Bland Unsight Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 St. Busta, Patron Saint of feckless ne'er-do-wells. I like it. Patron Saint of Broke Ex-brokers? Doesn't there need to be an evidenced miracle before canonisation. Does turning a bunch of very ordinary Norfolk homes into an engine of financial ruin count? I think he sometimes succeeds in making Bos Reck appear balanced, also quite an achievement. I know that he once turned turned water into wine, well actually he turned a £1.50 bottle of Perrier into a £4 bottle of Perrier by buying it at an inflated price using £1 of his own money and £3 borrowed from a specialist lender. A miraculously stupid thing to do, so arguably a miracle of sorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Patron Saint of Broke Ex-brokers? Doesn't there need to be an evidenced miracle before canonisation. Does turning a bunch of very ordinary Norfolk homes into an engine of financial ruin count? I think he sometimes succeeds in making Bos Reck appear balanced, also quite an achievement. I know that he once turned turned water into wine, well actually he turned a £1.50 bottle of Perrier into a £4 bottle of Perrier by buying it at an inflated price using £1 of his own money and £3 borrowed from a specialist lender. A miraculously stupid thing to do, so arguably a miracle of sorts. Convincing HMRC that he's not UK tax resident whilst earning all of his income in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmarket Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Spot of wise advice from Neil: Hi Alison It will show on your credit file as being turned down. If you have a failed application.For £150.00 to have someone find me the correct mortgage no fees etc then I see it as good value. Some mortgage company’s are starting to look at how many mortgages you have and refuse by using my adviser I can get the maximum amount. Silly mortgage companies getting in the way, thank God for his 'adviser'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Convincing HMRC that he's not UK tax resident whilst earning all of his income in the UK? Having begun the process by giving the Treasury and HMRC a detailed briefing regarding his affairs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B63 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Just had the displeasure of listening to the loudest woman on the train explain to her friend that she is buying a BTL. The friend actually pointed out about the new tax changes coming in and her response was that they would just change the rules in the next 3 years anyway and that she was doing it for the long-term so it doesn't matter. She had no care at all about the risks of buying at the top of an enormous bubble, during a housing crisis and with the potential for further taxation in the future. She just saw it as a path to easy money. Made me laugh as I read about global stock market falls on the train home. Like a lamb to the slaughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frugal Git Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Just had the displeasure of listening to the loudest woman on the train explain to her friend that she is buying a BTL. The friend actually pointed out about the new tax changes coming in and her response was that they would just change the rules in the next 3 years anyway and that she was doing it for the long-term so it doesn't matter. She had no care at all about the risks of buying at the top of an enormous bubble, during a housing crisis and with the potential for further taxation in the future. She just saw it as a path to easy money. Made me laugh as I read about global stock market falls on the train home. Like a lamb to the slaughter. Ask out her mate tomorrow if you're single. She sounds like a keeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MississippiJohnHurt Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I'm struggling to reconcile "we bought all the new builds" with "we've never priced out first time buyers". Do FTBers not want new builds? Curious. They cant afford them because they spend all their money on iPhones, holidays to Ibiza and voting on TV shows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Just had the displeasure of listening to the loudest woman on the train explain to her friend that she is buying a BTL. The friend actually pointed out about the new tax changes coming in and her response was that they would just change the rules in the next 3 years anyway and that she was doing it for the long-term so it doesn't matter. She had no care at all about the risks of buying at the top of an enormous bubble, during a housing crisis and with the potential for further taxation in the future. She just saw it as a path to easy money. Made me laugh as I read about global stock market falls on the train home. Like a lamb to the slaughter. I honestly think that many people view impediments to BTL as proof that property is the hottest ticket in town, and that any spanner thrown in the works has been chucked in there deliberately to try to discourage the faint of heart. It almost seems to make them more determined. Back in 2011, my parents emailed me to ask what I thought about BTL as an investment. My response led to me being somewhat excommunicated, since it apparently wasn't the affirmation they so badly wanted. I recently found out that they'd weighed up my considered opinion, and promptly gone balls deep with not one but 3 BTLs, so I re-read my email response to them, and IIRC 4/5 of the main points I made 5 years ago are looking very close to being proven correct. I'm taking no credit for that because my points were only rehashes of what I read here. But the fact is, they ignored what now increasingly seems like prescient advice and have 3 BTL hanging round their necks, seemingly oblivious to the fact that when the BTL buyer pool exits the market (if not already) the price point where OO buyers can provide any support is a long way below where they think it is. It'll be an interesting conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsby Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) I'm struggling to reconcile "we bought all the new builds" with "we've never priced out first time buyers". Do FTBers not want new builds? Curious.The implication is that those new builds would not have otherwise been built. Fallacious, of course. With their indomitable faith in capital gains, recycled equity and generous tax breaks, they have made first time buyers relatively unprofitable for builders to cater for, and suppressed output as a consequence. Edited February 8, 2016 by Digsby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) The implication is that