The Wilsons - 875 buy to let property empire

Generali

I'd be surprised if they were required to give personal guarantees given the size of the business. Removing the personal guarantee requirement would be an obvious way to win their business and it's pretty pointless in someone with a personal wealth that is say 1% of the value of the loan giving the guarantee anyway. OK, the bank gets a little extra back but not much really.

_bankrupted

When I started to read some of the financial articles about them from some of the links posted in this thread one thing that struck me was each article alluding to their wealth by comparisons with celebrities in the "Sunday Times Rich List". One article conveniently states that they are between Phils Collins and Madonna !!!!

The sad fact is that most readers would have taken that at face value and believed it, probably making some readers try and emulate them.

Phils Collins and Madonna have made millions by creating music, selling albums, touring the world on stage.

The Wilsons went to a bank and borrowed circa 150 million.

I am thinking of asking a loan from the Bank of England for around 1 billion after Christmas. I want to beat Paul McCartney next year for the number 1 spot on that list!

meester

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

oh yes, if they go BR, they will indeed feel massive stress, especially given seemingly the huge size of their egos.

They won't however, even with the wishful thinking of some contributors to this thread, be destitute and living rough and eating from the bins behind ASDA. They will have a comfortable retirement, not as comfortable as it could have been, but probably still better than most people.

In reality, I'd imagine that as their property empire is held within a Limited Company framework, they could conceivably let the company go bankrupt and not have their personal finances touched. So they 'go bust' but keep their home, pensions and personal savings.

I would also imagine that they could have one or two properties overseas that are untouchable by the UK... who knows?

They really don't seem that bright though. And they really believed in house price inflation forever. Certainly if I was in their shoes, I'd buy a villa in Bali and The Bahamas, and stash a few million overseas, but it looks like they saw that as a bad idea because it held them back from buying even more shoeboxes in Ashford, all of which would double in price in a few years.

gingin_2

Just been watching the tail end of an auction, had about 15 properties in Kent up. Numerous properties were going -30% and more below the 2004 prices.

Lot 233 ( Guide Price: 60 Plus )

Vendor: Mustbesold.com

Address: 118 Towers View, Kennington, Ashford, Kent, TN24

The description from the Mustbesold.com website is: Leasehold Ground Floor Flat Three Room(s) Garden Vacant © Mustbesold.com

Map: Click Here

Last Sold Price: £91,000 on 10/06/2004

Auction Result: Sold ( Highest Bid was: £60,000 )

Today's auction price results in a Loss of £31,000 ( 34.1% ) since purchase on 10/06/2004.



Lot 241 ( Guide Price: 75 Plus )

Vendor: Mustbesold.com

Address: 91 Rainham Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7

The description from the Mustbesold.com website is: Freehold Terrace House Two Floor 5 Room(s) Garden Vacant © Mustbesold.com

Map: Click Here

Last Sold Price: £120,000 on 31/05/2005

Auction Result: Sold ( Highest Bid was: £81,000 )

Today's auction price results in a Loss of £39,000 ( 32.5% ) since purchase on 31/05/2005.



The Krankies are fooked


Thanks to Tommyboy on HPC

meester

gingin wrote: »

Just been watching the tail end of an auction, had about 15 properties in Kent up. Numerous properties were going -30% and more below the 2004 prices.

Lot 233 ( Guide Price: 60 Plus )

Vendor: Mustbesold.com

Address: 118 Towers View, Kennington, Ashford, Kent, TN24

The description from the Mustbesold.com website is: Leasehold Ground Floor Flat Three Room(s) Garden Vacant © Mustbesold.com

Map: Click Here

Last Sold Price: £91,000 on 10/06/2004

Auction Result: Sold ( Highest Bid was: £60,000 )

And don't forget that 2004 was pre-peak.

The peak price would be about £114k. So the falls are already 45%. They have no equity. ZERO

If they were to auction even a small sample of ther portfolio, I guarantee it would show they have no equity. If their portfolio were to be marked to market today, it would have negative value. Bankrupt.

No question.

The only question is whether they are cashflow positive or not, and if they are, as their rates get refinanced will they remain so.

Generali

Strictly speaking, bankruptcy is about solvency, not equity:debt levels.

If they have negative equity then they will have problems refinancing. As incredible as it may be, I think I read somewhere that they have 875 BTL mortgages rather than a couple of credit lines. If that is true (rather than the usual financial illiteracy of the business journalist) then they may well find that the empire is pulled apart a thread at a time like an old jumper.

PasturesNew

Generali wrote: »

...the empire is pulled apart a thread at a time like an old jumper.

Sunk to the depths of their sex lives now

teabelly

Generali wrote: »

Strictly speaking, bankruptcy is about solvency, not equity:debt levels.

If they have negative equity then they will have problems refinancing. As incredible as it may be, I think I read somewhere that they have 875 BTL mortgages rather than a couple of credit lines. If that is true (rather than the usual financial illiteracy of the business journalist) then they may well find that the empire is pulled apart a thread at a time like an old jumper.

I'm amazed that they would have done it this way. Seems crackers to me. How on earth would you make head or tail of bank statements with 875 DDs going out each month! I would have divided the properties up into manageable groups. Probably by location and used a different agent for each group and a different portfolio mortgage. You can then at least see which areas are profitable and choose to keep those.

Generali

teabelly wrote: »

I'm amazed that they would have done it this way. Seems crackers to me. How on earth would you make head or tail of bank statements with 875 DDs going out each month! I would have divided the properties up into manageable groups. Probably by location and used a different agent for each group and a different portfolio mortgage. You can then at least see which areas are profitable and choose to keep those.

The obvious way to manage something like that would be to get lines of credit with a few banks. Try to get enough so if one bank pulls the plug on you, you can spread the remaining debt across the other banks. If you take the view (as they do or did) that house prices are a one way bet then their biggest risk is financing risk.

I don't know if it's correct that they have 875 mortgages. It's more plausible that the journalist didn't know what he was talking about.

RabbitMad

I love the way every tom !!!!!! or harry seems to know the wilson's business plans, how much they owe, how much they've paid etc

The fact is as several people have pointed out if their cash flow is positive (and remains that way) then they are fine.

A couple of comments I would make are:
-I doubt they use letting agents, why give away 10%+ of the monthly income plus vat when they can do this themselves.
-They may or may not owe anywhere near as much as some people seem to think, it all depends upon how much cash they had when they started buying in the last down turn and how much they paid for each of their properties. After all if they happened to £1,000,000 in the bank back then and were buying properties at 40K then they could have bought 25 properties outright.
-If they have been mewing and try to sell some properties now they may find they have an insurmountable capital gains tax bill.

I look forward to seeing if this couple can survive the coming financial armagedon