"Buy to let is a wonderfull thing" Landlord on BBC

brit1234

jamescredmond wrote: »

btw: I have no issues with brit's transgender worries.

. . :eek:

fellakel

Hi just read the thread and felt compelled to post an opinion.

I am a BTL Landlord - only with a few houses (not enough to take me out of working 50-60 hr weeks!), nothing special. I think if you are prepared for the long term, then no harm. I look at mine as a pension policy (as these arent guaranteed either!) and would bet a large sum of money that some time over the next 15-20 years, a tidy profit would be made. I would go as far to say that even if you did buy now while the market is falling, yes you would make an initial loss, but in 15-20 years time (imho) you would make a reasonable return.
I think some forums tend to look at btl landlords as leeches forcing the price of property up, but I would say by amd large there are more of us simply looking for some way (any way) of guaranteeing a comfortable retirement.

Off my soap box now

ta

carolt

fellakel wrote: »

I think some forums tend to look at btl landlords as leeches forcing the price of property up,

..... Yup.

Heyman_2

brit1234 wrote: »

I just don't like the way buy to let has priced first time buyers out of the market by targeting first time buyer homes. Its unfair competition, simple as.

I have nothing against people doing up properties, my issue is properties that don't need doing up being bought on mass.

Back to the video, he says he is in it for the long run because he can't sell as prices have come down to much and he has no choice to go on.

Blame the banks for bringing BTL to the masses through specific mortgage deals and irresponsible lending.

As mewbie stated earlier there are over 1 million BTL landlords in the UK now, as against around 30,000 in 1990!!!!

beingjdc

fellakel wrote: »

I would go as far to say that even if you did buy now while the market is falling, yes you would make an initial loss, but in 15-20 years time (imho) you would make a reasonable return.

But that's true of any asset at all, really. It's just inflation.

Why houses?

mjdh1957

beingjdc wrote: »

But that's true of any asset at all, really. It's just inflation.

Why houses?

I tend to agree, why houses and being a landlord?

The stock market is going through a bad patch right now, but buying and selling shares is cheaper, the assets are more liquid and returns over longer periods are not that dissimilar to property. Also, shares don't require expensive maintenance, nor do you pay ongoing agents' fees. And shares tend not to phone you at midnight to tell you that the boiler has broken down.... Why would 'being a landlord' be seen as getting money for nothing? It's (probably) hard work being a good one, and if you're a bad one your asset will depreciate faster. Not to mention voids, tenants from hell and rent arrears.

I just don't understand the attraction for 'ordinary' investors as opposed to professional landlords.

dopester

beingjdc wrote: »

and now thousands trying to panic-sell at the steepest point of a slump.

The guy said he couldn't sell... but acknowledged that everything would sell at the right price, but unwilling to slash prices to get out with some gains.

10 properties in 8 years. A bubble or mortgage credit so massive its initial has taken down banks, put others on life support, and increasingly squeezing businesses.

That guy is probably doomed because the crash has only just started. For all of his BTL doing up regeneration areas, he should come to terms with big unemployment on the way, pay-cuts and benefits being slashed. Repayment shocks and a few voids should put him in his place.

Those place probably only needed regenerating anyway because they were traditionally poor and where gets hit hardest first in previous economic downturns / stagnant economic conditions - so back to that cycle.

beingjdc

mjdh1957 wrote: »

I tend to agree, why houses and being a landlord?

The stock market is going through a bad patch right now, but buying and selling shares is cheaper, the assets are more liquid and returns over longer periods are not that dissimilar to property. Also, shares don't require expensive maintenance, nor do you pay ongoing agents' fees. And shares tend not to phone you at midnight to tell you that the boiler has broken down.... Why would 'being a landlord' be seen as getting money for nothing? It's (probably) hard work being a good one, and if you're a bad one your asset will depreciate faster. Not to mention voids, tenants from hell and rent arrears.

I just don't understand the attraction for 'ordinary' investors as opposed to professional landlords.

I can only assume the explanation is that it is easier to buy houses with borrowed money than shares, and buying a house gets you a tax break on the yield in a way shares don't.

stevetodd

brit1234 wrote: »

Hi, here is an interesting video of a buy to let landlord calling Buy to Let a wonderfull thing.


:exclamati However beware the clich! remark "It doesn't matter we are in it for the long run":exclamati


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7662750.stm

Enjoy.

There is no 'wonderful thing' that magically makes idiots into good businessmen (or women), people with good business skills and are willing to work hard and put the effort in will succeed in whatever they choose to do (eventually) and idiots will tend to fail in what they do (although I will conceed an idiot could possibly do well in housing if he enters at the right time, but then he/she is probably prone to being unaware of timing being key to his success and over expand at the wrong time later)

Max_Headroom_3

mjdh1957 wrote: »

I tend to agree, why houses and being a landlord?

The stock market is going through a bad patch right now, but buying and selling shares is cheaper, the assets are more liquid and returns over longer periods are not that dissimilar to property. Also, shares don't require expensive maintenance, nor do you pay ongoing agents' fees. And shares tend not to phone you at midnight to tell you that the boiler has broken down.... Why would 'being a landlord' be seen as getting money for nothing? It's (probably) hard work being a good one, and if you're a bad one your asset will depreciate faster. Not to mention voids, tenants from hell and rent arrears.

I just don't understand the attraction for 'ordinary' investors as opposed to professional landlords.

Simply because you can't rent your shares out and expect the income to cover the loan, as you once could with property.

Of course recently you couldn't, and people bought looking historically at rising house prices and thinking that these would continue so were in it for capital growth alone. These people were stupid (as has now been proved).

But BTL done properly is a good (and necessary) business for many reasons.