overlander

Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

9,763 posts in this topic

40 minutes ago, Dyson Fury said:

I have to wonder, are these "Cosy Flats and Houses" that Gary lets out, the same properties that he bought from their previous owners as "Mingers"?   Just wondering, like.

You'd like Funn3r's Emporium - our slogan "We buy Old Junk and sell Valuable Antiques" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see that being the case ? I read somewhere on here 1.7 million I think it was small BTL landlords which are now going bust ? Say on average 3 houses each then that is a lot of houses where tenants landlords are going bust . Therefore a mega amount of forced evictions? Will this cause a shortage of rental property as the houses are absorbed into O/O? Or will the banks just sell them off to larger landlord groups ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just skimmed through the second part. Must be 50 pages long. If I didn't know he was a lunatic I'd say he was having a breakdown. A perfect illustration of the mug money that S24 needs to obliterate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sat Mar 18 2017 at 7:33 PM, Arpeggio said:

Interesting thread. The mother seems a sociopath when reading between the lines. A few snippets of what I noticed:

"She earns a modest amount (but has a 1st class honours degree in Chemistry) and he's a PhD student, so they would still struggle to buy and would have to tighten their belts and continue saving first. (We have offered more money but she refuses it!)"

A normal mum who isn't a LL / BTL and offered the money would be incredibly proud. Reading her posts she has not mentioned anything of the sort, mostly how confused she is that her children aren't like her.

"The way I deal with it is to think how I reacted to my parents at that age - for example, they were keen Catholics but in my teenage years I decided that religion wasn't for me"

When taking up religion, often it is what you give in your time and dedication and there are usually no financial benefits. The mothers comparison of her own past choices is made even more irrelevant by the fact that her daughter, in rejecting money from rent seeking behavior, is virtuous regardless of religion.

"Maybe our kids might see life differently if we'd lived a millionaire lifestyle"

Usually, parents raise human children.

Agree. That reminds me of what some home owning / multi home owning Boomers / LL's say: "Nobody has a right to a house". Right's don't exist from scratch, they are a construct of what kind of society we want to live in and that is the kind of society this shrinking minority, who don't represent society, want to live in.

The Mother is one of the more astute posters on that website in financial & economic terms. She clearly appreciates what an easy ride she had with her husband buying a house for 40 grand when earning 20 as well. Personally I suspect that in the back of her mind she knows full well that she is the beneficiary and her daughter's generation are the victims of an engineered circumstance. What she appears to be struggling with is the implied moral judgement of her own activities by her daughter's clear reading of the situation.

 

What boils my piss on that thread are statements like this by self appointed pwopurtee guru John Corey:

 

"The desire to fit in and be like others is why the middle or the average stay that way. 

As long as they are happy, good for them. I just grumble when they complain that someone else is doing better and they want to tax or otherwise stop the person from getting ahead."


Basically, I would like to stamp on his face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PSP said:

I can't see that being the case ? I read somewhere on here 1.7 million I think it was small BTL landlords which are now going bust ? Say on average 3 houses each then that is a lot of houses where tenants landlords are going bust . Therefore a mega amount of forced evictions? Will this cause a shortage of rental property as the houses are absorbed into O/O? Or will the banks just sell them off to larger landlord groups ?

11 hours ago, PSP said:

This has to smash the small BTL landlord into the ground ? Will this mean forced evictions ? Will this mean increased rent hikes for the bigger players as the supply pool becomes smaller ? 

 

With that type of thinking you should get into brilliance of BTL.   Tenants can always pay more eh, and houses being sold to OO means rents rise for others renters?

Shortage of rental property?    

That is not big concern for many of us on renting side wanting to become home-owners, in BTLer double-down upon double-down over 2 decades.

The demand to rent has been a 'choice' forced on so many renters.   Reason we're here is because BTLers have bought so many of the entry level homes down the years, and then bought more and more of them at higher prices.  Holding and preventing market from clearing.   

And there may be nothing in suggestion that rents-go-up as more houses sell from BTLers to OOs, as in many instances it's an equal trade-off.   1 family now paying a mortgage instead of renting directly from a BTLer.   And as better placed renters who can buy, go on to buy, it may mean other BTLers have fewer better paid tenants to meet the higher rents of today for nicer homes, bring down rental prices.   Regardless, whatever the future market disruptions I embrace it, bringing pressure down on the BTLers.   I would move each month to see the BTLers lose their grip on the market, and HPC.

