Halifax May +3.9% MOM, +8.7% YOY

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As a model, it is about the yield, especially when buying.

I'm merely stating that if you have invested in a property at a time when the yield was sufficient and the yield is now showing lower due to capital appreciation, you have to factor whether selling that property will provide the best return on the investment.

When it comes to shares I cash in if the capital appreciation is high. As in a sense this is crystallising future years income (as the yield drops). So there's better opportunities to reinvest into. That's where property fails, as is totally illiquid. As I can log on and trade within 30 seconds.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

When it comes to shares I cash in if the capital appreciation is high. As in a sense this is crystallising future years income (as the yield drops). So there's better opportunities to reinvest into. That's where property fails, as is totally illiquid. As I can log on and trade within 30 seconds.

I agree,

Shares are more of a short term investment, attempting to capitalise when value is high, because the likelihood is that the price will be lower in the future.

You just have to look and see that the FTSE 100 is still lower than the peak of 1999 (15 years ago)

Property on the other hand is a longer term investment, benefiting from lower risk to your capital outlay and gearing any capital appreciation.

Some can make a better return from shares than in property, but clearly this is not always the case and certainly has not held true for the last couple of decades.

Looking forward, I still see shares as risky, whilst property more safe in terms of the investment risk and returns

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Shares are more of a short term investment, attempting to capitalise when value is high, because the likelihood is that the price will be lower in the future.

Shares are on the whole long term. Profitable short term profitable trading is nigh impossible unless you stake sizable sums. The art is find the under valued small companies. That appreciate 30% plus in under a year.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Shares are on the whole long term. Profitable short term profitable trading is nigh impossible unless you stake sizable sums. The art is find the under valued small companies. That appreciate 30% plus in under a year.

It's an "art" and a high risk.

How many small companies fold and in doing so , so does your investment?

Share dealing is obviously profitable for some and those with experience and knowledge of where to go.

In my opinion, for a general public, it's a way of benefiting fund managers and high profile businesses.

Like i said, the FTSE 100 is not higher than it was in 1999, therefore the comparison has to be is that these shares have not provided a return (on average) yet will have incurred costs.

You just need to look at the pension problems where funds have underperformed and employees are asked to fund the difference.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Shares are on the whole long term.

It can;t be that long term when you can: -

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As I can log on and trade within 30 seconds.

Bantex_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Does it really need to be stated that they need to be built in places where they are most needed i.e. where people want to live and work?

so just building more houses is not the solution.
Building houses in certain places is, and they tend to be where it is already pretty crowded and the land very expensive.

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

so just building more houses is not the solution.
Building houses in certain places is, and they tend to be where it is already pretty crowded and the land very expensive.

Building houses is the solution to a housing shortage*

* they need to be in the correct places and have doors and toilets which clearly makes this solution oh so much more difficult to comprehend.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Bantex wrote: »

so just building more houses is not the solution.
Building houses in certain places is, and they tend to be where it is already pretty crowded and the land very expensive.

Pedantry behaviour at it's finest.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It can;t be that long term when you can: -

That's why I referred to liquidity. While in paper a profit may look good. Unless you can cash in at peak price means very little. So has nothing to do with the length of time I hold a particular share. So the rump of my portfolio is a buy and hold strategy. While at any one time I will hold positions in up to 5 companies that are more speculative. Though will have met certain criteria to be held as investments.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's why I referred to liquidity. While in paper a profit may look good. Unless you can cash in at peak price means very little. So has nothing to do with the length of time I hold a particular share. So the rump of my portfolio is a buy and hold strategy. While at any one time I will hold positions in up to 5 companies that are more speculative. Though will have met certain criteria to be held as investments.

So holding a house is equivalent to the buy and hold part of your portfolio. They have different liquidities but day to day it's irrelevant.