This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
Look at the history of the stock market. The last 100 years, not just the last 30 years that has had to of the longest and largest bull markets of all times. Look at other countries stock markets.
There have been multi decade periods where after inflation the stock market has been flat.
My advice would be never leverage for personal investment.
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You're miles less leveraged than the average bod, I'd go for it but it's up to you. How did you manage to get 200k of housing equity with 40k of annual earnings at 30, that's some going
Over lunchtime I have been thinking on the way forward and if Boris and Starmer can come together over covid 19, and as we move past mid summer, strike a relationship over europe which sees a trade deal and a close relationship with the EU, but keeps away from any responsibility re eurozone debt, and then moves the country to a much more compassionate society I would be delighted
And in the process slays Farage, IDS, Corbyn, Mcdonnell and Abbott that is my dream result
We are all on the centre left now folks
All parties have been left of centre since the Tories put Cameron in charge
Osborne's target of spending just 35% of gdp was hardly left of centre
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You may think that your job is secure, but it might not turn out that well. What if you were to become ill for the long-term?
I think it's madness to secure debt against your house for what amounts to a bet.
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
Look at the history of the stock market. The last 100 years, not just the last 30 years that has had to of the longest and largest bull markets of all times. Look at other countries stock markets.
There have been multi decade periods where after inflation the stock market has been flat.
My advice would be never leverage for personal investment.
Just on your middle point, inflation would be a great argument for leveraging and getting in stocks. It might not be a real return on the shares, but your debt certainly gets easier to service and anyone just holding cash has been robbed.
Steady as she goes. Would be interesting to see someone fit the announced death daily figures on to the hospital admissions data released to get a rough feeling for time lag.
Also, over the past couple of days, the fraction of positive tests has steadied (and is slightly increasing) and the number of new cases identified is staying pretty constant. If the number of daily fatalities stays in the 700-900 range over the next week and the new cases remain around 4000 that would be quite a 'positive' result. Let's hope it does stabilise in this range - still no guarantees of course...
PS Note that the number of people tested almost certainly does not equal the number of tests, since some require multiple tests. I don't think the government have been good at communicating this aspect at all...
Every reason to believe actual new infections peaked about 2 weeks ago given the 7 day average lag to first symptoms, and similar time period to then get to requiring hospital admission. Limitations of testing volumes and who it's aimed at is always going to make it a very weak very lagged indicator. If the recent rise in the death rate is due to the steeper rise in hospitalisation around the 25th to 28th, we could be looking at peak deaths for the back end of next week and hopefully signs of plateau or decline over the Easter weekend
Judging by the numbers from other countries, plateauing is a long and painful process. And those are countries with stricter measures than the UK.
Yes we'll have to see - most of the obvious places to look so far have a high concentration in one places followed by peaks in the rest of the country later (i.e. Lombardy & Madrid) which inevitably lengthen out the curve. Whilst London is ahead of the game here it's nowhere near that status yet, with the Midlands hospital admissions dipping on the same day, so that may mean we are in for a more severe, but shorter, peak if the whole country is at a similar place on the curve.
Yes, I think that's a fair point. Still, I worry about whether our lockdown is too lax. When I went out for a walk before 7 this morning I couldn't believe the number of cars on the road.
Yet the police were criticised last week for putting up roadblocks
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
Upside very big, downside minimal (assuming that your job is secure).
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You're miles less leveraged than the average bod, I'd go for it but it's up to you. How did you manage to get 200k of housing equity with 40k of annual earnings at 30, that's some going
About half being a personal finance obsessive who naturally doesn't spend anything and half help from my parents. Thanks for your thoughts too. I've traditionally avoided debt like the plague, but I'm wondering if that isn't a mistake. On the other hand, I'm clearly sitting pretty as it is so taking any unnecessary risk feels like it needs some justification.
(Thanks to Alistair and Maaarsh also, and I'll keep an eye on the thread for others.)
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You may think that your job is secure, but it might not turn out that well. What if you were to become ill for the long-term?
I think it's madness to secure debt against your house for what amounts to a bet.
He can service the debt off of a minimum wage job and his rental income very very easily. If he's in trouble, we're all in the deepest shit.
