£350K down the swanny

Prism

chucknorris wrote: »

No it isn't! Please read my post above to explain why. I have invested money in more riskier investments, but I'm sorry British Land does not fit that category.

It absolutely does fall into that category - all shares do. Even if the risks are lower you cannot say that its not possible that the share price will drop (you lose some of your money) or the company fails and you lose all of your money. Its a pretty volatile stock which you made a good call on but nowhere close to a lower risk investment

chucknorris

Prism wrote: »

It absolutely does fall into that category - all shares do. Even if the risks are lower you cannot say that its not possible that the share price will drop (you lose some of your money) or the company fails and you lose all of your money. Its a pretty volatile stock which you made a good call on but nowhere close to a lower risk investment

NO it does not! There is very little chance of losing everything with British Land. Who said apart from you, that the share price could not drop? I didn't say that it was a lower risk investment, but it was an appropriate risk investment.

We had recently sold £2m of investment property! We still had at the time another over £3m of investment property to sell, we have sold more since then. So It made perfect sense to invest some of the equity into a REIT, not so much to maintain portfolio diversification, but to head in that direction.

Prism

chucknorris wrote: »

NO it does not! There is very little chance of losing everything with British Land. Who said apart from you, that the share price could not drop? I didn't say that it was a lower risk investment, but it was an appropriate risk investment.

So you agree then thats its possible that you can lose some of your money and however slim any company can fail, Thats all I said. Its risky, like other shares. There is no way of getting a 6% yield without taking some risk.

No need to go boasting about your millions

chucknorris

Prism wrote: »

So you agree then thats its possible that you can lose some of your money and however slim any company can fail, Thats all I said. Its risky, like other shares. There is no way of getting a 6% yield without taking some risk

Of course it is 'riskier' why do you think that I said this:

chucknorris wrote: »

I didn't think that the risk was that significant, and although it was a substantial amount it was less than 8% of our portfolio. Although of course there is always going to be more risk with a single company share than with an index. But British Land holds substantial properties and although the retail sector in particular is facing headwinds, I considered that to have been priced in at the price that I paid. Ditto to a lesser extent with Brexit possibly affecting London office yields.

Isn't it obvious, even to you, that I assessed that risk and accepted it?

itwasntme001

Trading in single shares is looked down upon on this board so not surprising to see the above comments, some of them being quite harsh.


I can understand Chuck's point of view, he took the opportunity by investing in british land at low prices (relative to recent history) and it paid off. With only 8% of his worth invested that too investing using funds which came from real estate as well, i think it was a smart thing to do.


Of course REITs have their own risk vs direct real estate holdings - mainly manager risk. So Chuck obviously saw the guys who run british land smarter than himself. Of course you should not buy single stocks at any price so perhaps Chuck also saw value at recent levels.


I think Chuck has bigger problems - how to spend all the wealth he has accumulated.

EdGasketTheSecond

Chuck must have been lucky with timing on BLND to make profit as they were over 900p in 2015 and 585p today. The trend has been down with some localised rises. On average over that period you would have lost over 33% of your capital and received maybe 20% income in dividends. They are 'safer' than your average share as they are backed by their property portfolio. However similar companies like Capital & Regional have got into difficulty where the NAV of the assets has fallen to the point where banks want to call in the debt so do your homework.

chucknorris

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Trading in single shares is looked down upon on this board so not surprising to see the above comments, some of them being quite harsh.


I can understand Chuck's point of view, he took the opportunity by investing in british land at low prices (relative to recent history) and it paid off. With only 8% of his worth invested that too investing using funds which came from real estate as well, i think it was a smart thing to do.


Of course REITs have their own risk vs direct real estate holdings - mainly manager risk. So Chuck obviously saw the guys who run british land smarter than himself. Of course you should not buy single stocks at any price so perhaps Chuck also saw value at recent levels.


I think Chuck has bigger problems - how to spend all the wealth he has accumulated.

British Land has for many years been a real puzzle to me, I am really wary of single company shares, but to me they have looked such great value. I have twice more than just dipped my toe in the water, by investing about £500k. But my unnatural wariness has caused me to get out early (first time I was in for more than 1 year) when a reasonable profit was available.

I must add that a REIT is a natural share for me to invest in, as we am slowly (but £2m already) moving away from property investment. And as demonstrated I can turn into a trader and take that profit if it presents itself 'no one ever went skint taking a profit' and a single company share does offer the volatility to do that, I have done it twice with British Land, so far £40k capital profit and more than £5k in dividends whilst invested.

chucknorris

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Chuck must have been lucky with timing on BLND to make profit as they were over 900p in 2015 and 585p today. The trend has been down with some localised rises. On average over that period you would have lost over 33% of your capital and received maybe 18% income in dividends.

You make your own luck, at the end of the day, you answer to yourself, but actually I was 'unlucky' both times that I invested because almost immediately the price dropped!

About a couple of years ago I first got in at £6.30 and sold at about £6.70 (I can't remember). I recently got in at £5.30 and sold at about £5.58, but I am much more about the yield than capital gains. Yield drives me not speculation on capital growth, so I am not too uncomfortable in negative equity if I am being rewarded, both times that I was invested I spent time in negative equity, but I was cool with it. But that said, because it is a single company share, I will get out and take a profit if a reasonable capital gain is on offer.

It is very likely that I will invest again, because I like British Land (at the right price).

steampowered

chucknorris wrote: »

my motto is 'nobody ever went skint taking a profit'.

This is a classic example of loss aversion bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion.

What it leads to in terms of investor behaviour is a situation where you are quick to take gains, but slower to realise losses. On average that tends to lead to bigger losses and smaller gains.

I think every investor has that cognitive bias but it is important to realise that it is not rational !

kinger101

capital0ne wrote: »

It's not a lie, because altho' older people are targeted they don't fall for the scam as much as youngsters

https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/12/young-people-are-more-likely-to-be-scammed-than-pensioners-7937830/ :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The metro article from 2018 states Barclays' research shows young people are 5.5 x more likely to be victims of scams than old people.

A similar press release from 2017 states young people are twice as likely to be victims of online fraud.

https://home.barclays/news/2017/05/the-great-british-fraud-fightback/

There are a number of possibilities here;

(a) young people become astoundingly more gullible between the two reporting periods;
(b) the rate for "online fraud" and "scams" are higher
(c) this was Barclays' marketing department trying to get some easy press coverage. The reports are statistically flawed as they were compiled by someone who doesn't know what the data can and cannot tell them.

I can see from looking at the 2017 study is that it reports the number people within each age group who've fallen victim to various forms of cyber crime. It doesn't show per se that people in the 18-24 group are more likely to fall for an individual hacking attempt or online scam. Younger people tend to conduct more aspects of their lives online. So one might expect them to report a higher incidence of cyber crime.

Chefs are more likely to cut their fingers than non-Chefs. It doesn't mean their knife skills are poorer.