Thanks to everyone who's joined the list. The premise behind this idea at its very simplest is that we get together a group of people and pool our savings into a high interest account or other such non-risk plan. To avail of a high interest account you must have a minimum of 150k in an account. Obviously some people will want to contribute more and some less, but this amount must be reached before we have a viable prospect. This is probably manageable with associates who, if you find yourself in a similar position as myself, have a few quid to put away somewhere and are unsure of what exactly is the most efficient way of doing it. A few issues to consider: 1) How to manage the account? My initial impression was for a Ltd company to manage it under a number of nominated directors. The downside of this is tax implications, accounting costs etc. Another option would be to have a solicitor manage the account. 2) Do we allow new members to join after the initial investment, or do we allow existing members to add more into the account? If we were to go for a high interest account, the interest changes every month. Keeping track of the interest allowed per member would be a prohibitivly time consuming task. 3) How long to invest for? Do we allow members to drop out whenever they want, or is the investment over a fixed length of time? Can members withdraw money only one month of the year? The complexity of it has to do more with the interest calculations, and who owns what portion of it. Also, if a large number of members withdraw at the same time the investment may not be viable any more (<150k). 4) Who else to get involved: If anyone has any friends, relatives etc who want to get involved in this what are the criteria? Are they allowed at all? In my opinion the more the better - The costs per person are going to decrease. 5) Division of costs: Equal? In proportion to the individual investment? Deal with cost and interest differently? 6) Other concerns? Anyone else have any ideas, concerns, etc? Dave -- In night-fighting, then, make much use of signal-fires and drums, and in fighting by day, of flags and banners, as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army.
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 02:24:30PM +0000, David Concannon wrote:
A few issues to consider:
1) How to manage the account? My initial impression was for a Ltd company to manage it under a number of nominated directors. The downside of this is tax implications, accounting costs etc.
Another option would be to have a solicitor manage the account.
Forming a limited company might be too complicated? Has anyone had any experience of having this managed by a solicitor?
2) Do we allow new members to join after the initial investment, or do we allow existing members to add more into the account? If we were to go for a high interest account, the interest changes every month. Keeping track of the interest allowed per member would be a prohibitivly time consuming task.
I think the easiest way overall would be for people to invest the same amount each and all commit to the same term. (highly unlikely I know).
3) How long to invest for? Do we allow members to drop out whenever they want, or is the investment over a fixed length of time? Can members withdraw money only one month of the year? The complexity of it has to do more with the interest calculations, and who owns what portion of it. Also, if a large number of members withdraw at the same time the investment may not be viable any more (<150k).
See above. Commitment to the same term.
4) Who else to get involved: If anyone has any friends, relatives etc who want to get involved in this what are the criteria? Are they allowed at all? In my opinion the more the better - The costs per person are going to decrease.
Agreed.
5) Division of costs: Equal? In proportion to the individual investment? Deal with cost and interest differently?
Again, if everyone invests the same amount then this problem is non-existant. Neil -- Don't get any big ideas They're not gonna happen You'll paint your house white and fill in the noise But there'll be something missing
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 03:06:50PM +0000, Neil Walsh wrote:
2) Do we allow new members to join after the initial investment, or do we allow existing members to add more into the account? If we were to go for a high interest account, the interest changes every month. Keeping track of the interest allowed per member would be a prohibitivly time consuming task.
I think the easiest way overall would be for people to invest the same amount each and all commit to the same term. (highly unlikely I know).
I think this might be too restrictive. It would make it a lot harder to reach the figure of 150k or whatever is required. Letting everyone invest what they can afford (subject to a minimum threshold) and then allocating the dividends pro rata seems like the best idea, imho. I'd also suggest a fixed term (no arbitrary withdrawls) to simplify interest calculations.
5) Division of costs: Equal? In proportion to the individual investment? Deal with cost and interest differently?
This should be guided by the nature of the costs being imposed. If our overheads are static (fixed rate for the solicitor or whatever, fixed banking charges) then I propose we split such charges per head, not per amount invested. If we incur a charge based on the amount invested, then it makes sense to split such charges according to the amount each investor has contributed. -- "Relax Paul, I'm your friend. I'm only dancing with you."
I think the easiest way overall would be for people to invest the same amount each and all commit to the same term. (highly unlikely I know).
I think this might be too restrictive. It would make it a lot harder to reach the figure of 150k or whatever is required. Letting everyone invest what they can afford (subject to a minimum threshold) and then allocating the dividends pro rata seems like the best idea, imho.
I'd also suggest a fixed term (no arbitrary withdrawls) to simplify interest calculations.
