What to do in the side lines?

[Venger]

6 hours ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

Yo!

Not pushing the rental scene as it is today, far from it. I was more, I guess badly, saying that I doubt I'd have considered buying recently if eg the rental reform I want, (and continue to press for) was in place. I was bitterly disappointed by the recent white paper on housing, kicking rental reform into the long grass, more or less. Give people who are enduring security of tenure issues a welcome respite and aside from bettering PRS lives immediately, the reduction in buying pressure may have a welcome effect on prices. Give renters the stable base from which they can face down sellers, safe in the knowledge that they won't be turfed out during the process if it doesn't work out, seems like a good idea. I don't regard renting as 'good enough' for other people at present. It's not at all.

....but the simple fact of the matter is that I regard housing as the most important policy area for Governments of any stripe.

PS One of the larger bills I have to deal with at present is a replacement wall which separates my gaff from a neighbouring house which is split into a couple of flats and rented out. The property owner............

Hi Kwsn (Knimbies).

Got you.  

Although as you acknowledge, no substantial improvements in rental reforms.  Year after year.... all through the BTL years and the BTLer double-down years.

So , in absence of a sudden abrupt full policy change, it's a matter of this for me, for that hope.

Quote

 

 To live guided by expectations informed by what you want to be true, blind to the facts on the ground, is to be a stupid fool. Being a stupid fool is dangerous. 

 

There have been a few tweaks recently which I have welcomed, but a long way to go to really make a difference for renters, and no sign of any movement toward it.

Although first I would want a big BTLer shakeout.  

Hopefully that is not going to come with corporate stepping in, and outbidding FTBs.   

Couldn't help notice 1 HPCer recently glow about his corporate landlord with 97 houses on a different thread.

It's reminded me of one of the HPC BTLer members, who also claimed to be a very good BTL landlord.  He plans to buy a few more houses into a HPC.

He was setting out the position of another landlord he knows of.  (below) All repairs dealt with promptly.  Stock of new washing machines held in storage (is that a good thing?).  

The son inherited many of the houses from the father, and apparently expanded the claim on housing.   A framed sweetie-bag with his father's 'advice' providing homes.

All the money still flows upwards.   I don't want to go for nice longer secure tenancies, albeit with professional landlords/corporates, whilst still paying up quite big rent, to abide by their rules, and execs on £200K+ pay deals, with shareholder reaping growth and dividends, and prices remain v-high for anyone wanting homeownership.

That is not going to be any sort of wider victory of fairness - rent forever from company BTLers, or large corporate / REITs.  Just swapping the landlord, and still under more control (imo) (some may see it as freedom against 'pile of bricks') vs widespread homeownership.

1 http://www.27bslash6.com/strata.html

2.....

 

Quote

 

Dear tenant, you are grubby and smell of smoke.

Peter's profile on his company's website declares that Peter, an assistant rental manager, enjoys cricket and coin collecting. And once swam with sharks.

I am not a great fan of property inspections but they are preferable to property inspections without warning.

..

From: David Thorne
Date: Wednesday 30 September 2009 6.04pm
To: Peter Williams
Subject: Inspection Report

Dear Peter,

Thankyou for the surprise inspection and invitation to participate in the next. I appreciate you underlining the text at the bottom of the page which I would otherwise have surely mistaken for part of the natural pattern in the paper. I was going to clean the apartment but had so many things on my 'to do' list that I decided to treat them all equally and draw pictures of sharks instead. I have attached one for your honest appraisal.

 

Regards, David.

 

From: Peter Williams
Date: Thursday 01 October 2009 9.41am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Inspection Report

David

I recommed you take this matter more seriously. You were sent notice of the inspection as part of our normal procedure. In addition to the cleaning, the light fitting in the lounge room is broken and the apartment smells of smoke.

Peter

 

 

From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 01 October 2009 10.26am
To: Peter Williams
Subject: Re: Re: Inspection Report

Dear Peter,

The light fitting was the victim of a toy lightsabre being swung in a space too small to do the same with a cat. I dodged a leaping double handed overhead attack and the fitting, being fitted, didn't. I will grab a matching replacement $12 fitting from IKEA the next time I require a tiny ironing board or glass tea light.

The smell you mistook for cigarette smoke was probably just from the fog machine. Each Tuesday I hold a disco in my bedroom with strobe lighting and special guest. As my wardrobe door has a large mirror on it, it looks like someone is dancing with you. I once dressed as a lady and it was almost exactly what I imagine dancing with a real lady would be like. Unfortunately, I kept worrying about falling, hitting my head and being found dressed that way so she left after only a few dances and a brief kiss. You should come one night, it will be a dance spectacular. I imagine you are probably a good dancer because you are small and the smallest member of the Rocksteady Crew was definitely the best one.

