British expats in Thailand feeling the misery as the UK pound drops to record low levels.

[impulse]

54 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I really, really don't want to set the gold bugs off but gold yields no income. And this thread is about having currencies/cash to pay one's way in Thailand.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the gist of what you're saying, but I see dozens of local people lined up at the Chinatown gold shops every week trading their gold in for lunch money.  And others buying gold so they have something to trade for lunch money some time in the future.  It's a lot more liquid here than it is "back home" where pawn shops take a huge cut from anyone needing cash for their bling.

 

 

 

[scubascuba3]

You are quite wrong i recived no such letter in 1985 i was not in country as thousands of us werent so saw and heard no media coverage. Its a known fact that HM forces were contracted out on mass with the personel having no knowledge of it. Which is the what i have stated all along, what civies new or did i can not comment on. So please refrain from using the words ignorance untill you know the facts.

But when you were contracted out where did your contributions go instead? I know i had a separate pot elsewhere which a few years later merged in with the rest.

[scubascuba3]

I really, really don't want to set the gold bugs off but gold yields no income. And this thread is about having currencies/cash to pay one's way in Thailand.

It doesn't matter it yields no income, you just sell capital to spend. Same applies to all investments with no/low income yields

 

[jeab1980]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

3 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

You are quite wrong i recived no such letter in 1985 i was not in country as thousands of us werent so saw and heard no media coverage. Its a known fact that HM forces were contracted out on mass with the personel having no knowledge of it. Which is the what i have stated all along, what civies new or did i can not comment on. So please refrain from using the words ignorance untill you know the facts.

But when you were contracted out where did your contributions go instead? I know i had a separate pot elsewhere which a few years later merged in with the rest.

I presume into this other pot which is now not worth a great deal compared to what they said at the time. All i know is i will according to the goverment callculations web site be £25 a week worse of than i would have been not contracted out.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with the gist of what you're saying, but I see dozens of local people lined up at the Chinatown gold shops every week trading their gold in for lunch money.  And others buying gold so they have something to trade for lunch money some time in the future.  It's a lot more liquid here than it is "back home" where pawn shops take a huge cut from anyone needing cash for their bling.

 

The only person I know of who uses gold to pay for expenses is John Wick.

Edited September 4, 2017 by SheungWan

[scubascuba3]

 
Sadly, a lot of folks I've met here seemed to fall in love with the cheap sex right about the same time their boss back home chewed them out once more.  
 
Lots of them don't "retire" as much as "quit working".  Then they get into the family way and are caught between a rock and a hard place.  They can't afford to re-patriate with the family, but they can't afford to stay, either.  
 
My heart goes out to them, largely because I almost did the same to the Caribbean when I was 25 years younger and thought I had enough $$ to make it work.  I didn't have nearly enough, but it was many years later before I realized it.
 

But you don't want to retire too late either otherwise you won't have long left. A US friend of mine showed me an article from the US that people were saving too much for their retirement and died with a decent amount still left.

[rickudon]

Contracting out or not...... Prior to the new state pension, being contracted out made little if any difference to your state pension - everybody got the same. Contracted out people just got less in work benefits (e,g, no sickness benefit). 

 

When the new state pension was first announced i was happy at the idea of getting an extra 30 GBP a week. But when asked how that would be paid for, the government said it would not require any extra government funds. That made me wonder. Initially there was little information about how it would be achieved, it took me 3 years of digging to find out - and even then they refused to give me a pension quote - only got that in 2016! But i knew by then i was also going to be screwed, It was one of the treasury's best kept secrets.  

 

Basically those of us who were contracted out (and therefore usually in a company pension scheme as well) had done well out of being contracted out, but now the government saw an opportunity to claw back money to pay for all those people on pension credit (I.e. those only on state pension and no other funds, who got extra payments on top if they applied and qualified). I do not get any less than the old pension system, but i do not get any more as it turns out ....

 

Fortunately i just scraped in with enough years (36) under the new system, as at one stage I thought i would have to pay for missing years (due to university, working abroad and retiring early) or i would have been worse off.

