shares over property,now.

Looking at the situation as of this minute I believe shares are a much better investment than property.
Property is at a all time high, shares are at an all time low.
"Buy low, sell high. You make your profit when you buy, not when you sell". Who said that?!!!!!!
Being a gambler from time to time,especially when it comes to shares. Keeps the blood flowing.Plus it's not as boring as property. Property is boring when you buy correctly, decent tenants etc.
I have my eye on one listing and I'm going to throw every penny I have in the world at it, which is good money. I've borrowed every bit I can scrounge. This stock should at least double in a reasonable time.
No Asy, I won't mention AMP-- ,oops my mistake!
Shares must be the in thing now.

bbruham.
 
Shares v Property

I have to say that I think there are rumblings in the distance about the fact that the share market must be making a turn around - however I think that the risks in shares and property are different and cant really be compared (thus your comment that property is boring). One things that is not boring is creating wealth by either means.

i think it comes down to your risk tolerance, if you put all your eggs in one basket and win, you have done well, if you lose it all, you do poorly. At least with property, over a minimum 10 year period, it is very difficult to lose.
 
AMP? A few brokers were saying it was a great buy a few months ago at $19. Then Rivkin told all his followers (baa-aa-aa-aa)
to buy around $12. Today it hit 7.50...
Should be a really good buy when it hits 50c! :)
 
buying blue-chip stocks is like buying blue-chip properties.

You need to watch the current yield, future growth, fundamentals etc. A lot of people just buy blue chip (shares and prop) and hope.

If you buy just for capital growth you are SPECULATING NOT INVESTING.

A property or share must make financial sense NOW, not just in the one-day, maybe, rose-coloured future.

TheBacon
 
I worked in a law firm in 1991-92 where one of our wealthiest clients liquidated all 16 of her investment properties to plough funds into the stockmarket.

These were dark times for the stockmarket. If you fired a gun in the Australia Square courtyard at lunchtime you'd be lucky to hit anyone (even luckier if you hit a stockbroker). I was told that this client, who was quite elderly, had switched in a similar dramatic fashion (property to shares or vice versa) on about 5 occassions over the last 40 years. I'd bet she's tempted to liquidate her property portfolio again.

I bought a swag of TNT shares at the time (at 50c). Despite being advised "to pin your ears back son" I sold at 55. I think they hit $2.50 within 18 months before they were taken over.

On BBruham's AMP call, can't help thinking there is more bad news out there.

This from AAP:-

"AMP warns profit may fall again
6:32 PM February 26

AMP Ltd has warned more bad news could be on the way after reporting a record $896 million net loss for 2002 and slashing its dividend payouts to shareholders.

The loss - the eighth biggest in Australian corporate history - was in line with expectations and represented a huge nosedive from AMP's $690 million net profit in 2001.

The earnings slump forced AMP to lop six cents off its final dividend to 20 cents a share, partly franked, while the total for the year fell five cents to 46 cents.

AMP's shares plunged 21 cents to a record closing low of $7.71 after earlier hitting $7.45.

Chief executive Andrew Mohl described the 2002 result as "very disappointing" and warned earnings would fall again in 2003 if equity markets continued to slide.

He blamed the massive loss on the poor performance by AMP's troubled United Kingdom Financial Services (UKFS) division and weaker global equity markets, which have sapped AMP's investment earnings.

"We recognise that shareholders have had a rough ride," Mr Mohl said.

"But as much as we would like to change the past, we have to go forward.

"We know the outlook is difficult, that's why we are cutting our cloth to fit ... we are working around the clock to implement the changes we need."

Mr Mohl said many of AMP's problems stemmed from the "real beating" it had taken from its acquisition-driven expansion in the UK.

During 2002, operating margins at UKFS fell 36 per cent to $211 million while new business dropped 21 per cent to $6.8 billion.

Mr Mohl said the outlook for UKFS was "very uncertain", with current market forces "pushing earnings lower".

The volatile conditions on Britain's FTSE 100 index, to which AMP has a major exposure through its equity investments, made it impossible for AMP to give earnings guidance for 2003, he added.

However, AMP had put in place several instruments, including hedging and derivatives, to reduce the impact of further market falls.

Its UK life operations were also exceeding minimum capital requirements and the group did not at this stage need to inject more cash into the business through an equity raising.

AMP tipped more than $1 billion into UKFS last year to shore up its capital position amid regulatory concerns.

Mr Mohl said he did not believe another company would be interested in buying the UKFS division.

"It would be wonderful if we could click our hands and someone walks in with a good price for that business ... it's not going to happen. We have to manage through," he said.