Steady as she goes. Would be interesting to see someone fit the announced death daily figures on to the hospital admissions data released to get a rough feeling for time lag.
Also, over the past couple of days, the fraction of positive tests has steadied (and is slightly increasing) and the number of new cases identified is staying pretty constant. If the number of daily fatalities stays in the 700-900 range over the next week and the new cases remain around 4000 that would be quite a 'positive' result. Let's hope it does stabilise in this range - still no guarantees of course...
PS Note that the number of people tested almost certainly does not equal the number of tests, since some require multiple tests. I don't think the government have been good at communicating this aspect at all...
Every reason to believe actual new infections peaked about 2 weeks ago given the 7 day average lag to first symptoms, and similar time period to then get to requiring hospital admission. Limitations of testing volumes and who it's aimed at is always going to make it a very weak very lagged indicator. If the recent rise in the death rate is due to the steeper rise in hospitalisation around the 25th to 28th, we could be looking at peak deaths for the back end of next week and hopefully signs of plateau or decline over the Easter weekend
Judging by the numbers from other countries, plateauing is a long and painful process. And those are countries with stricter measures than the UK.
Yes we'll have to see - most of the obvious places to look so far have a high concentration in one places followed by peaks in the rest of the country later (i.e. Lombardy & Madrid) which inevitably lengthen out the curve. Whilst London is ahead of the game here it's nowhere near that status yet, with the Midlands hospital admissions dipping on the same day, so that may mean we are in for a more severe, but shorter, peak if the whole country is at a similar place on the curve.
Yes, I think that's a fair point. Still, I worry about whether our lockdown is too lax. When I went out for a walk before 7 this morning I couldn't believe the number of cars on the road.
Yet the police were criticised last week for putting up roadblocks
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You are essentially betting on a return to normal, as opposed to some sort of new normal emerging. History suggests you’d be right more often than not, but not always.
There is a view that the situation post-2008 as been sufficiently abnormal that some sort of denouement was coming, regardless of the virus, which has just seeded the cloud. Whether you believe that sort of stuff is up to you.
It also depends on the investments you pick. In your position, assuming you go ahead, I’d take some care to diversify my investments, and steer towards those more likely to be safe in a variety of different future scenarios - choose safer lower returns rather than gambling on some sort of mega-bounce.
The other scenario worth bearing in mind is an apparent return to normal in the summer/autumn and then a further crash in the winter - either virus redux, or a delayed economic dislocation. In that scenario you would have invested through the ‘hump’ of the summer and be sitting on losses by next winter.
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You may think that your job is secure, but it might not turn out that well. What if you were to become ill for the long-term?
I think it's madness to secure debt against your house for what amounts to a bet.
He can service the debt off of a minimum wage job and his rental income very very easily. If he's in trouble, we're all in the deepest shit.
One suggestion a family member has made is to take out the mortgage on a much longer term with few/no early repayment fees, so that if I do lose my job my minimum payment is not £1k per month. I'm looking into my options, but if that is one I think it's a good shout.
Over lunchtime I have been thinking on the way forward and if Boris and Starmer can come together over covid 19, and as we move past mid summer, strike a relationship over europe which sees a trade deal and a close relationship with the EU, but keeps away from any responsibility re eurozone debt, and then moves the country to a much more compassionate society I would be delighted
And in the process slays Farage, IDS, Corbyn, Mcdonnell and Abbott that is my dream result
We are all on the centre left now folks
All parties have been left of centre since the Tories put Cameron in charge
Osborne's target of spending just 35% of gdp was hardly left of centre
The fact you regard spending 35% of GDP as being low proves my point that Cameron moved the tories left
"Twins born during India lockdown named 'Corona and Covid' The siblings - a girl and a boy - were born in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh during an ongoing nationwide lockdown."
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
Look at the history of the stock market. The last 100 years, not just the last 30 years that has had to of the longest and largest bull markets of all times. Look at other countries stock markets.
There have been multi decade periods where after inflation the stock market has been flat.
My advice would be never leverage for personal investment.
I’d tend to agree. This is long term investment, and if you carry one what you’re doing, you’ll do very well over time anyway. Why gamble when you don’t have to ?
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You are essentially betting on a return to normal, as opposed to some sort of new normal emerging. History suggests you’d be right more often than not, but not always.
