10 yrs on will u be envious of all those 'muppets' that got into B2L now?

bluey890

chucky wrote: »

there are plenty like him with no business plan and just saw pound signs - they mug punters.

i've gone in twice in the last 10 months - because the price was low and the yield from that was high. i'm in no way over-leveraged and void periods are not a problem if you price sensibly. i've had max 8 days void in the last year across all of my properties thats including from completion date.

have a look at this post from April for an indication of what i say buying at a good price.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=20418331&postcount=29

So what you're saying is there's an area of the economy making lots of money, for HMRC to increase tax on.
First step they'll put you all on a national registry scheme...what, they're already introducing one?

I am sure they would tax them more heavily, that is if MPs didn't own plenty of them.

chucky

bluey890 wrote: »

So what you're saying is there's an area of the economy making lots of money, for HMRC to increase tax on.
First step they'll put you all on a national registry scheme...what, they're already introducing one?

I am sure they would tax them more heavily, that is if MPs didn't own plenty of them.

you're probably right - but when i say tax efficient it's all above board.

there are plenty out there that don't declare their earnings especially with accidental landlords.

mewbie_2

StevieJ wrote: »

Can't get my head around those guys, I just don't understand why the banks lent the money. Is it not possible that a lot of properties would not have been built (those flats) if there was no BTL

Thank you StevieJ. The new build high rise flats, I would argue, were built specifically for BTL, valued for BTL mortgages, lent by BTL lending specialist and promoted by the likes of InsideTrack. A scam, a fraud. But the banks wanted to lend, the 'investors' wanted to borrow and the builders wanted to build. I would suggest that a lot of these creations were in the same league as m a f i a contracts in Italy for bridges, etc.

Now they are virtually worthless. I honestly don't see a bottom for a flat in a largely unoccupied, ex BTL, inner city, tower. Only hope is for councils to take them over, compulsory purchase orders, and house the homeless.

I hope I am not a raving bonkers bear. I actually think this is a fairly balanced and reasonable point of view.

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

Thank you StevieJ. The new build high rise flats, I would argue, were built specifically for BTL, valued for BTL mortgages, lent by BTL lending specialist and promoted by the likes of InsideTrack. A scam, a fraud. But the banks wanted to lend, the 'investors' wanted to borrow and the builders wanted to build. I would suggest that a lot of these creations were in the same league as m a f i a contracts in Italy for bridges, etc.

Now they are virtually worthless. I honestly don't see a bottom for a flat in a largely unoccupied, ex BTL, inner city, tower. Only hope is for councils to take them over, compulsory purchase orders, and house the homeless.

I hope I am not a raving bonkers bear. I actually think this is a fairly balanced and reasonable point of view.

you are right and not the best place to invest hard earned cash.

Pobby

However I do wonder how many mug punters are around. My guess is loads of them, my reference to the 6 places that are currently up for rent in the South East. In fact I am also a mug punter, believing that our pensions and savings would be more than adequate for retirement. Just look at how they are performing. 18 months ago all in, including the state stipend I was looking forward to £600 per week income in the next few years when I come to retire, and that would be subject to very little tax. Considering our, by choice, fairly frugal existence, a very comfortable sum. Have to admit I do like a beer or 15 but on a serious note, that has to now be reviewed. I am receiving almost zilch in savings, equity investments like our pensions are pretty shocking and my profits from my agency business are highly down.

Gorgeous_George

Pobby wrote: »

Sorry GG, seriously not having a go but I don`t understand what you mean.

Hi Pobby

Savers deposit money into a bank or building society. The bank or building society lends that money to people like BTLers and residential mortgage holders. Currently, they are doing this at around 5% for BTL and 4% for residential. Banks and building societies then pay their depositers a premium of 1%-2% in interest.

Without the borrowers, there would be no premium to pay.

[meercat]Simples.[/meercat]

GG

StevieJ

mewbie wrote: »

Thank you StevieJ. The new build high rise flats, I would argue, were built specifically for BTL, valued for BTL mortgages, lent by BTL lending specialist and promoted by the likes of InsideTrack. A scam, a fraud. But the banks wanted to lend, the 'investors' wanted to borrow and the builders wanted to build. I would suggest that a lot of these creations were in the same league as m a f i a contracts in Italy for bridges, etc.

Now they are virtually worthless. I honestly don't see a bottom for a flat in a largely unoccupied, ex BTL, inner city, tower. Only hope is for councils to take them over, compulsory purchase orders, and house the homeless.

I hope I am not a raving bonkers bear. I actually think this is a fairly balanced and reasonable point of view.

The point is the housing stock was probably increased by BTL (ignoring profitability for Landlords). A number of bears on here suggest that there is no shortage of housing, I would suggest that a lot of people are probably living in sub - optimal conditions e.g with parents.

chucky

Pobby wrote: »

However I do wonder how many mug punters are around. My guess is loads of them, my reference to the 6 places that are currently up for rent in the South East. In fact I am also a mug punter, believing that our pensions and savings would be more than adequate for retirement.

there are probably a few of them

that's exactly the same reason i got into BTL to diversify my future retirement.

BTL gives you a monthly cash flow (rental income). other investments to me are lump sum returns, i don't believe in anuities that pay you a pension - i'd rather a lump sum from my pension and income from other investments - BTL etc...

treliac

StevieJ wrote: »

The point is the housing stock was probably increased by BTL (ignoring profitability for Landlords). A number of bears on here suggest that there is no shortage of housing, I would suggest that a lot of people are probably living in sub - optimal conditions e.g with parents.

Seems a good idea for future ex-BTL surplus to become social housing then!

silvercar

Now they are virtually worthless. I honestly don't see a bottom for a flat in a largely unoccupied, ex BTL, inner city, tower. Only hope is for councils to take them over, compulsory purchase orders, and house the homeless.

Doubt they need to compulsary purchase. Councils could turn up at repo auctions and snaff the lot. For the remainder, the BTLers should see the writing on the wall and sell, happy to get a buyer.