spare cash

what are people doing with their spare cash?

I have crypto and can't persuade wife to lump it all in on btc and eth

paying a sum off the mortgage is safe but wrong. 

So what are people doing?

 

don’t generate any currently

used to put it all into investment funda

oh, and mortgage

it’s not wrong if you plan to stop working and want to keep a roof over your head when you do

Trying to build up a dividend income so I can be independently wealthy.

So far I can I dependently buy an eight pack of diet coke a year 

Enjoy life now, die young(-ish). In 10, 20 years' time the world may be a very inhospitable place either environmentally or socio-politically (or both).

Step 1 should be to pay off debt. Ultimate hedge against interest rate rises when you don't pay any interest. 

Being mortgage free before throwing cash into crypto / tulips / dubai property is not boring - its the only thing to do. 

Mrs Avi chose to have a larger kitchen.  Builders have been here for weeks.

unless u r on the verge of retirement and don’t have enough assets to offset the mortgage, not having a mortgage is financially illiterate

make ur assets sweat

Max out ISAs for you, other half and progenies.

Would focus on non-GBP denominated assets as sterling is still overvalued given Brexit impacts over the next decade or so. 

Anything left can be used to delever if mortgage is material, but given long term interest rates you are probably better off putting it to work elsewhere.

Once you have no mortgage you have a third or more (see other thread) of your income every month to spend / save / invest in the knowledge that you will always have a house over your head.  Borrowing against your house to invest in funds can work if the market is on your side, but you could just as well find yourself jobless at a time when you need to pay your interest and your assets can't be sold / will sell at a large loss. I guess that's the move of the financially literate...

blow is a waste of time but hookers is a good shout 

p.s. re the mortgage issue, my mentality is to perpetually be on the verge of retirement from as early in life as possible

exactly. Too many people are trapped by a large mortgage keeping them in a job they h8 because they have £5k a month to find before they can switch a light on or turn the heating on. Fine when you are bossing quadtun. But not so fine when you've had enough of that and want to do something else but you can't.  Case study - 90% of law firm partners aged between 38 and 53.

Private golf simulators are quite a popular add on at the moment for people who are sitting on cash and already have a home cinema, pool and tennis court

Once you have no mortgage you have a third or more (see other thread) of your income every month to spend / save / invest in the knowledge that you will always have a house over your head.  Borrowing against your house to invest in funds can work if the market is on your side, but you could just as well find yourself jobless at a time when you need to pay your interest and your assets can't be sold / will sell at a large loss. I guess that's the move of the financially literate...

eh? if some1 is seriously having this debate then i v much doubt their mortgage costs (especially only the interest part, as that is the relevant bit) r anywhere near a third of their income

and yes, the idea is that u have ur assets in a variety of other investments, a sufficient amount of which r liquid enough (but still making a net return above interest costs) for u to pay off ur mortgage if necessary. of course there r risks, but the risk of being mortgage free is that property is a wasting asset (just a slow one) and the local market moves/inflation destroys the value

so mortgage free does not equal risk free

if interest rates go up significantly then the risk-reward balance might change, but as kaul says there is no indication of that and being mortgage-free is borderline madness when u can beat it with other investments and so both make a return and hedge against ur property value

Some undeniable things

If you don't have a mortgage you have more spare cash. so more to invest / save

Property is not a wasting asset - if the market moves, your property is worth more....(you win). if it moves the other way, you still own it -(you win).  as opposed to owing the bank more than its worth....(you lose)

Borrowing to invest in high risk assets is high risk

In a downturn, property values decline as to stock values - unless you are hedging (which itself is a conservative strategy), then you will be without a job at the same time you owe more on your property than you borrowed and your assets are distressed and difficult to sell (or not worth much). 

maybe i have just been lucky with my strategy 

 

Parsnip if you are bossing 400k PA , 5k mortgage payments really ought not to be noticed in the slightest?

my point was they are noticed, when you have decided that you don't want to do that job anymore. 

Surely mortgage+more investment assets vs no mortgage+fewer investment assets is just a question of risk tolerance, not right or wrong.

£400k a year is about £18.5k a month after tax. So in that instance a £5k mortgage + council tax is nearly 1/3rd of monthly net.

So noticeable but manageable.

And if you make 400k and cannot save 100k of that from your net, you probably need to ask some questions of yourself. I don't mean you Parsnip, but generally .

its almost as if i said that it was a 1/3 of your income when i gave the example. The point i was making is that this is completely manageable - but maintaining £400k per year as a salary / income probably isnt as manageable as it used to be in terms of stress and desire but getting out is difficult when you have outgoings like this to service.  So paying down your debt gives you that freedom.  The freedom not to need that. .  

