‘phone snatching’ and finds out what you can do to protect your handset…

She had it all figured out. Instantly.

Former Tory MP Edwina Currie’s first question to Hayley Sanderson, a struggling young mother who had phoned 5 Live to discuss her financial problems was somewhat off-kilter: “Have you by any chance got any animals, a dog or anything?” Her second question was equally pointless: “you feed the dog every day?” What answer did she expect? “No Ms Currie, Rover has his own diner’s club card.”

From here, one almost expected the former minister to prescribe flogging the family pooch. Or eating it.

Yes, Edwina – seemingly riding high on an attitudinal wave of daytime TV detective dramas – clearly thought this was an open and shut case. The verdict: the mother – who works two jobs, has a partner who had recently lost his job and claims to regularly miss meals so her children could eat – had been living ‘the good life’ without any thought of the future.

At this point, Miss Sanderson broke down into tears.

But beyond the vitriol of the former MP’s bulldog attack lurks a more sinister view towards UK poverty. An attitude that, far from the ‘cruel to be kind’ approach many may ascribe to it, is in fact a major barrier that prevents people every day from dealing with their debt problems.

Does poverty exist?

Edwina Currie is no stranger to controversy where poverty is concerned. Back in October 2011 she claimed that no one in Britain was really going without food. She did concede that some “real people” were starving in the world, but they were not in the United Kingdom.

This assertion swiftly feeds into the (self-defined) ‘Africa argument’: whereby groups of usually well-heeled individuals claim that those moaning about poverty in the UK don’t know what they are talking about, as everyone in Africa is far worse off. (This is often accompanied by visual proof courtesy of their son or daughter’s gap year.)

But a swift look at just three recent studies turns this argument on its head and into a straw man.

Firstly, the netmums study that was the subject of the 5 Live discussion. Its main findings include that 70% of families are currently ‘on the edge’ of surviving and that one in five mums were missing meals to feed their children.

Secondly, October’s research by the widely respect Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) stating that in 2010 2.1 million working-age parents were living in absolute poverty. The think tank also forecast that by 2013 3.1 million children would be in poverty across the UK – an increase of 600,000 in just three years.

And finally, a report issued by the charity Shelter in the very same week as the IFS data stating that 38% of families with children who rent privately have cut back on buying food to help pay rent.

The situation in Africa may be terrible and worthy of our attention. But it doesn’t have anything to do with these home-grown problems.

However Currie was right about one thing. Although, perhaps for the wrong reasons.

Credit boom

Turning back to the 5 Live debate, the former minister seemed to think that Miss Sanderson had splurged on credit in the boom years and was now paying the price. In fact, as the mother attempted to explain, the ‘bills’ she was currently paying off were for energy and council tax from the period when her partner was unemployed. Hardly luxuries.

Yet one fact not mentioned on 5 Live does support Currie’s wider point. According to the Daily Mail, Miss Sanderson and her partner have a mortgage on a two-bedroom terrace home costing £450 per month that they are in arrears on.

Now, my word limit is looking a little cosy for a full ding-dong over who to blame for the lax lending of the housing bubble (although I’m sure you’ll oblige in the comment box below). But outside of this argument, Miss Sanderson’s property arrangements are indicative of a post-credit boom population suffering the growing pains of living within their means.

Millions who were wrongly granted credit in the early noughties are suffering. The toxic practice of rate jacking, whereby a lender hikes the interest rates for customers with dodgy credit histories, is the perfect example of this catch-22 situation. The poor get poorer while Edwina Currie sneers away because they have a dog and once took out a credit card.

Prove that you’re poor!

Observer columnist Barbara Ellen hit the nail on the head on Sunday when she placed Edwina Currie’s comments within a wider culture that requires poverty not only to be provable, but also highly visible in a ‘theatrical way’. Exorbitant energy bills and rising food prices are not good enough anymore. Again: how can you be poor if you have a dog?

This wouldn’t be a problem if the culture was restricted to doddery gentleman’s clubs, decrepit public houses and the set of Top Gear. But it has now gained such traction in public life that those it speaks of: the poor, have fallen victim to it. Those that need the help, aren’t asking for it – trapped in an illusion that their situation isn’t that bad.

A survey carried out last year by the New Policy Institute (NPI) found that millions were missing out on help with energy bills because they didn’t think benefits were for ‘people like me’. The problem is now so severe that British Gas has even begun paying people to hand over the names of struggling households who are in need of help with insulation.

The NPI report also found that 31% of under-70s said they were too embarrassed to claim benefits. Embarrassment breeds a head-in-the-sand culture when it comes to debt. Instead of turning to charities like the CCCS, National Debtline or Citizen Advice and sorting their finances once and for all, people bite their tongue and poor another dinners worth of cornflakes, thinking themselves lucky that they have that.

