Q. Question? Hello, I am struggling to explain the intervals i have chosen for years experience. i have chosen less than 3 yrs, 3-5yrs and more than 5yrs experience in the sector i am researching for my dissertation(which is landlords and investments in energy efficiency). cant find any papers/journal stuff to justify my choises.
i've also chosen a unevenly spaced intervals scale for the number of properties owned by each company in my study. how can i justify this? ive chosen 1, 2-3, 5-9, 10-19, 20-40, 40-90 and 90+ obviously the more properties owned by someone the more the decisions to do with the property will change. different view point between someone with 1 property and someone with 40 properties. how do i justify this. is there any budding research methodolgists out there who can shed some light.
kind regards scott

A. Best Answer: Not sure this is qualitative research - sounds like a survey to me, and these questions are certainly quantitative.

Why not just ask for years experience and number of properties owned outright? Without some theoretical reason to make it an ordinal variable, I'd just ask make it a ratio. Saves having to defend categories. I'm not sure why 3-5 years is a magic transition point on experience, or its own category. It also overlaps with the others, which is of course not good - if I was a landlord for three years, which would I pick?

Also consider what's meant by "properties" - there's a difference of course between someone like my landlord with two units in a townhouse, and a landlord of the 25-story, 200+ unit rental unit up the street from me.

Also perhaps consider the effect of annual income or perhaps median rental charges per unit. In a more expensive building catering to higher-income tenants, there's both more money and more tenant awareness of new energy efficiency technologies, I'd think.

---

Q. Question? i have £2800 that i have saved up from my current job , but is unsure whether i should just get a car at 17 or save more to rent a property ?

A. Best Answer: None are investment, the car will go down in value and sap loads of your hard earned cash.

The house, will sap cash also but at least you would have freedom and independence. Depends on what's important to you.

Neither will make you money though, its more a question of lifestyle choice!

All the best.

---

Q. Question? i am expecting to come into money soon

and now i am looking at a way to invest the cash so my kids can benefit from it later

the amount is about £80-90,000 - this is more money than i have ever seen in my life

i want to invst it in property for my children when they are older

if i was to buy 2 houses for £40,000 each and rent them out (probably about £300 per month) for say the next 10 years then give them to my children (they would be in young 20's ) to either move into or sell for a deposit for a bigger house, what tax would i pay on this

A. Best Answer: OK, this response comes from the U.S.A. and the tax laws here are probably somewhat different than in the U.K. But here in the States, you would pay taxes only on the rental income less any property expenses and less depreciation, which often means your really pay no tax at all.

When you transfer the property to your children, you give it to them as a gift and again there would not be any taxes here either, because YOU made no profit.

What I would do in your shoes, is to talk to a real estate agent. They generally know your tax laws and dispense with their advise for free, because he/she hopes you buy the houses through them and they earn a commission on that sale. But if they don't have the exact answer, they can refer you to professionals who know for sure.

---

Q. Question? Hi,
5 years ago my parents were offered to buy there council house and because they didn't work I also went onto the mortgage with them (I work full time) and it was a good investment opportunity for me. I helped to pay part of the mortgage for the first couple of years but then experienced financial difficulties so couldn't regularly commit as I was renting a place in London. In February 2009 my mum moved out of the marital home with her two twin daughters who are now 7 years old. She rented a property in another part of town, met a new man and changed the girls school. My dad has been struggling to pay the mortgage and bills since then and the mortgage is in areas. I recently decided to move back into the property to support my dad (with my two daughters and partner aged 2 and 3) and my 3 year old is registered to start school in September at the local nursery. My dad has previously suffered from cancer twice and has arthritis. The property is a three bedroomed property so my dad has one room, myself and my partner in the other and my two daughters in the third room. The mortgage is an interest only mortgage. My mother has now decided that herself and the twins will be moving back into the property on the 12th of August claiming that it's her marital right and that if we do not provide her with a set of keys she will change the locks and give myself and my dad a set of keys. She also asked to clear a room for her. There is no room for her, and I am not on speaking terms with her because of the rudeness of her new partner and her attitude to my dad and me. She does not get on with my dad so they are not on speaking terms. She has not made any contributions to the mortgage since she moved out. Please can I have some advice, I'm worried I don't know what to do. I don't want it to get messy especially because there re children involved. Her partner is very aggressive and I do not want him around my family, but then she might say that my partner shouldn't be aloud either but we have two children together. I am not entitled to legal aid because I work but I cannot afford a solicitor. If I need to get some sort of order how can I do this quickly?
Help please Carly.
Thanks for your help, just to clarify we are all on the mortgage and the deeds to the house :(

A. Best Answer: It all boils down to this, unless you are on the deed all you are doing is buying the house for someone else. just being on the mortgage does not entitle you to ownership, just the obligation of paying off the note. This is one hell of a mess and I think you are the one that is going to get the messy end of the stick. Your father does not have to allow the partner of your mother to move in. I take it this question is from the UK. if so you have that absolutely magnificent organisation , The Citizens Advise Bureau.Go to them, they will be of great help and guidance.