I'm in agreement.
If our overheads are static (fixed rate for the solicitor or whatever, fixed banking charges) then I propose we split such charges per head, not per amount invested.
If we incur a charge based on the amount invested, then it makes sense to split such charges according to the amount each investor has contributed.
Again, that was my thought on it. Also, I was under the grave misunderstanding that the 2% interest was credited monthly. Anyway, there has to be a decent return out there somewhere. Dave -- In night-fighting, then, make much use of signal-fires and drums, and in fighting by day, of flags and banners, as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army.
David Concannon said
Letting everyone invest what they can afford (subject to a minimum threshold) and then allocating the dividends pro rata seems like the best idea, imho.
I'd also suggest a fixed term (no arbitrary withdrawls) to simplify interest calculations.
I'm in agreement.
That makes sense to me as well. Ditto for the (snipped) charges stuff: if it's a fixed charge, then it should be a fixed cost; if it's a variable charge, then it should be pro-rated.
Also, I was under the grave misunderstanding that the 2% interest was credited monthly.
Anyway, there has to be a decent return out there somewhere.
I'd say that we may need to talk to a financial advisor: does anyone know one, or play one on tv? It does seem (at the moment) that the best returns are in commercial property funds... Mike. -- -nothing-
I think the easiest way overall would be for people to invest the same amount each and all commit to the same term. (highly unlikely I know).
I think this might be too restrictive. It would make it a lot harder to reach the figure of 150k or whatever is required. Letting everyone invest what
can afford (subject to a minimum threshold) and then allocating the
Apparently if you call EBS or even some of the other bank and ask them what product funds they have they can give you details. There are loads of different accounts, each with varying degrees of risk therefore varying degrees of potential earnings. My personal preference would be for something that returned a bit more than 2%. Most people will get fairly close to that by just putting in your standard savings account. Other possible ideas is a property investment group which should return considerable more, but again it all depends on how much can be raised and also possible this is a bit messier. Jeebers Ltd. eBusiness Solutions Derek Organ Invent Centre, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland e: derek.organ@jeebers.com w: http://www.jeebers.com t: +353 (0)1 700 7593 m: +353 (0)87 251 0060 -----Original Message----- From: investment-group-bounces@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie [mailto:investment-group-bounces@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie] On Behalf Of David Concannon Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 4:07 PM To: Paul Gargan Cc: investment-group@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie Subject: Re: [Investment-group] Purpose they dividends
pro rata seems like the best idea, imho.
I'd also suggest a fixed term (no arbitrary withdrawls) to simplify interest calculations.
I'm in agreement.
If our overheads are static (fixed rate for the solicitor or whatever,
fixed
banking charges) then I propose we split such charges per head, not per amount invested.
If we incur a charge based on the amount invested, then it makes sense to split such charges according to the amount each investor has contributed.
Again, that was my thought on it. Also, I was under the grave misunderstanding that the 2% interest was credited monthly. Anyway, there has to be a decent return out there somewhere. Dave -- In night-fighting, then, make much use of signal-fires and drums, and in fighting by day, of flags and banners, as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army. _______________________________________________ Investment-group mailing list Investment-group@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie http://lists.redbrick.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/investment-group
Good points, this feeds into Dave's crazy idea number 2, which is property investment. The aim would be to pick growth areas based upon one or more of the following: 1) Potential for tourist or continual rental. Tourist rental could cover the entire mortgage for the year during the summer months and potentially profit while also allowing the property to be used by the investors during the winter. For tourism based income, probably the south west is a good one, as it's the most consistant tourist visited area, with the northwest being generally poor. 2) Growth in terms of tourism or planned development: Such as investing along the areas where there are new luas/metro routes planned (swords/airport/etc), or where government decentralisation is likely to be expanded to (cavan /drogheda). Split the costs for all the mortgages evenly between members, and split excess rental income weighted on individual investment. Same again. Probably a bit messier, but if one solicitor could handle all the transactions we can do an economy of scale on the cost. Probably easier to manage people wanting to get their cash out too, anyone wanting to get out can pay for the valuation of the house, and take out their capital plus their percentage of the increased value. What happens if the housing market crashes? Well I for one will be too busy trying to find some insurance scam / inventive method of suicide. Shares? :) Dave On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:17:16PM -0000, Derek Organ wrote:
Apparently if you call EBS or even some of the other bank and ask them what product funds they have they can give you details. There are loads of different accounts, each with varying degrees of risk therefore varying degrees of potential earnings.
