Telegraph: I Have 3 Btl - Should I Buy More?

[bear.getting.old]

Something off with the numbers/earnings. £50k 'earnings' would be about £30k take home. Yet he has £2800 every month spare. Hmmm. Even if his take home is £50k after tax, I doubt he'd have that. And £35k in a savings account? Hmm. Either he spends nothing at all, literally, or he's not being fully honest.

Whats he got 35k in the bank for if he has a mortgage on these houses

[VeryMeanReversion]

I got bored of reading about these rich P***ks.

I have a couple of thoughts on this thread.

1. What these people are really doing is hoarding. This would be looked down upon if it was any other scarce resource that peoples safety/security depends on.

2. The rich knew best about property hoarding and rent-farming. BUT, they keep quiet and didn't rub it in. The latest band of BTL brothers are not like that and will eventually create a great deal of resentment from those they have displaced.

[LiveinHope]

I have a couple of thoughts on this thread.

1. What these people are really doing is hoarding. This would be looked down upon if it was any other scarce resource that peoples safety/security depends on.

2. The rich knew best about property hoarding and rent-farming. BUT, they keep quiet and didn't rub it in. The latest band of BTL brothers are not like that and will eventually create a great deal of resentment from those they have displaced.

Because they bought with cash perhaps and they run a different investment model where the rent is the dividend and they don't care a jot about the 'share' value.

The BTL are pretending at being rich, they are frauds and, deep down, they know it.

[Si1]

Every sales person (absent checkout assistants ) I've met (a) gets paid far more money than their intellect seems to justify, but that's fair enough as it's a commercial world, and (b ) is into properdie

Edited May 19, 2016 by Si1

[Riedquat]

I'm a boomer, don't own a house and not a BTLer. Just hopefully establishing that I'm not trolling here because just putting forward a very tentative defence of this pair. They don't have a clue and are just trying to make their way in the world in the best (wrong) way they know how. My own adult-ish children continually amaze me with their naivety and no doubt the kids in the telegraph article are much the same. Bottom line, we as a society have failed to educate the next generation and consequently they do stupid antisocial things such as compulsive BTL.

Then the sooner they get hurt the better, although whether they'll learn anything or not is another question. Whilst I agree that there's been a massive failure to educate the solution to that isn't to shield people from the consequences of their actions, it's to either remove them from society altogether or let them learn the hard way, and if enough do the message might sink through to the rest.

[BorrowToLeech]

Seriously, when do we say to people "you are responsible"? When they're 100? These guys are in their 30s. They are responsible for their actions. They own four BTL properties between them. There is no "naive" here.

I don't think these views are incompatible.

There's no doubt that people like this are selfish,

and antisocial.

The real problem is the society we have created that normalises, excuses and even celebrates this particular brand of antisocial behaviour. Its likely they've never been called out for the harm they are causing, and would be shocked if they were.

I maintain the view that landlording is a clear example of the banality of evil:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banality_of_evil

Arendt's book introduced the expression and concept "the banality of evil". Her thesis is that Eichmann was not a fanatic or sociopath, but an extremely average person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself and was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology. Banality, in this sense, is not that Eichmann's actions were ordinary, or that there is a potential Eichmann in all of us, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of stupidity which was wholly unexceptional.

This doesn't absolve people of blame for their greed, but it does explain why such selfish actions are common amongst otherwise decent people. Edited May 19, 2016 by BuyToLeech

[Si1]

I don't think these views are incompatible.

There's no doubt that people like this are selfish,

and antisocial.

The real problem is the society we have created that normalises, excuses and even celebrates this particular brand of antisocial behaviour. Its likely they've never been called out for the harm they are causing, and would be shocked if they were.

I maintain the view that landlording is a clear example of the banality of evil:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banality_of_evil

This doesn't absolve people of blame for their greed, but it does explain why such selfish actions are common amongst otherwise decent people.

I believe that argument equally applies to cr#p banks

[canbuywontbuy]

The real problem is the society we have created that normalises, excuses and even celebrates this particular brand of antisocial behaviour. Its likely they've never been called out for the harm they are causing, and would be shocked if they were.

It's the inference earlier up the thread that they were "naive". They are not "naive". Any notion that a couple who own 4 BTLs in their 30s (and want more) are somehow innocent is ridiculous. If we can excuse any action ("society made me that way"), then all bets are off. Nobody forces anyone to be a BTL landlord.

