Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[iamnumerate]

6 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

Courtesy of The Yorkshire Post, "Former Bradford & Bingley HQ set to become a Lidl store" (19 March 2018, link)

 

Wonderful

[Option5]

1 minute ago, TonyJ said:

It needs demolishing.

It has been.

[Option5]

http://www.thelocalleader.co.uk/bradfordbingley/#.WsTeFJch1PY

[Bland Unsight]

14 minutes ago, Option5 said:

Doesn't the bank still hold the debt for the outstanding amount which it can class as an asset or sell for a % in the pound to a recovery specialist?

I'd love to know what you think you're going to find on the asset side of a bank balance sheet if the lenders don't class their customers' debts as assets.

I'm also pretty excited to learn more about your ideas regarding how banks work if you think that giving out £100 to a customer in exchange for an IOU and then selling the IOU for £85 to a "recovery specialist" is a business model that doesn't sit very neatly under the label of idiocy. I'd argue that a bank set up on that basis would be a good starting point if you were seeking to build an operational definition of idiocy.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Beary McBearface

[macca13]

1 hour ago, Doctor SickoPants said:

Oh dear, poor dl, S24 has forced him back into work.  Sob, sob.

 

https://www.propertytribes.com/section-24-has-made-me-go-back-work-t-127631975.html

They look like a bunch of tax dodgers to me.. There should be no way to avoid S24.. just make a law saying anyone trying to avoid tax from S24 will be given a £100’000 fine.. sell or pay!

[Option5]

1 minute ago, Beary McBearface said:

I'd love to know what you think you're going to find on the asset side of a bank balance sheet if the lenders don't class their customers' debts as assets.

I'm also pretty excited to learn more about your ideas regarding how banks work if you think that giving out £100 to a customer in exchange for an IOU and then selling the IOU for £85 from a "recovery specialist" is a business model that doesn't sit very neatly under the label of idiocy. I'd argue that a bank set up on that basis would be a good starting point if you were seeking to build an operational definition of idiocy.

I thought we'd agreed to ignore each other?

[iamnumerate]

12 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

It needs demolishing.

I meant as an example of the bank being an idiot not as beautiful architecture (it was to beauty what Bradford & Bingley were to responsible banking).

[spyguy]

11 minutes ago, Option5 said:

It has been.

Its in Bradford (I think) How could you tell?

[Bland Unsight]

Just now, Option5 said:

I thought we'd agreed to ignore each other?

I have no recollection of that. IIRC I suggested that you could ignore me if you wanted to. My habit is to add people to my ignore list if I find them so irritating that I snipe at them and disrupt threads by dragging the thread off topic with my sniping. At no point in the past have I found you irritating. Actually, in light of your thoughts about banks above, I am starting to see you in a whole new light. I can see a time when I'll look forward to reading your posts.

[Bland Unsight]

25 minutes ago, Option5 said:

Doesn't the bank still hold the debt for the outstanding amount which it can class as an asset or sell for a % in the pound to a recovery specialist?

Yes, and yes. If you pursue this strategy, this is where you end up.

[Option5]

1 minute ago, Beary McBearface said:

I have no recollection of that. IIRC I suggested that you could ignore me if you wanted to. My habit is to add people to my ignore list if I find them so irritating that I snipe at them and disrupt threads by dragging the thread off topic with my sniping. At no point in the past have I found you irritating. Actually, in light of your thoughts about banks above, I am starting to see you in a whole new light. I can see a time when I'll look forward to reading your posts.

I think you misinterpreted my thoughts on banks. My point was that banks in the UK don't lose everything if someone defaults on their mortgage as the debt is on the person, so they can keep it on their balance sheets, as opposed to the USA where the debt is on the asset and any losses are the banks. I don't see in my post where i suggested it was a good business model.

During our previous encounters you seemed to thrive on escalation and confrontation,  your anger at the world I understand, your anger at other people with similar ideas on house prices I don't.

