What will you be doing with your 2011 ISA allowance

N9eav

Maybe loan sharking?

I have an ISA maxed out for last year and it makes peanuts really doesn't it?

I was going to do another this year, but there must be a better way of making a little money from money??

masonic

cashbackproblems wrote: »

Its true though. Sure if you need the cash within 1yr keep it as cash, but if people realised even a safe ftse 100 share can pay 6/7% in dividends they would put it in that even if only for a few yrs. People dont understand how to buy and sell shares and what the numbers mean, even i dont comprehensively but i like to gamble and its paying off this yr.

I think the bit in bold is where you differ to many people. Someone who piled all their money into shares at the end of 2007 would have been far better off staying in cash even now. A minimum 5 year timeframe is advisable to minimise the chance of falling foul of stockmarket crashes etc, unless somebody is happy to gamble their money like you are.

The other factor in this you don't seem to comprehend is that some people don't want to spend their free time researching investments. They may well spend a lot of their time in a career that pays a lot more than the return they could get from shares. It's quite reasonable and not at all unintelligent to choose to spend ones leisure time doing other things and therefore sacrificing superior returns on their cash.

What one or two people on this thread seem unable to comprehend is that their 'one basket' approach to investing may not be suitable to everyone.

relaxtwotribes

masonic wrote: »

So you think you should build up an emergency fund in shares, and then buy some more shares.

Words fail me.

Are you being deliberately thick? You made the above reply in response to my post "When you have sufficient in shares to withstand any storm..."

withstand ANY storm

C_Mababejive

The banks and building societies will not be making any stunning cash ISA offers.

They dont need to.

They have already been mugging people over these past few years and have plenty of cheap money.

What they will do is offer some seemingly attractive lock in deals and try to sucker people into them.

There will be plenty of suckers.

I shall be considering a funds ISA

masonic

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

Are you being deliberately thick? You made the above reply in response to my post "When you have sufficient in shares to withstand any storm..."

withstand ANY storm

No I am not being "deliberately thick". Please refrain from making such insulting comments. Both you and cashbackproblems seem very quick to post derogatory remarks about people who don't subscribe to your own world view. It isn't nice. If you are unwilling or unable to explain yourself, then say so.

So, for the final time, you posted:-

When you have sufficient in shares to withstand any storm, then all you should do is put any surplus into shares.

That statement makes perfect sense when you substitute "cash" for "shares" in the first clause. It makes no sense as written. Using your own metaphor, your "rainy day money you need at short notice" should be able to weather any storm, when that is true you can put any surplus in shares. Or are you using weather-based metaphors to mean two different things? I'm not going to continue to play guessing games with you. If you are unwilling or unable to politely explain what you mean by your comments, then all you need to do is say so and I'll make no further attempts to make sense of them.

relaxtwotribes

masonic wrote: »

It makes no sense as written.

I am sure that you have re-read my earlier post to see if you can make any sense of it, but you have now posted the above comment. I presume you have also read reply number 50.

You seem to be fixated with the idea that your rainy day money needs to be in cash. Once you are able to get over that, you will see that my post makes perfectly good sense.

masonic

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

I am sure that you have re-read my earlier post to see if you can make any sense of it, but you have now posted the above comment. I presume you have also read reply number 50.

You seem to be fixated with the idea that your rainy day money needs to be in cash. Once you are able to get over that, you will see that my post makes perfectly good sense.

So what happens if you need that rainy day fund in the middle or aftermath of a stock market crash? For example if you lose your job? or want to put down a deposit on a house?

People should have a minimum of 3-6 months living expenses in cash savings, plus sufficient in cash to cover any planned expenditure in the next 1-2 years. You even said it yourself....

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

You are getting 5%, but once you have 2 or 3 times the rainy day money you need at short notice, then the surplus should be put into shares

To imply people put any of that rainy day money in shares, IMHO, is totally irresponsible and reckless.

redmalc

I am trying to clarify if HSBC as actually just dropped their rate from 2.85 to 2.75 in the last week for their Premier customers,??

relaxtwotribes

masonic wrote: »

So what happens if you need that rainy day fund in the middle or aftermath of a stock market crash? For example if you lose your job? or want to put down a deposit on a house?

I can't believe you posted that!! Those events are included within my earlier post regarding 'withstand any storm'.

And then you proceed to deliberately misconstrue what I posted before. So let me spell it out for you nice and easy. I advocated saving money for a rainy day in a Cash ISA and then investing any surplus in shares. I then went on to say that when there are sufficient savings to be able to withstand any storm (or, to please you, as you would put it, stock market crash, job loss or house deposit - whatever) all investments should be in shares.

I never said that rainy day money, for someone who cannot afford to lose it, should be in shares.

masonic

This is my last post to you. You can't seem to form a coherent position.

First you write...

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

You seem to be fixated with the idea that your rainy day money needs to be in cash. Once you are able to get over that, you will see that my post makes perfectly good sense.

You also wrote...

When you have sufficient in shares to withstand any storm...

...shares, not cash. I clarified that with you, remember?

So you have told me to "get over" the idea that my rainy day money should be in cash, and that money to "withstand any storm" should be in shares. In your most recent post, you write...

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

I never said that rainy day money, for someone who cannot afford to lose it, should be in shares.

That is either a serious case of back-peddling, or your earlier posts are contradictory.

In the end it does not matter to me what you intended. It could reasonably be inferred from some of your posts that you were advising people to pile what they had sensibly reserved as a cash cushion into shares. I've presented my views on that notion in the hope others do not interpret your posts as I have and do something ill-advised as a result.