The Wilsons thread ---merged

[baby bear]

I hate the Wilsons

Roy Harper, anyone?

Surely a splendid opportunity for filk here!

[Compounded]

If they are buying all these houses in the same area, the demand would have pushed the prices they paid over that which it would have been if they had not been there. In effect making future house prices more expensive for themselves?

Surely they must have realised they should have bought in a number of different geographical locations?

Not the sharpest tools in the box, at least they are not teaching my or anyone elses children now.

[HXO]

http://propertysnake.co.uk/site/location/1132/1/change_desc

Kent going down

There are one or two to rent also.

[I want a house!]

There is a school of thought that CP/M wasn't so much "bought" as "stolen". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall for example (drifting slightly from the topic here...)

Gates has one reason and one reason only that he is so rich... He is a marketing genius.

[kingsgate]

I doubt they use rental costs to reduce gearing, as their whole "business" model is based on every increasing house prices. Did I read that they expected house prices to double every 7 years?? I believe they are also on IO mortgages, remortaging their existing properties in order to fund further property aquisition. As they obviously believe that HPI inflation will go on for ever, why would they have stopped buying new places?

Their situation is indicative of what lenders and borrowers have believed for years. You can lend any amount of money to anyone, based on any terms, over any duration and no problems will ever arise while house prices keep on rising.

This is self perpetuating and only ever leads to ever increasing HPI. However, when prices slow down and go into reverse as people reach the limit of their financial means, the cracks begin to show.

At the very least, they will have less scope for MEW in order to grow their portfolio. However, as Banks pull up the credit drawbridge, they may well end up with hundreds of properties that they can't remortgage and have to go onto the lenders SVR. In this scenario, they stand to lose money after the mortgage and potential rental income is taken into consideration.

To lose money on each of their properties isn't sustainable, particularly when there is no capital appreciation from the value of the properties (as is the current situation).

Additionally, due to close geographic concentration of their houses, they risk crashing their own local market should they need to offload a number of the properties at once.

All this, without mentioning the potential for margin calls.

Regardless of whether they have lent from 1 lender or 100, they are fooked!

However, if they HAVE borrowed mainly or totally from one bank, then that bank will not want to do anything too drastic to bring them down, because to do so would harm the bank. As the old saying has it, "if you owe the bank £100, its your problem, if you owe the bank £10 million pounds, its the bank's problem."

Lets assume that they just stop expanding (or more likely, stopped expanding a year ago).

Unless something happens to stop them from raking in rental income, why will they be in difficulties?

Provided that all their houses, when rented, make more than the monthly interest payment, they should be fine.

[gilf]

This would seem like a prime candidate for people power. Basically get everybody living in one of their houses to stop paying the rent all at once, they simply wouldn't be able to cope, they can hardly send the heavies round to 700 properties and the paper work would be a total nightmare. Do it for 6 months and they would owe thousands in late payment fees and it would cripple their business to the extent that it would go bust. They might well walk away from it all but the Ashford proprty market (which isn't doing too well as it is) would be destroyed over night.

[nerble]

And I don't mind successful people generally and quite admire ones like Bill Gates who have offered something of value.

[Linux fanboy alert]

Mark Shuttleworth gets my vote, has helped provide me with a free (in both senses of the word) operating system that has never let me down, never got a virus and runs on a PC that would wheeze up hill if running Windows XP - Ubuntu.

[/Linux fanboy alert]

[Guest Skint Academic]

This would seem like a prime candidate for people power. Basically get everybody living in one of their houses to stop paying the rent all at once, they simply wouldn't be able to cope, they can hardly send the heavies round to 700 properties and the paper work would be a total nightmare. Do it for 6 months and they would owe thousands in late payment fees and it would cripple their business to the extent that it would go bust. They might well walk away from it all but the Ashford proprty market (which isn't doing too well as it is) would be destroyed over night.

I am sure that you don't even need all their houses to refuse paying rent, just a proportion of them. I would also be willing to bet that they have a certain amount of empty houses that are currently empty and could be rented right now. This means that you might not have to rely on the co-ordinated efforts of just the Ashford locals. People from around the country could each go there and squat in one of their house for the next 6 months. If a political action group organised their efforts to do it all at once before anyone realised what was going on, then that may make the difference. After all, the squatters will have less to lose than the locals who are trying to get on with their lives and can't necessarily stay at home all day.

