Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
singlemalt

'i Lost Seven Properties' Cut-Price Repossession Sales 'are Cheating The Taxpayer'

Recommended Posts

Exploitation ? Pushing up everyone's cost of living ? That would surely mean that anyone who owns a house is in some way guilty of the same given supply and demand are what moves prices. The BTL crew like this guy were just the last suckers in the game.

No. Buying lots of BTLs does not extrapolate to buying 1 home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but will they be able to buy them....not just rent them as they have been.

Irrelevant. They won't be worse off if another landlord buys them.

And in the long term, the more BTLers go bust the better for house prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. They won't be worse off if another landlord buys them.

And in the long term, the more BTLers go bust the better for house prices.

Only if another landlord buys them, what if he doesn't and its a 'developer' or someone looking to just flip them . They'll all be out on their ear at the end of their tenancy agreement term. I'm sure they will be happy as its for the greater good.

I agree that more supply would send house prices in the right direction. House prices need to drop as they are out of line with wages but the majority of this is due to general public and banks. BTLers were just the tail end of this and mostly only involved in certain specific areas of the housing market.

I still don't see how a guy who played the system and took risk for reward should be vilified. It would seem to me that his crimes were 'investing' in an asset class and having had a public sector pension. Neither of these options are or were closed to anyone on here.

As I said , looks a lot like green eyed jealousy disguised as concern for the greater good. I mean who the hell did he think he was trying to make money....bloody hell 7 BTL flats, fecking millionaire.... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Buying lots of BTLs does not extrapolate to buying 1 home.

Its the same transaction, pumped money supply from banks in form of mortgage credit and people trading up caused house price inflation. BTL's were a small cog in a big machine and as you can see from this story. Its not without risk. Your whole argument is based on some irrational hatred of one small group. I can only assume you had a poor experience renting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see how a guy who played the system and took risk for reward should be vilified. It would seem to me that his crimes were 'investing' in an asset class and having had a public sector pension. Neither of these options are or were closed to anyone on here.

You don't see why amateur landlords bidding up house prices beyond their value is a bad thing. Fair enough. Most HPCers do see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh f.o.with your baby boomer entitlement

the 'we didn't do anything wrong bail us out purlease'

the 40- and 50-somethings management in the zombie banks, the zombie companies, the zombie housing market and the zombie public sector can all F.O. with you

we don't want to pay for you any more

You don;t pay for me, i pay for myself and my family. Can you say the same? I'd suggest you spend less time on the internet and more time doing your homework, schools will be back soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't see why amateur landlords bidding up house prices beyond their value is a bad thing. Fair enough. Most HPCers do see it.

No more than everyone else who bought and sold houses in the last 14 years. If I theoretically moved home 4 times in that time, making a profit with each transaction and 'trading up' would I somehow be guilty of nothing in your world ?

Anyway as i said and you managed to ignore, BTL is pretty focused on a narrow band of the housing market. Namely 1 and 2 bedroom flats. How do you explain general market inflation being down to BTLers ?

Edited by abroad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No more than everyone else who bought and sold houses in the last 14 years. If I theoretically moved home 4 times in that time, making a profit with each transaction and 'trading up' would I somehow be guilty of nothing in your world ?

It is more. If after buying a house for yourself you then carrying on buying more houses, that is more. More is more. see?

Anyway as i said and you managed to ignore, BTL is pretty focused on a narrow band of the housing market. Namely 1 and 2 bedroom flats. How do you explain general market inflation being down to BTLers ?

You don't think that driving up prices at the bottom end of the market will drive up prices at the next step?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more. If after buying a house for yourself you then carrying on buying more houses, that is more. More is more. see?

Those who were involved in doing it consecutively are just as culpable as those who did it concurrently. In the end its only limited by their appetite for debt and 'ability' to service it. Each sale added to supply and demand regardless of timing.

There is also in my view a public service provision in the private rental market. I say that as a renter myself. I choose not to buy as I require the flexibility of location and the ability to move easily without being tied to a house in a foreign country. Not everyone wants to buy a house or is able to. Are you suggesting that everyone should be forced to buy ?

The bottom end of the market is not wholly dominated by BTLers. if you knew anything about the actual market you would also know that the supply of flats increased to match the demand as well. That is why we have so many 'new build' crap flats....

Like it or not Its a free market, you can't pick on one group of buyers and say 'It was them that did it'. Its complete nonsense. The market was expanded by all buyers. Housing ballooned to meet the demand from all buyers.

