Hello,
I know i asked a similar Q before but didnt get the right answers.Houses at best seem to only offer 6-7% returns.
What about investing in bonds and other things.
2 examples from the paper
http://www.assetloanco.com
and first captial securities
offer up to 11%.
What is the deal and what are the risks?
Why dont the securities people just go get a home loan for 7.5% and how could they guarentee these returns, that they are abvoiusly investing in high risk shares to get these type of returns.
And if it was soo good, eg. 11% wouldnt they just invest themseleves, and as the wheel goes round compounding they would become ever so weathly.
Anyone had any dealings with these bonds or what ever they. Are they safe and can they guarentee your money returned in full, or will they just do a runner with my $$$.Asset Loan are a public company, go to their web site and get a copy of their annual report and you can make your own mind up re their stability. They are a short term aset lender, as suggested by their name, with ratesstarting from around 3% per month. They don’t lend at high LVR’s, I think 70% is their max.
Regards
Alistairhas anyone ever invested in one of these and if what was the outcome?
Originally posted by APerry:Asset Loan are a public company, go to their web site and get a copy of their annual report and you can make your own mind up re their stability. They are a short term aset lender, as suggested by their name, with ratesstarting from around 3% per month. They don’t lend at high LVR’s, I think 70% is their max.
Regards
AlistairWestpoint, Emron, Worldcom were public companies too. I like property; it’ still there when you wake up in the morning. If it isn’t, I ring the insurance company.
Not only that, I can buy 100k of property with no money (other equity), can’t do that with shares, bonds etc. Any return on no cash input is an infinity return. That’s hard to beat. I don’t know where the 6-7% return figure comes from.
The whole return figure should be based on your CASH input into the deal.
One more thing; if they are offering 11% return on your CASH which is only good when you compare it to a bank deposit, ask the salesperson how much they have invested in the product they are selling. The answer will be interesting. Ask for their proof if they say they are invested.
As for ‘guaranteed’ security; Westpoint offered guarantees from an empty company.Cheers,
Marc.
[email protected]Originally posted by L.A Aussie:Originally posted by APerry:Asset Loan are a public company, go to their web site and get a copy of their annual report and you can make your own mind up re their stability. They are a short term aset lender, as suggested by their name, with ratesstarting from around 3% per month. They don’t lend at high LVR’s, I think 70% is their max.
Regards
AlistairNot only that, I can buy 100k of property with no money (other equity), can’t do that with shares, bonds etc.
Cheers,
Marc.
[email protected]Do you really believe that?
You can buy shares using equity with no money down. You can even buy 100% shares with no equity using no money down.
This is a widely touted generalisation that is commonly accepted but not true.
I think people who blindly believe that property or shares are best and exclude the other are doing themselves a huge disservice.
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
if you buy a 100k house with no money say it returns 6% after costs, then NO you do need money because the returns dont cover the 7.5% interest rate.
Hi Simon.
Fair enough I suppose. My post was a bit oversimplified, but would you buy $100k of shares without insurance though?
Also, have you ever bought $100k of shares with no money down? I haven’t – I’m not brave enough, but I will do it all day long with property.
The main point of my comparison is the relevent risk/reward factor between the two, based on a more tradition form of purchase structure i.e; standard bank loan (not the more sophisticated strategies such as warrants etc).
Yes, both investment vehicles can be bought with no money down, but only property can be insured against catastophic loss (not capital loss) whereas shares can’t as far as I know.
This is often overlooked by people when comparing the performances of the two. Many people say shares outperform property and vice versa, and I own both vehicles of investment, but prefer the comparative safety of property while still getting excellent returns (sometimes).
I’m afraid I like my sleep too much.
Speaking of buying shares with no money down; would you like to share a few of the strategies for the rest of the gang here?
Cheers,
MarcOriginally posted by vyaw2003:if you buy a 100k house with no money say it returns 6% after costs, then NO you do need money because the returns dont cover the 7.5% interest rate.
True, but if the return was only 6% against a 7.5% interest rate I wouldn’t buy it. My calculations on return take into account the interest rate as part of the expenses. It is the NETT return I am interested in after all the gains are calculated, minus the expenses.