Forced evictions?  Nearly all tenants have insecurity of tenure.

There's a BTL Forum thread of the other day where the tenants have actually spent extra £ on improvements making a divehole property more habitable after the LL said he was in it for the long-term.  11 months into it he has told them he is selling up.   Many BTLers rallying round on side of BTLer that long-term means different things to different people.....  insecurity of tenure.  

Of course the BTL minds want to believe they will sell to other LLs to take supply, and keep us in rented and HPI+.  Many of the large landlords are those most badly affected by S24.  There's a 160 property Hull landlord talking about selling up.   Maybe his tenants can buy those terraces at 50% off today's prices, and I would not be fussed if the council bought others at much lower prices.

On 3/15/2017 at 11:52 AM, PSP said:

Your landlord is a minnow, in comparison to large corporate landlords i.e. Thousands of properties .The type you describe are probably the best landlords to deal with ! 

I am not on the LL/BTL side.

Quote

Neverwhere:

The lives of tenants have already been disrupted & damaged by the advantages given to BTL landlords over them.

You are the excesses! You, & people who've behaved as you have, have caused all of this.

Without the players there is no game. You made this mess. You are responsible for all the damage done by it.

Hand-waving over disruption to lives that are insecure precisely because of BTL is faux compassion, faux morality

You're arguing that the government should have done more to protect the rest of us from you.

You are not a child & the government is not some omniscient parental figure overseeing your every action.

The aggregate impact of your actions hurt people. The government should've stopped me is not an adequate defence.

Pretending the government should have been infallible & omniscient does not excuse you.

---[re guilt-projecting, that FTBs that buy houses from which the previous tenants served S21s for vacant possession shoulder a similar burden]---

No. That is just more of your desire to blame others for the damage you've caused. It is all on you.

BTL made things much worse for all of those tenants. Their lives are insecure so that you can hold investments.

In your gift to not contribute to creating the damage in the first place. But you chose otherwise.

You exploited that for personal profit. No one made you do it. You own the consequences.

Keep telling yourself that so you can abrogate yourself of responsibility for causing the underlying problem.

False characterisation of the cause of the problem. The cause is BTL. Disruption is already present & ongoing.

BTLers who failed to consider the political risk of pricing a generation out of homeownership should blame 
their own hubris.

 

Edited by Venger

Share this post


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

And there may be nothing in suggestion that rents-go-up as more houses sell from BTLers to OOs, as in many instances it's an equal trade-off.   1 family now paying a mortgage instead of renting directly from a BTLer.   And as better placed renters who can buy, go on to buy, it may mean other BTLers have fewer better paid tenants to meet the higher rents of today for nicer homes, bring down rental prices.   Regardless, whatever the future market disruptions I embrace it, bringing pressure down on the BTLers.   I would move each month to see the BTLers lose their grip on the market, and HPC.

Forced evictions?  Nearly all tenants have insecurity of tenure.

There's a BTL Forum thread of the other day where the tenants have actually spent extra £ on improvements making a divehole property more habitable after the LL said he was in it for the long-term.  11 months into it he has told them he is selling up.   Many BTLers rallying round on side of BTLer that long-term means different things to different people.....  insecurity of tenure.  

This exactly.

New owner-occupiers aren't going to magically appear out of thin air, they will come predominantly from the existing pool of tenants, and therefore will reduce demand for rental property by 1 at the same time as they reduce supply of rental property by 1.

And owner-occupation keeps properties in more continuous use precisely because of the security of tenure it confers: the rolling number of rental properties currently experiencing voids means that holding properties in the PRS actually decreases the number of properties available for use, and moving that same stock over into owner occupation actively increases the number of properties available for use.

(For instance, say you have a 1,000,000 rental properties that incur, on average, 3 weeks void each year, as per the ARLA PRS Report 2013. That means that at any given point in time 57,690 of those properties will always be unoccupied. Therefore 1,000,000 physical properties tied up in the PRS effectively results in only 942,310 properties available for housing - obviously different average voids / PRS sizes would translate to different figures - whereas if those same exact properties were moved back into owner occupation the full 1,000,000 would be available for housing again. It might be tempting to assume that forcing people into crowded conditions in the PRS might be counteracting this impact, but actually over and under occupation across both sectors are broadly similar - see Homeownership and renting in England and Wales - detailed characteristics.)

