It always restores my faith in humanity and the genoristy of the human spirit when pb discusses house prices and landlords. The property owning and landlord, older generation never fail to come out en masse to produce their arguments of why the state must prevent the market from ever crashing or landords being taxed more, all altruistically for the good of those without housing wealth, of course.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
It isn't high. BTL is shit. I've been saying this for years but even more so now.
Property upkeep is always underestimated for one thing, both routine and as caused by the tenant. Risk of non payment of rent = worry and hassle, CGT liability on sale, CGT liability (disgracefully) takes no account of indexation for inflation (like it used to), penalty stamp duty rates, higher mortgage interest rate and arrangement fees (usually), income tax on any profit made, illiquid (you can't sell part of a house).
WTF people do it rather than simply buying a property REIT is beyond me (Or, alternatively, just buy shares in a property developer or two.).
It works if there is no mortgage. A house is inflation proof, tangible and not likely to disappear in a puff of financial engineering.
Cameron came in post Labour which seemed to have lost touch, largely due to Iraq etc and the GFC. He was seen as a change to that which had come before. Wealth wasn't much of a consideration in that thinking.
In retrospect we would have been better of with a dose of economic Mayism in 2010 rather than the Cameron/Clegg attempt to reboot the Blair years.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
And? In an ideal world all residential property would be treated identically with no tax allowance for mortgages (except for new building of blocks of flats for rent).
I don’t see anything beyond woe is me and many on here would be happy for the basic rate interest relief to be scrapped alongside corporate interest relief because the tax re;life on interest is a market distortion that ideally needs to be removed.
No woe is me, I went into this in full knowledge of the financial return. I'm simply illustrating that landlords are not earning excess returns. I struggle to understand why investing in property is seen as any more inherently bad than holding any other form of capital. Surely equity owners are ripping off customers and workers? Bondholders are ripping off the government? Bank depositors are ripping off bank borrowers?
Because no-one needs a stake in Microsoft or Barclays or to own sovereign debt, whereas people do need a home?
Can you really not see a difference?
They are able to either buy one or rent one then, what is the difference. It is not your god given right to own property unless you are a royal parasite.
Still taking your triple locked state benefits I hope.....
I am indeed getting my entitlement to state pension. I contributed for over 50 years to get the measly amount. Work really hard , don't sponge off the state and you may one day be the same.
I do work hard and am fine financially thanks. I think I'm unlikely to receive much if any of a state pension though, down to a lottery of age.
It always restores my faith in humanity and the genoristy of the human spirit when pb discusses house prices and landlords. The property owning and landlord, older generation never fail to come out en masse to produce their arguments of why the state must prevent the market from ever crashing or landords being taxed more, all altruistically for the good of those without housing wealth, of course.
Whilst the younger PB spongers keep whining rather than go out and earn a living like the older generation had to do and now they ahve to fund the whining lazy younger generation to boot.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
Anyway, there must be a slim chance that the Tories will boot the dismal decline-manager before the next election, meaning that 'next PM' would be a Tory unless Charles decides to insist on a GE (which I would not discount entirely). Does anyone have any small stakes on?
Sunak's no going anywhere but I said similar about Truss ...
Quite a big news story that it looks like Welsh Labour have settled their nurses dispute with a settlement. Is this a problem and more pressure for Sunak’s government? Or not really?
It always restores my faith in humanity and the genoristy of the human spirit when pb discusses house prices and landlords. The property owning and landlord, older generation never fail to come out en masse to produce their arguments of why the state must prevent the market from ever crashing or landords being taxed more, all altruistically for the good of those without housing wealth, of course.
Whilst the younger PB spongers keep whining rather than go out and earn a living like the older generation had to do and now they ahve to fund the whining lazy younger generation to boot.
Hey your the one taking your benefits, we are the ones paying the tax to fund you.
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
You are either a WUM or the most ill-informed poster on PB. It's not even worth engaging with you sadly
Then why did you? 😁 the very fact you did more than answers that question.
The Shares of the parties are very consistent, stable over the last three months, with a small drift down for the Tories. The Labour lead is about 20% - down quite a bit from Truss given highs but largely plateauing at 20%.
Any problems with this psephology of mine so far?
If you are saying there weren’t two polls this week with -3 -4 falls in Labour share, you are a dangerous liar, because it’s factually true. So what exactly is the problem with any poster choosing to flag that polling fact up?
Here’s a smart piece of psephology, those big falls for Labour, quite often regained in next poll by same pollster is actually caused by Labours top of the flag poll support, over about 44 and around 50% being patchy across the country much like green, reform and Libdem also not universal but patchy enclaves, this makes it tricky for pollsters, so Labour flaps about up and down at the very top end rather like Green, Reform and Lib Dem often do in polls too. For Greens or reform to drop from 7 to 4 is almost like 50% collapse, but it’s just their support isn’t all over but localised like I’m suggesting Labours is over a more consistent 44% in general. What happens on Election Day backs up what I’m saying - Labour failing to get 5% swing to take a seat, not so far away they get one on 9% swing.
Admit it Olly - you were sucked by PBs Pantomime Horse hyperbolic assault on me, post after post from him, not actually reading the very consistent and balanced picture what I was actually been posting all thread, all day and all week. Ever since I got here two years ago.
Please don't attack me, I've constantly stuck up for you and complimented how kind I think you are and have been to me. This was unnecessary and disappointing.
WHHHHAAAAATTTTT! The last thread you did little but tear into me? 🥹
Anyway, there must be a slim chance that the Tories will boot the dismal decline-manager before the next election, meaning that 'next PM' would be a Tory unless Charles decides to insist on a GE (which I would not discount entirely). Does anyone have any small stakes on?
Sunak's no going anywhere but I said similar about Truss ...
He's looking a bit shaky even before the May local election results - assuming that's a bloodbath it does not look good.
Anyway, there must be a slim chance that the Tories will boot the dismal decline-manager before the next election, meaning that 'next PM' would be a Tory unless Charles decides to insist on a GE (which I would not discount entirely). Does anyone have any small stakes on?
Sunak's no going anywhere but I said similar about Truss ...
He's looking a bit shaky even before the May local election results - assuming that's a bloodbath it does not look good.
Given the Tories got only 28% in the 2019 local elections anyway it is unlikely to be a bloodbath, that is not far from the current Tory voteshare.
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
You are either a WUM or the most ill-informed poster on PB. It's not even worth engaging with you sadly
Then why did you? 😁 the very fact you did more than answers that question.
The Shares of the parties are very consistent, stable over the last three months, with a small drift down for the Tories. The Labour lead is about 20% - down quite a bit from Truss given highs but largely plateauing at 20%.
Any problems with this psephology of mine so far?
If you are saying there weren’t two polls this week with -3 -4 falls in Labour share, you are a dangerous liar, because it’s factually true. So what exactly is the problem with any poster choosing to flag that polling fact up?