Edited by abroad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who were involved in doing it consecutively are just as culpable as those who did it concurrently. In the end its only limited by their appetite for debt and 'ability' to service it. Each sale added to supply and demand regardless of timing.

There is also in my view a public service provision in the private rental market. I say that as a renter myself. I choose not to buy as I require the flexibility of location and the ability to move easily without being tied to a house in a foreign country. Not everyone wants to buy a house or is able to. Are you suggesting that everyone should be forced to buy ?

The bottom end of the market is not wholly dominated by BTLers. if you knew anything about the actual market you would also know that the supply of flats increased to match the demand as well. That is why we have so many 'new build' crap flats....

Like it or not Its a free market, you can't pick on one group of buyers and say 'It was them that did it'. Its complete nonsense. The market was expanded by all buyers. Housing ballooned to meet the demand from all buyers.

You don't seem able to comprehend anything between not at all and totally. If I say BTLers were more to blame, and then you come back with 'no, they weren't totally to blame' that is a non-sequitor and a strawman.

Buying and keeping 10 houses creates 9 houses more net demand than buying and selling 4 (or 10) houses consecutively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not Its a free market.... Housing ballooned to meet the demand from all buyers.

That you think the housing market is a 'free market' reveals you to be a bell end. Ignoring the planning controls; manipulated interest rates; the 6 decades of credit expansion and inflation; the banking system inflating the debts of the boomers; tax breaks for BTL; government subsidies to builders; housing benefit (£24b); mortgage indemnity schemes; SMI mortgage payments; state owned banks forbearing defaulters; billions of QE; Homebuy/Newbuy schemes; selling off of council houses to win votes - ignoring all of those things it probably is a free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see how a guy who played the system and took risk for reward should be vilified. It would seem to me that his crimes were 'investing' in an asset class and having had a public sector pension. Neither of these options are or were closed to anyone on here.

No there is no crime in "Investing" in an asset class .. and no crime in borrowing money to do so .. But the rules with all high risk investments are NO TEARS. If you borrow £1million and buy shares and the shares fall in value you still owe the bank £1million.

The difference here is that pretty much uniquely in history, for a significant period of time the people within British banks, were prepared to put their banks at risk by offering 100% loans for people to buy to let. When it was suggested that there might be trouble ahead, these people (or at least their minions) at first told us it was impossible and when pressed admitted that the bank was too big to fail so would have to be bailed out in the national interest.

100% loans for speculation pushed up the price of property exponentially and finally the inevitable bust occurred and the banks had to rescued by our children.

This man "Filled his boots" with 100% mortgages hoping that he would be able to pay the interest with the rent and make a large amount of money from the capital appreciation.

Had he borrowed £1m to invest in shares and then stopped paying the interest, he would have been forced to sell the shares and been left with a smaller debt that he would have had to finance.

He speculated .. he lost, had he speculated with his own money he would have lost that. He speculated with someone else's money and now they want their money back fortunately he has a public service pension and yet both he and his wife are of working age. The bank should get their money out of him regardless .. even if the loans are £200,000 after his assets have been sold, he can pay that back over 25 years from his pension.

It's not what he did that causes annoyance, it's the fact that he thinks that what has happened to him is anyone's fault but his own ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is no crime in "Investing" in an asset class .. and no crime in borrowing money to do so .. But the rules with all high risk investments are NO TEARS. If you borrow £1million and buy shares and the shares fall in value you still owe the bank £1million.

...

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but not this bit.

Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it is right.

The clearest example being the slave trade, which was both legal and widely accepted.

Landlords increase demand for land, but cannot increase supply.

Landlords make it more difficult for people to have homes, and they do this so that they can make a profit.

They aren't trading goods or services, they aren't working for a living, they earn money by making it more difficult for people to get houses.

The man in the OP saw that there was a shortage of affordable housing - a basic human need - and decided to buy six for himself. He saw that by making a bad situation worse, he could profit.

If his plan has failed then we should all celebrate.

It's not what he did that causes annoyance, it's the fact that he thinks that what has happened to him is anyone's fault but his own ..

Yes, but it is also what he did. Landlordism is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it is also what he did. Landlordism is wrong.

WIthout a rental market how do you facilitate those people who want somewhere to live but don't want to be tied to a difficult-to-shift asset? Some people need flexibility and are not simply those priced out of an asset class.

