bobbo

References please? Your own estimates don't count unless they have been published in a scientific journal. You are making it up. Japan is made up of 4 main islands and hundreds of smaller islands. Most of it very remote to Fukushima. Alpine ranges and active volcanoes render much of Japan uninhabitable anyway.

I will have to conceded though that much of Japan is and always has been uninhabitable.

Where did you hear that. Sounds like absolute rubbish to me. Not many people living round Fukushima. Like everywhere else in the world water is generally sourced locally or from mountains so ...?

Japan is shrinking but the current projections are something like 80 million people in 2050. Still more than the uk. Similar country size... Also Japanese throw everything out. Efficient, pretty good at recycling,throw everything out. Small houses, almost everything is disposable.

He could be just making sure investors understand that they need to be more than just wiping their own face. Possible future interest rates are being ignored, stagnant wage growth is being ignored, 18 months of rock bottom inflation being ignored (and even misinterpreted in some parts of this site), benefit caps not yet filtering through to yield. Landlords will only understand an obvious tax increase. With plenty of time for those with any sense to adjust their positions appropriately and hopefully before anything serious happens like a stock market crash.

I remember hearing once that a stock market dip is the most effective way to close the wealth gap between rich and poor.

Ha, yes, please highlight those people!

It depends if you want yield or growth. Shares with low PE multiples are not usually high growth. The higher the multiple the more you are forsaking present income for future value. Dividends aren't everything either.

Interestingly regarding point 1 it is those that can best afford rents who can command a lower rate as landlords rationalise the risk. So with housing benefit a target these forecasts really don't count for much.

A 20% drop would be huge. My opinion is that is what is needed but in reality is unlikely. Put it this way, a 33% drop requires a 50% gain to recover.

To be fare RLA seem to be far more reasonable than the 118 crowd. All this bleating is simply highlighting that the budget moves are pretty much on the mark in targeting innumerate serial tax avoiding chancers.

Maybe Mark hasn't been invited at all and has simply forgotten to forward the invite to the correct person in his organisation. Also I notice they want 100k from 4 people for their crowd fund yet so far they have raised 57k from 45 people. It's tempting to make a minimal contribution just to add to the admin. 100k from 5000 people would surely make it unviable.

While I'm sure there are still a few cowboy lenders round the big boys learnt their lesson during the gfc. I'd be very surprised if hmrc and the lenders walked away with much less than they were owed even in a 30% price collapse. No tears here for people losing their main residence as it was used to secure initial lending.

EC solid gold. A few good suggestions but I'm looking forward to reading the response.

If you can get 3-5% yield while your capital growth beats inflation then you are quids in regardless of volume. That's the point of shares. But, it only makes sense if you deal in thousands rather than hundreds. Even low thousands will pay over time.

Venger, we are on the same page. He should have sought advice. He relies too much on his accountant who is not a financial advisor and is probably as blinkered as Mark regarding HPI. Again, if he had cash lying about shelling out for some decent advice would have done him no harm. Has he ventured into commercial property? If not that is your tell as it is higher yielding although I understand leverage is far less available but the fundamentals are broadly similar to residential.

Yes, I wasn't meaning to imply the bank would necessarily sit him on their knee but rather the options on the table would cause him to review his position. (hopefully with suitable assistance) hence my doubt he maintains his 20% buffer policy. Some consider equity the same as cash, it is not.

But surely if you had that sort of cash you would diversify at some point and probably retain some cash, then when an unexpected tax change or market correction came along you wouldn't need to scream out loud that you are balls deep in debt and could quietly adjust your positions and move on. Although in writing that, it could all be just exaggeration for attention. Property118 clicks, consulting fees from Connie etc.

Venger, while you present a strong argument and I am generally inclined to agree with you, I find it difficult to believe that anyone wouldn't diversify once they have 1 Mil in cash. It really is a point where other options might be appealing. Bonds, foreign currency,who knows.

Additionaly I've never heard of people emigrating to avoid bankruptcy. Maybe to limit the consequences where the individual has overseas business interests but it is not going to work where you leave all your assets within the country where bankruptcy is being threatened. Not sure how his lenders would take it.

I doubt he has over a million in the bank. I understand that after about 100k banks start talking to you directly. At a million you get preferential interest rates and surely would have been pointed towards much more sensible investment strategies than high leverage residential property.

I just love it how he thinks anyone cares. I suspect most of these clowns have enough equity in their own personal assets to pay both the bank and the state. Something else a limited company might have protected them from.

Well yes, as a tenant, I would agree that rents will have to rise to maintain a landlords cashflow. But will they...

If these guys were on a repayment mortgage, rental inflation and reducing interest would negate the cost increase anyway. They have 5 years to adjust. This is preparation for interest rates and possibly looking to shift stock where those affected by benefit changes will be looking at paying less rent.

Yes but if no one had children then all your investments would eventually be worthless as no one would be left to buy the shares, work for the companies or whatever. So while yours are perfectly reasonable choices, the gains you receive from not having children while others do isn't limited to your own savings in terms of child rearing and housing costs.