[SOLZHENITSYN]

Duplicate post - please delete

Edited April 4, 2018 by SOLZHENITSYN

[SOLZHENITSYN]

1 hour ago, Doctor SickoPants said:

Oh dear, poor dl, S24 has forced him back into work.  Sob, sob.

 

https://www.propertytribes.com/section-24-has-made-me-go-back-work-t-127631975.html

Suggest you read his post again. As much as I like poking fun at the BTLrs, DL seems one of the more savvy ones...

Edited April 4, 2018 by SOLZHENITSYN

[Bland Unsight]

Just now, Option5 said:

During our previous encounters you seemed to thrive on escalation and confrontation,  your anger at the world I understand, your anger at other people with similar ideas on house prices I don't.

I know you are, but what am I?

For what it's worth, I am not angry at you. Neither am I in the particularly angry at the world.

I decided to have a little bit of fun with you because of the rather silly way that you expressed yourself. I thought it was funny. Had it been a thread other than this thread then I would almost certainly have just rolled my eyes, grinned and moved on without responding. However this thread isn't a 'business' thread. It exists so we can chuckle about the misadventures of the leveraged landlords over at Poverty Later. Hence I decided that no harm would come from poking a little fun at you.

You had a bunch of tactical options at that point. The best one was to simply ignore me. The second best option would be to soberly clarify your meaning without adding any cod psychology about me and my motives. If what mattered to you was discussing how banks handle distressed loans then pathologising my conduct is a pointless distraction. That's not the option you take either.

What you're doing wrong here is that you're investing the matter with a seriousness it doesn't deserve. This isn't "escalation and confrontation" borne of "anger at the world", it's just me having a bit of fun. Don't take yourself so seriously; you're not the CEO of a blue chip company offering his thoughts to the board, you, just like me, are a pseudonymous nobody talking about  house prices on an internet forum. You need to toughen up a little bit or find your sense of humour.

Bottom line, if you say silly things about important things then I won't ignore those posts. The fact that you are thin-skinned is not some Get Out Of Jail Free card. You may invite me to ignore you but that request is not a binding contract which compels me to ignore you.

[Option5]

38 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

I know you are, but what am I?

For what it's worth, I am not angry at you. Neither am I in the particularly angry at the world.

I decided to have a little bit of fun with you because of the rather silly way that you expressed yourself. I thought it was funny. Had it been a thread other than this thread then I would almost certainly have just rolled my eyes, grinned and moved on without responding. However this thread isn't a 'business' thread. It exists so we can chuckle about the misadventures of the leveraged landlords over at Poverty Later. Hence I decided that no harm would come from poking a little fun at you.

You had a bunch of tactical options at that point. The best one was to simply ignore me. The second best option would be to soberly clarify your meaning without adding any cod psychology about me and my motives. If what mattered to you was discussing how banks handle distressed loans then pathologising my conduct is a pointless distraction. That's not the option you take either.

What you're doing wrong here is that you're investing the matter with a seriousness it doesn't deserve. This isn't "escalation and confrontation" borne of "anger at the world", it's just me having a bit of fun. Don't take yourself so seriously; you're not the CEO of a blue chip company offering his thoughts to the board, you, just like me, are a pseudonymous nobody talking about  house prices on an internet forum. You need to toughen up a little bit or find your sense of humour.

Bottom line, if you say silly things about important things then I won't ignore those posts. The fact that you are thin-skinned is not some Get Out Of Jail Free card. You may invite me to ignore you but that request is not a binding contract which compels me to ignore you.

Thank you for enlightening this silly man, I've been called many things but silly is a new one.

I take it your line of work lets you to get away with your superior tone and allows you to define what's silly with the people you deal with.

My work makes me thick skinned, having to listen to the CEOs of blue chip companies pontificating about things they don't understand does that to you but the money is good so that's OK.

 

[Bland Unsight]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

Also remember that banks retain limited capital on mortgages. Losses really eat away at a bamks capitla base.

