Bears, Buy to Lets landlords and House Prices.

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The number of BTL reposessions are up eight fold compared to just last year.

The rate of BTL reposession is 3x that of the rate of householders reposession.

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Mortgages/Products/BuyToLet/News/article/20090611/bfc44596-5673-11de-8e2b-0015171400aa/BTL-borrowers-losing-homes-faster-than-rest-of-market.jsp

Yes, much better position.

i wonder how many of these repossessions are from the people who were sucked in by the "get rich quick" companies who were encouraging people to buy without even seeing properties at seminars etc. I can't remember the names of the companies but I remember seeing a programme or two about them last year. Then the mess people found themselves in.

Or how many are established BTLer's.

I know we'll never know but it would be interesting.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The number of BTL reposessions are up eight fold compared to just last year.

The rate of BTL reposession is 3x that of the rate of householders reposession.

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Mortgages/Products/BuyToLet/News/article/20090611/bfc44596-5673-11de-8e2b-0015171400aa/BTL-borrowers-losing-homes-faster-than-rest-of-market.jsp

Yes, much better position.

Which by the same article is 0.35% of the total. Doesn't exactly seem meltdown territory to me, or indeed high in comparison to rates at which conventional businesses are going down, but I guess people see what they want to see?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The number of BTL reposessions are up eight fold compared to just last year.

The rate of BTL reposession is 3x that of the rate of householders reposession.

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Mortgages/Products/BuyToLet/News/article/20090611/bfc44596-5673-11de-8e2b-0015171400aa/BTL-borrowers-losing-homes-faster-than-rest-of-market.jsp

Yes, much better position.

from your article

The BBC reported that this equated to 0.35 per cent of buy-to-let properties being taken back by lenders.

not exactly a high number

two questions to see if you can back up your very dubious general statements..

how may of these are BTL investors or are people who bought there 2nd home to rent? - there is a difference if you hadn't realised.

at what point will these repossession impact house prices? because they are not at the moment

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who's called you dear? Or is that the imaginary stuff going on again



None, but you have still ignored the questions.

I rather admire that you have to buy at todays prices AND get a 7% yield (very unlikely) to carry out your maths. I rather get the feeling we were talking about people who have bought in the last few years. Not last week, but anyway....

If it is true that it's all about yield, then why the hell are the bulls going round all ramping up prices and talking about how much their houses have gone up by s month thanks to increases in the house price?

Strange one that. It's not about the asset value, UNLESS the asset value is going up, then it's all about the asset value.

Graham, you're clueless, sorry.

You invest forward from today's position, and the past is irrelevant. That is a simple basic tenet of investing.

I have no idea why the bulls are talking about capital growth, because I WASN'T. I was talking about capital STAGNATION over a period of years but pointing out that FROM TODAY'S POSITION, BTL is a good investment when compared with pretty much anything else. In my opinion.

Anyone buying at the peak has lost money, obviously. Maybe 30%, let's say that for the sake of argument. They can crystallise that loss and put the money on the remaining 70% in mgba's bank at 3.5% a year, or they can take rental income at a higher rate, probably getting the whole capital back eventually (15 years or so maybe).

It's better to take a better investment, regardless of the history of your investment.

You're really stuck in a comic book view of BTL. From the CURRENT SITUATION it looks like a reasonably smart thing to do, not least because people like you - the herd - are running scared from it, there is not much competition for property now after all. If there is growth, and there may well be over 7-10 years, then that would be a bonus, but you don't need that to make money.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Which by the same article is 0.35% of the total. Doesn't exactly seem meltdown territory to me, or indeed high in comparison to rates at which conventional businesses are going down, but I guess people see what they want to see?

LOL, its 3x higher, but spun into "its not very high though".

It's 3x the rate of normal home owners which of those, many wil be struggling desperatly, but it's spun into "its not very high though".

It's 3x higher, and were at a base rate of 0.5% compared to 5+% last year when it was a third what it is now, at these rates.

Class

Convinced yourselves though, thats all that matters!

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's 3x higher, and were at a base rate of 0.5% compared to 5+% last year.

Class

Convinced yourselves though, thats all that matters!

if you hadn't realised not all BTL mortgages are tracker/SVR, there are Fixed rate too.

seeing that you're starting to quote some dubious facts - please enlighten us what are the percentages for these types of mortgages...

damanpunk

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sell now and they lose to much?

Hold on and hope someone rents, and they don't lose, only on paper? It's all about keeping a tennant in.

BTL's are selling up, or being reposessed though, a 3rd of the last reposession figures were made up of BTL investors.

Just you wouldn't get those people on here, and if you did, they wouldnt tell the truth. Who wants to come onto a forum and say they have failed?

So we aren't to believe that any BTL investors are doing ok but we should believe the other people have 50-100k+ deposits?

julieq

0.35% is 0.35%. It's not a meltdown.

BTL is a business, some will be run well, some will be run badly. FROM THE CURRENT position, which is what 100% of all BTL landlords are in, it is a good forwards proposition within certain parameters as discussed.

mbga9pgf

You invest forward from today's position, and the past is irrelevant.

Try and explain that to your bank manager when you come to re mortgage.

Anyone buying at the peak has lost money, obviously. Maybe 30%, let's say that for the sake of argument. They can crystallise that loss and put the money on the remaining 70% in mgba's bank at 3.5% a year, or they can take rental income at a higher rate, probably getting the whole capital back eventually (15 years or so maybe).

Or, you could have realised it was all one massive property ponzi pyramid scheme, refused to buy and now be laughing your way into a 4 bed detached with massive garden in the countryside as opposed to poxy 1 bed studio flat in a central city location...

From the CURRENT SITUATION it looks like a reasonably smart thing to do, not least because people like you - the herd - are running scared from it

So, I supose as being 'one of the herd' would preclude me from getting a mortgage as a first time buyer, despite ignoring the consensus that buying in 2005-2007 was the 'sensible thing to do'. Sorry, you and your btl buddies cant convince me how to invest; I have won many a bet as a result of predicting this crash and on that basis, I think I will stick with my own assumptions. This crash has another 15-20% left to go at best. If things get really bad, a nationwide halving of prices could be well and truly on the cards.



One for you julie:



Jobs:






You convince yourself that the market is going to stagnate. The fundamentals point to something far different.

mbga9pgf

julieq wrote: »

0.35% is 0.35%. It's not a meltdown.

BTL is a business, some will be run well, some will be run badly. FROM THE CURRENT position, which is what 100% of all BTL landlords are in, it is a good forwards proposition within certain parameters as discussed.

Come back in 12 months.

Do you really think we are seeing an economic recovery anytime soon? Things will get far worse before they get better.