those new builds would not have otherwise been built. Fallacious, of course. With their indomitable faith in capital gains, recycled equity and generous tax breaks, they have made first time buyers relatively unprofitable for builders to cater for, and suppressed output as a consequence. Joined up thinking like this has the same effect on a PovertyLater 'property expert' as sunlight has on a vampire. It's an important perspective. If the analysis that BTL is the marginal buyer holds up, then they set the floor for prices for houses and thus the floor for the price of land with planning permission. However, there simply isn't enough BTL demand to drive house building to the levels needed to answer what we might call 'demographic demand', (as opposed to effective demand). As usual it is rational from everybody's perspective. If you own land and a developer is trying to buy it from you, you price the land based on the going price of houses. If that is being set not by FTBers but by BTL they can drive the market in a way that they aren't aware of. As there is so little cost to holding land you have lots of landowners holding land and only willing to part with it if a developer is willing to pay a price which only makes sense if the developer can then sell it on at 10x to 15x local median earnings - BTL prices... Given that a huge proportion of recent new supply has been bought by the BTL crowd, and apparently built to suit their tastes as buyers, this proposition may not be as daft as it may appear at first glance. Edited February 8, 2016 by Bland Unsight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olde guto Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I honestly think that many people view impediments to BTL as proof that property is the hottest ticket in town, and that any spanner thrown in the works has been chucked in there deliberately to try to discourage the faint of heart. It almost seems to make them more determined. Back in 2011, my parents emailed me to ask what I thought about BTL as an investment. My response led to me being somewhat excommunicated, since it apparently wasn't the affirmation they so badly wanted. I recently found out that they'd weighed up my considered opinion, and promptly gone balls deep with not one but 3 BTLs, so I re-read my email response to them, and IIRC 4/5 of the main points I made 5 years ago are looking very close to being proven correct. I'm taking no credit for that because my points were only rehashes of what I read here. But the fact is, they ignored what now increasingly seems like prescient advice and have 3 BTL hanging round their necks, seemingly oblivious to the fact that when the BTL buyer pool exits the market (if not already) the price point where OO buyers can provide any support is a long way below where they think it is. It'll be an interesting conversation. You won't be thanked. They'll probably be annoyed at you for being right and annoyed at you for not stopping them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 You won't be thanked. They'll probably be annoyed at you for being right and annoyed at you for not stopping them. Oh, I'm well aware of that. That's why it will be interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 This just occurred to me. The PovertyLater guys are the ones who are organising to 'fight' Clause 24, for all the good that it will do them. They always maintain that they are not driving prices and that they are housing people who couldn't otherwise house themselves, for example a little googling suggests that Charmaine Royce operates at present at least 2 HMOs. Other high profile posters appear to be focussed on housing tenants where George Osborne is really paying the rent. Here's the interesting thing. I basically agree with many of them - they are not the ones driving prices. The PovertyLater guys are hugely unrepresentative of the BTL crowd for at least three reasons. Firstly scale - many appear to be at the 10+ property level. Secondly, timing. Many of them appear to have been in the game since before 2008. Thirdly, market. A number of them appear to be in the HMO and LHA tenant game. BTL becomes a key part of the problem in a new way in 2012 when changes in bank lending practices in advance of MMR take liar loans and interest-only out of the hands of owner-occupiers. Post-2008 the number of new 10+ portfolio herberts being minted presumably dries up very quickly. That kind of portfolio growth required both the loose lending and the bonkers 10%-25% HPI for year after year that we saw in some markets between 1998-2005. However post-2012 the buy-to-let investor becomes the marginal buyer of a UK house. But these new small time BTLers are quite different to the PovertyLater clowns. This post-2012 crowd are the proper mug investors, one of two properties at most, 25% down, breaking Judith Wilson's golden rule by using their own money, not reinvested capital gains, (This is where Connie Cheuk fits in, which is why she was welcomed by her PovertyLater pals as a poster child, they didn't want to defend themselves for what they are, so they ended up representing themselves with someone who was actually quite unrepresentative). Hence whilst we joked back in the day that Osborne had shown his Treasury team a photo of Fat Fergus and asked them to come up with a policy to "bankrupt this man" (h/t TCI IIRC) this may not be the whole truth. Fergus, despite his ridiculous economic control of 700 shit Ashford semis, is not buying more. He is no longer setting prices. It's the tw@ts that chase after him post-2012 with their one or two BTLs who are setting current prices and preserving the bonkers dysfunctional level of prices. Osborne needs to stop the rot - he needs to target the people who are buying BTLs now. I know this is a bit rambling, but here's where I'm going with it. The Poverty Later Moaning High Command (or Clause 24 Action Group or whatever they call themselves) have used the BBC to try to recruit small time landlords to their cause - but the reality is perhaps that actually Osborne's Treasury is actively targeting the small timer, because they are the ones making the weather today. Osborne needs the small timers to get the message and stop buying and perhaps even start selling - Charmaine Royce is working for George Osborne. Further a landlord with a couple of HMOs housing a bunch of LHA recipients is providing a service to the government and would have a better case to make on that basis, rather than trying to hide behind the small timer getting into BTL now who is very possibly Osborne's intended target. (I'm suggesting that, metaphorically speaking, they are acting like a passer-by who blunders into a shoot-out