Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[spyguy]

1 hour ago, Bland Unsight said:

The next recession will deliver exactly that. Households are tapped out.

No. Ending of inwork benefits for non uk nationals will wipe them out first.

Edited October 1, 2016 by spyguy

[Sandwiches33]

At what point do they think evicting 100 families is a good PR stunt? Seriously how ******ing thick and greedy would you have to be?

There are many powerful forces aligning against them now, they really cant see there card is marked.

 

I hope for one day where BTL is as stigmatised as perhaps drunk driving.

 

[Neverwhere]

23 minutes ago, Sandwiches33 said:

You know some people have chastised me in the past on here for my venom towards these people.

I am an old grumpy guy now but out of my entire life one group has consistantly shown to be a bunch of complete degenerate *******. Yes it is bad to generalise but sometimes you come across a group who so helplessly embrace every negative stereotype. A group that is least likely to be at a volunteering event or acting selflessly. A group whos own greed will be there undoing.

Well they are about to be taught a lesson in ******ing pwnage.

Here's hoping.

Verbal venom is as nothing compared to the real world damage that the BTL mob inflict on people's actual lives.

[Neverwhere]

2 minutes ago, Sandwiches33 said:

At what point do they think evicting 100 families is a good PR stunt? Seriously how ******ing thick and greedy would you have to be?

There are many powerful forces aligning against them now, they really cant see there card is marked.

 

I hope for one day where BTL is as stigmatised as perhaps drunk driving.

It's an excellent PR stunt from our perspective, though I don't think the cost in disrupted lives is worth it given the run of policy has already turned against BTL.

[Sandwiches33]

Yes they seem absolutely intent on destroying themselves. We dont actually need to do anything but sit and enjoy.

 

They still dont understand though that if a tenant takes a stand it can take a good while and a huge cost to actually remove them.

They also cannot put up rents without a tenant fighting it at the local rent tribunal.

If only a tiny percentage of tenants refuse to leave that could also bankrupt them too. Do they have the lawyer fees? how many are entirely legal with there deposits or taxes?

They really are trapped and this is what this desperation is all about.

 

[Crumbless]

6 hours ago, Eddie_George said:

Not impossible....

I'd like to say i'm surprised by that. He truly is an abhorrent piece of excrement. 

[Crumbless]

1 hour ago, Neverwhere said:

It's an excellent PR stunt from our perspective, though I don't think the cost in disrupted lives is worth it given the run of policy has already turned against BTL.

To be fair it isn't a PR exercise as the only place on earth that will report it is Poverty118. Its just utter delusion from a bunch on non entities who seem to think they've got some importance on this planet, when even to the people who rent from them they're just a bunch of irritating w%$^&*s.

You'd think they'd be thankful for 7 years of zero percent interest rates thatll no doubt run for a few more years, which bailed out their parasitic little enterprise. And the fact that S24 wasn't introduced by the 2010 govt.

Its like the doctors who are currently unhappy with the govt. turfing patients onto the street to get the public onside. 

 

[Venger]

The 'mass S21s' planning BTLer is still buying property it seems, despite it all.

Post on this thread (requires a scroll down page)

Quote

 

Jonathan Clarke
16 hours ago

Had one exchange and complete yesterday 5 mths 10 days after offer accepted.

[...] But being a property investor means dealing with the system as it exists . Many a budding investor will give up as its not for them. That means less competition. They like a quick sprint so they wake up buy a depreciating asset instead like a new car on impulse because they can have the keys later that day. Waiting 5 mths 10 days for the keys to a house doesn't appeal to them. I dont mind because the property has appreciated in value by approx 5K since the offer was accepted . 5K added value for no money down. Brilliant. That`s infinity yield . Put 5K in cash on a table and say to your mate . That money is yours as long as you wait 5 mths 10 days. To keep me sane I guess thats the perspective I like to look at it from.

When the call finally comes that we have exchanged i do allow myself a self congratulatory brief release of emotion with a bloodcurdling Yeaaaaahhhhhhh as I punch the air in true alpha male testosterone fueled style victory.

