tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,400
- Reactions
- 6,317
Not much thinking in this reply
More in this and there is much more to consider with serious Property investment,Tax,Super and ofcourse as mentioned real value.
Property V Sharemarket is a muted arguement in my view and should for the serious investor be hand in hand.
You can bet all wealthy participants in the market will also have a strong property presence.
I tend to agree with beamstas...
What the seminar guy was saying is a load of crap!!!!!
More in this and there is much more to consider with serious Property investment,Tax,Super and ofcourse as mentioned real value.
Property V Sharemarket is a muted arguement in my view and should for the serious investor be hand in hand.
You can bet all wealthy participants in the market will also have a strong property presence.
Good times mate, they have had such a good time. I.Bankers have made even more money during the credit boom than FPs. Does that mean the boom will continue?
I guess it's because FP deals with people more than an accountant. Great for people with extravert personalities.
Sir Osisofliver already mentioned it. If you were the presenter, and is remunerated from selling properties based on commission and value of the sale, why would you present evidences that would otherwise hurt your income?
And no, property HAS NOT CONSISTENTLY rise on average 7-10% over the past 90 years. The presenter has not shown you the full picture and validate his source properly. Property has indeed risen at that average over the past 2-3 decades (largely thanks to the boom in credit), but properties have only historically rise along with inflation (and suffer occasion massive falls) over the past century.
Let's look at it from another perspective. If annual wage growth remained at 3% and interest rate remained at CURRENT 50 YEARS LOW for the next 90 years, if property rise by an average of 10% per year over the same period, how "affordable" would an average property be to an average income earner in 2100? Since you are an accountant, I'm sure you can understand the maths.
Now let's look at it from the perspective of compounding. 10% rise per year for 90 years at today's average house price of $400k (for the sake of it), a house (or rather, the LAND) would worth 1.1^90 x $400k = $2,125,209,000.
And assuming the fractional reserve banking still exist in 90 years and that inflation is kept under control at 2-3% per year over the next 90 years, then EVERYONE in Australia with an average house would be MUCH RICHER than the "average" person.
Do you see the fallancy in all this? This is not sustainable at all. Unfortunately, people with vested interest in selling properties would always find ways to persuade potential buyers that the boom will last forever.
Yep, www.asx.com.au reading list is a good start as investorpaul has mentioned. There are plenty more in this forum, do a quick search.
If you studied FP in full, you may be aware that "CASH" is an asset class by itself.
That's true, we go far deeper than just individual stocks.
Also try reading up investopedia.com
It's an excellent source of information.
I would recommend you get educated in the area of ETFs as well.
www.asx.com.au will have some brief info.
www.seekingalpha.com has more detailed info on international ones.
Good luck with your further readings.