Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spyguy

  1. 19 hours ago, fellow said:

    How many UK properties have been bought up by Chinese investors and how many of these will need to be sold to pay back their creditors? Will this spook other foreign investors into selling up as well and would this be enough to cause a complete reversal of supply vs demand?

    How many oversea property have been bought by Chinese citizens, legally according to Chinese law - zilch.

    Up til ~2008ish, China was pursuing a mental mercantilist policy, aggressively - and illegally - exporting its labour.

    2008 and it switched to creating internal demand, mainly around domestic property and vast civil engineering projects - or dubious quality. This CE was continue with Be;t n road.

    Concrete, in its various forms, now makes up a significant part of Chinas compnay./demand.



  2. 11 hours ago, Just_Do_It said:



    It's going to take a lot for someone who's has a fixed rate mortgage for 5 years paying £350 a month, receiving £1250 in rent and has been renting the property since 2013 to fail to return a profit most years.

    They invested in 2013 and it has worked for them, it doesn't matter whether you attribute it to IO BTL mortgages for being mis-priced or purely due to house prices, the fact remains that it's worked.

    My answer to the question 'Do you think this business model can last?' would be yes, although as Si1 implied, it's unlikely to work now.

    S24 kills IO BTL. Its that simple.

    That 12k/m rent is going to be taxed at 30% or 40%


  3. Hard to know which thread to post in.

    This one will do, being most recent.

    Watching Martin Lewis on itv+1. Given market view of interest projections - 0.25% Niv, 0.75%Feb

    Even that seems vastly out if date after just reading this -

    BoE chief economist warns UK inflation likely to hit 5%

    Huw Pill says bank will have ‘live’ decision on interest rates at November meeting



    Way way way behind.

    0.5% in Nov.

    1% in Dec would be a better bet.



  4. 1 hour ago, Si1 said:

    it's very much like Warren Buffet - he buys assets giving a reliable return for best value when no-one else is interested.

    Fact is Brighton BTL, by luck or by judgement, has a steady stream of demand for people to live there whilst Middlesbrough might not. Maybe that's a lucky punt, perhaps under a public-sector splurging govt Brighton might have been weaker and Middlesborough stronger, I dunno, but history is the arbiter.

    Before 2008 and I'd have agreed.

    13 years on from 2008 and regional Southern towns are down on their arses.

    Not public spend but the loss of finsec jobs, which dominated regional Southern towns inv. Brighton.


  5. 1 hour ago, Flat Bear said:



    The business model worked because there was a rising asset involved and this alone. The IO mortgage could be seen as an ongoing bridging loan. The small net yields of less than 10% without voids etc were an aside. Gradually as the properties net worth grew and rents slowly increased the business model looked better.

    But this business model is down to just one factor, rising house prices and a rental yeild that covered the mortgage or slightly more. Higher interest rates, lower rents, longer voids, or house price falls will b#gger up this business model for sure. It was a gamble that paid off for most in the past.

    It paid off in London/SE.

    The large number who bought btl in the North are down, massively. 

    Co Durham, boro etc - you are looking at 40k loss per house. God knows what voids andor maintenance.

  6. 48 minutes ago, 70PC said:

    Do you think this business model can last?


    Even back in the mid 00s the only way BTL worked was by using IO mortgages.

    The yield was just not doable with a repayment mortgage.

    My biggest gripe about IO BTL is that is the loans have been grossly misprice.

    An IO BTL mortgage is nothing than a commercial bridging loan, which are about 2%/month.

  7. 22 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    I was wondering how Barclays etc are getting round that with their new 5.5x earnings for idiots.

    As rantnrave said - they are allowed to sell a smaller percentage of loans outside of MMR.

    But there is a but - if those loans go bad then they are in shit.

    The Barclays tweak is just looking at throwing large bonuses at the mortgage.

    Only a v small number of people get bonuses. Only a very small number of those will take up this mortgage.

    Real 0.01% of 0.01% stuff.




  8. 1 minute ago, jabber said:

    Seriously I suspect the 4 or 4.5  times single income won't happen again unless the gov makes changes to lending multiples

    I suspect in most of the country its never going below 4.5 joint income. Maybe up north somewhere I might be wrong. Scots generally seem more subdued so possibly there but like I said unless the gov regulates that I think difficult to see. 

    Where have you been?


  9. 1 hour ago, Guillotine said:

    I’m moving my mortgage at the moment. Interest only (snigger) to repayment.

