Salary.sg Forums - Reply to Topic
Salary.sg Forums  

Go Back   Salary.sg Forums > The Salary.sg Discussion Forums: > Investments and Net Worth > Possible to earn passive income without investing in stocks?

Investments and Net Worth Talk all about money making exploits, shares, property and building net worth




Salary.sg Forums

 Citibank Cash Back Card - up to $350 cash back* - Click to Apply Now 
Thread: Possible to earn passive income without investing in stocks? Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Human Verification To prove you are a human and not a computer program that spams, please check the box below and answer any further questions if prompted.

Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
08-10-2020 11:55 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinkingfeeling View Post
I have been jodless for nearly 1 year, I got no marnee

Even buy clothes got to think 3x

$500 minimum for the ssb ish too much to swallow for me

Never heard of Stashaway, will look at it, thanks for sic
My blunt advice is forget about passive income. Go spend 100% effort on getting a job, and a job you can do well in.

Passive income is for people who have leftover savings from income, and want to know how to grow that savings. The limiting factor for you is job income, not how to invest.
28-07-2020 10:19 PM
Unregistered
Avenue South Residence

This is a great website. I will surely share with residents <a href="s://.avenuessouthresidence.com/">Avenue South Residence</a>

Great developer discounts and promo prices for these awesome projects, i will share with residents of <a href="s://.avenuessouthresidence.com/">Avenue South Residence</a>
13-07-2020 09:22 PM
sinkingfeeling
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgp View Post
if you are open to the idea buying a property an be a safe mid to long term savings plan as well as for capital appreciation, please contact me. will be glad to share as i did with these people who bought
You another one, don't know how to read is it?

I said money not enough, how to buy property?
13-07-2020 09:21 PM
sinkingfeeling
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruslanv7 View Post
The typical American isnít doing so well. Though not everyone has suffered as badly as median income, and modest losses in real wages since 2008 have been as steady and hard to reverse as they have been prolonged.

Last week, the Conference Board estimated that real wages fell by 2.7 percent in 2017 after adjusting for inflation. The year before, real wages fell by almost 2 percent. But both of those were really on top of the Great Recession, and both years included some positive annual readings. Hereís a chart from the Cleveland Fed showing the average real wage without inflation:

The decline is particularly sharp in low-income areas of the country. The collapse is still too diffuse to really describe, but it has been happening.

Wages fall in two ways: either youíre losing ground in absolute terms, as wages generally decline in recession or recover after a recession, or your wages are falling because of the relative deterioration of your bargaining position, as real wages fall in industries or occupations where you donít have bargaining power. In a different way, we also can think of wages by their volume or value ó percentage of total output, in other words. This is easy enough to think about. When we compare the actual income growth over time of, say, the top 10 percent and the next 10 percent, and then the next 10 percent, we have whatís known as the Gini coefficient. Itís always running below 1, even when the share of income obtained by the top 10 percent is above 20 percent, which has been the case since the 1990s.

In 2017, the Gini coefficient was a little lower than 1 for the country as a whole, so that means as a group Americans are making gains relative to the rest of the world. But thereís a further decline, which looks to have continued in 2018, putting American incomes below their average value since the late 1990s. And this looks like a major problem. Inequality is a particularly bad kind of inequality. Itís a situation where one group is making up losses elsewhere ó gains made elsewhere are lost here.

I find this problem the most troubling and relevant for the nation. It goes to the heart of the question we should be asking: Is there a true role for big government in the economy? I think the answer is yes. The idea that the private sector will step in to help the poor, the sick and the elderly and, with a little help from the state, the middle class is absurd.

So why should we care what theyíre making? Like income inequality, itís not about fairness ó when wealthy individuals have outsized positions and resources, no one is getting a windfall. But itís about the size of the state and how it should operate.

Liberal regimes that are transitioning from the colonial model are required to lower barriers to starting a business. But they also have to ease barriers to high taxation for high earners. Even without government active intervention, incomes tend to rise somewhat (but with plenty of volatility). The liberal regime that replaces a dictatorship tends to intensify that tendency, and help out those who really need the help.

By contrast, I donít think either of the Republican regimes that replaced the Democratic regimes that succeeded the Progressive Democratic regime could really cope with this pattern. Thereís no institutional way to maintain a rising tide thatís led to rising boats, with an adequate defensive cushion in case the tide goes out.

So as much as I and others are railing against the Trump administration, and siding with the Democratic Party, I still think that itís urgent for progressives to focus on this underlying problem. From that angle, the question is no longer whether itís possible to restore some kind of progressive regime, but whatís the best regime.