[dpg50000]

It's the inference earlier up the thread that they were "naive". They are not "naive". Any notion that a couple who own 4 BTLs in their 30s (and want more) are somehow innocent is ridiculous. If we can excuse any action ("society made me that way"), then all bets are off. Nobody forces anyone to be a BTL landlord.

This is why we need a "Like" button on this site Top post.

[Greg Bowman]

This really is a perfect illustration of the kind of appalling greed exhibited by some members of the 30 something generation. Not content to own their own home and live comfortably, they, between them have to own four BTL properties, thereby helping to pull up the ladder for the generations that follow them. When will they have enough? 100, perhaps 1000 BTL properties? How long will it be before the consequences of their actions start to have an effect on them psychologically. I suspect never, since blind greed respects no societal values or decency.

Watch It - You will be banned because the only group allowed to be slagged off here are drum roll Boomers!! Like we all have BTL's !

[Venger]

...This doesn't absolve people of blame for their greed, but it does explain why such selfish actions are common amongst otherwise decent people.

Maybe so in part. Read a book about him when I was young - suggested he slowly but then really into it (evil stuff) for personal gain. You know, sometimes you've just got to call it.

I can't really buy that argument with Eichmann. When your seriously wrong - committing such actions - then you're wrong, and you pay the price if and when the system changes. He chose his side. I'm perfectly happy for him to be considered through history as a MONSTER, going from the memory of the book I read a couple of decades ago, which is a bit distant in my memory now, but I remember enough.

My problem is even focusing on it as the main issue. The quest for BTLer innocence. It's not the real issue. I want them OUT; the BTLers and HPI extremers - and to make way for sound money.

Not to have my family rent for the rest of our lives, into old age, ever more years spent trying to get into the minds to try and find ways to absolve those who've laid claim to multiple homes (and want more houses even at this stage), totally untouched by the housing financialisation they've been actively involved in creating - top of the world.

The banks are just a mirror. No stomach for blaming individuals, so have to put it to banks/other faceless baddies. And if the BTLers danced into a trap (and each day it is appearing that's exactly what it is - a greed trap - for a future HPC to make things right for younger generations with housing value in future) then SO BE IT. Make it so.

You're BTLing family dragged into banks were they Si1?? Always seemed to me they are mad-gainz in love with chasing HPI. You can't blame the banks for such people. It's who they are. It's who a lot of people are. Not just the banks - millions of people have been complacent in the bubble. Isn't Sleepers and accountant? I've read about all his top cars. They're happy on the BTL side, so why not be happy hoping prices will fall for younger generations, instead of the excuses if prices weaken. Instead of all the focus on them being 'misled' for scraping the bottom of the barrel reasons ????????

Whereabouts are you?

Where I am in North Hampshire lower priced properties are selling very quickly. To give an example a two bedroom terraced house sold in 2013 for £180K. The identical house next door sold last month for £230K. Apartments at under £200K don't stay on the market for long.

It has now been rented for £1000 per month. That's a 5.2% yield, no letting agent involved and maintenance costs on a 10 year old house are unlikely to be very high. If the new owner has financed it themself that's a much higher yield than cash on deposit. And its an investment as safe as houses.

I know you lot will flame me, but this is the mindset you are disparaging. So far this has prevailed over your hopes for an HPC. If the owner is looking at the investment as a future pension then in 16 years the cost will have been recovered, in nominal terms. Thereon it looks to be a better investment than letting the financial services industry pick your pocket. Even if the capital value falls there isn't really a problem as long as rents stay in line with RPI or CPI.

I'll throw you another angle.

About 10 years ago I was made redundant. I had a bit of a cash lump sum, and I could at that stage have invested it in property. With the standard level of mortgage:equity at that point I'd have had about 7 properties by 2007. Over that time I'd have had a reasonable income from rents, and I'd have made a capital gain on the increase in house prices over the 10 years (south east England).

Note that I'd have made no actual investment in the economy (the houses were there before, they'll be there after), and when things got sticky in 2007 I'd have been bailed out by the government.