There is a view that the situation post-2008 as been sufficiently abnormal that some sort of denouement was coming, regardless of the virus, which has just seeded the cloud. Whether you believe that sort of stuff is up to you.
It also depends on the investments you pick. In your position, assuming you go ahead, I’d take some care to diversify my investments, and steer towards those more likely to be safe in a variety of different future scenarios - choose safer lower returns rather than gambling on some sort of mega-bounce.
The other scenario worth bearing in mind is an apparent return to normal in the summer/autumn and then a further crash in the winter - either virus redux, or a delayed economic dislocation. In that scenario you would have invested through the ‘hump’ of the summer and be sitting on losses by next winter.
Good points both. My initial thoughts for the investment would be to continue my general plan which is all low-cost index funds spread 50% USA, 35% Europe, and 15% UK. I'm basically trying to replicate a global tracker (but with very marginally smaller fees than if I do it via an all-in-one fund).
Regarding timing, I am concerned about that. I hope that 18 months would be long enough to avoid messing up, but ultimately any form of market timing can go wrong.
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
Look at the history of the stock market. The last 100 years, not just the last 30 years that has had to of the longest and largest bull markets of all times. Look at other countries stock markets.
There have been multi decade periods where after inflation the stock market has been flat.
My advice would be never leverage for personal investment.
I’d tend to agree. This is long term investment, and if you carry one what you’re doing, you’ll do very well over time anyway. Why gamble when you don’t have to ?
This is definitely the main voice in my head holding me back. The dichotomy between pursuing an 'optimal' strategy against satisficing for lifestyle (which, as you say, I've already achieved with no need to hunt higher returns at higher risk).
Over lunchtime I have been thinking on the way forward and if Boris and Starmer can come together over covid 19, and as we move past mid summer, strike a relationship over europe which sees a trade deal and a close relationship with the EU, but keeps away from any responsibility re eurozone debt, and then moves the country to a much more compassionate society I would be delighted
And in the process slays Farage, IDS, Corbyn, Mcdonnell and Abbott that is my dream result
We are all on the centre left now folks
All parties have been left of centre since the Tories put Cameron in charge
Osborne's target of spending just 35% of gdp was hardly left of centre
The fact you regard spending 35% of GDP as being low proves my point that Cameron moved the tories left
Spending of 35% of GDP is lower than all of western Europe bar Switzerland, lower than Canada, lower than Japan, lower than New Zealand, lower even than the USA.
Steady as she goes. Would be interesting to see someone fit the announced death daily figures on to the hospital admissions data released to get a rough feeling for time lag.
Also, over the past couple of days, the fraction of positive tests has steadied (and is slightly increasing) and the number of new cases identified is staying pretty constant. If the number of daily fatalities stays in the 700-900 range over the next week and the new cases remain around 4000 that would be quite a 'positive' result. Let's hope it does stabilise in this range - still no guarantees of course...
PS Note that the number of people tested almost certainly does not equal the number of tests, since some require multiple tests. I don't think the government have been good at communicating this aspect at all...
Every reason to believe actual new infections peaked about 2 weeks ago given the 7 day average lag to first symptoms, and similar time period to then get to requiring hospital admission. Limitations of testing volumes and who it's aimed at is always going to make it a very weak very lagged indicator. If the recent rise in the death rate is due to the steeper rise in hospitalisation around the 25th to 28th, we could be looking at peak deaths for the back end of next week and hopefully signs of plateau or decline over the Easter weekend
Judging by the numbers from other countries, plateauing is a long and painful process. And those are countries with stricter measures than the UK.
Yes we'll have to see - most of the obvious places to look so far have a high concentration in one places followed by peaks in the rest of the country later (i.e. Lombardy & Madrid) which inevitably lengthen out the curve. Whilst London is ahead of the game here it's nowhere near that status yet, with the Midlands hospital admissions dipping on the same day, so that may mean we are in for a more severe, but shorter, peak if the whole country is at a similar place on the curve.
Yes, I think that's a fair point. Still, I worry about whether our lockdown is too lax. When I went out for a walk before 7 this morning I couldn't believe the number of cars on the road.
Yet the police were criticised last week for putting up roadblocks
Are you trying to make some kind of point?