Source
Bloody hell, I hate link builders like you, especially when you guys write WOT

Go find a proper job
13-07-2020 09:19 PM
sinkingfeeling
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblessUncle36 View Post
There are many financial products, but the 'least intimidating' way to start off investing in stocks is to buy those listed on the SGX. Of course every investment has risks and you decide how much risk you can stomach. To me this is least intimidating because the process is clear cut and the chances of you being 'cheated' is very low.

1. Take the sgx modules necessary to open a CDP account.
2. Open an account with your chosen brokerage firm (DBS vickers, UOB, etc)
3. Buy your stocks via your brokerage firm app.
4. If you are keeping for long term, the stocks must be delivered to your CDP within 3 days and they are under your name.
5. Profit / Loss depends on when you sell, and the only fees you pay are to your broker, GST and clearing fees to SGX.


This is a good time to think about buying stocks because most of them have lost a 25 to 30% of their pre-covid value. People say the 'safer' blue-chip stocks are majority owned by Temasek, like Singtel. Not saying that just because there is Temasek, your investment is totally safe. If for some reason they decide to bail and sell off, the value will likely plunge. However, if there is one thing I have learnt from observation, bad times dont last forever.

Which leads me to your parents losing a lot and you are afraid of 'playing stocks'. My take on why many people say or have parents who 'lost a lot' is they probably bought expecting prices to go up, but panicked and sold off when the stock prices plunged in times of crises.

A more rational response would be to evaluate whether the company can weather the crisis and grow in future and if you can hold off cashing out for a few years. Using Singtel as an example, chances of it collapsing are very slim and yes there are competitors, but even if its price plunges for the whole of this year and longer, I am confident it would recover. And it did indeed recover from its ~ $3.50 plunge to ~ $2.50 in 2008, although over the next decade.

To be frank though, there is no way you can live off dividends investing in SGX stocks unless you have a lot of money lying around, which from your post seems unlikely.
Got to take modules before can open a CDP account?!

Very difficult to study for or not?

My maths CMI one
09-07-2020 02:48 PM
rgp if you are open to the idea buying a property an be a safe mid to long term savings plan as well as for capital appreciation, please contact me. will be glad to share as i did with these people who bought


Great developer discounts/promo prices for these awesome projects
www.treasure-at-tampines-condo-simlian.com
www.theflorenceresidencescondominium.com
www.parcclematis-condominium.com
www.koparatnewtoncondominium.com
www.penrosehongleong.com
www.thelandmarkmccland.com
www.amber-park-condominium.com
www.marinaoneresidencescondominium.com
www.avenuesouthresidencescondominium.com
www.wallichresidencecondominium.com
27-06-2020 01:32 AM
ruslanv7 The typical American isnít doing so well. Though not everyone has suffered as badly as median income, and modest losses in real wages since 2008 have been as steady and hard to reverse as they have been prolonged.

Last week, the Conference Board estimated that real wages fell by 2.7 percent in 2017 after adjusting for inflation. The year before, real wages fell by almost 2 percent. But both of those were really on top of the Great Recession, and both years included some positive annual readings. Hereís a chart from the Cleveland Fed showing the average real wage without inflation:

The decline is particularly sharp in low-income areas of the country. The collapse is still too diffuse to really describe, but it has been happening.

Wages fall in two ways: either youíre losing ground in absolute terms, as wages generally decline in recession or recover after a recession, or your wages are falling because of the relative deterioration of your bargaining position, as real wages fall in industries or occupations where you donít have bargaining power. In a different way, we also can think of wages by their volume or value ó percentage of total output, in other words. This is easy enough to think about. When we compare the actual income growth over time of, say, the top 10 percent and the next 10 percent, and then the next 10 percent, we have whatís known as the Gini coefficient. Itís always running below 1, even when the share of income obtained by the top 10 percent is above 20 percent, which has been the case since the 1990s.

In 2017, the Gini coefficient was a little lower than 1 for the country as a whole, so that means as a group Americans are making gains relative to the rest of the world. But thereís a further decline, which looks to have continued in 2018, putting American incomes below their average value since the late 1990s. And this looks like a major problem. Inequality is a particularly bad kind of inequality. Itís a situation where one group is making up losses elsewhere ó gains made elsewhere are lost here.

I find this problem the most troubling and relevant for the nation. It goes to the heart of the question we should be asking: Is there a true role for big government in the economy? I think the answer is yes. The idea that the private sector will step in to help the poor, the sick and the elderly and, with a little help from the state, the middle class is absurd.

