Poor old Wilsons

Graham_Devon

Alan_M wrote: »

So what you're saying here, in a round about way is the Wilsons are single handedly responsible for HPi in an entire region of the South East.

What would have happened if they had not chosen to buy these properties? How different would you expect pricing to have been?

Or would you have expected someone (or lots of smaller investors) to have stepped in and filled their boots instead?

No, what I was saying there, is exactly what I said.

If I was trying to state what you were telling me I was trying to state, I would have just stated it.

penguine

Alan_M wrote: »

Had the Wilsons not chosen their particular course of action what would have been the effect of the housing market in the area in question?

I personally don't believe for one moment it would have changed a thing.

Not a single thing?

Surely it would have changed something. It's impossible to say exactly what, but the effects of one couple buying 900 properties in one area has to be different from the effects of those 900 properties going to other landlords or owner occupiers.

Alan_M_2

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I don't like this argument that gets bandied about that anyone who criticises people like the Wilsons is jealous or resentful of their success.

Just because they are rich (maybe, anyway), doesn't mean they're not ars**les. It is possible to fall into both categories!

Now this I agree with, however trying to suggest these people are responsible for the HPI of an entire town/area is simply nonsense of the highest order.

They may be nice people, they may be two of the most unpleasant people you've had the misfortune to meet.....but until you've met them and formed that opinion
for yourself your dislike , hate or whatever is based on nothing more than other peoples view on what they've read/seen/known.....

I still struggle to understand the anger and hate directed towards the Kirtsy's, Phils, Wilsons, Turner's and Bovey's of this world.....

Alan_M_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, what I was saying there, is exactly what I said.

If I was trying to state what you were telling me I was trying to state, I would have just stated it.

Bottom line is they didn't wipe out that particular market as was stated by another poster further back in the thread, development in that area was so extensive their purchases were a drop in the ocean.

Alan_M_2

penguine wrote: »

Not a single thing?

Surely it would have changed something. It's impossible to say exactly what, but the effects of one couple buying 900 properties in one area has to be different from the effects of those 900 properties going to other landlords or owner occupiers.

Change what? It might be that the change was the builders were financed by these bulk purchases to such an extent it enabled them to finance the construction of a further 1000 homes that may not previously have been possible do to tighter cash flow......

The problem with that suggestion is it doesn't fall into line with the hate filled arguments that people want...but its as viable as any other possibility.

torontoboy45

Alan_M wrote: »

Now this I agree with, however trying to suggest these people are responsible for the HPI of an entire town/area is simply nonsense of the highest order.

They may be nice people, they may be two of the most unpleasant people you've had the misfortune to meet.....but until you've met them and formed that opinion
for yourself your dislike , hate or whatever is based on nothing more than other peoples view on what they've read/seen/known.....

I still struggle to understand the anger and hate directed towards the Kirtsy's, Phils, Wilsons, Turner's and Bovey's of this world.....

I have no problem in understanding why this little band of egomaniacs are villified.
they come across as nasty personality disorders - 'me.me.me and stuff everyone else' types.
I don't need to actually meet them to form an opinion - they image they project of themselves suffices.
I don't object to anyone chasing wealth and fame - it's just the way some of them choose to go about it that really hacks me off.

here's my wishlist:

that anthea fades into obscurity,

krusty and phil are declared bankrupt and wind up selling the big issue on street corners,

bovey's latest little 'venture' fails badly,

debtor's prisons re-open to welcome the wilsons and their like.

let's hope so.

Alan_M_2

Hmm, maybe you could also organise public stoning.....There could be a market there for me importing the stones.....

But no one stones anyone until I blow the Whistle!

JayScottGreenspan

Alan_M wrote: »

That's exactly what I do, I buy in stone at wholesale prices in bulk and I sell at wholesale prices to whoever wants to buy it.....I don't differentiate between trade, retail or whoever...I differentiate purely on quantity, the more you buy the cheaper it becomes.

That is after all the ethos of the very site we're posting on....

Do you have a problem with this ethos?

If we're comparing this to the bizarre food (Bread) analogy earlier in this thread, then what I'm actually doing is going to the people who supply Tesco their bread, I buy from them directly then set up stall close by Tesco and under cut them.....

So again we arrive at the same questions, Had the Wilsons not chosen their particular course of action what would have been the effect of the housing market in the area in question?

I personally don't believe for one moment it would have changed a thing.

Not all businesses are the same.

In most markets the 'invisible hand' operates to maintain equilibrium, punish detrimental investments and reward good investments.

The housing market is completely different and completely inefficient. When prices go up, credit goes up and demand goes up. You get vicious feedback loops of growth and decline. The collateral damage caused by these cycles is immense.

A similar thing almost happened with food. Speculators bid up grain prices, more speculators hopped on the band wagon and there was the prospect of poor people starving. The speculators could easily be described as evil, by most reasonable definitions of the word.

I wouldn't go that far with the Wilsons. I would just say they allocated investment poorly (shame on the govt for letting it get out of control) and should be punished by the market.

I presume the market you operate in is, by contrast, pretty efficient.

Edale

penguine wrote: »

Not a single thing?

Surely it would have changed something. It's impossible to say exactly what, but the effects of one couple buying 900 properties in one area has to be different from the effects of those 900 properties going to other landlords or owner occupiers.

One thing they did that changed things was be so public about their success, this made others emulate them. So yes 900 properties may not have had that much impact on the local market but their influence on the market nationally (and similar 'property only goes up' types) did go some way to shape the debt fuelled bubble that was created.

Edale

Alan

I think there is a clear difference in the value your sort of business adds to a society and what the Wilsons have done. Your motives are very clear in that you want to make money from buying goods in bulk using your contacts, knowledge of the market and resources. You then sell your goods to customers at a lower price than others due to your business model, everyone wins.

The Wilsons have chosen to make money from leveraging a scarce resource in the belief that the only cycle that exists in that market was that prices doubled every 7 years. In doing so they, others like them and the banks have helped make house prices treble in 10 years. Many who would like to buy have had no option but to rent, fuelling their business. It is nothing more than a gamble that prices would keep going up. Their business was really just about making money at others expense.