200,000 buy-to-let investors lose up to 90% of their cash

Dithering_Dad

dopester wrote: »

People who don't own property are happier renting now than they've ever been before. You landlords are doing us all a great service as we watch the market utterly collapse.

You've enjoyed your rents and your staggering capital gains on your portfolios fuelled by what has proved to be artificially cheap money in vast quantities - and now you have to take everything that is coming to you.

Thank you oh gracious landlords.

erm... I'm not a landlord, I rent an apartment in London and I'm glad to do it.

Why do people on this board stomp so heavily before finding out the facts first?

dopester

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

erm... I'm not a landlord, I rent an apartment in London and I'm glad to do it.

Why do people on this board stomp so heavily before finding out the facts first?

The point I made was in reference to you defending the private rental market, and not in anyway against whatever your own personal circumstances are.

Yes there should be a private rental market and there CERTAINLY HAS BEEN ONE.

No one has denied people that opportunity to become landlords, providing they had the funds and finance in place to do so... which thanks to easy cheap unlimited money and MEW, most could get finance.

Just don't play me the violin for all the landlords who've overstretched themselves as the market crashes.

WTF?_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Are you saying that there should not be a private rental market and that people should be forced to either buy a home or rent from the council?

No - what gave you that idea?

Not everyone wants to own a home and are perfectly happy renting. Would you deny them the choice to rent?

No - what gave you that idea?

Dithering_Dad

dopester wrote: »

The point I made was in reference to you defending the private rental market, and not in anyway against whatever your own personal circumstances are.

Yes there should be a private rental market and there CERTAINLY HAS BEEN ONE.

No one has denied people that opportunity to become landlords, providing they had the funds and finance in place to do so... which thanks to easy cheap unlimited money and MEW, most could get finance.

Just don't play me the violin for all the landlords who've overstretched themselves as the market crashes.

Sorry, it what the "You" word in your reply to my post that made me think you were having a go at me personally. I sometimes use the word "you" when I reply, meaning "people" so I assume this is what you meant here?

"You landlords are doing us all a great service as we watch the market utterly collapse.

You've enjoyed your rents and your staggering capital gains on your portfolios fuelled by what has proved to be artificially cheap money in vast quantities - and now you have to take everything that is coming to you."

I wasn't playing you a violin for landlords, I was commenting that not everyone wants to buy and are happy to rent (mainly due to the freedom of movement this allows). I don't wish to be confrontational, but did you actually read my post before you replied?

Dithering_Dad

!!!!!!? wrote: »

No - what gave you that idea?



No - what gave you that idea?

The comment of yours (that I quoted in my reply) gave me that idea. Please re-read your words and my response and if you still don't understand then let me know and I'll elaborate.

WTF?_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

The comment of yours (that I quoted in my reply) gave me that idea. Please re-read your words and my response and if you still don't understand then let me know and I'll elaborate.

There's a wonderful thing called context.

The context surrounding my reply to the post should have told you that I was referring to the BTL boom of the last decade whereby purchase of residential property for the purpose of rental (as opposed to general forms of investment of the cash) became a widespread practice, not decrying all ownership of property for the purposes of rental.

WTF?_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I don't wish to be confrontational

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

<can't breathe, sides aching>

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Dithering_Dad

!!!!!!? wrote: »

There's a wonderful thing called context.

The context surrounding my reply to the post should have told you that I was referring to the BTL boom of the last decade whereby purchase of residential property for the purpose of rental (as opposed to general forms of investment of the cash) became a widespread practice, not decrying all ownership of property for the purposes of rental.

So you're ok with landlords who pre-date the BTL boom of the last 10 years, just not those who bought a house for letting purposes in the years 1998 to 2008?

It doesn't seem to make sense.

Romani_Ite_Domum

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

It doesn't seem to make sense.

Then you will have to think harder.

dopester

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I don't wish to be confrontational, but did you actually read my post before you replied?

Yes DD of course I read and understood it. We all now are fully aware of your own personal circumstance of renting and not being a landlord. I'll edit and replace the "You" and variants of it to "landlords" if that makes you happy.

Let it go, as it was just a sweeping attack on all those who reckon they're pro landlords on the back of years of easy cheap money flooding they system and pushing up prices.

You defend the right of landlords to do what they do, which is fine. After a decade and more of year-on-year rises, explosive capital rises, I just won't be crying for those landlords who fall. The reversal is here and many a landlord who were cushy until recently are going to get the taste of how its been for those who've been priced out of the market for years.