And if you're reading this Judith, are you breaking out into a cold sweat right now?

[gilf]

After all, the squatters will have less to lose than the locals who are trying to get on with their lives and can't necessarily stay at home all day.

Why do you need to stay in all day? As a tenant, even one which is a serious pain in the ****, you have rights. They would need to go through proper channels to do anything and even if they didn't go through those proper channels they can hardly go round knocking on all 700 doors. As with everything in this country people don't realise the power they havem people renting off the Wilsons could bring about their down fall very quickly and have the knock on benefit of destroying the housing market in the local area to grab a bargin later.

I don't have a problem with BTL investors in genneral but it seems that they have become the traditional evil landlord types.

[insidetrack]

Why do you need to stay in all day? As a tenant, even one which is a serious pain in the ****, you have rights. They would need to go through proper channels to do anything and even if they didn't go through those proper channels they can hardly go round knocking on all 700 doors. As with everything in this country people don't realise the power they havem people renting off the Wilsons could bring about their down fall very quickly and have the knock on benefit of destroying the housing market in the local area to grab a bargin later.

I don't have a problem with BTL investors in genneral but it seems that they have become the traditional evil landlord types.

There should be a Wilsons' Letters Association.

Power to the people!

[Not Long Now]

[quote name='kingsgate' date='Feb 29 2008, 11:19 AM' post='992319'

Provided that all their houses, when rented, make more than the monthly interest payment, they should be fine.

And that's the point: a BTL investor such as them will represent a significant risk to one or the many lenders that they have used.

Re-mortgaging at a competitive rate will be difficult, meaning it would be likely that they would lose money even if they managed to rent at market rate. There whole model is based on ever increasing house prices. As this is clearly nonsense, there is little incentive for BTL investors to hold onto properties when there is a lack of capital appreciation and where rental income cannot cover the mortgage.

Having 200 properties is not a "long term" business that is capable of withstanding a downturn, particularly where their portfolio only exists due to the conditions that the boom created. The corollary being that if the conditions are removed that provided then with the capability to grow such a portfolio in the first place (cheap credit / runaway HPI), then the business is not able to survive a downturn.

They may well have purchased a handful of properties in the late 90's, but the MEW they would have used to continually expand would mean the equity in these properties would not be akin to the equity that someone who bought their house at the same time and HASN'T withdrawn any equity.

They are inherently greedy people, making one way bets on the housing market continually increasing. They are wrong, and their self created pyramid scheme is likely to collapse.

I don't believe any BTL investor who owns more than 2 / 3 properties that says they are in it for long haul. As soon as prices start to fall, (as they are doing now), you will find that even if a relatively small percentage of investors panic and run, the rest will follow - including the Wilsons, (assuming they are given the option).

Remember, the queues at Northern Rock were quite small for the first couple of days!

[The Generation Game]

I am sure that you don't even need all their houses to refuse paying rent, just a proportion of them. I would also be willing to bet that they have a certain amount of empty houses that are currently empty and could be rented right now. This means that you might not have to rely on the co-ordinated efforts of just the Ashford locals. People from around the country could each go there and squat in one of their house for the next 6 months. If a political action group organised their efforts to do it all at once before anyone realised what was going on, then that may make the difference. After all, the squatters will have less to lose than the locals who are trying to get on with their lives and can't necessarily stay at home all day.

And if you're reading this Judith, are you breaking out into a cold sweat right now?

I seem to recall seeing a program a few years back where she stated that they aimed to take a £10 profit (not sure if pw or pm) on each property (income less interest presumably) to keep occupancy levels high.

Assuming that's per month, and on say £700pm rent, then it only takes 10 empty properties out of the 700 to see them making a loss

Assuming that 's per week then it takes 44 empty properties to see them make a loss.

Also, assuming that the majority of the equity has been reinvested in expanding the portfolio then presumably they are pretty much all 100% LTV.

If they have been doing this for 10 years on 10 year fixed IO mortgages then they may just be about to hit the buffers.

