How much have you made/lost in Investments since you started (Roughly)

Moneycoach

talexuser wrote: »

I started in the early 90s with Peps and single company Peps, can only remember a couple of years where I didn't put the maximum in. Never bought a tracker, always went for discount houses, never paid an initial charge, before the internet read the newspaper money pages and adviser postal brochures to narrow down funds, then draw up shortlists and compare performances. Always went for "alpha" managers, biggest problem is always when to drop a fund, have to give a year or two for a bad run to turn around in case you miss the possible rally. Personally found dividend paying funds better than growth funds in that both have equal chance of not living up to expectations but at least dividend compounding gives you returns. Probably done everything wrong according to the experts here in terms of diversification by chasing outperformance.
Nevertheless results have been satisfying. Handled my partners and mothers funds with somewhat more conservative choices than some of mine during that time, both of which had significantly less capital than mine to invest in comparison. Now my mum is in a really good care home and her ISA provides an income of ~15k a year, which when adding in all her annuities and pension just about covers her fees.

My advice, you are in for the long term, the first couple of years often can be less than your investment, don't expect positive results every month, but keep an eye on performance and manager changes. When you are older you will appreciate the security.

I appreciate the advice TU.

Moneycoach

Alice_Holt wrote: »

I started in about 1982, investing small monthly amounts from my salary into investment funds to a build a capital sum.

Best return was from Fidelity Special Situations which I bought through a monthly savings plan from 1989 through to about early 2000's. In 1989/91 it was c.£3 a unit. Sold my holding in about 2008/9 when an equivalent unit price was c£33.

I now have a fairly cautious stance (investment trusts, index linked certs, cash ISA's, and high interest current accounts & regular savers) and aim to beat RPI by around 2% a year over a 5 yr period.
So far, so good. (Even after a 25% drop in 2008 (- it rebounded in 2009))

Wow, you have seen some good returns.
£3 pu to £33 pu in 20 years! The compound interest on that is amazing!

Dird

I started investing around Christmas. I'm -1.3% atm. At least my cash is doing well outside the market though

Moneycoach

economic wrote: »

taken opportunities in market dips to buy vanguard LS 100% in my isa over the last year and am up 5% currently (not bad given markets have come off a bit). still have some more to invest but will always buy trackers when market dips to invest. am aiming to be overweight US stocks as medium term should continue to outperform and dollar rally.


will always remain largely in cash (25% of total net worth) as feel conditions in global economy and markets warrant taking a bit of a defensive stance and so helps to keep the powder dry for opportune moments.

I like the strategy of holding back some cash reserves and capitalising there are some bargains to be had. I.e.. undervalued shares or even repossessed property. However, I can't help but think the cash should be working for me and not just sitting there. I would probably opt for some low performing bonds or something to get some return.

Pincher

This is exactly the opposite to the diversification principle.

One BTL house, bought at £170k, sold at £960k.
~£120k in capital gains tax.
The rental income went from £20k to £25k in 19 years.

In 2003, re-mortgaged to £170k, so effectively the original investment was totally taken out.

From 2009, the interest only BOE tracker mortgage only needed £4,000 a year to service, versus the £24k rental income. Roughly, it was generating £15k income for no money down, because of various expenses. The £4,000 was deductible against the rental income.

If you believe Zoopla, the price went up by ~£100k in 2014, which was hilarious, considering no money was invested.

masonic

Moneycoach wrote: »

More likely you're an idiot. With nothing useful to contribute.

My posting history is available for anyone to browse. I invite you to take a look. I think I make an adequate contribution to this forum and will probably continue to do so long after you have moved on.

You may think a post designed to put others on their guard is unhelpful. However, I've seen dozens of new posters register an account and then go on to pepper various threads with posts in order to lose their 'newbie' status and get their post count up and as quickly as possible, so that they are then able to move on to the second phase of their plan, which might involve self-promotion or posting referral links or soliciting PMs from unsuspecting newbies.

It is not uncommon for quite extraordinary claims to be made during this part...

Moneycoach wrote: »

I was advised by someone who has achieved an average return of 12% per annum on their funds over the past 25 years, net of fees.

But past performance is no guide to the future. Oh, wait...

Moneycoach wrote: »

Who says "past performance is not an indication of the future", not me. Past performance IS the only indication of future performance.

I stand corrected! :rotfl:

racing_blue

Moneycoach wrote: »

A 5% average return over 10 years is crap.

Au contraire! The FTSE100 on 19th June 2006 stood at 5626. Ten years later it stands at 6021, an annual return of 0.86% when compounded.

Had it increased by 5% each year it would now be over 9000

masonic

racing_blue wrote: »

Au contraire! The FTSE100 on 19th June 2006 stood at 5626. Ten years later it stands at 6021, an annual return of 0.86% when compounded.

Had it increased by 5% each year it would now be over 9000

That's without including dividends. If you include reinvested dividends, the return was about 4.1% (before expenses). Opt for a broader UK index (FTSE All share) and you'd have seen a return just shy of 5%. Over the same period, the S&P500 delivered a little under 10%, so global investors may well have done somewhat better.

Of course, someone who was invested 100% in the US would have done better than someone who had a balanced global portfolio, but the relative outperformance of the US relative to other developed markets in the past is no indication that this will continue - in fact there are plenty of reasons to think it will not.

racing_blue

Sure. But I'd be wary of extending this argument to suggest that returns of 5% for a private investor are "crap", or even average.

I'm only an armchair enthusiast, but the material I have read* suggest that private investors as a group return around -2% to 0% on average. So I think 5% is good. One of the reasons I'm interested in this thread!

*Edit: for example this for data and views on historic and expected market returns, and this for a list of reasons why individually we are likely to fare worse.

Mr_Costcutter

Dolla wrote: »

I haven't Invested myself, but would like to see how the rest of you have done

I bet you would lol.

I don't think that how much we have made/lost should be your focus. Instead, looking at 'how' large gains were made or 'why' money was lost is of greater consequence. That's my take on the matter anyway.