In response to spyguy you wrote:

1 hour ago, Option5 said:

Doesn't the bank still hold the debt for the outstanding amount which it can class as an asset or sell for a % in the pound to a recovery specialist?

 

31 minutes ago, Option5 said:

I think you misinterpreted my thoughts on banks. My point was that banks in the UK don't lose everything if someone defaults on their mortgage as the debt is on the person, so they can keep it on their balance sheets, as opposed to the USA where the debt is on the asset and any losses are the banks. I don't see in my post where i suggested it was a good business model.

(Emphasis added)

Two really wrong things. Not taking them in any particular order. Firstly, the idea that because UK mortgage lending is recourse lending banks can "keep it on their balance sheet". As soon as a loan falls into arrears the bank will have to start making bad debt provisions, reducing the value of the loan asset on the balance sheet and charging a cost to P&L. In a very real sense as soon as there is any kind of a problem the loan starts to be written-off and therefore it starts disappearing from the balance sheet.

I guess a high-level view would be that the value of the loan in the books ought to reflect reality as accurately as possible. Recourse lending isn't a magic bullet. If someone can't service the interest and repay the principal on a debt when they're not also paying rent the chances that they are going to be able to service and repay the debt when they are also paying rent will be pretty slim and the value that can be attributed to the loan needs to reflect that.

The second thing that is really wrong is this slightly bizarre idea of yours that the difference between recourse and non-recourse mortgage lending involving one being "on the person" and the other "on the asset". Mortgages are secured lending; the whole point is that the lender lends against an asset and has the right to recover the asset should the borrower not keep up their side of the deal. Recourse lending means that after repossession and sale if there is a shortfall between mortgage outstanding and sale proceeds then the lender can pursue the borrower for the difference.

Obviously, for the overwhelming majority of buyers what does the heavy lifting in managing the lender's risks is the fact that the lending is secured (not the fact that is is recourse); the difference between loan and sale proceeds will be a modest fraction of the sales proceeds and, as previously argued, given that post-repossession the borrower will be paying rent in order to house themselves the amount of the difference which is genuinely recoverable may well be considerably less than the full extent of the difference (and the FCA aren't going to allow the lender to saddle the borrower with some ridiculous unmanageable debt just because of the extent of the difference).

 

[Bland Unsight]

9 minutes ago, Option5 said:

Thank you for enlightening this silly man, I've been called many things but silly is a new one.

I take it your line of work lets you to get away with your superior tone and allows you to define what's silly with the people you deal with.

My work makes me thick skinned, having to listen to the CEOs of blue chip companies pontificating about things they don't understand does that to you but the money is good so that's OK.

 

If you read what I wrote you'll see that I didn't call you silly. I suggested that you had expressed something in a silly way and had said a silly thing. The matter of you being a "silly man" (or not) is obviously going to be very subjective and I can't see how it's going to be of interest to anybody; it seems to me that it would be silly for you to care whether or not I thought you were silly (and even sillier to care enough to comment).

For the record, I don't think listening to "CEOs of blue chip companies pontificating about things they don't understand" qualifies you as thick-skinned. Being thick-skinned relates to being insensitive to criticism or insults. If the CEOs were criticising and insulting you ("Your report is silly, did you write this silly report because you're silly or stupid or silly and stupid") but you left the meeting skipping along like Eric Morecambe dancing to Bring Me Sunshine, then that would make you thick-skinned (possibly stupid too BTW).

 

[Option5]

43 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

In response to spyguy you wrote:

 

(Emphasis added)

Two really wrong things. Not taking them in any particular order. Firstly, the idea that because UK mortgage lending is recourse lending banks can "keep it on their balance sheet". As soon as a loan falls into arrears the bank will have to start making bad debt provisions, reducing the value of the loan asset on the balance sheet and charging a cost to P&L. In a very real sense as soon as there is any kind of a problem the loan starts to be written-off and therefore it starts disappearing from the balance sheet.

