Is it possible to become a millionaire (or near to) through investments?

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

As Bowelhead said earlier,.

Who is Bowelhead?

bowlhead99

Glen_Clark wrote: »

As I explained many posts back, you shouldn't ignore politics in making successful investment decisions. For example someone with an insight into the politcal climate would have seen that property speculation was going to be more lucrative than productive industry, because that is the sector politicians were going to manipulate to increase landlord returns. Or that weapons manufacturers were going to be most lucrative, or bank bondholders, because politicians were going to bail them out too.

Just curious - given your deep cynicism for politicians of every political persuasion over the years, and an understanding of the political climate, did you successfully make a fortune from investing in residential BTL investments, weapons manufacturers and bank bonds over the last decade?

If you did focus your investments in those specific areas due to your insight and policy expectations, well done. If you didn't, and are just resentful that you didn't do that and make a killing, it perhaps comes off a bit envious.

If you could not have known with foresight that those were the three areas in which to make a killing, only with hindsight, isn't it just like any industry sector? Every sector has economic risk, political risk, market risk, credit risk, technological obsolescence risk, blah blah blah risk and so on.

So, you can blame Osborne or Brown or Thatcher or politicians back half a century for fueling the idea of personal home ownership, and blame the Chinese for being wealthy and numerous and demanding a piece of prime London real estate.. but that is no different to blaming Google for indiscriminately putting Yellow Pages out of business or blaming Apple for making a colorful iPod to eclipse Sony's Discman. You have to be aware that someone is going to come along and move the market in a way you might not like.

Seems to me you know all about the politicians and their mates. If there are some policies which stop banks getting decimated in a crisis it is because the PM's mate is a banker. If builders do well it is because the Chancellor's mate has two houses. If the media gets less than a raw deal it's because the govt needs them onside. If big pharma or oilers or defence contractors or consumer goods go up in value it's because someone has a non exec directorship lined up, right?

So, why haven't you just invested in all sectors that the politicians are inevitably outrageously favouring, and then you can't lose, so you won't need to be so grumpy?

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Just curious - given your deep cynicism for politicians of every political persuasion over the years, and an understanding of the political climate, did you successfully make a fortune from investing in residential BTL investments, weapons manufacturers and bank bonds over the last decade?

Not exactly - I haven't sucked up to politicians to find out where they were going to throw our money. But I am doing alright. I have saved enough to maintain my modest lifestyle for the rest of my life. I don't smoke or drink because I don't want to, and I would rather wear a £10 watch than a £10k Rolex for example - although some people won't believe it thats their problem not mine.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

If you did focus your investments in those specific areas due to your insight and policy expectations, well done. If you didn't, and are just resentful that you didn't do that and make a killing, it perhaps comes off a bit envious.

Well I suppose it would seem like envy to someone who only thinks of themselves. But some of us care about others - like the victims of Osborne's housing market interventions

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So, you can blame Osborne or Brown or Thatcher .....for fueling the idea of personal home ownership

No - I blame them for inflating house prices so those less fortunate than myself can't own their own home. And in doing so running up enourmous debts which future governments and taxpayers will have to deal with.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Well I suppose it would seem like envy to someone who only thinks of themselves. But some of us care about others - like the victims of Osborne's housing market interventions

What a pile of sanctimonious twaddle. You troll a forum with obsessive rants to make yourself feel saintly.

Incidentally we had a huge housing shortage before your number one enemy became chancellor. More people living on their own, a massive surge of immigration, and low levels of house building have pushed up prices. And it is not helped by buy to let, which was fueled by generous tax relief on mortgage interest payments. Ah but it's better to blame your number one enemy is it not as part of your endless sanctimonious whining. Oh but he has removed the higher rate tax relief. And added extra stamp duty. Things that Blair and Brown never did in three parliaments.

bigadaj

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Just curious - given your deep cynicism for politicians of every political persuasion over the years, and an understanding of the political climate, did you successfully make a fortune from investing in residential BTL investments, weapons manufacturers and bank bonds over the last decade?

If you did focus your investments in those specific areas due to your insight and policy expectations, well done. If you didn't, and are just resentful that you didn't do that and make a killing, it perhaps comes off a bit envious.

If you could not have known with foresight that those were the three areas in which to make a killing, only with hindsight, isn't it just like any industry sector? Every sector has economic risk, political risk, market risk, credit risk, technological obsolescence risk, blah blah blah risk and so on.

So, you can blame Osborne or Brown or Thatcher or politicians back half a century for fueling the idea of personal home ownership, and blame the Chinese for being wealthy and numerous and demanding a piece of prime London real estate.. but that is no different to blaming Google for indiscriminately putting Yellow Pages out of business or blaming Apple for making a colorful iPod to eclipse Sony's Discman. You have to be aware that someone is going to come along and move the market in a way you might not like.

Seems to me you know all about the politicians and their mates. If there are some policies which stop banks getting decimated in a crisis it is because the PM's mate is a banker. If builders do well it is because the Chancellor's mate has two houses. If the media gets less than a raw deal it's because the govt needs them onside. If big pharma or oilers or defence contractors or consumer goods go up in value it's because someone has a non exec directorship lined up, right?

So, why haven't you just invested in all sectors that the politicians are inevitably outrageously favouring, and then you can't lose, so you won't need to be so grumpy?

Well at least he wasn't the one that called you bowelhead!

BananaRepublic

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Just curious - given your deep cynicism for politicians of every political persuasion over the years, and an understanding of the political climate, did you successfully make a fortune from investing in residential BTL investments, weapons manufacturers and bank bonds over the last decade?

I don't even believe they were the main beneficiaries of the past decades apart perhaps for BTL, but as I have explained, for that you should point the finger at Blair rather than Osborne. But then I suspect that what GC really dislikes is privilige, and Osborne is for some reason portrayed as an old style patrician politician, despite the fact that Blair went to a very expensive private school, and has since gone on to fill his pockets with more sheckels than you can shake a big stick at. Blair also increased inequality, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. So much for Osborne being Beelzebub's little helper. Mind you, he still has time to pull a satanic rabbit from his hat, or would that he a dark helmet?

Right, back to your versions of War and Peace and rants.

Oh yes, Bowlhead, not Bowelhead, not sure either is that good a name really. Would that bowl be a delicate porcelain frippery or a clay guzender? I'll assume the former.

racing_blue

This thread is the most sucky ever. It ought to be about becoming a millionaire through investment, not all this political stuff unless it's relevant

http://news.sky.com/story/1422048/frugal-janitor-was-secret-multimillionaire

Glen_Clark

racing_blue wrote: »

It ought to be about becoming a millionaire through investment, not all this political stuff unless it's relevant

Politics is often very relevant to investment.
Here is an example of judging the political climate right;
Duncan Bannatyne made his first £millions by starting care homes at just the right time - when Thatcher was privatising everything.
Here is an example of getting the political climate wrong;
When Thatcher was selling our power and water supplies off cheap, people made a quick profit on the shares. But then they made the mistake of thinking the political climate was the same abroad. A wave of Privatisation Investment funds sprung up to invest in European Privatisations. Most if not all lost heavily, because no other significant country in the world sold their power and water supplies to foreign corporations, or any other public owned assets so cheaply.

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Why do you continually make the same points?

Because you don't appear to understand them

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Blair also increased inequality, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people..

That may be so, but whats it got to do with future investments? - isn't it todays politicians like Osborne who will have most effect on future investments, not past ones like Bliar?

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Oh yes, Bowlhead, not Bowelhead, not sure either is that good a name really.

Is Banana Republic a good name for an unelected monarchy that doesn't grow bananas?