Shares v Property

[Karl Pilkington]

Originally Posted by bunsen burner

b) Shares is 100% investors, property is 30%

I don't understand what you're trying to say here bunsen, can you please clarify?

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington

1. You can buy one house, in one suburb with that 500k. You have all your eggs in one basket, if that suburbs goes bung, or you can't find a buyer when you're wanting to reap your profits, remembering you ahve to sell it ALL at once, you're ****ed.

You're trying to apply a prnciple of shares to property. Property is a different asset class and different prnciples apply. Sorry, but this is a nothing statement.

2. Your share investment can be diversified across countless industries, markets and derivatives. You can sell some shares off at different times to capitalise on which markets are performing better at that time, you can put the majority of your money into low risk, high dividend shares to gain a regular income from it - or, you can pop it all in one basket (just like property) and hope for the best.

Same as point before - irrelevant to property.

[Fryman]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/mon...015814,00.html

Intersesting little article for you Bunsen.

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington

I don't understand what you're trying to say here bunsen, can you please clarify?

100% of people who own stocks are investors. 70% of property owners are just people who own their own homes. They are not investors. They don't make decisions depending on the market.

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by Fryman

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/mon...015814,00.html

Intersesting little article for you Bunsen.

From the article:

Each year, the survey, commissioned by the Australian Securities Exchange

Need to be a bit smarter than trusting this piece of propaganda. It's not even a study, it's an advertisement. Anyone half intelligent can see it for what it is.

[Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by bunsen burner

100% of people who own stocks are investors. 70% of property owners are just people who own their own homes. They are not investors. They don't make decisions depending on the market.

Actually, I believe they do. It just isn't as measurable as investors, in terms of yields, et cetera.

The whole "emotion" factor in real estate is over emphasised.

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by gravy

Actually, I believe they do. It just isn't as measurable as investors, in terms of yields, et cetera.

The whole "emotion" factor in real estate is over emphasised.

Since when have we been talking about just yields?

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by gravy

The whole "emotion" factor in real estate is over emphasised.

What has this gt to do with anything? Possibly you just don't get it?

It's quite simple:

100% of the share market react to trends. Meaning when there's a crash, a large percentage of share holders react (ie sell up). This causes bigger crashes.

Conversely, 70% of the property market do not sell/react when the housing market downturns.

This means the property market is more stable.

[Karl Pilkington]

Originally Posted by bunsen burner

You're trying to apply a prnciple of shares to property. Property is a different asset class and different prnciples apply. Sorry, but this is a nothing statement.

I'm applying investment principles, not 'shares' principles. It's simple, you can reduce your risk by diversifying across different asset classes. Investing in property directly you're putting all your eggs in one basket, so the pay off might be good if that suburb goes through a boom cycle, but if it decreaases in value, or you can't find a buyer, you're in trouble.

It's a huge risk when buying investment property, and one that I think you either don't understand or choose to ignore because it hurts your stance that property is safer (which it isn't).

Same as point before - irrelevant to property.

No it isn't. It's a very important factor in investment and often presents a problem for people nearing retirement - a problem that direct property can't facilitate any kind of solution to.

From my understanding we're debating the merits of shares vs property in an investment sense, so you'll have to allow me to bring investment principles into the argument. There are many kinds of risk, and direct property can be one of the riskiest investments available.

[Karl Pilkington]

Originally Posted by bunsen burner

100% of people who own stocks are investors. 70% of property owners are just people who own their own homes. They are not investors. They don't make decisions depending on the market.

Can you expand on this? Why is this an advantage of property over shares?

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington

Can you expand on this? Why is this an advantage of property over shares?

I've already explained a number of times. If you can't read, or can't work it out, I won't waste time with you.

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington

I'm applying investment principles, not 'shares' principles.

Typically stock market guy who can't see outside the stock market box. Property is different. You don't need to diversify like you do in the share market. As I said: properties don't go bust, companies can.