Always (always) hamma the gidge. 
 

I own several high end orations of the earth’s surface and have not a single penny of debt. The idea of owing a bank money is an abomination. 
 

Sure, rates are low and you could it into listed companies, close your eyes and hope.

I enjoy waking up knowing every pound in my pocket is mine.

There’s no right answer but what Parsnip said.

Parsnip ReplyReport

Property is not a wasting asset 

err, ok, ‘snip m7 this is getting awkward 4 u.

to clarify - maybe if u own a piece of bare turf, it is not a wasting asset

otherwise, property is most definitely a wasting asset requiring significant capex to maintain value

sure, the land value may move significantly as well, but that is a market play - a bet - but won’t alter the fact that the bricks and mortar r a wasting asset

so the point stands: if u don’t mortgage up, ur not sweating ur assets and that is financially illiterate. i get that may make u feel cosy and warm and safe, but that’s a mistake - ur decision to be debt-free is not risk free and ur throwing away the potential upside of reinvesting. u might as well burn notes

😂 property is a wasting asset - buildings and leases might be fella but freehold property is 4 eva. 

The thing is that at the moment the mortgage market is completely disconnected from reality. I just remortgaged at 0.84%, can get 1% risk free and inflation is running at over 2%. Makes absolutely no sense to pay down the mortgage in that scenario.

Unbelievable. Please refer to Howe v Earl of Dartmouth. 

bullace19 Oct 21 12:31 ReplyReport

😂 property is a wasting asset - buildings and leases might be fella but freehold property is 4 eva

can’t u read or r u just a fookwit?

If you’re acknowledging that money is historically cheap - then consider what happens when it’s not. When it’s not yet you can use your other assets to pay down your debt but what tends to happen in a downturn is that your other assets are not worth as much as you’d hoped they were 

you could say - whilst money is cheap pay down as quickly as possible whist the debt is cheap. 

You could say that just to see the look of appalled horror on any passing finance person's face I suppose.

Do whatever gives you peace of mind but the number of people on here who probably work in finance and don't seem to understand how their mortgage or interest rates or repayment timings work is impressive. 

A high-end portion of the earth's surface is not, I can confirm, a wasting asset.

i have already roundly dealt with the bare earth point

unfortunately, tho, bare earth is not v comfortable to live on

so u c a high end portion of the earth that’s liveable upon is indeed a wasting asset. as any fule of a property investor kno

"Do whatever gives you peace of mind"

This is the most valuable bit of advice on this thread.

The earth’s surface is land and land includes buildings and other structures affixed thereto. High-end therefore covers it. 

Trust that’s of assistance. 

indeed it is, because those buildings and other structures r precisely the wasting parts of the asset to which i refer

"Do whatever gives you peace of mind"

I don't want to kill myself just yet.

Wasting assets are newbuilds in Thames Gateway. Clifton and other choice exclusive bang-on fvck-off posh exclusive monster red hot desirable streets and neighbourhoods are gold and in fact the analogy doesn’t end there. For they are indeed a store of value that is timeless. 

ReplyReport

Wasting assets are newbuilds in Thames Gateway. Clifton and other choice exclusive bang-on fvck-off posh exclusive monster red hot desirable streets and neighbourhoods are gold and in fact the analogy doesn’t end there. For they are indeed a store of value that is timeless.

ah i don’t disagree that they r a store of value as they r very slowly wasting - especially if u avoid the newbuild flats as u say, though even they waste relatively slowly too

but even those monster palatial trophy buildings r still wasting; they require regular capex to keep them in that golden splendour. that is y u can buy a renovation job and add serious value

u realised i’m right, i don’t need u to emoji it bullsarce m7

Can I interest you in premium bonds?

But seriously, I'm a fan of ETFs in a S&S ISA. Max it out every year, make sure your ETF has low fees and is appropriately diversified and let it grow.

By any definition of "wasting" (other than you're own made up one) - real estate is not a wasting asset.  All assets need maintenance (other than precious metals) but that does not mean that they are constantly diminishing in value.  

Real estate assets perform 2 functions - they are a store of value and they are a functional / operational asset. In their operational mode, yes they require maintenance etc. (if you wrapped a house in clingfilm and left it for 10 years, it probably wouldn't need much to get it going again).  Exploiting it for its operational value adds to its value but does not re-categorise it.    

