Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

sleepwello'nights

New Members
  • Posts

    2,683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sleepwello'nights

  1. Ah, so you recognise your own tactics. You never raised a salient point so there was nothing to refute or respond to. Merely the same old, same old. Anyway I'll leave you to your zealotry, I was once told "never play with pigs, you'll end up covered in shit, and they'll just be enjoying themselves"
  2. Yes, I think you're right. There's been little substance in her arguments merely nitpicking over spelling, grammar and trying to invalidate any points I've raised by reconstructing sentences.
  3. I agree, but he started it is this the tongue in cheek smiley?
  4. I see you stayed up posting much later than I. Anyway, the only point you raised that did niggle me was your jibe at my assertion that banks employ actuaries. Just to set the record straight banks do employ Actuaries. Admittedly they are under represented and their core activities may generally be related to pension probablliities. But have a look at the website of the Institute of Actuaries http://www.actuaries.org.uk/becoming-actuary/pages/why-become-actuary-0 it might help you gain a better understanding of their profession. You can also google some statistics on where actuaries are employed, this may also confirm to you a small percentage are employed by banks, risk management is where their expertise should be useful for a bank. Post 9 took the thread on the tangent I responded to. I had hoped to have had a more instructive discussion with you but it doesn't look as if that is going to happen. You find the present situation of property lending unpalatable and can't stop yourself from allowing your posts to degenerate into personal attacks on someone who disagrees with your opinion. You seem to be an idealist, certainly in terms of how you would like the world to be to further your own self interest. I tend to be a realist and accept things as they are and make the best I can of how things are.
  5. Why not stick to the point of the thread then rather than continue with your personal attacks on me for recounting my actual financial results of letting property. The unintellectual bias of your arguments as to my intelligence and the fact that I didn't conduct forensic research on your history on this forum can't change my results. Call me whatever names you like but what you're fighting against are the thousands of aspirant buy to let landlords who see the potential rewards and are prepared to take the risk. How can "I could hypothesize that because you can't see it's not a personal attack because you're a bit thick, even..." not be construed as a personal attack. A bit like the barristers trick "don't think of a black horse". Ad hominem attacks are pathetic. Whether you eventually turn out to be right is irrelevant. The STR posters from 2000 ish lost out, those that held off buying because prices would crash lost out, many more HPCers are giving in and buying property even though prices are above previous highs in parts of the country. As I remarked in some of my first posts an economic meltdown and resultant HPC would have been disastrous for large swathes of the UK population. On a final cliche "the market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent." Good cup final by the way, I enjoyed watching it.
  6. Looks like a very personal attack to me. What, er, problems?
  7. You missed the point which was that despite the economic arguments about the low yield, risk profile, and the moral arguments, it has still been a profitable investment. Who knows how long for, I don't. I wasn't boasting or bragging about how clever I am, I lucked in in that my reasons for purchasing properties to rent held up, and government responses to the financial crash worked in my favour. There are many other posters boasting about their ability to make money from the financial markets by the way they can read market reactions.
  8. To my mind this extract from a post by bland unsight (uncapitalised intial letters to be consistent with his use of his user name) looks like a personal attack on me: "This is actually the daftest post I have read in a long time. I just love the idea that it is the mindset of the aspirant BTLer that is holding the bottom of the market out of reach of MMR constrained aspirant owner-occupiers. Not emergency Bank policy rate, not the low gilts rates of the QE driven bond bubble, not the impact on funding costs of FLS and not the failure to regulate the BTL lending. "It was the BTLers wot won it." BTLers are stooges, puppets, quislings; they are the mark not the card sharp. You don't need to worry about being flamed; knowledge-free 'conventional wisdom' drivel like this will get you ignored. You're going on the list." Keep up.
  9. Exactly. It achieved that by making it easier for landlords to regain possession of their properties and would make it more attractive for landlords to rent out property. Prior to that it could be very difficult for a landlord to regain possession of their property because of the Rent Act. Here's a link to a series of articles that give a reasonable exposition of then and now: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/07/26/explaining-the-housing-act-1988/
  10. Oh, excuse me, I thought you said a short while ago that you weren't attacking me personally. Silly me.
  11. That's right. Ask Venger, he spends a lot of time indexing others posts so I'm sure he can locate my post where I mentioned I'd sold my investment properties.