Amateur BTL landlords are not providing a service. They do nothing but utilise their greater access to loose credit to force people out of the security of owner occupation against their will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PSP said:

I can't see that being the case ? I read somewhere on here 1.7 million I think it was small BTL landlords which are now going bust ? Say on average 3 houses each then that is a lot of houses where tenants landlords are going bust . Therefore a mega amount of forced evictions? Will this cause a shortage of rental property as the houses are absorbed into O/O? Or will the banks just sell them off to larger landlord groups ?

I repeat: forced evictions happen every single day anyway, thanks to the greed of landlords.

And it won't cause a shortage of rented accommodation because the demand for rented accommodation is created by landlords in the first place.

No-one but a landlord wants a landlord to own their home.

As landlords sell, the number of people who need to rent declines because that is who they are selling to.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venger - I hope that you are correct but worry that you may not be.

It is a tidy theory that for every BTL property sold there is one less tenant but I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't think the buyers will come solely from the current renters. Rent is now at such a level that for most people, saving for a deposit is nigh on impossible. This will be particularly so for older renters with children.

The buyers that will have the deposit will be the savvy or lucky ones that have either rented significantly below their capabilities (i.e flat share HMO etc) or have remained living with parents or decided not to have children. There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that this is a very large cohort.

I think it is highly possible that there is a huge pent up demand for property at a lower price. For too long people have been squeezed into accommodation that is simply too small / unsuitable for their needs but unable to do anything about it. This balloon will burst alongside a property price crash.

Sadly, I think the thirty+ generation with children have been royally stuffed and there is little they can do about it. They will be unable to save until the children leave (if ever) by which time they will be to old to buy. Possibly their only hope is to buy with their children which may become more commonplace in the coming years.

Gavin Barwell was on LBC last night and I think he does at least understand some of this. It is amusing that the government mantra is that houses 'need to become more affordable' This is repeated ad infinitum. He could actually say 'House prices need to fall' but I think this is a bit of a radioactive phrase for any MP but we can hear what we want to hear.

I know many here will argue that availability of credit and government props are the main drivers of HPI, but I think supply does have a part to play and Barwell recognises this. I like his view that if you make vast swathes of land available for building, even though it does not all need to be built on, it will drive land prices down. He fully recognised the fact that it costs little to build a house but the land is issue.

Sorry for the slightly confused ramblings - I think my main point is that just forcing large amounts of LLs to sell up won't in itself fix the problem. PSP may be right to worry about potential upward pressure on rents. After all, even a 40% drop in property price will still leave rents, in the SE at least, lagging behind the long term average.  

On the positive side, I am a member of a forum on the Isle of Wight. I keep hearing phrases such as 'my 21 year old is now renting their own place' which does remind me that this is not a countrywide issue and maybe can be fixed!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

- I think my main point is that just forcing large amounts of LLs to sell up won't in itself fix the problem. PSP may be right to worry about potential upward pressure on rents. After all, even a 40% drop in property price will still leave rents, in the SE at least, lagging behind the long term average.  

"Large amount of leveraged LLs selling" lets not see this isolation, need to think of other actors action in conjunction. The feared pentup demand may not be a reality afterall. The LLs have put all their winnings of 2000-2007 and little more of their own home equity back in the gamble, once the money is made the casino owner(governbankment) will throw the gambler out without his shirt.

 

In this situation where BTLers are getting burnt and sell for what FTB OO can borrow, the climate will be lot different to now, banks lending less, MSM running sorry stories, BOMAD not able to MEW as already done on previous peak prices. Not many will jump in as they do now.

Share this post


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

"Large amount of leveraged LLs selling" lets not see this isolation, need to think of other actors action in conjunction. The feared pentup demand may not be a reality afterall. The LLs have put all their winnings of 2000-2007 and little more of their own home equity back in the gamble, once the money is made the casino owner(governbankment) will throw the gambler out without his shirt.

 

In this situation where BTLers are getting burnt and sell for what FTB OO can borrow, the climate will be lot different to now, banks lending less, MSM running sorry stories, BOMAD not able to MEW as already done on previous peak prices. Not many will jump in as they do now.

I don't disagree. I just think that the new FTB will be a very different animal (as you say, no Bomad, tighter criteria etc). I just fear that those waiting in the wings may be able to leapfrog the existing cohort who have been priced out for years. 

Of course there will also be a bunch of shirtless LL adding to the renter pool - and I guess they really will be nightmare tenants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

Venger - I hope that you are correct but worry that you may not be.