Part of any investment strategy is how it makes you feel - because you are either growing / protecting / wanting security. My strategy is zero debt. I have taken risks with this strategy and had debt before - but the plan was always debt reduction. I have done ok with it. It makes me feel safe but also makes any investment decision feel less critical - because i'm not betting the farm. 

ok ’snip m7, u better go and tell every single asset manager in the world that they’ve got it wrong when they slowly depreci7 their property investment financial modelling. even triple net leased property. they have it totally wrong. u should be ring them up and shout at them “no leakage!!!!”

and also u should tell all financial regulators that class property as a high risk investment they have it wrong. havent they heard “safe as houses!!”

oh and those accountants who also do the same

cos u sure kno best. never mind these specialists. ’snip from rof is ur man for accounting policies

u utter plum

ps - as above, just cos it’s wasting doesn’t mean it’s not still a store of value, it’s just the value erodes (slowly, generally, for property)

fooking hell this is like school level stuff

as for this

 My strategy is zero debt. I have taken risks with this strategy and had debt before - but the plan was always debt reduction. I have done ok with it. It makes me feel safe but also makes any investment decision feel less critical - because i'm not betting the farm. 

fine, if u go by how u “feel”, rather than cold hard numbers then that’s ur call. but don’t assume a zero debt property investment is risk free. it’s not. (aside from it being a wasting asset…) it’s still a bet, just a different bet.

this is about what humans should do with spare cash. Not what investment managers should do with cash entrusted to them by investors who are expecting a return and have accepted the risk that comes with leverage.  By the way, you may be surprised to hear that many funds do not borrow.

Using words like "triple net leased" property may make you sound like you know what you are talking about - but that phrase has nothing to do with debt - and there are plenty of funds that buy and hold and asset manage the safest of FRI / 3net property without any debt.  

I am pleased my definition of wasting asset is alligned with HMRCs. If it has a life of more than 50 years, its not a wasting asset.

Using your own example, can you understand that investment grade triple net real estate is not a wasting asset as otherwise the pension funds would not be able to invest in it. Have a look at the list of what pension funds can and can't invest in m8. They are regulated, and investments in wasting assets are not permitted.  oops. 

 

Interesting view on risk.  I take the view that the main house is not an asset in a cold sense but an emotional decision and one which, if free of debt, gives a security which allows one to take real risk elsewhere.  It also means that I don’t invest in real estate related securities because I have quite enough real estate exposure.

Yes, of course there are ongoing costs but it has been an appreciating asset and there aren’t many Georgian houses in good locations being built at the moment.

As for “triple net lease” is that a real thing or advanced gibberish.  One gets net leases and one used to get the triple cocktail in bank account security.  Together though?

triple net / net net net / 3net / FRI all means the same thing. It means the landlord takes their yield in a way that closely matches the risk associated with bonds (because the tenant pays for the insurance, the repair and the maintenance) - leaving the rental yield more easily comparable with yields stated for other assets like bonds (and gilts) and shares. 

full repairing and insuring - see also “institutional grade” lease though that phrase has fallen out of fashion 

Mark Zuckerberg currently has a mortgage on his primary residence.

Interesting thread.

surely there’s no way mark Zuckerberg has a mortgage on his house?

I may be too much of a financial thicko to understand why that might be a good idea…

" I take the view that the main house is not an asset in a cold sense but an emotional decision and one which, if free of debt, gives a security which allows one to take real risk elsewhere. "

This is basically what most people think tbh.

In financial terms a house is not an asset, it's a liability - it doesn't give you a return and you have to pay the bills etc. 

😂 at bullsarce wanking himself silly that he might be seeing some1 “triggered”

sozzles m7, nope. 
 

parsnip ReplyReport

this is about what humans should do with spare cash. Not what investment managers should do with cash 

o i c, ur being fookwitted. i made quite plain i was talking about wot is financially liter7 or not, not wot was emotionally best for some1.

Using words like "triple net leased" property may make you sound like you know what you are talking about - but that phrase has nothing to do with debt - and there are plenty of funds that buy and hold and asset manage the safest of FRI / 3net property without any debt.  

heh u massive tool, that was in the context of u claiming to narrow done ur term of reference to passive investment. even then, a wasting asset. it’s nothing to do with debt u toolbag, we r talking about wasting asset or not. and massive heh at u lecturing about wot funds do

I am pleased my definition of wasting asset is alligned with HMRCs. If it has a life of more than 50 years, its not a wasting asset.

oh wow ur going for an arbitrary tax definition to move the goalposts. slam dunk! sorry:no. if u invest in domestic property it’s a wasting asset cos it’s value goes down if u do not incur capex. this is a standard definition.

can you understand that investment grade triple net real estate is not a wasting asset as otherwise the pension funds would not be able to invest in it. Have a look at the list of what pension funds can and can't invest in m8. They are regulated, and investments in wasting assets are not permitted.  oops. 