On the chances of a takeover for the entire AMP group, Mr Mohl said he believed it was a target just like any other listed Australian company.

He also refused to rule out further job losses as AMP continued to reduce costs. Last year, AMP's staff numbers fell by 3,465 to 11,403.

AMP's plunge into the red was largely a result of the previously flagged $1.2 billion in writedowns and $344 million in restructuring costs linked to Mr Mohl's major reform program.

Net profit before significant items fell to $495 million from $667 million.

AMP's Australian Financial Services (AFS) division's operating margins also fell nine per cent to $334 million while its new business dropped 11 per cent to $9.4 billion.

The only bright spot was new business for AFS' corporate superannuation unit rose 12 per cent to $2.4 billion.

AMP's Henderson Global Investors also suffered an eight per cent fall in operating margins to $192 million, while assets under management fell 13 per cent to $255.6 billion."

Ajax
 
Fundamentals

Hi All,

Very rarely will I offer direct share commentary, certainly never will I be predictive.

Shares, like property are governed by basic fundamentals and one of the most basic of fundamentals is how a corporation is managed.

One really needs to take a hard look at a corporations balance sheets over a sustained period (5 years) to ascertain if the management decion making process has and is currently sound.

It remains then of major concern when companies such as AMP and CML seem unable to demonstrate any management direction and when their senior management is leaving in droves.

On this basis alone, one might consider that the corporations risk profile is at best unsound.

Regards,

Steve

DISCLAIMER: THIS COMMENTRY IS NOT TO BE VIEWED AS ADVICE, RATHER IT IS MERELY A DEMONSTRATION OF BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. PLEASE REFER TO A LISCENCED ADVISOR FOR ADVICE REGARDING YOUR INVESTMENT SITUATION.
 
Investment Cycle

I think that there is an investment cycle to property and shares.

Oh sure, you can always find an exception but I do believe that in Sydney, especially in the inner City, the property cycle is near the peak.

On the other hand, some shares, eg telsra ($4.17), AMP ($7.62) are near their low, and consequently an excellent long term buy.

The usual disclaimer follows that the writer is an absolute idiot, and hold shares in the above companies having bought Telstra at $7.40 and AMP at $8.02, and consequently doesn't know what he is talking about - but hey, it's an internet forum - opinions (based on realistic assumptions) are cheap.


regards

Tony
 
Re: Investment Cycle

Originally posted by tonyc00
The usual disclaimer follows that the writer is an absolute idiot, and hold shares in the above companies having bought Telstra at $7.40
Hehe, were you the person who bought the shares I sold from my Telstra 1 float?

Thanks mate!

I don't know enough about shares to offer any other comment. It does worry me though that people start to recommend any share "because it is cheap".

A friend bought Telastra a few years ago, and was really gloating about it, as he bought it on his "buy" price of $6- well below the price when he first entered his buy price of $6.50. he still has ti now at just over $4.

That sort of thinking becomes a real gamble- ignoring the fundamentals of the stock.

At least Steve Navra looks at the fundamentals before reacting to the price. That seems to have a lot more promise.
 
Gday

I think that now would be a better time to dump your excess $ into the stockmarket versus the property market. However one thing they have in common is that if you do your research and buy quality you will be rewarded. And another thing: investing in the stockmarket is a lot more mentally taxing. When i read this forum i think that there is a bias against shares, but i rekon the best portfolio is a combo of both property and shares plus some cash. Dont shun the stockmarket just becasue you had a bad experience once or becasue you dont know much about it. Educate yourself just like you did with property investing. You could do alot worse than read any book about or by Warren Buffet. The bloke is a legend.

Pele.
 
JDP if AMP hit 50c I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole!! because the next target would be 40c then 30c ...you get the picture.

For anyone who studies the history of shares and what happens between one boom and the next, the overriding feature is that the leaders are never the same. In the 79-80 period it was the Resource boom and many mining (especially gold) companies boomed. Then in the mid 80's it was the time of the entrepeurners. Remember Bond corp, Bell Resources, Adelaide Steamship, FAI insurance etc.
The latest boom had the internet stocks but also had the banks and just because their fundamentals look good now doesn't equate with a high share price in 10 years time. Remember that in 1989 the prospects of CSR at $7 and Pacific Dunlop at $5 looked fantastic. In 1990 the banks looked like they could go under and the financial experts advised against purchasing them.

I have been playing the share market game for over 20 years and only rarely has purchasing the current blue chips paid off. Currently I am out of the market and with new 3 1/2 year lows is certainly NOT the time to purchase.