If the property runs at a loss every year it is negatively geared, but that would be deducted from the capital gain to give you the overall return. It could still give me a good return. Some investors willingly take a negative gearing position, knowing that the capital gain will be good in the short term as was the case here in L.A the last 3 or so years.
If it negatively geared and makes a capital loss after one year, I have made a bad investment – I wouldn’t knowingly take that position.Cheers,
Marc.
[email protected]Originally posted by L.A Aussie:Hi Simon.
Property can be insured against catastophic loss (not capital loss)whereas shares can’t as far as I know.shares can be insured, however its very expensive and most will only let u pick from a list of shares. And then the company has to fall by at least 10% i think.
Is it worth it? Unless u think a blue chip is going to drop 10% then no.
Originally posted by Bo_D_:Originally posted by L.A Aussie:Hi Simon.
Property can be insured against catastophic loss (not capital loss)whereas shares can’t as far as I know.shares can be insured, however its very expensive and most will only let u pick from a list of shares. And then the company has to fall by at least 10% i think.
Is it worth it? Unless u think a blue chip is going to drop 10% then no.
I never knew that – is that form of insurance available for property as well?
Back to the main thread; any company that publically advertises a return of 11% guaranteed (property or shares) would raise a red flag in my head and make me wonder; “why aren’t they doing it and saying nothing to anybody?”.
I guess my point to vyaw2003 was you can still get the same return without any of the risk. I assumed he didn’t know he could get better than 7% from property without too much trouble.Cheers,
Marc.
[email protected]Originally posted by L.A Aussie:Hi Simon.
Fair enough I suppose. My post was a bit oversimplified, but would you buy $100k of shares without insurance though?
Also, have you ever bought $100k of shares with no money down? I haven’t – I’m not brave enough, but I will do it all day long with property.
The main point of my comparison is the relevent risk/reward factor between the two, based on a more tradition form of purchase structure i.e; standard bank loan (not the more sophisticated strategies such as warrants etc).
Yes, both investment vehicles can be bought with no money down, but only property can be insured against catastophic loss (not capital loss) whereas shares can’t as far as I know.
This is often overlooked by people when comparing the performances of the two. Many people say shares outperform property and vice versa, and I own both vehicles of investment, but prefer the comparative safety of property while still getting excellent returns (sometimes).
I’m afraid I like my sleep too much.
Speaking of buying shares with no money down; would you like to share a few of the strategies for the rest of the gang here?
Cheers,
MarcI have well over $100K worth of shares and managed funds with no insurances in place.
I have been in shares for 15 years now and have never experienced an event such as HIH or ENRON in any of my companies. Likening those events to all Bluechip shares is like saying you wouldn’t buy proeprty because of the tidal waves in Indonesia or the Earthquake in Newcastle.
Just as an example of a 100% leveraged exposure to shares with 100% capital guarantee look at this page.
http://www.macquarie.com.au/emg/mq/comets/comets_home.htm?source=fsg-adviser
It is no recommendation – just an example to open your eyes to what might be available. It is just one of many sophisticated vehicles open to everyone.
I personally use a 50% LVR Margin Loan to buy and hold shares. As a result of owning CSR I was given RINKER shares at a nominal value of $5. They certainly cost me less than this as the CSR shares recovered the $5 drop pretty fast. The RINKER shares are now worth $18 and were as high as $22.
They cost me no purchase costs, no stamp duty, no maintenance, no tenants, no PM, no neighbours etc etc.
Using my nominal purchase price I am being paid
Lets extrapolate this one share out to similar ratio as an IP.
I bought this “IP” for $50K a few years back. I paid no buying costs or borrowing costs. I pay 8.5% interest on the loan if I had borrowed 100% then this loan would be $50K – $4250pa interest.
I have not spent a single cent on it since.
I have a very liquid market that I can sell this IP into. Today I have an offer to buy this property for $184,700 and can sell it in a matter of minutes for a very low fee. Well under $1000 I think. No negotiating or agent needed. No legal fees or inspections to worry about.
I am earning $7800 pa in “rent” for this property. This “rent” comes with Franking Credits meaning that some company tax has been paid on the rent so I get a tax credit on it.
Now obviously this was just an exercise to prove my point and not all companies behave in this manner.