😂 at u frantically googling. this is massively lollersome cos u clearly have no idea wot pension funds can and can’t do vis a vis real asset investments - funnily enough, they can invest in wasting assets and they do. but it’s more lollersome cos literally wot i have written above comes from a number of pension fund investors

I think in the US there are tax reliefs available that make it beneficial 

Wow. I haven’t googled anything.
 

I can see that you’re in a sensitive mood so Ill leave you to stew over your self pwnage 

heh at me being sensitive

i will take that as ur graceless resignation

all ur point has been left with is “er but but but i am really talking about how i feel” 

fine, so u don’t feel like putting debt on ur home. ok. my point stands that this is not financially literate behaviour. if it makes u feel good tho, go ahead

That’s not the point I was making - the point is that when you live in the asset you are risking it’s great when times are great and your investment will probably move with the market but when you lose your job or want a different job that will be times with the inability to realise your investment because the market in whatever you have invested in is likely to have followed the downturn. And that wouldn’t be a happy place to be. And if not then you’re borrowing in counter cyclical investments to hedge against a downturn which would be illiterate when the other option would be to pay down debt 

don’t assume you are clever and everyone else is stupid. 

heh

yeah and u totally missed the bit in my original response where i pointed out u hedge the mortgage with liquid investment so u minimise that risk of carrying debt with a liquid investment that  can likely discharge it if rates go up. yes, there is risk, but the delta between ur liquid investment and the interest rate on the debt is ur reward for taking that risk

and

u keep missing the bit where i pointed out being debt free is not as risk free as ur holding out, cos of the loss of opportunity and the fact that the asset is slowly wasting as it requires capex

and

u have missed the massive issue with ur point that actually property is not countercyclical, it’s often the thing that gets hit in a downturn - so it’s not really a good hedge

and

ur conveniently ducking wot ur actual point is and the point others make that ur home is an emotional investment and so being debt-free is a nice feeling. a point with which i agree (but which remains financially illiterate cos it’s judging a financial decision on feeling)

 

so u c i don’t assume i am clever. i don’t assume every1 else is stupid. in fact, i just kno that u completely missed the point and then tried to defend it stupidly cos u realised u didn’t kno wot u were talking about or wot u meant 

I havent missed anything. I just dont agree with you

If you carry a liquid investment and there is a downturn, that liquid investment will be down, and it probably won't be adequate to repay your debt if you have to sell because you can't service your debt from your job. Those liquid assets are great when they are valuable and on the up but less good when you need to sell them to fund interest (say you lose your job) because that is more likely in a downturn when your investments will be depressed - and less liquid and that's the point you need them to be liquid. 

Of course property is not risk free. But that's irrelevant to your narrative because we are comparing holding property with debt v holding property without debt - and in all cases, holding property without debt is a lower risk. 

I don't agree that real estate we are talking about (houses in the UK) is a wasting asset. Industrial buildings can be (they sometimes have a life of 8 / 10 / 15 years), as can property on short leases, but houses in the Uk, no

I agree that property is not counter cyclical - it follows the curve - a little behind equities. But that was my point. Borrowing money to invest in things ahead of the curve isn't a hedge against anything (unless you are investing in countercyclical assets - and that would kind of defeat the point). It just adds risk. 

It has nothing to do with the home being an emotional investment - it has everything to do with the fact that you will always need a home. That's not emotional - that's a fact. So getting one and having it paid for so you won't lose it is a sensible spare cash strategy. Its not illiterate or stupid or a plum

I congratulate you on having passionate confidence in your rightness. That's probably a good character trait. It doesnt make you right tho

State of this thread.

Liabilities are a fact; assets are an opinion.

How you react to these two axioms depends on your risk preferences and everybody's are different.