Then onto the next one.

http://www.propertytribes.com/conveyancing-time-t-127626596.html

Although he admits he had a 'brilliant recession' (buying more properties it seem') in 2008-2010.   Same time others were going on and on about homeowner 'innocence' / 'victims' / BTLers having been 'misled by media' with 'no real minds of their own' - QE 0.5% lobbyists, market deniers, and other people's actions only valid if they themselves approve of them, otherwise blame banks/media.   

Quote

 

Jonathan Clarke to daniel_booth 31 May 2014 at 15:17

Property investment models are pretty predictable long term but can be relatively volatile short term ( not nearly as much as shares mind you) Plan for the short term and plan for the long term. Then years like 2008 wont phase you. You in fact welcome years like 2008 because there are bargains galore out there in the aftermath . Yields increase. Profits can go up. I had a brilliant recession . Become a vulture.

http://www.propertytribes.com/landlords-going-head-head-on-topic-leveraging-t-11309-11.html

 

 

Edited October 1, 2016 by Venger

[Bland Unsight]

17 minutes ago, Venger said:

The 'mass S21s' planning BTLer is still buying property it seems, despite it all.

No company with any assets to speak of as far as I can see (DYOR), so I guess he's unincorporated.

I'd imagine he's going to get royally beasted by Section 24. I guess he's managing to put a brave face on things. I wonder, can you pay a tax bill with a brave face, or HMRC still expecting cash?

[Sandwiches33]

3 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

No company with any assets to speak of as far as I can see (DYOR), so I guess he's unincorporated.

I'd imagine he's going to get royally beasted by Section 24. I guess he's managing to put a brave face on things. I wonder, can you pay a tax bill with a brave face, or HMRC still expecting cash?

Do they accept alpha male testosterone? he has a lot of that!

 

[Dyson Fury]

 

29 minutes ago, Venger said:

Waiting 5 mths 10 days for the keys to a house doesn't appeal to them. I dont mind because the property has appreciated in value by approx 5K since the offer was accepted . 5K added value for no money down. Brilliant. That`s infinity yield .

This is really stupid.  Clarke claims that the property has increased in value by £5K in 5 months and 10 days, but on what evidence?  Some house price index based on average values nationally rather than values in that specific town?  Or has someone else actually offered him the higher price for that exact property?  Of course not.  Perhaps if he puts it on the market today he will find it has actually decreased in value by £5K, or £10K, in that time. In which case that is a minus infinity yield.  All mouth, no trousers.  Desperately trying to talk his "business" up while it sails unstoppably into the S24 iceberg.

[Bland Unsight]

5 minutes ago, Sandwiches33 said:

Do they accept alpha male testosterone? he has a lot of that!

He's just another pig ignorant blowhard.

Quote

 The social disruption would be considerable. I`m not a militant but the Miners faced up to Maggie in the 80`s and caused serious problems.

Source

Only an LHA focused leveraged portfolio landlord would have the kind of stupidity you need to pick Maggie vs the miners as a call to arms for political action (I guess he rejected The Light Brigade in an earlier draft of his cretinous musings).

I think for all his talk about being able to replace his LHA tenants with non-LHA tenants and jack up the rents at the drop of a hat, the interesting part is how the bizarre fantasies regarding using his tenants as human shields, fantasies which speak candidly to the likely strength of his financial position in three years' time. Hopefully the stupid idiot is quietly selling up, unless he's yet another of these tw@ts who is boxed in by un-crystallised CGT bills and the lender's right to consolidate.

That ridiculous forum is losing its comic edge; it's a Potemkin village where the deeply f*cked go to talk a good game about not being completely f*cked and fantasising about ways in which they might magically get un-f*cked.

Busta's in Malta FFS, and he was trying to sell a book at £1000 a go even though it looks like it won't sell at £10 a go. These people are f*cking morons.

 

[Venger]

4 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

No company with any assets to speak of as far as I can see (DYOR), so I guess he's unincorporated.

I'd imagine he's going to get royally beasted by Section 24. I guess he's managing to put a brave face on things. I wonder, can you pay a tax bill with a brave face, or HMRC still expecting cash?

 

From your link.  