But nearly all the Blue Chip Shares I have did. CBA floated for about $6 and is now trading in the high $30. Woolworths floated for $2+ and is now around $20 per share.
Tell me which IPs have grown by a factor of ten in about ten years?
The aim of this little exercise was to perhaps change the view that Shares are dangerous gambling as opposed to the “safe as houses” mentality that so many of us have.
I found out whilst I was in the Army that most fear is based on ignorance. Once you have some training, education or experience then confidence builds and much of the fear evaporates. Jumping out of a plane is less terrifying to a qualified parachutist than it is to someone who have never tried it.
So if you fear shares then you may conquer that fear by learning a bit more about how it all works. Once you know a lot then make an informed decision.
But to blindly say shares are bad ie HIH and Enron is naive at best and denies you a lot of opportunities. Some believe that a sharemarket boom follows a property boom (as is the case now) so why halve the amount of booms you can invest in?
All the best,
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
Originally posted by Mortgage Hunter:Originally posted by L.A Aussie:Hi Simon.
Fair enough I suppose. My post was a bit oversimplified, but would you buy $100k of shares without insurance though?
Also, have you ever bought $100k of shares with no money down? I haven’t – I’m not brave enough, but I will do it all day long with property.
The main point of my comparison is the relevent risk/reward factor between the two, based on a more tradition form of purchase structure i.e; standard bank loan (not the more sophisticated strategies such as warrants etc).
Yes, both investment vehicles can be bought with no money down, but only property can be insured against catastophic loss (not capital loss) whereas shares can’t as far as I know.
This is often overlooked by people when comparing the performances of the two. Many people say shares outperform property and vice versa, and I own both vehicles of investment, but prefer the comparative safety of property while still getting excellent returns (sometimes).
I’m afraid I like my sleep too much.
Speaking of buying shares with no money down; would you like to share a few of the strategies for the rest of the gang here?
Cheers,
MarcI have well over $100K worth of shares and managed funds with no insurances in place.
I have been in shares for 15 years now and have never experienced an event such as HIH or ENRON in any of my companies. Likening those events to all Bluechip shares is like saying you wouldn’t buy proeprty because of the tidal waves in Indonesia or the Earthquake in Newcastle.
Just as an example of a 100% leveraged exposure to shares with 100% capital guarantee look at this page.
http://www.macquarie.com.au/emg/mq/comets/comets_home.htm?source=fsg-adviser
It is no recommendation – just an example to open your eyes to what might be available. It is just one of many sophisticated vehicles open to everyone.
I personally use a 50% LVR Margin Loan to buy and hold shares. As a result of owning CSR I was given RINKER shares at a nominal value of $5. They certainly cost me less than this as the CSR shares recovered the $5 drop pretty fast. The RINKER shares are now worth $18 and were as high as $22.
They cost me no purchase costs, no stamp duty, no maintenance, no tenants, no PM, no neighbours etc etc.
Using my nominal purchase price I am being paid
Lets extrapolate this one share out to similar ratio as an IP.
I bought this “IP” for $50K a few years back. I paid no buying costs or borrowing costs. I pay 8.5% interest on the loan if I had borrowed 100% then this loan would be $50K – $4250pa interest.
I have not spent a single cent on it since.
I have a very liquid market that I can sell this IP into. Today I have an offer to buy this property for $184,700 and can sell it in a matter of minutes for a very low fee. Well under $1000 I think. No negotiating or agent needed. No legal fees or inspections to worry about.
I am earning $7800 pa in “rent” for this property. This “rent” comes with Franking Credits meaning that some company tax has been paid on the rent so I get a tax credit on it.
Now obviously this was just an exercise to prove my point and not all companies behave in this manner.
But nearly all the Blue Chip Shares I have did. CBA floated for about $6 and is now trading in the high $30. Woolworths floated for $2+ and is now around $20 per share.
Tell me which IPs have grown by a factor of ten in about ten years?
The aim of this little exercise was to perhaps change the view that Shares are dangerous gambling as opposed to the “safe as houses” mentality that so many of us have.
I found out whilst I was in the Army that most fear is based on ignorance. Once you have some training, education or experience then confidence builds and much of the fear evaporates. Jumping out of a plane is less terrifying to a qualified parachutist than it is to someone who have never tried it.