---

Q. Question? 1) Why people buying stocks at the first place (esp. the first batch of investor)

- Banking interest rate for some currency like AUD is about 5% p.a., MYR is about 3% p.a., ...etc at the moment, so we make money by lending bank money.

- We buy property for investment because the while demand/supply ratio goes up, the more buyer willing to pay more for the property to stay, that's how we make money from there.

So, my question starts from here. Let's say there is a stock declaring 24 cents per share dividend for the quarter which the price of each share is 80 dollars for the moment, which is about only 0.3% of each share you made in a quarter. And let's not talk about we could make money while the stock's price goes up (even I think it is the only reason we want to own the stock). Why the in the first place, investor willing to pour that money into something with lower return (in term of dividend), sometimes a company may declare the revenue of the year is billions of dollars. And where the money goes? They inject it back to the shares? Or just the 24 cents in dividend?Or the price goes up is just because of the demand in the market where everyone playing the same game, hoping more people wants to own the shares? Is it actually related to the performance / business of the company? Demand turns high, is it because of the dividend paid? Are we buying share just for the revenue (which is reflected on the dividend)?

Thanks in advance,

A. Best Answer: stocks are bought so investors have a piece of the 'pie'.
there are essential 2 ways to make money from just buying stocks: capital gain (when the value of the stock goes up) and through dividends
nowadays, dividends contribute less to the overall gain of the company and people focus more on the capital gain. it makes sense because you are just getting pennies from dividends and the company can reinvest the dividends to make more money and hence you get more the next time round, theoretically

by financial theory, we suppose that it's irrelevant to the investor whether they get money in dividends or capital gain since you should get the same thing irrespective (so called dividend irrelevance). Equity is the residual of whatever the company owns and hence the value the firm has created. We usually assume what is represented in the market represents the true value of the firm i the books, but, realistically, it's usually more about the market's perception of the firm and usually differs in value to the books. Markets have known to be wrong at times and the MARKET value of the firm is often driven up or down due to supply and demand based on this perception, which is more or less based on what investors think the future value of the firm should be and how valuable the stock is (forward looking). The BOOK value of the firm is driven up or down based on the profits/losses it cumulated over the years (backward looking)
So in a way, the price of the share is made up of the performance of the firm and what the expectations are of the firm's value in future years.

the idea will be for the firm to retain as much value as it can by issuing as little dividend as possible. However, this is not always possible because it wouldn't attract certain people to invest in those shares. Think pensioners, widows and orphans (private joke with one of my previous lecturers) who would buy shares as a source of their only form of income (either by themselves, through fund managers, pension funds, company pension funds, etc.). If this is the case, they would want high dividends in a stable company. so companies that aren't really growing any time soon and are deemed cash cows in the economy would want to issue more dividend to attract these people.

risk is supposively linked to returns; it's how we suppose the financial world works. financial theory has taught us that investors would want to be compensated with higher returns in order to undertake lower risk. Investors are supposively willing to take on less return for lower risk. in a way, it's essentially a price tag. It's also what banks and insurance companies based their probability models on. e.g. if you're risky, you may expect higher premiums and interest rates to be paid. in the context of shares, if you're a young growing firm, we would expect higher dividends or higher gowth in stock value because if you're successful you should be able to pay us back. if you're going under, we would like as much of the money back as possible, so if we charge high interest or want higher returns, it's because we want our money back as quick as possible so we don't make as much loss as we would otherwise.

however, academia often like to throw the odd wrench in the works, so we looked into the matter and they have found, through various models and research, that the relationship between risk and return is flat. i.e. there is virtually no relationship. If you think of BP, building an oil line in the Gulf of Mexico would have demanded high preniums because all sort of things could happen, but the market thought differently. Hence, we get this idea the market is not 'efficient' in what it does. It could easily have been said that the financial theory in this respect does not work, but we have seen technology stock go up and down and they are a risky sector by nature; so it does work to some respect.