The problem is that people went into BTL thinking their core business was capital appreciation not providing a service. That was wrong, and they're finding out the hard way how it was wrong. But that's not the same as saying "landlordism is wrong".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIthout a rental market how do you facilitate those people who want somewhere to live but don't want to be tied to a difficult-to-shift asset? Some people need flexibility and are not simply those priced out of an asset class.

The problem is that people went into BTL thinking their core business was capital appreciation not providing a service. That was wrong, and they're finding out the hard way how it was wrong. But that's not the same as saying "landlordism is wrong".

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIthout a rental market how do you facilitate those people who want somewhere to live but don't want to be tied to a difficult-to-shift asset? Some people need flexibility and are not simply those priced out of an asset class.

The problem is that people went into BTL thinking their core business was capital appreciation not providing a service. That was wrong, and they're finding out the hard way how it was wrong. But that's not the same as saying "landlordism is wrong".

I have no problem with the service of renting a house, as opposed to the land it sits on. The key problem is people who occupy valuable land, imposing a cost on everyone else, but not paying for the privilege. That's currently where the profit from BTL comes from.

Many BTL landlords pay other people to provide the service itself - agencies, insurers, builders - since it is a fraction of the rental value.

Also, this wouldn't be a significant issue if there were not a housing crisis. If land were theoretically finite, but practically infinite, then the costs imposed by occupying some piece of land would be tiny.

It's the difference between gluttony, and gluttony during a famine.

Since land is currently more restricted by planning than by the constraints of geometry, this isn't just a hypothetical point.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is no crime in "Investing" in an asset class .. and no crime in borrowing money to do so .. But the rules with all high risk investments are NO TEARS. If you borrow £1million and buy shares and the shares fall in value you still owe the bank £1million.

It's not what he did that causes annoyance, it's the fact that he thinks that what has happened to him is anyone's fault but his own ..

I think you are correct. We should not get annoyed as much by the effects on house prices of what he did, but by the fact that he wants to be exempt from the outcome that he has brought upon himself.

Yes, as a result of massive diversion of funds to houses, house prices rose incredibly quickly for a time. And yes, people seem very reluctant to recognize the new paradigm that now exists. That flood of money could have been better used to develop companies putting the whole country in a stronger financial state. In that case shares would be higher instead of house prices, pensions would look better, Government tax receipts would be stronger. Instead this 'landlord' and his ilk borrowed recklessly; well, now they can reck (and apologies for the play on the two uses of 'reck').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are correct. We should not get annoyed as much by the effects on house prices of what he did, but by the fact that he wants to be exempt from the outcome that he has brought upon himself.

Yes, as a result of massive diversion of funds to houses, house prices rose incredibly quickly for a time. And yes, people seem very reluctant to recognize the new paradigm that now exists. That flood of money could have been better used to develop companies putting the whole country in a stronger financial state. In that case shares would be higher instead of house prices, pensions would look better, Government tax receipts would be stronger. Instead this 'landlord' and his ilk borrowed recklessly; well, now they can reck (and apologies for the play on the two uses of 'reck').

In a country with an essentially fixed supply of housing, where some people get no housing, this man has taken six (or more), which he isn't even using. Because he has taken six, someone else gets none.

You see nothing wrong with that?

Would you let your kids behave like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Landlordism is wrong.

Not from where I sit. If I didn't have a landlord to subsidise the roof over my head I'd have to buy a house and in the current market that would cost me a packet, in more ways than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a country with an essentially fixed supply of housing, where some people get no housing, this man has taken six (or more), which he isn't even using. Because he has taken six, someone else gets none.

You see nothing wrong with that?

Would you let your kids behave like this?

I agree he is not using them, but they still exist and are available; the problem is that he cannot let them. We don't know if they are not being let out because of the level of rents or the area. Since they are somewhere near Newcastle I would guess that it's the area and that someone found a Southern patsy to take them off their hands at a slightly inflated price; if that is the case then they would be empty regardless of who owned them.

Edited by mfs1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a country with an essentially fixed supply of housing, where some people get no housing, this man has taken six (or more), which he isn't even using. Because he has taken six, someone else gets none.

You see nothing wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that. The houses have not been destroyed or blocked from use.

They are available for immediate use by you, me or anyone else. In fact, they are MORE available than if they were for sale, because the legal fees, Stamp duty, financing, etc. are not needed for letting.