Here’s a smart piece of psephology, those big falls for Labour, quite often regained in next poll by same pollster is actually caused by Labours top of the flag poll support, over about 44 and around 50% being patchy across the country much like green, reform and Libdem also not universal but patchy enclaves, this makes it tricky for pollsters, so Labour flaps about up and down at the very top end rather like Green, Reform and Lib Dem often do in polls too. For Greens or reform to drop from 7 to 4 is almost like 50% collapse, but it’s just their support isn’t all over but localised like I’m suggesting Labours is over a more consistent 44% in general. What happens on Election Day backs up what I’m saying - Labour failing to get 5% swing to take a seat, not so far away they get one on 9% swing.
Admit it Olly - you were sucked by PBs Pantomime Horse hyperbolic assault on me, post after post from him, not actually reading the very consistent and balanced picture what I was actually been posting all thread, all day and all week. Ever since I got here two years ago.
Please don't attack me, I've constantly stuck up for you and complimented how kind I think you are and have been to me. This was unnecessary and disappointing.
WHHHHAAAAATTTTT! The last thread you did little but tear into me? 🥹
PS what do you make of my theory Labours top end % is patchy across country constituency to constituency hence pollsters cut or paste lumps of it from poll to poll?
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
It isn't high. BTL is shit. I've been saying this for years but even more so now.
Property upkeep is always underestimated for one thing, both routine and as caused by the tenant. Risk of non payment of rent = worry and hassle, CGT liability on sale, CGT liability (disgracefully) takes no account of indexation for inflation (like it used to), penalty stamp duty rates, higher mortgage interest rate and arrangement fees (usually), income tax on any profit made, illiquid (you can't sell part of a house).
WTF people do it rather than simply buying a property REIT is beyond me (Or, alternatively, just buy shares in a property developer or two.).
It works if there is no mortgage. A house is inflation proof, tangible and not likely to disappear in a puff of financial engineering.
Even worse if there is no mortgage: loss of opportunity cost on your own money that you need to use instead and no mortgage interest to offset against rental income. It is only inflation-proof if it goes up in value. No different to a REIT or property shares in this regard. Tangible, I'll give you that.
I do understand what you're saying but...
I think you're a little more aware of the financial system than most. I know a few who have purchased BTLs outright. They know what they don't understand and financial products are beyond them. So.. houses are simply an acceptable store of value that provide a small return.
I don't like the commoditisation of needs but in their place, 60+ & small pension pots I'm not sure of the alternative.
WHHHHAAAAATTTTT! The last thread you did little but tear into me? 🥹
I had a go at your ridiculous comments on polling, where you said the polls showed Labour falling when they haven't moved. Nothing against you personally at all, I like you and hope you continue to post.
Just noticed the FTSE peeped over 7900 earlier. Very odd recession, this one.
I'm not surprised FTSE is up. Companies have lots of money. QE ended up in their accounts in the main. Shares are bought and traded by people who have lots of money and aren't effected by the cost of living.
Everybody seems to have swallowed the line that the shareholder value is the thing.
But something at some point has gone wrong, and the system is now extracting value and concentrating it into fewer and and fewer, largely non-productive entities.
The endless pyramid of private equity investment flips destroying sound but unexciting businesses by over-leveraging them is one obvious symptom of the systemic problems. But I'm not sure how they can be solved, even at the nation state level
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Well, ok, I just grabbed an example as a reaction to CHB's admission of a 30% loss, but it could be argued that small investors with low capacity for loss shouldn't be investing outside of FTSE 100.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
Also the numbers are not in your favour. That landlords are still buying and crowding out first time buyers even when it is uneconomic for the landlords is actually a big part of the problem.
Firstly it drives up prices beyond fair value for buyers. Secondly landlords with less resources than you, struggle with making it work and cut corners on maintenance or meeting legal requirements to stay afloat.
We need both higher taxation on multiple homeowners but also much better financial education so people don't buy extra houses because they have excess wealth that they do not understand what else they could do with.
Ha ha I have plenty of understanding about what I can do with it. I bought the flat primarily to help house a vulnerable refugee family, it felt like a tangible way in which we could help some people in desperate need. In addition it felt like a moderately inflation proof asset that was likely to have less price volatility than equities. The price might fall but I don't think property in our area is especially overvalued, there is plenty of demand and limited supply. It would also give us flexibility to house family members, grown up children or aged parents, in the future. It continues to feel like a reasonable investment.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
“happily”?
You need to get out more.
I think the picture is mixed. There are many who feel trapped in often substandard rented accommodation who would love to buy but can't afford it and resent paying rent. Then there are those who find private rents too expensive and would love to have the option of more affordable social housing. And there are those who are very happy to rent privately, perhaps because they aren't yet settled in their careers or location and want the flexibility of renting. Too often on here people assume that every private renter is in the first group (typically the wealthiest group, of course). If you try to drive every private landlord out of business you will hurt the other two groups, especially if you don't create more social housing to make up for it. The failure to build social housing has been the key housing market failure since the 1980s. It stemmed originally from Thatcher's view that council houses created Labour voters. But the governments that followed have also failed on this front - the biggest failure of the 1997-2010 Labour government IMHO.
Groups 1 and 2 are huge though and I'm sure if you gave group 3 the opportunity for social rent or forced private landlords to compete with social rent prices they'd be happy with that.
Trying to buck the market with price controls is just going to lead to lower supply long term. The long term answer to moving prices in a sustainable fashion is always by shaping supply and demand.
That's the point of the reforms, WillG, to reduce the number of private rental properties available and increase the number of owner occupiers as well as funnel money for building of new property for social rent. It's an intended consequence.
What about Vicars or boarding school teachers or army officers on base for example who might live in accommodation provided with their job but own one property they rent out but don't live in?
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
It isn't high. BTL is shit. I've been saying this for years but even more so now.
Property upkeep is always underestimated for one thing, both routine and as caused by the tenant. Risk of non payment of rent = worry and hassle, CGT liability on sale, CGT liability (disgracefully) takes no account of indexation for inflation (like it used to), penalty stamp duty rates, higher mortgage interest rate and arrangement fees (usually), income tax on any profit made, illiquid (you can't sell part of a house).
WTF people do it rather than simply buying a property REIT is beyond me (Or, alternatively, just buy shares in a property developer or two.).
It works if there is no mortgage. A house is inflation proof, tangible and not likely to disappear in a puff of financial engineering.
Just noticed the FTSE peeped over 7900 earlier. Very odd recession, this one.
Shares have done well since start of year, long may it continue.
It won’t. It’s definitely going to crash. All that printed money inflated both house prices and the stock market. It ripe for correction.
Hmmm you could be right but, no, I'm not convinced.
I expect we will have a period of house price stagnation, maybe modest falls, certainly real-term falls but the stock market is not ripe for correction imo.
Worth remembering that during the house price falls of 1989 to 1996 the FTSE100 doubled.
WHHHHAAAAATTTTT! The last thread you did little but tear into me? 🥹
I had a go at your ridiculous comments on polling, where you said the polls showed Labour falling when they haven't moved. Nothing against you personally at all, I like you and hope you continue to post.
But factually they did fall - 4 and -3 in two polls. And I came up with a decent theory why - Patchy Theory.
I’m not disputing they have a solid 44% in polling. The lumpy falls and bounces come mostly above that, as pollsters struggle with the lumpiness of all parties votes.