I guess a high-level view would be that the value of the loan in the books ought to reflect reality as accurately as possible. Recourse lending isn't a magic bullet. If someone can't service the interest and repay the principal on a debt when they're not also paying rent the chances that they are going to be able to service and repay the debt when they are also paying rent will be pretty slim and the value that can be attributed to the loan needs to reflect that.

The second thing that is really wrong is this slightly bizarre idea of yours that the difference between recourse and non-recourse mortgage lending involving one being "on the person" and the other "on the asset". Mortgages are secured lending; the whole point is that the lender lends against an asset and has the right to recover the asset should the borrower not keep up their side of the deal. Recourse lending means that after repossession and sale if there is a shortfall between mortgage outstanding and sale proceeds then the lender can pursue the borrower for the difference.

Obviously, for the overwhelming majority of buyers what does the heavy lifting in managing the lender's risks is the fact that the lending is secured (not the fact that is is recourse); the difference between loan and sale proceeds will be a modest fraction of the sales proceeds and, as previously argued, given that post-repossession the borrower will be paying rent in order to house themselves the amount of the difference which is genuinely recoverable may well be considerably less than the full extent of the difference (and the FCA aren't going to allow the lender to saddle the borrower with some ridiculous unmanageable debt just because of the extent of the difference).

 

You haven't told me anything I didn't already know, you just took a lot of words to do it.

I watched as.many people I knew lost their houses in Aberdeen in the late 80s and they ended up paying off the debt or going bankrupt.

[Bland Unsight]

5 minutes ago, Option5 said:

You haven't told me anything I didn't already know, you just took a lot of words to do it.

Why on Earth did you quote the whole post just to say that?

[Bland Unsight]

3 hours ago, spyguy said:

It is.

BTLer has 3 BTls.

If the BTLers  own home + assets dont cover the loss then he bank is in the sh1tter.

Remember - IO BTLers didnt get into this because hey were rich.

Also remember that banks retain limited capital on mortgages. Losses really eat away at a bamks capitla base.

(Emphasis added)

3 hours ago, Option5 said:

Doesn't the bank still hold the debt for the outstanding amount which it can class as an asset or sell for a % in the pound to a recovery specialist?

 

41 minutes ago, Option5 said:

I watched as.many people I knew lost their houses in Aberdeen in the late 80s and they ended up paying off the debt or going bankrupt.

spyguy's post was explicitly about buy-to-let investors with multiple properties. The title of this thread is "Btl scum re-grouping and on the offensive".

To all intents and purposes when your luckless acquaintances were being blown-up in the late eighties there were no buy-to-let mortgages. Consent-to-let was only beginning to surface as the fun alternative to arrears then repossession.

Keeping on topic, and making the only reasonable inferences that can be made from the context, what you're asking about is how a mortgage lender can treat the shortfall on a buy-to-let loan that sours. Can they "hold the debt for the outstanding amount which it can class as an asset"?

Up until 30 September 2017 the simple answer is that there was no way for them to know! The extent to which your recourse lending offers any form of protection depends on the size of the landlords' portfolio (and the LTV across the portfolio). Up until 30 September 2017 all an individual lender knew was how many buy-to-lets the borrower had with them.

If we really want to get into the context then if you read the thread you'll see that there was a discussion about whether or not it was OK to call another human being "scum". One of the things that that discussion brought out was the idea that some forms of pwoperdee madness were more troubling that others.

This thread started long before the first decent figures on BTL ownership distribution came into the public domain via the CML report on the profile of UK private landlords.

It suggested that of the 2million buy-to-let mortgages about 400,000 were held by just 2% of the borrowers. On average these clowns have more than twenty mortgages each. It might still be wrong to call them scum, but if any of the buy-to-let brigade are to be called scum these chancers get my vote.

If recourse lending offers better protection that non-recourse it does so because of the borrowers' income and assets. These clowns are going to be totally in property and their income is rent. I'll leave you to work out the rest.