The houses are not unoccupied through the LL's choice, in this case. That they are unoccupied merely indicates that they are substandard, or overpriced, or both. In which case, this LL is simply the greatest fool.

The problem has not been, primarily Landlordism, rather it has been excessive capital directed at residential property by banks - a volume of capital so great that it could be absorbed by the OO market, and fed into BTL. It's not the BTL itself that was the major problem, rather it was the move to speculation - people buying bigger houses than they needed or could sensibly afford (thereby decreasing supply of large housing), flippers and speculators leaving property empty because capital gains avoided the need to actually use the asset, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with that. The houses have not been destroyed or blocked from use.

They are available for immediate use by you, me or anyone else. In fact, they are MORE available than if they were for sale, because the legal fees, Stamp duty, financing, etc. are not needed for letting.

The houses are not unoccupied through the LL's choice, in this case. That they are unoccupied merely indicates that they are substandard, or overpriced, or both. In which case, this LL is simply the greatest fool.

The problem has not been, primarily Landlordism, rather it has been excessive capital directed at residential property by banks - a volume of capital so great that it could be absorbed by the OO market, and fed into BTL. It's not the BTL itself that was the major problem, rather it was the move to speculation - people buying bigger houses than they needed or could sensibly afford (thereby decreasing supply of large housing), flippers and speculators leaving property empty because capital gains avoided the need to actually use the asset, etc.

No. Landlords make it harder to get housing, not easier.

The problem is an excess demand for a fixed amount of land. That extra demand has two components - extra money available for housing, and extra people wanting houses. The second includes landlords.

Both components are significant, and both should be curtailed.

You can, if you like, analyse the details. You can look at how the stamp duty is funded through the rent, analyse where the profits actually come from, and how the landlord gets to add his percentage. . This is all a waste of time, because you will eventually come to the same conclusion.

You simply cannot escape the fact that landlords add to the demand for land, but do not add to the supply. Somewhere in the market costs will rise as a result.

Whether the house is empty or not, people who want homes will, on aggregate,have to pay the both the existing costs and his extra profit on top. If his plan works.

Luckily, the plan doesn't always work. In some cases the market can't bear the additional cost, and the landlord loses. Good.

By the way this is equally true for flippers, who take their profit in a one off up front fee, a minor difference from an economic perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Landlords make it harder to get housing, not easier.

The problem is an excess demand for a fixed amount of land. That extra demand has two components - extra money available for housing, and extra people wanting houses. The second includes landlords.

Both components are significant, and both should be curtailed.

You can, if you like, analyse the details. You can look at how the stamp duty is funded through the rent, analyse where the profits actually come from, and how the landlord gets to add his percentage. . This is all a waste of time, because you will eventually come to the same conclusion.

You simply cannot escape the fact that landlords add to the demand for land, but do not add to the supply. Somewhere in the market costs will rise as a result.

Whether the house is empty or not, people who want homes will, on aggregate,have to pay the both the existing costs and his extra profit on top. If his plan works.

Luckily, the plan doesn't always work. In some cases the market can't bear the additional cost, and the landlord loses. Good.

By the way this is equally true for flippers, who take their profit in a one off up front fee, a minor difference from an economic perspective.

The problem with this, or any other analysis, is that one gets to which came first the chicken or the egg? In this case one could describe the chicken as cheap finance and the egg as the semi-amateur landlord. BTL ran at low levels into the 1990s; often people who had surplus day-to-day cash and bought an extra house with savings as a deposit. At this level of BTL there were few problems as the numbers were not that great and banks and building societies were not rushing to support this class of borrower.

As house prices recovered from the slump of the early 1990s BTL started to be mentioned, but there was hardly a rush of funding. There was demand and a few products, but decent deposits were required (I know as we looked into it then but wouldn't touch it now). The globally low interest rates that followed Greenspan's attempts to stave off a post 9/11 recession overwhelmed the demand for credit that then existed so bankers looked for new areas into which to lend. Lo and behold, we have a rise in demand from BTL landlords convinced it was their route to getting rich whilst having rental income to pay the interest. Once they had started and prices began their unsustainable rise then they leveraged to the hilt using the then readily-available credit and the scope afforded by each new rise in prices

They're wrong and will shortly find out quite how wrong they were and remain.

I would argue that it was these low rates and the bankers' belief in a new paradigm that drove BTL demand and house prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 315 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.