Blue chip shares of the value of $200 thousand compared with property of the same value.Over a period of 5 years.Which is the better way to go.Property would be in Wodonga.
I believe Robert Kiwosaki answered this question excellently, he was asked so many times for investment advice before he came up with the following “fits all sizes” response:
“If you do not know what to do with your money, put it in a bank, and do not tell anybody that you have money to invest.”
The reason being there are m1llions of people with an opinion on what you should do, and what might be good for one person wouldn’t work for another.
There are key differences between shares and property, the thread “shares v property” has been debated here many times and also at http://www.somersoft.com/forums So reading those threads might be a good place to start.
One advantage of property is that if you can afford 200k of shares (with borrowings) you can afford to buy more than 200k of property due to the higher leverage, but then shares are so much easier and cheaper to turn into cash if you need to and so on and so on for many pages.
In the end It all comes back to your own plans and objectives, once you know these it’s easier to chose an investing vehicle.
Regards,
WaySolid
“Write the wrongs that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on marble.” Arab proverb
Sorry Way for my inability to be constructive… my intention was to determine which shares were being compared to what type of property.
In any case, you can actually leverage MORE against SHARES. How do I know this? Well, I bought $100,000 worth of shares in November for $0. Ongoing cost is the interest repayment which is slightly higher than the interest repayment on a property loan (about 1% – 1.5%). No stamp duty or legal fees and I even got the brokerage fee waived so there was zero entry costs.
I think it comes down to ‘risk profile’. Shares are a LOT more risky than property.
I would consider property AND shares. A diversified investment portfolio is always a good thing.
Why not by shares in a listed property portfolio, then you’ve got both bases covered…
But if that’s not what you want to do, maybe you could lend me the money and I’ll give you a gauranteed return, no risk of 3.5% pa fixed for 10 years. That’s more than the yields on real estate at the moment and share dividends are in the same territory and I’ll gaurantee it. What more could you ask for? [biggrin]
Maybe whacking it in a fixed interest bearing account is the safe harbour of choice for the moment…
Originally posted by Big Rob:
<snip>In any case, you can actually leverage MORE against SHARES. How do I know this? Well, I bought $100,000 worth of shares in November for $0. Ongoing cost is the interest repayment which is slightly higher than the interest repayment on a property loan (about 1% – 1.5%). No stamp duty or legal fees and I even got the brokerage fee waived so there was zero entry costs.
I think it comes down to ‘risk profile’. Shares are a LOT more risky than property.
I would consider property AND shares. A diversified investment portfolio is always a good thing.
How is that for constructive??? <snip>
Very constructive! And an interesting point re: leverage.
I too have had a question about leverage re: shares-property The assumption in Australia being that property wins this battle. S teve Navra demonstrates in his investment course why he considers property to be the “better” investment even though he loves investing in shares, simply due to being able to leverage more.
But there is plenty of leverage available when you trade currency (1000:1) or futures etc. The risk profile is very different of course.
I’m you can buy shares with no money and no collateral used then that is infinite leverage If I want to trade in currency I need to have at least a little money in my account to satisfy my broker. The same goes for futures brokers. So it’s been my personal experience that property does have potentially greater leverage.
After all you can just walk into somebody’s house with RE and agree some sort of deal with no money down. Not that I have ever done that!
<edit- just thought of this> actually wouldn’t getting 100+% finance for property be a better example! Haven’t done that either though <edit>
Food for thought.
WaySolid
“Write the wrongs that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on marble.” Arab proverb
100% finance on one property will have an interest expense comparable to my 100% gearing on the shares in a very diversified portfolio. I probably should have told you that I can also gear up to $500,000 without any proof of income (higher than this, I need to state an income) at 100% with the shares but there is NO WAY you can do this on property. Also, there is a capital guarantee so I will never have to pay back the cost of the shares. The only risk is that I have to pay the ongoing interest (deductible) which I do not consider expensive after tax.
I am not advising anyone do this by any stetch of the imagination unless they can afford the repayments of the interest at the full amount. However, it can be done and is common.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Michael your offer of 3% blew me away but I have to decline(ya sure).
Waysolid ,thanks for the somersoft web site.As I am new to these forums I have not read past forum letters.
Don’t know your experience with shares, but you must do a lot of homework if you are picking them yourself. They must be actively managed. Don’t listen to rubbish like “buy and hold for the long term”. If a share turns sour, you need to jettison it from your portfolio. Don’t argue with the market, irrespective of what some “eggspurt” is telling you about a share’s prospects.
So-called blue chips are overrated in my opinion. People think of the likes of Newscorp, the banks, Telstra, etc. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to perform. Check what they’ve done in the past 4 – 5 years – next to nothing. How long does a man wait? So you need to research better prospects, typically smaller companies that are in a growth phase.
Don’t pick shares by reading the newspaper either.
I prefer shares to property for their versatility, and you don’t need to part with an arm and a leg to buy a reasonable portfolio. Having said that, I’m not against property at all, just that I’m more suited to shares.
I thought the boys at Aussie Share Traders would have known all the answers Acey… you are a regular there aren’t you?
I limited my purchase to test out the fund managers and limit my interest cost. I fully intend to stagger income streams every few months so these investments overlap.
Also, the limit without stating an income is $500,000. I will not lie and state a figure so I can go past this so I will have to lodge some returns soon.
I am talking about infinite leverage. It is available to those who know where to get it. The problem is the cost of funds so not many people take it to huge limits.
Explain what you mean when you say “10x” leverage. I am leveraged at 100%, not 1000%. That is 1x leverage the way I see it.
_____________________________________________
[withstupid]
The forumite formally known as Big Rob
In my view it’s way too simplistic to say stocks vs. shares, because the investor themeselves determines wether they will get a high return.
As an example US bonds are currently paying 1-3%, yet I know an investor who makes round about 2% per month, so over a year he might make 24% while other investors are only reciving 1-3% per yr.
The asset class (property or shares) dosen’t make it a good or bad investment (both can provide fantastic returns), but rather the investor themeselves will determine if good or bad investment in my opinon.