 

It was just one more factor that has cut my income here in Thailand - 27GBP less state pension, personal pensions which were index linked but due to CPI linking have received little or no uprating in the last 7 years, falling Thai baht exchange rate, falling savings interest - so a quadruple whammy to my income. As said, you need to plan to have enough - but what is enough? I thought 55,000 baht was enough in 2009, but in 2017 my income is still the same (even though i now have the state pension as well). Sometimes plans can go very wrong. If my income does fall below 40,000 baht a month, that will definitely be decision time.

[impulse]

43 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The only person I know of who uses gold to pay for expenses is John Wick.

 

Go down to Chinatown in the runup to the start of the school year.  You'll see hundreds of parents cashing in their bling to buy school supplies and uniforms.

 

[Craig krup]

On 9/3/2017 at 3:35 AM, bazza73 said:

Everything is a disaster waiting to happen under the right conditions. The covered call fund you speak of - if there's a bear market, the shares tank and there is no option to be written that will make a profit. The managers can't sell the call option at below the share purchase price because then they will have a capital loss. So no income from calls.

If it's a market meltdown, the first thing companies do to conserve cash is cut dividends. So an investor can get screwed both ways.

Just like shares, peer-to-peer lending has its risk. I assess each loan on the financials, e.g. profit/loss, book value, credit record etc. etc. I don't put more than $3000 into any one loan. Sometimes I'll only be loaning $300 - $400.

What do you think the banks are doing? They take depositor funds, on which they pay 1-2% interest, and lend out at anywhere between 5 and 15%. Peer to peer lending is no different, except you are cutting out a greedy middleman.

I have a foot in both camps. I buy blue-chip Australian stocks for dividends and covered call income, doing it myself rather than paying a fund manager. I rotate through the bluechips as I see fit.

I get an Australian part age pension. My aim is to generate enough income from investment to live well, plus conserve or grow my capital base.

I've been capital stable for the last 8 years, averaging 7% return. So I guess I'm doing just as well as the FTSE fund.

 

1) If shares tank then you're winning on all the options you've written: they're out of the money.

2) If shares tanks then it's easy to write call options: the world's full of speculators who want to make a leveraged bet that there will be a recovery.

3) Banks don't need depositors to make loans. The money is loaned into existence. 

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

 

 

 

[Craig krup]

On 9/3/2017 at 3:07 AM, Mover1 said:

 

OOOhh i feel like i've just been told off, haha!

 

Like i said, it's all a risk Craig. No one mentioned anything about protection in P2P from the FSCS, but you've got me wondering if its covered now. Obviously P2P lending doesn't appeal to you, ah well - Up To You mate. I'm not a massive advocate of it, just part of my plan, right or wrong. Guess i'll find out in a few years.

 

Anyone fretting about the value of GBP should just invest their money somewhere (away from Thailand) so it's making more money, and try not to worry about things that are out of their control.

 

If - IF - the Financial Services Compensation Scheme "covered" peer-to-peer lending what percentage of the total population do you think would be able to grasp the distinction between, 1) the organization has to return your residual monies, if any, after losses on loans made, and 2) you're covered against losses? 

 

5%? 10%?

[SheungWan]

7 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

 

1) If shares tank then you're winning on all the options you've written: they're out of the money.

2) If shares tanks then it's easy to write call options: the world's full of speculators who want to make a leveraged bet that there will be a recovery.

3) Banks don't need depositors to make loans. The money is loaned into existence. 

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

 

Thanks for that link. I am actually going to read it. But not now!

[colinneil]

Brtitish expats feeling the misery as THE POUND DROPS?

Not me i live comfortably on my UK government pension.

 

Fortunately my wife has a good job, and if i run short i can tap her up for a few baht.

[bazza73]

1 minute ago, Craig krup said:

 

1) If shares tank then you're winning on all the options you've written: they're out of the money.

2) If shares tanks then it's easy to write call options: the world's full of speculators who want to make a leveraged bet that there will be a recovery.

3) Banks don't need depositors to make loans. The money is loaned into existence. 

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

 

 

 

I wonder if you really understand call options.

Take a covered call where you have bought a share for $10. You write a call option for an expiry 2 months ahead at a strike price of $10.50. You get a $0.30 premium.

Over that 2 months, the share price falls to $9. You can probably buy the option back for $0.10 or let it expire; however, you are then sitting on a paper loss of $1.

You can continue to write calls on your $9 share at $9.50. You are barely going to do better than cover the brokerage if you write the call at $10 or $10.50. And if you are exercised at $9.50, there's a $0.50 paper loss on the original capital.

