investment question!

[Pap_sak]

if you had R400 000 from a previous propery would you

invest the whole amount into your new property to keep the repayment low or invest the the whole amount in a investment and use the monthly interest
to pay some of your new bond...or just invest the whole amount in a long term equity for 15 to 20 years. alternatively

buy a small bachlor flat cash and use the monthly income to put into your new bond or sell it later for a profit or buy a small business.

any suggestions ?

Well, if it was me(as in you, I have paid off my mortgage) (and I am no financial advisor!), I would put R300k in your mortgage and chuck 100k into the stock market (a good 25k in Capitec), the rest in blue chips with decent dividends...no tax!

Why? Because it's easy! (and I am a lazy investor!)

[joscal]

Hi Karen

Do you still have Mark's no and email.
Thanks

[Moneymaker]

I wish I can one day understand how you can make money buying a property you eventually pay double or tipple for, sigh. My head is just to flat for this...

You have to start somewhere, and it all starts with your belief system.....

Do you believe cashflow + properties exist?

Do you believe there's a world of opportunity out there and you're entitled to your share?

Do you believe YOU CAN DO IT?

Do you have a PLAN to do it?


Once this is all in place - it happens almost by second nature........

[Dave A]

This of course if my opinion and I don't deal with these people at any level.

Maybe, but it makes sense.

[Karenwhe]

Sorry Dave, yesterday I was rushing out to a meeting so I made a quick post.

In my opinion, I don't think they kept the money and it is also possible that it is a compound problem that the reserves were not planned to be enough in a real bad case scenario. More like planned for a mild case scenario, but when the bad case scenario came the reserves were not enough.

Also I did see in other cases when stuff like this happens usually one observes that reserves have been used for other stuff and depleted.

When a company like this goes down, it is usually a compound problem. I believe that if it was not - they would have gotten out of a small mess easily without hitting the media and an investigation.

This of course if my opinion and I don't deal with these people at any level.

[Dave A]

No - they didn't keep the money aside in case of default, or no - 10% of the bond as reserve was not enough?

[Karenwhe]

Wierd, both links work now.
You'd think with the security that AMS is supposed to have kept in trust, there'd be adequate reserves to meet the bond instalments

My personal opinion is = no.

[Karenwhe]

My opinion is: something has badly gone wrong because the national credit regulator is asking people who are having problems to call them because they are now under investigation.

If anyone here is under that situation, they can contact the person dealing with this at the national regulator, his name is Mark I have his email address tel. no.

[Dave A]

Wierd, both links work now.

Thanks Karen. Funnily enough Duncan raised this AMS risk free property scheme here last year.

You'd think with the security that AMS is supposed to have kept in trust, there'd be adequate reserves to meet the bond instalments even if the debtor is defaulting. I wonder where those security funds are?

[Karenwhe]

I really don't know why it doesn't open (tried it again and opens on my pc).

So to fix that problem, here is the link again and text below in case there is something wrong with the link.

http://www.realestateweb.co.za/realestateweb/view/realestateweb/en/page310?oid=7652&sn=Detail

Home loan scheme falters
Julius Cobbett
04 March 2008

The next Money Skills? A scheme that promised easy, risk-free money is turning into a nightmare for clients.

Clients of a company called Asset Management Services (AMS) find themselves in a pickle. The company is defaulting on debt that is held in their name, which could lead to blacklisting. Their fate is ironic, because AMS used to market itself as a cure for blacklisted South Africans.

AMS featured last year on Moneyweb and sister website, Realestateweb, when we profiled one of its complex schemes. The scheme was pitched at creditworthy people, who were offered financial reward for helping troubled homeowners consolidate their debt.

Another scheme promoted by AMS involved funding property development. The clients would take a loan to purchase stands, which would be developed and later sold, hopefully at a profit. For funding the development, clients would earn an upfront fee of 5% of the value of the loan.

In both schemes, clients depend on AMS to service loan repayments on bonds registered in their names.

Moneyweb urged its readers to exercise caution when dealing with AMS. We noted that despite AMS being in existence since 1992 and its registration with the National Credit Regulator, it was not well recognised in financial circles. Nor was there much public information available about its sole director Arno Coetzee.

"Of course that alone is not reason to avoid AMS," we wrote. "But for a scheme as complex as the one it offers, having the backing of a large insurance company or bank would provide much greater peace of mind for potential clients."

Unfortunately for AMS clients, our cautious tone proved to be well founded. In October last year, some AMS clients were contacted by banks, who informed them that their bond repayments had not been met.

At the time, AMS claimed: "The reason for this situation is that we cancelled a number of debit orders of "inactive accounts" etc, but, by mistake, our bank then cancelled almost all debit order payments from our account."

AMS enclosed a copy of a letter from its bank, FNB, which confirmed this excuse.

However, this was not the end of the problems at AMS. Later in the year AMS again missed instalments on its clients' bond repayments.

In a letter to clients dated November 5 last year, AMS blamed the latest default on "difficulties with the management of continuous deductions of ‘non-performing' clients versus those of paying clients."

It said it had decided to stop all debit order deductions and manage the payments electronically.

AMS said it anticipated a much smoother management of payments in the future. This did not happen. Instead, the company continued to default on its payments.