Well, instead I invested it in starting a business. I bought equipment and used (some of) the redundancy money to give me a buffer if things got bad. Which they did in 2007-8 and I had to tighten my belt. I now make a reasonable income, employ 3 others, create real things in the economy that don't exist without my efforts (really - new products and no real competition, albeit in a small market) and the business is worth a bit on it's own (but probably not as much as the 7 houses would have increased in value).

Now you might regard your investment as savvy, and that I was a fool to create a business instead of buying property.

But what country do you want to live in? One where any extra money is invested in property, although little new property is actually created? Where the government has to intervene to prop up the property market, because so much 'retirement' money is stuck in property that there would be a catastrophe if prices reduced? Where businesses galore are created to support the property industry (lettings agents, cleaning services, etc), but where no-one is actually any better off than before?

Or do you want to live in a country that encourages investing money in productive enterprise, where property can be left to look after itself, and where businesses are created that actually improve the quality of life for people? And where, perhaps, the government can step in to support employers if the economy hits the rails?

Because it is the real companies that create value, not the pretend property investment businesses, which only serve to inflate asset prices and transfer wealth from one set of people to another without any actual benefit to anyone.

And you'd better prefer the real companies that create value, because eventually it is these that create the value that allows the country to stand up in the world and have the capital to support imports etc. There is no 'I'm all right, Jack' because if one set of the economy just gets income from doing nothing from the other set of the economy who works it's ass off supporting the first part of the economy - then eventually the economy finds it increasingly difficult to buy all those nice things from overseas (like, say, oil).

To get back to the original point - there is a big, long term picture playing here, and the sooner people are forced to understand that you can't rely on inflating asset prices (without any actual improved quality of life, or production of stuff) to support their retirement the better. And I'm afraid that you're part of that 'forcing people to understand'. I guess I'm a bit sorry, but it is more important that we can continue to live in a country that has a future.

While I agree that Venger can be a bit trigger happy and fierce than is conducive for convivial debate, I'm totally with him when it comes to the "there are no innocents" line.

Partly on the practical basis of there being so many practical active steps that one needs to take to become a BTL-er. It's not a quick sleight of hand con on a "victim". The process takes weeks - weeks of form filling, legal documents, Key Facts Documents, and working with lawyers, etc. Which is why anyone who uses the term "accidental landlord" needs to be swiftly and repeatedly punched in the face.

Also, the implications of the "poor victims" line is too dystopian to contemplate. If educated people with the advice of multiple lawyers and other professionals cannot be responsible for their own lives and financial decisions then who can?

This is the crux of it. There is no sleight of hand, no deception. People walk willingly into such things with their eyes open (no excuse if not).

Turns out you made a bad decision? Life lessons are hard sometimes, but you'll surely be more aware of potential downside risks next time. End of story

+ 1 to both.

The person saying "don't do it" should be the individual considering it, who should be aware that they are fallible and don't always make perfect decisions, and that the amount of money involved is non-trivial and high risk. The only way people can learn these things is by being allowed to wear the consequences of their poor decisions when they make them.

The idea of people as objects with no ability to make choices of their own, of adults who can't be allowed to make their own decisions or take responsibility for their own actions, is dystopian in the extreme. How could a society which regarded people in this manner do anything other than move towards a system of rigorous and all-pervading control over the the populace at large in order to counteract our apparent inability to think for ourselves?

[Inoperational Bumblebee]

This really is a perfect illustration of the kind of appalling greed exhibited by some members of the 30 something generation. Not content to own their own home and live comfortably, they, between them have to own four BTL properties, thereby helping to pull up the ladder for the generations that follow them. When will they have enough? 100, perhaps 1000 BTL properties? How long will it be before the consequences of their actions start to have an effect on them psychologically. I suspect never, since blind greed respects no societal values or decency.

Watch It - You will be banned because the only group allowed to be slagged off here are drum roll Boomers!! Like we all have BTL's !

I was going to say, this seems a bizarre thing to level at specifically the 30 something generation. It's not like there's nobody else doing it!?

Replace '30 something' with disabled/ transgender/ single/ black/ Hindu/ female or gay and see how prejudiced it sounds...

I don't know, maybe it was satire that went over my head?

Edited May 19, 2016 by Inoperational_Bumblebee

[Venger]

It's people who are BTL minded, and creditworthy (25% deposit and equity to make the banks whole, by selling their own homes if necessary from all age-groups).