My personal preference would be for something that returned a bit more than 2%. Most people will get fairly close to that by just putting in your standard savings account.
Other possible ideas is a property investment group which should return considerable more, but again it all depends on how much can be raised and also possible this is a bit messier.
Jeebers Ltd. eBusiness Solutions Derek Organ Invent Centre, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland e: derek.organ@jeebers.com w: http://www.jeebers.com t: +353 (0)1 700 7593 m: +353 (0)87 251 0060
-----Original Message----- From: investment-group-bounces@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie [mailto:investment-group-bounces@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie] On Behalf Of David Concannon Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 4:07 PM To: Paul Gargan Cc: investment-group@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie Subject: Re: [Investment-group] Purpose
I think the easiest way overall would be for people to invest the same amount each and all commit to the same term. (highly unlikely I know).
I think this might be too restrictive. It would make it a lot harder to reach the figure of 150k or whatever is required. Letting everyone invest what they can afford (subject to a minimum threshold) and then allocating the dividends pro rata seems like the best idea, imho.
I'd also suggest a fixed term (no arbitrary withdrawls) to simplify interest calculations.
I'm in agreement.
If our overheads are static (fixed rate for the solicitor or whatever,
fixed
banking charges) then I propose we split such charges per head, not per amount invested.
If we incur a charge based on the amount invested, then it makes sense to split such charges according to the amount each investor has contributed.
Again, that was my thought on it.
Also, I was under the grave misunderstanding that the 2% interest was credited monthly.
Anyway, there has to be a decent return out there somewhere.
Dave
-- In night-fighting, then, make much use of signal-fires and drums, and in fighting by day, of flags and banners, as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army.
_______________________________________________ Investment-group mailing list Investment-group@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie http://lists.redbrick.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/investment-group
_______________________________________________ Investment-group mailing list Investment-group@lists.redbrick.dcu.ie http://lists.redbrick.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/investment-group
-- In night-fighting, then, make much use of signal-fires and drums, and in fighting by day, of flags and banners, as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army.
David Concannon hath declared on Wednesday the 08 day of December 2004 :-: Heh... RedBrick Holdings Inc.
1) Potential for tourist or continual rental.
2) Growth in terms of tourism or planned development:
I'm not too sure about 1. Seems like it would involve a lot of fekking about for perhaps limited gain. There would only be a potential market for a few months a year. Maybe something along the lines of Buisness premises or land might have more potential, I dunno... Going down either route would involve more work than a fund where you simply invest and wait... Perhaps we could take it on ourselves or may have to pay someone to manage it... - bobb -- Mr. Rogers could explain shoe-tying and make it seem like the coolest thing in the world. He was our Uncle and older brother. He told us we were special, and we knew he'd be there for us. A cult leader, right down to the sneakers.
David Concannon hath declared on Wednesday the 08 day of December 2004 :-:
Heh... RedBrick Holdings Inc.
First redbrick, then the world...
1) Potential for tourist or continual rental.
2) Growth in terms of tourism or planned development:
I'm not too sure about 1. Seems like it would involve a lot of fekking about for perhaps limited gain. There would only be a potential market for a few months a year.
Thats very true, part of the benefit of that though is that we could use the house ourselves for the winter. Rental income in the summer would be around 650+ euros a week, and more for bank holiday weeks / weekends. That should cover the majority of the mortgage for the year (if you take the 17 or so weeks from June -> September, tack on new years, weekends, and other bank holidays to that.) Probably renting to students or professionals would be more secure.
Maybe something along the lines of Buisness premises or land might have more potential, I dunno...
Land probably isn't such a bad idea, buy strips up somewhere quiet and hold onto it for a few years.
Going down either route would involve more work than a fund where you simply invest and wait... Perhaps we could take it on ourselves or may have to pay someone to manage it...
There's a definite trade off between the amount of work involved, a house would be a good bit of hassle without a management company to manage the rentals. Dave
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:48:34PM +0000, David Concannon wrote:
Good points, this feeds into Dave's crazy idea number 2, which is property investment.