Regards, David.

 

continues:  2 http://www.27bslash6.com/grubby.html

 

 

 

Good dealings with the wall.  Classy way of going about it imo.  

Although I do hope to avoid housing issues with neighbours, realising that is just one of the risks with homeownership (vs renting), if and when I come to buy.  

Such risks do not put me off homeownership vs renting, providing the buying price is right (same for all buyers, who have to weigh up the price, and everything which comes with homeownership).  When I see homeownership, at prices which make sense to general incomes, as far superior for creating stable progressive communities.

Saw this sometime last year (this is just the teaser).  

 

-----

On 7/12/2015 at 11:42 AM, pipllman said:

Absolutely true

I know a big landlord (320 properties) that he acquired by inheritance. He is a good landlord (houses kept to top standard, rents never at the top of the local market, fussy about who he lets to) and, as a result, has very few voids, waiting lists of would be tenants and long term tenants.

The biggest issue he has to deal with is inheritance tax planning. He hopes to be able to pass on most of the properties well before he enters the last 7 years of his life and I know he funds a life insurance policy that will pay out into a trust with the specific purpose of making a fairly big dent in the bill.

Anyway, I digress.

He hasn't bought any property since 2008 (he bought 1) and, before that, 2003. He is willing to buy and has the cash ready to complete very quickly. I know he has made at least 3 offers on properties this year, with no takers.

He showed me a framed old paper sweet bag (the sort you used to get when you bought a 10p mix) that he said his dad had written for him as the rules of acquiring and disposing of houses for the portfolio

1. Buy nice family houses only

2. Only buy at more than 9% yield

3. Pay cash, never borrow

4. Never sell

 

I want to fight this.  Homeownership.  HPC.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Venger

[Guest]

Feel your pain OP. My wife and i have 2 kids (5 and 3). We're mid/late 30s. Currently rent a 2 bed terrace for 3rd of our take home pay. Tenancy due for renewal in august... I expect we'll sign for another year. By then the first tax returns post s24 will be processing and BTL Muppets might have done some maths.

Until then... Deposit earning 2% in bank. Cycling, beach trips, forest walks, reading, films, red wine... Life goes on... And no obscene debt to spoil it.

[Kent Ambitions]

11 hours ago, Frugal Git said:

And that's the point. If the OP wants that, great. Go buy a house. No point dwelling on it.

But that sounds (more than) a bit boring to me. I'd prefer to have more options in life than hanging up paintings, diy projects and owning dogs. 

There's a great big world with a lot of things to explore. Think about what you really want out of life, and then if it's all the above, buy the house. It's individual choice. 

Owning a property isn't a prison sentence. I could rent it out and go travel the world. But after 20 years of renting, I am frankly ready for a bit of stability, gardening, and dog ownership. At least I now have that choice, even if I do lose money in an inevitable HPC.

[Gribble]

17 hours ago, renting til I die said:

Do you really think that the pound will be falling that much further?

Don't you see a possibility of the Euro having a sudden value drop?

I don't understand your statement 'we are clearly past peak/prices rent.'? Do you mean you think we are past peak prices or peak rents? Or maybe past peak rental yields?

£ is still considerably over-valued against the Euro.

I mean what I say - prices and rents are falling. I am not talking about yields. I am saying if you buy a house the value will fall and if you BTL rents will fall.

 

 

[zugzwang]

12 hours ago, Venger said:

Know what you mean @zugzwang, but instead of selfish decisions being to sell houses and downsize, we've been seeing older owners go on the multiple BTL choice.

Even FD's parents, who had their own market view.  Who had their own level of research and analysis in buying 3 (THREE) BTLs in 2011.  That's viewing 3 properties and outbidding everyone else in the market, and 3 conveyances.   Then 3 rent outs.  3 houses off the market into older hands

And on that You & Yours BBC radio show, a couple who had seen value of their London apartment go up some 600%, and decide to pay near enough £500,000 for a 1 bed apartment.

As for the QE... and invisible hand, and all the other measures we have seen.... zirp, bank bailouts (and I would dare claim to say suffered, on the renter-saver side... unfair to support one part over the other part).... I agree it all looks messed up.  

I remain hopeful though, that excesses in the market will smooth out, and that banks are in a much stronger position to take a correction to house prices (and shakeout of malinvestment generally in the market).

Section 24 and everything else.  Of course the market could continue to remain at these levels, which some see as very elevated, but others in the market (under their analysis and incomes/pension/bomad) see as perfectly normal in their analyiss.   Market.