Do I need to quote the example + BBC iplayer link, of the boomer couple who've seen their London flat go from £80K value to £670,000 and bought a 1 bed BTL days before Budget 2015?

And including that of Greg Bowman associates.

Although in this instance the BTL moaner seems to be weighing up selling their BTL...coming to their senses (sell before HPC) his renter-savers not giving him enough returns, for his BTL decision.

Hopefully it won't take anything like 20 years to play out.... BTLer downfall. Although it possibly could do if HPC is always so focussed on getting into the BTLers minds. Example here, when they already have own home, claim of 4 BTLs, seek to add more - yet HPCers finding excuses and wanting to blame banks alone. Seldom about the opportunity for younger generations and the great things from less housing financialisation.

Getting into BTL is pretty common in my experience. God knows how this 'business model' will play out over the next 20 years...

Playing golf with a mate on Monday afternoon we both run SMB's employing 50 odd people each and contractors etc

We spoke about pensions and we lamented the fact you get shafted at every turn - he has one BTL I don't have any he said compared to real business it was F**** waste of time and is looking to get shot.

The truth is if you are good at B2B selling BTL is hard work for little returns. For instance part of our portfolio is data lines three year contracts once there in in no maintenance normally no hassle (a little over simplified I know)

So you are effectively getting rent for three years with fixed costs. Makes BTL look very hard work indeed

Aww 'hard-work for little returns'. So much sympathy for them.

That they are willing to throw away other people's quality of life - to deprive younger, working people of homes of their own and the associated security of tenure; to actively contribute to a financial stability threat to the UK economy and the consequences for working taxpayers be damned - for such a pittance of personal profit is a measure of how little they value other human beings and only serves to make their actions more deplorable, not less.

[South Lorne]

It's people who are BTL minded, and creditworthy (25% deposit and equity to make the banks whole, by selling their own homes if necessary from all age-groups).

Do I need to quote the example + BBC iplayer link, of the boomer couple who've seen their London flat go from £80K value to £670,000 and bought a 1 bed BTL days before Budget 2015?

And including that of Greg Bowman associates.

Although in this instance the BTL moaner seems to be weighing up selling their BTL...coming to their senses (sell before HPC) his renter-savers not giving him enough returns, for his BTL decision.

Hopefully it won't take anything like 20 years to play out.... BTLer downfall. Although it possibly could do if HPC is always so focussed on getting into the BTLers minds. Example here, when they already have own home, claim of 4 BTLs, seek to add more - yet HPCers finding excuses and wanting to blame banks alone. Seldom about the opportunity for younger generations and the great things from less housing financialisation.

Aww 'hard-work for little returns'. So much sympathy for them.

...as they say...never gamble with borrowed money ....you still have to pay it back when the market collapses....

[Greg Bowman]

It's people who are BTL minded, and creditworthy (25% deposit and equity to make the banks whole, by selling their own homes if necessary from all age-groups).

Do I need to quote the example + BBC iplayer link, of the boomer couple who've seen their London flat go from £80K value to £670,000 and bought a 1 bed BTL days before Budget 2015?

And including that of Greg Bowman associates.

Although in this instance the BTL moaner seems to be weighing up selling their BTL...coming to their senses (sell before HPC) his renter-savers not giving him enough returns, for his BTL decision.

Hopefully it won't take anything like 20 years to play out.... BTLer downfall. Although it possibly could do if HPC is always so focussed on getting into the BTLers minds. Example here, when they already have own home, claim of 4 BTLs, seek to add more - yet HPCers finding excuses and wanting to blame banks alone. Seldom about the opportunity for younger generations and the great things from less housing financialisation.

Aww 'hard-work for little returns'. So much sympathy for them.

Is it me or are we are on the same page ? The comment was from a real business person who employs real people and we both agreed BTL was a waste of time so let them burn.

Is it wrong to look for the easiest way to make sustainable profits and employ people ? BTL does not fall into that category.

Not sure of your point

[Greg Bowman]

...as they say...never gamble with borrowed money ....you still have to pay it back when the market collapses....

Generally thats called starting a business..,.

[Bruce Banner]

Generally thats called starting a business..,.

It's not the only way!

[Greg Bowman]

It's not the only way!