The relevance of Aberdonian owner-occupiers in the 1980s is lost on me.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Beary McBearface

[SOLZHENITSYN]

This must have been posted before, so feel free to remove if not considered of value. But a listing of amounts paid to PRS landlords by the state published in 2015. A couple of familiar names in there from the various landlord sites. Even if they were only skimming 10% of the cash flow from some of these sums of money (on top of house price appreciation), you can see why they don’t want to let go....just think if we had proper social housing, run by local councils, what else this cash could have been spent on..

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/housing-benefit-full-list-whos-5560605

[SOLZHENITSYN]

I can see why our budding actor friend seems to be suffering a breakdown...he’s on the list too....quite a hefty sum he’s been funnelling away...

[spyguy]

4 hours ago, TonyJ said:

I think so. And they can pursue you for the rest of your life, unless you declare bankruptcy.

I think its up to 20 years, providing you dont go bust.

One thing youve got to realise is that 'handing back the keys' doesnt ngically transfer ownership of the house to the bank.

The house is in the mortagees name but the bank have a charge on it.

Im not sure what the cost of the process is, but the cost to the bank is hefty - 10k for a bog standard house. The bank has to go through a lot of legal hoops to repo, then chase debts, find people, etc.

Bear in mind and bank in 2007 would only have around 5k of capital on each mortgage.

 

[spyguy]

1 hour ago, Beary McBearface said:

(Emphasis added)

 

spyguy's post was explicitly about buy-to-let investors with multiple properties. The title of this thread is "Btl scum re-grouping and on the offensive".

To all intents and purposes when your luckless acquaintances were being blown-up in the late eighties there were no buy-to-let mortgages. Consent-to-let was only beginning to surface as the fun alternative to arrears then repossession.

Keeping on topic, and making the only reasonable inferences that can be made from the context, what you're asking about is how a mortgage lender can treat the shortfall on a buy-to-let loan that sours. Can they "hold the debt for the outstanding amount which it can class as an asset"?

Up until 30 September 2017 the simple answer is that there was no way for them to know! The extent to which your recourse lending offers any form of protection depends on the size of the landlords' portfolio (and the LTV across the portfolio). Up until 30 September 2017 all an individual lender knew was how many buy-to-lets the borrower had with them.

If we really want to get into the context then if you read the thread you'll see that there was a discussion about whether or not it was OK to call another human being "scum". One of the things that that discussion brought out was the idea that some forms of pwoperdee madness were more troubling that others.

This thread started long before the first decent figures on BTL ownership distribution came into the public domain via the CML report on the profile of UK private landlords.

It suggested that of the 2million buy-to-let mortgages about 400,000 were held by just 2% of the borrowers. On average these clowns have more than twenty mortgages each. It might still be wrong to call them scum, but if any of the buy-to-let brigade are to be called scum these chancers get my vote.

If recourse lending offers better protection that non-recourse it does so because of the borrowers' income and assets. These clowns are going to be totally in property and their income is rent. I'll leave you to work out the rest.

The relevance of Aberdonian owner-occupiers in the 1980s is lost on me.

Im guessing opt5 was in aberdeen or working in oil sector when the pil price crashed in 86.

I saw similar as lots of north sea workers are were local to n yorks , greater boro.

Then, the banks were sensible - repayment,even if an endowment, low ltv and reasonable deposit. Oh, and only one mortgage.

 

[Dyson Fury]

5 hours ago, SOLZHENITSYN said:

Suggest you read his post again. As much as I like poking fun at the BTLrs, DL seems one of the more savvy ones...

Quote

Now I am a Co Director with my wife We are both drawing a Salary of £8,000 per year

We pay Tax via PAYE and a P60 is issued every year for the salary

We have opted for payment once a year just to keep admin to the min

Aren't they missing something about National Insurance here?  Even if they avoid the 12% NI payable by an "employee" because of the special rules for directors, there is 13.8% payable by the "employer".

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters

https://www.gov.uk/employee-directors

Quote

The next step is Dividend Income as the Company Profits grow

Good luck with that one;  there is a surcharge tax rate on dividend income above £2000 per year from tax year 2018-19 onwards.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Dyson Fury