[Telometer]

I found this on them

But Fergus Wilson predicts that prices will double every seven years and says the typical property he owns - a £200,000 two- to three-bed starter home - will cost £400,000 by 2013, £800,000 by 2020 and £1.6m by 2027.

Another person who uses straight line extrapolation for predicting future house prices.

No. I think you'll find its exponential extrapolation.

From Companies House.

JWIPB LIMITED

Date of Incorporation: 08/09/2006

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7032 - Manage real estate, fee or contract

I am not certain that 'manage real estate' means 'property investment holding company'. I feel reasonably uncertain that this recently incorporated company will hold the individual properties.

[iamnumerate]

I think they're mentally ill. They don't live an extravagant lifestyle but their goal is own '1000' properties. ?!!

Why?

To get very rich ?

I don't like BTl mainly because I (via paying taxes to Gordon who gives it to wasters like people I know to rent from the BTL,) have to subsidise it. I am not that keen on council houses as well (why should some people get cheap houses, some of them have more money than I had when I bought my flat - again personal knowledge) .

[right_freds_dead]

how could two former maths teachers get the figures so wrong ?

its obvious to anyone un blinded by greed, that property has to be in line with earnings.

i even knew that before i joined this site.

sure it can boom up, it can crash down, but in the 'long run' they all talk about,

property should be around 4x joint earnings, which means theres a long catch up eating at the wilsons sums.

it would only take a minor downturn to see off their business model and see them busted, and having to rent a home themselves.

(from the council ?)

heres hoping the 700 families homes the wilsons have snapped up before them are then offered back to the rightful people for rightful prices.

maybe then we can begin to build up a worthwhile country with strong credentials and without large debt and deficit.

and without the current extreme financial demands that destroy the quality of life in this country.

[Spring Bounce?????]

Having lived in Ashford for a few years a little while ago I can't say I am shocked they got it so wrong. The standard of education was appalling with a lot of my work colleagues clearly not having basic numeracy and literacy skills.

The place is always promising to be a boom town but never really makes it. They have massive social problems in the area with more chavs than you can shake a stick at. The town centre after dark resembles a scene from Mad Max with armies of boy racers turning the streets into a free for all. Most of the clubs and pubs promise more fights a night than the Jerry Springer show.

The majority of work in the area is low skilled and poorly paid. On top of that you have to compete with the masses of legal and illegal immigrants that hang around the parks in large groups trying to pull the teenage chavs.

It did promise to be the ultimate commuter town with the international station that would get you into London in 30 minutes. Unfortunately the station was downgraded and you cannot board the Eurostar just to get to London. The motorway journey is a complete nightmare with delays of 2 hours+ not uncommon for the 60 odd mile trip into London.

All in all I would not give a bucket of pee to own a house there.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Spring Bounce?????

[Guest Skint Academic]

Came across this from the Daily Bigot just over a year ago:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

How two maths teachers clocked up 707 houses and £240m fortune

(Last updated at 22:14pm on 24th January 2007)

"You've got to say to yourself: 'What's the worst that can happen?'" she says. "The worst thing is that you'll have to sell the second house. But so what? You'll still have the one you live in."

"The key is not to take it all so seriously. It's only a game. You have to remember we're mathematicians, so a million is just a one with six noughts on the end. It takes more than a few noughts to frighten us."

Fergus Wilson promises to provide the answers in a new TV show, which he describes as a hybrid of The Apprentice and Dragons' Den, with elements borrowed from the X Factor.

A pilot show is expected to be broadcast later this year. Would-be house-buyers will compete for mortgages, and he will act as their nononsense mentor.

His wife wants no part in the programme.

"I'm not interested in providing free advice that might backfire," she says curtly. Instead, Mrs Wilson will impart her wisdom at Imperial College, London, where she was recently appointed as an Adjunct Professor.

This month, she will also launch the Judith Wilson Investment Property Bond, a new concept in accumulating wealth via bricks and mortar. She will sell stakes of five per cent in ten of her rented houses, with a promise they will double in value every seven years.

The idea is for parents to buy a £10,000 stake for their children at birth, so that by the time their son or daughter reaches the age of 21, the investment will be worth £80,000; sufficient for a deposit on their first home.