In essence, you should be buying what you paid for with shares, a slice of the company's profits. In reality, it's more than that in the sense you have to look at the market's reaction and guess where the market is going to go. The market isn't always rational (we then look at behavioural finance) and can act very strange to what you expect, but most of the time, it's predictable.
There are many sources of influences so you sort of need to look beyond the company e.g. its suppliers, bank rates, its competitors, etc. they all can have a bearing on the company's profits, and hence its market value.

Hope this helps

---

Q. Question? I am currently working in Recruitment (IT into Investment Banking) but am a graduate in Property Development, 22 years old and wish to pursue a career in the Commercial Property Market as a Letting Agent.

I have gathered a lot of research on the profession and have met up with a few people in the industry but I have yet to gather much of an understanding of the financial rewards of the job? how much an average to top commercial agent would earn and their commission structure per deal (leasing deals and sale of properties)?

A. Best Answer: They make anywhere from 1% to 5% on sale of property and 1 month rent as commission for properties rented through them.

---

Q. Question? Do you believe that the refereeing mistakes in the World Cup games are human lack of reflex or there can be a bunker of brokers selling previous games results ?

An average World Cup game has 2 to 6 fouls inside the area and 30 outside but the referees criteria keep the right to whistle a penalty, a card or nothing. There are several abstract ways for a referee to control the psico of the game and to influence its result.

I am from Brazil, the violence and corruption champion country. Our country hosted the 1st World Cup after the II W.War, 15 Cups ago. It was a time that Brazil had no favelas. We lost that championship but some of our politicians won intimacy with the international authorities of football and they learnt the great tool that fantasy shows can be to manipulate millions of people proud. It was when the Brazilian Bossa Nova of social cooperation started to be induced by social hypnosis. Politicians started to increase investments in stadiums and decreased investments in science, culture and entrepreneurship.

Today, it is common to listen to accusations and taped proofs of the Brazilian football refereeing national commission selling results to team managers previous to games. Now let me ask ... are there football mafias in your country too ? Keep opened eyes in the consequences of virtual social lies in people's life ...

In the 1962 Cup, Brazil won robbed against Spain and had the cancellation of Garrincha's red card in the final ... in 1966 the English refereeing conspiracy was a mark, specially against Argentina ... 16 years later Argentina and England declared the Falkland war. In 1970, the Brazilian forwarder Pele made an intentional clear aggressive poke against an Uruguayan opponent in the semi-final and was not expelled by the referee ... that game was a primitive violence show and no
refereeing punishments happened in front of one millions TV viewers ... coincidently after 1970 and the violent 1966 Cup games the peacefull Brazilians started to become a violent society.

In 1970 Brazil became 3 times world champion and our politicians entered for FIFA's management. They were kept there for more than 20 years and it increased the global fantasy at over 1.000%. Today Brazil is 5 times world champion and the national public budgets are much more deviated ... now we have 50,000 KILLINGS PER YEAR (more than Irak, Israel and Colombia together), we have 30,000 car accident deaths/year, millions of prostitutes and a long list of crime gangs, foreign and domestic corruption.

How many corrupted leaders are linked to football ? How many would pay refereeing bribes ? What can the influence of referreing commissions be over society ? How many referees would accept a lot of dirty money ? Did an investigation over referees and commissioners properties ever happened ? Can't Civil Prosecutors authorities demand TOTAL TECHNOLOGY REFEREEING for football ?

How many referees reject an ? 100,000 bribe ? How about ? 10,000,000 per Cup game result ? ... Do you know how much is FIFA's official profit every 4 years (1466 days) ? It is a value similar to only 10 days the revenue of 15 Brazilian banks from the our govern ... the excessive bankers receipt here are considered corruption by several economists (20% national budget deviation) and many of the banks are direct or indirect sponsors of football. Brazilian people have small salaries but our banks and their partner corrupted politicians have MUCH MORE money than football referees and commissioners. Recently some of our banks have been accused of paying monthly fees (mensalao) to hundreds of politicians and when the charges became heavy our press started to use an old scape method ... to occupy the news with other subjects. Guess which was the best subject ? They love football noise to bring economic truth silence.

A corruption champion country has a great stock of robbed money to use in potential football bribes ... corrupts do not invest in scientific creations, in regional art or social life, they prefer to deviate part of the money to buy artificial happiness for millions of humble voters ... and our press pretends not to see the devil behind their money, it accepts the job of selling a travested truth and help transforming beautifull people into cheap labor ... the little elite is the balls sucker of the financial pseudo-elite and they both are envy of the humble people's charm.

