Buying Shares - first time, advice needed

[SueEllen]

It might be fun to resurrect this thread in a year's time to see who's right?
If you look at the 'Broker opinion' red/blue graphic on H-L's page for a share, which gives opinion now and 3 months ago, you quite often see that more brokers are saying 'buy' when a share is more expensive.

It sometimes seems that the pro's can't predict the future either.

I'm sure they did a trick where they got a monkey to pick shares or something very similar.

Some of those shares in that list are a bit (too) familiar.

Sometimes you have to go with what you believe in, for instance I believe that Tesco will make money in the long run, because selling ready-meals to chavs is a valid business model.
I believed Barclays was too cheap when their shares were below a quid.
Dull stuff that I don't really believe in, which I bought because it was a dull reliable blue chip earner, has done me no favours.

The thing to remember IMHO, is that all the obvious factored have been factored in already, by people who've got more time to do the basic research. So people who go against the obvious are not always wrong.
YMMV

WHS

And only put money on stocks you can afford to lose.

[BlasterBates]

I would add only put money on stocks you can afford to lose in the short term.

In the long term shares are going give a higher yield.

I've been invested in the stock market 20 years, more volatile but yield a good few percent more than bricks and mortar,

My stocks yield on average over 20 years somewhere between 8-11%

I think the 30% rule is pretty good, i.e. 30% of your longterm savings in shares, and always have cash available for the crash. That's a must. That means you'll never have to spend more than a year in the doldrums.

Having cash around for the crash is the insurance policy. That way you'll never get caught with "your pants down".

If you'd invested 10000 in the US stock market in 1929, then 10000 in 1931 by 1936 you would have around 50-60 grand. You would have lost a bit on the initial investment and made fortune on the second tranche,

To make your fortune you first of all you lose 90% of your investment. This is the bit that make people nervous, a bit like playing chicken. Having lost most of your money you have pile back in.

crashes are painful and will probably give you sleepless nights, but then they make you rich.....

[tomtomagain]

tomtom, I know that there is a risk involved in any form of storing value, banks are very low risk.
my own personal inflation is extremely low and my costs are extremely low.

If my money lost some value for some reason, why, I would work a few extra weeks to get it back.

And that's a good place to be. So why are you suddenly contemplating shares?

[EternalOptimist]

And that's a good place to be. So why are you suddenly contemplating shares?

because the banks are full (in terms of protection)

I don't have anywhere rock solid to put it. I have relatives with 'sure-fire' investment plans , and I have other relatives who need a 'kick-start'
If I don't find a safe haven, I will end up giving it away

[DimPrawn]

because the banks are full (in terms of protection)

I don't have anywhere rock solid to put it. I have relatives with 'sure-fire' investment plans , and I have other relatives who need a 'kick-start'
If I don't find a safe haven, I will end up giving it away

Wow if all the banks are full at £85K in the UK, you must have a lot of cash sloshing about.

Savings compensation and protection: Bank ownership and licences | This is Money

[tomtomagain]

because the banks are full (in terms of protection)

I don't have anywhere rock solid to put it.

If that is your motivation then just leave it in the bank. There's no point worrying about whether a major UK high street bank is going to go under because if one does then the effect on the economy will be so great that the fact that you where only protected up to £170k will be irrelevant.

If an entity like Barclays, for example, ceased operations then - in my view - that could only really be caused by an existential threat to the country. Ruskies in the home-counties, and not the house-buying ones either.

The UK government and Bank of England will not let a high street bank fail, they would always be lender of last resort and would simply print money to keep it afloat. The ramifications of letting one fail are just too huge.

If you have an joint-accounts at Lloyds, Barclays, Santander & HSBC then you aren't you protected to the tune of 170k * 4?

[DimPrawn]

I've always found this useful for UK investors looking to build a low cost investment portfolio.

Low cost index trackers that will save you money

[pjclarke]

Good time to be in shares.

U.K.'s FTSE 100 Closes at Record High - Bloomberg Business


(After a week my 'sample' 10K portfolio has covered its trading costs, stamp duty and spreads and is £40 in profit :


Course, your horizon needs to be years, not weeks ….)

[tomtomagain]

Course, your horizon needs to be years, not weeks ….)

Unless of course you are a day-trader or running a HFT hedge fund. Then seconds will do.

[zemoxyl]

Good time to be in shares.

Really? Good time to be moving out of equities I'd've thought. Crispin Odey might suggest that this is a bit of an interesting juncture. But as ever , DYOR.