The great debate - property or shares?

The world's most famous investor, Mr Warren Buffet, who has made billions on global stock markets, once said there were two rules about investing. One is never lose money. And the second is never forget the first rule.

This dictum was related forcefully to potential investors at a conference in Dublin this week which sought to assess the merits of two of the most popular forms of investment equities and property. The event examined the dilemma facing investors confronted by low and falling returns on their bank deposit and other savings accounts and seeking ways to achieve higher performance.

Billed as the "Great Investment Debate", the conference heard that deciding which investment option was better often depended on the amount of risk one was prepared to bear.

With a property investment there is the solid certainty of bricks and mortar, but the disadvantage of having your money tied up for a long period. With a share portfolio, the investor has the chance of a quick return, but at the same time must run the risk of heart-stopping market fluctuations.

With the return on traditional savings accounts set to fall further as interest rates are expected to drop on the approach to monetary union, more and more investors must make the choice: property or shares.

The participants in the debate didn't pull any punches in putting the case for their own favoured investment modes. They were: Mr Mark Cunningham, director of Bank of Ireland Asset Finance (BIAM) and Mr Chris Reilly, chief investment officer with BIAM for the equities side; and Mr Pat Gunne, managing director of Gunne Property Consultants and Mr Ronan Webster, head of investment at Gunne Commercial for the property side. The debate attended by 900 people over two days was held in UCD and sponsored by The Irish Times, Gunne Property Consultants and Bank of Ireland Asset Management.

While the two sides agreed on little, both conceded the property and equity markets had risen strongly and that returns in future may be more difficult to achieve.

The property side said that although the residential market might experience much slower growth than in recent years, there was still plenty of growth left in commercial property.

The backers of equity investment pointed out that many analysts believed the market could sustain itself at these levels and that good stock selection could still yield strong returns.

The case for property investment, according to Mr Gunne, came down to the very nature of the investment itself it's in something physical and tangible.

"The first reason that property is the better option is that banks are more prepared to lend you money when they know you are putting it into property, whereas they often get cold feet when they hear the word shares," he said.

He emphasised that potential investors should not be put off by the large amounts of money needed to enter the property investment game, particularly commercial property. People could invest as part of a syndicate, which were increasingly being put together in Dublin and other areas, he said.

A £500,000 investment in a commercial property might seem a daunting proposition. But what if it's made by 20 investors putting in £25,000 each?

His colleague, Mr Richard Webster, cited another example where an investment of £1.3 million was made by a large syndicate, made up of £400,000 in equity, £800,000 borrowings and costs of £100,000.

He explained how an investment of this size in a 6,000 sq ft retail warehouse unit in the Dublin area might bear lucrative results.

He assumes an initial rent of £15 per square foot and a 6 per cent annual rise in rent, yielding total income of £1.05 million.

In 10 years' time he predicted that, "conservatively, the building would fetch £2 million. Allowing for fees of £75,000 and capital gains tax of £120,000, the investment would pay off borrowings, replace the original equity and leave a net profit of £755,000 (a 151 per cent return on equity).

This was a "worst-case scenario", he argued and a "likely" sale price of £4.3 million and stronger rental income growth meant the investment had the potential to make a net profit of £2.7 million. This depends, of course, on Gunnes' forecasts proving correct.

Against this, Mr Reilly maintained that the equity market was more attractive. He said while investors hearts would have to "go through the odd flutter" the return from equities in the long run would justify the original investment. The Irish equity market is up 30 per cent so far this year, he added.

He said the constant chorus that property always appreciated was mistaken. "Take, for example, the price of agricultural land 10 years ago, it has not actually risen since then," he said. He contended that the key to equities was "regular disciplined investment".

His case study was an investor who put $1,000 (£714) in CocaCola shares every year since 1973. He said this total investment of $26,000 would now be worth on paper at least $1.142 million. Property investments could not, he said, compete with this type of return.

His colleague, Mr Cunningham, contended that £1,000 invested in 1970 in Irish property is now worth just under £40,000. But if that was invested in the Irish stock market it would now be worth about £110,300.

Mr Reilly said one of the biggest changes in the equity market was that companies now paid more attention to improving shareholder value than ever before. Mr Cunningham said that in a State where home ownership ran at 83 per cent, it was inevitable that property investment had historically been more popular with the public. He said it was "staggering" that in the Republic only 7 per cent of the population owned shares, while in the US 85 per cent of people were shareholders of some kind.

He maintained that the strong support of the Government for property over equities was one explanation for this.

Both sides disagreed strongly on how the Bacon report affected the argument. Mr Cunningham and Mr Reilly said the decision to halt the practice where investors could write off property investments against tax would make the sector significantly less lucrative.

In response, Mr Gunne said the Bacon recommendations did not apply to commercial property where there was even more value than the residential market. Mr Cunningham said he accepted shares were more volatile, but they were still capable of producing a better return than property.

"At least when you have shares you can observe the price every day, whereas when you go to value property the valuations can vary by as much as 30 per cent depending on whom you ask," he claimed.