Shares vs Property

[bunsen burner]

Lol, good to see the investment sexpert (especially CFDs ) still flyng the property flag. But seriously, I appreciate your input. I needed to be told a few things just to be put in my place. Thanks.

By the way, is it a pre-requisite that you have an argument with anyone and everyone you come across on BF? Is that part of your membership conditions? You certainly do come across very "street-smart"

Mate, you made a c*** of yourself.

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

Mate, you made a c*** of yourself.

LOL! Brilliant! Probably made as much of a ******** of myself as you did trying to explain how certain investments work (CFDs for instance) when realistically you knew ******** all yourself

 

[bunsen burner]

LOL! Brilliant! Probably made as much of a ******** of myself as you did trying to explain how certain investments work (CFDs for instance) when realistically you knew ******** all yourself

Here mate:

Most people like property because they can see it and touch it... It's a psychological thing.

It has to be if you consider that in the long run shares are gonna have a better return 9/10 times

Do you still stand by that?

Who is it who knows f-all?

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

Ok fine. Now, do you know ******** all about CFDs? Yes or no?

I'm thinking of investing in an al-paca farm. Can you please outline for me the pros and cons of such an investment?

 

[bunsen burner]

Ok fine.

Great, so you adnmit you were a twat.

Now, do you know ******** all about CFDs? Yes or no?

I know a bit, but please show where I said I was any sort of expert?

I have a colleague who bought a CFD seminar package and investing software (meta stock I think it was called). He didn't have time to work out how to use it but had the cash to invest. He asked me to learn about CFDs, the strategies that the seminar company was suggesting, and to go to the seminars. So without actually having experience trading CFDs (which is 90% of the knowledge), I am quite aware of what they are.

I also have two boyhood friends who trade in CFDs. Both of them and the guy who runs the seminar advocate not even bothering trading CFDs unless you have a decent start up float, ie 50k. I trust their opinions. All of them are successful (well I assume the guy who runs the seminar company is doing ok).

Answer your questions? Now feel free at any time to quote where I have posted something misleading about CFDs.

 

[Chief]

Give it a rest guys. Speak to each other in a civil manner or don't post here. Agree to disagree and go your separate ways.


As for shares/property, I'm in particular shares at the moment in a big way due to some good tips. Each to his own. My property isn't doing a lot because I'm not improving it because of the better return on shares right now.

 

[Ghostwriter]

You've convinced me Bunsen, I think I'll go with shares.

 

[bunsen burner]

You've convinced me Bunsen, I think I'll go with shares.

All due respect, wasn't trying to convince you to go with property rather than shares. I was trying to convince you that you need to leverage. What I've posted is unbiased and relatively factual. I hope you picked up that you need to seriously look at leveraging.

It annoys the **** out of me when idiots come out with crap like "shares get better returns hands down" or conversely "property gets better returns hands down". It's nonsense and anyone who talks like that is sure to know little as it's likely they've fallen for the spin.

 

[Borscht Mat]

All due respect, wasn't trying to convince you to go with property rather than shares. I was trying to convince you that you need to leverage. What I've posted is unbiased and relatively factual. I hope you picked up that you need to seriously look at leveraging.

It annoys the **** out of me when idiots come out with crap like "shares get better returns hands down" or conversely "property gets better returns hands down". It's nonsense and anyone who talks like that is sure to know little as it's likely they've fallen for the spin.

I agree re shares v property....why blind yourself to one or the other ??.

Surely that also applies to leveraging ? There is not a definitive position one way or the other. In most circumstances it makes sense over the long run, but even over the long run it can be an unmitigated disaster. Ultimately my view is most people fail to understand the risks with leveragnig. That does not mean avoiding risks altogether but simply understanding what you would do in certain circumstances.

In business this is done all the time....what are the 10/90, 50/50 and 90/10 scenarios for any investment ? If you leverage into shares or property for example:

10/90 = Market fall over 12-24 month period and stagnant thereafter (US market post 2000 for example). Possibility of margin calls, cash flow shortfalls etc. Same could apply in property....capital loss, or stagnation, tennancy problems etc. The impact of leveraging in the 10/90 scenario is often signiicant...do you have sufficient income from other sources to cover interest payments (you have never mentioned the biggest problem with leveraging...cash flow if things go a little sour) ? Can you make a margin call ?, can you afford to lose the capital you sunk into those options, or part of it ?

