35-year limit set on home loans

I do not own 2nd property.
Stock investment is still more attractive than property investment since it is inherently easier to apply the skill in foreign stock markets.
It is also highly liquid with little maintenance effort.

Property investments come with lots of hassles.

But, at a good price, I may be tempted to put my foot in

(14-10-2012, 09:46 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: I do not own 2nd property.
Stock investment is still more attractive than property investment since it is inherently easier to apply the skill in foreign stock markets.
It is also highly liquid with little maintenance effort.

Property investments come with lots of hassles.

But, at a good price, I may be tempted to put my foot in

things i note about stocks in foreign markets are that they tend to have bigger no. of floating shares and there is this element of preference shares & company's issued bonds to consider..unlike local simplier companies

(14-10-2012, 09:07 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: Seems we have about an even split between those who have investment property and those who do not.

I'd like to ask - for those who do invest in property, do you see gains more in terms of rental (i.e. yield) or capital appreciation. If it is the latter, what is the timeframe for this appreciation and magnitude which would justify this investment?

I personally use my own benchmark of 5% to 6% unlevered as a comparison base. Of course, leverage will obviously magnify these gains.

(On a side note, hyom and Muck, glad that we are in this together - we seem to be increasingly becoming the "lonely few" who believe more in equities than property in this country!)

Actually, i believe in putting all my money in equity to escape all the hazzles of lanlord/tenant problems. i bought a FH. shoebox unit 1st for rental income and asset allocations. And the possibility for my wife & me as our retirement home. It maybe part of the legacy we want to leave behind for him. That's if my only son can't afford to buy his own house then my present HDB may be gifted to him. So it is not so much for making money. But i have not much faith in fiat money the way US & Euro QE endlessly. That's my take. Anyone have better idea? Care to share?
Thank you.

I don't have and never had a 2nd property either.

Over the past 10 years, I did catch the property fever at least a couple of times and was actively viewing both new launches and resale units, but more for upgrading to a bigger unit than as an investment. I must have missed a couple of bottoms...

Now, on hindsight, I don't really think I'd have been any wealthier, even if I'd managed to buy at one of the troughs. Why? I seemed to have been rather lucky with stocks. Despite having gone thro' a couple of bear cycles and especially the one in '08 which almost halved my Net Worth, I'm still overall, on the average, doubling my Net Worth every 4-5 years since '03.

What I liked about stocks is its much greater liquidity and as the capital outlay is small, I can easily diversify into as many different stocks that catches my fancy. I can easily buy more of the same if it's good and as easily get rid of my 'mistakes'. More importantly.. I currently continue to enjoy my lucky streak here.. Will continue to 'Make Hay while the Sun Shines'..

Still, my latest thinking is I'll most likely get interested in Property if and when I manage to double my total assets at least 1-2 more times. But, by then it'll likely be more as a case for diversifiying my asset class and hopefully, I won't think the capital outlay is that significant, as a % of Net Worth... My current dream only...

Yes! i still like stocks very much. Stocks shall still be my main target of investment in the long run. In fact i am tempted to sell my FH. shoebox before top in 2013 because it is in the money now. Though the money is nothing to shout about. On the other hand i like to try the challenge of being landlord facing all potential tenant's and house-keeping problems. i may surrender if i really don't like it.
Any tips from experienced landlords?
Thanks.

Musicwhiz Wrote:Seems we have about an even split between those who have investment property and those who do not.

Actually, I think there are more forummers who do not own investment property since this is a stocks forum.

Thanks for all the replies. Here is the list I collected on those who do not have investment property;
- WolfT
- CityFarmer
- Muck
- MusicWhiz
- yeowiki
- Kopikat
- hyom (myself)

I guess most of the people on the list prefer stocks. Stocks are my preference too not because it is lower risk but because it is easier to control risk.

Firstly, a stock investor can diversify by building a portfolio of at least 10 relatively non-correlated stocks. Very very few people are rich enough to build a portfolio of properties. In fact, most people have to go on debt just to buy one property.

Secondly, stocks can be bought entirely with cash without incurring debt. How many of us can buy a property with cash alone? With stocks bought with cash, the worst case is to lose 100% of the principal which can be affordable if we still have some savings left. With properties bought with heavy debt, the worst case is financial ruin.

Thirdly, stocks are liquid. If I cannot sleep well due to the danger I smell in the market, I can simply sell off everything the next day and convert to cash. Can you do that with property? This liquid characteristic allows investors to have a better control of risk. On the flipside, it is also why most people fail to make money in stocks compared to properties because the liquid nature caused them to buy and sell at the wrong time due to poor emotional control.

what about direct ownership over nearby agricultural land? anyone has experience care to share?

(14-10-2012, 06:38 PM)hyom Wrote: Secondly, stocks can be bought entirely with cash without incurring debt. How many of us can buy a property with cash alone? With stocks bought with cash, the worst case is to lose 100% of the principal which can be affordable if we still have some savings left. With properties bought with heavy debt, the worst case is financial ruin.

Hi hyom,

I suspect this second reason of yours is why people willingly CHOOSE to invest in property, rather than equities. The leverage which you and I are so worried about actually fuels this bunch of people, as they are aware that they only need to put down a fraction of the cost of the property yet will be able to reap a very high % return ROE. They treat the power of leverage as their friend and must think themselves very "savvy" to be making use of this method while those who invest in equities will get rich much slower (if at all!).

Strangely though, not many people I speak to who have an investment property think of "financial ruin". Perhaps it's a taboo two words? At most, people worry about not being able to rent out their apartment or not getting a very good rental on it, or about interest rates rising. I don't even hear a whisper from people who worry about negative equity, about job losses or some other black swan event which may cause everyone to dump their property. This shows you the power of propaganda and peer pressure.

Propaganda being the newspapers continually featuring people who "made it big" in real estate and who tout the magnificant gains made in real estate without highlighting the risks. The many property developers and agents quoted who believe prices will never come down because of the foreigner policy in Singapore, where PM Lee mentioned that the population target is 6m people. And also headlines such as "Will peoperty prices fall", and such which make people see property as one of the fast routes to wealth.

Peer Pressure where one witnesses many friends or relatives minting it from the property market, and wonder why they missed out. I do know of a friend who has an acquaintance who flipped a property and made $400,000; another who made money on two properties (unrealized) and is now shopping for a third. Such stories spur the greed and impatience in us to make it big and make it big QUICK.

Finally, my personal belief is that people always fele more comfy with something they can feel and touch, rather than shares of companies which are intangible (gone are the days of scrip!). EVen if this means a huge loan and the fact that you can only buy at most 1 or 2 properties, rather than "diversify".

Leverage or no leverage a stock can reduce to zero value but a property should have some value no matter what happens.

(14-10-2012, 11:23 PM)Temperament Wrote: Leverage or no leverage a stock can reduce to zero value but a property should have some value no matter what happens.

this to me may also mean an opportunity to pick a valuable stock at near zero value while is not the case for property.