They began to do some homework. Research told them that over the past century, prices had doubled every seven years and various pointers convinced them this was set to continue indefinitely.

The most important was the law of supply and demand. Britain was then - and remains - chronically short of houses. Therefore, it will always be a seller's market.

Roughly half their houses are mortgaged. Thanks to their extraordinary buying power, they can negotiate very low rates from mortgage warehouses.

Their lives are devoid of millionaire trappings: they never take a foreign holiday because Mrs Wilson dislikes extremes of climate and they drive second-hand cars (a Jag for her, a Land Rover Discovery for him).

Mr Wilson's only indulgence is a stable of racehorses, which he will soon off-load too in favour of a stud operation. "We grew too used to being poor to live like we're rich," he says. "We live the life of middle-class teachers, which I suppose is just what we are."

[DinosaursAreAwesome]

No idea, but as they didn't have the basic common sense to spread their property portfolio geographically it would be my guess that the mortgages are sitting with one supplier.

In fact, it's likely that their debt has been red-flagged, and is burning a hole in some poor Actuary's excel spreadsheet as we speak.

Concentrating thier portfolio in one area is a key part to thier strategy; its a version of the land registry scam we saw on panorama. because they own so many similar houses in one area, every time the MEW to bid up a new purchase, they raise the value of every property they own. Thus creating alot more in paper wealth in each transaction than they spend. However, once the bank pulls the plug on MEW they stop growing and a YOY- HPI index is certain bankruptcy unless they're yielding 10% (unlikely).

[Not Long Now]

Concentrating thier portfolio in one area is a key part to thier strategy; its a version of the land registry scam we saw on panorama. because they own so many similar houses in one area, every time the MEW to bid up a new purchase, they raise the value of every property they own. Thus creating alot more in paper wealth in each transaction than they spend. However, once the bank pulls the plug on MEW they stop growing and a YOY- HPI index is certain bankruptcy unless they're yielding 10% (unlikely).

Well spotted, a strategy that works fine on the way up. But on the way down.....ouch!

[eric pebble]

Came across this from the Daily Bigot just over a year ago:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

How two maths teachers clocked up 707 houses and £240m fortune

(Last updated at 22:14pm on 24th January 2007)

More on these guys here ---- http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=fire...earch&meta=

Interesting to see how all seemed so wonderful in the days before the Northern Crock of Shit debacle & Credit Crunch problems started around August 2007.....

[Guest Skint Academic]

More on these guys here ---- http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=fire...earch&meta=

Ooh this one makes my blood boil. How they just try to grab hold of deposits for silly reasons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio..._20070418.shtml

[@contradevian]

I wonder why they are so coy over disclosing their address for the domain name wilson-property.co.uk

[Querying whois.nic.uk]

[whois.nic.uk]

Domain name:

wilson-property.co.uk

Registrant:

Judith Wilson

Registrant type:

UK Individual

Registrant's address:

The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their

address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Hardly a "Non Trading Individual"

[Guest Skint Academic]

Hardly a "Non Trading Individual"

I was trying to see if I could report them to nominet but I don't reckon we can

http://www.namedropper.co.uk/Domains/Nomin...hois/whois.html

Can anyone opt-out?

Only domain name holders that are non-trading individuals can opt-out of having their address details published. In other words, if you do not use or plan to use your domain name for business, trade or professional transactions you will be entitled to opt-out of having your address displayed.

EDIT: Silly me, I've just seen their website. They're definitely trading! Right, where do we report them for:

http://www.propertyinvestorfinance.co.uk/

Edited February 29, 2008 by Skint Academic

[King Stromba]

They began to do some homework. Research told them that over the past century, prices had doubled every seven years and various pointers convinced them this was set to continue indefinitely.

The most important was the law of supply and demand. Britain was then - and remains - chronically short of houses. Therefore, it will always be a seller's market.

WTF?

[evictee]

The key is not to take it all so seriously. It's only a game. You have to remember we're mathematicians, so a million is just a one with six noughts on the end. It takes more than a few noughts to frighten us.

Yeah? Wait till you see the nought that has % YoY HPI after it. Then you'll be frightened aright.