It's official - property beats shares
- Thread starter Fester
- Start date
Obviously, the comparison was based on a direct dolar to dollar comparison of total value.paul_s said:
Any use of leverage would not have been taken into account.
On that basis, I would guess a cash on cash return would have beaten shares, given a 10 year time frame, quite consistently over a long period. Given a shorter time frame, perhaps property would have won 3 times in 4.
I have a exposure to shares through superannuation, however the accountant would like me to diversify and balance annually at least.
However I have resisted because I have yet to meet anyone who can show me that their gains over a decade or two are equal to mine. I know plenty who are soured after 20 years of share investment.
Maybe investors with very large share portfolios do better. If so, why?
However I have resisted because I have yet to meet anyone who can show me that their gains over a decade or two are equal to mine. I know plenty who are soured after 20 years of share investment.
Maybe investors with very large share portfolios do better. If so, why?
WHY? Why do people choose shares over property or property over shares? The truly clever people invest in both. Leverage into property, use the equity growth to purchase shares, both property and shares grow, get another property faster, use equity in BOTH properties to buy more shares, and so it goes. Result? Financial Independence in a much shorter time frame, greater passive income, more assets. Can't argue with that....
Ignoring one or the other because they are too 'risky' just limits your opportunities. Think about it - how many of you laugh behind your hands when friends and family look you dead in the eye and tell you property is too risky? Knowledge = power, or better yet, knowledge = powerful returns!
Ignoring one or the other because they are too 'risky' just limits your opportunities. Think about it - how many of you laugh behind your hands when friends and family look you dead in the eye and tell you property is too risky? Knowledge = power, or better yet, knowledge = powerful returns!
Perhaps more of the same quote would illustrate- though the analogy might be more like a married man who plays around...Mark Laszczuk said:
Kiyosaki has never suggested that one asset class should be used exclusively- the analogy with marriage implied more of the short term vs long term nature of the type of transaction.
Here is a different spin.
I like my investment propertys but they dont really excite me.
The different ASX markets I trade provide a much better alternative to keep me interested, as i do this full time and its amuses me, stress me etc. For me to sit back watching my property investments, id have to go round and mow the grass for free everyday just to keep interested and stop from getting bored.
Plus I am more of a trader then an investor perse.
So what i am trying to say is whatever you do it must correspond to your personality.
I like my investment propertys but they dont really excite me.
The different ASX markets I trade provide a much better alternative to keep me interested, as i do this full time and its amuses me, stress me etc. For me to sit back watching my property investments, id have to go round and mow the grass for free everyday just to keep interested and stop from getting bored.
Plus I am more of a trader then an investor perse.
So what i am trying to say is whatever you do it must correspond to your personality.
superted said:
And your goals.
Some people live to invest.
Others invest to live.
For those who invest to live, 'sitting back watching property investments' sounds ideal, provided that you're imaginative enough to make good use of the extra spare time being financially independent has given you.
Regards, Peter
All depends on whether you want to be excited by investing or by the outcomes of that investing.superted said:
And certainly is influenced by your investment timeframes.
I agree - property is like cricket....long periods of boredom followed by fast exciting action. Normally the excitement is of a negative nature - the most fun periods are the boring bits when you have good tenants paying regularly & no hassles.
With shares, if you trade short time periods it's constantly exciting - but not always fun. It's easily possible for the excitement to overcome the goal of the investment. In long time periods share trading is less interesting than property, with only a six monthly dividend cheque for excitement.
I'd suggest that if the type of investing you choose is primarily influenced by the level of excitement you get from the act of investing that you may be investing for reasons other than profit.
You might be better off focusing on the goals of the investing & get your kicks elsewhere if necessary.
That isn't to say don't do what you enjoy...just to say make sure you understand WHY you are doing what you enjoy & the realistic outcomes you can expect.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
They're not mutually exclusive and an investor who understands both will outperform a single style investor over a full cycle of the investment clock.
I reckon shares are harder than RE though. Management can fail and/or rip off shareholders so if you go to sleep it may be expensive. And if you take the easy way out and buy mutual funds, the fundies will rip you off worse than a PM ever could. [Call of the attack dogs, I'm only talking costs]
The big thing they have in common though is that you MUST be in the right sector. Very rarely do get years like '03 was in RE, where the rising tide floated all the boats. If you're thinking shares today, you should be heavy in commodities and light on retailers and banks. If risk averse, infrastructure and utilities will give good franked returns.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor and only a fool would act on this advice without doing their own research.
Thommo
I reckon shares are harder than RE though. Management can fail and/or rip off shareholders so if you go to sleep it may be expensive. And if you take the easy way out and buy mutual funds, the fundies will rip you off worse than a PM ever could. [Call of the attack dogs, I'm only talking costs]
The big thing they have in common though is that you MUST be in the right sector. Very rarely do get years like '03 was in RE, where the rising tide floated all the boats. If you're thinking shares today, you should be heavy in commodities and light on retailers and banks. If risk averse, infrastructure and utilities will give good franked returns.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor and only a fool would act on this advice without doing their own research.
Thommo
Thommo said:
Hi all,
Like xbenx, I don't contribute as much any more. However I feel it is always appropriate to go over old ground as circumstances change, peoples perspective changes, economic conditions and assumptions change.
As for Thommo's advice(I'm glad you put in the disclaimer), the bit I always add to share investing is to buy what is going up in price, not what is going down, and be prepared to get rid of your losers quickly.
bye
Trouble is Bill, you only know what went up yesterday! If you know what was to go up TOMORROW you wouldn't be talking to us. By all means sell the losers early but I would not use a formula. Why anyone would still be holding AMP today though is beyond belief. [traders do their own thing, they may have bought @ $4]Bill.L said:
Another Bill
Similar threads