So why should we care what theyíre making? Like income inequality, itís not about fairness ó when wealthy individuals have outsized positions and resources, no one is getting a windfall. But itís about the size of the state and how it should operate.

Liberal regimes that are transitioning from the colonial model are required to lower barriers to starting a business. But they also have to ease barriers to high taxation for high earners. Even without government active intervention, incomes tend to rise somewhat (but with plenty of volatility). The liberal regime that replaces a dictatorship tends to intensify that tendency, and help out those who really need the help.

By contrast, I donít think either of the Republican regimes that replaced the Democratic regimes that succeeded the Progressive Democratic regime could really cope with this pattern. Thereís no institutional way to maintain a rising tide thatís led to rising boats, with an adequate defensive cushion in case the tide goes out.

So as much as I and others are railing against the Trump administration, and siding with the Democratic Party, I still think that itís urgent for progressives to focus on this underlying problem. From that angle, the question is no longer whether itís possible to restore some kind of progressive regime, but whatís the best regime.

Source
25-06-2020 04:24 PM
joblessUncle36
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinkingfeeling View Post
You are very right. The problem is, I really don't understand even simple finance concepts

That's why I'm trying to think of simple ways to earn income that don't require so much thinking

Hence why I said I dare not invest in stocks, I'm very very afraid of making the wrong call. My parents themselves lost 6-figure sum playing stocks in 2008, despite attending many courses and having a stocks adviser
There are many financial products, but the 'least intimidating' way to start off investing in stocks is to buy those listed on the SGX. Of course every investment has risks and you decide how much risk you can stomach. To me this is least intimidating because the process is clear cut and the chances of you being 'cheated' is very low.

1. Take the sgx modules necessary to open a CDP account.
2. Open an account with your chosen brokerage firm (DBS vickers, UOB, etc)
3. Buy your stocks via your brokerage firm app.
4. If you are keeping for long term, the stocks must be delivered to your CDP within 3 days and they are under your name.
5. Profit / Loss depends on when you sell, and the only fees you pay are to your broker, GST and clearing fees to SGX.


This is a good time to think about buying stocks because most of them have lost a 25 to 30% of their pre-covid value. People say the 'safer' blue-chip stocks are majority owned by Temasek, like Singtel. Not saying that just because there is Temasek, your investment is totally safe. If for some reason they decide to bail and sell off, the value will likely plunge. However, if there is one thing I have learnt from observation, bad times dont last forever.

Which leads me to your parents losing a lot and you are afraid of 'playing stocks'. My take on why many people say or have parents who 'lost a lot' is they probably bought expecting prices to go up, but panicked and sold off when the stock prices plunged in times of crises.

A more rational response would be to evaluate whether the company can weather the crisis and grow in future and if you can hold off cashing out for a few years. Using Singtel as an example, chances of it collapsing are very slim and yes there are competitors, but even if its price plunges for the whole of this year and longer, I am confident it would recover. And it did indeed recover from its ~ $3.50 plunge to ~ $2.50 in 2008, although over the next decade.

To be frank though, there is no way you can live off dividends investing in SGX stocks unless you have a lot of money lying around, which from your post seems unlikely.
28-05-2020 11:15 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinkingfeeling View Post
Thanks for your advice I scared scarli buy bond then end up like hyflux

What is long investment horizon?
You can look at the Singapore Savings Bonds issued by SG govt, can apply through Internet banking. Or you can look at buying A35 Bond etf from a broker, which is a basket of bonds issued by govt and govt-linked entities e.g. HDB, LTA etc. Sg govt quite unlikely to uplorry anytime soon, unlike Hyflux. But of cos, low risk = low returns la.

But got to be aware that during this period, bond returns will be quite low cos everyone is pulling out of equities. For eg. SSB returns are at about 1%/yr now. It was at 2+% if you bought it a year ago.

Long investment horizon equals 10years or more.
27-05-2020 11:33 PM
sinkingfeeling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
If you're very risk averse, can consider parking your money in CPF or in high quality bonds. Bonds are generally considered as safer than stocks (but not entirely risk free!). Tradeoff is that returns are also correspondingly lower.

If you are OK with moderate risk taking and have a long investment horizon (10years and up), suggest you can explore Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) into low cost index funds. Simple, fuss-free and doesn't require much effort in monitoring.

At the end of the day, your returns are proportional to the amount of risk you are willing to take.

Thanks for your advice I scared scarli buy bond then end up like hyflux

What is long investment horizon?
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +8. The time now is 03:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2