overlander

Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, BuyToLeech said:

No. 

Landlords aren't subject to competition. The economics of Landlording means they cannot raise rents to cover costs,  and so no taxes can be passed on to tenants ever. 

This isn't some obscure conspiracy theory, this is literally economics 101, and it's backed by more evidence than almost any other economic law. Rents follow wages, they have nothing to do with landlord costs. 

In the short term this may be true, but medium to long term landlords getting out of market = lower rental supply = higher rents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PropertyMania said:

In the short term this may be true, but medium to long term landlords getting out of market = lower rental supply = higher rents

I struggle with this one. Given the parasite supply side can only be taken up by a. another dirty parasite or b. an actual person, for every grimy parasite you surgically remove from the market like a pus filled boil you also remove one actual person from the demand side who was previously renting from the scumbag parasite DEBTjunkie. Someone else has also argued on here that the tenants converting to owners in this great bonfire of the DEBTjunkies will more likely.be the ones on higher incomes as in position to meet falling prices first therefore the remaining pool of actual people left renting from the parasitic scumbags will be on lower average income thus putting downward pressure on rents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ah-so said:

Economics 101 does teach that increases in taxes can get passed on as price rises. Not all, but a portion. http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/microeconomics/tax-effects.asp

Not sure if this piece of economic theory would apply to the rental market, but I see no obvious reason why it shouldn't in part. 

That's exactly the theory I'm referring to (although you can look at it in a number of other ways, they're all equivalent).

In this case the supply curve is flat - the supply cannot significantly change to respond to price, so price is set by demand.  

And there's good evidence this is true.

I'll concede that economics is only approximate, so 'all' and 'never' is maybe an exaggeration, but that is what the theory says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thewig said:

I struggle with this one. Given the parasite supply side can only be taken up by a. another dirty parasite or b. an actual person, for every grimy parasite you surgically remove from the market like a pus filled boil you also remove one actual person from the demand side who was previously renting from the scumbag parasite DEBTjunkie. Someone else has also argued on here that the tenants converting to owners in this great bonfire of the DEBTjunkies will more likely.be the ones on higher incomes as in position to meet falling prices first therefore the remaining pool of actual people left renting from the parasitic scumbags will be on lower average income thus putting downward pressure on rents?

Interesting idea. Thinking about it in reverse: Landlords buying homes that would have gone to owners = more owners renting = rents yields staying constant / rising? But this doesn't seem to have happened - rents have increased much less than house prices. Maybe just not enough crossover between the owner and renter groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PropertyMania said:

Interesting idea. Thinking about it in reverse: Landlords buying homes that would have gone to owners = more owners renting = rents yields staying constant / rising? But this doesn't seem to have happened - rents have increased much less than house prices. Maybe just not enough crossover between the owner and renter groups?

Not sure I understand your point. 

Landlords buying houses to rent out doesn't help to meet the existing 'demand' for rental houses, because it just creates new tenants, so this process has no real impact on rents.

That doesn't mean rents never change, it just means they don't change due to supply.

Rents are mostly determined by local incomes, and have risen in line with wage inflation.  That's what it means to say the price is set by demand - price is set by what people can and will pay.

House prices are (roughly) the net present value of the rental income, which is (approximately)

rent / mortgage rate

So prices are inflated by falling interest rates.

Edited by BuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PropertyMania said:

In the short term this may be true, but medium to long term landlords getting out of market = lower rental supply = higher rents

It's like you have the mind of a BTLer.  Welcome to 'the' thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PropertyMania said:

In the short term this may be true, but medium to long term landlords getting out of market = lower rental supply = higher rents

No.

The rental market is very elastic.

Reduction of suppky does not mean a similar increase in demand.

For example.

In my first job, I was put up in a nice flat by the company for 6 months whilst I looked for somewhere to live.

I found a house share with 3 other people, 2 of whom were also being put up by companies.

3 seperate lets went into 1 larger let.

The total rent paid by all of dropped by 80%.

Add stuff like going and staying with parents, sofa surfing, B+B for a bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

No.

The rental market is very elastic.

Reduction of suppky does not mean a similar increase in demand.

For example.

In my first job, I was put up in a nice flat by the company for 6 months whilst I looked for somewhere to live.

I found a house share with 3 other people, 2 of whom were also being put up by companies.

3 seperate lets went into 1 larger let.

The total rent paid by all of dropped by 80%.

Add stuff like going and staying with parents, sofa surfing, B+B for a bit.

 

Very true, which is why when people say "Very few people sleep on the streets, therefore we don't need homes" - they are wrong.

If my parents house fell down tomorrow - they would not sleep on the streets they could stay with me, but they would still have the need for a home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PropertyMania said:

landlords getting out of market = lower rental supply = higher rents

I thought these BS were thrown out in the first few pages, now again after hundreds of pages of BTLer tearing apart....

 "landlords getting out of market" is only one side of the argument/T accounting, the other side is one tenant becomes OO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BuyToLeech said:

That's exactly the theory I'm referring to (although you can look at it in a number of other ways, they're all equivalent).

In this case the supply curve is flat - the supply cannot significantly change to respond to price, so price is set by demand.  

And there's good evidence this is true.

I'll concede that economics is only approximate, so 'all' and 'never' is maybe an exaggeration, but that is what the theory says.

I think we are basically in the same page on this. And as in my other post on this topic above, the large presence of unleveraged landlords in the market provides little room to force up rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe 'terrible'.

 

Quote

 

Miles also warned that the tax change would exacerbate the plight of would-be home owners trying to save for a deposit for their first home by forcing them to spend even more of their income on rent.  