Hayley Sanderson fits slap bang in the middle of this: receiving no benefits and no idea of any debt helpline numbers.

People shouldn’t be starving in the UK – we have a welfare state and charity sector most other countries can only dream of. And yet they still are.

The requirement of people like Edwina Currie that a certain level of self-flagellation is reached before you’re granted the status of poor is to blame for this.

Selling the dog is no way out of poverty.

The Labour MP initially defended her comment stating that her tweet was taken out of context and referred to “the nature of 19^th century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters” (to which the question begs: ‘Why try then?’ Swiftly followed by the answer: because I’m Diane Abbott).

However after a ‘stern dressing down’ from Ed Miliband (as one tweeter put it: about as scary as a stern dressing gown from the Labour leader) Abbott backed into the wet, shallow ground occupied by many a red-faced politician, as she resorted to the weasly line: ‘I apologise if any offence was caused’.

Personally, I would have been happier for the condemned to take to Sky News and recite David Cameron’s one sentence commandment for all forms of social media: “too many tweets makes a twat”, swiftly followed by a bow and an immediate return to her day job of flicking globules of paper at Michael Portillo.

Yes, today’s furore was another dog-with-a-bone moment for the Twitterati, most of whom probably missed the juicy argument lurking right beside them.

Diane Abbot made her tweet while sat firmly on the wrong side of an argument with freelance journalist Bim Adewunmi about the use of term ‘black community’. Writing in the Guardian after the debacle Adewunmi sets out her assertion.

“a) Something deemed to be a “black issue” is on the news agenda; b) Without fail, “community leaders” and the now standard “ex-gang member” are wheeled out to be interviewed…I hardly ever recognise any of the so-called “community leaders” on these programmes – I doubt many ordinary black people, i.e. those they purport to represent, ever do.”

By not viewing ‘the black community’ as one homogeneous population Diane Abbot somehow concluded that Adewunmi was “playing into a divide and rule agenda”; a risible and idiotic suggestion if ever there was one.

Even without the ugly colonialist echoes, it’s not hard to find fault with the entire premise of Abbott’s argument. Ethnic communities yes, local communities yes, national communities yes; you can even have music communities – but monolithic communities ordered solely by colour of skin? I think, nay hope not.

Abbott’s argument hinges on a binary, separatist mentality between colours. The events of this week have proved our society is fighting hard to move away from this ugly order.

The truth behind Quakle’s collapse

The role of troubled payday loan borrowers is particularly interesting.

Attacks were levelled at the frequent connecting shots of the presenter strolling around California, apparently ‘showcasing her designer wardrobe’. Posters criticised Miss Maitlis’ ‘swaggering style’ and her ‘fawning’ manner with Zuckerberg. According to the Mail, one person said that they thought the documentary “was more about Emily Maitlis wandering about looking hot and occasionally stopping to chat to folk”.

Now, I watched that program. And while Maitis’ costume changes were somewhat noticeable (especially that rather odd jumper) they were far superseded by the in-depth, interesting interviews and snapshots from inside the Facebook machine. This was thorough, interrogative journalism at its best. Anyone who watched the site’s PR man sit in stoney silence at the suggestion that users who ‘liked’ certain products on Facebook did not want to advertise it should realise that.

As for the Mail’s suggestion that several viewers were somewhat distracted by the shots of Maitlis “striding the sunny streets of California”. Well – at the risk of sounding like an utter snob – if that’s what it takes for your attention to be diverted from a documentary you have actively chosen to watch, you probably shouldn’t be watching it. After all, if you were really looking to fill your Sunday night with jean-clad arse waggling and ridiculous costumes, Beyonce was over on ITV  excelling on both fronts.

No, this storm in a tea cup comes from the same cloud as the #womenontheleft saga that kicked off at the Leveson Inquiry, Fiona Bruce’s Da Vinci doco controversy and the entire tabloid turd that was the press coverage of the Amanda Knox case. Yes, it seems that across media law, documentary journalism, and Italian murder cases – female physical attractiveness is just too out-of-place for many to comprehend (although I’ve never really got the attraction of ‘Foxy Knoxy’ myself’).

This is a logic akin to Harry Enfield’s Mr Chumley Warner sketch: “the lady has foolishly attempted to join the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of her own. Women know your limits” the narrator snuffs after a comment about the gold standard from a female member of the party.

This shallow, Nuts magazine-esque reaction that says attractive woman cannot ‘do serious stuff’ on TV is an utterly repulsive attitude to hold in modern society. Especially in a country where Noel Edmonds, Adrian Chiles and James May’s shirt collection all appear on-screen every week completely unchallenged.