Clients say that AMS director Arno Coetzee does not return calls or respond to e-mails. Moneyweb's own attempts to contact Coetzee have been unsuccessful.
In the absence of any reassurance from AMS, clients have reason to expect the worst. They may be forced to sell the underlying property (possibly at a loss) or pay bond repayments they can ill afford. Failure to meet these repayments could result in blacklisting with the various credit bureaus.

[Dave A]

That link doesn't seem to go to open content, Karen.

[Karenwhe]

Which..... with the risk of sounding like a control freak, which I am, I don't live in denial about anything - control of ones assets and knowledge has massive importance for fast and easy success.

I don't want so sound anti in any way, as I said I live in both worlds, but for the man in the street with a job and basic needs such as putting food on the table, playing in a world of the "good companies" can be vastly misleading to where it can end up. And we all know Enron and even Apple was up for explanations with back dated shares, sub-prime problem was also created by some "good old companies" with some dumb ideas, and the list is so long that is not worth mentioning anymore.

Did anyone expect this? I sincerely prefer to have the knowledge and control of my own assets and wealth creation.

A scheme that promised easy, risk-free money is turning into a nightmare for clients. The company has been in existence since 1992.

http://www.sapropertyinvestor.co.za/view_article.php?id=http://www.realestateweb.co.za/realestateweb/view/realestateweb/en/page310?oid=7652&sn=Detail

[Karenwhe]

You reckon it's not happening? I reckon folks just don't shout it from the rooftops as much anymore.

I just don't see that, that is why I am saying it. I don't really understand why, but many people have become financially free through property, again, you may think I am not objective, but I live in both worlds, just happen to focus on one right now more than the other.

When were they bragging? I missed that point in time. Maybe it is me, no worries. But other than the tech boom, (in which time I was right in the middle of it and working with telcos - not in SA), IPOs plenty, money was growing on the trees, no kidding it wasn't even funny anymore.... I did not see this happening.

But again, I am not saying it is not possible, or it didn't happen, but what I see is that it does not happen as often as property and you have NO control.

In equities and companies if you want to have control, build a company with an IPO exist strategy - but that is no kiddies game and we all know that.

Which..... with the risk of sounding like a control freak, which I am, I don't live in denial about anything - control of ones assets and knowledge has massive importance for fast and easy success.

Forget strategy and anything else, if you have no control, all bets are off. Just think about it for a second.

I don't want so sound anti in any way, as I said I live in both worlds, but for the man in the street with a job and basic needs such as putting food on the table, playing in a world of the "good companies" can be vastly misleading to where it can end up. And we all know Enron and even Apple was up for explanations with back dated shares, sub-prime problem was also created by some "good old companies" with some dumb ideas, and the list is so long that is not worth mentioning anymore.

Opportunities are plenty in both markets, "short", "long", "bull, "bear" you name it... but you need control to a decent extent and lots of knowledge to make the right decisions in both markets.

Property is just far more easier and even more forgiving to some extent.

[Dave A]

I do not remember last when, equities have made someone financially free within 3 to 5 years and rich beyond any basic needs quite fast thereafter.

You reckon it's not happening? I reckon folks just don't shout it from the rooftops as much anymore.

I've got to say, there's a lot to think about in this thread.

[Karenwhe]

I think when it comes to your primary residence, you've got to factor in the fact that you need to stay somewhere - so the equivalent rental needs to be factored into the equation.

Primary residence is usually a liability up to the time when equity becomes realized. I know a million people would want to argue with me because it hurts their perceptions, but that is besides the point...... simply because primary residence does not make money and equity is "ghost money" until it is realized and you can :take it to the bank", as they say.

And if you don't believe me ask all the people that didn't have sound financial management and now are being repossessed. What does their asset equity help them? It is the exact liability that got them repossesses because......... they couldn't afford it anymore.

For investment properties, someone else is paying the rent - and the money is made by capital growth as well as rental escalations. This, of course, assumes capital growth and an inflationary environment.

That is true. Money is made both in capital and income. But if one aims to be financially free one day soon, they should aim to buy properties that are suited for income and leave the capital issues as a side benefits.

The best situation is to find the middle ground between income and capital. But that will depend on what ones strategy and what one needs (e.g. at an advanced age person may not be able to think much about capital but more about income to live on because of obvious reasons).

As an aside - I suspect this is why good equities outperform property over the long term. With a property - well, it's earnings footprint growth is rather limited to the size of the plot. With a good company, they are constantly striving to grow their earnings footprint.

I do not remember last when, equities have made someone financially free within 3 to 5 years and rich beyond any basic needs quite fast thereafter.

That set aside, I believe in equities, but less than in properties, simply because you have no control. It is as simple as that.

Good companies go down, properties don't and if they burn, get wiped out you have insurance. And if equity goes down, rent still comes in. Think about that for a second.

What do you get when the stock market goes down (a lot of money if you are short, but besides that) if you are invested in a company and the sectors is getting wiped out for some reason and the good company can't make it. What do you get? And then how much control do you have to save your situation?

That is not to say that one can't lose a property, but that would be the investors fault in financial management and it can happen, but the investor still has control. In good companies you have to take a microsoft perspective: "plug and pray" . Just kidding.

If I want equities I would rather go IPO than invest in someone else. But hey that is me. I play the stock market, but not for investment at any rate, but pure making money day and intra day trading (and I must make a shameless admition....... also for fun).

Hope this helps.