Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi3141592654
There is very much an issue with investment suitability. I can assure you that the mortgage brokers that distribute these products do not have the qualifications nor the experience to make investment recommendations or take investment action in the context of a client's total portfolio. If you have a $5 million portfolio and invest $100K in these products - and you lose the entire amount or have to wait eons for your principal (or interest) to be returned - you have no issues and shouldn't materially affect your livelihood. However, if your net worth is $200K (let's say as a senior or late in working life) even the minimum amounts typically required - any delays to interest or principal repayment can have an impact particularly when it lacks so much transparency, no liquidity, no marketability, no pricing, and subject to a lot of execution risk on the developer's end. It's laughable to see brokers pitch these comparing them to public equity market returns (along with cherry picking results for periods to the TSX) where there is marketability nor a meaningful comparison.
|
I wasn't denying that, lol!
I just said there's nothing wrong about them in principle. The concept of it, removing qualifications of brokers, etc, is fine. Not ideal, as what you've said above is relatively common knowledge. I was merely making the point that the problem here is fortress, not the syndicated mortgage. The exposure to shady people through syndicated mortages is a problem and that's also an oversight issue, as mentioned.
That doesn't mean I consider it the best choice for your $, even in a perfectly trustworthy world. I personally have $0 in them.
If an investment is deemed risky, that's the investor's problem, not the investment's. Conceptually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finessing
Brilliant. Put all your eggs in one basket and leverage yourself to the hilt.
"They're not making any more land"
HAHAHAHA 2008 was less than a decade ago...how soon we forget.
|
You're somewhat right, but why the hahaha? Anyone who bought a home 2-3 years ago is laughing. Anyone who bought in Vancouver 5 years ago and was told of an impending bubble looks like a genius.
And they are NOT making any more land, so what's your point?
As I mentioned above, that is a risk assumed by the investor, but does not make the investment inherently problematic. If the investor's perception of the risk does not line up with the ACTUAL risk, that's problematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi3141592654
OK. I have a hard believing a passive investment is forcing you to pay through your butt.
|
You like fees? Do you like taxes too?
JK
The fees shouldn't be so off-putting. These days you can still find financial consultants/managers that trade on a fee-per-transaction basis. Problem for some is that some banks are switching to monthly user fees.
For an investor that likes to pick em and leave em, that's, well, off-putting. I pay someone to manage my money, not watch my money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finessing
You must be worth multiple millions if a single detached home in Toronto is a small portion of your portfolio. In that case, more power to you.
100% equity through ETFs, diversified globally and denominated in both CAD and USD. Use REITs to add some real estate exposure. Zero leverage.
I'm young so my investment outlook is decades and swing tolerance high.
|
All of this is correct.
Prev
Linear Mode
