The Wilsons - 875 buy to let property empire

leveller2911

julieq wrote: »

The first step in solving a problem Leveller is to understand it. I'm not "jerking off" in the least, I'm simply explaining the mechanisms that are operating.


Well post 538 def looks like jerking off to me........


"Incidentally there have always been people who can't afford to buy. We're at historically high levels of owner occupation. If you remove funding for house purchases you just favour those with cash, obviously, and return to historical trends. Again, it's lending restrictions excluding first time buyers, not prices specifically.



http://localhousingwatch.org.uk/local_authority_detailed.php?la=215

Average house price £228,250 average wage £18,867 sorry but prices are the problem in many areas...

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

I'm not "jerking off" in the least,

Worn yourself out?

julieq

Oh grow up Graham. And Leveller, post 538 was a dig at the silverbugs.

What was the question? What have the Wilsons done to benefit the country? It's an irrelevant question, the question is what harm they've done if anything, and that is very little. They just took advantage of an opportunity that existed for other reasons - we build fewer houses than we need. You'll always get parasites of one description or another if you create the conditions where they thrive. The evidence is that these sorts of activities have had only a very marginal effect on the housing market. And yes, I know that's not what bears believe, but it happens to be the truth.

And before you gather the red flag too closely around you, what is the use exactly of selling a house at cost to someone with a restrictive covenent on onward sale? That's just creating a ghetto of low cost homeowners. Dervs idea of a loan to build was extremely elegant, could have restricted use for rental or second home, but it does depend on selling at market prices not at some idea of what is right and proper.

There is nothing wrong with 100% or even 120% lending incidentally. It's a secured loan plus a low interest rate unsecured loan, and there is no evidence whatsover that these loans are not being repaid. It's up to lenders to assess and price risk, not people with some sort of moral or political agenda around housing.

We've been here millions of times on average wages. Firstly average wage does not mean you should be able to buy an average house. Secondly most people buy on joint incomes which raises the amounts. Thirdly where supply is constrained, the important average is the average of those able to buy which gets shifted up as people are excluded (currently about a third of adults, and increasing because of mortage rationing).

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

Many councils and the government still have massive land banks so it can be done and don't forget the Construction companies currently are only obliged to build 30% of their total builds as low cost houses and many build fewer than that.They should be forced as a condition of planning permission to build at least 50%....

Actually doing this is the hardest part. Recently 300 new homes which are desperately needed about 15 miles from myself has been axed.

The outrage from the existing locals was immence. As was the outrage of several councilors, several which are known to operate multi property BTLs in the area.

In another development, a big argument is currently happening over converting holiday flats to all year round tenancies, with several of the investors demanding £30,000 compensation for each flat they own as they believe it will reduce values.

Also now been axed.

Thats 320 homes axed within my very local area already, since the begining of this year, all based on people who own and people who live there not wanting them. Don't even get me started on the councilors. Some of it I would class as outright abuse of their positions.

leveller2911

julieq wrote: »

Oh grow up Graham. And Leveller, post 538 was a dig at the silverbugs.

What was the question? What have the Wilsons done to benefit the country? It's an irrelevant question, the question is what harm they've done if anything, and that is very little. They just took advantage of an opportunity that existed for other reasons - we build fewer houses than we need. You'll always get parasites of one description or another if you create the conditions where they thrive. The evidence is that these sorts of activities have had only a very marginal effect on the housing market. And yes, I know that's not what bears believe, but it happens to be the truth.


The question is irrelevant to you but not irrelevant to the vast majority of the public.Its easy and flippant to push a question aside because you don't have an answer and your reply is no answer.

And before you gather the red flag too closely around you, what is the use exactly of selling a house at cost to someone with a restrictive covenent on onward sale? That's just creating a ghetto of low cost homeowners. Dervs idea of a loan to build was extremely elegant, could have restricted use for rental or second home, but it does depend on selling at market prices not at some idea of what is right and proper.

Ah well you see I'm no commie, or lefty Ive been self employed for over 25 years, not a lefty thing running your own business.Where you and I differ is I see the bigger picture, not blinkered by what or how I can make money from property.I believe people should be able to buy a "Home" and not an investment.

"CREATING A GHETTO OF LOW COST HOMEOWNER" wow thats about as far from reality as you could get.If people own their little piece of England,Wales,Scotland or Northern Ireland they would have a vested interest in their community.They can stamp their personality/Character on their homes and have pride.



We've been here millions of times on average wages. Firstly average wage does not mean you should be able to buy an average house. Secondly most people buy on joint incomes which raises the amounts. Thirdly where supply is constrained, the important average is the average of those able to buy which gets shifted up as people are excluded (currently about a third of adults, and increasing because of mortage rationing).

You will always have people who can't afford to buy and there is no solution to that problem so rental market is here to stay in some form.However I think you underestimate the Social impact of the HPI problem.Most people do buy on joint incomes and that IMO is one of the major faults, many can't then afford to start a family let alone bring one up.They are forced to put their kids in childcare from the age of 2 yrs , becaue they need to work to pay the mortgage...Why shouldn't the average wage enable you to be able to afford to buy a home? Wheres the ceiling Julie? how far does it go before people on over £150k a year are excluded from buying or rents so high people literally can't afford to put food on the table.