I also said the You gov dropping Tories to 24 looks a significant bad move as they been consistent 26.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
It always restores my faith in humanity and the genoristy of the human spirit when pb discusses house prices and landlords. The property owning and landlord, older generation never fail to come out en masse to produce their arguments of why the state must prevent the market from ever crashing or landords being taxed more, all altruistically for the good of those without housing wealth, of course.
Whilst the younger PB spongers keep whining rather than go out and earn a living like the older generation had to do and now they ahve to fund the whining lazy younger generation to boot.
Hey your the one taking your benefits, we are the ones paying the tax to fund you.
My arse, I bet I am paying a shedload more than you are paying in tax.
Anyway, there must be a slim chance that the Tories will boot the dismal decline-manager before the next election, meaning that 'next PM' would be a Tory unless Charles decides to insist on a GE (which I would not discount entirely). Does anyone have any small stakes on?
Sunak's no going anywhere but I said similar about Truss ...
He's looking a bit shaky even before the May local election results - assuming that's a bloodbath it does not look good.
Given the Tories got only 28% in the 2019 local elections anyway it is unlikely to be a bloodbath, that is not far from the current Tory voteshare.
It's true that if there's not much blood left in the body it will stop bleeding soon, Huyfd.
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Well, ok, I just grabbed an example as a reaction to CHB's admission of a 30% loss, but it could be argued that small investors with low capacity for loss shouldn't be investing outside of FTSE 100.
Such investors should be in a global tracker, including some bonds, rather than just the ftse100 which is a small and unbalanced part of the market.
As I have been saying on here for months it’s free money if you like in on her at next PM as I have
There is zero chance of Tory MPs passing a VONC in Sunak and making Truss PM again. She didn't even top the ballot of Tory MPs last summer even before she crashed the economy and Tory poll ratings.
She is just seeking to make money on the lecture circuit and start or join a libertarian, slash the state think tank here and in the US
For someone as deeply enmeshed in Tory politics as you are it is remarkable you fail to see her masterplan.
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Well, ok, I just grabbed an example as a reaction to CHB's admission of a 30% loss, but it could be argued that small investors with low capacity for loss shouldn't be investing outside of FTSE 100.
Such investors should be in a global tracker, including some bonds, rather than just the ftse100 which is a small and unbalanced part of the market.
Sure, I'd agree. As long as it is a ETF. Some track unit trusts are highly charged.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
There would have been a few aristocrats and royals at Winchester, as well as children of the super rich. So Rishi would have been a relative pauper as son of a GP and pharmacist.
Though as you say if you were very academic or good at sport or popular with girls and your social group that would have been less important
Anyway, there must be a slim chance that the Tories will boot the dismal decline-manager before the next election, meaning that 'next PM' would be a Tory unless Charles decides to insist on a GE (which I would not discount entirely). Does anyone have any small stakes on?
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
And? In an ideal world all residential property would be treated identically with no tax allowance for mortgages (except for new building of blocks of flats for rent).
I don’t see anything beyond woe is me and many on here would be happy for the basic rate interest relief to be scrapped alongside corporate interest relief because the tax re;life on interest is a market distortion that ideally needs to be removed.
No woe is me, I went into this in full knowledge of the financial return. I'm simply illustrating that landlords are not earning excess returns. I struggle to understand why investing in property is seen as any more inherently bad than holding any other form of capital. Surely equity owners are ripping off customers and workers? Bondholders are ripping off the government? Bank depositors are ripping off bank borrowers?
But people can't live in shares, OLB.
Prices are high because demand outstrips supply and because replacement costs are high. If a landlord buys a house from an owner occupier and rents it out neither the supply nor demand for houses have gone down. If the landlord had an advantage in obtaining financing then I would understand the crowding out argument but I don't think that's the case anymore. The government has rightly made BTL much less attractive. The solution to the housing crisis is to build more houses and especially social housing.
Which party do British voters associate the most with...? (Lab | Con)
Standing by the British worker (50% | 13%) Spending for the NHS (49% | 16%) Lower taxes (40% | 17%) High amounts of spending in general (31% | 28%) The free market (19% | 24%)
The issue of Labour spending too much seems to have been neutralised
There seems to be an idea that Sunak will be a good PM.
His only talent seems to have been giving away free money, where else has he demonstrated any other genuine abilities?
I wanted him because he was not Johnson and not Truss. That's it.
What, to you, constitutes “a good PM” and what do you think Starmer will do that will make him a “good PM” as opposed to Sunak?
I think Blair was the best PM we've had in recent memory so since Starmer is closer to him than Sunak.
Blair could, and should have been. His legacy is Iraq, and for that alone he could be categorised as a failed Prime Minister. If Starmer makes the cut, let's hope he stays out of unnecessary wars.
Is it? Iraq now has an elected government and Saddam is no more
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
And? In an ideal world all residential property would be treated identically with no tax allowance for mortgages (except for new building of blocks of flats for rent).
I don’t see anything beyond woe is me and many on here would be happy for the basic rate interest relief to be scrapped alongside corporate interest relief because the tax re;life on interest is a market distortion that ideally needs to be removed.
No woe is me, I went into this in full knowledge of the financial return. I'm simply illustrating that landlords are not earning excess returns. I struggle to understand why investing in property is seen as any more inherently bad than holding any other form of capital. Surely equity owners are ripping off customers and workers? Bondholders are ripping off the government? Bank depositors are ripping off bank borrowers?
Estate agents are reporting landlord selling up in numbers - since the rise in interest rates. When we are left with the choice of buying a house or renting from the state then folk will soon change their tune about the private rental sector.
Not helping first time buyers much either, higher borrowing costs saw the number of first time buyers fall last year
Anyway, there must be a slim chance that the Tories will boot the dismal decline-manager before the next election, meaning that 'next PM' would be a Tory unless Charles decides to insist on a GE (which I would not discount entirely). Does anyone have any small stakes on?
Anyway, there must be a slim chance that the Tories will boot the dismal decline-manager before the next election, meaning that 'next PM' would be a Tory unless Charles decides to insist on a GE (which I would not discount entirely). Does anyone have any small stakes on?
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
And? In an ideal world all residential property would be treated identically with no tax allowance for mortgages (except for new building of blocks of flats for rent).
I don’t see anything beyond woe is me and many on here would be happy for the basic rate interest relief to be scrapped alongside corporate interest relief because the tax re;life on interest is a market distortion that ideally needs to be removed.
No woe is me, I went into this in full knowledge of the financial return. I'm simply illustrating that landlords are not earning excess returns. I struggle to understand why investing in property is seen as any more inherently bad than holding any other form of capital. Surely equity owners are ripping off customers and workers? Bondholders are ripping off the government? Bank depositors are ripping off bank borrowers?
Estate agents are reporting landlord selling up in numbers - since the rise in interest rates. When we are left with the choice of buying a house or renting from the state then folk will soon change their tune about the private rental sector.
Not helping first time buyers much either, higher borrowing costs saw the number of first time buyers fall last year
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Indeed, the FTSE250 went down substantially.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Indeed, the FTSE250 went down substantially.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
Are you allowing for the divis when you mention the 700 thing?