Yes, Section 24 and everything else. Regulation! Not letting BTL run out of control until it becomes a systemic threat... would have been a good idea. Not letting govt introduce a succession of house price subsidies each crazier and more extravagant than the last... essential. Not letting commercial lenders peddle 4.5x joint income mortgages... should have been page one, paragraph one in the PRA Regulatory Digest.

Not markets... regulation!

[ExiledMatty]

I am just waiting patiently abroad for prices to fall. I'd rather spend my hard earned in other countries, even with the weak £ and relatively high expenses. It's the only way I can say up yours to the UK Government and political elite.

Frustrating trying to invest and get good value at the moment. Currency speculating has been the biggest winner for me, although it was only originally meant as a hedge in the wake of 2009 and sterlings massive drops.

I think Brexit will cause prices to drop eventually, but it will be a while, maybe around 2020 for full swing. In the mean time I am living life to the fullest by exploring new places and meeting fascinating people.

Maybe I'll never settle or buy in the UK.

[Dreamcasting]

23 hours ago, Venger said:

I remain hopeful though, that excesses in the market will smooth out, and that banks are in a much stronger position to take a correction to house prices (and shakeout of malinvestment generally in the market).

Yeah, of course the banks are in a much stronger position. They've got unlimited amounts of money available on tap courtesy of the BoE. Why would they allow a HPC? The very fact banks get capitalised by the BoE is in itself a malinvestment without considering all the other dodgy things going on. I'm pleased you remain hopeful, but that's all people have these days, hope. All the evidence to me suggests that the governments and bankers have won, oh and Chad down the road with his ever expanding debt obligations that never seem to be getting paid off without consequence.

[Dreamcasting]

23 hours ago, Kent Ambitions said:

I decided to buy, not because I don't believe there will be a HPC - at some point there will be, although without more supply it will be a slow burn.

Yeah, there will be a HPC. Maybe next year, within the next 10 years, or the next 100. Nobody knows when, and probably not for the reasons anyone thinks. When a HPC does finally arrive, any savings may have been devalued anyway. Scenario: A house loses value at a rate of 5% per year, the same rate as your savings, or even worse, your savings are devalued at a higher rate in relation to house prices. The evidence to me suggests that the value of savings is depreciating in relation to house prices. Anyone with savings is actually worse off than numb skull Chad down the road with his ever expanding debt obligations but with a lavish lifestyle to boot. Whilst Chad gets his debts written off in 20 years time, my savings also get written off.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

12 hours ago, Kent Ambitions said:

Owning a property isn't a prison sentence. I could rent it out and go travel the world. But after 20 years of renting, I am frankly ready for a bit of stability, gardening, and dog ownership. At least I now have that choice, even if I do lose money in an inevitable HPC.

U spelt your name wrong.

Edited March 16, 2017 by 24 year mortgage 8itch
been a long day

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

23 hours ago, Venger said:

 

Except many of us have paid up for so many years to the renters, and BTLers have doubled down, at higher and higher prices in many areas, for years.

Such reforms have been way too long coming, and no sign of anything to really tilt the balance.  As I understand it, tenants in Spain have much better rights than in England. 

 

I have difficulty in processing this.

Two HPCers I really respect, both of who have suffered unfair conditions under amateur landlords, and both who went on to buy houses (and from what I gather from the general overview taking careful/balanced positions with mortgage debt vs type/price of house you both bought) now both pushing the rental scene.

Yes it would be fine if you were £loaded for nice rental place, and be very selective with making certain a good property and a good landlord.   

As it was 8itch, I seem to recall you had a ceiling for rent you could pay, you had to pay a level or rent that matched your outgoings, and I lost track of all the moves you had to make over the years as a tenant.

 

 

 

You both surely have the option to back to renting?  

I haven't endured all this (HPI+++++++ and BTLers and mad-gainz believers making the market their reality) to rent-forever from BTLers.  

Renting reform has been way too long coming, and it's way off any standard that I would require for the long term.   

Massacre the BTLers (financially).  S24.

Homeownership is better for general society than societally destructive housing financilalstion.  Positions of BTLers need to be unwound by the market, and give younger people an opportunity.  

Productive people should have opportunity to get something for their money, other than rent from BTLers.   Maybe some corporate rentals are good but it has to be proven, and even then, requires far stronger rights for tenants than what is in place now.

If renting is so good, then why are all millions of older people, and many 'what it is worth' homeowners, not renting.   It can't be one position just for younger people.  "Renting is good enough for you, but homeownership for me."

V, mate, we buy because we're weak, "no one ever got sacked for buying IBM". 

I'm not on about money, I would just prefer it if it didn't matter whatever you chose. 

