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

CLAPTON

I guess if one sees the purpose of investment as
-never using / needing the money
and
-never spending the dividends

then in the long term we are all dead and rich.

monitorsit

CLAPTON wrote: »

2000 the ft100 was 6223
today it is 6275

2000 money in building society was £6223
today it is £6223

Of course, I have spent the interest.

Your post underlies one of the greatest errors made by (non)investors - the assumption that it's all about gambling in the hope of a capital gain. It's not. As others have said it's about the income, the dividends, from the investment.

Though over most 15 year periods you'll very likely get some capital gain too.

CLAPTON

monitorsit wrote: »

2000 money in building society was £6223
today it is £6223

Of course, I have spent the interest.

Your post underlies one of the greatest errors made by (non)investors - the assumption that it's all about gambling in the hope of a capital gain. It's not. As others have said it's about the income, the dividends, from the investment.

Though over most 15 year periods you'll very likely get some capital gain too.

I was proposing that sensible people should compare saving plus saved interest with investments with dividend reinvested.

presumably 'very likely' isn't gambling ?

ChesterDog

CLAPTON wrote: »

I guess if one sees the purpose of investment as
-never using / needing the money
and
-never spending the dividends

then in the long term we are all dead and rich.

Very true.

But how about, just investing capital for your longterm future, and/or leaving most (rather than all) of it to grow?


The closer you follow the plan, the better the result will be, but life needs some flexibility.

redux

Nothing in this post should be taken as investment advice, but let's consider an extreme example.

Person A has bought almost every new iPhone when it came out, spending on average £30 a month

Person B isn't interested in owning an iPhone but could instinctively see it would be very popular with other people, and has bought £30 worth of Apple shares each month since the 3g version was announced.

kidmugsy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If you don't have any money left over after paying your living costs, as many people don't, then "lack of money" is a reason rather than an excuse.

For many people how big their "living costs" are is a matter of choice.

ChesterDog

CLAPTON wrote: »

I was proposing that sensible people should compare saving plus saved interest with investments with dividend reinvested.

presumably 'very likely' isn't gambling ?

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, longterm, diversified equity investments come about as close as anything can.

And, yes, I am including gilts, bonds, building society savings et al in that statement.

missbiggles1

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

You are right.


Our daughter recently started work and we have been explaining tax, credit cards,mortgages, savings etc to her.


Much of this has come as a surprise to her and she has questioned why she was never taught any of this at school, and I agree.

But did you explain investment strategies, which is what the OP was talking about?

Would you actually want that taught in school?

missbiggles1

kidmugsy wrote: »

For many people how big their "living costs" are is a matter of choice.

And many people have little choice at all.

CLAPTON

redux wrote: »

Nothing in this post should be taken as investment advice, but let's consider an extreme example.

Person A has bought almost every new iPhone when it came out, spending on average £30 a month

Person B isn't interested in owning an iPhone but could instinctively see it would be very popular with other people, and has bought £30 worth of Apple shares each month since the 3g version was announced.

yes indeed

but to be really safe, suppose they invested the money in the banks or in British Energy or in Nokia