Bloomberg: Rates to stay at 0.5% for years, House Prices to Rise

Exocet

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Quite probably, but thanks for bumping the thread.:D

Lol. I was looking for an insight there, thinking about ditching my shares and pension and putting the whole lot into BTL or maybe a small beach hut.

Now it appears I am going to have to go on working for a living.

Dammit.

chucknorris

Exocet wrote: »

That surely must be untrue? Are you saying that at every point in time over the last two hundred years house price gains have been better than stock market? So if you take any ten, twenty or fifty year period during that time house prices have outperformed shares?

Sounds like rubbish to me Hamish.

I think it probably is true (in the last few decades) for investment property acquired with a mortgage because if you express the profit of the asset growth to the actual money invested ie deposit, fees, improvements, furniture etc then it increases the profitability significantly. Whereas the same approach can't really be taken with shares.

For example a 25% deposit and fees etc on a £200k property would say for arguement equate to about £75k. If the property increases by £75k, that is 100% profit on the money invested (yet the property has only increased by 37.5%)

Exocet

chucknorris wrote: »

I think it probably is true

I understand you on the subject of gearing. But I think I would like to see more graphs or something on the subject of shares v houses before changing by view. I thought that the long term highest performer was shares.

edit: I don't like gearing. Too risky on the downside.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Last time I checked, UK houses have marginally outperformed the US stock market over the last 50 years or so. Couldn't find data on UK shares.

Thats before gearing, of course.