My practice, which has worked well for me with Australian bluechips, is to buy at what I think is good value in a downturn. Preferably a couple of months before a dividend. I ALWAYS write a call at a strike price above my purchase price. If I get exercised, that's a capital gain on top of the premium. If the share goes down, I'm prepared to wait until it is up above my purchase price. Sometimes I get my timing wrong and I am exercised before the dividend is paid.

However, I still get some profit if that happens.

I can't comment on UK banking practices. In Australia, it's only the Reserve Bank that can print money - our Big 4 banks can't. Perhaps that's why Australian banks are regarded as some of the most stable in the world.

 

[Craig krup]

14 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Thanks for that link. I am actually going to read it. But not now!

Basically banks are creatures of the central bank of the country they operate in - their "lender of last resort". The central bank sets interest rates, requires the banks to hold minimum levels of capital and intervene if they think it's being run imprudently. The whole "lender of last resort" thing is intended to deal with liquidity, not solvency, problems. So if the commercial bank lends £100,000 on a house that house is (pretty much) worth £100,000, so if the bank is facing problems the central bank can provide liquidity because the assets against which the loans have been made are good assets. That's the theory. 

 

So the banks don't need deposits to make loans. It helps if they've got deposits - it seems to show they can manage their affairs and pay interest - and the overall level of saving in the economy encourages the central bank to reduce interest rates and allow slacker lending criteria, but a loan is conjured out of thin air when a willing borrower, who looks able to pay the interest and capital back, borrows. That money is spent, and some is saved. I think that a £100,000 loan with one grand of saving at every transaction, and all the rest spent (spend £99k, save one, save £98k, save one) will produce £5.5m of spending, and bid into existence all that economic activity. It doesn't take a lot of borrowing against assets like land and houses to get the whole show on the road. 

[Craig krup]

15 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

I wonder if you really understand call options.

Take a covered call where you have bought a share for $10. You write a call option for an expiry 2 months ahead at a strike price of $10.50. You get a $0.30 premium.

Over that 2 months, the share price falls to $9. You can probably buy the option back for $0.10 or let it expire; however, you are then sitting on a paper loss of $1.

You can continue to write calls on your $9 share at $9.50. You are barely going to do better than cover the brokerage if you write the call at $10 or $10.50. And if you are exercised at $9.50, there's a $0.50 paper loss on the original capital.

My practice, which has worked well for me with Australian bluechips, is to buy at what I think is good value in a downturn. Preferably a couple of months before a dividend. I ALWAYS write a call at a strike price above my purchase price. If I get exercised, that's a capital gain on top of the premium. If the share goes down, I'm prepared to wait until it is up above my purchase price. Sometimes I get my timing wrong and I am exercised before the dividend is paid.

However, I still get some profit if that happens.

I can't comment on UK banking practices. In Australia, it's only the Reserve Bank that can print money - our Big 4 banks can't. Perhaps that's why Australian banks are regarded as some of the most stable in the world.

 

One of us doesn't understand call options. All you've sold is the right to "call you away" to another person. 

 

If I own Murray International - which I do - at £12.92 (looking at the other window!), I can take (say) 10p from you, for the right to buy it at £13.20 at any point before (say) 31st December. If the shares rise to £14.00 I get called away at £13.20, and somebody's made multiples of their initial bet. But if the price never rises so that the option is in the money it just dies. The person who bought the option loses their 10p. Jesus wept, they don't have the right to PUT it on me at the price they bought it, AND to call me away. 

 

In your world a fund writing covered call options would lose the investors all their money in a downturn. That isn't what happens. The fund outperforms the market, by falling less, precisely because all of the options which have been written (and for which you've had the cash) are well out of the money. 

 

From Investopedia on call options, "..they can provide significant gains if a stock rises, but can also lead to 100% losses if the call option purchased expires worthless because the underlying stock price went down". 

 

Read more: Call Option http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/calloption.asp#ixzz4rhB7ymze
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Edited September 4, 2017 by Craig krup
Typo

[bazza73]

1 minute ago, Craig krup said:

One of us doesn't understand call options. All you've sold is the right to "call you away" to another person. 