The police should get back to stopping cars and fining those not undertaking essential travel
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You have ticked off investing from a young age and thats put you in a great position. Even if your proposed gamble failed you would still be in a better position than 90%+ of your cohort.
Whilst I think your plan is much closer to savvy than madness, I would caution about "learning" too much from historical bear markets. Each one is different and the sample size of relevant bear markets is very low.
There are plenty of reasons why this could be worse than a typical bear market. Shares could halve again. If you can tolerate that happening then I think going ahead is fine.
Im guessing you already are doing this but minimising fees and tax are important, and relatively easy to do at this stage of your investing.
@Quincel Can you get offset mortgages anymore ? I PROPERLY used and abused my old one during 2015 GE to seriously up my personal equity. I think the criteria are very strict for them now, no idea if they're around any more. Borrowing only 25% of your property you should be able to get the best deals in town though.
Steady as she goes. Would be interesting to see someone fit the announced death daily figures on to the hospital admissions data released to get a rough feeling for time lag.
Also, over the past couple of days, the fraction of positive tests has steadied (and is slightly increasing) and the number of new cases identified is staying pretty constant. If the number of daily fatalities stays in the 700-900 range over the next week and the new cases remain around 4000 that would be quite a 'positive' result. Let's hope it does stabilise in this range - still no guarantees of course...
PS Note that the number of people tested almost certainly does not equal the number of tests, since some require multiple tests. I don't think the government have been good at communicating this aspect at all...
Every reason to believe actual new infections peaked about 2 weeks ago given the 7 day average lag to first symptoms, and similar time period to then get to requiring hospital admission. Limitations of testing volumes and who it's aimed at is always going to make it a very weak very lagged indicator. If the recent rise in the death rate is due to the steeper rise in hospitalisation around the 25th to 28th, we could be looking at peak deaths for the back end of next week and hopefully signs of plateau or decline over the Easter weekend
Judging by the numbers from other countries, plateauing is a long and painful process. And those are countries with stricter measures than the UK.
Yes we'll have to see - most of the obvious places to look so far have a high concentration in one places followed by peaks in the rest of the country later (i.e. Lombardy & Madrid) which inevitably lengthen out the curve. Whilst London is ahead of the game here it's nowhere near that status yet, with the Midlands hospital admissions dipping on the same day, so that may mean we are in for a more severe, but shorter, peak if the whole country is at a similar place on the curve.
Yes, I think that's a fair point. Still, I worry about whether our lockdown is too lax. When I went out for a walk before 7 this morning I couldn't believe the number of cars on the road.
Yet the police were criticised last week for putting up roadblocks
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You are essentially betting on a return to normal, as opposed to some sort of new normal emerging. History suggests you’d be right more often than not, but not always.
There is a view that the situation post-2008 as been sufficiently abnormal that some sort of denouement was coming, regardless of the virus, which has just seeded the cloud. Whether you believe that sort of stuff is up to you.
It also depends on the investments you pick. In your position, assuming you go ahead, I’d take some care to diversify my investments, and steer towards those more likely to be safe in a variety of different future scenarios - choose safer lower returns rather than gambling on some sort of mega-bounce.
The other scenario worth bearing in mind is an apparent return to normal in the summer/autumn and then a further crash in the winter - either virus redux, or a delayed economic dislocation. In that scenario you would have invested through the ‘hump’ of the summer and be sitting on losses by next winter.
Good points both. My initial thoughts for the investment would be to continue my general plan which is all low-cost index funds spread 50% USA, 35% Europe, and 15% UK. I'm basically trying to replicate a global tracker (but with very marginally smaller fees than if I do it via an all-in-one fund).
Regarding timing, I am concerned about that. I hope that 18 months would be long enough to avoid messing up, but ultimately any form of market timing can go wrong.
Investing so much in the US (assuming you intend to remain Uk based) is *brave*, given that it is widely seen as having been the most overvalued market because of Trump’s bubble, still hasn’t fallen as far as many, may be hit by the virus worse than anywhere, and when the $ is so strong. If the £/$ recovers strongly - as history suggests it will sooner or later - you could lose money even if your investments go up.
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You are essentially betting on a return to normal, as opposed to some sort of new normal emerging. History suggests you’d be right more often than not, but not always.
