May Nationwide MoM +0.3% YoY -1.2%

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

No. Im saying that rampant inflation f@cks everyones pensions, particularly those of a certain age nearing retirement. Including property bulls.;)

Their homes are going to have to be their pensions. Even if they're living in them at the time.

The bulls don't really like to talk about the wider economic issues.
Largely because they now have to reap what they have sowed.

Okay thanks. I think that's the first time you have admitted that the property bulls are going to be better off than those who are not in property.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

No. Im saying that rampant inflation f@cks everyones pensions, particularly those of a certain age nearing retirement. Including property bulls.;)

I don't understand your point. The term pension is generally used to describe an investment, or investments, that is designed to provide you with income after you retire. So you can think of a pension as simply a wrapper, as everyone's pension will be slightly different, and some pensions will look nothing like other people's pensions.

So, with this in mind', nothing "f*cks everyone's pensions", as it's up to people to assess their risk profile and objectives around their long-term investments and align their pension accordingly. If you feel that you are in an environment where you have high inflation then I guess one option is to assign a higher percentage of your portfolio towards assets or products that benefit during times of high inflation.

In reality, people don't have the time or inclination to micro-manage their pensions and therefore simply assign a certain percentage of their pension towards inflation-related investments to ensure they benefit during periods of high inflation. Your point also confuses me as during periods of high inflation shares tend to well, and many people's pensions will have large exposure to shares.

Geener, this post doesn't refer to bears or bulls so apologies if it doesn't make any sense to you.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Okay thanks. I think that's the first time you have admitted that the property bulls are going to be better off than those who are not in property.

Maybe not as well of as those who didn't wait until absolute peak to buy pimperdoodle.

I must have missed the memo that said no bear could buy between 2009 and retirement.

In the mean time economy fooked, pension fooked.
Well done bulls. :T

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

I don't understand your point. The term pension is generally used to describe an investment, or investments, that is designed to provide you with income after you retire. So you can think of a pension as simply a wrapper, as everyone's pension will be slightly different, and some pensions will look nothing like other people's pensions.

So, with this in mind', nothing "f*cks everyone's pensions", as it's up to people to assess their risk profile and objectives around their long-term investments and align their pension accordingly. If you feel that you are in an environment where you have high inflation then I guess one option is to assign a higher percentage of your portfolio towards assets or products that benefit during times of high inflation.

In reality, people don't have the time or inclination to micro-manage their pensions and therefore simply assign a certain percentage of their pension towards inflation-related investments to ensure they benefit during periods of high inflation. Your point also confuses me as during periods of high inflation shares tend to well, and many people's pensions will have large exposure to shares.

Geener, this post doesn't refer to bears or bulls so apologies if it doesn't make any sense to you.

It makes sense, only so far as ascertaining that you primary point is a grindingly dull elaboration on how not all pensions are the same.

Your secondary point, and the point in which your thesis hinges on, - that the debilitating effect of inflation can will automatically be negated by the market - is pretty laughable.

brian_723

inflation means nothing ,wages have stayed down so in real terms they have not fallen enough yet ,but they will .

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

Your secondary point, and the point in which your thesis hinges on, - that the debilitating effect of inflation can will automatically be negated by the market - is pretty laughable.

Thesis? It's a short point on an internet forum.

I didn't say that the effect of inflation can be automatically be negated by the market. I said that if you're someone who feels that their investments are at risk of inflation you can tweak your portfolio accordingly. Why is that laughable?

JonnyBravo

Bless you Cleaver.
You, above all people, take your time making many rational points to many of the fringe elements on here. You do it in a measured manner and with a level tone. I know you don't expect a coherent reply, your odd barbed line gives it away. Just so you're clear, the sensible few on here also don't expect you to get a coherent reply, so why do you waste so much time highlighting their idiocy to us?
You know they're daft and now you know we know they're daft. Even some of them know they're daft.
Those that don't know, think you're daft, and no amount of level headed reasoning will convince them it's themselves that is daft..... as you know.
You're a more patient man than me, that's for sure, but I'm just not sure who you're left trying to convince?

Pete111

0.3% eh? Well at least it's the right direction. Also, looks like about 1% when you strip out the seasonal adjustment.

Pete111

debtistheft wrote: »

An intelligent home owner is an oximoron. Plenty of houses up for sale over winter with home owners virtually giving them away in desperation. Serves them right for buying intto the false dream. Idiots.

Bear A-Team 1, Bulls 0.

:rotfl:

Loving that line. At a stroke DiT designates 2/3rds of the country idiots.

...Oh no! Just realised I own two so that must make me doubly thick!

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

Thesis? It's a short point on an internet forum

I beleive non-point is a more accurate term.

Cleaver wrote: »

I didn't say that the effect of inflation can be automatically be negated by the market. I said that if you're someone who feels that their investments are at risk of inflation you can tweak your portfolio accordingly. Why is that laughable?

Because of course when inflation is low, nobody wants to maximise returns yeah? :rotfl:

Oh, and also the inference that "managing pension portfolios" had any meaning the the majority of the population is a bit of a hoot.