It is a tidy theory that for every BTL property sold there is one less tenant but I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't think the buyers will come solely from the current renters. Rent is now at such a level that for most people, saving for a deposit is nigh on impossible. This will be particularly so for older renters with children.

The buyers that will have the deposit will be the savvy or lucky ones that have either rented significantly below their capabilities (i.e flat share HMO etc) or have remained living with parents or decided not to have children. There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that this is a very large cohort.

 

So who are going to be the buyers?

Mangela B began selling last year and was amazed that it was all FTBs competing with each other.  Her and the EA remarked that they did not realise they are competing in a market with no BTLers (well none who have bought her properties).  Admittedly low inventory so far.

That leaves the landlords of the places they were renting having to find new tenants.   Perhaps not earning as much, or as well positioned, as the tenants who have moved out and bought from angela B, with some perhaps having to lower rents.   Well it's early days yet for that theory yet, but when it becomes more of a shift with BTLers selling.

Eh?  30s... renters with children being worse positioned?  I know many and they are positioned, but want a big fall in values before being willing to proceeds.  Values are found at the margin?  Deposit and already paying the rent, so can afford the mortgage, especially when value slide.   Better positioned to buy than young 20s singletons/couples just coming through who have not had time to save any deposit.  Obviously there are going to be some older renters with children with no deposit, although longtermrenter has £50K saved which he doesn't feel is much of a deposit against these prices.. and it sort of isn't against these prices (he has 3 kids I believe), and seemingly not so optimistic about HPC, as he still hopes to buy in today's market... but that could change, where his £50K goes much further down Kent way, as BTLers bail. 

So who are going to be the buyers?

Other BTLers?  

Into tighter LTV lending (what is it now.. 140%?), SDLT surcharge, Section24, licensing, new upper range fine hikes, slight tilt in change for tenants to get BTLers to repair things preventing S21s) and everything else coming along, including a sentiment change shift risk as S24 bites and any HPC ahead?

Even Mark118 put it this way days after Section 24 announced in 2015, with eye on Section 24 future.... which begins in a few days at the lower-level (ratcheting tighter in years ahead), but tax returns due later, to many unsuspecting property investors.

Of course one unknown is just how many BTLers will want/need to sell up, against the current position of renters, as to extent of any softening in prices or HPC.

Quote

 

OK, so now we are all pretty clear on what the implications are, what next?

I am in the process of remortgaging several of my properties to 85% fixed for 5 years but now I must re-think this.

Should I sell up? Maybe, but the CGT is horrendous!

Maybe I should remortgage to the max and wait for distressed sellers? I’m sure there will be plenty of these and the LPA receivers may well get very busy come 2017 and they won’t be wanting to hold highly leveraged assets that are losing money but still incurring tax liabilities for too long! Will we see early 90’s style fire sale opportunities? If so, cash will be king!

Will lenders change their notional rates to reflect the new cashflow issues? If they do borrowing will get tougher, and as we know, this drives property values down too.

Will mortgage brokers see another crash in applications?

Will BTL purchases in progress be aborted? If so this will hit estate agents and developers.

Will developers be able to continue to build if they lose the BTL off plan speculators which they are so reliant upon to get funding these days?

On balance, I think all those who have huge amounts of cash or the ability to raise it quickly are in for some rich pickings, leaving the rest with major difficulties to endure.

Maybe I will refinance at high gearing and a long term fixed after all?

What are your thoughts?

https://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-7/#comment-57773

 

 

A BTLer multi-property section-24 shocked landlord says:

Quote

It is sad to see that some members of society are aggressively demanding that they have an entitlement to home ownership by displacing those who are not in a position to take on a mortgage. I dont think enough people have thought through the consequences of putting landlords out of business and tenants onto the streets just so that more people can be homeowners.

   

On 2/8/2016 at 6:08 PM, Neverwhere said:

That is either incredibly stupid or incredibly manipulative. Where are these new homeowners going to come from if not from the stock of current renters? Where are all these magically unhoused well off first time buyers going to appear from, out of thin air?

The stock of properties will not change as a result of these measures. The total number of people needing to inhabit them will not change as a result of these measures. (It might actually go down a tiny fraction, accounting for tax exiled landlords looking to sell up CGT free!)