!!!!!! woman look at the bigger picture for once and open your eyes....The end game is when Society is so devided between those haves and have nots not gated housing development will keep safe and happy in their own little worlds..


You can pluck "evidence" from the ether of the internet as much as you like but my advice is travel around a bit and have a real look at whats going on, scratch under the surface and you may change your mind.

Turnbull2000

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Actually doing this is the hardest part. Recently 300 new homes which are desperately needed about 15 miles from myself has been axed.

The outrage from the existing locals was immence. As was the outrage of several councilors, several which are known to operate multi property BTLs in the area.

In another development, a big argument is currently happening over converting holiday flats to all year round tenancies, with several of the investors demanding £30,000 compensation for each flat they own as they believe it will reduce values.

Also now been axed.

Thats 320 homes axed within my very local area already, since the begining of this year, all based on people who own and people who live there not wanting them. Don't even get me started on the councilors. Some of it I would class as outright abuse of their positions.

So what does that tell you?

It should be evident to you by now that house building will not meet demand for many, many years, if ever. With BTL set to go from strength to strength, rates set to remain ultra low and house prices likely to rise rapidly once loose lending returns (which it will), it's up to you to deal with these circumstances regardless of how much you hate them. Whether it be a BTL of your own, shared-ownership, 5x income mortgage or private rental, it's in your hands.

Turnbull2000

leveller2911 wrote: »

You will always have people who can't afford to buy and there is no solution to that problem so rental market is here to stay in some form.However I think you underestimate the Social impact of the HPI problem.Most people do buy on joint incomes and that IMO is one of the major faults, many can't then afford to start a family let alone bring one up.They are forced to put their kids in childcare from the age of 2 yrs , becaue they need to work to pay the mortgage...Why shouldn't the average wage enable you to be able to afford to buy a home? Wheres the ceiling Julie? how far does it go before people on over £150k a year are excluded from buying or rents so high people literally can't afford to put food on the table.

!!!!!! woman look at the bigger picture for once and open your eyes....The end game is when Society is so devided between those haves and have nots not gated housing development will keep safe and happy in their own little worlds..


You can pluck "evidence" from the ether of the internet as much as you like but my advice is travel around a bit and have a real look at whats going on, scratch under the surface and you may change your mind.

That's just idealism. Completely detached from reality. If those in power cared for your concerns, we wouldn't be where we are now. As it is, the government, politicians, banks, lenders, builders, or anyone else that matters don't give a sh*t. Sulking about it will get you nowhere. You have to take action to mitigate the effects on you, whether it be shared-ownership, BTL, emmigration etc.

julieq

I largely agree with that, the key is to build more of the right sort of houses, not 4 bed executive homes which are more profitable. That's the whole point really, something does need to be done to increase building, which ultimately means that planning has to be made easier not harder. That's where this government has really screwed things up with a nimby charter.

Ire directed at BTL investors, good ones and parasites, won't achieve much, and neither will hoping prices will magically drop by large amounts, because they won't. Campaigning for more building of decent entry level housing is the right thing to be doing. I think there's something approaching a consensus on this forming here over recent weeks, which is encouraging.

Graham_Devon

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

So what does that tell you?

It tells me we have vested interests making major decisions.

It tells me that, far from the solution being banded around as "more homes", it's not a solution that is actually going to be put into fruition on any large scale, therefore it's not actually a viable solution.

That tells me we remain with the problem.

Theres plenty that can be done to ease problems. I've listed them all before, and they do not include building more houses, rather regulating the existing stock. However, whenever this is bought up, it's back to "the only solution is to build more" and were back to square one. Those who trot out this line over and over again do not wish to see any form of any other solutions imposed.

You can go on and on about BTL being the future, but one single capital gains tax imposed (or similar) would see investors moving elsewhere. It's so stupidly simple. I don't disagree it's unlikely to happen. But it's only as unlikely as building more homes. Yet people bang on and on as if there is no other workable solution to ease problems. Theres only one reason so many have invested in housing....and that simple reason is the profitability. People will invest in anything if there are large profits to be had. Housing was an area of high profit for all the wrong reasons.

julieq

Leveller, stop preaching. There is no god given right for anyone to own a home, and in much of the world people are far worse off in terms of accomodation than we are here. We are paid wages essentially as a function of our value in global economic terms, and to be brutally honest we've become lazy and flabby in those terms. We still have a pretty good life.

I have children and I'd like them to be able to make their way in life. But the answer to undersupply of housing is to build more, end of. I'm essentially agreeing with you on that. I disagree very strongly on the idea that BTL investors should be scapegoated for housing shortages when their effect was marginal only. That's the logic of a lynch mob.

But you are not guaranteed the same outcomes as your parents or grandparents (most of whom lived at a time when there was very little owner occupation). It's really just wishful thinking to expect that. Things change, and we are in competition with the rest of the world for a quality of life that was in the past very largely derived from the money we made exploiting them. There's more than one direction in which there is a moral aspect to economics.