UK Finance (uk.finance) Discussion about Finance issues in the UK.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 01:36 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 74
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is he right?

Seems a bit risky to me, you may get only 3% or so in savings,but you
can get it once a month.
Far too much fear in the market at present.

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 02:01 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is he right?

"mick" wrote in message
...
Seems a bit risky to me, you may get only 3% or so in savings,but you
can get it once a month.
Far too much fear in the market at present.



It depends on whether you are prepared to risk what you pay in, and whether
you are prepared to invest for at least five years. If the answer to those
two questions is 'yes', then it is worth a punt, in my opinion. You could
get 8-9% or more if you buy low and the stock market goes up.

I have a stocks and shares ISA, into which I pay 333 per month. In December
2007 I withdrew most of what was in there when the FTSE 100 was at 6500. As
far as I can see, most of what I have paid in since is buying shares at a
(relatively) low value, so in five years time, I should see a good profit.

The FTSE could go down to 3000 or even lower, however, I can afford to lose
that money, if the worst came to the worst. Like Vince Cable, I don't expect
things to go that badly.

John

  #3   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 02:05 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 729
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is he right?


"John E" wrote in message
m...
"mick" wrote in message
...
Seems a bit risky to me, you may get only 3% or so in savings,but you
can get it once a month.
Far too much fear in the market at present.



It depends on whether you are prepared to risk what you pay in, and
whether you are prepared to invest for at least five years. If the answer
to those two questions is 'yes', then it is worth a punt, in my opinion.
You could get 8-9% or more if you buy low and the stock market goes up.

I have a stocks and shares ISA, into which I pay 333 per month. In
December 2007 I withdrew most of what was in there when the FTSE 100 was
at 6500. As far as I can see, most of what I have paid in since is buying
shares at a (relatively) low value, so in five years time, I should see a
good profit.

The FTSE could go down to 3000 or even lower, however, I can afford to
lose that money, if the worst came to the worst.


The average saver can't.

Only "investors" are prepared to lose money.

Advising "savers" to put their money into stocks, in the current market, is
dumb, IMHO

tim


  #4   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 02:19 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 62
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is he right?

John E wrote:
"mick" wrote in message
...
Seems a bit risky to me, you may get only 3% or so in savings,but you
can get it once a month.
Far too much fear in the market at present.



It depends on whether you are prepared to risk what you pay in, and
whether you are prepared to invest for at least five years. If the
answer to those two questions is 'yes', then it is worth a punt, in
my opinion. You could get 8-9% or more if you buy low and the stock
market goes up.


Well, of course you could if the stock market goes up. Similarly, you could
lose if it goes down.

It's a gamble. At the moment the market is where it is because 50% of
investors think it will go up, and 50% think it will go down. That's what
makes a market, and because it's a market there's no consensus that it's
bound to go up.

Before you run away with the idea, much favoured by IFAs and the like who
have a vested interest in selling products and inducing churn, that the
stockmarket is almost certain to go up over a five year period, just note
that the FTSE 100 index at the end of last century stood at 6930, compared
with just 4340 now. So, only a 60% rise needed then to get back to the
level 8 years ago. How long is that going to take do you think?

On the other hand, if you don't mind a bit of a gamble, Lucky Jim in the
4.15 at Kempton Park seems pretty good, and you could get your gain today.



  #5   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 02:22 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is he right?

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"John E" wrote in message
m...
"mick" wrote in message
...
Seems a bit risky to me, you may get only 3% or so in savings,but you
can get it once a month.
Far too much fear in the market at present.



It depends on whether you are prepared to risk what you pay in, and
whether you are prepared to invest for at least five years. If the answer
to those two questions is 'yes', then it is worth a punt, in my opinion.
You could get 8-9% or more if you buy low and the stock market goes up.

I have a stocks and shares ISA, into which I pay 333 per month. In
December 2007 I withdrew most of what was in there when the FTSE 100 was
at 6500. As far as I can see, most of what I have paid in since is buying
shares at a (relatively) low value, so in five years time, I should see a
good profit.

The FTSE could go down to 3000 or even lower, however, I can afford to
lose that money, if the worst came to the worst.


The average saver can't.

Only "investors" are prepared to lose money.

Advising "savers" to put their money into stocks, in the current market,
is dumb, IMHO

tim

I would say that I'm fairly average, but just older than most. I couldn't
afford to save in shares until the last 15 years of my career; that paid off
with more than 8% gains (mostly tax free - thanks to the ISA). Now living on
a pension which is quite a bit less than the 'median income of 25000'. I'm
prepared to take the risk over the next 5-10 years. Maybe it helps business
too.

John



  #6   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 02:46 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 34
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is he right?

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
John E wrote:
"mick" wrote in message
...
Seems a bit risky to me, you may get only 3% or so in savings,but you
can get it once a month.
Far too much fear in the market at present.



It depends on whether you are prepared to risk what you pay in, and
whether you are prepared to invest for at least five years. If the
answer to those two questions is 'yes', then it is worth a punt, in
my opinion. You could get 8-9% or more if you buy low and the stock
market goes up.


Well, of course you could if the stock market goes up. Similarly, you
could lose if it goes down.