 

 

 

 

 

ffs

Parsnip19 Oct 21 21:41 ReplyReport

I havent missed anything. [bollox, u have, as above] I just dont agree with you [i can see that but u then miss the point]

If you carry a liquid investment and there is a downturn, that liquid investment will be down [now ur just chatting shit, this is a ridiculous thing to believe, it’s totally asset and downturn specific], and it probably won't be adequate to repay your debt [eh? this depends on a multitude of factors, not least the above utter wrongness from u and how much it goes down] if you have to sell because you can't service your debt from your job [ffs u toolbag the whole point of the liquid asset is u discharge the debt and don’t need to service it! wtf r u on about?]. Those liquid assets are great when they are valuable and on the up but less good when you need to sell them to fund interest (say you lose your job) [as above, it’s not to fund interest it’s to fund principal, wtf planet r u on] because that is more likely in a downturn when your investments will be depressed [investment dependent, as above. ur chatting shit]- and less liquid [how do u make this unjustified statement with a straight face? liquidity will be fact specific at the time] and that's the point you need them to be liquid. [u have just written a load of shit. but as i sed above, i am not pretending liquid investments used as an emergency offset is a risk free strategy, so ur whole premise is completely fooking missing the point.]

Of course property is not risk free. [phew, it took a while to get u there] But that's irrelevant to your narrative [no, it’s not, u have missed the point] because we are comparing holding property with debt v holding property without debt - and in all cases, holding property without debt is a lower risk [wrong, wrong, wrong, it’s totally fact specific and depends on how u invest the proceeds of the debt drawdown. neway, it misses the point that i am not pretending loading (or even taking just a little, say 30%) with debt doesn’t carry risk, as above i am saying u can sweat the asset with relatively low risk and collect the delta between the interest costs and the net income from ur investment]. 

I don't agree that real estate we are talking about (houses in the UK) is a wasting asset. Industrial buildings can be (they sometimes have a life of 8 / 10 / 15 years), as can property on short leases, but houses in the Uk, no [fine, but that’s a dumb position cos as i have explained houses need refurbing regularly. usually at least every 15-20 years and redecorating more often. and with smart homes they’re likely to need tech upgrades ever more regularly now. plus with environmental standards the capex burden is also mounting. just look at the threads here on ground source/air source heat pumps. so u can disagree, go ahead, but it’s irrational.]

I agree that property is not counter cyclical - it follows the curve - a little behind equities. [depends on the property. ur just making shit up now.] But that was my point. Borrowing money to invest in things ahead of the curve isn't a hedge against anything (unless you are investing in countercyclical assets - and that would kind of defeat the point). It just adds risk. [ok ur really chatting shit then. not only is that not wot u wrote above, but cos the basic premise of it being behind equities is flawed the following but just isn’t right, and is also irrelevant to my point cos i wasn’t advocating me specific investment with the debt proceeds.]

It has nothing to do with the home being an emotional investment - [er ur changing ur tune about it being how u “feel” (ur post above) then. good, goalposts, moved. and others wrote that]

it has everything to do with the fact that you will always need a home. That's not emotional - that's a fact. So getting one and having it paid for so you won't lose it is a sensible spare cash strategy. Its not illiterate or stupid or a plum [ok so u have totally and completely missed the point. good to clarify. the illiteracy is to do with the loss of upside I repeatedly mentioned above. all ur shit written here is non-financial how u “feel” about it, and misses the point that there r still financial risks involved. so, yes, feeling the need to “have” a home (bollox - u can rent) and feeling u might lose it if ur other investments might not be sellable and u might not discharge ur debt might feel right to u - good 4 u. but it is and remains financially illiterate. sorry u don’t like that.]

I congratulate you on having passionate confidence in your rightness. That's probably a good character trait. [thank you. for my part, i congratulate u on ur steadfast determination to miss the point in order to maintain ur illogical position. it’s probably a good defensive trait as it allows u to deny ever being wrong without having to address whether ur r or r not].
 

It doesnt make you right tho [agreed. in this instance, nevertheless, i am. and i think u probably realise that but will be too stubborn to concede.]

serge m2 even for a nozza fan u r coming across as extra speshul tonight 

merkz m7, that’s a price i willingly and merrily pay 2 korrekt someone like parsnip who quadruples down on massive wrongness on tinternet 

i don’t see ne merit in dignity on an anonymous online forum. otherwise fools and tools would keep spouting shit unaddressed

I take the point about imitation and flattery but I do wish you'd stop trying to write like me. You can't. 

Financial illiteracy is what makes economic models flawed. It’s the beautiful human spanner (not you specifically Parsnip) in the cogs of anything predicated on the daft concept of rational economic agents.

Having said that you do always hope not to stumble across the financially illiterate in commercial negotiations. It happens every now and then, and whilst sometimes a lot of money is left on the table, it usually just results in things taking inordinately longer than they should.