I know that but it's not the personfier of all evil borrowing either and controlled leverage twenty years ago was a driver of social mobility

[Amiinsane]

Yes, you should buy a hundred more. As many as you can. And then when your inevitable bankruptcy occurs you can stand as a moral lesson in greed, rentierism, short-term thinking, debt addiction, and basic lack of economic sense.

Yes, you should buy a hundred more. As many as you can. And then when you fail massively and are bailed out by the government we'll all learn a lesson that they don't care about people who work for a living, just those that gamble with debt.

[Guest]

If he already own two BTL and she owns 3, how do they avoid the 2nd home stamp duty property, even if they sell the homes they live in?

The government ignored my response to their consultation and have implemented rules whereby you don't pay the tax if you are 'replacing' your 'main home'.

So you can own as many properties as you like, but you're still free to sell the house you yourself live in and buy a replacement tax-free. There's no incentive to sell existing buy-to-lets.

One more contributory factor to the massive rush before the tax came in. In my opinion it would have been better to charge the 3% on every property purchase, with an exemption only if you own a single house. If there's a 'housing crisis' we should be discouraging multiple home ownership whatever form it takes.

[newbonic]

BTL has become the modern equivalent of a savings account, for the prudent.

That got me thinking of the BTLers I've known in the last 5 years, here in East Mids/South Yorks. Two if them are blokes in their 30s with a target of 5ish BTLs. They work in IT and already have occupational pensions, but do not believe that the pensions industry will provide for them in 20 years time (they plan to retire mid 50s).

Another is late 40s and self employed - no pension at all, other than the state. He has recently acquired 2 houses that he intends the tenants to pay the mortgage of, before he sells in 10-12 years time when he expects substantial capital gains.

Because of near zero interest rates none are keen on conventional savings. And they all have a low opinion of the pensions industry.

I'm not sure they're wrong TBH: If we stay in the EU then immigration will keep stoking demand, and both the Lab and Cons seem happy to hammer conventional savings rather than let the merry-go-round stop. Unless and until we do a Greece...

[renting til I die]

Yes, you should buy a hundred more. As many as you can. And then when you fail massively and are bailed out by the government we'll all learn a lesson that they don't care about people who work for a living, just those that gamble with debt.

Well, they are the ones keeping the economy going. Just think what would happen to that poor money supply if these twits stopped borrowing. It's enough to give CB's nightmares!

[goldbug9999]

So you can own as many properties as you like, but you're still free to sell the house you yourself live in and buy a replacement tax-free.

I though the rule was that you can only get out of the extra 3% if your either an FTB or replacing your residence and own no other properties.

EDIT I see that you are correct, as you say you do have to sell your current residence though.

Edited May 19, 2016 by goldbug9999

[Venger]

Is it me or are we are on the same page ? The comment was from a real business person who employs real people and we both agreed BTL was a waste of time so let them burn.

Is it wrong to look for the easiest way to make sustainable profits and employ people ? BTL does not fall into that category.

Not sure of your point

You posted that you view that 'getting into BTL' as 'surprisingly common'; - explaining even the guy you were playing golf with had one - vs these wider house prices.

Another home on the rent out, and how many more from such people miffed at only farming a little bit of profit. When it could be homeownership for another family.

He may run a SME and be a real business person who employs real people - but still another with a BTL / claim on a home rents out; and how many other people just like him? ('getting into BTL surprisingly common').

Also real business people, real businesses good for you - but when it comes to HPC and others suggesting much lower house prices will be good for business/economy...

------------------------------

Has The Crash Started....

Started by TheCountOfNowhere, Apr 30 2016

I'm wondering why any government didn't act on the obvious sooner? Low house prices = freeing up of massive amounts of money to the wider economy. So fukcing obvious. Only meaningless bad "sentiment" from owners and BTLs who "feel bad" (but pay the same monthly payments) and lack of MEWing free money from unproductive fukcwits is the supposed downside.

So people can buy imported tat, cruises, and cars on pcp as they did with the PPI money, is that wider economy you are thinking about ?

Edited May 19, 2016 by Venger

[olliegog]

mumsnet seem to consist of a lot of landlords (but we are very good landlords) as they discuss the very same article

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2640847-To-think-hording-something-essential-for-life-is-despicable

the OP gets a flaming over being jealous