It's a gamble. At the moment the market is where it is because 50% of
investors think it will go up, and 50% think it will go down. That's what
makes a market, and because it's a market there's no consensus that it's
bound to go up.

Before you run away with the idea, much favoured by IFAs and the like who
have a vested interest in selling products and inducing churn, that the
stockmarket is almost certain to go up over a five year period, just note
that the FTSE 100 index at the end of last century stood at 6930, compared
with just 4340 now. So, only a 60% rise needed then to get back to the
level 8 years ago. How long is that going to take do you think?

On the other hand, if you don't mind a bit of a gamble, Lucky Jim in the
4.15 at Kempton Park seems pretty good, and you could get your gain today.

What the stock market was in 1999 is of zero interest for those investing
today, hence your 60% rise point is irrelevant.

It is said in financial circles that it is always a good idea to do what
everyone else is NOT doing. At present 2/3 people in this thread are
advising against investing in the stock market. I'll see you in five years,
and we'll compare winnings! ;-)

John

  #7   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 03:33 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 62
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is he right?

John E wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...


What the stock market was in 1999 is of zero interest for those
investing today, hence your 60% rise point is irrelevant.


It is of interest if those advising today are relying on 5 year periods,
because it goes to the reliability of what they say.

And it is of interest to anyone who was invested in shares at that time on
the basis that 'shares are a good long term investment', and who now see
their shares needing to go up by 60% just to regain lost ground, let alone
lost interest over that 8 year period.

It is said in financial circles that it is always a good idea to do
what everyone else is NOT doing. At present 2/3 people in this thread
are advising against investing in the stock market. I'll see you in
five years, and we'll compare winnings! ;-)


Or losses.

But I bet you'd have said the same to me eight years ago, or even longer ago
than that. And you'd have been totally wrong.


  #8   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 06:11 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Apr 2004
Posts: 204
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is heright?

On 8 Jan, 14:36, mick wrote:
Seems a bit risky to me, you may get only 3% or so in savings,but you
can get it once a month.
Far too much fear in the market at present.


What rates are available at a fixed point in time is not very
relevent. You need to look at rates of return for cash, index linked
bonds, fixed rate bonds and equities over longer periods. See the
Barclays Capital Equity Gilt Study 2007 -

http://eu.ishares.com/publish/reposi...ok/en/gilt.pdf

Oh and emotion is about the worst characteristic for successful
investing. Objectivity, objectivity, objectivity - and if you havn't
got it, then make a long term commitment to invest monthly in a cheap
index tracker such as the iShares FTSE 100 Exchange Traded Fund, which
is a hard enough target for most private investors and professional
fund manager to beat.

--
Daytona
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 06:19 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Apr 2004
Posts: 204
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is heright?

Here's the quote in Metro -

"Savers told: Take a punt on the FTSE
by JOHN HIGGINSON - CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT - Thursday, January
8, 2009

Savers should 'take a risk' and invest in the stock market, the
Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman said yesterday.
The stock market has fallen so far that many shares and other assets
are under-valued, according to Vince Cable, who was once chief
economist at Shell.

Savers have seen interest rates fall from up to eight per cent last
spring and they will fall even more if, as expected, the Bank of
England today imposes a further 0.5 per cent cut to one per cent.

But 'the situation for savers is by no means all over as there are
plenty of opportunities to invest', Mr Cable told Metro.

The FTSE-100 has dropped from 6,153 at its peak in October 2007 to
4,578 today.

And 40 of the companies in the FTSE-100 currently have dividend yields
of five per cent or more.

'A lot of shares and other assets are under-valued and will reward
those willing to take a risk,' Mr Cable said."

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....4&in_a_source=
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 10:00 PM posted to uk.finance
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by FinanceBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 527
Default Vince Cable suggesting savers should invest in stocks.Is heright?

The whole economy and the government response is in a mess.

Too many people were buying things they didn't really need but were
also buying them on credit. It's obvious that is bad but what has made
people stop borrowing (and attempt to pay off their debt) is the fear
of losing their homes or going bankrupt due to tighter credit
criteria.

The government is now trying to get money into peoples pockets by
various means, including encouraging borrowing, in an attempt to
increase demand but all people are doing is using whatever spare money
they have to pay off debts.

We really need a realignment of production and services towards what
people really need and encourage spending in those areas (maybe by
discouraging spending in other areas).

If people spent their money on cheap clothes, accommodation, food, and
other necessities and their leisure activities were taken up by cheap
activities such as watching tv, sport, personal improvement such as
learning to play instruments, sex, etc. most people could be happy.
It's only the people who cannot be happy unless they are wasting money
who will be depressed.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vince Cable lost the plot - VAT JMS UK Finance 80 November 26th 10 08:49 AM
Vince Cable's advice. mick UK Finance 2 March 6th 09 02:58 PM
Vince Cable was right - Northern Rock about to be Nationalised John E[_2_] UK Finance 8 January 16th 08 03:21 PM
No reason to choose stocks-and-shares-ISA if you have no other capital gains, right? Brian W UK Finance 1 March 24th 07 10:41 AM
How do I, learn to save/invest/stocks etc. ?? Complete beginner. HappyChappy UK Finance 6 September 13th 05 08:13 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 Finance Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about UK money and finances"

 

Copyright © 2017