I don't understand why people can't be bothered!

moneyfoolish

ChesterDog wrote: »

Some years ago, my wife and I bought a business by using all our savings, taking out a loan and having a legal charge on the small amount of equity we had in our house. The business was very run down and it took years of extraordinarily hard work, long hours and every penny we owned. In spite of everything we tried so very hard to achieve, we were sinking. We worked every single day for five years without a single day off. Followed by another decade or so with just a handful. We actually agreed between us that if one of us died the other would not be able to go to the funeral: the business would collapse and was more important.

By the skin of our teeth, we pulled through. Just.

The business ultimately prospered and we sold it, but not before the sheer effort and stress of it had devastated my wife's health and damaged my own.

Once we turned that financial corner, we vowed never ever ever ever to put ourselves in that situation again.

Ultimately, the years of hell meant we were able to sell and invest the money to live on while retiring early. I say 'retiring early' but in fact my wife requires 24/7 care which I provide almost entirely myself.

But we have a high degree of financial security and that is because of investments and a low-consumption lifestyle.

People so often say that all that really matters is your health. It's not true. Financial security is vitally important. Investments can help to provide this, but you have to have the mindset to do it.

If you think I am smug because I enjoy what investments can provide, then try walking a mile in my shoes first.

It's a commendable story of hard work BUT is any amount of money worth going 5 years without a single day off work? Certainly no amount of money is worth damaging your health for or devastating your wife's health so she needs care 24/7. Now, I don't know if that's what caused your wife's health problem but if if did then it wasn't worth it. I was one of the lucky ones who was fully employed for 44 years without ever being out of work and was also lucky enough to have a pretty well-paid job and loved what I did BUT I always worked to live NOT lived to work and there is no way on earth I would have regularly given up my weekends which was the time I could do the things I really wanted to do. There's a hell of a lot more to life than work but, sadly, in this day and age while the people at the top of companies (and the public sector) rake in hundreds of thousands or even millions, the rest of society is expected to work all hours for a piittance to satisfy the people running these organisations, most of who wouldn't dream of working even a 37 hour week!

Malthusian

But this thread is about investing, not saving - even I know there's a difference.

There is but the two tend to go hand in hand. At the root of both is the ability - virtually unique to humans - to recognise the existence of the future, and the value of money in it.

If you can understand that part of your salary will make you happier if you save it for a rainy day than if you spend it now, you can also understand the principles of long-term investment.

Or to look it at it another way, the arguments you hear against both saving and investing - from those who lack the ability to recognise the future value of money or refuse to - are the same. "Who knows what tomorrow brings, you can't take it with you, money is the root of all evil, I don't trust the banks, YOLO, yadda yadda yadda."

gadgetmind

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Her Unelected Majesty the Queen stands as an example to us all that in Britain most wealth is inherited, not earned.

I'm not at all sure that's correct, but even if it is, so what? You can either sit around and wait for a lottery win or you can get stuck in and achieve financial security the hard way.

ChesterDog

moneyfoolish wrote: »

It's a commendable story of hard work BUT is any amount of money worth going 5 years without a single day off work? Certainly no amount of money is worth damaging your health for or devastating your wife's health so she needs care 24/7. Now, I don't know if that's what caused your wife's health problem but if if did then it wasn't worth it. I was one of the lucky ones who was fully employed for 44 years without ever being out of work and was also lucky enough to have a pretty well-paid job and loved what I did BUT I always worked to live NOT lived to work and there is no way on earth I would have regularly given up my weekends which was the time I could do the things I really wanted to do. There's a hell of a lot more to life than work but, sadly, in this day and age while the people at the top of companies (and the public sector) rake in hundreds of thousands or even millions, the rest of society is expected to work all hours for a piittance to satisfy the people running these organisations, most of who wouldn't dream of working even a 37 hour week!

I think you could call our early career a trigger for, rather than actually the straight cause of, my wife's health catastrophe. Was it worth it? At the time, we felt we had no choice. It is our ethos. We always paid ourselves last, not first. Staff first, then customers (not that we actually paid them, ha ha, but their needs came second), then suppliers, then all the other bills, then us.

We are now (fairly) comfortable financially and that makes us both happy because it gives us security. If we could go back... we wouldn't do it the same way, no. But we are were we are, and far from being smug, we genuinely appreciate every single day that we are incredibly fortunate. Okay, not in all ways, but few have that luxury.

Personally, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, however it was derived (except by theft or exploitation). I also feel very much for the many people who work incredibly hard also, but end up with little to show for it.

Anyway, we are veering ever more off topic, but it has turned into a very stimulating and thought-provoking thread.

Oh, a tiny tale seems relevant in closing...

