Re: Re
Suppose I'm asking is UK property a good buy for example. Instead of someone simply posting a reply that rejects the idea, if they can back up their critisim with suggestions of a better investment, then to me it gives their opinion more weight in my mind.
Is this not a little unfair to those who do volunteer to answer queries and assist people on these pages?
In evaluating any investment proposal, there is always the option of choosing not to invest at all. For example, if the question arises of borrowing 100% finance to buy a property in, say, Brazil, I can't see why it should be essential for any of us to have to be able to propose an alternative investment for that person, before we can answer their query (particularly if we ourselves believe that 100% borrowings is a dangerously risky option for most investors). If that were the case, I would expect many queries would not be answered at all. Would that be a better situation?
Also, what might be a great investment for me (based on my circumstances, financial standing and other factors) might be a rotten investment for you. And vice versa.
With regard to your earlier post, I feel it is unreasonable or pointless to ask other contributors what they have invested in, in the past. First of all, some of us may prefer to keep confidential the details of our own personal financial decisions and circumstances.
Secondly, if someone makes a comment here, backed by evidence and reasonable logic, surely that contribution is welcome regardless of whether it comes from a tycoon with a massive portfolio or from a pauper?
I honestly think many contributers would verify that they have sound financial planning in place. But do any of these people want to be rich and do they think they will ever be with their present investments?
I presume this wasn't meant to sound as adversarial is it reads