Is anyone else getting annoyed with this......
Comments
-
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:IDaviesee - speculation and investment is a rich man's game, since a rich man can afford to lose a large proportion of his cash because the small proportion left is still very large in absolute terms.
I would disagree there (again?
). Their numbers may have more zeros on the end but the principle is still sound. Investing in the stock market when it slumps will give a better return than cash savings or ISAs assuming it bounces back (which it has). They just play with bigger numbers that's all.
As a theoretical example - Say I invested 10k in a shares ISa when the markets slumped. That could be worth 13k today. Now 3k profit may be peanuts to a millionaire but it is more than a handy profit to me. Add zeros to the figures and it is easy to see how the rich can get richer.
Oh, and knowing when to sell is as important too. You can be a paper millionaire one day and a pauper the next.
What I mean is more that, if I'm rocking 100 million in cash, I can invest 99 million of that, (i.e. 99%) lose it all and still live very comfortably.
If I only have 50,000, i'm living relatively well, but if I invest and lose 99% of that, I only have £500 left.
The rich can afford to take bigger risks.0 -
usedtobefast wrote:
What we all need to do is encourage people to avoid spending their "assets" in outlets owned by people like Philip Green (BHS) who use tax loop holes to avoid paying into the UK plc tax coffers. Perfectly legal but very immoral. If revenues to these people fall to zero they soon start to realise that maybe they should do they're bit.
If ethical consumerism worked vs capitalism they'd ban it or find some way to stop it0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:What I mean is more that, if I'm rocking 100 million in cash, I can invest 99 million of that, (i.e. 99%) lose it all and still live very comfortably.
If I only have 50,000, i'm living relatively well, but if I invest and lose 99% of that, I only have £500 left.
The rich can afford to take bigger risks.
The numbers are higher but the risks are the same.
You may be able to live comfortably on £1 million but someone who has £100 million will likely have more than a few houses, cars, yachts etc. (ex-wives :shock: ) They all need to be maintained and taxes paid so that £1 million won't go far. And if there is a crash they could only sell at a huge loss.
I think if you had 50k to invest you would keep 20-30k in safe investments. Same goes for the super rich, except their safe investments would be 20-30 million.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What I mean is more that, if I'm rocking 100 million in cash, I can invest 99 million of that, (i.e. 99%) lose it all and still live very comfortably.
If I only have 50,000, i'm living relatively well, but if I invest and lose 99% of that, I only have £500 left.
The rich can afford to take bigger risks.
The numbers are higher but the risks are the same.
You may be able to live comfortably on £1 million but someone who has £100 million will likely have more than a few houses, cars, yachts etc. (ex-wives :shock: ) They all need to be maintained and taxes paid so that £1 million won't go far. And if there is a crash they could only sell at a huge loss.
I think if you had 50k to invest you would keep 20-30k in safe investments. Same goes for the super rich, except their safe investments would be 20-30 million.
Exactly. You can be rich on paper but have significant committments or little cash reserves which means that the house of cards can fall over just as quickly for you as the "normal" man on the street.0 -
I think that there is a point at which money achieves a critical mass and attracts more of itself to itself rather than repels itself from itself if you see what I mean, so that if you have more than a certain amount, having already bought all the houses, cars, yachts, aeroplanes and bike you need, it earns interest or returns profits from investments faster than you can spend it,
You can't even give the stuff away, because that incurs tax relief, and the only way you can get rid of it is to gamble. Even then, you might be unlucky, and win.....0 -
hmbadger wrote:daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:IDaviesee - speculation and investment is a rich man's game, since a rich man can afford to lose a large proportion of his cash because the small proportion left is still very large in absolute terms.
I would disagree there (again? ). Their numbers may have more zeros on the end but the principle is still sound. Investing in the stock market when it slumps will give a better return than cash savings or ISAs assuming it bounces back (which it has). They just play with bigger numbers that's all.
As a theoretical example - Say I invested 10k in a shares ISa when the markets slumped. That could be worth 13k today. Now 3k profit may be peanuts to a millionaire but it is more than a handy profit to me. Add zeros to the figures and it is easy to see how the rich can get richer.
Oh, and knowing when to sell is as important too. You can be a paper millionaire one day and a pauper the next.
The last sentence is the key to why I think people on here who think that rich people make their money by buying low and selling high are talking rubbish.
The rich are no more able to call the top and bottom of the markets than anyone else. i.e. they can't.
They have generally got rich by being more astute (financially) than most so may have a more experienced/educated/informed "guess" than you or I. Seriously rich people often make their cash from buying low and selling high (i.e. making a big profit....).0 -
I think you have to factor in randomness in to it as well, or luck as some call it. Just by chance someone will be in the right place at the right time and have the right connections etc. e.g. 10,000 people start up their own company, say 10 become billionaires, they and others will probably say it was their skill etc but a lot will just have been luck, maybe their bank manager was iaving a good day, or a friend got an inheritance and decided to invest in them etc. Also I think you have to be a bit ruthless to make it big.0
-
Britain is plauged by this envy, and jealousy problem.