Noone is being displaced onto the streets because there is no magic group of currently unhoused well off buyers just waiting to pop into existence to save all the leveraged landlords who find that their own poor financial planning leaves them needing to exit.

A notionally multi-millionaire, multi-multi-property, highly leveraged landlord who claims to be going into tax exile to avoid paying his fair share of taxes on the capital gains he had already made before these changes were even announced implying that younger working people who simply want to own a single home of their own, in which to raise their families free of the insecurity of tenure rampant in the private rental sector, aggressive and entitled does basically prove the thread title once again though.

 

On 2/8/2016 at 6:15 PM, Neverwhere said:

Every single tenant who funds their rent out of their own wages. This is what BTL landlords can't bring themselves to acknowledge. All of their working private tenants can obviously service mortgages because they are currently servicing theirs.

 

On 2/8/2016 at 6:23 PM, Exiled Canadian said:

What's more scary is that if they put their tenants income through the MMR formula, and add (say) 5% for a deposit they'll see exactly how much their BTL property is now worth (as a maximum) in the new world.

 

On 2/8/2016 at 6:26 PM, Bland Unsight said:

...Now, if my landlord tried to put my rent up by 10% in an environment where CPI was 0% and AWE were inflating at about 1% to 2% I would move on, no doubt. Similarly, this is only a problem for people operating at maximum allowed leverage. There will be plenty of them but they will not by any means dominate the PRS. These are the late entrant BTLers for whom BTL will be a money pit and a move they bitterly regret, (Class of 2005-2016 I'd guess).

As for renters not being able to afford it......

On 6/22/2015 at 2:43 PM, spunko2010 said:

Everyone here says the young are being ******ed over, which they are. But even if there is HPC of -50%, few young people will be able to buy on a zero hours contract - if they even have a job at all.

 

On 6/22/2015 at 8:04 PM, Bland Unsight said:

Then we'll have to have a 90% correction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lavalas said:

I've just skimmed through the second part. Must be 50 pages long. If I didn't know he was a lunatic I'd say he was having a breakdown. A perfect illustration of the mug money that S24 needs to obliterate. 

It's 90 pages long. Imagine getting a 90 page letter from your landlord detailing how the politics in his crazed mind mean your rent is going up. I think I'd move out just to remove all chance of waking up one day with 'Tenant Tax' written in sh*t on the bedroom wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

I don't disagree. I just think that the new FTB will be a very different animal (as you say, no Bomad, tighter criteria etc). I just fear that those waiting in the wings may be able to leapfrog the existing cohort who have been priced out for years. 

Of course there will also be a bunch of shirtless LL adding to the renter pool - and I guess they really will be nightmare tenants!

The details don't matter, which is good because they are far too complicated to reckon. 

The number of houses is essentially fixed (it is growing in line with population). If landlords sell, houses will switch from tenanted to owner occupation, and owner occupation will increase. Meanwhile, having the marginal buyer switch to a marginal seller will decrease prices. 

Obviously it isn't as simple, in reality, as landlords selling to their current tenants. Wealthier tenants will leave expensive rented accommodation and buy less expensive homes. That leaves vacant rented accommodation free for someone to move into.

The real chains will be long and complicated, but the details don't affect the overall outcome. 

Ultimately, landlords selling up will fix the problem because landlords buying in is the problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Meanwhile, having the marginal buyer switch to a marginal seller will decrease prices. 

That is an excellent line.

Especially if/when you are scraping the barrel of the marginals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

I don't disagree. I just think that the new FTB will be a very different animal (as you say, no Bomad, tighter criteria etc). I just fear that those waiting in the wings may be able to leapfrog the existing cohort who have been priced out for years

So younger FTBs (with no Bomad) you think will on the whole leap-frog older renter-savers who have been priced out for years (renting with kids).

Of course that will be true for some older renters.   HPC doesn't work magic for those who have not positioned for it at all, with no saving done against years of HPI+ and renting, believing it nigh-on-impossible to even try.  To do without and try.  To limit ones rental home choices to lower end so can still save a bit each month.  

And even if some of your young leap-froggers do so... (from living rent-free with parents), it all comes out in the mix.  

There is no organised queue.   So even if a non-owner on younger side living at parents can leapfrog someone else into a HPC, doesn't mean that prices won't slide further, after they've bought.   

frederico recently told how he was quick to sell the property he confidently bought in 1987 after he twigged HPC was coming, selling a small loss, to some other buyers, who probably took on far more of the brunt of the HPC into 90s.   