Bye
 
Shares are looking cheap, and I too have been keeping an eye on AMP. But to bet the farm on it is too risky for my liking. As with property, to make money out of shares you need to be playing the game. Money management and position sizing are VERY important in keeping you in the game! (imo) Example: you have 200k to invest in shares you would be wise to only risk 2% of your trading capital. So you are limiting your loss to 4k, if you put the entire 200k on the one stock, it only takes a small percentage move to force you out of the trade. Now if you were looking to buy shares in a stock worth $5 and know you’ll sell out at lets say $4.50 (preferably just below a major resistance level) then you can purchase 8000 shares. The next trade would then risk 2% of 196k.
Read some share books, they should cover the subject and or read some websites. After all we are investors not gamblers, arent we?
 
hmmm.

I can't see any shares near their bottom on the market right now - after all their bottom is ZERO.

I've yet to see an investment property's value slide that low.

Blue Chip is a stockbroking term used to make retail (mums & dads) investors feel warm and gooey - look at the Blue Chip list from twenty years ago and that of today - comapnies do not stay Blue Chip for ever.

BIG is not a synonym for SAFE and if there is a war I think that new lows will be discovered.

Shares vs Property - Instead I'll take extensive research of ALL investment opportunities, the use of investment vehicles for appropriate time frames and a sprinkle of common sense thanks :)

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Hi,

The shake out in the insurance industry post HIH and 9/11 has a few years to run. Those left standing will be lean, mean and have less competition.

Anecdotally, my prof. indeminity insurance premium has gone up 5 fold, my excess 10 fold and the policy exclusions have increased this year. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to realise that this rise is slightly above the cost of living increase and even the potential increase in exposure/risk.

So; lean = less than competant corp execs leaving, mean = premiums up dramatically, and less competition is obvious. So long term the insurance industry looks ??????????

What would I know I'm just a bell hop.

Regards, Micahel Croft
 
What about infrastructure? Does anyone on this forum have any knowledge of this new asset class? I have been having a squizz at Macquarie Infrastructure Group - they are a trust which own toll roads in Sydney, Europe and North America. It sounds safer than shares but of course not as much possible growth maybe?

Nat:rolleyes:
 
Natmarie,

I see infrastructure trusts as having great investor-attraction potential because of comparative safety, but lower returns than other investments. They are influenced by population movements, contract lengths & government stability so it's worth closely investigating the types and locations of the infrastructure invested in and the contract terms.

And property trusts are really like buying your own, but without the control or discretion.
 
Thanks Acey,

That's pretty much what I thought. For a shareaphobic investor like me it is probably a good way to diversify in the future. At least no one will run off with the company profits lol.

Nat.
 
I owned AMP(issued free) on listing. Sold for $21.50 a share.
Never taken my eye off them since, also watching CML and Telstra. Sold Telstra after the first float. Never bought into the second float. The whole market is still heading south.
Of course buying shares before the Iraqis cop it, is stupid.
So I'm waiting for the war.

My mate got rich quick on Telstra, bought parcels of them under bodgie names, you were only allowed to buy a certain amount per person. Even named them after the dog,cat and mother in-law. The maximum for each person. Bought tens of thousands.
The government of the day handed over the shares, didn't charge you for the shares for month or two. Sold at the last minute, never paid a penny for them, came away laughing.

bbruham.
,
 
Hi all,

thought i'd make my first time post (please be gentle :p )

An interesting book I read about the sharemarket says not to buy at new low but rather buy when you know the stock in moving in an upward direction.

The thinking behind this is that if the company has hit an all time low it must be for a reason and there is a good chance that it will keep on going down. Unfortunately everyone wants to buy things cheap or at a bargain ( I feel sorry for all the investors who listen to RR's recommendation to buy AMP at $11). I wonder if he includes it in his hit rate calculations :D

Did he tell them to sell? Or is it a good long term investment. The biggest myth I've come across in the sharemarket is holding onto losing trades with the phrase of "Long term investment". I do not understand buying Telstra at $7.50 and still holding it at $4 and hoping it will come back. What is long term? 5, 10, 20 years???? How does anyone know if Telstra will go back to $7 so you can break even in that period. And as well all know $7 today will not be the same in 5 years time. The same with AMP when will it ever hit the lofty heights of $36 again.

Not sure if this helps anyone and if I really know what I'm talking about but hey, you never know

:cool:
 
Hello Aikido,

The way of harmony is a strange handle to adopt and I like it. Been a practitioner my self for 20 years.

Welcome!

Regards, Michael Croft
 
Back
Top