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

gadgetmind

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's why people should use a fund manager that oversees a large diversified fund.

Or an alternative diversified collective investment that doesn't suffer from 1% a year "shrinkage" due to high fees.

Glen_Clark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

They weren't the only winners - the highly paid fund managers who threw other people's money into the dot com bubble still got their fees.

Whenever new technology has been introduced a lot of companies have sprung up to capitalise on it, most of which have lost their investors money

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

You can either sit around and wait for a lottery win or you can get stuck in and achieve financial security the hard way.

Thats true of course. But this thread is about people who can't be bothered.
If you are a landlord this government will throw taxpayers money at you. Wheras if you are trying to work at a productive business they will tax and regulate you into bankruptcy (like the steel industry.) Maybe they think the odds are so stacked against them there is no point in trying.

InvestInPoker

Think this is just one of these things where we have to accept people are different etc. I mean in a perfect world.

1) Investors would realise taking risk and preparing for the future is not for everyone.

2) Non investors would realise they either do not want to invest because they have other ways of preparing for the future or that they do not understand the various market investments and refrain from making silly comments on it. If it is the latter they can always read up before plunging in.

Sadly neither is going to happen as this is the internet where arguments happen

One thing I do completely disagree with is

Malthusian wrote: »

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."

I completely recognise the value of money thank you very much, and I am very well invested and prepared for far into the future. However I have still taken lots of money in my time and "yolo"d the !!!! out of it. It's fun to do that you know, for the life experiences. Just because I have done that does not mean I lack ability financially.

Also, I dont trust banks one inch.

PS Nice posts ChesterDog.

atush

Glen_Clark wrote: »

My uncle started with nothing and built up 7 butchers shops, he was very good at what he did. And yet his understanding of investments was incredibly little. I recall him saying to me you could invest £30k* at 10% interest and live on it indefinately. He was fortunate in selling the Butchers shops when there was still a market for them. But sadly he lost most of his money on shares like British Leyland when he retired. Which made my dad see buying shares to be the same as gambling.
*(to put £30k into perspective you could buy a 3 bed detached house with garage for £10k at that time)

Putting all your cash in single shares IS gambling.

Investing in a diversified fashion mean holding many many companies or better yet funds and trusts.We are all talking about collective investments in the main (although i have a share dealing acct i use for single shares but only a tiny fraction of our investments)

Malthusian

I completely recognise the value of money thank you very much, and I am very well invested and prepared for far into the future. However I have still taken lots of money in my time and "yolo"d the !!!! out of it.

Then you aren't one of the people I was referring to. All of the sayings I listed are objectively true (apart from money = √evil), the problem is that when some people say them, they mean something different - that money in the future has no value. And that therefore there's nothing wrong with never saving for retirement, never putting money by for when the boiler breaks down, taking out loans to go on holiday, etc. We know this isn't true but there is a host of thought-terminating clich!s which people use to justify thinking this way.

atush

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

No, the Queens example to us all is as someone who could afford to retire, but carries on working til the day they die due to a sense of duty?

I wouldnt have her job and all her wealth for all the tea in China.

Glen_Clark

atush wrote: »

No, the Queens example to us all is as someone who could afford to retire, but carries on working til the day they die due to a sense of duty?

True but thats beside the point - she stands as an example of both

atush wrote: »

I wouldnt have her job and all her wealth for all the tea in China.

All the more reason to have an elected Head of State. Not only could the people decide who to elect, but the Head of State could decide whether she wanted to stand for election. Its called Democracy.

atush

a quick look round the world at elected officials means to me its a crap shoot.

Have you SEEN the republican debates in US tv? Shocking state of affairs esp Trump. think i'd rather have the queen.

Glen_Clark

atush wrote: »

. think i'd rather have the queen.

Then you could vote for her.:)
We don't want to deny your vote, do you want to deny ours?
https://republic.org.uk/