If it's HPC, we're still going to have buyers buy on the way down, and see house price fall below what they paid.   HPC doesn't happen in one go, and we need buyers paying lower price, to bring down the wider market... in stages.

Each day on HPC alone we have HPCers who don't see prices falling... "Too much wealth in housing, and the PTB won't let it happen".  Market out there.  If they don't already own (some of the no-HPC HPCers may feel protective over HPI), maybe they'll be the first to rush in and buy at any 5% off current prices.

If it happens to me (values sliding substantially below than price I have paid) then so be it!!   All that matters to me is the price I pay.  

On 12/7/2015 at 8:23 PM, Digsby said:

No I don't care either what happens to prices after I buy, the only thing that matters is the price I buy at. But then, that's a commonality we often see among posters here vs the rest of them who can only envisage buying in a forever rising market, ignoring the obvious truth that nothing is forever.

--

All that matters from me is pressure is on more BTLers to sell, and that they are up against tighter conditions with what buyers can pay, where other BTLers drop out of the market because the math doesn't work (S24), and sentiment change with other BTLers who have doubled-down hard, getting financially hammered and facing bankruptcy.

3 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

I don't think the buyers will come solely from the current renters. Rent is now at such a level that for most people, saving for a deposit is nigh on impossible. This will be particularly so for older renters with children.

The buyers that will have the deposit will be the savvy or lucky ones that have either rented significantly below their capabilities (i.e flat share HMO etc) or have remained living with parents or decided not to have children. There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that this is a very large cohort.

Longtermrenter with his recent  thread on petition to show banks can afford mortgages (at these price levels).  

In his 40s yet still has £50Kish saved..... (pretty certain I read he has 3 kids on another thread, but just found a post where he talks about his 2 kids).  £50K saved up into his 40s.  That isn't so much against these house prices in many an area.  At least he has it saved up, as a renter for so many years, with family.  His £50K could be worth a lot towards buying in any HPC.   

Needs HPC imo, rather than trying too hard to prove to banks can compete at these prices levels, to buy at these price levels.

On 3/20/2017 at 1:13 PM, Longtermrenter said:

Yes, I have the Android app, thanks for suggesting it though. It is a very good calculator. I don't want to outbid BTL - just would like to be able to get a small mortgage on houses i deem to be cheap enough. Lets hope for the HPC - I have about 50k saved, wont get me very far so would be nice to be able to get a mortgage if the crash comes but I'm guessing borrowing will be tighter still then. Will probably move abroad depending on Brexit outcome.

If he can still afford £800 - £1,300 a month into HPC, he should be sorted for a mortgage, at much lower buying prices, imo.

On 3/20/2017 at 11:21 AM, Longtermrenter said:

I don't make enough money. Our joint earnings are quite low. We are very frugal however, run second hand vehicles, I do all the maintenance. We cook from cheap ingredients, don't have extravagant holidays, meet the rent every month, Manage to save a bit every year. We could afford a mortgage of £800 a month with stress testing to 1300 a month which would allow for £150k borrowed at 10% over 25 years. No bank would give that to me, have tried brokers. Credit rating is ok although haven't had any loans for 18 years so they probably don't like that. What I am saying is, we could meet the repayments but we wouldn't get a mortgage on our earnings of that amount.

-----

3 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

Of course there will also be a bunch of shirtless LL adding to the renter pool - and I guess they really will be nightmare tenants!

:lol:

 

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing with you - rather trying to question a viewpoint.

HPC is a bit of an echo chamber of people that understand finance. It is not surprising that many here have a decent savings pot. Equally, we tend to associate with people like ourselves (I have pretty much excommuncated all my acquaintances as they are all BTL forever goons)

To understand the wider effects of what is happening we need to look further afield:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37504449 

More than 16m people in the UK have savings of less than £100, a study by the Money Advice Service (MAS) has found. 

Even in the South East, 30% of people have less than £100 saved.

Paradoxically, that is the same number of renters in the South East. This does not, of course, prove a direct correlation.

' The region with the lowest proportion of renters was the South East at 31.3%.' (old link)

We can then look at the amount of savings people have on average

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-savings-of-people-in-the-UK-in-the-25-30-age-group

I am not seeing a massive surge of 20-30 year olds with £50k saved up.

In which case, are we seeing that there are in fact far fewer marginal buyers than our own localised experience suggests?