Occupation: Property Investor

Read another post over there last night, on what some claim one of best threads on PT - all about miracles and joys of leverage for magical wealth*.  Although a few other BTLers who were more cautious in approach.  Far less likely to need to get involved with those now calling for mass S21s to try and get Gov to backdown on S24.  Recall something about another business that brings/brought in £18K a year...

Quote

 

Jonathan Clarke 30 May 2014 at 04:25

[...]Ok I run another small business which holds no debt but makes me 18K or so a year ( on a good year) I dont manage it that well but i could do if i really wanted to. If it makes zero in a year I`m not that fussed because it pales into insignificance compared with my main business which is BTL. I have not teased out ad infinitum the pros and cons of the equivalent of leverage in this business assuming it was leveragable. But I do know that I can lose 18K a year and I wouldnt cry . If that business was carrying massive debt though and i could go under if that debt was called in i would think very hard about my exit strategy and the structure of that business. I`m not saying you havent thought hard about your property investment business but I believe as it is a sideshow to your other income stream you sit in a different place to me and many other BTL`ers on your view of debt.

Debt is used every single day to build countless different types of good solid viable businesses. Its a very recognisable and acceptable tool to use If everyone took your view the growth in this country would slow to a mind numbingly slow crawl. If that was the way of the world at the outset then yes everyone would be in the same boat and it wouldn`t be an issue. But we are where we are and when we see the reality before us as it stands today I believe the risks in leveraging as a route to wealth are well worth it. It only barely registers on my Richter scale and I can live with that

[...]I welcome intrusion. My brain gets lazy if not worked on......There comes a point when you want to sit back on your laurels spend more time in your dressing gown and reflect on the world around. That time has come .

That point was I thought reached intially in 2005 . But I discovered I was hungry and greedy still and though Ben Nevis was a great climb it hadn`t satisfied me enough so I went for Everest.

http://www.propertytribes.com/landlords-going-head-head-on-topic-leveraging-t-11309-10.html

So I agree and probably just another BTLer with properties in own name.

*Some of the foreverHPI attitudes I have mentioned a few times.... (on PT discussion with a low leveraged landlord vs high leverage 'strategy' some BTLers prefer). 

Like 'portfolios' of 40+ houses worth £7million isn't quite enough in the here and now for some, or millions in debt with it (seemingly)..... vs those who would be happy with just one home for their families, but their choice to rent vs these house prices and this housing situation, with so many BTLers past 15 years.

So 30 years of BTL hold is it... ?  Tenants/LHA pay down the mortgages.

Quote

 

Jonathan Clarke to daniel_booth 28 May 2014 at 17:08

See post #34

Daniels.... 2 million in 30 years is now 4 million
Jonathans 8 million in 30 years is now 16 million

They both sell up

Jonathan pays off his 6 million debt and has 10 million
Daniel has 4 million
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agreed, so scaled it down by 10 to maybe make it maybe more realistic to the average punter.

Scale it up and your statement makes even more sense . If I got 100 million and you got 40 million talk of leverage at that stage would probably bore us as we sup a beer together on the beach as its superflous and really doesnt matter unless we both had insufferable egos .

http://www.propertytribes.com/landlords-going-head-head-on-topic-leveraging-t-11309-6.html

 

[Bland Unsight]

12 minutes ago, Venger said:

From your link.  

Occupation: Property Investor

IIRC we've had the clip of him talking to Vanessa Warwick about how the BTL game is an "addiction". It seems to me that once people enter the BTL casino, provided that they are sufficiently blithe about the risks, then they just see free money lying around and they see no reason not to pick up as much of it as they can.

 

[dugsbody]

22 hours ago, Lambie said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_terrorism

I wonder if inciting a large group of people to become homeless at the same time and deliberately overload the council housing system would qualify under this definition.

I look forward to the forthcoming campaign to Free The Malta 1 From Guantanamo (pledge just £10 a month!)

They should also be wary of being accused of colluding to fix prices.

https://www.gov.uk/cartels-price-fixing

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, Bland Unsight said:

IIRC we've had the clip of him talking to Vanessa Warwick about how the BTL game is an "addiction". It seems to me that once people enter the BTL casino, provided that they are sufficiently blithe about the risks, then they just see free money lying around and they see no reason not to pick up as much of it as they can.