The government disagrees with UK Athletics’ stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds. It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category, & will issue a statement saying so
Mm, that's interesting - UKG(London) policy, as understood generally, has been a major issue in the Scottish debates (because it's not a reserved matter). But I wonder if we will see a test case. Who will pay UKA's legal costs? Not the Gmt.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
And? In an ideal world all residential property would be treated identically with no tax allowance for mortgages (except for new building of blocks of flats for rent).
I don’t see anything beyond woe is me and many on here would be happy for the basic rate interest relief to be scrapped alongside corporate interest relief because the tax re;life on interest is a market distortion that ideally needs to be removed.
No woe is me, I went into this in full knowledge of the financial return. I'm simply illustrating that landlords are not earning excess returns. I struggle to understand why investing in property is seen as any more inherently bad than holding any other form of capital. Surely equity owners are ripping off customers and workers? Bondholders are ripping off the government? Bank depositors are ripping off bank borrowers?
Estate agents are reporting landlord selling up in numbers - since the rise in interest rates. When we are left with the choice of buying a house or renting from the state then folk will soon change their tune about the private rental sector.
Not helping first time buyers much either, higher borrowing costs saw the number of first time buyers fall last year
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
And? In an ideal world all residential property would be treated identically with no tax allowance for mortgages (except for new building of blocks of flats for rent).
I don’t see anything beyond woe is me and many on here would be happy for the basic rate interest relief to be scrapped alongside corporate interest relief because the tax re;life on interest is a market distortion that ideally needs to be removed.
No woe is me, I went into this in full knowledge of the financial return. I'm simply illustrating that landlords are not earning excess returns. I struggle to understand why investing in property is seen as any more inherently bad than holding any other form of capital. Surely equity owners are ripping off customers and workers? Bondholders are ripping off the government? Bank depositors are ripping off bank borrowers?
Estate agents are reporting landlord selling up in numbers - since the rise in interest rates. When we are left with the choice of buying a house or renting from the state then folk will soon change their tune about the private rental sector.
Not helping first time buyers much either, higher borrowing costs saw the number of first time buyers fall last year
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Indeed, the FTSE250 went down substantially.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
Are you allowing for the divis when you mention the 700 thing?
No, and that is a valid point. Perhaps 350 points rather than 700.
Makes me think the FTSE100 is rather too toppy. I wouldn't buy mining or fossil fuel shares at current prices.
Which party do British voters associate the most with...? (Lab | Con)
Standing by the British worker (50% | 13%) Spending for the NHS (49% | 16%) Lower taxes (40% | 17%) High amounts of spending in general (31% | 28%) The free market (19% | 24%)
The issue of Labour spending too much seems to have been neutralised
According to this Labour are more associated with both lower taxes and higher spending than the Tories. Which I suppose is the result of not being in power for a bit.
To fail to get that double crown while borrowing £175bn a year is quite an achievement.
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Indeed, the FTSE250 went down substantially.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
Are you allowing for the divis when you mention the 700 thing?
No, and that is a valid point. Perhaps 350 points rather than 700.
Makes me think the FTSE100 is rather too toppy. I wouldn't buy mining or fossil fuel shares at current prices.
I agree and have been taking a few profits, but I do tend to be a bit cautious. Generally my investment style is buy-and-hold.
There seems to be an idea that Sunak will be a good PM.
His only talent seems to have been giving away free money, where else has he demonstrated any other genuine abilities?
I wanted him because he was not Johnson and not Truss. That's it.
What, to you, constitutes “a good PM” and what do you think Starmer will do that will make him a “good PM” as opposed to Sunak?
I think Blair was the best PM we've had in recent memory so since Starmer is closer to him than Sunak.
Blair could, and should have been. His legacy is Iraq, and for that alone he could be categorised as a failed Prime Minister. If Starmer makes the cut, let's hope he stays out of unnecessary wars.
Is it? Iraq now has an elected government and Saddam is no more
There was no legitimacy for regime change and the carnage that ensued after the invasion is not a badge of honour.for Blair. I have a different view on Afghanistan.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
And? In an ideal world all residential property would be treated identically with no tax allowance for mortgages (except for new building of blocks of flats for rent).
I don’t see anything beyond woe is me and many on here would be happy for the basic rate interest relief to be scrapped alongside corporate interest relief because the tax re;life on interest is a market distortion that ideally needs to be removed.
No woe is me, I went into this in full knowledge of the financial return. I'm simply illustrating that landlords are not earning excess returns. I struggle to understand why investing in property is seen as any more inherently bad than holding any other form of capital. Surely equity owners are ripping off customers and workers? Bondholders are ripping off the government? Bank depositors are ripping off bank borrowers?
Estate agents are reporting landlord selling up in numbers - since the rise in interest rates. When we are left with the choice of buying a house or renting from the state then folk will soon change their tune about the private rental sector.
Not helping first time buyers much either, higher borrowing costs saw the number of first time buyers fall last year
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Sunak has made various statements 'Of course I don't know any working class people!', 'We had to re-route funding as it was all going to the urban poor!' that have sounded (to me) deliberately supercillious, and aimed at establishing his credentials as an 'Osborne' type when perhaps he didn't really believe that he was. My amateur psychology attempt put this down to formative experiences at school - but of course that's a wild guess. It's interesting what you say about the atmosphere at Winchester and that figures, in a different way.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester educated Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits their more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Indeed, the FTSE250 went down substantially.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
Are you allowing for the divis when you mention the 700 thing?
No, and that is a valid point. Perhaps 350 points rather than 700.
Makes me think the FTSE100 is rather too toppy. I wouldn't buy mining or fossil fuel shares at current prices.
I agree and have been taking a few profits, but I do tend to be a bit cautious. Generally my investment style is buy-and-hold.
Yes, I try not to over-trade, though do adjust holdings to rebalance from time to time. Most of my shares are buy and hold.
I think if holding 20 or so fairly evenly balanced shareholdings, across most sectors then it pretty much is a self made index tracker.
There seems to be an idea that Sunak will be a good PM.
His only talent seems to have been giving away free money, where else has he demonstrated any other genuine abilities?
I wanted him because he was not Johnson and not Truss. That's it.
What, to you, constitutes “a good PM” and what do you think Starmer will do that will make him a “good PM” as opposed to Sunak?
I think Blair was the best PM we've had in recent memory so since Starmer is closer to him than Sunak.
Blair could, and should have been. His legacy is Iraq, and for that alone he could be categorised as a failed Prime Minister. If Starmer makes the cut, let's hope he stays out of unnecessary wars.
Is it? Iraq now has an elected government and Saddam is no more
There was no legitimacy for regime change and the carnage that ensued after the invasion is not a badge of honour.for Blair. I have a different view on Afghanistan.
Iraq has ironically turned out better than Afghanistan. The latter has just seen the Taliban return and Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan anyway, not Afghanistan
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits there more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
Winchester always seemed a bit more balanced across the political divide so for every Willie Whitelaw, Geoffrey Howe there was a Stafford Cripps or Gaitskell. Even just on recent Wykemist Tories it’s quite a range from Marcus Fysh (really don’t understand how that happened - classic case of being so clever he’s stupid), Whittingdale, Sunak, Chalk, to Boles on the “left”.
Just noticed the FTSE peeped over 7900 earlier. Very odd recession, this one.
Shares have done well since start of year, long may it continue.