[cognitive dissonance]

23 hours ago, Venger said:

 

 For me buying is a promise to repay big sums of debt

Blooming eck Venger, you don't half write some long posts 

Why should you promise to repay debts when the state has no intention of paying their debts? The bankers won, they realised a long time ago they could create 'wealth' out of thin air and in times of need the government would bail them out. So it's a rigged market  And sadly lots of other participants in the rigged market couldn't give a Knats a$$ about repaying their debt either......yolo etc

I came across an interesting statement recently - 'Money is a social relationship'. I'm still thinking about that one 

[Bland Unsight]

13 minutes ago, cognitive dissonance said:

Blooming eck Venger, you don't half write some long posts 

Why should you promise to repay debts when the state has no intention of paying their debts? The bankers won, they realised a long time ago they could create 'wealth' out of thin air and in times of need the government would bail them out. So it's a rigged market  And sadly lots of other participants in the rigged market couldn't give a Knats a$$ about repaying their debt either......yolo etc

I came across an interesting statement recently - 'Money is a social relationship'. I'm still thinking about that one 

This is idiotic. You cannot create wealth out of thin air. Monkeying around with the money may redistribute wealth, but only work makes wealth. And only God makes land.

When the Bank of England get a Land Press you'll have an argument. In the meantime what you have is paranoia and ignorance. Good luck with that.

 

 

[cognitive dissonance]

2 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

This is idiotic. You cannot create wealth out of thin air. Monkeying around with the money may redistribute wealth, but only work makes wealth. And only God makes land.

When the Bank of England get a Land Press you'll have an argument. In the meantime what you have is paranoia and ignorance. Good luck with that.

 

 

That's a daft statement too, there are lots of 16-18 year olds in the north who have already 'retired' and content with a life of scrounging off the government, as far as they're concerned they're 'wealthy enough' 

Money is printed into existence! And unfairly distributed to the banks first. Why doesn't every citizen get a £1000 cash hand out every time they do a round of QE?

The young have zero chance of 'owning land' cos all the old b@stards have already made it too expensive! Ask the Duke of Westminster how he became so rich... 

[Venger]

2 hours ago, Dreamcasting said:

Yeah, of course the banks are in a much stronger position. They've got unlimited amounts of money available on tap courtesy of the BoE. Why would they allow a HPC? The very fact banks get capitalised by the BoE is in itself a malinvestment without considering all the other dodgy things going on. I'm pleased you remain hopeful, but that's all people have these days, hope. All the evidence to me suggests that the governments and bankers have won, oh and Chad down the road with his ever expanding debt obligations that never seem to be getting paid off without consequence.

For fresh lending and profit.  By my own analysis, it is the owner and BTL side sat on £Trillions in asset wealth (and in many areas.. fortunes of asset wealth).  Outright owners and BTL.  That's not making others in the system any money.  No fresh debt on it.

At the moment very few tempted to sell at big money.  Their own choice of course.   When treat house as home that is fine.  Providing they don't moan when their home is worth less in any correction.  They made their choice to hold.   However there is speculative money in this market that has driven it so high and high, including BTLs.  

And I feel a bit sad with your position in this thread.   Taking a position that we're up against unstoppable vested interests (that are just getting started) and have no way of changing things.   Review your own position on this thread.  One of VI not allowing it.  Of very little hope.   You have to position, and do what you think is best.  If that's buy for you, then buy, but don't expect a bailout from the renter-saver side, as any 'victim'.   

Have you considered you do not see the evidence that others see.  Do you know S24 inside out.  SDLT surcharge.   So many HPC 'evidence' and 'hope' elements requires indepth reading on so many separate threads to get a grasp of (for those who choose to do it).  

S24 is coming into place, (along with other shifts and changes) and cause and effect don't always run in straight lines but in cycles, with the effect feeding back on the cause and sometimes amplifying it, just as it did in the HPI++++ times.   I push back because you're not taking hope away from me with all your negativity/doom posts, but others might have their optimism/hope chipped.

Our individual actions matter, and together they add up, and count.

We (some of us) have hope and many a reason behind that hope, including S24.  

Now time and time again that has been a trolling position.  HPCers really get it hard from all sides.  The ones who are only doing what they believe best for their families by way of their market read (analysis and research) against owners (inc owners at top vs hpcers who want to upsize), buyers,  and BTLers.  

HPI+ protectors, BTLers, all those casting the renters as wishing misery on other people (when the HPCers are often the ones taking the hardness of the market in reality, and everyone else on buyer/owner side has their own choice, and choices that are intrinsically linked to what the position of the HPCers are in the reality.)

Even from within ourselves with many casting other people as lessor and "innocents and victims and automatons" (chills me.... superiror ego).... lacking their own clarity about the market.   The owners/buyers paying these prices must have something about them to be in position to proceed.   And no one stopping anyone from selling.

