We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Too Scared To Invest
Comments
-
which funds went bust/down 66%?
Many years ago in the days of Peps I was in Morgan Grenfell European and that dropped at least 50% or more when the manager was caught out with unquoted trades and then turned up at the trial dressed as a woman, eventually the firm was wound up and sold to Deutsch to delete the name from history!0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »Do you really need to invest in hundreds of different companies?
Especially when some of them are huge international diversified organisations.
As long as they are spread over different sectors twenty seems plenty to me.
Then you can hold them directly, have complete control, and pay no fees - whether upfront or hidden.
you can't hold them directly w/o fees and costs. Dealing and Stamp Duty cost more when buying individual shares.
You can have complete control in which funds and sectors you invest in.
Yes, i think you need to hold hundreds of individual shares/assets in a Globally diversified portfolio. but if you want to invest oin 3/4 ftse firms, go right ahead. I wont' stop you.0 -
0
-
-
I hold a lot of funds, and never had one wound up or bust. I have had individual shares do this.
Wonder which funds you held that went bust?0 -
Karanjit, hi!
You pose agood question: are people afraid of the risks of investing because of thepresent day financial climate?
Well, Eric Ivory of Ivory & Sime used to say: ‘Now is always the most difficult time to make an investment decision.’ In all of my time investing there’s rarely been a period when there was not a whole host of things to worry about that might perturb the investor but I have to say that through all of this and the hysterical and misguided ranting of financial journalistsin the mainstream media the stocks (or business that I part-own) have plodded along nicely. Yes I have had some duffers along the way but overall things have turned-out just fine.
One other thing that I’d like to comment on is the word ‘risk’. There are two aspects to this. Firstly, the definition of what the term means; and secondly an investor’s tolerance to risk.
In relation to the market for stocks (I will not use the word stockmarket because this suggests that it is a thing that exists and as a single entity) I consider there to be two risks. The first is that the overall level of the value of stocks may decline. There is little one can do about this although one can mitigate the danger of buying at a high point byd rip-feeding money into a share using a monthly investment scheme. The second risk is that a share that one owns, or more accurately the business that is part-owned through the share), hits trouble. This risk can be ameliorated by investing through collective investment vehicles, such as unit trusts or investment trusts etc., and many of these offer a monthly investment option.
An individuals’ tolerance to risk is shaped by many variables but I found that once I had a clear notion of risk I was able to repel much of the nonsense emanating from banks, insurance companies and the mainstream media. I found also that my tolerance to risk changed.
At the start of each year I re-affirm my investment objectives:
1. To have fun;
2. To not do anything stupid;
3. To make money.
These objectives have stood me in good stead for years and I don’t see any reason to change them.
I hope my comments are helpful, although I realise that they do not provide a definitive answer to your question, or what one should do next.
With every good wish.0 -
Geez Louise!
BANK OF ENGLAND
yet in your previous post you said
:huh:'the bankers' are not printing. The BOE is.
In my previous post I should have said recurring charges, rather than just charges. Sorry
I appreciate Dealing costs usually costs more when holding the certificates myself (although it didn't on my last trade this week when Norwich & Peterborough Building Society Share Dealing had a commission free day) But I didn't know Stamp Duty costs more :huh:“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Central banks and clearing banks are very different creatures.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Wonder which funds you held that went bust?
Well, there were those split capital investment trusts and a few vehicles that bought up US life insurance policies.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
To me it looks like they are all in it together.gadgetmind wrote: »Central banks and clearing banks are very different creatures.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards