# Shares vs. Property



## still_in_school (13 August 2004)

Hi Guys,

personally my vote is for shares & equities, and for the long term... property...

Cheers,
sis


----------



## Joe Blow (13 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

I think property is a more secure investment, however entry and exit costs are high.

That said, I find the stock market more exciting and I enjoy learning about the way world financial markets work.


----------



## positivecashflow (13 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Hi Sis,

There is a place for both asset classes in an investors portfolio... You should have a "Both" option. Depending on the current market circumstances will determine which asset class is returning better for the time period specified.

Cheers,

J.


----------



## positivecashflow (13 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



> I think property is a more secure investment




You also have to weigh up the risk/return factor.. the experienced traders would also say that their trading strategy is set up to minimise the risks and therefore be as secure if not more secure than property investment.

Cheers,

J.


----------



## jkool (15 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Shares or Property that is the question eh?

I like property for its seeming security and high returns of last few years. However this may not always be the case + the cost is horrendous. 

Shares provide me with nice smooth in/out transactions and flexibility which I love about it. But on the other hand its "nonexistence" (as in you cant really touch it even though I know there is a real company behind it) and risk (where the value may diminish overnight) makes me sometimes really anxious. 

So basically I am trying to find balance between those two investing vehicles. For myself I thought that listed property trusts may be the way to go....


----------



## Yack (20 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Property for me. But as i believe property will slow over the next 3-5 yrs.  Now is the time to learn a bit about share trading.


----------



## JetDollars (20 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

My vote is for property because at this stage I made most of my money through property, but I believe shares will also the other way of making money.

Therefore the overall is property and shares for me.


----------



## kooka1956 (21 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Unfortunately the cost of buying and selling property, as far as I am concerned is horrendous .With governments, banks solicitors real estate agents all with a finger in the pie . Shares can be bought and sold mostly at an instant at minimal cost . I far prefer shares because of this . I am also impatient ,and I prefer to make my money a little quicker than several years for the one transaction .


----------



## ghotib (21 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

I vote for both. But as that's not an option I don't vote at all.

Out of curiosity Sis, why didn't you include a both and a neither option? Specially both, seeing as that's your own choice.

Have a wealthy weekend,

Ghoti


----------



## clowboy (22 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

The wisest investors diversify.

Would you only trade one share?

Money can be made in any investment field if you know what you are doing so it is best to stick to what you are good at, however in my opinion it seems silly to play with large amounts of money in the stockmarket if you still rent (everyone has there own preferences).

Property returns are far less than that of shares but at the same time are far more stable, over the longer term you make money. (not that you dont with shares).

Property is also a much greater exposure.  where I live the median house price is a mere $240,000 but I dont know many ppl with a $200,000+ share portfolio.
10% of $240,000 is $24k a year, a $50k share portfolio would have to return 50% to achieve the same level of profit.

IMHO the greatest investment you can make for yours and your childrens future is to own your own house.
Just think we are slowly becoming like Japan where they take out mortages for 100 years and there kids and grandkids are signed into the mortage.

Besides equity makes for a great first share portfolio 

Anyway each to there own and if you are making money then keep it up


----------



## tarnor (25 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

I was under the impression that it was best to invest in both , since property usally moves up in surges then levels out for a while, you should work the system, invest in shares once property has surged etc


----------



## jkool (26 August 2004)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Perhaps to get the best from both worlds there are also the LPTs. 

I personally like them because they offer "safety" of property investing and flexibility of shares. They can provide the benefits of investing in multiple properties without the need of having houndreds of thousands to do so.


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Yack said:


> Property for me. But as i believe *property will slow over the next 3-5 yrs. * *Now is the time to learn a bit about share trading.




Wonder if Yack made any money out of property during the boom we've been having both in property and shares.

Dave


----------



## The Mint Man (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Here we go again another property v shares thread!:bonk:
This is my first and last post in this thread... not getting involved. I will just sit back and watch :jerry Popcorn anyone?

IMO a good mix of property and shares is always good... but property is so, so much better


----------



## Buster (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Shares for me.. I posted this earlier in another thread, but I beleive it's pertinent here also..

Property just gives me the sheites with the nickle and diming.. It seems that everyone has thier hand in your pockets.. The property managers, the state government the local government, the water board the property managers brother in law (the maintenance man) the property managers sister in law (the gardner) and on and on it goes, then you pay your marginal rate of tax on any/the profit

As an example a 400k property (owned outright) pulling in $400 a week will earn you approx 21k. Subtract management fee's (typically 10% but vary from state to state and negotiable if a number of properties managed), general maintenance, land tax, rates, insurance etc etc and you're looking around the 15k mark.. subtract the marginal rate of tax and you are probably looking at about 8k. Remember, That's not even considering the time frame to enter/exit, interest payments if you can't/don't own it outright, or the huge entry/exit costs!! 

The property may or may not appreciate/burn down/flood/be reduced to dust by termites or be destroyed by loser tennants..

On the other hand you have 400k invested in quality Blue chip shares returning a dividend of somewhere in the order of a 4 - 6% fully franked dividend. Thats 16k - 24k that has the majority of the tax already paid, and nobody else dipping into your return or capital!!

The Company/Shares may or may not appreciate/delist/be bought by private equity etc etc etc

I've owned a reasonable investment property portfolio previously, now I simply own my own home and a small property investment, and yes I've made some good money from property over the years but theres no more property on the horizon for me, I'm picking up shares and squirreling cash away (for the correction..). If it's ROI you're after the share market wins hands down as far as I'm concerned..  If you want exposure to property, buy Bunnings/Westfield/Stocklands etc..

Regards,

Buster


----------



## yonnie (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

I would invest in both, but I would do market timing and trend-following to maximise my profit.

If a nice trend is forming in the equities market I would park my money there and get the money out when the trend is reversing.

The same with the property market: trend goes up, I`ll be in.

No use to stay in either market and your investment is under water for years............


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

But then you could also have,

A flock of low $100k buy's now val'ed at $300k+.

$280 to $290/week rent's with 1 week vacancy max.

No land tax, tenant pay's water, low maintanence, yes to rates insurance etc but all tax deductable.

Flat 5% agency fee's

Landlord's insurance to cover everything also tax deductable.

Picked up over $1mil in equity, in 2 year's which can be leveraged into shares, to keep thing's ticking over during the quieter property cycle........................instead of selling, paying CGT and stamp duty out and back in when getting into the next property phase.

I like it both way's.

Dave


----------



## Temjin (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Both.

Shares/Futures (paper assets) at all times.

Properties when the time is right, and the time is definitely not right at the moment.


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Temjin said:


> Both.
> 
> Shares/Futures (paper assets) at all times.
> 
> Properties when the time is right, and the time is definitely not right at the moment.




That's what Yack said in 2004 and Krisbarry on another thread around the same time.

Dave


----------



## Ken (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

I am trying to get into property. Reality is that if you have 1 million worth of property that is renting at 4% a year, your looking at $40,000 a year, which is much as I earn now from my job.

I see myself making good dollars in the stock market eventually to fund my property aspirations.

I will always be in shares however.

I am trying to start with a $250,000 place around Frankston area in Melbourne.

Something on a decent bloke of land that has sub-division potential later on.... thus thinking of the tax man later on.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Ken said:


> I am trying to get into property. Reality is that if you have 1 million worth of property that is renting at 4% a year, your looking at $40,000 a year, which is much as I earn now from my job.
> 
> I see myself making good dollars in the stock market eventually to fund my property aspirations.
> 
> ...





Ken, that's a very poor return.  You would have to be getting a good capital gain on the property to make it a valid investment.  Then there's all the entry/exit costs with property, plus the hassle of tenants, as has already been pointed out.  Hard to see why you'd do this instead of shares, unless you are planning to do it when property is appreciating considerably more than at present, or if your plan is to buy your own home.
If I were investing $1M I'd be wanting a lot more than $40K a year as a return!


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Julia said:


> Ken, that's a very poor return.
> If I were investing $1M I'd be wanting a lot more than $40K a year as a return!





Yep, our $780k of debt (mostly OPM, all property) is getting just over $90k/year before cap gain and tax breaks.

Dave


----------



## Buster (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Hey Kat,



Kathmandu said:


> But then you could also have, A flock of low $100k buy's now val'ed at $300k+.




or a flock of blue chip shares (say, BHP/WES/WOW bought 2/3 years ago) now valued at more than 3x original price.. same same..



Kathmandu said:


> $280 to $290/week rent's with 1 week vacancy max.  No land tax, tenant pay's water, low maintanence, yes to rates insurance etc but all tax deductable.




minus marginal rate of tax and management fee, only tax deductable if you are running a loss, don't forget to subtract that loss from the 300K value



Kathmandu said:


> Landlord's insurance to cover everything also tax deductable.




excess, excess, excess on claims, and again, you can only claim if your making  a loss.. 



Kathmandu said:


> Picked up over $1mil in equity, in 2 year's which can be leveraged into shares, to keep thing's ticking over during the quieter property cycle........................instead of selling, paying CGT and stamp duty out and back in when getting into the next property phase.




Each to thier own Kat, give me a yell in a couple of years when you figure out the _real_cost of property in comparison to a fully franked dividend paying Blue chip portfolio..  Sounds like you have just embarked on the property journey, after 20 years of playing with property (and doing reasonably well with it) I now prefer the stocks.. much less hassle and a great return after tax

Regards,

Buster


----------



## Buster (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Hey Ken,



Ken said:


> I am trying to get into property. Reality is that if you have 1 million worth of property that is renting at 4% a year, your looking at $40,000 a year, which is much as I earn now from my job.




Matey, as Julia has pointed out, that's a shocking return, especially when you factor in tax.. you're not even keeping up with inflation.  I hope for your sake those properties _REALLY_ appreciate..

Regards,

Buster


----------



## toothfairy (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

I can share my last 3 years experience with all of you. 
I live in Melbourne and bought an investment property in Drummond St., N. Carlton @ the end of 2004, largely on borrowed $. Purchase price was 480000, interest rate average 7%, rental return under 3% after expenses. (Normal for this type of no frill, land value only city fringe properties). The 4% deficit can be negatively geared tax deduction. Agent evaluated it recently for $630000, ie about 10% pa capital gain for that period.
I also traded shares in the last 2 years for a 75% capital gain, trading mainly on ZFX. Because of the inherent volatility I did not use any borrowed $.
Conclusion : the actual capital gain on property is higher because it is largely on borrowed $ and also less stress. (Vacancy period was zero day and I still have the same tenants). I had some sleepless nights with shares and checking on prices of Zn all the time, exciting but probably less rewarding.
Cheers, what do you think.


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Fair enough Buster, and like I said, I 'll be going both way's now that I have enough equity to leverage up into a hefty share portfolio.

The point of dragging this thread up at all was that many on the forum have been saying that property is a dud since at least 2004.

In some areas yes, in other's not, just like share's I think.

Not all shares have done well either.

But with research and careful selection, both form's of investment can pay off handsomely.

You're dirt did'nt work but the Blue chip has , whereas my dirt has worked and now I hope to make the blueies do the same.

And Toothfairy, I reckon that sound's mighty fine.

Dave


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Kathmandu said:


> That's what Yack said in 2004 and Krisbarry on another thread around the same time.
> 
> Dave



And they were absolutely correct for the parts of this country where property has been a net loss since that time.

2004 - Small 3 bed weatherboard house, 1 bath, 500m2

2007 - Reasonably nice 3 bed brick 650m2. Within 5 minutes walk of the one above.

SAME price.

This property investing thing has been real easy for me over the past 3 years. Simple too. Take cash, put in bank, watch cash grow and property improve itself. No hassle at all. Better still, put the cash into stocks instead of the bank and make a profit that way too.

"Don't miss the fuel boat. Buy fuel now or you'll never get into the fuel market. Better to get a can full of diesel that be out of fuel forever - you'll be able to borrow against the diesel and buy some petrol in a year or two. And we're all getting rich as the equity in the tank increases and we go deeper and deeper into debt in a climate of rising interest rates." 

Sounds absolutely ridiculous? Of course it is. And all I did was swap 4 words. It's all inflation, not to be confused with wealth creation. 

Sure, property can produce a real return on investment. But for the vast majority it's nowhere near 10% per annum over the long term. Go back 100 years, do the math, and you'll see why it's just not possible for such a return to be sustainable for an average property. And an average property is by definition what an average investor will buy.


----------



## toothfairy (19 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Smurf1976 said:


> Sure, property can produce a real return on investment. But for the vast majority it's nowhere near 10% per annum over the long term. Go back 100 years, do the math, and you'll see why it's just not possible for such a return to be sustainable for an average property. And an average property is by definition what an average investor will buy.




If you pick wrong shares its not much fun either. I think it is easier to pick a right property, just take a compasses and draw a 2-3km circle around the CBD of the state you live in, and then pick the better sectors.Pick houses only, no apartments which can be created. Cannot apply the same technique to shares in the newspaper listings.


----------



## theasxgorilla (19 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Smurf1976 said:


> Sounds absolutely ridiculous? Of course it is. And all I did was swap 4 words. It's all inflation, not to be confused with wealth creation.




That was a really good post Smurf and I agree with what you say, particularly about inflation..._asset price_ inflation that is.  Although you missed one key ingredient in the property equation.  Emotion.  People don't by houses quite like they buy shares or _diesel_ .  There are a lot of emo factors and non-tangibles when comparing houses which go beyond brick vrs weatherboard and the precise amount of land etc.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



theasxgorilla said:


> That was a really good post Smurf and I agree with what you say, particularly about inflation..._asset price_ inflation that is.  Although you missed one key ingredient in the property equation.  Emotion.  People don't by houses quite like they buy shares or _diesel_ .  There are a lot of emo factors and non-tangibles when comparing houses which go beyond brick vrs weatherboard and the precise amount of land etc.



That can change though. Negative equity ought to do it... like it did in the mid-nineties.


----------



## Kathmandu (19 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Smurf1976 said:


> And they were absolutely correct for the parts of this country where property has been a net loss since that time.
> 
> 2004 - Small 3 bed weatherboard house, 1 bath, 500m2
> 
> ...




That'd be those "Dud " areas I was talking about, just like "Dud " shares, *BUT* I know of plenty of people who bought in these areas that sold too early and missed out on *500%* cap gains over a very short period.  

I know, I bought some of them

I'm sure you have seen people do the same with shares.



Smurf1976 said:


> This property investing thing has been real easy for me over the past 3 years. Simple too. Take cash, put in bank, watch cash grow and property improve itself. No hassle at all. Better still, put the cash into stocks instead of the bank and make a profit that way too.




If a couple of % after tax in the bank works for you that's great, but again, like shares, buy smart and reap rewards.



Smurf1976 said:


> "Don't miss the fuel boat. Buy fuel now or you'll never get into the fuel market. Better to get a can full of diesel that be out of fuel forever - you'll be able to borrow against the diesel and buy some petrol in a year or two. And we're all getting rich as the equity in the tank increases and we go deeper and deeper into debt in a climate of rising interest rates."
> 
> Sounds absolutely ridiculous? Of course it is. And all I did was swap 4 words. It's all inflation, not to be confused with wealth creation.




And this means???  I could change the word to "rubberchicken" and it would be equally ridiculous.



Smurf1976 said:


> Sure, property can produce a real return on investment. But for the vast majority it's nowhere near 10% per annum over the long term. Go back 100 years, do the math, and you'll see why it's just not possible for such a return to be sustainable for an average property. And an average property is by definition what an average investor will buy.




I can certainly go back through property that my parent's have been involved in with very average houses and very average areas since 1960 and see a historic 9% compound growth, some as high as 17%.

These *Very Average Houses* are what the *vast majority of Average Australia lives, buys and rents*, so a safe buy.

I have done the same, buying for the Average Joe and having a nice result, in areas that have historically done 11% compounding since 1972, which is as far back as the records in this area go, or I can access anyway.

Sure, some year's they have done less than 11%  but other years they have done higher than 11% and the last 4 year's have done over 50%/year.

IMHO The only people who actually lose on property are the ones who lack the patience and fund's to hold them through the leaner times and are forced to sell.

They may have seen a small gain on paper, so rush out and buy a new car ,a plasma screen or take that overseas holiday, or just buy in crap areas full stop.  Lose the job or get a small rate rise and the wheel's fall off.

The other thing I like about property that you can't do with shares is actually create wealth. EG: Purchasing houses on larger block's, subdividing and building other houses/unit's/commercial instantly increasing equity.

Buying cheap crap block's with issues and moving older houses onto those blocks instantly increasing equity.

Buying "Ugly Ducklings" EG: Couldn't give houses away in Bulimba in Brisbane 10 years ago as it had a working area stigma.  Now trendy as and plenty of property over $1mil, riverfront over $2 mil

I don't necessarily think property is *better* than share's or viceversa, but what I do believe, is that *investing in both is better* than one and one is better than none.

My 

Dave


----------



## theasxgorilla (19 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Kathmandu said:


> I have done the same, buying for the Average Joe and having a nice result, in areas that have historicaly done 11% compounding since 1972, which is as far back as the records in this area go, or I can access anyway.




My strategy has been to buy less good houses in very good areas and improve them.  The advantages here are many:

* Even a less good house in a very good area is still usually an above average house.  
* The very good areas tend to be less homogenous so you can be selective and get something that has a unique appeal to it.
* Less homogenous also means more difficult to price, if you choose well and improve well there can be greater untangible upside potential (read: emotional buying).
* The cost of improvements as a percent of the cost of the house are lower than if you'd bought something half the price.  You over-capitalise sooner on lower priced houses.
* When the value of houses in the good neighbourhoods appreciate their gains are greater in absolute dollar terms, relative to Joe Average's cost of living.  
* If you live in the house you can bury your living costs and avoid paying capital gains.
* Bust protection...booms tend to originate in the well-to-do areas and eminate outward, then as things slow the boom contract the opposite way.  Slow markets in outer areas are a forewarning, sometimes up to a couple of years, that your market may also slow.

Also thanks to China there is a sweet spot in the market for affordable exclusive looking decor which you can fit for a fraction of the price of the real deal.

Sh&t, I just gave all my secrets away!


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



theasxgorilla said:


> My strategy has been to buy less good houses in very good areas and improve them.  The advantages here are many:
> 
> * Even a less good house in a very good area is still usually an above average house.
> !




Yep, that's one way, but i'd rather 2 cheapies in a more affordable area that is about to turn into a very good area.

Less chance of the 2 cheapies geing vacant at the same time.

Speaking of cheapies, SA is doing something and some nice 40% plus gains being had.

http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Property Stats Jun07.pdf

Dave


----------



## theasxgorilla (20 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Kathmandu said:


> Y
> Speaking of cheapies, SA is doing something and some nice 40% plus gains being had.
> 
> http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Property Stats Jun07.pdf




Careful who you show that report to Dave...you've likely to burst a few bubbles around here...the ego kind that is, not the asset inflation kind   South Australian property investors, giddy up!


----------



## nizar (20 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



theasxgorilla said:


> My strategy has been to buy less good houses in very good areas and improve them.  The advantages here are many:
> 
> * Even a less good house in a very good area is still usually an above average house.
> * The very good areas tend to be less homogenous so you can be selective and get something that has a unique appeal to it.
> ...




I think the only way you can make REAL money from either is to treat it like a business.
For property maybe development, for shares maybe mechanical trading.

As a buy and hold investment, the returns are around 10-12% pa, and quite similar for both.


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



nizar said:


> *I think the only way you can make REAL money from either is to treat it like a business.*
> For property maybe development, for shares maybe mechanical trading.
> 
> As a buy and hold investment, the returns are around 10-12% pa, and quite similar for both.




Was there some other way?????

Dave


----------



## nizar (20 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Kathmandu said:


> Was there some other way?????
> 
> Dave




LOL yes the other way is buy&hold ie. passive investment.
But good question


----------



## Julia (20 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



nizar said:


> I think the only way you can make REAL money from either is to treat it like a business.
> For property maybe development, for shares maybe mechanical trading.
> 
> As a buy and hold investment, the returns are around 10-12% pa, and quite similar for both.




Nizar, Can you clarify the above?  Are you suggesting a buy and hold approach to shares will return around 10 - 12% p.a.?

And how would you differentiate a buy and hold approach from passive investing?


----------



## mime (21 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

You can make alot of money on both if you are skilled in each area. To make money on property you usually have to gear it in a growth area. But with all the tax on property it would not be a sensible investment. 

Lets all thank a the Labor govt for that. I Wonder if federal Labor would do the same to the stock market.


----------



## Kathmandu (21 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



mime said:


> You can make alot of money on both if you are skilled in each area. To make money on property you usually have to gear it in a growth area.* But with all the tax on property it would not be a sensible investment. *
> 
> Lets all thank a the Labor govt for that. I Wonder if federal Labor would do the same to the stock market.




I'll remember that while using my million buck's + worth of equity from property to get more investment's happening

Dave


----------



## tech/a (21 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



theasxgorilla said:


> Careful who you show that report to Dave...you've likely to burst a few bubbles around here...the ego kind that is, not the asset inflation kind   South Australian property investors, giddy up!




Err yup Been making my point from/for "SA Great for sometime".
But as usual SA isnt on the map of Australia evidently.


----------



## insider (21 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

It's about time the housing market retraces.... The next boom is around 2013-14 ... I can't wait to prove my teachers wrong... they think that the housing boom will continue... A bit optimistic I think...


----------



## Kathmandu (21 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



mime said:


> You can make alot of money on both if you are skilled in each area. To make money on property you usually have to gear it in a growth area. *But with all the tax on property it would not be a sensible investment. *
> 
> Lets all thank a the Labor govt for that. I Wonder if federal Labor would do the same to the stock market.




I'll also remember that when selling my PPOR and paying *zero CGT*.

Try doing *THAT* with shares.

Dave


----------



## theasxgorilla (21 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Kathmandu said:


> I'll also remember that when selling my PPOR and paying *zero CGT*.
> 
> Try doing *THAT* with shares.




Easier than you think.  Check my location...then read up on CGT for non-residents


----------



## Kathmandu (21 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



theasxgorilla said:


> Easier than you think.  Check my location...then read up on CGT for non-residents




Same here

http://www.vanuatugovernment.gov.vu/vanuatugov.html

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/country.php?id=117&cid=as&cat=4

Dave


----------



## tech/a (22 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Know of an investor who held 2 properties.
Constantly.
One his partner (male) and one he lived in.
They would reno both over 12-18 mths and have each as their PPOR.
Then sell (NO TAX).
Did this for 10 yrs I know of and around 8 properties.


----------



## Kathmandu (22 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

*Yep, theres no money in property.*

1] Dennis Gen  [shopping centres] $589,000,000
    began his working life selling pen's.

2] Gorden Fu [shopping centres] $575,000,000
    Started out painting cinema posters in Taiwan

3] Chris and Virginia Anderson  [house and land ] $100,000,000
    Came out from NZ and started doing reno's and worked up.

4] Brett Pointon [buying and trading property] $203,000,000
    Started as a Chalkie

5] Rodney Forrester  [ retirement villages] $165,000,000
    Started doing small industrial unit's


6] Maha Sinnathamby [springfield lakes] $445,000,000
    started in Sydney driving taxis 



And the list goes on.

source Sunday Mail top 100 list.


Dave


----------



## genus (22 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



Kathmandu said:


> *Yep, theres no money in property.*
> 
> 1] Dennis Gen  [shopping centres] $589,000,000
> began his working life selling pen's.
> ...




Wow. I wonder if the Sunday mail could also add the personal equity rate and [bank].


----------



## Kathmandu (22 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



genus said:


> Wow. I wonder if the Sunday mail could also add the personal equity rate and [bank].




I doubt the SM could do any "real" reporting.

Dave


----------



## Jimminy (22 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

I can honestly say my shares in the past 5 years have outperformed my property...problem is I have more money in property. But diversification in the long run is the key. Keep a bit of both and have your own business. If you can achieve those three you are on your way to long term financial wealth.


----------



## Kathmandu (22 July 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



genus said:


> Wow. I wonder if the Sunday mail could also add the personal equity rate and [bank].




Even if we said they only had 5% equity it would be 

1] $29,450,000

2] $28,750,000

3] $5,000,000

4] $10,150,000

6] $22,250,000

Nothing to bleat about.

Dave


----------



## juw177 (5 August 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*



tech/a said:


> Know of an investor who held 2 properties.
> Constantly.
> One his partner (male) and one he lived in.
> They would reno both over 12-18 mths and have each as their PPOR.
> ...




This is interesting. But wouldnt they have a better set up if they both buy a property each, make each their PPOR by living in it for 6 months, then rent to each other?

That way they can claim the tax benefits of an IP and sell it for no CGT. Does that work?


----------



## tech/a (5 August 2007)

*Re: Shares vs Property*

Couldnt be rented to each other.
Evidently the law states that you must live the principal amount of time in the house and 12 mths min.
If you live say 12 mths after having rented it out for 2 yrs previously then only 1/3rd would avoid CGT.

Fraid thats about my extent of basic knowledge,would need to speak with a tax consultant if you need specific advice.


----------



## Y.T. (25 May 2010)

*Property vs. Shares (Yes, its been said before!)*

I have been doing quite a bit of research the last couple of days (and have also created a mass of excel spreadsheets) and I cannot come to a decision between property and shares.

Take a look at this:

BT Insights - Property vs. Shares

Would this scenario depict a real life situation in regards to outlays, deposits, returns, etc?

I am very new to this and would like the most information I can get before I start my investment portfolio!


----------



## jbocker (26 May 2010)

*Re: Property vs. Shares (Yes, its been said before!)*



Y.T. said:


> I have been doing quite a bit of research the last couple of days (and have also created a mass of excel spreadsheets) and I cannot come to a decision between property and shares.
> 
> Take a look at this:
> 
> ...




Need to be always mindful of 'whos talking', because they are probably selling something and will obviously bias their product. Others may be defending or justifying a decision they have taken. Keep researching and never stop. If you want great growth on your money it is going to take a lot of work (researching). Dont be afraid to make a decision but be afraid when you have made one - ie keep evaluating that decision. OK if it is wrong but dont let it burn you. 
This thread, property vs shares, in my opinion both, one is going to do better than the other at different times. I like looking at things when most have lost interest ie buying in the lows, and an awful lot of it is only ever 'on paper'.
One day I will probably write about my clone theory, it is what I teach the kids (when they are listening 
Good luck Y.T.  Keep posting.


----------

