If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

I had referred to owner-occupied housing, which is untaxed now (apart from rates) and would probably remain untaxed if a CGT were introduced, which would further increase the tax-advantage in buying owner-occupied housing.

I don't know the statistics on the share traders vs. share investors. Even in NZ, I would suspect that most individuals who invest in shares would be long-term investors. Certainly in countries where a greater proportion of the population hold shares directly, a big majority of individuals would be investors as opposed to traders.

Disc: Share investor not a trader.

Interesting that this forum is called Sharetrader, yet there's no share-investor forum. It depends where you draw the line, but I'd say anything less than say 5 or 6 years can hardly be called an investment, although the pattern of buying/selling helps paint the picture.

[BlackPeter]

Interesting that this forum is called Sharetrader, yet there's no share-investor forum. It depends where you draw the line, but I'd say anything less than say 5 or 6 years can hardly be called an investment, although the pattern of buying/selling helps paint the picture.

Difficult to be an investor in shares without trading (at least once ...), So I guess sharetrader is the more generic name.

Looking into your personal definition of what an investor would be (testing the length of time invested): Obviously everybody including you is free to make up their own definition (and I am sure, everybody does), however the only definition which matters is the one from IRD. They don't look at all at the timeframe you are invested into a share, but at your intention when you purchase the shares. If you buy it to trade, than you a a trader. If you buy it with the intention to invest (and benefit from the expected dividends), than you are an investor.

Nothing wrong if an investor is balancing their portfolio or e.g. selling shares if the circumstances change (i.e. a share getting too dear or a company making less profit than expected). No test of the share holding time in law.

I guess a different question is whether the IRD definition is practical (and testable), but this is a discussion for another day. Personally I would prefer a definition which is easier to test, but on the other hand - any arbitrary timebox results just in people playing games with the set limits ...

[RGR367]

Difficult to be an investor in shares without trading (at least once ...), So I guess sharetrader is the more generic name.

Looking into your personal definition of what an investor would be (testing the length of time invested): Obviously everybody including you is free to make up their own definition (and I am sure, everybody does), however the only definition which matters is the one from IRD. They don't look at all at the timeframe you are invested into a share, but at your intention when you purchase the shares. If you buy it to trade, than you a a trader. If you buy it with the intention to invest (and benefit from the expected dividends), than you are an investor.

Nothing wrong if an investor is balancing their portfolio or e.g. selling shares if the circumstances change (i.e. a share getting too dear or a company making less profit than expected). No test of the share holding time in law.

I guess a different question is whether the IRD definition is practical (and testable), but this is a discussion for another day. Personally I would prefer a definition which is easier to test, but on the other hand - any arbitrary timebox results just in people playing games with the set limits ...

Yeah, I'm with you too on this one as I guess I would not stayed as an investor if I cannot trade from time to time. You have to grab the money offered on the table and you have to remove the pain too if your selections were wrong.

[winner69]

ref :John Key and the Waitress

I see from the news today that John Key may be having a cup of Nescafe at home with Bronagh and not patronising his local café for a while.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.


Warren Buffett

Bit weird eh .....and young girls as well as waitresses if you look at the gif on whaleoil

That punt girl must be traumatised - talking to Campbell and pony tailed by Key

[Daytr]

That's because its not comprohensive including the family home & is to easy to elude. A comprehensive CGT would have an impact.As said econmics always have an impact.

Maybe, maybe not. I think you will find ultimately the tenants will bear the burden of this "tax" thus putting it on the people that can least afford to pay it. CGT in Australia has not taken the heat out of the market so I cannot see it doing so here.

[Daytr]

Very weird. You would think his wife would have pointed out how ridiculous it was & to do it for years suggests a fixation .

Bit weird eh .....and young girls as well as waitresses if you look at the gif on whaleoil

That punt girl must be traumatised - talking to Campbell and pony tailed by Key

[fungus pudding]

Difficult to be an investor in shares without trading (at least once ...), So I guess sharetrader is the more generic name.

Looking into your personal definition of what an investor would be (testing the length of time invested): Obviously everybody including you is free to make up their own definition (and I am sure, everybody does), however the only definition which matters is the one from IRD. They don't look at all at the timeframe you are invested into a share, but at your intention when you purchase the shares.
No test of the share holding time in law.

Sure, but it can point to a pattern My point is that someone dabbling in flats doesn't often drop his holding because a better offering has just hit the market. They're not forever 'rebalancing'.

[Bjauck]

Interesting that this forum is called Sharetrader, yet there's no share-investor forum. It depends where you draw the line, but I'd say anything less than say 5 or 6 years can hardly be called an investment, although the pattern of buying/selling helps paint the picture.

Interesting stats from Quotable Value. They looked at length of time since previous sale of all houses sold. Average length of home ownership (for all owners not just landlords) varies between 4 and 6 years. That would be under the time period you mentioned. In property booms it is close to 4 years.
https://www.qv.co.nz/n/news-details/...x-78?blogId=65

[elZorro]

ref :John Key and the Waitress

I see from the news today that John Key may be having a cup of Nescafe at home with Bronagh and not patronising his local café for a while.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.
Warren Buffett

It's fairly weird, all right.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...tress-ponytail

The actual story from the waitress is more involved. How he thought that two bottles of wine would do for an apology of sorts, is beyond me. He's not a kid, he's the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/22...-the-waitress/

[fungus pudding]

Interesting stats from Quotable Value. They looked at length of time since previous sale of all houses sold. Average length of home ownership (for all owners not just landlords) varies between 4 and 6 years. That would be under the time period you mentioned. In property booms it is close to 4 years.
https://www.qv.co.nz/n/news-details/...x-78?blogId=65

That is interesting and surprising. Most landlords I know, and I know plenty, just keep buying and rarely sell. As far as home-owners go, most of my acquaintances have been in same house for decades. I must only know boring types. I'll tell them that!