Somebody drives a Ferrari down the street abroad and people look and wave, and pleased to see it, they do it in the UK and get spat at and called a wanker.
These people aren't just lotto winners, they have made these businesses, and have every right to be at the level they are, why should they take shit from someone who hasn't done as well as he can for himself?
And as for the reason the rich get richer, money makes money, if you've got the capital then in times of extreme downturn you can make a killing. I'm not Mr Mittal by any stretch of the imagination, just can't stand the stigma we have here against people that have done well for themselves.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
okgo wrote:Britain is plauged by this envy, and jealousy problem.
Somebody drives a Ferrari down the street abroad and people look and wave, and pleased to see it, they do it in the UK and get spat at and called a wanker.
These people aren't just lotto winners, they have made these businesses, and have every right to be at the level they are, why should they take shoot from someone who hasn't done as well as he can for himself?
And as for the reason the rich get richer, money makes money, if you've got the capital then in times of extreme downturn you can make a killing. I'm not Mr Mittal by any stretch of the imagination, just can't stand the stigma we have here against people that have done well for themselves.
I don't think anyone has stated any jealousy or envy at all.....The point of the thread was: how have the wealthy gained more wealth while the rest of the country is being pushed very hard?
My personal circumstance is really not that bad, but I am miffed that a layer of society is completely immune to the economic downturn and is effectively profiting from it - I don't know how they are doing it!
I do know that my utilities and so on are skyrocketing out of control. How have the super rich avoided this? Surely wealth begets big fuel bills for big houses?
I am always very happy for people who have made their own way and done well. As long as they are happy people.
So, I have no idea where your comments are coming from or what on earth you are on about.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:I don't think anyone has stated any jealousy or envy at all.....The point of the thread was: how have the wealthy gained more wealth while the rest of the country is being pushed very hard?
My personal circumstance is really not that bad, but I am miffed that a layer of society is completely immune to the economic downturn and is effectively profiting from it - I don't know how they are doing it!
I do know that my utilities and so on are skyrocketing out of control. How have the super rich avoided this? Surely wealth begets big fuel bills for big houses?
I am always very happy for people who have made their own way and done well. As long as they are happy people.
So, I have no idea where your comments are coming from or what on earth you are on about.
Food, rent, utilities etc as a % of wealth will be lower for the very wealthy, certainly anyone on the super rich list that was first linked to.
Not sure that picking the current richest people in the world is a good example though. Almost by definition they'll be the ones that have won most recently. Possibly picking a random 100 multimillionaires from last year then finding where they are now would be more useful.0 -
I've just told you. Money makes money, do bear in mind that the year before that he saw his fortune go down by 30% (Mr Mittal), so obviously they're not always immune.
Are you aware that with stocks you can bet on them falling as well as rising, and if you have the cash buying something at a rock bottom price at a huge level means that even the slightest move in your favour will mean millions in return?
The super rich haven't avoided big bills, I'm sure like you and I, the owners of the houses on Bishops Avenue have heating bills to pay, but when you've got millions somehow I doubt EDF knocking on your door for a few grand to heat your driveway is a big issue.
Your thread is titled "anyone else getitng annoyed with this" which to me sounds a little bitter no? Apparently what you actually meant was "how do the rich make money in a downturn" which would be without the undertone of spite that your actualy thread title contains.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
-
okgo wrote:I've just told you. Money makes money, do bear in mind that the year before that he saw his fortune go down by 30% (Mr Mittal), so obviously they're not always immune.
Are you aware that with stocks you can bet on them falling as well as rising, and if you have the cash buying something at a rock bottom price at a huge level means that even the slightest move in your favour will mean millions in return?
The super rich haven't avoided big bills, I'm sure like you and I, the owners of the houses on Bishops Avenue have heating bills to pay, but when you've got millions somehow I doubt EDF knocking on your door for a few grand to heat your driveway is a big issue.
Your thread is titled "anyone else getitng annoyed with this" which to me sounds a little bitter no? Apparently what you actually meant was "how do the rich make money in a downturn" which would be without the undertone of spite that your actualy thread title contains.
Ah - so, now I am spiteful.....I see.
Yes, I am getting annoyed with being told that; a percentage are increasing wealth and the majority are losing money due to economic conditions - back to 2004/2005 levels according to the papers today.
How have the economic conditions arison for this? Is the immunity from the current economic climate due to:
1, Great financial/fiscalwisdom?
2, Great ability to avoid tax?
3, So wealthy that the income made on assets simply pushes through?
4, Great stock market gambling?
5, Very very meagre lifestyle?
As you will have read from my previous post - I am reasonably comfortable, any loss in household income is bearable, annoying, but bearable. I am not too happy about the whole banking saga of a couple of years ago - but there is very little I can do about it. I don't really have anything to complain about - I have a good job, as does my wife.
However, I see people being made redundant daily or suffering financial hardship daily - yet, we have people who are simply immune. How?
