How buy-to-let turned into a mug’s game

manchestermike_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

From what you said, it sounded like you were trying to keep hold of the other one.

Had that been the case, you would have had low esteem as you have been harming yourself (in other words your own welfare would have been unimportant.) I hope that explains the joke.

But please do not give me any of that "helping your own and !!!!!! the rest" nonsense, you could justify anything with that argument.

That's what is important to most people. Come on, can anyone on here say that if given the opportunity to have been able to invest in property 5/6 or however many years ago that they wouldn't have done at the time?


Not trying to keep hold of the other no, just not overly worried if it doesn't sell. Of course would be great if it does as I've got money in it which I can then put towards my new mortgage, holidays, artwork etc...

Riq

brit1234 wrote: »

"One monitor, two monitor, three monitor, four monitor, ha ha ha"

Sesame Street guide to counting

That is so strange, I only saw the three to the right and not the fourth. Seems so obvious now :eek:

brit1234

Riq wrote: »

That is so strange, I only saw the three to the right and not the fourth. Seems so obvious now :eek:

Let go for something harder.

See if you can spot Waldo/Wally in this one, there is also a successfull buy to let landlord (but one of those is far harder to find in the current climate).

dopester

manchestermike wrote: »

My point was why revel in the misfortune of others

The freaks have 900 houses. They've continued buying property all the way from the low point of the last crash, right to the peak of 2007.

They could have been ultra secure and multi-millionaires if they'd not over-leveraged their position. What was their end goal?

Why why why would any couple want 900 houses? Even approaching retirement.. what you going to gain from it, even if you could later sell? They say they are frugal but like their horses.

Panorama is about to start.. and it is supposed to be all house/credit-crunch based.

manchestermike_2

dopester wrote: »

Panorama is about to start.. and it is supposed to be all house/credit-crunch based.

True... but Hugh FW is on 4 :cool:

mewbie_2

manchestermike wrote: »

My point was why revel in the misfortune of others

Because it's funny, it makes your own troubles seem less, it's even got a word for it schadenfreude...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

It's the man slipping on a banana peel, to a neighbour with their nose always in the air coming unstuck, through to BTL 'millionaires' who priced out FTB's and are now going to crash and burn.

It's only a very short time since the BTL 'empire' holders were laughing at the priced out renters, oh how the tables have turned now.

Yep - I'm laughing all the way to the [STRIKE]bank[/STRIKE] er mattress.

stevetodd

dopester wrote: »

The freaks have 900 houses. They've continued buying property all the way from the low point of the last crash, right to the peak of 2007.

They could have been ultra secure and multi-millionaires if they'd not over-leveraged their position. What was their end goal?

Why why why would any couple want 900 houses? Even approaching retirement.. what you going to gain from it, even if you could later sell? They say they are frugal but like their horses.

Panorama is about to start.. and it is supposed to be all house/credit-crunch based.

I totally agree in fact earlier I started to write an almost identical thread, but deleted it (didn't want people to think I was taking any joy in their problems. But you said it all, they origianlly bought quite early I believe so probably had 50-100 houses bought at a time when they would really be set up for life (even 50 seems greedy to me) why on earth did they risk it all buying right up until 2007---total madness must be obsession I think.

But the worst part for me is that despite all that wealth (at the time) they abused their position of strength and screwed every penny out of their tenants, that for me is unforgivable. Unfortunately for them they might be standing next to a few of their tenants signing on for benefits (no offence to tenants or people who have to sign on, please read it in context)

neverdespairgirl

manchestermike wrote: »

Come on, can anyone on here say that if given the opportunity to have been able to invest in property 5/6 or however many years ago that they wouldn't have done at the time? .

Every so often people come on this board and say this. It amazes me. I have no desire whatsoever to be a property investor. None. Nada.

dopester

mystic_trev wrote: »

Full article

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/business/2299751/the-unravelling-of-the-great-buytolet-scam.thtml

Thanks for that... a good read.

Buy-to-let — or B2L as it was once fashionably known — has the potential to become one of the biggest investment scandals of all time, putting timeshares and tulip bulbs in the shade. Huge numbers of people are involved: this time last year the Council of Mortgage Lenders knew of 920,000 outstanding buy-to-let mortgages.

And yet BTL-ers still can't see it. Worse than the tulip-bulb bubble lol.

Even more, all the people who have happily accepted 300% rises in 11 years as some kind of normal growth, despite it being fuelled by cheap credit/debt, and property speculation in the wider market, can't see it how vastly over-priced property is.

They will do if they've tapped their property for magical equity release to buy cars, holidays, lifestyle improvements, second homes - as property prices really begin to crash this next 12 to 24 months.

wisbech_lad

SteveTodd,

Thanks for that. My father was a bookie's runner as a teenager, even now in his 70's his mental maths is amazingly fast! He enjoyed the whole "game" of laying off bets, keeping the book etc., and then helped supplement his money as a student, and for a couple of years after by being a semi-pro gambler (mostly bridge and poker) in London clubs.

His favourite "coup" was holes-in-ones at major tournaments. He worked out the odds of them happening (based on # of par 3's, number of players, # of rounds) and found that bookies of the time (late 50's early 60's) badly underestimated - and would quote odds that were multiples of the true probability of a hole in one happening. So he would spread around small bets (so as not to spook the bookies) every tournament. Not big money, but he still is proud of spotting such a mispricing!

One thing that spectator article fails to mention. Gearing. 30,000 quid of B&B shares now worth zero. 30,000 quid in a BTL flat, assuming drop of 50% and 15% deposit, now worth -70,000 quid.

Shares are "limited liability".