Schrödinger's BTL

macaque_2

How is it that millions of BTLs are neither solvent nor insolvent?
The answer lies with Gordon Brown's new strategy. It is called 'Schrödinger's BTL'. As long as the box remains closed, no one knows whether BTL's finances are alive or dead. How does Gordon keep the lid on the box? By reducing interest rates to the lowest level since 1694 (and don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that this was an independant decision by the MPC)

CLAPTON

BTLs can't be solvent or insolvent.
People who can't pay their bills are potentially insolvent; those that can are solvent.

Really2

macaque wrote: »

How does Gordon keep the lid on the box? By reducing interest rates to the lowest level since 1694 (and don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that this was an independant decision by the MPC)

I presume every western goverment also as a massive BTL problem.

Nearly every western IR is very near 0%

I thin IR is more a show of the economical conditions and not to rescue BTLers.:rolleyes:

King_Of_Bling

macaque wrote: »

How is it that millions of BTLs are neither solvent nor insolvent?
The answer lies with Gordon Brown's new strategy. It is called 'Schrödinger's BTL'. As long as the box remains closed, no one knows whether BTL's finances are alive or dead. How does Gordon keep the lid on the box? By reducing interest rates to the lowest level since 1694 (and don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that this was an independant decision by the MPC)

They reduced interest rates to save BTL? This is a little improbable :rolleyes:

Thrugelmir

macaque wrote: »

How is it that millions of BTLs are neither solvent nor insolvent?
The answer lies with Gordon Brown's new strategy. It is called 'Schrödinger's BTL'. As long as the box remains closed, no one knows whether BTL's finances are alive or dead. How does Gordon keep the lid on the box? By reducing interest rates to the lowest level since 1694 (and don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that this was an independant decision by the MPC)

There are probably more ordinary borrowers benefitiing from lower rates than BTLs if the figures for negative equity are to be believed. So GB's strategy has more to do with the politics of the ballot box. Rather than a return to boom with no bust.

Rick62

King_Of_Bling wrote: »

They reduced interest rates to save BTL? This is a little improbable :rolleyes:

Why? Surely the main reason to reduce rates is to bail out those that have borrowed too much money.

That would be homeowners with made up salaries, the major banks, overgeared companies and BTL investors.

tr3mor

This is the best example of quantum theory I've ever seen. For anyone who doesn't get it look up Shrödinger's Cat.

Now all we need is some way of measuring house prices without influencing them.

:rotfl:

scousethife

2 swans have turned up, the geeses are scared of them but the ducks arnt

maninthestreet

tr3mor wrote: »

This is the best example of quantum theory I've ever seen. For anyone who doesn't get it look up Shrödinger's Cat.

Now all we need is some way of measuring house prices without influencing them.

:rotfl:

The economy is currently showing all the signs of both the Catastrophe and Chaos Theories, and is heading towards a singularity.

gordano_2

An interesting comparison, and some contrasting views here. Whilst some may look at BTL landlords as money grabbing, overfed financially well off, etc. Many are not, they simply chose to put what savings they did have into a BTL property rather than risk it in a pension fund - many of these people are also walking the financial tight rope. So why not look after them too?

Secondly we have a big problem in the UK, we have created one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. Which is great when things go well, but terrible in situations like today. Quite simply many have mortgages they cannot afford, simply because they kept on borrowing from their property - effectively using it as a savings account that increased in value. The problem is now plain for all to see, as house prices fall those "savings accounts" have gone into the red with no way of paying back.

My point here is that some people (only some) are not sufficiently responsible with their finances to have a mortgage, and just maybe it is better for them to rent a property instead. Could it be time for the government to increased BTL regulation and support so that renting becomes an equally preferable option to owning your own home?

Maybe home ownership should have a wealth warning, in much the same way as cigarettes carry a health warning .... home ownership can seriously damage your wealth

silvercar

My point here is that some people (only some) are not sufficiently responsible with their finances to have a mortgage, and just maybe it is better for them to rent a property instead. Could it be time for the government to increased BTL regulation and support so that renting becomes an equally preferable option to owning your own home?

The problem here is that most people want to live their retirement intheir own home without paying rent or a mortgage. The only way they can do that is if they buy their own home.