"Money makes money" - very simplistic viewpoint. can you expand on this? Aside thinking that we are all green with envy - whats your story? How does this affect you? Did you get your bonus, payrise - have your contract rates reduced or operating costs increased?
Have we inadvertanly created a 2 tier super rich society? I.e. the rich who are affected and the rich who are not affected?
Treat this as a discussion point on economics rather than noting societies shortfalls.....0 -
gtvlusso wrote:How have the economic conditions arison for this?
The rich have surplus cash to invest when everyone else is selling off their assets at a loss.gtvlusso wrote:Is the immunity from the current economic climate due to:
1, Great financial/fiscalwisdom?
2, Great ability to avoid tax?
3, So wealthy that the income made on assets simply pushes through?
4, Great stock market gambling?
5, Very very meagre lifestyle?
Answers 1-4 with a yes and 5 with a resounding no.gtvlusso wrote:However, I see people being made redundant daily or suffering financial hardship daily - yet, we have people who are simply immune. How?
They don't have jobs to lose in the traditional sense.gtvlusso wrote:"Money makes money" - very simplistic viewpoint. can you expand on this?
See my earlier posts.gtvlusso wrote:Have we inadvertanly created a 2 tier super rich society? I.e. the rich who are affected and the rich who are not affected?
No. If you are affected then you are not "really" rich, merely very well off.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
W1 wrote:hmbadger wrote:daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:IDaviesee - speculation and investment is a rich man's game, since a rich man can afford to lose a large proportion of his cash because the small proportion left is still very large in absolute terms.
I would disagree there (again? ). Their numbers may have more zeros on the end but the principle is still sound. Investing in the stock market when it slumps will give a better return than cash savings or ISAs assuming it bounces back (which it has). They just play with bigger numbers that's all.
As a theoretical example - Say I invested 10k in a shares ISa when the markets slumped. That could be worth 13k today. Now 3k profit may be peanuts to a millionaire but it is more than a handy profit to me. Add zeros to the figures and it is easy to see how the rich can get richer.
Oh, and knowing when to sell is as important too. You can be a paper millionaire one day and a pauper the next.
The last sentence is the key to why I think people on here who think that rich people make their money by buying low and selling high are talking rubbish.
The rich are no more able to call the top and bottom of the markets than anyone else. i.e. they can't.
They have generally got rich by being more astute (financially) than most so may have a more experienced/educated/informed "guess" than you or I. Seriously rich people often make their cash from buying low and selling high (i.e. making a big profit....).
More astute - sometimes yes. And some have certainly made money by buying low and selling high - but not, in general, shares. Those that have done it by shares are, generally speaking, just lucky not more experienced/educated/informed. City fund managers can't beat the indexes (simplification, but generally true).
And don't forget that many of the super rich have come by their extreme wealth dishonestly (Abramovich et al) or by inheritance (Duke of Devonshire or whatever you call the bloke who owns half of Mayfair).0 -
+1hmbadger wrote:...
More astute - sometimes yes. And some have certainly made money by buying low and selling high - but not, in general, shares. Those that have done it by shares are, generally speaking, just lucky not more experienced/educated/informed. City fund managers can't beat the indexes (simplification, but generally true)...
Nobody beats the indexes over the long term, with very few notable exceptions. Those exceptions exist because they have been lucky enough, for just long enough, that the market has distorted around them. This effect doesn't apply to the small investor.0 -
Mainstream investment guides recommend that a prudent investor avoids trying to "time" the market or "pick" winners. Net purchases of stocks & shares should be spread out over time (say, the first 20 years), as should the net sale of them (over the following 20 years) and various diversified assets should be chosen to spread the risk. Over the historical long term, stocks & shares will rise by 13% on average a year - invest in the whole market over the long term and an investor will get that return with a high degree of precision.daviesee wrote:...
The rich with enough money to speculate buy up stocks & shares when the markets crash. When the markets recover they end up even richer. I have done this personally (on a small scale) and the investments I made 1 1/2 - 2 years ago are +30% roughly.
if you have cash you can do the same but you have to time it right, pick the right shares - and be prepared to take the loss if it goes pear-shaped. It is not the preserve of the super rich.
Joe Bloggs with a mortgage doesn't make good investment decisions and that is due to ignorance, the institutional corruption of the financial sector and the connivance of the political elite.
Joe Bloggs "invested" all his money, and more that he borrowed from the bank, on his artificially overpriced house, because that is all he knows and all the bank would lend him money to buy. The historical long term rise in UK house prices is 9% each year, which is not bad considering Joe Bloggs gets to live in it while his "investment" is (hopefully) increasing in value. However, a house is totally undiversified in both time and assets - the risks are in no way spread, so it is therefore a very risky (and very large) investment. Isn't it funny how the bank will lend Joe £100k to invest in a risky, undiversified asset like a house, but not to "play" the stock market, and the government says every good citizen should aspire to be a homeowner?0