 

If I own Murray International - which I do - at £12.92 (looking at the other window!), I can take (say) 10p for you, for the right to buy it at £13.20 at any point before (say) 31st December. If the shares rise to £14.00 I get called away at £13.20, and somebody's made multiples of their initial bet. But if the price never rises so that the option is in the money it just dies. The person who bought the option loses their 10p. Jesus wept, they don't have the right to PUT it on me at the price they bought it, AND to call me away. 

 

In your world a fund writing covered call options would lose the investors all their money in a downturn. That isn't what happens. The fund outperforms the market, by falling less, precisely because all of the options which have been written (and for which you've had the cash) are well out of the money. 

 

From Investopedia on call options, "..they can provide significant gains if a stock rises, but can also lead to 100% losses if the call option purchased expires worthless because the underlying stock price went down". 

 

Read more: Call Option http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/calloption.asp#ixzz4rhB7ymze
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I've been making money on call options, capital gains and dividends for the last 8 years - enough to finance my comfortable retirement without drawing down my capital base. I invest in what I understand. If you want to claim I don't understand call options, no skin off my nose.

 

Your Murray International example - what are you going to do if the price drops to 12 pounds while you are waiting for December? That's a paper loss of 92p against a gain of 10p.

 

Funds don't outperform the market. They have good years and bad years. Many funds use more complex derivatives such as bull call spreads, bear put spreads, butterflies and strangles to make a profit. They rely on volatility. That's beyond my skill set, so I don't go there. It's no coincidence most of the people at the coal face of that type of operation are burnt out by the time they are 30. Take a look at some of the funds who went belly-up during the GFC. They were writing covered calls while the shorts unleashed a perfect storm of puts.

I'm reminded of the fund manager who was asked whether he lost sleep over being the custodian of a billion dollars. He said " Why should I worry? It's not my money".

 

 

 

[Craig krup]

10 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Your Murray International example - what are you going to do if the price drops to 12 pounds while you are waiting for December? That's a paper loss of 92p against a gain of 10p.

 

What?!! 

 

Why in the name of all that is holy would I give a monkey's about paper losses? 

 

I can see what you're saying. What you're about is speculation.

 

I own Murray. I'm "covered". If anyone asks me for the shares - because the price rises and the person who bought the option is in the money - I can hand them over. I'm not scrabbling around like those chancers who sold VW options without owning the shares, and then couldn't buy what they needed at any price. 

 

If I'm a long-term holder of a share I can safely sell call options to speculators. A fund (like Fidelity Enhanced Income) won't - obviously - make some of their covered call options "naked" by selling the shares on the back of volatility. 

 

What speculators do is anyone's guess. What they do - as a group, and over time - is well-established. They lose money. 

[hashmodha]

Fabulous video and all time classic..thanks

Please excuse spelling mistakes/misunderstanding
Best
HM

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

I really, really don't want to set the gold bugs off but gold yields no income. And this thread is about having currencies/cash to pay one's way in Thailand.

I would have thought that this comment was fairly relevant, a declining dollar is usually good news for the pound.

 

Rickards’ comments come from a similar viewpoint in that there is decreasing faith in the US dollar. This lack of trust is mainly driven by the more than $100 trillion debt ($20 trillion national debt and another $100 trillion in off ‘balance sheet’ liabilities) in the country and the ongoing dedollarisation by major economies.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, rickudon said:

Contracting out or not...... Prior to the new state pension, being contracted out made little if any difference to your state pension - everybody got the same.

That is not true. When I started my state pension by basic state pension was 56% of my total state pension. People contracted out for their working lives would only get the basic state pension, and many see their state pension as beer money alongside their occupational pension.

 

People should remember that prior to the new pension scheme there were 3 components to a company pension. The employers contribution, the employees contribution and a contribution from the employees NI that would have gone to the employee's additional state pension, SERPS and its offspring. It is that third component that some have difficulty in getting to grips with.

[SheungWan]

28 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I would have thought that this comment was fairly relevant, a declining dollar is usually good news for the pound.

 

Rickards’ comments come from a similar viewpoint in that there is decreasing faith in the US dollar. This lack of trust is mainly driven by the more than $100 trillion debt ($20 trillion national debt and another $100 trillion in off ‘balance sheet’ liabilities) in the country and the ongoing dedollarisation by major economies.