'That makes life for those people who hope to be owner occupiers but are still in the rental sector unambiguously worse off,' he said. 

 

Wonder why he is so involved in this?

Quote

Professor David Miles was a Monetary Policy Committee member at the Bank of England from 2009 until 2015.

Professor Miles was Chief UK Economist at Morgan Stanley from October 2004 to May 2009.
 
He has been a specialist economic advisor to the Treasury Select Committee. In the 2003 Budget, the Chancellor commissioned Professor Miles to lead a review of the UK mortgage market. The result, published at Budget 2004, was the report 'The UK mortgage market: taking a longer-term view'. He is a former editor of Fiscal Studies. 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Pages/people/biographies/miles.aspx

 

Got some advice for him.... things change, life isn't fair, and

Quote

 I will escalate it as you request, however please note that (as I’m sure you are aware already) Treasury Budgets are not things the Bank has any say in. So you are indeed best to deal direct with the Treasury, even if as a private citizen you are unlikely to influence government policy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2% the new 5% and more...

or a few years, with a BTLers double-down, before HPC galore on complacent minds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Venger said:

It's like you have the mind of a BTLer.  Welcome to 'the' thread.

 

OK, I was bit blurry eyed this morning and didn't think it through. I can't stand the BTL brigade, they are the Daily Mail in human form. Being married to one must be worse than having genital warts. At least the day  of reckoning is coming for the 99% who refuse to get out now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PropertyMania said:

OK, I was bit blurry eyed this morning and didn't think it through. I can't stand the BTL brigade, they are the Daily Mail in human form. Being married to one must be worse than having genital warts. At least the day  of reckoning is coming for the 99% who refuse to get out now.

Looking at Vanessa and remembering she was a rawk DJ, id guess genital warts are the least of your worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slim pickings over at 118 now that most of them have essentially given up on the 'Tenant tax' campaign. Although it's comforting to know that Ros is still fighting the good fight, or rather writing the bad letter. This time it's Crisis' turn to give her short shrift. I include here as a useful reminder of how f#cked she is - 80k mortgage interest.

https://www.property118.com/crisis-campaign-home-no-less-will-do/94402/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lavalas said:

Slim pickings over at 118 now that most of them have essentially given up on the 'Tenant tax' campaign. Although it's comforting to know that Ros is still fighting the good fight, or rather writing the bad letter. This time it's Crisis' turn to give her short shrift. I include here as a useful reminder of how f#cked she is - 80k mortgage interest.

https://www.property118.com/crisis-campaign-home-no-less-will-do/94402/

80k mortgage interest today ...  40k interest tax levy next tax year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, spyguy said:

80k mortgage interest today ...  40k interest tax levy next tax year.

assuming a 5% interest rate that's £1.6m of mortgage debt.  Assuming another (say) £600k of "equity" (I use invested commas advisedly) that's over £2m she has spent on houses in the the Valleys......that's probably c. 40 houses - does Ros own (or should I say owe money on?) a whole pit village?

How bonkers is that?  What bank thinks that this is a good business plan:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Exiled Canadian said:

assuming a 5% interest rate that's £1.6m of mortgage debt.  Assuming another (say) £600k of "equity" (I use invested commas advisedly) that's over £2m she has spent on houses in the the Valleys......that's probably c. 40 houses - does Ros own (or should I say owe money on?) a whole pit village?

How bonkers is that?  What bank thinks that this is a good business plan:blink:

Any bank regulated by Gordon Brown.

IO BTL was all fkcing insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Any bank regulated by Gordon Brown.

IO BTL was all fkcing insane.

I've said before, as IRs tend to 0 I/O BTL mortgages can support infinitely high house prices.

....and have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

er 

19 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

assuming a 5% interest rate that's £1.6m of mortgage debt.  Assuming another (say) £600k of "equity" (I use invested commas advisedly) that's over £2m she has spent on houses in the the Valleys......that's probably c. 40 houses - does Ros own (or should I say owe money on?) a whole pit village?

How bonkers is that?  What bank thinks that this is a good business plan:blink:

The banks that are lending her your children's future to gamble on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

assuming a 5% interest rate that's £1.6m of mortgage debt.  Assuming another (say) £600k of "equity" (I use invested commas advisedly) that's over £2m she has spent on houses in the the Valleys......that's probably c. 40 houses - does Ros own (or should I say owe money on?) a whole pit village?

How bonkers is that?  What bank thinks that this is a good business plan:blink:

Very generous with the 5% - mine average less than 2%. Maybe she has given away her rates during her ramblings....but if not she could be paying 3% approx. 

Her debts could easily be £3m....which is the frightening thing when rates are so low.....its easy to forget to 'respect the debt'. 

£3m debt on teeny tiny South Wales homes. I bet those cash buyers can't wait to swallow them up.....not! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice little reminder that these days the BTL Scum Regrouping and on the Offensive really just means getting together to discuss throwing in the towel and selling up...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1394781467231520&id=1077700412272962

And these are the ones who are aware of Section 24. I hate the fact that I'm wishing time away waiting for the rest to cotton on and sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that last one in the list provided by Lavalas made me laugh...

... I am probably burying my head in the sand but the thought of selling all my properties, some with tenancies 10 years old, to come away with say 15k - 20 k equity each just dose not give me the option to replace my current income. Added to this 14 fixed rate mortgages with exit fees of up to £4500 each until 2020 I am between a rock and a hard place. Currently trying to get down the LTD route gradually with the ones not on fixed rates, then do the rest as I can. Only option my heart will follow through...

So say his average property value is £75k...making a profit of 15k per property over ten years means he 'made' 2%pa return before tax assuming that he owned the property outright...some financial wizz kid then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.