stockmarkets -are we nearing the bottom or is there further to go ??

Thrugelmir

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

But being taxed 40% with another 13.8% NI on top is not at all generous. A high earner in Hong Kong pays less than 17% all in.

People are free to move there if they wish. Public services have to be paid for. That's the choice every time there's an election.

HardCoreProgrammer

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

But being taxed 40% with another 13.8% NI on top in the first place is not at all generous. A high earner in Hong Kong pays less than 17% all in.

I know that this is straying from the topic but I cannot leave this uncommented.

Please do some research into how expensive property prices (considering that leases for most places run out in 2047) and rental costs are in HK, and how the government derives most of its income. I think it is a fair comment to say that you pay one way or another.

I would personally prefer to live in a place where the basic needs of citizens are looked after (e.g. Singapore) than a place where the government masquerades as pro "free market" but is actually acting in cohorts with the real estate developers.

Returning to the topic, if we all believe that the market has further to fall, surely we should be dumping all shares, funds, investment trusts, etc.?

masonic

HardCoreProgrammer wrote: »

Returning to the topic, if we all believe that the market has further to fall, surely we should be dumping all shares, funds, investment trusts, etc.?

Not if you believe that trying to time the market will most likely lead to a worse outcome than remaining invested throughout.

MK62

HardCoreProgrammer wrote: »

Returning to the topic, if we all believe that the market has further to fall, surely we should be dumping all shares, funds, investment trusts, etc.?

.....which would help to cause the very fall being feared!!...;).....just sayin'

Alexland

masonic wrote: »

Not if you believe that trying to time the market will most likely lead to a worse outcome than remaining invested throughout.

Possibly but even the great Ben Graham advocated adjusting your risk exposure to market fundamentals.

Alex

masonic

Alexland wrote: »

Possibly but even the great Ben Graham advocated adjusting your risk exposure to market fundamentals.

Alex

Yes, although doing so would have had you reduce your exposure to the USA for most of the last 20 years, despite it outperforming most other markets with better fundamentals and other asset classes.

Alexland

masonic wrote: »

Yes, although doing so would have had you reduce your exposure to the USA for most of the last 20 years, despite it outperforming most other markets with better fundamentals and other asset classes.

Yup but firstly this cycle isn't over yet and secondly there were some points during the period where even US stocks would have been seen as good value.

Alex

Zero_Sum

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

But being taxed 40% with another 13.8% NI on top in the first place is not at all generous. A high earner in Hong Kong pays less than 17% all in.

13.8% is the employers rate not employees.

Employees is 12% then 2% for higher rate tax payers

So the effective tax rates (combining income tax & NI) are 32% & 42% then 47% for the top rate.

Carrieanne

Am somewhat surprised that Deutsche Bank, the 'world's most dangerous bank,' whose share price hit yet another record low on Tuesday, hasn't merited a mention hereabouts given the IMF identified its failure has the potential to implode the global financial system. Its price stands at over 20% lower than when this BBC article was published.

Deutsche Bank: World's most dangerous bank? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36723034

6 July 2016

Deutsche Bank shares hit a new record low today. Its value has halved since the beginning of the year.

So is it now the most dangerous bank in the world?

According to the International Monetary Fund - yes.

Last week, the IMF said that, of the banks big enough to bring the financial system crashing down, Deutsche Bank was the riskiest. Not only that, Deutsche Bank's US unit was one of only two of 33 big banks to fail tests of financial strength set by the US central bank earlier this year.

ffacoffipawb

Zero_Sum wrote: »

13.8% is the employers rate not employees.

Employees is 12% then 2% for higher rate tax payers

So the effective tax rates (combining income tax & NI) are 32% & 42% then 47% for the top rate.

And 62% from £100k to £125k (next year) where the personal allowance is gradually withdrawn.