More of a dollar down rather than a sterling up story. Sterling hasn't exactly bounced back up against the baht.

[bazza73]

58 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

 

What?!! 

 

Why in the name of all that is holy would I give a monkey's about paper losses? 

 

I can see what you're saying. What you're about is speculation.

 

I own Murray. I'm "covered". If anyone asks me for the shares - because the price rises and the person who bought the option is in the money - I can hand them over. I'm not scrabbling around like those chancers who sold VW options without owning the shares, and then couldn't buy what they needed at any price. 

 

You should give a monkey's about paper losses. What I'm saying is that paper loss diminishes or totally eliminates the ability to make further income by selling more options in the future, UNLESS you want to take the risk of being exercised at a strike price below your original purchase price. That would crystallise the paper loss. If you can't understand that, I give up.

 

I'm not about speculation or naked calls. I sell options on shares that I own. I've also ( rarely ) sold puts covered by cash in my share account. End of story.

Edited September 4, 2017 by bazza73

[Mover1]

2 hours ago, Craig krup said:

 

If - IF - the Financial Services Compensation Scheme "covered" peer-to-peer lending what percentage of the total population do you think would be able to grasp the distinction between, 1) the organization has to return your residual monies, if any, after losses on loans made, and 2) you're covered against losses? 

 

5%? 10%?

 

I'm not really sure what you mean. I was wondering whether any P2P is covered by FSCS in the same way that UK bank accounts are up to £85k? Wishful thinking on my part i guess, ah well. 

[Craig krup]

1 minute ago, bazza73 said:

You should give a monkey's about paper losses. What I'm saying is that paper loss diminishes or totally eliminates the ability to make further income by selling more options in the future, UNLESS you want to take the risk of being exercised at a strike price below your original purchase price. That would crystallise the paper loss. If you can't understand that, I give up.

 

I'm not about speculation or naked calls. I sell options on shares that I own. End of story.

 

Why the **** would I care about past prices? When you buy a share the money's gone. It's in money heaven. Read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". 

 

So: 

 

1) I buy at £10. I write call options, scratch my backside, change my name by deed poll to Shirley...whatever. The price falls to £8. I've pocketed the option money. I've grown used to being called Shirley. My butt has stopped itching. 

2) At £8 I take a view of the future, just as I did at £10. But ten's gone man, ten's gone!!! It's like when you drop your car keys in lava. Man, they'e gone!!!

3) I can sell at £8, or not, buy more, whatever. These are all "Ks" - constants. I'm always buying shares - if I'm Fidelity's Michael Clark - which I hope will rise, and pay rising dividends. 

4) The call option strategy is there to try to exploit over-enthusiasm on the part of others, given "3". 

 

But you're a speculator. This kind of slow thinking isn't your thing. You think you can beat people who have PhDs in numerical subjects, nothing to do all day but get it right, and the fear of the sack if they get it wrong. I know I can't beat them, and I know that generalizations about the lack of accountability in banking doesn't change that fact. I also know that I don't know who knows, and that's a reason to just buy very, very low cost trackers. Warren Buffett's wife's inheritance will go into a tracker. That has to tell us something. 

 

But, putting the "Vantage funds and never sell" strategy to one side, if you need a load of income a cheap covered call option fund held through a cheap broker which has secured the cheapest possible management fees on your behalf, is a reasonable idea. 

 

Read Saul Bellow's Seize the Day. Wilkie would have loved the internet. 

[Craig krup]

15 minutes ago, Mover1 said:

 

I'm not really sure what you mean. I was wondering whether any P2P is covered by FSCS in the same way that UK bank accounts are up to £85k? Wishful thinking on my part i guess, ah well. 

 

And that's it, and that's it, and that's it, and that's it, and that's it. There's nothing I can say. The difference between the two things I've identified - the two different constructions of "covered" - is as clear as the difference between mayonnaise and an F15, but there's nothing that anyone can do. Folk just won't read anything closely, they won't slow down, they won't stop and think and there's nothing that anyone can do. 

 

If I lend £85,000 through a peer-to-peer site, and it is covered by the FSCS, and the people I've loaned to pay £1,000 to the site and nothing else, would being covered  entitle me to £85,000, or £1,000? 

 

If you think it could possibly mean 85 then there's nothing I can say. Spleeble flip fra fra nyet. Language breaks down. There's nothing. We should be in the middle of the jungle in Guyana drinking barbiturates. 