  12. Hey ho. Well my profits have crystallised and I did far better than I thought. The gain equated to a number of years rental profit. So to my naive and ignorant mind I thought why not take the income now and not have the hassle of running a buy to let business. At the end of the day you can look at any number of rocket scientists, the quants, working in hedge funds, they all knew the structure of finance, the capital asset pricing theories and all the rest of the theories that you expound and seemingly take great pride in your knowledge of. Didn't stop the financial crash did it? Just face it for the last 10 years or so you've been the wrong side of the bet, despite your superior knowledge. Well done.
  13. I'm not doubting that prices aren't behaving differently where you are. I've recounted the price change in a property that is close by. Anecdotal I know, also supported by asking prices that I can see on the property portals. Also have a look at the posts on the Reading area, they complain that prices have increased strongly.
  14. You disappoint me with your personal attacks on me. Still I guess your just reverting to type. I've noticed that all those with left wing views tend to react with hostility to anyone who, in their view, has the temerity to disagree with their opinion and point of view.
  15. It was one of the changes that encouraged the supply of property for rent by private landlords. I don't really follow your distinction. The practice of lending institutions to provide finance to private landlords was, I contend, supply meeting demand or to look at it from a slightly different perspective the market meeting a demand. Despite his obvious hostility to my arguments Bland Unsight hit the nail on the head with his rationalisation that BTL lending is unfair on tenants because it is using the leverage of their rental income to push house prices out of the reach of those wishing to purchase for their own occupation. As I say I'm ambivalent about the moral case.
  16. There is also a strong argument that living in Tower Blocks was a cause of the somewhat disordered lives. We also have the problems of sink estates brought about by local authority policies. I recall discussions between my parents with neighbours, friends and acquaintances in the 1950s about the policy of the local authority to house problem families in close proximity. Best of intentions I guess to keep the problem people contained. We all know it didn't work out as they hoped. Now we have another approach to disperse social housing with privately owned housing. That's not solved it either.
  17. Well straight of the top of my head there was the change in legislation of the Housing Act 1988. This bought in Assured Shorthold Tenancies that gave landlords stronger rights to regain possession. There were also changes to Income Tax legislation that allowed land and property to be treated as a business. I don't recall when the change was made, I'll have to do some research, it was around the same time. I realise you are using very emotive arguments, I'm not trying to antagonise you but putting dispassionate counterpoints to your opinions. Any investment argument can be correct at some point. At the moment your rationale against the investment case for buy to let at this time is not borne out by facts. Let's not forget the biggest gains in any bubble come in the final phases. I have been persuaded by the views of the sensible posters that the risk for BTL is high, but its still working so far for those who have chosen it. I'm ambivalent about the moral case. It's always been the case that those that have are envied by the have nots. That's the way of the world, communism clearly failed, in fact it was worse than capitalism. I'm well aware that I lucked in when the Financial Crash happened, it could easily have gone the other way for me, but no bullsh1t ******* it didn't.
  18. I think you mean contend. Although with my gains I am content. content1/kənˈtɛnt/ adjective in a state of peaceful happiness. contend/kənˈtɛnd/ verb struggle to surmount (a difficulty). assert something as a position in an argument.
  19. Maybe, but the facts are the facts. I got good yields and made large capital gains from my portfolio.
  20. Thanks for the polite and reasonable reply. I look at the yields and take fright. But, its done OK so far. Let's not forget the BTL market were encouraged by Governments to step in and take the risk of providing rental property by various policies over the decades to curtail local authorities provision of rental property. It seems from remarks after the general election by a conservative politician, I don't recall who, that policies were going to be changed to encourage local authorities to build more homes to rent. Perhaps the landscape will return to what it was when I was a child, and a large proportion of the population lived in homes rented from the council. There were some lovely tower blocks weren't there!
  21. Whereabouts are you? Where I am in North Hampshire lower priced properties are selling very quickly. To give an example a two bedroom terraced house sold in 2013 for £180K. The identical house next door sold last month for £230K. Apartments at under £200K don't stay on the market for long. It has now been rented for £1000 per month. That's a 5.2% yield, no letting agent involved and maintenance costs on a 10 year old house are unlikely to be very high. If the new owner has financed it themself that's a much higher yield than cash on deposit. And its an investment as safe as houses. I know you lot will flame me, but this is the mindset you are disparaging. So far this has prevailed over your hopes for an HPC. If the owner is looking at the investment as a future pension then in 16 years the cost will have been recovered, in nominal terms. Thereon it looks to be a better investment than letting the financial services industry pick your pocket. Even if the capital value falls there isn't really a problem as long as rents stay in line with RPI or CPI.
  22. If i recall from reading his biography he was able to acquire the huge insurance company as a result of his early investments. So a bit chicken and egg, not twaddle.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.