A few years ago, we bought a very, very expensive Porsche. In having it modified for my wife to access it, a tiny scratch was made on the sill. The dealer rectified this, but a friend commented that I must "be gutted" by this calamity on my new six-figure toy.

Hmm. Now that really would have felt smug of me. I did not. I simply reflected on what a terribly minor and unimportant mere flotsam of a problem this was, compared to what most people in the world had to struggle with that day.

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'm not at all sure that's correct, .

It is correct but the information isn't easy to find - property ownership is notoriously opaque in Britain. The few people who inherited most of central London and Britain's land area tend to keep quiet about it. They don't post on here about how much their property prices have increased more than equity prices over the years

moneyfoolish

ChesterDog wrote: »

I think you could call our early career a trigger for, rather than actually the straight cause of, my wife's health catastrophe. Was it worth it? At the time, we felt we had no choice. It is our ethos. We always paid ourselves last, not first. Staff first, then customers (not that we actually paid them, ha ha, but their needs came second), then suppliers, then all the other bills, then us.

We are now (fairly) comfortable financially and that makes us both happy because it gives us security. If we could go back... we wouldn't do it the same way, no. But we are were we are, and far from being smug, we genuinely appreciate every single day that we are incredibly fortunate. Okay, not in all ways, but few have that luxury.

Personally, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, however it was derived (except by theft or exploitation). I also feel very much for the many people who work incredibly hard also, but end up with little to show for it.

Anyway, we are veering ever more off topic, but it has turned into a very stimulating and thought-provoking thread.

Oh, a tiny tale seems relevant in closing...

A few years ago, we bought a very, very expensive Porsche. In having it modified for my wife to access it, a tiny scratch was made on the sill. The dealer rectified this, but a friend commented that I must "be gutted" by this calamity on my new six-figure toy.

Hmm. Now that really would have felt smug of me. I did not. I simply reflected on what a terribly minor and unimportant mere flotsam of a problem this was, compared to what most people in the world had to struggle with that day.

Nothing you have posted has seemed remotely smug to me and it certainly is a very interesting topic although as you say probably not relevant to a financial board.

ChesterDog

I will close my thread hijack by reassuring my fellow investors that, over the couple of years I had the Porsche, it cost me very little money overall. It was not a great investment, but I have had worse ones.

We are lucky enough to have another currently on order (but at a much lower price). On this one I expect we will actually make money.

So life remains still very much about looking after our money (and, indeed, having to). It's just that, thanks to a lot of luck and an investment-focussed outlook, we have managed to build some to look after.

Enough from me now.

Thrugelmir

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But this thread is about investing, not saving - even I know there's a difference.

They go hand in hand. Investing is saving. What you save your money into depends on your personal objectives and aims. Whether it's short term , medium term or long term. Whether you need instant access to your money or you are able to tie it up for a fixed term period, or until retirement.

I know people that are risk adverse. Therefore are happy with cash, NSI products etc. Whatever the outcome. They are comfortable with their choice. Still better off than someone that does absolutely nothing.

Thrugelmir

Glen_Clark wrote: »

If you tried to make equities look as bad as you possibly can you wouldn't take today as the selling point.
Some of the posts on here worry me a bit because they seem to assume the future will be the same as the past. Its worth remembering that equity prices are inflated by near zero interest rates - which cannot fall as much in the next few years as much as they have fell in the last because they are already on the floor.

That's why people should use a fund manager that oversees a large diversified fund. If they are not willing to spend hours of time doing the leg work. I remember the days of LastMinute.com. Small investors buying shares in a Company that was valued at £528 million at the peak, barely a £3 million turnover and never made a trading profit. Fools gold as they say. Looking for a quick buck. That's not investing. It's gambling. Only winners were the founders who were made for life on the back of an idea nothing more.

jimjames

Thrugelmir wrote: »

They go hand in hand. Investing is saving. What you save your money into depends on your personal objectives and aims. Whether it's short term , medium term or long term. Whether you need instant access to your money or you are able to tie it up for a fixed term period, or until retirement.

I know people that are risk adverse. Therefore are happy with cash, NSI products etc. Whatever the outcome. They are comfortable with their choice. Still better off than someone that does absolutely nothing.

I agree that they are linked. Unless you have saved sufficiently for an emergency fund then there is no point investing so you need one to do the other.
Risk is the key point, so many people just don't understand it. There seem to be plenty who are happy to lock up money for 5 years or so in cash for a better rate as they don't need access yet won't look at investments that will pay far better income although capital will vary. If you can happily put the investment details away and not check it daily then you won't be worried about losing money.


Another reason why I think the average person would consider investments to be risky is all the information in the news etc is short term. Each night you hear FTSE up or down that day, never how much over 10 years so they don't get that sense of perspective.