There is a view that the situation post-2008 as been sufficiently abnormal that some sort of denouement was coming, regardless of the virus, which has just seeded the cloud. Whether you believe that sort of stuff is up to you.
It also depends on the investments you pick. In your position, assuming you go ahead, I’d take some care to diversify my investments, and steer towards those more likely to be safe in a variety of different future scenarios - choose safer lower returns rather than gambling on some sort of mega-bounce.
The other scenario worth bearing in mind is an apparent return to normal in the summer/autumn and then a further crash in the winter - either virus redux, or a delayed economic dislocation. In that scenario you would have invested through the ‘hump’ of the summer and be sitting on losses by next winter.
Good points both. My initial thoughts for the investment would be to continue my general plan which is all low-cost index funds spread 50% USA, 35% Europe, and 15% UK. I'm basically trying to replicate a global tracker (but with very marginally smaller fees than if I do it via an all-in-one fund).
Regarding timing, I am concerned about that. I hope that 18 months would be long enough to avoid messing up, but ultimately any form of market timing can go wrong.
This may be a questionable decision, but I'm going to ask strangers on the internet for investment advice:
I am a very fortunate 30 year old. I own a modest home outright, worth roughly £200k or a tad more. I have a secure job paying just under £30k before tax. I rent out two rooms of my house to earn an additional £10k before tax (and the lodger tax break makes that minimal).
As such I am able to invest about a grand a month into pension and another grand a month into a stocks and shares ISA. However, I wonder if the recent and predicted market falls mean now would be a good time to leverage myself slightly to boost my share investments.
I'm considering taking out a £50k mortgage against my house and upping my share purchases to £3k per month for 17 months. I'd pay the mortgage off at £1k per month, meaning from month 18 to month 55 I'd be investing much less into my stocks and shares ISA. Essentially, I'd have brought forward 50 months of investments into 17 months now, at the cost of roughly £5k in transaction costs and interest.
The logic being that investments over the next year or two may be particularly valuable given the historical trends of bear markets, and even leaving that aside the general rate of return from stocks is greater than the mortgage interest rates so in theory the leverage should pay for itself.
Clever? Foolish? Savvy? Madness? Am I missing something obvious?
You are essentially betting on a return to normal, as opposed to some sort of new normal emerging. History suggests you’d be right more often than not, but not always.
There is a view that the situation post-2008 as been sufficiently abnormal that some sort of denouement was coming, regardless of the virus, which has just seeded the cloud. Whether you believe that sort of stuff is up to you.
It also depends on the investments you pick. In your position, assuming you go ahead, I’d take some care to diversify my investments, and steer towards those more likely to be safe in a variety of different future scenarios - choose safer lower returns rather than gambling on some sort of mega-bounce.
The other scenario worth bearing in mind is an apparent return to normal in the summer/autumn and then a further crash in the winter - either virus redux, or a delayed economic dislocation. In that scenario you would have invested through the ‘hump’ of the summer and be sitting on losses by next winter.
Good points both. My initial thoughts for the investment would be to continue my general plan which is all low-cost index funds spread 50% USA, 35% Europe, and 15% UK. I'm basically trying to replicate a global tracker (but with very marginally smaller fees than if I do it via an all-in-one fund).
Regarding timing, I am concerned about that. I hope that 18 months would be long enough to avoid messing up, but ultimately any form of market timing can go wrong.
I’d consider having some fun you don’t know what’s around the corner.
Steady as she goes. Would be interesting to see someone fit the announced death daily figures on to the hospital admissions data released to get a rough feeling for time lag.
Also, over the past couple of days, the fraction of positive tests has steadied (and is slightly increasing) and the number of new cases identified is staying pretty constant. If the number of daily fatalities stays in the 700-900 range over the next week and the new cases remain around 4000 that would be quite a 'positive' result. Let's hope it does stabilise in this range - still no guarantees of course...
PS Note that the number of people tested almost certainly does not equal the number of tests, since some require multiple tests. I don't think the government have been good at communicating this aspect at all...