I wouldn't be mad for, say, buying a house. The market is quite inflated, a local crash could easily get rid of a lot of the value of investment, though there's no sign that the present levels of inflation in the market is likely to ease back really. Part of my dislike of this is that it's kind of making the market worse for our own scurrilous greedy gains - we may as well go into drug dealing, trying to settle down is pretty difficult for an awful lot of working couples, I wouldn't feel comfortable profiting from this exact situation. However, read on for other property ideas... Diversifying is good - How about diversifying in the following: Some lump sum stuff: http://www.anpost.ie/personal/finance/personal_financial_lump_certificates.h... 2.74% tax free and state guaranteed (though I'm unsure of whether an investment club can avail of the tax free situation) Some Prizebonds: http://www.anpost.ie/personal/finance/personal_financial_prizebonds.html Tracker funds: http://www.davy.ie/other/pubarticles/funds1.htm If we were to go for property, here's some ideas: http://www.davy.ie/public/GenericPublicPage?page=TaxandProperty Investing in "student residences, hotels, hospitals, car parks and office blocks" I'd be comfortable with, though maybe not car parks ;) The tax breaks (which will be capped at the next budget, by all accounts, but I doubt this would affect our situation) and we'd have rents as well as the value of the property.
Shares? :)
...and maybe some money in shares too. A pool of money for random well-returning shares would be a good idea, and it'll bring out the gambler mentality in us, ensuing in some analysis of markets and learning some stuff along the way. Risk will be small, since we're already diversely investing. The amount invested into shares and tracker funds can be limited to avoid risking losing too much money in the case of a war or whatever. Brian.
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:16:27AM +0000, Brian Scanlan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:48:34PM +0000, David Concannon wrote:
Good points, this feeds into Dave's crazy idea number 2, which is property investment.
I wouldn't be mad for, say, buying a house. The market is quite inflated, a local crash could easily get rid of a lot of the value of investment, though there's no sign that the present levels of inflation in the market is likely to ease back really.
When Davey suggested buyign a house my first thought was that it would be in Budapest or Warsaw or Lisbon or somewhere like that. Not local. Wouldn't that be a better road to go down?
Shares? :)
...and maybe some money in shares too. A pool of money for random well-returning shares would be a good idea, and it'll bring out the gambler mentality in us, ensuing in some analysis of markets and learning some stuff along the way. Risk will be small, since we're already diversely investing. The amount invested into shares and tracker funds can be limited to avoid risking losing too much money in the case of a war or whatever.
I think diversifying investments would be a good idea in the long run, but is probably distracting from the straightforward lump sum investment idea at the moment. Might be a good thing for "version 2" of the Investment Club, after version 1 has been realised. Daire -- "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." - Edmund Burke
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:32:10AM +0000, Daire McKenna wrote:
When Davey suggested buyign a house my first thought was that it would be in Budapest or Warsaw or Lisbon or somewhere like that. Not local. Wouldn't that be a better road to go down?
Ah, yes it would. The other thing to bear in mind, and this is true for all property transactions, is that it's expensive, so money would have to really be committed for the medium-term by all involved. This isn't a show-stopper, just saying :) What might be worth researching is whether there's any nice tax incentive schemes going on in developing EU countries - I usually pass over a load of adverts for these kind of schemes in The Phoenix, I'll dig out a recent copy and see if there's anything useful in them. And if that local market goes to shit, we've got a nice holiday home ;) Actually, Daire's mail gave me another idea - Foreign post offices! You get 5% from the UK :) http://www.postoffice.co.uk/portal/po/content2?mediaId=14500212&catId=14500210 I initially see diversifying as being sensible, though obviously not as fun, but I need to read up more on how to invest etc. Brian.
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:53:02AM +0000, Brian Scanlan wrote:
You get 5% from the UK :) http://www.postoffice.co.uk/portal/po/content2?mediaId=14500212&catId=14500210
I initially see diversifying as being sensible, though obviously not as fun, but I need to read up more on how to invest etc.
Brian.
Forgive my ignorant questioning - out of curiosity, how legal is all of this? I've always gotten the opinion from the press/media that private investment groups are (or potentially are) corrupt, or are by their nature, exploitive of loopholes, or that general sort of deal. e.g. could we be reefed by the tax man if we were to place a load of money in a post office account overseas, moreso as a group of people? :-) If anyone had any general links handy, that'd be great, otherwise I'll keep googling. It sounds good, but I know next to nothing about it, just curious to find out. Kp -- Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No. -- What was the question again?, "The Springfield Files"
I initially see diversifying as being sensible, though obviously not as fun, but I need to read up more on how to invest etc.
Brian.
Forgive my ignorant questioning - out of curiosity, how legal is all of this? I've always gotten the opinion from the press/media that private investment groups are (or potentially are) corrupt, or are by their nature, exploitive of loopholes, or that general sort of deal. e.g. could we be reefed by the tax man if we were to place a load of money in a post office account overseas, moreso as a group of people? :-)
If anyone had any general links handy, that'd be great, otherwise I'll keep googling. It sounds good, but I know next to nothing about it, just curious to find out.