    The rate on the repayment is less than half that of the i/o - well it was when I applied last week.  That is a five year fix at less than 1% interest.  Well it was last week, I will see where it has moved to when the advisor calls me to go through it all.  

    Why do I have an interest only mortgage you ask?  Well it was an offset mortgage which at times has been fully offset, but then we re-built the house - and now it is far from being offset.  It has been absolutely brilliant for us.  But now it is unnecessarily expensive.


    Can i ask at what rate?

    When did you get the offset?


  10. 4 hours ago, zugzwang said:


    His criminal associates have done it for him already. 👇


    Barclays has added enhanced income multiples of 5.5 times earnings to its 85 per cent loan to value (LTV) mortgage range.

    Previously, the LTV cap for 5.5 times income multiples was 80 per cent LTV.

    To qualify for the improved multiple on a capital and interest mortgage, at least one applicant must have gross annual income of £75,000 or more, or the two highest earning borrowers must have a combined gross annual income of £100,000 or more.

    A further relaxation of income criteria has been applied at 85 per cent LTV for capital repayment mortgages. Borrowers can qualify for an income multiple of five times their earnings if the total combined gross annual income of the two highest earning applicants is £60,000 or more.

    Barclays will factor in annual bonus income to its affordability assessment for borrowers who are remortgaging.

    Tiny tiny tiny number of people.

    And the 5.5 LTV was a level; that was common place up to 2008 n all that.


  11. On 19/10/2021 at 10:03, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    Well I'm pretty sure people on the bottom rungs who can only just about afford the cheapest place possible because prices are outrageous in their particular area would say exactly the same thing.

    Bottom line is that IR rises yes will hurt the over leveraged like BTL landlords, but also people on the bottom rung that didn't want to rent, couldn't get a council flat and ended up in an overpriced shoebox because they couldn't afford anything else and wanted a home to keep their family "safe and secure".

    The people who made the most money out of housing over the past 20 years will probably be sitting pretty because their homes will be mortgage free.

    I doubt though that the government will allow mass repos though because they would only have to house people somewhere else and the homes aren't available. Over leveraged BTL will get rinsed though.

    UK is post mass mortgages now.

    Go back to the 60s n most Brits still rented.

    70s to 2008 saw mortgage debt expand massively.

    First boost in early 80s financial deregulation, followed by Browns credit boom to end all credit boons.

    Now most people own a house. Outstanding mortgage debt s falling as people pay off mortgages and the under 50s have been priced out.

    The number of people exposed to higher IR is not as big as, say, early 90s recession.

    However, the number of people who can take on mortgage debt is small. Btl n high house prices are to blame.

    Theres no such thing as a housing ladder, ever has been, just a steady accumulation of equity and wages increases.

    Io btl, turning the young into renters. And the flood of Chinese and European did for wage growth.



  12. 2 hours ago, Will! said:

    A bit more on term funding here:

    BoE: The Term Funding Scheme: design, operation and impact (pdf) from Q4 2018


    I dont think BoE messing with Term funding will end well.

    TF basically is a way to games the markets pain signals.

    Its it's ok, BoE might have cut URs but we reckon is bull. If you want to raise capital then it'll be x%.

    BoE not happy, so as well as low IRs, hey starting pushing in the capital side too.

    That's fine - If the BoE is going to be doing TF for ever. It's not.

    I thought of this after reading-

    The Bank of England’s £28bn problem

    Investors are worried by the maturing of a big gilt issue as giant QE programme starts to unwind


    When the Bank of England outlined plans in August to unwind its £875bn bond-buying programme it promised the process would be “gradual and predictable”. But the central bank’s sudden shift towards higher interest rates has raised the prospect that so-called “quantitative tightening” could begin with a bang

    As recently as a month ago, the BoE was expected to stay put until at least March next year, with most investors betting that the first rate rise would not come until the summer. Following a series of warnings over high inflation from Andrew Bailey and his colleagues, lift-off is expected next month, with a second increase to follow in December or February

    Crucially, that would lift the BoE’s interest rate to 0.5 per cent, the level at which it plans to begin the process of reversing quantitative easing by halting reinvestments of maturing bonds that it holds. As it happens, bonds held by the BoE worth £28bn fall due on March 7 — the largest such reinvestment since Threadneedle Street started buying bonds.

    Investors are left wondering whether a hefty slice of demand — which until recently they took for granted — is set to evaporate. The figure is large enough to spark some big market moves, analysts say.