Every reason to believe actual new infections peaked about 2 weeks ago given the 7 day average lag to first symptoms, and similar time period to then get to requiring hospital admission. Limitations of testing volumes and who it's aimed at is always going to make it a very weak very lagged indicator. If the recent rise in the death rate is due to the steeper rise in hospitalisation around the 25th to 28th, we could be looking at peak deaths for the back end of next week and hopefully signs of plateau or decline over the Easter weekend
Judging by the numbers from other countries, plateauing is a long and painful process. And those are countries with stricter measures than the UK.
Yes we'll have to see - most of the obvious places to look so far have a high concentration in one places followed by peaks in the rest of the country later (i.e. Lombardy & Madrid) which inevitably lengthen out the curve. Whilst London is ahead of the game here it's nowhere near that status yet, with the Midlands hospital admissions dipping on the same day, so that may mean we are in for a more severe, but shorter, peak if the whole country is at a similar place on the curve.
Yes, I think that's a fair point. Still, I worry about whether our lockdown is too lax. When I went out for a walk before 7 this morning I couldn't believe the number of cars on the road.
Yet the police were criticised last week for putting up roadblocks
Well over twice as many cars than has been the case on yesterday's late night exercise (not quite a power walk). Not good, made even sadder by the sight of an ambulance, flashing blue light, stealthily and unusually silently, pass away from me and then back some time later.
Ferguson's comments seem to be based on such observations, I think. The carrot of less lockdown but, and with the the knowledge that too many are not taking it seriously enough, the stick of it extending well into the summer.
In other words, admissions are still going up, but the rate of increase is decelerating. Next milestone is when they stop going up, and the one after that (expected Easter monday when I last heard) is when they are outnumbered by the number leaving hospital. At that point, the crisis for NHS provision will have peaked.
No, the stats released are perfectly clear admissions were lower on Thursday than Wednesday. We don't have info on how many people are discharged, or the days since Thursday yet, but given the admissions number went up every single day until Thursday when it declined in the 2 largest regions simultaneously, c. 2 weeks after most people got serious about social distancing, there is good reason to be optimistic that's the start of a trend.
I'd say you are taking a punt on there emerging in the post-covid world some absolutely top notch (!) international political leadership who are up to the task of working together to devise and implement a plan to allow money creation on a colossal scale without rampant inflation.
I'm bullish on that personally. The reason I am is best summed up by an old proverb. "Necessity is the mother of invention". Old proverbs are usually utter horseshit but this one is an exception. Necessity IS the mother of invention. Such has been demonstrated again and again throughout human history.
I accidentally got onto this gardening site whilst looking for some views on the Labour leadership! Since I am here would it be rude to ask for some recommendations of a hedging plant to go at the front between our and our terraced neighbour. Something attractive for much of the year, not too high (3ft max I think), and good for invertebrates (e.g. bees and butterflies). We had box but the box moths have killed it.Thank you.
...and you got onto moths too! Shame about the box moth - smart looker, but quite deadly to box. When it gets going, it really does get invasive. Some outdoor restaurants in France get plagued by them in the evenings.
I'd suggest Amerlanchier lamarckii, a most attractive deciduous bushy shrub for all 4 seasons with white flowers in the summer and bronze-tinged leaves which turning an orange-red colour in the autumn. It provides a very effective screen between neighbours and we keep ours trimmed to about 4ft 6ins, but will grow to approx 8 ft otherwise. Needs about one year to settle in but is an absolute delight thereafter.
Incidentally I got Hancock / Jenrick letter today saying how to register for the services being laid on for the clinically extremely vulnerable while I do my three months shielding. I had registered already following a prompt by text last week but obviously not everyone has a mobile phone (or the government may not have their up to date number) hence the letter. Registration was pretty hassle free and someone from people I know it seems the food parcels are starting to be delivered now, also supermarkets are prioritising delivery slots for those on the shielding list.
Just wanted to say Hancock signed off the letter in massive, primary school handwriting as just "Matt". It was actually rather endearing!
There are some problems with coherency across this scheme, in that the list of conditions for "vulnerable" in the Regulations is very different from those to register as vulnerable on the Govt website to go in "the list".
The definitions of the different "rings" of vulberable are not clear.
eg Diabetes (and they do not distinguish between Type I, Type II and various complications) is not in the list of conditions on the website registration, but is in the list in the Regulations.