 

Money comes in, money goes out.

No margin at all and all leveraged.

I rember read an article about a multi MaccyD franchisee. Cant remember the number of places he had 10+.

Anyhow, he was going about number of employees 300+, turnover a few million. then the profit. And im thinking wtf??? It was something sub 2% of revenue. It was fcking nuts. All it would take was a hiccup and hed be wiped out.

[Pop321]

8 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

IIRC we've had the clip of him talking to Vanessa Warwick about how the BTL game is an "addiction". It seems to me that once people enter the BTL casino, provided that they are sufficiently blithe about the risks, then they just see free money lying around and they see no reason not to pick up as much of it as they can.

 

"I borrowed the money in my main house and bought the second property 'for cash'. "

Yep, everything I need to know in that sentence. 

Nothing in....everything out. 

S24.....'pop' ?

[Venger]

13 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

IIRC we've had the clip of him talking to Vanessa Warwick about how the BTL game is an "addiction". It seems to me that once people enter the BTL casino, provided that they are sufficiently blithe about the risks, then they just see free money lying around and they see no reason not to pick up as much of it as they can.

Maybe, but they can directly see those on the renting side of the equation.  Families.  What about their ambitions for stability.  Many posts from BTLers who shudder at idea of ever renting longer term themselves under uncertainty of an S21.    That's the main thing in my mind.  It's not just quest for money and inability to see beyond it.  They can see, but choose not to see.

They wouldn't be good at Kung Fu.

Quote

 

The Karate Kid (2010) - Quotes - IMDb

Mr. Han: Kung Fu lives in everything we do, Xiao Dre! It lives in how we put on the jacket, how we take off the jacket. It lives in how we treat people!

 

[Bland Unsight]

28 minutes ago, Phil321 said:

"I borrowed the money in my main house and bought the second property 'for cash'. "

Yep, everything I need to know in that sentence. 

Nothing in....everything out. 

S24.....'pop' ?

Very interesting how he later talks of doing up the properties for the purposes of "valuation". A lot of the portfolio BTL tw@ts go on about how they buy up the crappy dilapidated houses that first time buyers supposedly don't want.  Presumably they were motivated by the ability of a lick of paint and a new kitchen to increase the amount of equity they could re-finance out of the property.

Just more of that delightful consequence-free free money, and absolutely nothing to do with bonkers leverage.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Bland Unsight

[Venger]

Phil321 recognised that point when he gave up with the 118ers and joined HPC.

I can't link direct to his post at the moment, but can quote part of it.

Quote

 

As a modest opportunist landlord snapping up the odd house when sentiment was low - when I feel hard done by about this tax change I go on 118 and read notes from the moaning and groaning of the poor landlord victims who clearly did not have another plan. I DO shrug my shoulders and I am moving on.

Then when I feel perhaps my wealth and the risks and opportunistic nature may mean I have taken may have been unfair on others I come on here to redress the balance and listen to the moralistic preaching of some people and that sets me back on track.

I do ask my long standing tenants why they don't buy - and yes it is not because they can't be bothered, or they are lazy or indeed they like the flexibility - it is usually they don't have enough ££. I was lucky with strong support from parents - support in every sense rather than just financial. (Albeit financial help was very limited but every little helps to start with).

Not highly geared so not hugely affected - but slowly selling up anyway.

 

[Byron]

Got a BTL?

Cannot sell?

Go to hell.

[Bland Unsight]

2 hours ago, Byron said:

Got a BTL?

Cannot sell?

Go to hell.

I'll bet my own money that they've dipped their toe in the water by seeing if stuff that becomes vacant will sell anywhere near their current assessment of its value. When the market has said "No" they've favoured their property knowledge over the market's willingness to buy and hung on to the property (and therein also hung on to their property dreams and their present delusion that they are anything other than an over-leveraged tw@t with a string of shit flats they can't shift).

