It is more tax efficient to have a buy-to-let in a pension fund, albeit much less liquid.
Perhaps I should clarify - it is more tax efficient to have a buy-to-let in a pension fund, rather than a but-to-let purchased privately.
The rental income wouldn't be that strong for such a property,
zero diversification
an extremely illiquid asset.
Why ever not, you could easily get 8% return. Where else would you find it.
True, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. If it is the best investment then why diversify away from that.
People who think shares all day understand that diversification can reduce risk without reducing return, however it is a little different when you move to a different asset class.
True again, but so what. This is another undigested idea from the world of share investing. This is a pension investment, liquidity should not be a requirement. If for some reason a liquid investment is required then of course that is not property.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?