Forum split ?

bigadaj

One for the mods maybe but also welcome others opinions.

I think it would be worthwhile splitting this forum for several reasons, including the rate of posting as compared with many others.

However main reason is that my worry is that many don't fully take on board the difference between saving and investing, there would obviously be cross over, but having one thread on cash isas, the next on spread betting just seems to be a greater leap than the case for many other boards.

Hominu

Cash ISAs should be posted in the ISAs and Tax Free Savings board, but some people just prefer to post here, or don't even realise the other board exists, which I what I think will happen with a separate Investments board. If you really want to discuss more technical investment things, then it's probably best to talk about them elsewhere - such as a different forum completely.

Reaper

Martin has said in the past he doesn't cover investments, partly because he doesn't feel it is his area of expertise. So I think it unlikely he will set up a new board dedicated to it.

However if you want to give it a try I suggest posting in the Site Feedback forum.

robatwork

It would probably be more logical to have Savings (including cash ISAs) and Investments (including S&S ISAs) boards

atush

Well, he didn't int he opat have uch expertise.

given he now has money to invest, in years to come he may have a basic knowledge?

Can't see him taking a back seat to an IFA without asking a few Q/s or knowing his apples from his oranges.

Perelandra

It probably doesn't count for much, but... I originally came here for the savings threads, and started reading the investment ones as well- certainly having the two together accelerated the time it took me to start investing.

cydney65

I have to be honest and say I agree with Perelandra. I'm a relative newcomer to the board but I like the fact that I can read about general saving and also pick up a few tips from the investment threads as well. This has given me the desire to find out more about investing.

atush

Perelandra wrote: »

It probably doesn't count for much, but... I originally came here for the savings threads, and started reading the investment ones as well- certainly having the two together accelerated the time it took me to start investing.

Very true.

So many "cash only" investors don't understand risk in total. Including shortfall and inflation risk. which are never mentioned on cash only savings boards.

sabretoothtigger

The two are completely related. If they offer me 10% on my savings Im going to pull quite a few of my investments to favour that savings account.

The reason rates are so terribly low is to encourage investment, it is being done deliberately. So interest rate and asset values over time are linked, a forum discussing both is quite in line with that

Savings are an investment in a bank or building society. We refer to the FSCS to distance ourselves from the idea that business viability affects risk of return but it is basically another kind of investment like a bond but simplier with an immediate absolute return.

If this wasnt true, we'd still have B&B but they ended up with no available funding because theirs savers were the investors and collectively they pulled a dragons den ' Im out'

JohnRo

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Savings are an investment in a bank or building society.

Not sure about that, bank shares are an investment in the business. Cash deposits are just using the services on offer with all the guarantees included.

The problem with banks is that they have special privileges the rest of real business doesn't enjoy and shouldn't ever have been behaving the way they were and still are. They should have been allowed to fail too and the trillions used instead to compensate victims and fix the mess once and for all instead of just rewarding those who caused the meltdown and allow them to more or less carry on regardless as long as they keep their heads down for a bit.

redbuzzard

Deposits are loans, not investments, in my mind. I have no consequences from whether the Coventry BS or HSBC profits rise or fall, just so long as it doesn't go bust. The normal business risk and reward from the employment of those funds stays with the bank, the depositor only has credit risk with the bank itself subject to any guarantees from the state.

But what's in a word.

I have had the same thought as JohnRo - if the banks could have been allowed to fail, their retail creditors could have been bailed out with the money.

I think it probably just looked too complicated - bondholders include retail investors, pension funds etc., what would the repercussions of that have been? The banks themselves would have been in administration for years while loan assets were run down, and where would the funding have had to come from (you can tell I haven't thought this through)?