My initial plan would be to get some better rate etc due to us building up a large amount of money. If we're talking about funds etc (And the Davy funds actually look pretty competitive) then it's a matter of just doing it individually, or in small groups to meet the minimum investment amount. Dave
David Concannon said
Forgive my ignorant questioning - out of curiosity, how legal is all of this?
Very ;)
I've always gotten the opinion from the press/media that private investment groups are (or potentially are) corrupt, or are by their nature, exploitive of loopholes, or that general sort of deal.
That depends on the press/media that you read. Investment groups are perfectly legal, and are often encouraged as a means of improving financial education. On the larger scale, all of those property deals you hear about, like the purchase of the Savoy by a "group of high net worth individuals", are done on this basis. All that Dave's proposing is banding together to create one notional individual of high net worth, on the basis that money makes money, and more money makes more...
e.g. could we be reefed by the tax man if we were to place a load of money in a post office account overseas, moreso as a group of people? :-)
Only if tax is due. That'd be covered on a case-by-case basis.
My initial plan would be to get some better rate etc due to us building up a large amount of money. If we're talking about funds etc (And the Davy funds actually look pretty competitive) then it's a matter of just doing it individually, or in small groups to meet the minimum investment amount.
Multiple small groups, perhaps. If anyone has some free time, Omega Financial offer a free hour long consultation, and they might be able to point out more options. They're out in Booterstown. (www.omegafinancial.ie) -- "Once more, the forces of evil are as rotting [] Mike (but you knew that) meat before the maggots of justice" - Peter Puppy []
That depends on the press/media that you read. Investment groups are perfectly legal, and are often encouraged as a means of improving financial education. On the larger scale, all of those property deals you hear about, like the purchase of the Savoy by a "group of high net worth individuals", are done on this basis. All that Dave's proposing is banding together to create one notional individual of high net worth, on the basis that money makes money, and more money makes more...
Exactly, economies of scale in dealing with larger numbers, spreading costs etc.
If anyone has some free time, Omega Financial offer a free hour long consultation, and they might be able to point out more options. They're out in Booterstown. (www.omegafinancial.ie)
I'd definitely be on for talking to someone. Perhaps we could grab a room in a pub somewhere, get them to come and talk to us, and then have a pint or two and have a brainstorm / random session of alcohol-influenced gibberish? Shimoda
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:23:26AM +0000, Karl Podesta wrote:
Forgive my ignorant questioning - out of curiosity, how legal is all of this?
IANAL ... At the moment, it's legal, in that we haven't done anything. :) Once we decide what we're doing, we can revisit the question, but I'd be highly surprised if there was any problems. Pension funds and personal investment accounts all work by pooling contributions to avail of higher interest rates. What we're doing should be no different. Perhaps you need to be financially certified to run a scheme above a certain net value, or with more than a certain amount of members. I'm sure talking to a solicitor would clarify that. On the nature of the investments ... My own preference is zero to low risk investments, albeit with correspondingly low returns. I'm sure many of us here have gotten burned with shares, and while learning to play the stock markets is fun, it's the kind of fun best left to rick stockbrokers :) As for land / property - I dunno whether the Irish domestic market will crash or merely plateau, but rental property necessitates management companies. You're at the whim of the banks w.r.t mortgage interest rates, and tenants may not be guaranteed. I suggest we first reach consensus on: - The timescale - The size of the initial cashpool we're looking to invest. - The nature of the returns we're looking to secure (this will help decide what we invest in) Paul. -- "Relax Paul, I'm your friend. I'm only dancing with you."
- The timescale
My preference would be something for about 2 to 3 years, SSIAs will be vesting in the next while, and while it may not affect irish interest rates and inflation too much according to economists, I'd prefer to put something away beforehand. Also, if I blow all my SSIA money, I've something to fall back on, and if I don't I've a better idea of where to reinvest it. :)
- The size of the initial cashpool we're looking to invest.
Depends on the extra benefits of getting over a certain amount. Some funds require over 125k, bank accounts 150k. Somewhere around that number I think? Should be achievable with more people. Another question to add: Can we get a method which allows members to contribute money after the investment has started? Or does everyone need a fixed amount to start with?
- The nature of the returns we're looking to secure (this will help decide what we invest in)
Inflation++; Essentially something that beats a bank. Dave -- There are not more than five primary colors (blue, yellow, red, white, and black), yet in combination they produce more hues than can ever been seen.
participants (9)
-
bobb -
Brian Scanlan -
Daire McKenna -
David Concannon -
Derek Organ -
Karl Podesta -
Mike -
Neil Walsh -
Paul Gargan