So if you fear shares then you may conquer that fear by learning a bit more about how it all works. Once you know a lot then make an informed decision.
But to blindly say shares are bad ie HIH and Enron is naive at best and denies you a lot of opportunities. Some believe that a sharemarket boom follows a property boom (as is the case now) so why halve the amount of booms you can invest in?
All the best,
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
Thanks for that Simon,
very informative. Don’t mention your good fortune to the Emron shareholders though. And you supported my arguement – you have over $100k invested with no net. You are braver than I.
I didn’t say shares were bad – I have some also. I said there was more risk/reward with them compared to property, with the rewards from property still good and with less risk which is important to me.
I agree with you; more education (In shares) lessens the fear and improves the decisions and returns. I certainly need more education.
I don’t fear the shares – I fear the guys who ‘run’ the companies. It is a factor I can’t control. I guess I’m a control freak?
Did you use other equity or cash to make up the balance of your 50% LVR Margin Loan to buy your shares?
Do you leverage against the capital growth of the shares you quoted to buy more of them, or do you sell some off to free up the funds to buy more – what is your strategy there?
Do you have a ‘ceiling’ for any growth in your shares before you cash them in or do you look at them as ‘buy and hold’ indefinitely?
What is your philosophy?
I’m enjoying this! It’s good to find someone with some extensive knowledge on the subject. The only people I’ve met so far with knowledge are usually trying to get into my pocket.Cheers,
Marc.
[email protected]Originally posted by L.A Aussie:Quote:Thanks for that Simon,
very informative. Don’t mention your good fortune to the Emron Yo uasked about my strategyshareholders though. And you supported my arguement – you have over $100k invested with no net. You are braver than I.
I didn’t say shares were bad – I have some also. I said there was more risk/reward with them compared to property, with the rewards from property still good and with less risk which is important to me.
I agree with you; more education (In shares) lessens the fear and improves the decisions and returns. I certainly need more education.
I don’t fear the shares – I fear the guys who ‘run’ the companies. It is a factor I can’t control. I guess I’m a control freak?
Did you use other equity or cash to make up the balance of your 50% LVR Margin Loan to buy your shares?
Do you leverage against the capital growth of the shares you quoted to buy more of them, or do you sell some off to free up the funds to buy more – what is your strategy there?
Do you have a ‘ceiling’ for any growth in your shares before you cash them in or do you look at them as ‘buy and hold’ indefinitely?
What is your philosophy?
I’m enjoying this! It’s good to find someone with some extensive knowledge on the subject. The only people I’ve met so far with knowledge are usually trying to get into my pocket.Cheers,
Marc.
[email protected]Marc,
My portfolio has grown over time. I started by buying $5000 worth of WOW when it floated. My wife was terrified – going to the races with $5000 wouldn’t have worried her more. But she is now happily aware of what I do. I may mention I have picked up $50K worth of X and she is happy but doesn’t want detail. Not to paint her as a fool – she is a Dr and finance isn’t a big interest to her.
I have traded in shares and make the following observation.
I thought I was a clever guy who bought NAB at $10 and sold a few months later at $15. Today it is more than double than that and has enjoyed a solid dividend history. It would certainly be worth the interest I spent had I held them instead.
So now I buy and hold – same with property. Is my strategy and it may not suit others at different phases of their development or with different goals.
I don’t need income. My wife and I love what we do and hope to do it for the next 20 years. CG is my objective. Sometimes I think I just enjoy the game and the money is how I score how well I do. Certainly we are comfortable with what we have now.
I can see your argument re risk reward and trusting the abilities of others being outside your comfort zone. What do you think of this statement:
Choosing and managing all your investments leaves your results at the mercy of your ability – all eggs in one basket. A good company run by a senior executive with an incredible track record or a managed fund with a good management record is diversifying away from just your single ability and area of interest.
In general the risk/reward level for shares is higher than property. But this is a generalisation. Buying shares in CBA is possibly a much more stable and secure investment than buying IPs in a small coal town in Western Qld as many folks are doing atm. Or Mt Isa or Broken Hill ……
Sure a share price will change – but this is purely due to them enjoying a very liquid market. Pretend for a moment that every day you get an offer on your IP. Would it make sense that some days will be better than others based on market sentiment at the time?