and then seeks safety by running to stand behind the guys the police are shooting at.) All that said, it's the leverage, as usual. If you are operating 2 HMOs with modest or minimal leverage, then Clause 24 is irrelevant. If it is a problem for you, it is because your business/investment is using masses of leverage. Doing so in the immediate wake of 2008 as the country tries to work out a way to get out from under a monumental private debt overhang is very risky. If you get taken out as collateral damage by Clause 24 because of the excessive leverage you employed, you basically dug your own grave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Essentially interest-only is crack cocaine for the banks and interest-only financed buyers are crack cocaine for the volume builders. In order to get high on their drug of choice the banks and builders need BTL, now that owner-occupiers are out of the interest-only picture. All addictions are ultimately self-destructive. However, a Clause 24 inspired 'moment of clarity' may be right around the corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Two further points. Firstly, the PovertyLater guys are always banging on about the level playing field, but they miss a crucial aspect of the analysis. Perhaps the intended sense is to level the playing field in terms of the whether a BTL investor can buy a house with an individual's wages servicing the investor's financing costs or whether the individual can use their own earnings to outbid the buy-to-let investor (and thus buy rather than rent). Secondly, they've structured their balance sheets as if they were boom owner-occupiers. If you were a business the idea that you'd continually operate with 85% leverage would make you a very risky proposition. The PovertyLater guys are basically not financially educated. They compare the structure of their balance sheet to a mortgaged owner-occupier who was doing something dumb as f**k in 2004 by taking out a massive interest-only mortgage at 85% LTV. But that's stupid. The financing for the owner-occupier was idiotic, adopting it as model for a business's balance sheet is way beyond idiotic. However, when you listen to their 'testimonials' that is how they got into the BTL, not as business people, but as home-owners. They took the banks' willingness to lend as evidence of the reasonableness of the proposition. That was an error. Edited February 8, 2016 by Bland Unsight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Mark Hulbert says: 08/02/2016 at 22:02 Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “08/02/2016 – 15:39“: Why is the media not asking Mark Alexander for his views – he would give them a more comprehensive and thoroughly researched and prepared account of just how spiteful and destructive will be the recent multiple attacks on private landlords unless the proposed changes are reversed or made non-retrospective. Mark Alexander - Property118 says: 08/02/2016 at 22:24 Reply to the comment left by “Mark Hulbert” at “08/02/2016 – 22:02“: That’s a million dollar question right there Mark. Million dollars, eh? I'll have a go. When looking for commentators on public policy matters mainstream media editors are generally looking for the following: breakdancing skills sufficient to secure professional engagements elementary knowledge of how to clean up after somebody who just cut up a pig no post-16 educational qualifications track record of leading fruitless legal challenges to common sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I can die happy having been the one who got to post the following to this thread. The business brains behind We Buy Mingers has been hitting the books. Gary Dully says: Read about me on my member profile 08/02/2016 at 21:18 Until ‘Clause 24’, my interest in UK politics was restricted to watching Andrew Marr, Question Time and This Week. Since last July, I have been educated. I have come to the sad conclusion that our UK politicians are corrupt of values, when in Government and just don’t listen to common sense. They all have a ‘Pot Theory’ and come hell or high water, their determination to prove they are right costs the country £Billions and holds us all back (and I don’t just mean Landlords). I genuinely believe that they have the morals of a banana dictatorship and they have no interest in anything except promoting the ‘Party Line’ and hypocritical, back stabbing liars as they seem to be terrified of pronouncing anything that hasn’t been cleared by “Central Office”. What’s the use of having representatives that have legalized discrimination? Thank God we have EU law to fall back on. "Banana dictatorship" . Let's find the kind of face palm merited And having gone all pet with the above gif, I'll deal with the matter of 'Pot Theory' There is no point trying to have fun with the things these guys post. The unadulterated posting is always better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MississippiJohnHurt Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 "since last July, I have been educated" Perhaps he should extend the morality argument to matters a littl closer to home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Much as I hate to denigrate any man in the midst of an awakening as to the fact that all politicians are lying, self serving scum, I can't help thinking that had Gary educated himself at a time when politicians were all for over-leveraged BTL riding roughshod over disadvantaged FTB, he would have felt that the whole banana dictatorship thingie was just groovy. Just an inkling, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonSays Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 This is the most hilarious thread Ive ever read. I want more from Gary Dully!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluteroop Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 OMG they don't care about me. OMG they've got rich as f*** out of all this. OMG I'm screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 More totally bonkers claims that tenants and prospective first time buyers are entirely different people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavalas Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 More totally bonkers claims that tenants and prospective first time buyers are entirely different people. Just read that. Really enjoyed this from Busta... I remember thinking to myself when I first read it, this woman clearly doesnt give a toss about the tenants she would displace in order to get her hands on a property for herself. How selfish is that?!!! I don't think it would be polite to say what I was thinking to myself when I read that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.