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

Pinkle

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I'm looking at a few of those. I had narrowed it down to Greggs or BHP. Then Colin Gregg got arrested on child sex charges which decided me. I went for BHP to be 'safe' - the world's biggest and probably most diversified miner which has halved, whilst Greggs has doubled. Then there was the supermarkets - after all people will always buy food and I split that between the 3 middle of the road grocers Sainsburys, Morrisons and Tesco just to be 'safe'

Very good example of why I for one no longer try to be smart and buy individual shares.

It helps to be congenitally mean and psychologically equipped to do boring (not all investors are). With these qualifications you can do just as well as the "experts". For you will be able to set up an £x a month DD into a FTSE All share tracker (0% initial and 0.5% total annual charges) and forget about it.

No reassuringly expensive IFAs, no thrills, no excitement.
.

Thrugelmir

Glen_Clark wrote: »

As funds got cheaper I sold the shares which had made a profit to use up my CGT allowance, and reinvested in funds. So now I am left with the lossmaking shares, and an unbalanced portfolio.

Why didn't you sell and offset the losses at the time.

reeac

Linton wrote: »

I dont believe that is the reason.

In my view the real factor is learned behaviour passing from parents to children. Certainly until the 2nd world war and perhaps 10 years after that significant numbers of people were living in abject poverty and many more living hand to mouth for the real physical basics. There was no culture of building serious capital because it wasnt possible, beyond a small weekly subscription for the Christmas Club.

The children and grandchildren absorbed the same attitudes which became increasingly inapproriate as general wealth increased. The "basics" simply got broader, rather than being constrained by a requirement that their satisfaction be sustainable.

Another factor, again passing from generation to generation, is that there was no expectation of living to a real old age. Pensions in general werent a serious issue until say the 1960s as people didnt usually live long enough to enjoy them for many years beyond retirement, and if they did their children would support them. Society driven by economics and technology has changed quickly, it takes generations for entrenched attitudes to change.

Another, more recent, historical change is the housing price crisis which has excluded lots of young people from hopes of ownership. In marginal cases they struggle to accumulate the necessary deposit but many just settle for renting and spend any surplus on consumerism.

Glen_Clark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why didn't you sell and offset the losses at the time.

1) Minimizing trading to cut down costs - the mis selling of pensions by the 'Man from the Pru' left me distrustful of anyone in financial services so I was still dealing in certificated shares which was much more expensive than the x-o platform I am on now.
2) a feeling that what goes down will come back up (a couple actually did and I sold them but most haven't)

Glen_Clark

reeac wrote: »

the housing price crisis.

or 'strong / buoyant housing market recovery' depending whose side you are on...

JohnRo

Glen_Clark wrote: »

or 'strong / buoyant housing market recovery' depending whose side you are on...

..or how far up the pyramid scheme you are.

Glen_Clark

Pinkle wrote: »

Very good example of why I for one no longer try to be smart and buy individual shares.

.

I wasn't trying to be smart I was trying to be safe in choosing those shares - all FTSE 100 shares so well researched and bought by 'experts'. Funds incur middlemen, and charges which were higher at the time. But they would have turned out better.

Pincher

Be careful what you ask for.

If a share costs £10, and pays £1 in dividend a year, you get 10% yield. If more people invest their money, and they all want to buy this company, it will push up the price to £20, but the dividend is still £1. Now if you want to invest any more money, you will only get 5% yield.

There will soon be Chinese money flooding the world's markets.
The state visits from the president of China heralds a new era of trade and investment, i.e. money coming our way.

They want to put their money to work, like getting an income stream from UK nuclear power plants.
The pension funds from Chinese state institutions are now allowed to invest some of their money in the stock market, partially because they want to prop up the Chinese markets, but sooner or later they will see the sense in international diversification.

The savings from 1.3 billion people who like to save will be coming our way, driving up prices, pushing down yield.

gadgetmind

We buy individual shares, but hold 25+. Miners, oil and gas, and supermarkets get hammered, lots of other sectors do well, and few years later it all swaps over.

Diversification.

Thrugelmir

Pincher wrote: »

There will soon be Chinese money flooding the world's markets.

Nothing new. The Chinese prefer outright ownership too. Started buying Malaysian rubber plantations in the 1960's (from the then British owners who were quoted UK companies). Ever since they've been acquiring commodities and technology.