The prices are real, and we have to make our decisions in it, and how we see things going into the future.  I refuse to pay these prices, and take the brunt of it for being 'constantly wrong'.  Doesn't mean I don't have hope of a turn, and then improving my family's situation, being able to buy for a more affordable price.

What should we do?  Give up.  Buy at these prices at new peaks in many areas?   You have to take a position, and I have taken mine.

Quote

..with all due respect, what do you expect this forum’s users to do? Just stop talking about it and go cry in their soup? I get that your conclusion, and a reasonable one, is that the system is quite rigged against all but the deep pocketed and those connected to the central planning/government types will win while the rest lost. But it is in the discussion of it that people become educated about the exact levers (legislation, tax code, demographic change, whatever) that are directly related to the distortion in prices and markets. If those that are outraged just all turn into a one-tune chorus of “it’s all rigged and we’ve lost” then they risk being taken as conspiracy theorists and sore losers. Credibility is lost. One has to choose a theme to battle upon…and have some ******ing faith that ultimately we still live in a democracy. Talk, educate, know the issues–a little feeling sorry for yourself is natural, but taking it to the point where you consider all action, including talking, futile, is, well, just pathetic, isn’t it?

This reflects most of my own position.

 

 

 

[Venger]

1 hour ago, cognitive dissonance said:

That's a daft statement too, there are lots of 16-18 year olds in the north who have already 'retired' and content with a life of scrounging off the government, as far as they're concerned they're 'wealthy enough' 

Money is printed into existence! And unfairly distributed to the banks first. Why doesn't every citizen get a £1000 cash hand out every time they do a round of QE?

The young have zero chance of 'owning land' cos all the old b@stards have already made it too expensive! Ask the Duke of Westminster how he became so rich... 

There are always likely going to be elites.... but you DoW is not any evidence to suggest that things won't change for better housing value in a market full of 10s of millions of people and millions of homes.

[Bland Unsight]

1 hour ago, cognitive dissonance said:

Blooming eck Venger, you don't half write some long posts 

Why should you promise to repay debts when the state has no intention of paying their debts? The bankers won, they realised a long time ago they could create 'wealth' out of thin air and in times of need the government would bail them out. So it's a rigged market  And sadly lots of other participants in the rigged market couldn't give a Knats a$$ about repaying their debt either......yolo etc

I came across an interesting statement recently - 'Money is a social relationship'. I'm still thinking about that one 

 

1 hour ago, cognitive dissonance said:

That's a daft statement too, there are lots of 16-18 year olds in the north who have already 'retired' and content with a life of scrounging off the government, as far as they're concerned they're 'wealthy enough' 

Money is printed into existence! And unfairly distributed to the banks first. Why doesn't every citizen get a £1000 cash hand out every time they do a round of QE?

The young have zero chance of 'owning land' cos all the old b@stards have already made it too expensive! Ask the Duke of Westminster how he became so rich... 

(Emphasis added and amended.)

If you think that creating money is the same as creating wealth then you are drowning in the shallow end on this and would do well to read more and think more before pitching in.

You may be a visual thinker, so here's something to help you on the road to enlightenment.

[Bland Unsight]

1 hour ago, cognitive dissonance said:

That's a daft statement too, there are lots of 16-18 year olds in the north who have already 'retired' and content with a life of scrounging off the government, as far as they're concerned they're 'wealthy enough' 

If you say "that's a daft statement too" then you are accepting my charge that your original statement was asinine, so thank you for admitting your error. However, I do not accept that my statement is "daft". On the contrary, I think that you are just doubling down on your original error. You are confusing re-distributive effects (taxing people with wealth and giving that wealth to others) with creating wealth (adding to the total amount of productive assets, the fruits of which are available for distribution). Like I said before, you haven't thought this through. You've just imbibed some a Beano version of how money creation works and transformed that into a paranoid delusion wherein the bankers control everything. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Bland Unsight

[Venger]

41 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

 

(Emphasis added and amended.)

If you think that creating money is the same as creating wealth then you are drowning in the shallow end on this and would do well to read more and think more before pitching in.

You may be a visual thinker, so here's something to help you on the road to enlightenment.

 

On 1/14/2015 at 5:05 PM, Venger said:

We can't have massive reflation on massive reflation, and "no one is a loser" without eventual consequence. 

  Quote

It is all too simple to think that central banks have magic powers. They don't. They can create liquidity by creating debt. But this is not the same thing as creating capital. Any time a central bank monetises an asset by buying it, in essence, with printing-press money, it also creates a liability. Only the market can create capital by valuing assets above liabilities. Turning on the printing presses at a higher speed destroys more wealth than it creates.