Insolvency practitioners will take these properties off their hands in due course. They are never going to wise up. They are mug punters; it's not for them to wise up - their role in things is to bitch about  how 'the man' took them to the cleaners.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Bland Unsight

[Venger]

10 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

I'll bet my own money that they've dipped their toe in the water by seeing if stuff that becomes vacant will sell anywhere near their current assessment of its value. When the market has said "No" they've favoured their property knowledge over the market's willingness to buy and hung on to the property (and therein also hung on to their property dreams and their present delusion that they are anything other than an over-leveraged tw@t with a string of shit flats they can't shift).

Insolvency practitioners will take these properties off their hands in due course. They are never going to wise up. They are mug punters; it's not for them to wise up - their role in things is to bitch about  how 'the man' took them to the cleaners.

 

Some BTLers have begun to sell, but I accept your point that generally that may be the case.  And they won't accept their own hard-involvement in the position they have found themselves in.

There's an ex-BTLer who lost her multi-property (multi-million pound) 'portfolio' when the lender appointed LPA Receiver, and she's occasionally pops up on BTL forums from time to time (inc recently) to lash out at lenders/'the man', without any acceptance of her own role in it (seems to me)..... on a BBC report she had ended up losing her own home, claiming benefits and in dingy rental property herself.  Seems even her entry into hard-reality hasn't yet allowed her to embrace any lessons.   

As I recall it this Angela B reached her 100 property quest a little while back. 

Only days before Section 24 announced I believe.  There's a video on YT where she celebrates it.

Let's all be careful and keep it non-personal though, on this thread, please, with named individuals.  I can post up facts though.

 

Landlord interview - Angela Bryant
Published on 20 Apr 2015
Landlord Angela Bryant recently reached her goal of 100 BTL properties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSBiVg1ChcM

And again, Pre Section 24  and SDLT 3% BTLer surcharge.... never enough good times leverage... properties... forever HPI and no change ever... political risk not in view !

Quote

 

1 Jun 2014 at 12:48

"You have to think big to get big and to get big you have to borrow big." Angela B 2014

http://www.propertytribes.com/landlords-going-head-head-on-topic-leveraging-t-11309-13.html

 

That was just one entry on a crazy 20 page thread, with so many BTLers singing the joy of big leverage and with mind of never-enough and forever HPI.  Very little, if any, thought that tenants would like to enjoy 1 home homeownership.

More recently....
 

Quote

 

Angela Bryant  17 Aug 2016 at 12:41

Meanwhile, we just keep selling up.....

No BTR round here, or new landlords taking our place.....

No one has thought this through properly.............

In Maggie Thatcher's 80s, capitalism in the UK was relatively mild and pro small business and landlords with it.  Now it has grown up and grown ugly - nobody matters any more unless you're in the big corporates league.

I despair:-(

Angela

http://www.propertytribes.com/call-for-government-to-abolish-section-24-t-127626112.html

 

Recall a post where she was taking viewings from younger buyers.  It's a start.  Think she's sold a few to OO.

Quote

 

Angela Bryant 15 Jan 2016 at 09:31
Well I wouldn't exactly call that The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth! So help me god!!

Not one of those people mentioned that some highly leveraged landlords are facing bankruptcy with the government's tax changes and there's nothing they can do about it.

Not one of those people mentioned that some higher rate tax payer landlords are being forced to sell properties due to the government's tax changes and in the process, making the poorest members of society homeless. People who have no hope of ever buying; and with a shrinking rental market - because many landlords ARE selling - they are ending up increasingly in hostels and now that those are full in B&Bs.

Not one of those people mentioned either, that many landlords are being forced to jump through many ridiculous hoops and go to a lot of unnecessary expense in the potentially vein hope of sheltering what properties we can in limited companies (only viable for low value, no capital gains properties).

Not one of those people mentioned that even if the figures appear to work for you now using one of the buy to let tax change calculators - you need to consider what happens when interest rates rise with the new tax changes. Survive that!

And not one of those people mentioned that since we now know the government has got it in for small landlords, who knows what bullets they'll fire at us next! Easily, they could withdraw any allowance of mortgage interest as an expense. They also seem to have an unlimited ability to make up more anti-landlord regulations that make our lives difficult.

Yes, buy to let is wonderful folks in 2016. Come on in.. if you want to buy property the more aware landlords are selling in droves!

Oh, but I think they all said you can put rents up... so that's alright then!!