It won’t. It’s definitely going to crash. All that printed money inflated both house prices and the stock market. It ripe for correction.
Hmmm you could be right but, no, I'm not convinced.
I expect we will have a period of house price stagnation, maybe modest falls, certainly real-term falls but the stock market is not ripe for correction imo.
Worth remembering that during the house price falls of 1989 to 1996 the FTSE100 doubled.
The link between the two is tenuous.
I didn’t expect everyone to agree with me the stock market to crash. And as Bolshevik Ben never agrees with me, no change there then.
But.
Why? Trying to keep gilts and interest rates down has become doom loop economics, low interest rates creates debt, QE creates inflation - instead of that defunct system the Markets now want an era of 2-4% interest rates and higher gilt markets than they have been for much of this century as a fair return on their investment in a country maxxed out on tax take and borrowing. So We enter a new era of payback for the last era of cheap credit leading to debt, where every bout of money-printing created an inflationary bubble ready to explode, the housing market and stock exchange are inflated by that printed money.
How? The stock market high in part on the printed money. Much of this printed inflationary money was invested in stocks. Although different asset classes are affected differently by it, QE increased demand for bonds and created money to be invested in stocks with idea to hedge the trade and lock in profit. But the hedge might not always be perfect if prices go into any correction, you may have to bail out and far worse if you were greedy and didn’t hedge…
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits there more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
Winchester always seemed a bit more balanced across the political divide so for every Willie Whitelaw, Geoffrey Howe there was a Stafford Cripps or Gaitskell. Even just on recent Wykemist Tories it’s quite a range from Marcus Fysh (really don’t understand how that happened - classic case of being so clever he’s stupid), Whittingdale, Sunak, Chalk, to Boles on the “left”.
Indeed, albeit Nick Clegg went to Westminster.
In the 19th century Eton produced Gladstone and Harrow Palmerston in the 18th century but since nearly all their senior politicians have been Tories
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
There’s certainly no money left in BTL.
That’s possibly a good thing, albeit as landlords are exiting the market we are seeing rent spikes which don’t help either.
There is money in BTL, but nowhere near as much as there used to be.
For a start, that rental stream: that'll rise with inflation, while those payments to the bank won't. So next year, your mortgage will be the same, but the market rent will have increased 2-3% (maybe more).
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Indeed, the FTSE250 went down substantially.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
Are you allowing for the divis when you mention the 700 thing?
No, and that is a valid point. Perhaps 350 points rather than 700.
Makes me think the FTSE100 is rather too toppy. I wouldn't buy mining or fossil fuel shares at current prices.
I agree and have been taking a few profits, but I do tend to be a bit cautious. Generally my investment style is buy-and-hold.
Yes, I try not to over-trade, though do adjust holdings to rebalance from time to time. Most of my shares are buy and hold.
I think if holding 20 or so fairly evenly balanced shareholdings, across most sectors then it pretty much is a self made index tracker.
20 stocks is the number to secure sufficient diversity. Studies show that additional diversity is only of very marginal benefit.
“According to modern portfolio theory, you'd come very close to achieving optimal diversity after adding about the twentieth stock to your portfolio. ... additional stocks from 20 to 1,000 only reduced the portfolio's risk by about 2.5 percent, while the first 20 stocks reduced the portfolio's risk by 27.5%. Many investors have the misguided view that risk is proportionately reduced with each additional stock in a portfolio, when in fact this couldn't be farther from the truth. There is evidence that you can only reduce your risk to a certain point beyond which there is no further benefit from diversification.”
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester educated Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits their more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
Just noticed the FTSE peeped over 7900 earlier. Very odd recession, this one.
Shares have done well since start of year, long may it continue.
It won’t. It’s definitely going to crash. All that printed money inflated both house prices and the stock market. It ripe for correction.
Hmmm you could be right but, no, I'm not convinced.
I expect we will have a period of house price stagnation, maybe modest falls, certainly real-term falls but the stock market is not ripe for correction imo.
Worth remembering that during the house price falls of 1989 to 1996 the FTSE100 doubled.
The link between the two is tenuous.
I didn’t expect everyone to agree with me the stock market to crash. And as Bolshevik Ben never agrees with me, no change there then.
But.
Why? Trying to keep gilts and interest rates down has become doom loop economics, low interest rates creates debt, QE creates inflation - instead of that defunct system the Markets now want an era of 2-4% interest rates and higher gilt markets than they have been for much of this century as a fair return on their investment in a country maxxed out on tax take and borrowing. So We enter a new era of payback for the last era of cheap credit leading to debt, where every bout of money-printing created an inflationary bubble ready to explode, the housing market and stock exchange are inflated by that printed money.
How? The stock market high in part on the printed money. Much of this printed inflationary money was invested in stocks. Although different asset classes are affected differently by it, QE increased demand for bonds and created money to be invested in stocks with idea to hedge the trade and lock in profit. But the hedge might not always be perfect if prices go into any correction, you may have to bail out and far worse if you were greedy and didn’t hedge…
Haha 'Bolshevik Ben'? I've been called 'bolshy' before but never a Bolshevik, I'm very soft left really.
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
Yes, but who holds nothing but ftse100, which was the only index which performed remotely like that?
Indeed, the FTSE250 went down substantially.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
Are you allowing for the divis when you mention the 700 thing?
No, and that is a valid point. Perhaps 350 points rather than 700.
Makes me think the FTSE100 is rather too toppy. I wouldn't buy mining or fossil fuel shares at current prices.
I agree and have been taking a few profits, but I do tend to be a bit cautious. Generally my investment style is buy-and-hold.
Yes, I try not to over-trade, though do adjust holdings to rebalance from time to time. Most of my shares are buy and hold.
I think if holding 20 or so fairly evenly balanced shareholdings, across most sectors then it pretty much is a self made index tracker.
20 stocks is the number to secure sufficient diversity. Studies show that additional diversity is only of very marginal benefit.
“According to modern portfolio theory, you'd come very close to achieving optimal diversity after adding about the twentieth stock to your portfolio. ... additional stocks from 20 to 1,000 only reduced the portfolio's risk by about 2.5 percent, while the first 20 stocks reduced the portfolio's risk by 27.5%. Many investors have the misguided view that risk is proportionately reduced with each additional stock in a portfolio, when in fact this couldn't be farther from the truth. There is evidence that you can only reduce your risk to a certain point beyond which there is no further benefit from diversification.”
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
I was up 45% in 2021 and up 30% in 2020 though. Past results doesn't mean future success etc.
I've stuck it all in index funds now, VTI, VXUS and IJS
Excellent. ETFs the way to go. VXUS has 0.07% charges pa and VTI 0.03%. Nice one. (I don't know IJS.)
All US rather than UK ETFs which may suit chb's particular circs but is a bit niche for the rest of us
VXUS is international, non US
No. its holdings are international but shares in it trade in dollars in the US
I thought that’s what you were asking me, apologies for misunderstanding you
Any particular reason for holding the $ denominated versions of these ETFs over the £ ones Horse? Is the spread that much tighter to make it worth the currency conversion costs?
Pension is currently all in VEVE, so a small personal interest to declare here!
I felt terrible this morning, had a nap and now feeling okay again.