 

Quote

When the nominal interest rate has been reduced to zero, the real interest rate paid by borrowers equals the expected rate of deflation, however large that may be… In a period of sufficiently severe deflation, the real cost of borrowing becomes prohibitive. Capital investment, purchases of new homes, and other types of spending decline accordingly, worsening the economic downturn.    Even if debtors are able to refinance their existing obligations at low nominal interest rates, with prices falling they must still repay the principal in dollars of increasing (perhaps rapidly increasing) real value.

The consumer may balk at attempts to stimulate aggregate demand via inflationary policy of negative real interest rates, and raise real interest rates by reducing inflation through lower aggregate demand.   That would be the most unappreciated yet significant market development,  rendering QE’s impact ineffective and obsolete.

Quote

FT article: Affordability Backwards

.....the initial interest payment on a £100,000 repayment loan at a 15 per cent interest rate is the same as that for a £300,000 loan at 2 per cent.

 

Bear Hug said:

Becomes more interesting when capital repayments are considered. £15k wipes out 15% of £100k loan and only 2% of £300K.  Or very roughly, doubling payments compared to interest-only will clear your debt in 6 years at 15% or 50 years at 2%!

Edited March 17, 2017 by Venger

[Venger]

6 hours ago, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

V, mate, we buy because we're weak, "no one ever got sacked for buying IBM". 

I'm not on about money, I would just prefer it if it didn't matter whatever you chose. 

I get it, but as I understand it, you bought carefully.  My view is professional person such as yourself should have been able to afford one of the nicer homes in our area for your family, but the market being very heated (in my view), and we both witnessed BTLer after BTLer buying up homes (for years) and those homes returning to rental market.   And we both know about some of the BTL landlords themselves, and how they think of and treat tenants.

Sadly there is a choice to make and it very much does matter.  That is the reality of the situation.

I have re-read your original post and want to come back to something... 

On 3/15/2017 at 10:35 PM, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

Owning is not so much about getting on with one's life but getting on with one's death so I would much prefer to be rich enough to rent for the rest of my life.

If you were rich enough, then all the little hassles which come with homeownership would be far less of a problem.  They would disappear.  Just get someone else in to fix in and pay from being rich.

Eg: DIY, boiler.... that comes with homeownership.

Then you would have all the advantages that come with homeownership (not under control of a BTLer or a corporate with its own rules and inspections... and rent). 

The advantages of homeownership (not it currently being like getting on with one's death in early stages) are clearer perhaps once you have got past any event horizon on the mortgage debt (I am just assuming there for you) ... and perhaps that is why so many other homeowners are so happy about being homeowners vs renting.  When they weigh up their position if they'd chosen to rent all these years (as many others have done, inc many still renting 12+ years on HPC !) vs their current position as homeowners.   Homeownership, little debt/no debt, and none of the insecurity of being a renter.... or under the power of any rentiers.

There's no way I want to be dominated by corporate. 

That would still be just the same shit runs down, money goes up, situation.  ("This thing is a pyramid.")

I see no evidence whatsoever that corporates (UK or US and many other countries) do anything but try and tap tenants for just about what is the max they can get.

If I can afford to pay the rentiers rent, you should be not far off being able to afford to own, in a balanced market.

Quote

Neverwhere:   Every single tenant who funds their rent out of their own wages. This is what BTL landlords can't bring themselves to acknowledge. All of their working private tenants can obviously service mortgages because they are currently servicing theirs.

 house can be a think of beauty as a home for a family (even if visually it isn't up to much) - and not just a pile of bricks.  

A place to make home and everything that comes with that for a family.  Peace of mind.  Settle.  A place where you can't be bossed around by anyone else (including those with a key or who believe have right to access when they want).  Progress to actually getting a position for the long run.  

In a sensible housing market (early 80s), where can move far easily because prices lower and transaction (house moves) way higher, if needing to.

Quote

"An Englishman's home is his castle"

The idea was first stated in Elizabeth I's reign, in a case called Sendil's Case (1585) 7 Co Rep 6a.


And 20 years later comes this phrase

The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.

It's from Semayne's case (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a.

Or, as the Earl of Chatham put it in the next century:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

Also a new £1Trn housing program by Gov.  Can't imagine the properties will have any nice finishing touches to them, just like so much of the LHA stock.

In Edwardian times, they had to build pretty houses (on the whole) with kerb appeal and extra touches, because money was that bit tighter, and lot of chose to choose from by buyers, in to a massive building boom.

Today's builders can get away with what they offer, and the prices they are asking (and the margins of profit they make... so few indy builders left), because people choose to buy.  This is the market.  Millions of people with their own minds, research and anaylsis.  Other people were not born to carry decisions of BTLers (if they are to fail in a HPC) or anyone else.