  13. 12 hours ago, Si1 said:

    Her Facebook profile is unlocked. The world is her oyster, she's fully entitled to flounce around having a party, that's up to her. If she treats a major life decision like buying a home in the same way then there's a fair chance she'll get in trouble.

    She paid £180,000 for the flat in May 2018.

    24/25, barely out of Uni. Drops almost 200k on a flat in Leeds docks.


  14. 13 hours ago, kzb said:

    No you are nitpicking, because you work in pensions and this is how you are used to seeing things.   The calculation of the £2.4 trillion is factually correct, no argument, but I still say there is no real difference to the taxpayer whether that money is called "pension" or "salary".  So then I wonder about the motivations of those who calculate it and publicise it.

    It's perfectly valid, for comparison purposes, to calculate the future cost of NHS nurses to be almost infinite, because we are going to have NHS nurses for the foreseeable future.


    Lets say you spent 20 years spending £100/w in Tescos.

    Then, 20 years later, Tesco knock on your door and say they priced the and asked for extra 50/w theyd forgot to charge.

    Putting a cost on  service sets a hurdle on whether its cost effective, bit like The Simpson where Homer pays for people to take the rubbish out of the house to the kerb.

    Equally these days theres a lot of services that would be better and cheaper being automated. If the pension cost was billed correctly then even the most luddite org would automate the services.





  15. 1 hour ago, jabber said:

    This is hilarious. I fixed my buy to let mortgage on a Brighton flat earlier in the year for a 5 year term. IO mortgage in the region of £350 a month. Tenant pays £1250 a month. Why would we possibly sell up. This site like a cracked record and following the advice on here is potentially very financially imprudent. 

    Tax of 300/m due on the rent; 500 if HRT.



  16. 24 minutes ago, simon2 said:

    That dude has been on before whinging about something.

    Truth is after 14 years you shouldn't really be in negative equity even if the price of the flat has declined. 

    It isn't really a leasehold problem but if you are suckered into buying a new shiny thing for well over what the comparables are in the area then you may have a problem if the local market is not favourable to you.

    Don't really need a professor to explain this.

    Flats in boro have a very very long history of turning out to b worthless.

    He could have checked with someone whod done similar in the late 80s.

    You cannot expect to make money buying in boro - too many houses, too few people with money.

    Thats been the case for almost 40 years.



  17. 8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

    Local government pensions generally ARE funded.  So are universities.

    Teachers, NHS, Police, Fire, Army are unfunded.

    LGA are meant to be funded. They fall far short.

    There is a reason for this - central government worried, rightly,  about LG employ every daft relative on the payroll.

    The speculation in properdee by LA is connected to this.


    Teacher pensions are also meant to be funded, or at least a PAYG pot maintained - TPS exists as thing


    One insane thing that I only found out recently is that private school teachers can join the TPS.

    Theres a massive panic now as the TPS contribution rises to 40% that private schools are refusing to fund/join.



  18. 2 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

    Only unfunded pensions are deferred pay, for funded pensions there is no deferment from the perspective of the employer.

    Yes, it was the government's choice to operate unfunded pension plans for most of its employees. Perhaps a future government will make a different choice.

    Theres nothing wrong with payg - pensions paid from 20% of a services current payroll.

    But you cannot guarantee payout.

  19. 1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

    The major difference though is that the future taxpayers get direct benefit from the future salaries they pay because they are the ones who benefit from FUTURE work.

    But they also have to pay pensions in respect of PAST work that they did not enjoy the benefit of.

    There is a difference (especially if they standard of service they enjoy is worse than the people who did benefit from that past work - for example I am paying the pensions of binmen who did weekly collections yet my bin is only collected fortnightly etc)

    Pension costs need to fall when the benefit is accrued - same year.

    As it stands, today's and tomorrows Police services are being stripped down to nothing bare bones to pay for a service used 20-30 years ago.

    It isnt just the pension oro ise that us costly, it's the piss poor operation on public services, allowing an average if 30 days sick plus large numbers retire 'sick'.



  20. 22 minutes ago, byron78 said:

    Jesus. What an incompetent bunch of bastards we have running the show right now!

    The pension probably goes waay back, mid 90s, by which time it was obvious that life expectancy was rising at a rapid clip.

    The private sector DB schemes were shutdown in the early 2000s as it became obvious just how expensive those pension promises were.

    The notable event was Boots switching to bonds in 2001 -




  • 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.