Property ISA's

dunstonh

umar1 wrote: »

I did say "25% or whatever", i.e. it's up to you if you want to be more exposed to the property market or not. There isn't a generic right answer IMO.

You can jump off a cliff if you want but it doesnt mean we have to agree with you doing that.

DIY investors are free to invest how they like and free to make their own mistakes and lose their own money. So, if they want to foolishly invest high weightings into illiquid, non-mainstream funds which have a high ratio of failing then that is their choice.

umar1

dunstonh wrote: »

You can jump off a cliff if you want but it doesnt mean we have to agree with you doing that.

DIY investors are free to invest how they like and free to make their own mistakes and lose their own money. So, if they want to foolishly invest high weightings into illiquid, non-mainstream funds which have a high ratio of failing then that is their choice.

All of your points are opinions. Not one fact in there at all.

umar1

Alexland wrote: »

For a sorry tale of how Property Moose investors are being treated read the below link.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5922789/from-propertymoose-to-ukdiversified

My view is that the returns on mainstream liquid investments are sufficient that you shouldn't need to take such extreme risks with your money.

Alex

OK let's see what happens to returns over the next 3 years of TM Home Investor vs the S&P500. Because returns are in the future, not in the past.

Alexland

It's not about which performs better in the short term but about which gives a better long term risk adjusted return.

I would rather invest in a fund tracking a global index such as the FTSE All World than a bucket of 200 rental properties which may be very similar to Property Moose's BTL portfolio of self confessed rubbish.

The past is the best guide we have to the future.

Alex

jimjames

dunstonh wrote: »

DIY investors are free to invest how they like and free to make their own mistakes and lose their own money. So, if they want to foolishly invest high weightings into illiquid, non-mainstream funds which have a high ratio of failing then that is their choice.

umar1 wrote: »

All of your points are opinions. Not one fact in there at all.

That's untrue. Liquidity is a fact, these are not liquid investments and are not mainstream funds. Those are facts that are not in dispute by anyone other than you apparently. It's an opinion that having high weightings in illiquid non mainstream funds is foolish but one that would be shared by many investors.

C_Mababejive

Would you invest in FCPT ?

dunstonh

All of your points are opinions. Not one fact in there at all.

And that is why you shouldnt be investing in things like this. You don't understand them.

Indeed, CP18/27, if implemented, will see more property funds suspend trading more frequently. This will include Multi-asset funds that invest more than 20% of their total assets into property or other illiquid assets (also known as immovables)

OK let's see what happens to returns over the next 3 years of TM Home Investor vs the S&P500. Because returns are in the future, not in the past.

Why would we do that? They are not comparable investments. you wouldnt invest 100% into either.

umar1

Alexland wrote: »

It's not about which performs better in the short term but about which gives a better long term risk adjusted return.

That depends what your investment strategy is. You are clearly someone who buys and holds shares for the long-term.

[QUOTE=I_would_rather_invest_in_a_fund_tracking_a_global_index_such_as_the_FTSE_All_World_than_a_bucket_of_200_rental_properties_which_may_be_very_similar_to_Property_Moose's_BTL_portfolio_of_self_confessed_rubbish.[/QUOTE]

No-one is suggesting that. It's about allocating part of your portfolio into property via a fund rather than via DIY BTL.

[QUOTE=The_past_is_the_best_guide_we_have_to_the_future.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever read anything that proved that?

umar1

dunstonh wrote: »

And that is why you shouldnt be investing in things like this. You don't understand them.

Indeed, CP18/27, if implemented, will see more property funds suspend trading more frequently. This will include Multi-asset funds that invest more than 20% of their total assets into property or other illiquid assets (also known as immovables)



Why would we do that? They are not comparable investments. you wouldnt invest 100% into either.

Not suggesting 100% into either. I was replying to a point someone made about it being extremely risky. Well...the stock market is currently massively overvalued which creates huge risk. But you're all ignoring that minor point.

umar1

jimjames wrote: »

That's untrue. Liquidity is a fact, these are not liquid investments and are not mainstream funds. Those are facts that are not in dispute by anyone other than you apparently. It's an opinion that having high weightings in illiquid non mainstream funds is foolish but one that would be shared by many investors.

"These are not liquid investments" is not a fact - it is a risk.

In terms of what "many investors" do and don't do, that's also an opinion as you have no idea what people do. For instance, many many people do DIY BTL. Which is a very high risk illiquid investment from your point of view.

I really do not understand how strongly you all feel about this. All I said was that there was a fund called "TM Home Investor" that one could could choose to invest say 25% or whatever into.

I think you'll find many investors have more than 25% of their assets in illiquid property investments - that's their preference - they don't like the stock market as they see that as high risk as it crashes massively and unpredictably.

So to slam property funds per se for being illiquid makes no sense.