As you say, BOMAD will be no more so deposits will be very hard to come by.  MMR and zero hours  / minimum wage contracts preclude a vast amount from any decent earnings multiple.

There could well be a lot more sellers than there is actual effective demand. In which case, to quote a certain American, 'It's goin' to be great folks. It's goin' to be great.'

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

As you say, BOMAD will be no more so deposits will be very hard to come by.  MMR and zero hours  / minimum wage contracts preclude a vast amount from any decent earnings multiple.

Don't forget epic amounts of student debt

Share this post


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

 

With that type of thinking you should get into brilliance of BTL.   Tenants can always pay more eh, and houses being sold to OO means rents rise for others renters?

Shortage of rental property?    

That is not big concern for many of us on renting side wanting to become home-owners, in BTLer double-down upon double-down over 2 decades.

The demand to rent has been a 'choice' forced on so many renters.   Reason we're here is because BTLers have bought so many of the entry level homes down the years, and then bought more and more of them at higher prices.  Holding and preventing market from clearing.   

And there may be nothing in suggestion that rents-go-up as more houses sell from BTLers to OOs, as in many instances it's an equal trade-off.   1 family now paying a mortgage instead of renting directly from a BTLer.   And as better placed renters who can buy, go on to buy, it may mean other BTLers have fewer better paid tenants to meet the higher rents of today for nicer homes, bring down rental prices.   Regardless, whatever the future market disruptions I embrace it, bringing pressure down on the BTLers.   I would move each month to see the BTLers lose their grip on the market, and HPC.

Forced evictions?  Nearly all tenants have insecurity of tenure.

There's a BTL Forum thread of the other day where the tenants have actually spent extra £ on improvements making a divehole property more habitable after the LL said he was in it for the long-term.  11 months into it he has told them he is selling up.   Many BTLers rallying round on side of BTLer that long-term means different things to different people.....  insecurity of tenure.  

Of course the BTL minds want to believe they will sell to other LLs to take supply, and keep us in rented and HPI+.  Many of the large landlords are those most badly affected by S24.  There's a 160 property Hull landlord talking about selling up.   Maybe his tenants can buy those terraces at 50% off today's prices, and I would not be fussed if the council bought others at much lower prices.

I am not on the LL/BTL side.

 

Venger you have chosen to take my quotes out of context ! Select only certain quotes and paint an incorrect picture! 

 

Just for for the record I am totally in favour of the S24 rule amateur landlords need to go !

The small BTL amateur landlord is history, rightly so , along with his 20 % deposit he has given to the banks ! 

Next My main fear is as recorded 16 million people who don't have a 100 pounds won't be buying property any time soon!

I cant believe you are so naive to think osbourne introduced this to help the little man get on the property ladder you are having a laugh with that one !

osbourne did so the little man will lose his deposit , banks can block sell properties on mass  to the likes of the black rock  investment company he works for the corporate institutions shaft the small man landlord and their big corporate friends clean up!

huge huge corporate landlords will appear (backed by investment companies like black rock ) to hoover up the coming bankrupt stock ! These properties won't be back on the market for 50 years !

 

These AE properties will probably never come back to the market ! 

 

You are are so naive ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PSP said:

Venger you have chosen to take my quotes out of context ! Select only certain quotes and paint an incorrect picture! 

 

Just for for the record I am totally in favour of the S24 rule amateur landlords need to go !

The small BTL amateur landlord is history, rightly so , along with his 20 % deposit he has given to the banks ! 

Next My main fear is as recorded 16 million people who don't have a 100 pounds won't be buying property any time soon!

I cant believe you are so naive to think osbourne introduced this to help the little man get on the property ladder you are having a laugh with that one !

osbourne did so the little man will lose his deposit , banks can block sell properties on mass  to the likes of the black rock  investment company he works for the corporate institutions shaft the small man landlord and their big corporate friends clean up!

huge huge corporate landlords will appear (backed by investment companies like black rock ) to hoover up the coming bankrupt stock ! These properties won't be back on the market for 50 years !

 

You are are so naive ! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, PSP said:

Venger you have chosen to take my quotes out of context ! Select only certain quotes and paint an incorrect picture! 

Eh?  I made an effort to answer some of your leading questions.

Quote

  18 hours ago, PSP said:

I can't see that being the case ? I read somewhere on here 1.7 million I think it was small BTL landlords which are now going bust ? Say on average 3 houses each then that is a lot of houses where tenants landlords are going bust . Therefore a mega amount of forced evictions? Will this cause a shortage of rental property as the houses are absorbed into O/O? Or will the banks just sell them off to larger landlord groups ?