In the 2010 Cup, Holand, the heir of the pirates recovered the strippers provocation and abandoned the elegance from Cruijff times. Also the germans used their corrupted elbows and got access to the new strange ball before the other teams. Germany had already won robbed against Holland in 1974 when the Dutch player Cruijff was massacred in the 1st half of the final game without the referee show any yellow or red card !!! Cruijff was a ballet elegance player coordinating his team with smart human mo

A. Best Answer: i agree with every word but what can u do about it?........it reminds me of the Roman empire with their love of putting on gladiatorial games for the plebeians....its all about bread and circuses to keep the masses happy and an excuse for the rich to get richer by cultivating the peoples affection for the game and selling them overpriced tickets,merchandise and tv subscriptions..............god is dead......football is the new religion......along with shopping of course

---

Q. Question? Back in April 2009 my Dad (87 then) told me that when he met my Mum (dec'd 20 years) he had recently broken off another engagement. Apparently after the second world war he had been engaged to a local girl who had gone to work in London and managed to get herself pregnant, and married the other guy. It was an unhappy marriage and after a few months she wrote to ny Dad saying she would divorce her husband if he would marry her; he said he couldn't do that as his own father would put him out.
At some stage he was at a dance and met offered to leave a girl home. She said her friend lived further so he should give her a lift. At the house she invited him in for supper (only food) and then apparently the next day her mother phoned and invited him for tea which he accepted. A relationship started and then his mother started pressuring him to marry this girl (who had family investment properties. The girl's mother had a bad heart and told him if he married the girl he would get all this property and property from another relative. They then married and rented a house for a few years. My mum then had funds to buy a substantial house and she remained the sole owner until about 1990 when I built them a retirement bungalow and moved into the family home. Regrettably mum died before it was finished so he moved in alone and I completely renovated the family home. Two years after moving in my first wife died from cancer so my son and I were left alone. I then remarried 10 years later.
I feel deeply hurt by this revelation from my Dad now (I am 56)
I also know that at various stages throughout the marriage he had affairs (which he denies).
I was very depressed (was prescribed medication) with all this (knowing he was being untruthful) he had actually approached both my late and present wife with sexual suggestions. My GP was able to tell me my late wife had discussed this scenario with him.
Next part of the story is that he and a female companion went on holiday and my wife and I decided to give his home a thorough cleaning. When he came home they said we had no business doing this (a few years earlier, before he had this companion he went on holiday and we cleaned the house and we was delighted). He then said he had £100 in a shoe box in the hot-press and it was missing. We did not take it! He then told the daily help (who assisted in the clean up) that my wife had taken the money and nothing will convince him otherwise.
Up to that point we had been doing a lot for him, dinners, gardening, hospital runs etc which I stopped as I felt so hurt by it all. My brother then started doing all the things I had done for over 15 years.
He is now in hospital from a minor stroke and I feel I should go and see him but my wife says then I am am not supporting her by giving in to him. I feel completely pulled in two here and do not know which way to turn to do the right thing.
Can anyone give me advice please.

A. Best Answer: your dad is a bit of an a**, but he's still your dad. you should see him, since who knows how much time you have left with him. you aren't undermining your wife by going to see your sick father in the hospital.

---

Q. Question? I work full time and i'm renting at the moment,the house i have inherited is not in the area i live so was wondering what i can do...... maybe rent it out as i want to keep this as an investment and get another mortgage on a property close to my place of work what sort of mortgage would i go for and could i use the other property to secure this? please help!!!!!!!!!

A. Best Answer: wel you use the house your buying top secure the mortgage , you will need a deposit and that could be raised through a lone and use some of the rental income to repay it, preferably un secured , try not to atach anything to the non mortgaged house then you can use rental income to help pay your mortgage , but without knowing the sums its realy difficult to work out , setting up a small company would work and run the rented house as a propper buisiness as you can use the rental income towards your earnings and that will help boost your gross income for mortgage calculation purposes, keep all the recieptsfor repairs ect as they are tax deductable and you can pay yourself dividends and you wont be taxed on them , the lst goes on realy , but make sure of this , use an accountant and get him to sort out your tax issues from day 1 he will pay for himself over and over , do NOT try and avoid the tax man he can walk into your house and take anything he wants if you mess with him

---