Aren’t we just taking comfort from the relative ignorance of the daily value of an IP? I paid $100K for my IP – it must be worth a bit more cos the mean value has gone up 7% in the last year so mine is now worth $107K. This figure bears little relationship to what you may actually get if sold well. I am guessing that a window of $95-115K might be more approriate but noone knows until a contract is offered what it is worth.
So what do we have with the ASX? At every minute we know what the offers are. For the person that checks prices daily (and I do so monthly at best) then they will ride a rollercoaster. Wow – up $5000 today I am a share master, oh no – down $5000 I am a fool. We are protected from this in property so it “seems” safer. Makes sense?
You asked after my strategy.
I have a margin account and they have security over my shares and managed funds. All my divvies and distributions are reinvested so the overall value rises by both yield reinvested and capital growth. When feel like buying something that I have researched I do so using the margin loan (or LOC against my portfolio). I can easily spend $50K and make a small impact on my LVR. When it drifts too far from my 50% LVR I make a contribution but this is very rare. This thing is snowballing on it’s own very easily thanks to shares like Rinker etc. I usually buy $100K each year and lately have been doing so using managed funds. But I have my eyes on a few shares right now for my next purchase.
I feel that using a managed funds diversifies decision making – the point I tried to make above. Hope it made sense. A sucessful fund manager buying and selling stocks should complement my choices.
Selling is probably more vital than buying. I think using a ceiling is the worst idea. You end up selling your rising shares and keeping the dogs. Mine are bought for a hold portfolio and chosen for dividend yield first and potential growth second. I am not concerned at making frequent changes. property is good in that buying and selling is a big deal so we don’t chop and change much. But the danger with shares is micromanaging and trading too often – or churning as the brokers call it. Usually the only winner is the broker …
But if I was after growth then I would be using a trailing stop. A stop is a sell order placed below your current price. An example might be that a $1 share has a stop at 90c. So if the price dips to this then the sell is automatically done at or close to 90c. A trailing stop is one that moves. So your 90c stop might be moved up to $1 if the share price moves to $1.10. Then adjusted up again when you need it. So you lock in profits but leave the upside open.
The problem with a stop is that a share may naturally dip before resuming it’s upward path and you get stopped out. ie a share dips to 90c and races to $1.60. But cos you were cautios you got stopped out for a loss while everyone else made 60% profit. Best not to have them too close – it at all. I think they are used more by traders than buy and hold guys like me.
I could go on forever but this isn’t a share forum. My point was just to voice my opinion that to blindly dismiss shares as dangerous may cost you more than you know [blush2]
If you want to chat more then please email me directly. I have an article that I wrote that I can forward to you – it pretty well describes my start in shares.
Cheers,
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
Now you’re talking, Simon!!!
Agree 100% on self education; having little knowledge can be so dangerous.
Pity it’s a property forum…, I’d, and assuming most of us here, like more of this open discussions.
CT
Originally posted by ctaing:Now you’re talking, Simon!!!
Agree 100% on self education; having little knowledge can be so dangerous.
Pity it’s a property forum…, I’d, and assuming most of us here, like more of this open discussions.
CT
Thank you.
I am no expert at this stuff. No doubt I am a few steps ahead of some folks but others are way ahead of me.
I am happy to keep the chat going if anyone wishes. We shouldn’t discuss specific shares and the ones I mentioned are just typical of Blue Chips – dont take any of the share names I mentioned as buying advice – if you do then you are a fool [blush2]
Please tear what I have said to shreds if you like but not with any generalisations mentioning HIH or the like [biggrin]
I really don’t believe that a good share portfolio has any more real risk than a good property one. The risk lies in the structuring of both and the management of both.
We hear of people who have done so well at property but don’t forget they have had the benefit of the biggest boom in history. I would like to be hearing from people who are doing well in property so far this year. My gut tells me that some have but not as many as in the few years previous.
I mentioned earlier that to deny shares or property as a bad investment is to rob yourself of 50% of the boom action each cycle.
Anyone care to discuss this?
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
Hi Simon,
Following your line of discussion, “..to deny shares or property as a bad investment is to rob yourself of 50% of the boom action each cycle.”
