your dividend income doesnt fall just because the capital value of the stock - portfolio slips
True but why should that be of any comfort to you?
Let's say you have a €100 portfolio that pays you €3 in dividends. During the course of the year the capital value of your portfolio increases by 50%. So, at the end of the year your portfolio is worth €153. That's a total return of 53%.
If your portfolio value instead falls by 50% - but the dividend income is still €3 - your portfolio is worth €53 at the end of the year. That's a total return of -47%.
Dividends are not magic and a stock that consistently pays high dividends is not necessarily better than a stock that pays no dividends at all. I think you are confusing income with value.
Companies with low growth prospects (utilities, tobacco, consumer staples) often pay higher dividends than companies with higher growth prospects (technology stocks, etc.). Which stock would you have preferred to own over the last decade - Johnson & Johnson or Apple?
So just pay enough pension to use up the bit you are paying higher rate on.
It's hard to explain, but this is not a valid comparison. If your lender puts up the interest rate to 10%, you will get a much higher interest deduction on your mortgage. By your reasoning, then you should not pay down your mortgage!
So it's actually the opposite. If you are on a cheap tracker, you should not pay down the mortgage, despite the fact that the tax deduction on the interest is so small.
Brendan
rate im paying is 5.45% variable with ulster bank
even your capital value increases by 50% in one year , what use is it unless you take profits , over many years , your timing will be off now and again and you will be as well just holding , the point of dividends is you are paid to hold
If you draw €3 from a €153 portfolio you will end up with €150.
If you draw €3 from a €53 portfolio you will end up with €50.
Leaving the tax treatment aside, it really doesn't matter whether you take the €3 as a dividend or by redeeming capital.
Wow! Why are you carrying debt at that rate when you have cash at hand earning essentially nothing?
In my opinion, you should pay that off ASAP.
What impact do you think a sharp uptick in interest rates would have on property prices?
There really isn't - it's nothing more than mental accounting.your way involves selling stock in order to provide an income , thus reducing ones original asset holding , mine involves retaining the same asset holding and taking the cash dividend payment per annum
their is a difference
Needlessly incurring an expense so you can make a tax deduction is a classic case of allowing a tax "tail" to wag an investment "dog".the interest rate can be fully written off against tax
What age are you Galway blow in?
And how long do you plan to pay off the 200k?
If you can do it in 10 years then I don't see a problem with the property investment
Needlessly incurring an expense so you can make a tax deduction is a classic case of allowing a tax "tail" to wag an investment "dog".
In any event, you have a low marginal tax rate which obviously reduces the value of the deduction.
I think you're nuts to needlessly carry debt at that rate. Paying it off is a no brainer - you won't find a better use for your capital on a risk adjusted basis.
And it's not a case of "either or" - you can comfortably pay off the debt and contribute to a pension.
i will look into whether i can write off a pension contribution of 540 per month against tax to the same degree i can with the interest on this mortgage
Needlessly incurring an expense so you can make a tax deduction is a classic case of allowing a tax "tail" to wag an investment "dog".
On the topic of the original post, it's very high risk. One tenant a pharmacy. Sector is risky, challenges to health budgets, big decrease in the profitability of that sector in the last 10 years and not anywhere as attractive as it was once. What info do you have on the tenant, who, financial background, etc. Lots of questions. Is there an alternative use? Not a sensible investment IMO based on facts you set out.
No.do you view debt as inherently bad ?
I am genuinely concerned that your thinking is very muddled on this. If it's this muddled, then you probably should not be doing complex, risky property investments. As Sarenco has pointed out...
No.
But I do think it's crazy to try and justify carrying expensive debt when you are in a position to pay it off on the grounds that it is deductible for tax purposes.
No.
But I do think it's crazy to try and justify carrying expensive debt when you are in a position to pay it off on the grounds that it is deductible for tax purposes.
No.
But I do think it's crazy to try and justify carrying expensive debt when you are in a position to pay it off on the grounds that it is deductible for tax purposes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?