 

Hume was right. Reason has a very small part to play in human affairs. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Craig krup

[bazza73]

15 minutes ago, Mover1 said:

 

I'm not really sure what you mean. I was wondering whether any P2P is covered by FSCS in the same way that UK bank accounts are up to £85k? Wishful thinking on my part i guess, ah well. 

There is no government cover for peer-to-peer losses that I am aware of. Ratesetter has a Provisional Fund which is supposed to cover defaults by borrowers; however, they do not guarantee the fund will be utilised - only that defaults will be considered on a case-by-case basis. They claim to have never lost an investor's money.

An Australian P2P lender, Marketlend, offers loans insured from default so the investor gets 90% of the original investment back. It's a fund regarded as more risky than Ratesetter, and that's reflected in the interest rates.

[Mover1]

6 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

 

And that's it, and that's it, and that's it, and that's it, and that's it. There's nothing I can say. The difference between the two things I've identified - the two different constructions of "covered" - is as clear as the difference between mayonnaise and an F15, but there's nothing that anyone can do. Folk just won't read anything closely, they won't slow down, they won't stop and think and there's nothing that anyone can do. 

 

If I lend £85,000 through a peer-to-peer site, and it is covered by the FSCS, and the people I've loaned to pay £1,000 to the site and nothing else, would being covered  entitle me to £85,000, or £1,000? 

 

If you think it could possibly mean 85 then there's nothing I can say. Spleeble flip fra fra nyet. Language breaks down. There's nothing. We should be in the middle of the jungle in Guyana drinking barbiturates. 

 

Hume was right. Reason has a very small part to play in human affairs. 

Ah well, like i said at the start mate, it's all a risk. 

 

As i side note every accountant (bar one) has been a colossal pain in the rear by overcomplicating things and missing the big picture. Just doing their jobs i guess, much like solicitors. Got to justify the hourly fee.........

 

Have a great evening. 

[bazza73]

12 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

 

Why the **** would I care about past prices? When you buy a share the money's gone. It's in money heaven. Read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". 

 

So: 

 

1) I buy at £10. I write call options, scratch my backside, change my name by deed poll to Shirley...whatever. The price falls to £8. I've pocketed the option money. I've grown used to being called Shirley. My butt has stopped itching. 

2) At £8 I take a view of the future, just as I did at £10. But ten's gone man, ten's gone!!! It's like when you drop your car keys in lava. Man, they'e gone!!!

3) I can sell at £8, or not, buy more, whatever. These are all "Ks" - constants. I'm always buying shares - if I'm Fidelity's Michael Clark - which I hope will rise, and pay rising dividends. 

4) The call option strategy is there to try to exploit over-enthusiasm on the part of others, given "3". 

 

But you're a speculator. This kind of slow thinking isn't your thing. You think you can beat people who have PhDs in numerical subjects, nothing to do all day but get it right, and the fear of the sack if they get it wrong. I know I can't beat them, and I know that generalizations about the lack of accountability in banking doesn't change that fact. I also know that I don't know who knows, and that's a reason to just buy very, very low cost trackers. Warren Buffett's wife's inheritance will go into a tracker. That has to tell us something. 

 

But, putting the "Vantage funds and never sell" strategy to one side, if you need a load of income a cheap covered call option fund held through a cheap broker which has secured the cheapest possible management fees on your behalf, is a reasonable idea. 

 

Read Saul Bellow's Seize the Day. Wilkie would have loved the internet. 

Why on earth would I try to beat the traders? I'm a value investor. And I'm prepared to wait - six months to a year if need be. I'm just about to make a tidy capital gain on a share I've been holding for 2 years, because I saw its potential early. Now the market has caught on, I'm getting out now because I think it's over-valued.

Index huggers may work for you. I like having control of my investments.

 

[bazza73]

16 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

. There's nothing. We should be in the middle of the jungle in Guyana drinking barbiturates. 

 

Hume was right. Reason has a very small part to play in human affairs. 

Er - actually, it was cyanide.

[Craig krup]

3 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Why on earth would I try to beat the traders? I'm a value investor. And I'm prepared to wait - six months to a year if need be.

 

Well, if that's true you won't be worrying about volatility and paper losses, will you?