Is a Property Speculator a Property Investor?

[donna]

Another annoying article on NZH - the title says "Investors cause housing crisis" so of course you click to read the article. However the title is just click bait. The article itself most talks of speculation however to keep you hooked throughout it seeds in the word 'investor'.

In the article:

Research covering the years 2003-2008 showed owner-occupiers held onto their homes for a median of five years while investors held on for a median of four.

So not a lot of difference between the two.

Source

Quite a ridiculous article.

cheers,

donna

[eri]

investment
the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns,
as interest,
income,
or appreciation in value.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/investment

speculation
investment in stocks, property, etc.
in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=speculation&oq=speculation&aqs=chrome..69 i57j0l5.3104j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

clearly speculation is a subset of investment but seems to involve more risk

while property investors don't consider themselves property speculators

the 'always loose + slippery with language' media can+will use them interchangeably to increase clicks

the current angst over the difference is understandable but somewhat nonsensical

people 'invest' in important human needs like "food" + "sex" and are better providers than gov

people also 'invest in human 'wants'; alcohol, gambling, new kitchens etc without attracting social scorn

the bigger issue is many nz'ers would like to make the point of modern gov.

the taking care of their wants + needs

as they can't be arsed doing it themselves

of course 'gov' is another name for 'the people'

so what they really want is everyone else to take care of them + their responsibilities

of course people want rights without responsibility, things without cost

but of course there will be kick-back from the providers, who want strings attached

[Nick G]

I think that guy was trolling on Graeme's FB group until I kicked him out. Has some very strong pre-conceived ideas.

[artemis]

It does not look like the researcher took into account leverage. Or opportunity cost. Or rent returns over time - 5 or 10 years makes a big difference to returns as principal is paid down and rents rise.

Differentiating between buyers with borrowing and those paying cash - I expect the researcher looked to see if a mortgage was registered against the property and if not assumed it was a cash purchase. Maybe that was the case but not necessarily. For example, none of my rentals has a mortgage registered against the title but may have been purchased by borrowing against other assets perhaps offshore. I am sure I'm not the only one.

Looks like ivory tower stuff, academics hoping to get airtime due to the current 'housing crisis'. Probably should have had a word with a few PIs.

[eri]

politicians

choose the result they want

then choose academics to select the data needed

to justify the political changes desired

[Perry]

The only thing we should be surprised at with all this dis-infomation and BS is that we're surprised.

[artemis]

politicians

choose the result they want

then choose academics to select the data needed

to justify the political changes desired

Not necessarily. Depends where the funding comes from. For example the Health Research Council has funded millions of dollars of university research. The conclusions fed right into the rental WoF. If there was a nod to causes other than mean and greedy landlords making our children sick, it was merely a nod to be glossed over asap.

But the research was approved and funded by the HRC, albeit using taxpayers' money.

Do universities, the HRC and other public research funders have agendas? Certainly looks like they want predetermined conclusions, but I doubt they are chosen by the government only to meet its own agendas. Governments do cherry pick the results they want though.