Right there with you. Iterant toothache and swollen sinuses. For chunks of the day I feel fine. Then feel like I've been punched and need to take pills. Stopped work this afternoon as also needed a nap.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester educated Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits their more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
I seem to recall his brothers went there but then his old man fell on hard times so he couldn’t. Just think, a bit more money and Disraeli could have been the Alex Chalk of his day. More likely than the Oswald Mosely of his day but there you go.
Our economy bounced back very strongly after Covid, leading to labour shortages. We could have slammed the brakes on with high interest rates, just as things were recovering. And that was certainly an option.
But it would not have been a costless one. We would have swapped inflation for unemployment. Businesses, which had struggled to survive Covid, would have been hit again as cash was taken out of consumers hands via higher interest rates.
And, by the way, your comparator countries didn't achieve low inflation via high interest rates. Switzerland's interest rate only went above 0% in October of 2022. Japan's interest rates remain below zero.
So pretending that these countries had low inflation because of tighter monetary policy than us is either deliberately misleading or grossly ignorant.
I wonder whether Japan should be happy that inflation is 4%, the highest for 41 years. Maybe better than negative inflation.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits there more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
Winchester always seemed a bit more balanced across the political divide so for every Willie Whitelaw, Geoffrey Howe there was a Stafford Cripps or Gaitskell. Even just on recent Wykemist Tories it’s quite a range from Marcus Fysh (really don’t understand how that happened - classic case of being so clever he’s stupid), Whittingdale, Sunak, Chalk, to Boles on the “left”.
Indeed, albeit Nick Clegg went to Westminster.
In the 19th century Eton produced Gladstone and Harrow Palmerston in the 18th century but since nearly all their senior politicians have been Tories
Gladstone and Palmerston both started out as Tories.
I felt terrible this morning, had a nap and now feeling okay again.
Right there with you. Iterant toothache and swollen sinuses. For chunks of the day I feel fine. Then feel like I've been punched and need to take pills. Stopped work this afternoon as also needed a nap.
Sympathy RP. I’ve had an absolutely horrible cold all week - completely wiped out. Spent most of the last two days asleep!
Finally feeling a bit more perky today, so that was five days of feeling crap. Hope you feel better soon.
Cameron came in post Labour which seemed to have lost touch, largely due to Iraq etc and the GFC. He was seen as a change to that which had come before. Wealth wasn't much of a consideration in that thinking.
The problem Sunak has is not that he's rich, it's that he's running a Government that is out of touch and failing. That is why people have more time to attack his character.
I suspect if Brown had been mega wealthy in 2007/2008 onwards they'd have done a lot worse in 2010 than they did.
Cameron was posh but not a toff. Went to Eton but didn't have a ludicrous JRM style voice so got away with it. Jacket off, sleeves rolled up, lets get to business.
Sunak appears less posh but is far far richer and more disconnected from normal than Cameron was. Genuinely think his bacon sandwich moment was the "oh look I drive a Kia lets pay for petrol" disaster.
So yes I agree - out of touch on an almost comedic scale. Leading a corrupt party that is failing to deliver on every measure other than diverting public money into their spivvy pockets.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester educated Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits their more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
I seem to recall his brothers went there but then his old man fell on hard times so he couldn’t. Just think, a bit more money and Disraeli could have been the Alex Chalk of his day. More likely than the Oswald Mosely of his day but there you go.
Would have been extremely surprising if Disraeli had become a Mosley-style figure.
The eccentricity, and the ability, those are possible. But the anti-Semitism?
Just noticed the FTSE peeped over 7900 earlier. Very odd recession, this one.
Shares have done well since start of year, long may it continue.
It won’t. It’s definitely going to crash. All that printed money inflated both house prices and the stock market. It ripe for correction.
Hmmm you could be right but, no, I'm not convinced.
I expect we will have a period of house price stagnation, maybe modest falls, certainly real-term falls but the stock market is not ripe for correction imo.
Worth remembering that during the house price falls of 1989 to 1996 the FTSE100 doubled.
The link between the two is tenuous.
I didn’t expect everyone to agree with me the stock market to crash. And as Bolshevik Ben never agrees with me, no change there then.
But.
Why? Trying to keep gilts and interest rates down has become doom loop economics, low interest rates creates debt, QE creates inflation - instead of that defunct system the Markets now want an era of 2-4% interest rates and higher gilt markets than they have been for much of this century as a fair return on their investment in a country maxxed out on tax take and borrowing. So We enter a new era of payback for the last era of cheap credit leading to debt, where every bout of money-printing created an inflationary bubble ready to explode, the housing market and stock exchange are inflated by that printed money.
How? The stock market high in part on the printed money. Much of this printed inflationary money was invested in stocks. Although different asset classes are affected differently by it, QE increased demand for bonds and created money to be invested in stocks with idea to hedge the trade and lock in profit. But the hedge might not always be perfect if prices go into any correction, you may have to bail out and far worse if you were greedy and didn’t hedge…
Haha 'Bolshevik Ben'? I've been called 'bolshy' before but never a Bolshevik, I'm very soft left really.
In your own opinion of course. But I’m sure we can all compromise on Bolshy Ben 😁
My Dad or brother doesn’t agree with me the Stock Market will crash anytime soon. They are piling on. 33 Black.
I've just invested £4k at 32.5% return, indexed linked...
...topped up mine and Mrs P's NI contribution history - Thanks MikeL for the tip.
(Ok, my capital is lost but the return is gilt-edged for life.)
Definitely worth doing if either of you is near retirement & is short of enough years to meet the "gets full state pension" threshold.
Exactly so for both of us. Important to get the precise figure from the Future Pension Centre though - anything over or under a whole year doesn't count. Pay too much and the extra contribution is wasted, pay too little and you don't have enough to buy the last whole year.
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
So diplomatically put. Those from landed families or whose daddies and granddaddies went to Clarendon schools before them know he's a nouve.
To give him his due, he doesn't pretend not to be.
Possibly more their problem than his.
I reckon being loaded is a big part of his identity.
I've just invested £4k at 32.5% return, indexed linked...
...topped up mine and Mrs P's NI contribution history - Thanks MikeL for the tip.
(Ok, my capital is lost but the return is gilt-edged for life.)
Definitely worth doing if either of you is near retirement & is short of enough years to meet the "gets full state pension" threshold.
I asked my accountant if I should top up my state pension contributions (there's a six year gap from my student days).
His answer was 'no' as I have sixteen years banked and in the next thirty years enough of them should hit the threshold that I should comfortably qualify anyway whatever restraints are placed on it. And if it's abolished then I've wasted the money.
Just as well I followed his advice given things got a bit tight in December.
But I can see it would be a different calculation if I were sixty.
Discussion on landlordism from the previous thread. Here is an example of a landlord's monthly income flow. All numbers £ pcm. Rent 1200 To freeholder (service charge) 125 To taxman 355 To bank 520 (excluding repayment of principal) To landlord 200. The landlord just had to install a new boiler that cost almost three years worth of those 200 net monthly payments. Now this landlord perhaps isn't typical as the rent has been set below market rates as the tenants are refugees and the landlord's plan is to more or less break even (in reality make a small loss most likely). But even if the landlord had set a market rent of eg 1500 then the net monthly flows before any repair bills etc would be 375 with almost 500 going to the taxman. This landlord put £140k of equity into the purchase implying a post tax ROE of 3.2% at market rents, assuming zero repair costs, which doesn't seem especially high.