-----
But - if someone (the government in this case) is beating me up, I think it's appropriate to say that I'm being beaten up and I don't like it and I want it to stop and that I think it's appalling behaviour and that we need to face all that is bad about it. Look it squarely in the eye and call a spade a spade: it's disgusting what this government are doing to us.

It's abuse and it must stop, full stop!

Angela

http://www.propertytribes.com/can-buy-let-still-profitable-2016-t-127623368.html

 

 

Quote

 

Angela Bryant 31 Aug 2016 at 14:46
[...]While in practical terms, it's more important for us now to sell some properties in order to reduce the LTV on the portfolio, what I try not to do - and it is difficult at times - is to make the mistake of thinking that everyone needs to sell up and reduce their gearing just because I do... It depends on individuals' circumstances.

I do think that buying within a limited company is the way forward for many who are still in the growth phase, even though that's not easy for us to change - those of us who bought largely in our own names.  Yes it's complicated and not as favourable as it was to extract money, but if you don't extract it you've still grown a company that the kids can inherit.

And if you don't get 100 properties, so what really - you may get four. Four times £250k was still a million last time I looked:-)

Angela

http://www.propertytribes.com/why-did-you-become-a-landlord-investor-t-127626238-2.html

 

 

Quote

 

Angela Bryant 6 Sep 2016 at 08:09

I think Peter has (almost) hit the nail on the head with the comment that:

"Building up [EXTRACTABLE (my addition)] capital through property seems to have been slowed down..."

Well, I'd say it has all but ground to a halt in fact!!

That is exactly the issue and why it is no longer possible to grow a large portfolio in the way that those who started twenty-odd years ago did, since we did so by extracting capital as prices rose to use for deposits to buy more property.

Pre around 2004, you could do that until the cows came home.  This was because there was so much head room to borrow more than originally as prices rose, due to lenders' maximums allowing for more borrowing within the same (or realistically rising) rental income.  Nowadays, in the south at least, it's likely that borrowing will be limited in the first place to below the max LTV allowed by lenders, due to rental income not covering - so there's no chance of borrowing more later, unless rents rise substantially which it's not realistic to assume will happen any time soon (or even not soon!)

From around 2004 - 2008 you could use fancy tricks that became widely known and adopted, such as no-money-down which some lenders allowed - by simply buying BMV and getting 100% mortgages.  All of which is no longer possible today.

So how can you grow at all?!  The only way is by having money from other sources altogether, or posssibly generating money in other property-related ways such as buy-to-sell, development or other income, such as becoming a letting agent for others etc.  But this is going to be, for most, very slow and limited in reality.

Hence if the question is "Can you grow a portfolio like those who started twenty years ago?" then the answer is "Absolutely not!"

Additionally, you would have to be frankly stupid not to take on board that the new taxation landscape SHOULD make you think twice about even wanting a highly leveraged portfolio!  I've reduced my LTV, largely by tax-forced selling, from 75% plus to just 50% now.  And whilst I appreciate, as I said earlier, that not everyone necessarily needs to be on such low LTV as me - they blooming well would if they had such a large portfolio!

So what is the answer?  Just have to be realistic about how much growth is achievable now and understand (a) why and (b) that deposits need to be raised from elsewhere, which is likely to be a limited endeavour for most.

Angela

http://www.propertytribes.com/why-did-you-become-a-landlord-investor-t-127626238-4.html

Wonder if there has been any chunky CGT paid in the process of deleveraging.  Hope so.  Gov needs money.

[spyguy]

Wow banks will only lend to businesses that can show they make money above the rental income. What witchcraft is that!!!!

50% LTV is not even in the ball park of low.

 

100 btls, at average of 700/month = 70k/month rent income, well into higher rate tax! 

Nice of her to give ukgov 35k/month.

[Bland Unsight]

19 minutes ago, Venger said:

Some BTLers have begun to sell, but I accept your point that generally that may be the case.  And they won't accept their own hard-involvement in the position they have found themselves in.

[snip]

Interesting stuff, V. Thanks for posting. It shows that all the fighting talk at back in July 2015 from the BTL goons about how they'll just incorporate was a load of nonsense.