Now this is not the 50/50 scenario, it is unlikely, but not stupidly unlikely (by definition it will happen to 10% of investors over time, which means if you invest often enough it will happen to you). Too many people are sucked in by the advertising around leveraging to even consider this scenario.

If you can manage the issues around the 10/90 scenario then go for it....no use thinking about the 1/99 scenario and the 90/10 scenario is simply "you have lot's of money" so that should not be a problem....but the 10/90 is the one to be comfortable with.

Also, given the old "ego" thing, I think many people go into investments with the 90/10 scenario in mind. "50/50 ???? I am smarter than that !!!!, 50/50 is for mugs....I aim to get a 35% return p.a. no sweat...the average may be 12% but that is weighed down by all the losers out there who know less than me". If you confuse the 90/10 scenario with the 50/50 scenario you are speculating not investing....base your investment decisions on the real 50/50 scenario and if you do better good luck to you (literally).

M

 

[Leper]

The only thing you've said which doesn't make sense is implying that a SANFL premiership means something in VFL / AFL history.

 

[Borscht Mat]

The only thing you've said which doesn't make sense is implying that a SANFL premiership means something in VFL / AFL history.

Ha !! Pure ignorance - how did you learn such dribble ??? I suppose your parents taught you ???

 

[Leper]

I read the bit at the bottom and got the impression you're trying to suggest an SANFL premiership is worth two knobs of goat ********.

Maybe my interpretation is wrong.... nobody's perfect.

 

[Borscht Mat]

I read the bit at the bottom and got the impression you're trying to suggest an SANFL premiership is worth two knobs of goat ********.

Maybe my interpretation is wrong.... nobody's perfect.

you obviously don't know the same goats I do....I could send you some web sites if you like....

 

[Leper]

Thanks but no thanks. If I require futher supporting information I will contact your head office directly.

 

[medusala]

Check out the BRW top 100 richest people for how many people made their cash via shares and how many via property. One group is significantly more numerous than the other.

 

[Chief]

At a retail level though, shares are much more liquid than property and require a lower investment so they may be "better" for some people in that respect.

 

[R00StaR]

Check out the BRW top 100 richest people for how many people made their cash via shares and how many via property. One group is significantly more numerous than the other.

Im not sure its that easy, but I understand your point. Many of those that made mega buck from property are developers and basically turn over property like stock. And/ or their companies are listed so they actually own shares in these property companies.

Imo nearly (if not all from memory) are business people rather share or property people.

 

[1jasonoz]

Give it a rest guys. Speak to each other in a civil manner or don't post here. Agree to disagree and go your separate ways.


As for shares/property, I'm in particular shares at the moment in a big way due to some good tips. Each to his own. My property isn't doing a lot because I'm not improving it because of the better return on shares right now.

Thats where im at at the moment, ive owned 4 properties in the past 12 years, but have been heavily investing in shares for the past 2 1/2 years through a Margin Loan.

Who knows in 12 months time shares will slow and property will take off again.

Having both property and shares should in my opinion be part of a balanced porfolio of anyone thinking of investing.

 

[rick James]

Shares any day of the week and twice on sundays.

 

[R00StaR]

Shares any day of the week and twice on sundays.

nah property on Sundays, historically shares have returned 0% on Sundays

 

[johnnyhoward]

nah property on Sundays, historically shares have returned 0% on Sundays

Agree with Chief regarding the liquidity of shares and the accessibility to nearly everyone, but if you have the cash, property would be the way to go.

 

[chooke]

All comes down to strategy and what your comfortable with. Have to disagree with those that say they are much muchness though, shares as an asset class is more volatile but outperforms property (particularly residential property) over a 7-10 year period, always has and probably always will, don't take my word look at the historical data or ask any planner worth his/her salt. So if your strategy is buy and hold over the long term and you anly wanted to go into either property or shares you would choose a well balanced share portfolio over property.

 

[Jabso]

Agree with Chief regarding the liquidity of shares and the accessibility to nearly everyone, but if you have the cash, property would be the way to go.

If you have the cash shares are still more attractive IMO. And anyway property is still pretty accessible to people with less cash through indirect invesments and things like building societies.