It isn't high. BTL is shit. I've been saying this for years but even more so now.
Property upkeep is always underestimated for one thing, both routine and as caused by the tenant. Risk of non payment of rent = worry and hassle, CGT liability on sale, CGT liability (disgracefully) takes no account of indexation for inflation (like it used to), penalty stamp duty rates, higher mortgage interest rate and arrangement fees (usually), income tax on any profit made, illiquid (you can't sell part of a house).
WTF people do it rather than simply buying a property REIT is beyond me (Or, alternatively, just buy shares in a property developer or two.).
It works if there is no mortgage. A house is inflation proof, tangible and not likely to disappear in a puff of financial engineering.
How many landlords don't have a mortgage
I recon you'd be surprised.
The original plan for BTL was that you pay off the mortgage of your BTL, just when you are ready to retire.
The rental rate generally is that set by the cost of a property with paper on it - most commercial letting businesses are highly leveraged.
So you would have a nice profit margin for your pension.
Of course, many people haven’t paid off their properties - using them as piggy banks…
I’m always interested by the thrashing around. There is always a pot of properties - first flats, second homes, foreigner owned flats - if only we could just take them back and solve the housing crisis in one blow!
It’s a varietal of the search for the Pot of Rich Peoples Gold - the one where we can double spending on the NHS at no cost or pain to anyone we don’t hate….
And equally rubbish. We need millions of properties. And nearly all the properties in the U.K. are already full of people. So we need to build more.
Consider - Cornwall has 30k second homes and lettings. Out of 250k properties. Is building another 50k impossible? Why?
I always thought that Sunak's wealth was going to be a much bigger issue for him than it was for Cameron. And so it has transpired.
The Camerons have less than 10% of the net worth of the Sunaks.
Cameron is only posher than Sunak in the sense he went to Eton not Winchester
Cameron is posher than Sunak because his wife is an aristocrat and he is related to the Royal family. This is Sunak's problem - people in the UK are more comfortable with wealth if it is old money.
No, I don't agree there. It was Cameron who was comfortable with his own wealth, and Sunak who seems uncomfortable with his, not the people around them.
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
He wouldn’t have got a lot of snobbery, there would have been the odd twat who might make themself feel better on a bad day by handing him a note and asking his mum to hurry up with the prescription but generally it wasn’t a place where money or titles mattered, the competition was firstly academic, secondly sporting and thirdly, when older, social re girls and partying. Actually that’s wrong first was partying and girls for kudos.
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Thanks - that's an interesting insight. I would however introduce a note of caution that 'a bit of ribbing' may not seem that way to the ribbee.
The difference at that time between, for example Eton and Winchester, was that to get into Winchester it was pure academic competition to get in so it didn’t matter how wealthy or connected you were if you couldn’t pass entrance then you weren’t getting in so you were all effectively peers in an important way so that academic ability was the key metric not status.
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
Indeed.
We have had plenty of Winchester educated Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits their more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
I seem to recall his brothers went there but then his old man fell on hard times so he couldn’t. Just think, a bit more money and Disraeli could have been the Alex Chalk of his day. More likely than the Oswald Mosely of his day but there you go.
Would have been extremely surprising if Disraeli had become a Mosley-style figure.
The eccentricity, and the ability, those are possible. But the anti-Semitism?
Hence the “more likely than the Oswald Mosely” bit.
My portfolio was down 30% last year, let's hope it's a strong rebound in 2023.
In recent downturns the year after has always been a strong rebound.
Crikey. FTSE 100 gained 1% in 2022. This excludes dividends at 3.5%. So 2022 was +4.5%.
I was up 45% in 2021 and up 30% in 2020 though. Past results doesn't mean future success etc.
I've stuck it all in index funds now, VTI, VXUS and IJS
Excellent. ETFs the way to go. VXUS has 0.07% charges pa and VTI 0.03%. Nice one. (I don't know IJS.)
All US rather than UK ETFs which may suit chb's particular circs but is a bit niche for the rest of us
VXUS is international, non US
No. its holdings are international but shares in it trade in dollars in the US
I thought that’s what you were asking me, apologies for misunderstanding you
Any particular reason for holding the $ denominated versions of these ETFs over the £ ones Horse? Is the spread that much tighter to make it worth the currency conversion costs?
Pension is currently all in VEVE, so a small personal interest to declare here!
This isn't my area of huge expertise but as far as I knew there isn't a UK equivalent of VTI, VXUS and IJS?
What I wanted was to invest in the US market (everything, so total index), everything except the US and then US small caps but I could not find UK fund equivalents, please help me if there are
I've just invested £4k at 32.5% return, indexed linked...
...topped up mine and Mrs P's NI contribution history - Thanks MikeL for the tip.
(Ok, my capital is lost but the return is gilt-edged for life.)
I missed this tip. Is this just for those with incomplete NI contribution history?
Do they advise you when you call them?
You can get an exact figure from them as to what it will cost to buy back past years (it varies because you might have partial years in the past I think?) when you call, but they won’t advise you whether you should pay or not IIRC.
Some useful comments about investments above - etfs and trackers etc. But also to be borne in mind is the fees of investment platforms. You can do something about that and it can save serious money.
I've just invested £4k at 32.5% return, indexed linked...
...topped up mine and Mrs P's NI contribution history - Thanks MikeL for the tip.
(Ok, my capital is lost but the return is gilt-edged for life.)
Definitely worth doing if either of you is near retirement & is short of enough years to meet the "gets full state pension" threshold.
I asked my accountant if I should top up my state pension contributions (there's a six year gap from my student days).
His answer was 'no' as I have sixteen years banked and in the next thirty years enough of them should hit the threshold that I should comfortably qualify anyway whatever restraints are placed on it. And if it's abolished then I've wasted the money.
Just as well I followed his advice given things got a bit tight in December.
But I can see it would be a different calculation if I were sixty.
Yes, I looked at the numbers & it doesn’t seem to make any sense for me to do it, even though I have some missing years. The likelihood is that I will hit the threshold well before the state pension age (hopefully!).
Comments
As I've said before, I think Sunak probably experienced a lot of snobbery in that very posh school, due to his modest background (not his race). There must be at least a part of him that fist bumps the air when he's described as an out of touch elitist. 'Made it!'
https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1621557177939804162
Apart from the bleating about “the press were out to get me” rings true. Corbyn gave the press plenty of ammunition.
I think you're a little more aware of the financial system than most. I know a few who have purchased BTLs outright. They know what they don't understand and financial products are beyond them. So.. houses are simply an acceptable store of value that provide a small return.
I don't like the commoditisation of needs but in their place, 60+ & small pension pots I'm not sure of the alternative.
https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/ii-private-investor-performance-index-q4-2022-ii526601#:~:text=In the face of these,% Shares (up 3%).
But something at some point has gone wrong, and the system is now extracting value and concentrating it into fewer and and fewer, largely non-productive entities.