I just want to add that some experts (with some vested interests) would say, “it’s time in the market rather than timing the market” that has a long term winning strategy.
I find myself questioning that wisedom. If one take on the life long approach to learn the share or property market; won’t one do better with active stategies to time the market for the entry and exit (especially when the downside has been projected and weighed against holding on to an asset)?
So, I thought one have to be careful what information to take on board.
My 2c worth, anyway.
CT
Originally posted by ctaing:Hi Simon,
Following your line of discussion, “..to deny shares or property as a bad investment is to rob yourself of 50% of the boom action each cycle.”
I just want to add that some experts (with some vested interests) would say, “it’s time in the market rather than timing the market” that has a long term winning strategy.
I find myself questioning that wisedom. If one take on the life long approach to learn the share or property market; won’t one do better with active stategies to time the market for the entry and exit (especially when the downside has been projected and weighed against holding on to an asset)?
So, I thought one have to be careful what information to take on board.
My 2c worth, anyway.
CT
Good points.
Lots of different ways to skin this cat.
I tried trading and looking back tells me it was a mistake for me.
I think that with active trading strategies there is a higher element of risk. I read once that trading moves wealth from 95% of the players to the 5%.
Another saying is that the Stockmarket is an efficient mechanism for transferring wealth from the impatient to the patient.
Both of those statements were true for me – unfortunately. I broker even after the tech bubble boom which is better than most. If I had stopped earlier I would have been well up.
I think that no info is bad. It is up to us to sift through it and choose a course of action. I suspect there are lots of right ones and some wrong ones. Choosing the best isn’t the goal that everyone can aspire to. Choosing an effective one and implementing it well should be within each of our grasps. Time in the market will then see you well ahead of the person who chooses to do nothing.
This applies to any form of investing I think.
Thanks
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
Originally posted by Bo_D_:Originally posted by L.A Aussie:Hi Simon.
Property can be insured against catastophic loss (not capital loss)whereas shares can’t as far as I know.shares can be insured, however its very expensive and most will only let u pick from a list of shares. And then the company has to fall by at least 10% i think.
Is it worth it? Unless u think a blue chip is going to drop 10% then no.
Hello,
I gather from the above quote you are talking about going to a regular insurance company to pay a premium. That insurance company will only turn around and buy a put option on the open market. You can go direct to the same market and buy the put options yourself.
Cheers,
AaronShares – mmmmm. I must say that trying to pick growth stocks is a terrible gamble. A small window in my experience – 3 “growth” stocks that were showing a 98% loss in my commsec position statement a few weeks ago. Scary. I would challenge even the worst Sydney property story to show a 98% loss! I am talking about one stock being 10% owned by Gerry Harvey. Tell me he is not a person that would make you think that a company had a good prospect? One of the other stocks is 9.4% owned by Linfox share investment pl I went for growth stocks after seeing the blue chip performance where aristocrat went from $6 to less than $1. It is now over $15.
You can borrow against your good stocks to buy speculative, and you can have some luck, but overall, I think stocks are scary. My opinion only, and I acknowledge that while also acknowledging the stories of others.[worried]
kjs
Originally posted by kjs:Shares – mmmmm. I must say that trying to pick growth stocks is a terrible gamble. A small window in my experience – 3 “growth” stocks that were showing a 98% loss in my commsec position statement a few weeks ago. Scary. I would challenge even the worst Sydney property story to show a 98% loss! I am talking about one stock being 10% owned by Gerry Harvey. Tell me he is not a person that would make you think that a company had a good prospect? One of the other stocks is 9.4% owned by Linfox share investment pl I went for growth stocks after seeing the blue chip performance where aristocrat went from $6 to less than $1. It is now over $15.
You can borrow against your good stocks to buy speculative, and you can have some luck, but overall, I think stocks are scary. My opinion only, and I acknowledge that while also acknowledging the stories of others.[worried]
kjs
Wow – that certainly hasn’t been the story in my portfolio. I am holding about 7 stocks and only one is lower than my purchase price and that is Telstra.
Your growth stocks must have been on the speculative end of the range.
Simon Macks
Residential and Commercial Finance Broker
[email protected]
0425 228 985Comments may not be relevant to individual circumstances. If you intend making any investment, financial or taxation decision you should consult a professional adviser.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