I think you’re saying that it’s financially illiterate for someone to act in their best interests

 

no

i am saying it’s financially illiterate to make a financial decision based upon how u feel rather than a financial assessment of risk vs reward in each case

if making that financial decision based on how u feel about it works best for u psychologically, then that’s fine, go ahead and i don’t criticise it on that level. but it doesn’t thereby duck being financially illiterate, it still is

High Guise20 Oct 21 07:27 ReplyReport

I take the point about imitation and flattery but I do wish you'd stop trying to write like me. You can't.

m7, i don’t aim to imit7 u, have no fear

if u could direct me to the post u think is an imitation, i’ll gladly amend it

Do people re-read these point by point exchanges of "this is why youre wrong" later and cringe?

Does the rate of cringe exceed the 10 year running average rate of return on Treasuries?

no cos, as above, the point of rof is cringe fighting 

it’s the essence of rof being

it’s an anonymous discussion board. nobody cares about ne1 else

 

also nobody actually rereads threads as that would be fooking stupid so there’s wrongness in the premise of ur q at a basic level there neway

i am paying for a whole village in India to cringe at serge's text speak.

probably not the most financially literate use of my funds, but it makes me feel good.

all decisions made by individuals are made based on their assessment (however good or bad it may be); their feeling about the risk. That makes them financially literate - not illiterate, because they are looking at the risk (and the downside / upside) and making a decision based on that. When you are putting your house on the line, the downside is poverty, homelessness, having to go back to renting, inconvenience - these are not abstract constructs unrelated to the financial decision - they are outcomes of risk taking. You can't separate them from the decision.  If you make a decision to ignore them (or perhaps don't consider them), that doesn't make you financially literate - it sort of demonstrates the opposite. 

 

it’s usually only rof’s tarquin who is bothered by txtspk

think about wot rof tribe that puts u in m7

ok ok thanks parsnip, we agree u have missed the point and r nattering on at a tangent

u go ahead feeling good about having no mortgage and believing that’s a financially astute decision cos it makes u feel good and safe. i’ll go ahead thinking ur an idiot cos ur not as safe as u think u r and ur throwing money away which could be put to work better. and we can then merrily agree to disagree, ur happy, i am happy

I'm amazed that anyone actually bothers to read the gibberish that Oracle writes on here...

I was just concluding that myself.

I am pretty sure this was a thread about what to do with spare cash if you have a mortgage. Paying your debt to give yourself better security, access to better rates (on the way to full repayment), and potentially achieve more personal flexibility in later life to earn less, spend more, or save more or take bigger risks is financially illiterate.  Any observation that such a decision involves humanising the risk (or following the abstract risk through to practical repercussions) is apparently a demonstration of financial illiteracy. 

heh @ snippo totally changing wot he was saying now

i am saying it’s financially illiterate to make a financial decision based upon how u feel rather than a financial assessment of risk vs reward in each case

Oracle, when individuals (with or without kids) are dealing with the house they live in then feeling [actually, it's being] secure and having the freedom to make choices (such as working less) by not having a mortgage is a massive plus and is worth ££ to many. 

yes kimmy, i agree with u and with yearofthepig and others who point out ur home is an emotional matter. and with parsnip when he sed that (but not when he changed his mind on it)

and of course those feelings r nice and valuable at a human level

i wrote that above

but that will never escape from the fact that a portion of the money tied up in a property asset will almost always be capable of better use elsewhere, especially in the low interest r7 environment, with minimal downside risk. the relevant portion and where else is hugely fact specific. the reason for that is, as i sed repeatedly, being mortgage free is not quite as risk-free as is held out, nor does it always have the liquidity benefits parsnip believes it has

ur point about working less is wrong tho. cos we’ve already established the debate is whether u use a chunk of money to pay off the mortgage or invest elsewhere for a better net return, so ur not making a decision on whether u can or cannot afford the mortgage - the alternative investment carries that cost. it’s purely psychological to think of employment income as the only way of paying off a mortgage.

I once took out a 700 kilo gidge and repaid it in full in less than a year. Apparently HSBC don’t lend if they expect you to settle within five years. At least that’s what the broker told me after the event. Hehe. 

Law Firm Satisfaction Survey

If you work in private practice, please take RollOnFriday's quick survey measuring how happy you are with your firm. We use the results to rank firms and write stories and reports.

Your firm*
Your role*
Your sex
How satisfied are you with your pay?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's management?*
How satisfied are you with your career development?*
How satisfied are you with your work/life balance?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's culture?*