Quote

Edwardian Terraces

On the face of it there’s not much to distinguish a terraced house of the 1890s from one of 1905.   

Internally fibrous plaster moldings, cornices and large ceiling roses were still popular, but the designs were simpler than the flowers or leaves favourec in the previous century.  The usual Victorian layout of smaller terraced houses, with a double storey back extension, remained popular until the outbreak of WWI.

But it’s in the entrance hall of an Edwardian house that the difference is apparent.  With slightly wider hallways and stairs a home of this era may feel larger than its predecessors.  Externally, even in modest homes, the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement is often noticeable, with some terraces faced with a more ‘cottagey’ red brick, and roofs tiled with the more rustic clay plain tiles.  Plain sash windows were sometimes now relegated to back windows, and casement windows, or rural-style multi-paned sashes, were introduced at the front.  And then there’s the painted woodwork. Increased mechanization and cheap labour had allowed even quite ordinary Edwardian terraces to benefit from an elaborate trim.

Many modest homes particularly in coastal towns have a good deal of woodwork framing the porches and complex glazing bars on windows.  Larger houses may have balconies or verandas screened with ornate wooden balustrades.  And tiling was very popular, appearing in entrance halls, on front paths, and as external decoration on the walls of porches, again reflecting Art Nouveau or neo-Georgian designs.

The Semis

 An Englishman’s home is said to be his castle. And it was at this point that builders began to answer the demands for a bit more privacy and land from people who couldn’t afford a detached house.

Each pair of Edwardian semis was, in some way unique, with different detailing in, for example, the half timbering, or the stained glass.

The new semis appealed to architects who could produce houses in an English vernacular more easily with a broader frontage, and could move away from the dark layout of the Victorian terrace.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Venger

[Democorruptcy]

19 hours ago, ExiledMatty said:

I am just waiting patiently abroad for prices to fall. I'd rather spend my hard earned in other countries, even with the weak £ and relatively high expenses. It's the only way I can say up yours to the UK Government and political elite.

Frustrating trying to invest and get good value at the moment. Currency speculating has been the biggest winner for me, although it was only originally meant as a hedge in the wake of 2009 and sterlings massive drops.

I think Brexit will cause prices to drop eventually, but it will be a while, maybe around 2020 for full swing. In the mean time I am living life to the fullest by exploring new places and meeting fascinating people.

Maybe I'll never settle or buy in the UK.

THEY must be getting worried about more and more people doing the same. Hence the 25% new exit tax via the QROPS changes in the budget?

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

22 hours ago, Venger said:

I get it, but as I understand it, you bought carefully.  My view is professional person such as yourself should have been able to afford one of the nicer homes in our area for your family, but the market being very heated (in my view), and we both witnessed BTLer after BTLer buying up homes (for years) and those homes returning to rental market.   And we both know about some of the BTL landlords themselves, and how they think of and treat tenants.

Sadly there is a choice to make and it very much does matter.  That is the reality of the situation.

I have re-read your original post and want to come back to something... 

If you were rich enough, then all the little hassles which come with homeownership would be far less of a problem.  They would disappear.  Just get someone else in to fix in and pay from being rich.

Eg: DIY, boiler.... that comes with homeownership.

Snip...

 

I meant it in the broadest sense where "rich" meant having control. It is about being able to deal with things, money is part of that but not all.

 

 

[Venger]

1 minute ago, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

I meant it in the broadest sense where "rich" meant having control. It is about being able to deal with things, money is part of that but not all.

Renters as having control?

Don't want to risk unintentionally frustrating you if I still misunderstand your point.... 

But I still hold to fact there is far less control of your options as a renter (especially in this market), unless you really have that extra money to source nice rental, and also money to cover moving costs if/when required.  

You still have inspections, their rights to access, insecurity of tenure S21s (which may become more common-place as more BTLers sell up, but I will accept that if it means a tilt to homeownership), mostly all trying to seek maximum tenant can pay.  

Unless you have the money, in many instances, BTLers get away doing as little as possible for they know someone will be desperate to pay £700pm for a terrace in their area.  Really cold winters with single pane glass and rotting window frames, and BTLer refusal to make any improvements, for one tenant I know of.  With tenant trying to smooth through the higher energy costs (or tolerating more cold) over Winter in part of their rent.

This is far more control of owner side, if and when the financial position (debt-to-equity) means that you own more of the property, and the property doesn't own you, with income to spend on family and whatever money is required in maintaining and dealing with a 'pile of bricks'.   Occasional works... chimney stacks repointed or whatever.   

If you have low mortgage debt (and no mortgage debt for many older owners) you really are in control vs renting imo.   Of course they can STR, and be in good control for many STRs would have cashed in mad-gainz (in many areas).

