clloyd

It would be dependent on the degree of confidence I had. I see very few people that believe in BTC that think it will be worth less than $1m per coin in the foreseeable future, if I felt so strongly I'd be all in (whether I was borrowing, investing from cash or selling other assets to fund). What confuses me is why they pick $1m or $100k or for that matter $100 ... I don't buy into there being any attributable value to BTC, anything you put in is sheer gambling.

Out of interest, is there a price you feel Bitcoin would be worth selling at? How are you valuing in? Assuming it is not at the value you feel it will be worth in the future why are you not borrowing as much as you can and buying up every bitcoin you possibly could?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/signal-advance-stock-price-surge-elon-musk-tweet-privacy-app-2021-1-1029956384 Bitcoiners missed out on this one! Actually, come to think of it I wouldn't be surprised if many of those that bought were the same sort 'investing' in BTC. Whilst I may kick myself many times over for not having a punt on BTC having been aware of it when it was priced in the hundreds, I still remain convinced it will eventually be back there. Well done for those that made a killing but be mindful investing isn't just about your entry price.

I agree August/Sept 2020 is the top of this frothy market. I've watched the market closely (open mouthed) for the last 12 months. I own, with a small mortgage, but spend more time at my partners house. Mine is on the market with a view to then selling hers and buying one together. The price bracket we would be looking at for a joint purchase is way higher than I ever expected to be looking at yet the houses that have been available in that price bracket that have looked desirable have come on the market and gone in no time. Plenty of properties have stuck but they are blatantly over priced (not just 2020 overpriced but people asking maybe 10 or 15% over what even the current market values are). Mine went on the market (at admittedly 5% over what I thought was achievable!) and there was massive initial interest but even after a price drop (to a price point in line with what others sold for in August) there is now no interest. I'm not too concerned as I don't want the equity cash in the bank at present and not selling mine just stops me being persuaded to throw more money into an over priced market. I think first time buyers or buy to let investors are at the base of most chains and the former are being hindered (rightly) by deposit requirements and the latter only would need to think long and hard about more BTL properties at this time, so house sales will eventually slow down dramatically (if that hasn't already happened). Property prices will not come down quickly, they don't behave like stock markets & like an oil tanker property prices take a while to change direction, yet change I feel they will.

Inheritance tax is not an issue (on face value) so from that aspect it wouldn't matter if the transaction was at below market value. Given that there are health issues there is a possibility that if either parent is being assessed as to whether they can afford care fees then is there an issue of "deliberate deprivation of assets" by selling at under value. Given the relatively small amounts involved and as the plan is for the property to be sold at close to the market value (£103k arguably being that at present) then it would be far from a sure thing for an authority to go to court to win an argument of this nature. However, perhaps if the sale price was closer to £100k (not looking quite so deliberate in bringing them below the thresholds) then you may be on safer ground again. Of course, that may mean some of that money going in care fees ... if they didn't find something else which they would like to spend some money on, such as some nice moving in presents for your new home?!

How very dare they!

Oh well, ebay didn't like me selling 1kg silver bar ... withdrew my listing & demanded proof of id & proof of purchase, but won't accept the copy of the chards invoice I have provided them with!!!! Was hoping to sell to trade to sov's as I have very little gold!

The definition could be pretty far reaching. Basically, anyone in the world with a bank account/investment in a country not their own, could be said to have stashed wealth in an "overseas tax haven". Knowing the Guardian there will plenty of comments about seizing the money and paying of the national debt etc, assuming the UK would have a claim on the whole pot. In reality, even if it is proved how much is there is a much that the UK taxman would morally (let alone legally) have a claim on.

The concerning thing about Hargreaves is that they are primarily execution only discount brokers ... yet they have clearly have certain favourite funds that they steer investors towards. Surely the FSA should insist they be in one camp or the other, an advised service or an execution only service.

There are so many individual factors to take into account with regards to buying V renting, many not financial! Points that for some are minor (pets, ability to redecorate or renovate to your own spec etc) or simply the fact that often spouse are overly emotional about bricks & mortar and not buying may lead to marital issues!! I bought in 2003 & have a 40% LTV mortgage now against the supposed current market value. The mortgage costs me less than a third of the estimated rental value & if I sold to rent & invested the cash I would struggle to bridge that gap (especially as that income would be almost entirely taxable). That said on a £60k house with such low rent, I'd be pretty averse to wanting to buy & certainly wouldn't see it as an investment opportunity. The years rent wouldn't do much more than cover a boiler replacement & in all likelihood at that price point good tenants are going to be difficult to find & even harder to keep.

Same could be said for most things the state get involved in! I would agree with those that say IHT should be scrapped, but as it will continue (& more than likely current thresholds will be eroded by inflation for the foreseeable future) I would say business property relief is an absolute necessity for an economy that wishes to encourage people to start businesses. Baring in mind the nature of this thread & the forum, the fact that rented property is not classed as a business and therefore falls into the Inheritance tax regime I doubt many on here would object to the landlords being chosen as a loser in this instance. .

Not really bizarre at all ... entirely necessary. Imagine how many people would lose jobs when perfectly good businesses were wound up as the new owners had to sell to fund the tax bill. Read up on Business property relief for more information but property letting isn't really considered a business (unless significant services are provided) and neither would a minority stake in a company listed on the main index qualify (however controlling stake would attract 50% relief & minority stakes in AIM listed businesses would usually qualify for 100% relief).

So having decided that I would cash in the few quid I had with III that was spread across several unit trusts (quite small holdings, average of £200) and 5 or 6 direct equities I expected to pay £10 a time to sell the shares and nothing to sell the funds (as there has been no mention that these are now a "real time trade" & they always used to be 1% buy charge no sell charge). How wrong was I? III have taken £10 for selling unit trusts (one holding was just £80) despite no clear information to make it apparent that this was part of the new charging structure. Having been passed from pillar to post I spoke to someone that has told me I will be refunded (will believe it when I see it) but a warning to smaller investors particularly those who want to spread investments between unit trusts as it seems III's big change to charging isn't a £20 p/q fee but a £10 buy and £10 sell charge on these funds ... which will mean you'll struggle to ever make a penny for yourself.

Actual report shows a top 20 of the biggest "offenders". Obviously the US and the UK are no 1 and 2 aren't they? Well no actually neither seem to appear on the list at all! That is in spite of the fact that Poland is on there with a meagre $165 billion. Seems a bit of a none story to me, in fact perhaps given that China and Russia are no 1 & 2, perhaps this is not about off shore tax avoidance but it is a list of countries that have been propping up USA spending via their purchases of "off-their-shore" US T-bills?

No it won't, most IFA's already work on the basis of Client Agreed Remuneration (CAR) whereby the client signs to agree to a specific % of their investment being paid to the adviser to pay for advise. Unit trusts generally paid 3% up front commission and 0.5% annual commission ... can you guess what the common rate of "CAR" is?