- Banned
- #76
Are you being a tool on purpose? My point is quite clear. It's a typical example of how leveraging works. What ever the growth rate I used in that example is irrelevant. I've told you this many times now. Change the growth rate to 10% rather than 100% - you'll still see one investment class outdoing the other.Post 52
So are you retracting post 52 that your specific example is typical of the property market.
What is your problem? It cost $20k over 5 years to hold. Not $18k, not $22k. 20k. Twenty f***ing Kay. Get it? It's not f***ing hard.So am I to understand that the initial investment was a further $4680 light on for cash flow - meaning a negative of more like $10K, but because the particular market improved significantly there was cash flow improvement through the subsequent years.
I assume you are leading to "Yes, but what if the market was flat and rent didn't go up, it would cost more to hold". Yes it would but that's totally irrelevant.
Do you understand the term "pound for pound" or "peri parsu" or "all other things being equal"?
You seem to have this notion that I am using a really good example and that is skewing the point in my favour. Not true at all. Go use the exact example with shares with 100% growth in 5 years plus increasing dividends because of the bull market.
You need to get over this chip on your shoulder thing and try to grasp what my point is because you are failing miserably. I'll give you a clue:
Pick a growth rate and an interest rate and a starting capital. Use that as a template. Then max out the LVR of property in one example and then use the same template but max out the LVR amount with shares.
You'll come to the same conclusion everytime given everything else is equal except the LVR. It's a pretty simple concept so it's about time you snapped the **** out of it and got with the program.