Ken Barlow’s Coronation Street home rockets 8,746% in value

worldtraveller

Ken Barlow’s Coronation Street home has risen in value by nearly 8,746 per cent since he moved in, estate agents have said.

But Ken’s profit is way below what EastEnder Ian Beale could earn. His place on Albert Square, East London, was worth £85,043 when he first appeared in 1985, but is now up to £494,231 — a rise of 481 per cent.

Soaring property values around the country mean many of the longest-serving characters in Britain’s favourite soaps are sitting on huge profits should they ‘sell up’.

Ken Barlow is the longest-serving character in the world’s longest-running soap opera and when he first appeared in Coronation Street in 1960 his Weatherfield terrace would have cost just £1,614. Today it would be worth £142,759, a jump of 8,746 per cent.

The figures have been estimated by online estate agents eMoov.co.uk.

The Sun

davomcdave

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/07/29/the-extraordinary-power-of-dividends-chevron-editi.aspx

If you bought shares in Chevron in the late 60s and reinvested the dividends, by 2011 you'd have made 18,000% before you factor in the currency gain from the fall in the pound!

GreatApe

davomcdave wrote: »

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/07/29/the-extraordinary-power-of-dividends-chevron-editi.aspx

If you bought shares in Chevron in the late 60s and reinvested the dividends, by 2011 you'd have made 18,000% before you factor in the currency gain from the fall in the pound!

But you also saved 57 years of rent if you purchased a house in 1960 rather than used the money to buy chevron shares. Your house is also CGT free and your saved rent taxes free.

So the house going up 87x while the shares went up 160x is probably close I would suspect the house actually wins if you reinvested the saved annual rent into more housing

Conrad

One does not typically take out a low rate mortgage on Chevron shares, so for the zillionth time there is no leveraging exposure, which is most pertinent in terms of multiple property ownership.


Furthermore property over the long term has proved a sure fire bet unlike share picking. Who would have guessed Marconi or Lehman's would have gone bust.


BTW - I'd be surprised if the East London house in question was worth only £500k, but I never watch gloom enders so am not sure of it's supposed location. All I can say is I see plenty of flats in the East End for that sort of money.

davomcdave

Conrad wrote: »

One does not typically take out a low rate mortgage on Chevron shares, so for the zillionth time there is no leveraging exposure, which is most pertinent in terms of multiple property ownership.


Furthermore property over the long term has proved a sure fire bet unlike share picking. Who would have guessed Marconi or Lehman's would have gone bust.

Who would have guessed that number 76 would have fallen into a sinkhole and just a day after their insurance expired?

If my Aunt had wheels she'd be a tractor.

There is no leverage given in the OP's example. What if the leverage meant the OP couldn't retain the property? What if, what if, what if?

GreatApe

davomcdave wrote: »

Who would have guessed that number 76 would have fallen into a sinkhole and just a day after their insurance expired?

If my Aunt had wheels she'd be a tractor.

There is no leverage given in the OP's example. What if the leverage meant the OP couldn't retain the property? What if, what if, what if?

How many people have you advised in real life to sell their homes and buy chevron shares as its less risky and more profitable?

Conrad

davomcdave wrote: »

Who would have guessed that number 76 would have fallen into a sinkhole and just a day after their insurance expired?

If my Aunt had wheels she'd be a tractor.

There is no leverage given in the OP's example. What if the leverage meant the OP couldn't retain the property? What if, what if, what if?

Many property investors have shares and packaged investments such as ISAs, so it's not either or, yet anti property types are obsessed with trying to persuade people shares are the way to go.


One reason people choose property apart from the fact they get to live in it, is that easily obtained cheap financing means ones gains are magnified.

Honestly, I have some packaged investments, but they're really just bits of paper, I certainly wouldn't want to rely on them in retirement. In a really serious global depression many of these bits of paper could be worthless, BUT REAL ASSETS LIKE SHELTER WILL REMAIN A NECESSITY.

westernpromise

Conrad wrote: »

BTW - I'd be surprised if the East London house in question was worth only £500k, but I never watch gloom enders so am not sure of it's supposed location. All I can say is I see plenty of flats in the East End for that sort of money.

It appears to be a !!!! van Dyke BBC fantasy in which East Enders are all white and English-speaking and there are pubs still in business. None of this aligns with my own experience of visiting the East End.

If the BBC wanted to broadcast a daring and edgy soap about life in the East End they'd do so with a locally-hired cast and no subtitles.

teddysmum

Ken Barlow's house hasn't done badly then, as when I visited Coronation Street, those houses consisted of brick fronts with doors opening onto false hallways surrounded by lots of scaffolding; not a room in sight.

davomcdave

Conrad wrote: »

Many property investors have shares and packaged investments such as ISAs, so it's not either or, yet anti property types are obsessed with trying to persuade people shares are the way to go.


One reason people choose property apart from the fact they get to live in it, is that easily obtained cheap financing means ones gains are magnified.

Honestly, I have some packaged investments, but they're really just bits of paper, I certainly wouldn't want to rely on them in retirement. In a really serious global depression many of these bits of paper could be worthless, BUT

REAL ASSETS

LIKE SHELTER WILL REMAIN A NECESSITY.

The fact is that Chevron shares returned more than 4x what our fictional friend's house made once you adjust for FX rates and that is in a shorter period of time.

What you fail to realise is that shares in Chevron are just as real an asset as a house. Plus you get diversification.

Chevron had to write off its entire investment in tar sands yet remains a highly profitable company returning a dividend every year for the last century. What's this guy going to make on his investment in

REAL ASSETS

?

http://www.aol.co.uk/money/2013/12/13/pensioner-finally-leaves-cottage-thats-about-to-fall-off-a-cl/