Since supermarkets etc are using the Govt list as their source document for who qualifies, that will exclude a lot of people from the schemes.
Personally I had my Morrisons order booked before the lockdown announcement cancelled "because we can't fulfil your order" a couple of hours after the email saying "it is on its way", followed by a failure to deliver.
As a Type I D I won't now be risking a physical visit to a big supermarket, as being unwise and having been advised to isolate as far as poss. for 3 months way before the lockdown, so I have switched to Plan B which is quiet times at local utility shops and freezer, plus friends if required.
Comments
There have been multi decade periods where after inflation the stock market has been flat.
My advice would be never leverage for personal investment.
I think it's madness to secure debt against your house for what amounts to a bet.
(Thanks to Alistair and Maaarsh also, and I'll keep an eye on the thread for others.)
There is a view that the situation post-2008 as been sufficiently abnormal that some sort of denouement was coming, regardless of the virus, which has just seeded the cloud. Whether you believe that sort of stuff is up to you.
It also depends on the investments you pick. In your position, assuming you go ahead, I’d take some care to diversify my investments, and steer towards those more likely to be safe in a variety of different future scenarios - choose safer lower returns rather than gambling on some sort of mega-bounce.
The other scenario worth bearing in mind is an apparent return to normal in the summer/autumn and then a further crash in the winter - either virus redux, or a delayed economic dislocation. In that scenario you would have invested through the ‘hump’ of the summer and be sitting on losses by next winter.
The siblings - a girl and a boy - were born in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh during an ongoing nationwide lockdown."
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-twins-born-during-india-lockdown-named-corona-and-covid-11968479
This is long term investment, and if you carry one what you’re doing, you’ll do very well over time anyway. Why gamble when you don’t have to ?
Regarding timing, I am concerned about that. I hope that 18 months would be long enough to avoid messing up, but ultimately any form of market timing can go wrong.
It is lower than most of the Thatcher years too
Whilst I think your plan is much closer to savvy than madness, I would caution about "learning" too much from historical bear markets. Each one is different and the sample size of relevant bear markets is very low.
There are plenty of reasons why this could be worse than a typical bear market. Shares could halve again. If you can tolerate that happening then I think going ahead is fine.
Im guessing you already are doing this but minimising fees and tax are important, and relatively easy to do at this stage of your investing.
I think the criteria are very strict for them now, no idea if they're around any more. Borrowing only 25% of your property you should be able to get the best deals in town though.
hasn’t been elected leader
Police looking for people heading to second homes 100 meters from my gate.
I would have thought that either old or new GP should be able to do an annual review by phone consultation. Over recent weeks that is the norm.
While ventilated patients with COVID19 may get lung damage, I think non ventilated patients much less so, if at all.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/04/two-dead-seven-injured-knife-attack-south-france/
Ferguson's comments seem to be based on such observations, I think. The carrot of less lockdown but, and with the the knowledge that too many are not taking it seriously enough, the stick of it extending well into the summer.
I'd say you are taking a punt on there emerging in the post-covid world some absolutely top notch (!) international political leadership who are up to the task of working together to devise and implement a plan to allow money creation on a colossal scale without rampant inflation.
I'm bullish on that personally. The reason I am is best summed up by an old proverb. "Necessity is the mother of invention". Old proverbs are usually utter horseshit but this one is an exception. Necessity IS the mother of invention. Such has been demonstrated again and again throughout human history.
Footsie 10,000 by 2030.
https://www.icuregswe.org/en/data--results/covid-19-in-swedish-intensive-care/
The definitions of the different "rings" of vulberable are not clear.
eg Diabetes (and they do not distinguish between Type I, Type II and various complications) is not in the list of conditions on the website registration, but is in the list in the Regulations.
Since supermarkets etc are using the Govt list as their source document for who qualifies, that will exclude a lot of people from the schemes.
Personally I had my Morrisons order booked before the lockdown announcement cancelled "because we can't fulfil your order" a couple of hours after the email saying "it is on its way", followed by a failure to deliver.
As a Type I D I won't now be risking a physical visit to a big supermarket, as being unwise and having been advised to isolate as far as poss. for 3 months way before the lockdown, so I have switched to Plan B which is quiet times at local utility shops and freezer, plus friends if required.
Some people will not be able to do that.