 20 hours ago, PSP said:

This has to smash the small BTL landlord into the ground ? Will this mean forced evictions ? Will this mean increased rent hikes for the bigger players as the supply pool becomes smaller ? 

 

As I suspected it, it seems you had already decided.   Blackrock and more people farming.  No chance for renter-savers.  HPI protected.  You lean to O/O buyers absorbing as a sop on this thread, but your main view is larger landlord groups and more shafting for renter-savers.

32 minutes ago, PSP said:

I cant believe you are so naive to think osbourne introduced this to help the little man get on the property ladder you are having a laugh with that one !

osbourne did so the little man will lose his deposit , banks can block sell properties on mass  to the likes of the black rock  investment company he works for the corporate institutions shaft the small man landlord and their big corporate friends clean up!

huge huge corporate landlords will appear (backed by investment companies like black rock ) to hoover up the coming bankrupt stock ! These properties won't be back on the market for 50 years !

huge huge corporate landlords will appear (backed by investment companies like black rock ) to hoover up the coming bankrupt stock ! These properties won't be back on the market for 50 years !

You are are so naive ! 

 

On 3/13/2017 at 10:15 PM, PSP said:

Move up north 220-250 k buys you a good place ! Your choice rent down south or buy up north

Which need hard HPC. £220,000-£250,000.  What's that in this market in the North West / your Manchester.  Perhaps a lower end semi-D in Offerton.   A squeezed house in lower end of Timperley.   An standard semi in upper Prestwich, or Macclesfield.   Basic semi in Heaton Chapel but not Heaton Moor.   Nicer areas and better housing stock and it's straight up in prices.

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, PSP said:

Venger you have chosen to take my quotes out of context ! Select only certain quotes and paint an incorrect picture! 

 

Just for for the record I am totally in favour of the S24 rule amateur landlords need to go !

The small BTL amateur landlord is history, rightly so , along with his 20 % deposit he has given to the banks ! 

Next My main fear is as recorded 16 million people who don't have a 100 pounds won't be buying property any time soon!

I cant believe you are so naive to think osbourne introduced this to help the little man get on the property ladder you are having a laugh with that one !

osbourne did so the little man will lose his deposit , banks can block sell properties on mass  to the likes of the black rock  investment company he works for the corporate institutions shaft the small man landlord and their big corporate friends clean up!

huge huge corporate landlords will appear (backed by investment companies like black rock ) to hoover up the coming bankrupt stock ! These properties won't be back on the market for 50 years !

 

These AE properties will probably never come back to the market ! 

 

You are are so naive ! 

Why do people buy property? People may come up with variety of reasons. But the core reason is to call a place home and raise a family. In the current rent market, renters are faced with insecurity about their homes. If LLs offer a long term tenancy most renters desire to own home may go down. 

I am told that the LL's were prevented by their lenders from offering long term tenancy agreements. 

If blackrock takes all these houses and manage to make a profit good luck with them. They might offer long term tenancies.  

But will they bet on property? May be not .

I agree that not all renters can afford to buy or lining up to buy the BTLers property. But a correction could help a few to buy homes. 

Edited by hi5lo5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onto 'the' thread after 10 days a member.

No chance HPC, you won't get a look-in, and corporates to buy up all the housing stock from BTLers (?)

My approach is to believe them concerned BTLers or HPIers.   Why else join up, with such passion against prospect of BTLers selling up to younger homeowners / HPC ?

**** the corporates, although I know others welcome the prospect of being farmed by them on big rental scale, and taking homeownership responsibility away from the young.  American Corporates... being responsible for UK housing and protecting wider HPI?   Same old money runs up, but just new landlords.  Make me shiver... it's like wanting to merrily sit on Trump's lap.

Main banks have their own reasons for HPC and to get fresh debt out there, else go out of business.  5 houses (£2m of property) owned outright by 1 landlord is not a win for the bank.  No debt being paid up to the bank.  Get him to sell some off at lower prices, to cash in on his 'portfolio', as other BTLers forced to sell up by S24 driving prices down.   We do know that US firms have bought up tranches of UKAR debt, which I'm okay with.

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corporates want easily managed build to let. They won't be interested in knackered little portfolios dotted about the place.

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.