how come?
If it brings in income, why is it stupid?
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

because it's a big risk,
the property market can make you a lot of money, but it can crash and you can loose everything for a million different reasons. You know that.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

This is true of almost all investment.

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

Yes but you don't have to spend all your money in one or two places.
You can spread the risk a lot better with nearly every other type except maybe hedge funds.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:02, Reply)

It doesn't work like that.
one property value won't crash while another property rises, so you can't consider one property to be the equivalent of one companies' shares. One property is more like the equivalent of one stock market, so spreading shares around isn't lowering your risk compared to property, just lowering compared to putting all your money in one company.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:06, Reply)

there are local house price falls though
every time a new block of flats opens etc.
But it's not the variation in average house prices that's the biggest risk it's the flood/fire/structural problems that make properties a risky investment.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:09, Reply)

Haha, what are you on about, Chompy?
In the entire history of the UK property market you will be unable to find any two dates 5 years apart where a property hasn't be worth more at the end than the start. It's more or less the safest long term investment there is.

It's a risk if you have no control over when you might have to sell or you are after short term gain, but a charity has neither of those issues.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:01, Reply)

That's fine on the large scale
but not if they've got one or two properties where say they find asbestos in one and get squatters in the other.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:03, Reply)

ah, I see where you're going.
valid point. But "because it could happen" doesn't make it right or the charities fault. Thinking that way leads you into dangerous waters, chap.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:08, Reply)

Can I just point out here, TMB on /offtopic ! Yay !
I like these debates, it's the sort of thing that you don't really get that much on /talk.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

yeah true,
but I'm assuming they own the property outright, such as those being left to them in probate, so that any income greatly outweighs the expenditure.

Also, lose has one o, come on.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:04, Reply)