The endless pyramid of private equity investment flips destroying sound but unexciting businesses by over-leveraging them is one obvious symptom of the systemic problems. But I'm not sure how they can be solved, even at the nation state level
I've stuck it all in index funds now, VTI, VXUS and IJS
I expect we will have a period of house price stagnation, maybe modest falls, certainly real-term falls but the stock market is not ripe for correction imo.
Worth remembering that during the house price falls of 1989 to 1996 the FTSE100 doubled.
The link between the two is tenuous.
I’m not disputing they have a solid 44% in polling. The lumpy falls and bounces come mostly above that, as pollsters struggle with the lumpiness of all parties votes.
I also said the You gov dropping Tories to 24 looks a significant bad move as they been consistent 26.
I’m balanced!
Wealth and background weren’t overly important as if you had got in you were measured on your self and what you made of yourself. A bit of ribbing at “poor scholars” but only because it made yourself feel better about them being brighter than you!
Can you see the downside to that?
Though as you say if you were very academic or good at sport or popular with girls and your social group that would have been less important
Which party do British voters associate the most with...? (Lab | Con)
Standing by the British worker (50% | 13%)
Spending for the NHS (49% | 16%)
Lower taxes (40% | 17%)
High amounts of spending in general (31% | 28%)
The free market (19% | 24%)
The issue of Labour spending too much seems to have been neutralised
https://www.cityam.com/number-of-first-time-buyers-fell-nine-per-cent-last-year-new-report-shows/
VUKE, VMID, VHYL and VEUR are Vanguard ETFs I've used/use. Look at ishares WTFs too.
I do my own investing, primarily for ethical reasons as there are some areas that I would not invest in, such as arms, tobacco etc.
My portfolio is 50% UK 50% overseas, split fairly equally between developed Europe, USA, Developed and Emerging Asia. Both parts were down a few percent last year, but are up 15% in UK and about 5% overseas so far this year. It is the recovery stocks that are doing well in my UK portfolio.
With the FTSE100 at near record highs, it feels a bit bubbly to me, but we do need to bear in mind that it had to gain 700 points over the year just to keep up with inflation.
I have rebalanced my portfolio a bit, but not planning any major sales at present.
Edit: also this
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/03/uk-athletics-trans-women-female-events-law-change
Obviously if you didn’t get financial assistance then it didn’t matter how clever you were as you couldn’t afford it but it was a good leveller that, at your prep school you might have been Lord Social of Chelsea but it didn’t really mean shit at Winchester as there was always someone more intelligent and nobody gave a monkey’s really about your social status. Maybe why Winchester is lower key as more geeky than Eton, Harrow and Westminster and not so tied to the social whirl.
This probably explains Sunak being a bit embarrassed or uncomfortable about the wealth question as it’s likely not been a key driver to his self identity.
(Edit: I think you may have been joking. I'm a bit slow.)
Makes me think the FTSE100 is rather too toppy. I wouldn't buy mining or fossil fuel shares at current prices.
To fail to get that double crown while borrowing £175bn a year is quite an achievement.
(Fox Jr is now on a Training Contract at his firm and new instructions are noticeably down from past years)
We have had plenty of Winchester educated Chancellors before Sunak eg Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell as befits their more geeky image but only 1 former Wykehamist PM, Henry Addington in the early 19th century.
By contrast 20 PMs went to Eton, 7 to Harrow and 6 to Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
I think if holding 20 or so fairly evenly balanced shareholdings, across most sectors then it pretty much is a self made index tracker.
But.
Why?
Trying to keep gilts and interest rates down has become doom loop economics, low interest rates creates debt, QE creates inflation - instead of that defunct system the Markets now want an era of 2-4% interest rates and higher gilt markets than they have been for much of this century as a fair return on their investment in a country maxxed out on tax take and borrowing. So We enter a new era of payback for the last era of cheap credit leading to debt, where every bout of money-printing created an inflationary bubble ready to explode, the housing market and stock exchange are inflated by that printed money.
How?
The stock market high in part on the printed money. Much of this printed inflationary money was invested in stocks. Although different asset classes are affected differently by it, QE increased demand for bonds and created money to be invested in stocks with idea to hedge the trade and lock in profit. But the hedge might not always be perfect if prices go into any correction, you may have to bail out and far worse if you were greedy and didn’t hedge…
In the 19th century Eton produced Gladstone and Harrow Palmerston in the 18th century but since nearly all their senior politicians have been Tories
For a start, that rental stream: that'll rise with inflation, while those payments to the bank won't. So next year, your mortgage will be the same, but the market rent will have increased 2-3% (maybe more).
“According to modern portfolio theory, you'd come very close to achieving optimal diversity after adding about the twentieth stock to your portfolio.
... additional stocks from 20 to 1,000 only reduced the portfolio's risk by about 2.5 percent, while the first 20 stocks reduced the portfolio's risk by 27.5%.
Many investors have the misguided view that risk is proportionately reduced with each additional stock in a portfolio, when in fact this couldn't be farther from the truth. There is evidence that you can only reduce your risk to a certain point beyond which there is no further benefit from diversification.”
See below:
https://www.investopedia.com/investing/dangers-over-diversifying-your-portfolio/
Pension is currently all in VEVE, so a small personal interest to declare here!
...topped up mine and Mrs P's NI contribution history - Thanks MikeL for the tip.
(Ok, my capital is lost but the return is gilt-edged for life.)
Finally feeling a bit more perky today, so that was five days of feeling crap. Hope you feel better soon.
Sunak appears less posh but is far far richer and more disconnected from normal than Cameron was. Genuinely think his bacon sandwich moment was the "oh look I drive a Kia lets pay for petrol" disaster.
So yes I agree - out of touch on an almost comedic scale. Leading a corrupt party that is failing to deliver on every measure other than diverting public money into their spivvy pockets.
The eccentricity, and the ability, those are possible. But the anti-Semitism?
My Dad or brother doesn’t agree with me the Stock Market will crash anytime soon. They are piling on. 33 Black.
Do they advise you when you call them?
To give him his due, he doesn't pretend not to be.
Possibly more their problem than his.
I reckon being loaded is a big part of his identity.
His answer was 'no' as I have sixteen years banked and in the next thirty years enough of them should hit the threshold that I should comfortably qualify anyway whatever restraints are placed on it. And if it's abolished then I've wasted the money.
Just as well I followed his advice given things got a bit tight in December.
But I can see it would be a different calculation if I were sixty.
The rental rate generally is that set by the cost of a property with paper on it - most commercial letting businesses are highly leveraged.
So you would have a nice profit margin for your pension.
Of course, many people haven’t paid off their properties - using them as piggy banks…
I’m always interested by the thrashing around. There is always a pot of properties - first flats, second homes, foreigner owned flats - if only we could just take them back and solve the housing crisis in one blow!
It’s a varietal of the search for the Pot of Rich Peoples Gold - the one where we can double spending on the NHS at no cost or pain to anyone we don’t hate….
And equally rubbish. We need millions of properties. And nearly all the properties in the U.K. are already full of people. So we need to build more.
Consider - Cornwall has 30k second homes and lettings. Out of 250k properties. Is building another 50k impossible? Why?
What I wanted was to invest in the US market (everything, so total index), everything except the US and then US small caps but I could not find UK fund equivalents, please help me if there are