It's simple, you can reduce your risk by diversifying across different asset classes. Investing in property directly you're putting all your eggs in one basket, so the pay off might be good if that suburb goes through a boom cycle, but if it decreaases in value, or you can't find a buyer, you're in trouble.

It's quite clear that you don't understand property. So why are you talking about it as if you do?

It's a huge risk when buying investment property, and one that I think you either don't understand or choose to ignore because it hurts your stance that property is safer (which it isn't).

Again, you don't get it. Typical share investor small dick syndrome. I'm not sitting here going "Property property property, oi oi oi" like you seem to think. It's a simple, "here are the pros and cons of both shares and property".

From my understanding we're debating the merits of shares vs property in an investment sense, so you'll have to allow me to bring investment principles into the argument.

What investment principles? All you're doing is showing your naivety by assuming share investing principles = broad investment principles. This is not true. Never has been, never will be.

There are many kinds of risk, and direct property can be one of the riskiest investments available.

Absolute nonsense. Again you show your distinct lack of understanding and logic. You have no credibility whatsoever. Just another person who has been brainwashed by finance advisors who have an agenda.

[Karl Pilkington]

Originally Posted by bunsen burner

Typically stock market guy who can't see outside the stock market box. Property is different. You don't need to diversify like you do in the share market. As I said: properties don't go bust, companies can.

Well of course property is different, we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. The point I'm making is that property CAN go bust, and you take a huge investment risk with any property you buy - because you can't diversify your investment with that money OR sell it down piece by piece. They are risks within themselves, across all investment sectors, and property is very risky in that sense.

You're taking a very simplistic and uneducated view by saying property doesn't go bust (because you really only need to look at the sub-prime crisis for evidence that it DOES) and that companies CAN (because you're investing across multiple different companies, as opposed to ONE property, the chances of ALL of those companies going bust is much less than the chance of that property not increasing in value enough to warrant the investment - it's called investment risk). Look it up.

It's quite clear that you don't understand property. So why are you talking about it as if you do?

I want to learn more about your mindset, and what causes a man to speak as if he's stating facts, when he's blatantly wrong.

Again, you don't get it. Typical share investor small dick syndrome. I'm not sitting here going "Property property property, oi oi oi" like you seem to think. It's a simple, "here are the pros and cons of both shares and property".

Well der. And imo there's MORE cons than pros in property investing from a risk point of view.

What investment principles? All you're doing is showing your naivety by assuming share investing principles = broad investment principles. This is not true. Never has been, never will be.

Actually, diversification applies to ALL investment of ANY kind. Its a sound strategy, and one you clearly don't understand.

Absolute nonsense. Again you show your distinct lack of understanding and logic. You have no credibility whatsoever. Just another person who has been brainwashed by finance advisors who have an agenda.

I love how you pooh-poh every comment I make, without actually offering a counterpoint. It's as if my logical, rational argument seem to cut you to the core causing you to react, rather than simply reading what I've got to say and then admitting you've got nfi what you're on about.

What was nonsense about my statement that there are man y kinds of risk? Do you not believe there are many kinds of risk, bunsen? Do you not understand the many risks involved in direct property as an investment? If you would like, I can list them for you and explain how they apply.

Weren't you applying for the dole recently - last year I beleive? Shows how well this property investment of yours has gone.

[Karl Pilkington]

Originally Posted by bunsen burner

I've already explained a number of times. If you can't read, or can't work it out, I won't waste time with you.

Well I just find it interesting, that you stated 100% of share investors are investors (completely overlooking institutional investors, boards of directors and 'blind' investors, like many politicians, in the process - showing your amazing lack of knowledge on the subject) and how this is somehow a benefit of property?

[bunsen burner]

Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington

Weren't you applying for the dole recently - last year I beleive?

Yes, I'm fat, stupid, a virgin, a drug addict, and beat my wife and kids too.

Shows how well this property investment of yours has gone.

Are you a millionaire or not? Just a simple yes or no.