On 3/15/2017 at 10:35 PM, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

Owning is not so much about getting on with one's life but getting on with one's death so I would much prefer to be rich enough to rent for the rest of my life.

That perspective is not same for all owners.  It can't be.  Has to depend on price paid, money spent, and time/energy/stress of works involved in changing a property to the standard you want (as a buyer).    I hope you don't really feel that way, or if you do, that is will pass.  

Looking in on Kiwi Muncher's thread of today (looking at what sort of works would be required to a house, with a link to Rightmove), it seems you are highly aware of challenges and costs of properly doing up a house.   If you have been through some of that experience of doing up a house in recent times, I'm sure it will fade as you settle and enjoy homeownership over the longer term.

[Venger]

For those who only see houses as 'piles of bricks' and would prefer to have income to comfortably rent....

..who do you envisage owning all the houses?

These sorts, or corporates?   I'm not bowing to them for providing the houses, gurning for more HPI+, Range-Rover families, while they live their life of riley, nor corporates with money flowing to execs (no rents held down).

I really don't know the ins-and-outs of this story, but I gather it was an area of London where rents were held very reasonable (substantially below what other BTLers charging), as the wider area gentrification, HPI++ speculation fury over the last few years. 

That there were good reasons the tenants feared the then new owners (an American Investment Company) would seek to replace them with other workers who can pay lots more, leaving them to have to find new rentals, probably further out.

Quote

 

It was reported that Westbrook had made clear to Hackney council that it wanted to refurbish the estate and raise rents to market values, which could have seen tenants of two-bedroom flats currently paying £800 per month being asked to pay a monthly rent of more than £2,000.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-era-estate-victory-residents-with-russell-brand-s-help-stop-takeover-of-their-estate-9937074.html

 

Are we to look up to the Americans, and all the other companies to step in rental scene, and all the other BTLers as "providing homes".  They rarely cut slack on what can be charged in rent, imo, and it's still a shit runs down, money runs up, housing situation.     Homeownership over all of this.  Fussy who he lets too.  Inspections, S21.... the guy even knows when he is going to die, so as to make succession plans in time, that otherwise may affect his tenants.   Have you all got posters of Range Rovers on your rented walls as well.

On 7/12/2015 at 11:42 AM, pipllman said:

Absolutely true

I know a big landlord (320 properties) that he acquired by inheritance. He is a good landlord (houses kept to top standard, rents never at the top of the local market, fussy about who he lets to) and, as a result, has very few voids, waiting lists of would be tenants and long term tenants.

The biggest issue he has to deal with is inheritance tax planning. He hopes to be able to pass on most of the properties well before he enters the last 7 years of his life and I know he funds a life insurance policy that will pay out into a trust with the specific purpose of making a fairly big dent in the bill.

Anyway, I digress.

He hasn't bought any property since 2008 (he bought 1) and, before that, 2003. He is willing to buy and has the cash ready to complete very quickly. I know he has made at least 3 offers on properties this year, with no takers.

He showed me a framed old paper sweet bag (the sort you used to get when you bought a 10p mix) that he said his dad had written for him as the rules of acquiring and disposing of houses for the portfolio

1. Buy nice family houses only

2. Only buy at more than 9% yield

3. Pay cash, never borrow

4. Never sell

 

[Thorn]

On 3/16/2017 at 2:52 AM, Venger said:

 

Someone who works should be in a better position (for housing choices) than someone who does not.

Sorry to cut and comment Venger but was reading old threads and came across this.

I used to believe this but now I realize that no matter how hard you try to get ahead, a person will likely never get a home of their own on their own earnings because of HPI. Impossible. 

So it now feels like it has become  pointless to work because my taxes pay for the NHS and roads and services which are good, but also they help my retired neighbours get to go on cruises, and lots of other things which help keep them cosy in their homes, bought years ago for whatever. Probably from their earnings.

My family and I can be evicted and made homeless on a whim.

[ingermany]

10 hours ago, Thorn said:

Sorry to cut and comment Venger but was reading old threads and came across this.

I used to believe this but now I realize that no matter how hard you try to get ahead, a person will likely never get a home of their own on their own earnings because of HPI. Impossible. 

So it now feels like it has become  pointless to work because my taxes pay for the NHS and roads and services which are good, but also they help my retired neighbours get to go on cruises, and lots of other things which help keep them cosy in their homes, bought years ago for whatever. Probably from their earnings.

My family and I can be evicted and made homeless on a whim.

The thing that really grates about taxes is that they fund all the props, market interventions and subsidies designed to keep house prices high. It is nothing less than corruption. Money taken from workers and redistributed to a cabal of property investors in order to protect their gains. It really is that simple.