My investment performance in 2016

fun4everyone

economic wrote: »

this was back in 2014. probably not as many dolalr millionaires now after the pound crashing.

You would be the perfect example of that!

TheTracker

fun4everyone wrote: »

The point your post makes is a valid one, but I read this article the other day which shows being a millionaire in London is a common status to have...

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/05/london-millionaire-capital-world-city-new-york-tokyo

The article ays c400k US dollar millionaires, including prime residence. If you click the tab at the bottom it shows that equates to 2.6% of Londoners (hey, I didn't do the math:)). I wouldn't call that "common", especially for a 33yo!

There are various ONS fiscal data sets out there, hopefully someone can drag one up that says something about 30-35yo Londoners.

economic

TheTracker wrote: »

The article ays c400k US dollar millionaires, including prime residence. If you click the tab at the bottom it shows that equates to 2.6% of Londoners (hey, I didn't do the math:)). I wouldn't call that "common", especially for a 33yo!

There are various ONS fiscal data sets out there, hopefully someone can drag one up that says something about 30-35yo Londoners.

exacty right. you also got to ask if being a millionaire was so common then why do people continue on the corporate rat race? i really doubt most people enjoy the work they do.

fun4everyone

TheTracker wrote: »

The article ays c400k US dollar millionaires, including prime residence. If you click the tab at the bottom it shows that equates to 2.6% of Londoners (hey, I didn't do the math:)). I wouldn't call that "common", especially for a 33yo!

There are various ONS fiscal data sets out there, hopefully someone can drag one up that says something about 30-35yo Londoners.

You didn't qualify you were only talking about 30-35 yr olds in your original post, London really is rolling in money compared to the rest of the UK and world. Of course average wealth will increase as age increases.

economic wrote: »

exacty right. you also got to ask if being a millionaire was so common then why do people continue on the corporate rat race? i really doubt most people enjoy the work they do.

I don't have $1m net worth but if I did I would not want to retire yet, I would still want an income from working or I would have to pick a very small % to draw down from the capital I had invested. Granted I would not work in a job that I hated though.

I think in 2017 retiring with $1m net worth would be pretty nice and easy at 65 but not so nice and easy at 25.

economic

fun4everyone wrote: »

You didn't qualify you were only talking about 30-35 yr olds in your original post, London really is rolling in money compared to the rest of the UK and world. Of course average wealth will increase as age increases.



I don't have $1m net worth but if I did I would not want to retire yet, I would still want an income from working or I would have to pick a very small % to draw down from the capital I had invested. Granted I would not work in a job that I hated though.

I think in 2017 retiring with $1m net worth would be pretty nice and easy at 65 but not so nice and easy at 25.

agree which is why i am looking for something part time and why i asked my question after which most posters decided i was a joke or just bragging.

cashbackproblems

I think posting your age, income and savings/investments/debts etc is the best way to gauge what position you are in which is why i did. Otherwise the whole thing doesnt make sense without knowing someones income level as to whether they can retire etc

guitarman001

jimjames wrote: »

It seems a bit strange that you're "gutted" you lost money 4-5 years ago but have 75% of your investments in risky shares. Surely you'd learn from that you prefer lower risk investments and have 75% VLS and 25% risky or even 100% VLS.

I'm just at a loss as to what to do with it all. It's sitting there getting eroded by inflation every day.

EDIT - a lot of London wealth has been property gains which I don't think people will see from this day onward (or as much as).

guitarman001

ColdIron wrote: »

You've been posting on this board long enough to know the answer to this surely

Perhaps the VLS would be a better home for your shares, you might sleep better if nothing else

Nope - genuinely no idea. Regular savers max out at 2.5-3k for the year. Other accounts have limits and then require 2 DDs per account. There aren't enough accounts / DDs - I'm not buying a place to live just yet but don't want to stomach too big a loss on shares so I'm in a sticky situation regarding what to do with it.

TallGirl

guitarman001 wrote: »

Nope - genuinely no idea. Regular savers max out at 2.5-3k for the year. Other accounts have limits and then require 2 DDs per account. There aren't enough accounts / DDs - I'm not buying a place to live just yet but don't want to stomach too big a loss on shares so I'm in a sticky situation regarding what to do with it.

Premium Bonds?

darkidoe

economic wrote: »

exacty right. you also got to ask if being a millionaire was so common then why do people continue on the corporate rat race? i really doubt most people enjoy the work they do.

With what you have, it is not currently at the most ideal state. I would get rid of that mortgage (liability) as soon as possible and then start working on building up assets.. I am in the camp that takes the opinion that a home should not be considered an asset.

It doesn't matter if your networth is million or not, if you can attain assets that generate an income for you that meets your expenses, you have the choice to quit the rat race. Most people don't have income generating assets and own liabilities and have too high expenses to sustain themselves if they choose to quit, hence they are 'slaves'.

This is truth at every level of income.