Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

dopester

The strap under the Time's photo of them at the races says: "Fergus and Judith Wilson could earn £70 million when they sell their property portfolio."

That would suggest £100,000 equity per house, which I don't believe is likely.

How would the Times get this story unless the Wilsons, or someone they consult with, weren't fishing for some publicity? They want a buyer for 700 properties. If they had eager buyers making offers at prices favourable to them, they'd probably quietly sell, and then tell the papers of a done-deal. Instead.. fishing.

Maybe they should ask Elysium Skies for assistance, like Paul Roshan with his 24 London prime properties he is trying to flog in one go.

Anyway lets see if the market offers a price the Wilsons are hoping for a bulk purchase of FTB type houses. They've been ice-cold in taking advantage of other people's desperation in the past so should know what to expect.

This was the era of 15 per cent interest rates and a record number of repossessions - the perfect time to buy.

"We virtually lived in the auction rooms," recalls Mrs Wilson.

A tad recklessly, Mrs Wilson can't resist telling me about one scam her husband pulled in 1994.

After snapping up a four-storey house in South-East London at auction for £44,000, he noticed 'for sale' boards outside the property next door. So he called the estate agents to ask the price.

"It's £58,000," came the reply. Mr Wilson insisted that this was far too much, claiming he had bought the adjoining house for £30,000.

His bid was initially rejected, but a few days later, on Christmas Eve, the phone rang.

"If you've got £30,000, it's yours," the agent said.

The deliciously simple sting was concluded a few days later, when Mr Wilson had the house valued for mortgage purposes and it was deemed to be worth four times the amount he had paid: £120,000.

He borrowed the maximum amount allowable - £100,000 (85 per cent of its value) - and promptly used the excess funds as a deposit on several more houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431224/How-maths-teachers-clocked-707-houses-240m-fortune.html

dopester

Have you seen this Times article with them from 2004.. classic.

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article1043004.ece

Too much maths ability, not nearly enough common-sense.

No questioning of where the money they were borrowing comes from, nor questioning possible significant changes in values on what the borrowings are secured on.

chucknorris

These are the extracts from the article that I like:

Mr Wilson said that he now intends to take part in TV property programmes to mentor buyers and people buying their own homes. Mrs Wilson already has her own website, which outlines her path to success for other would-be investors.
What's his advice going to be, try not to be as greedy as I was and stay in the market too long when near retirement age, and stupidily have no exit strategy?

Mrs Wilson puts their success down to realising “that at a fundamental level, everyone needs a roof over their heads, regardless of the economy”.
Apparantly most people live in a home, who on earth would have anticipated that?

The couple will sell them to buy-to-let investors to protect existing tenants.
Yeah right, they have suddenly started caring about their tenants

purch

How - word of mouth

Translation: Gossip on Internet Forums from a bunch of saddo's with no life !!

Generali

purch wrote: »

Translation: Gossip on Internet Forums from a bunch of saddo's with no life !!

I hope you don't mean me....... :-)

Harry_Powell

I hope they get a decent price, after all they have had to put up with due to their recent court case and tabloid sniping, they're due a bit of luck.

It'll be a wonderful success story if they can make £70M, something for all working class people to aspire to.

Good luck to em from all of us on the MSE Housing & Economy board!

Cleaver

shakerbaby wrote: »

Let the scum burn!

shakerbaby wrote: »

Tis all good. :rotfl::j:beer::D

The_Spine_Splitter wrote: »

Well it will be a complete injustice if this pyramid scheme makes them money

Rather than 'they are scum BTL b*stards' comments for 6 pages, can I ask a genuine question that I ask because I'm interested in the answer, rather than to antagonise?

Firstly, my point of view is that it must be tough for first time buyers in that area, which isn't a particulary good thing. However, it's a business, so such is life. However, I fully understand people's emotions and issues with this couple, especially if you were saving for a deposit or trying to buy a home and you saw investors such as this pushing up prices through their business. I think the way in which these two openly boast about it in such a wanton way all over the press doesn't exactly endear them to anyone either. So I get people's moral stance towards these guys and the vitroil and, in many ways, respect that view.

So, the question is, does this moral view of a business being unethical stretch to other products and services that you use in life? In essense, do you put your money where your mouth is? I'd be interested to hear if you avoid Coca-Cola products due to their impact on developing nations and killing of union leaders at their plants. Whether you only use building societies because of the way in which pretty much all UK banks engage in tax avoision which costs billions to the public each year. Do you give Tesco a wide birth to their monopolistic tendencies and lack of any community engagement; in a very similar way to the Wilsons really. Do you ensure that you invest in funds that avoid the usual suspects: tobacco, defense, large pharmacuticals that don't have a good ethical record etc. Basically, does this moral code stretch in to the other areas of your lives?

For the record, I don't do all of the above. I adhere to some of the above, but not all. I probably should, so I would feel a bit hypocritical labelling one business as 'scum' and 'evil' and then buying a Diet Coke, for example.

So, to ask again, is it a real moral issue with their business practice that you extend to all other areas of your life? Or is it "I want a cheap house, they push up the price of houses, I hate them" kinda deal?

Genuine question.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

Genuine question.

Genuine answer: I do make purchasing decisions, to a degree, but nothing like wholey. I don't really buy cola much (as a mixer for the occasional party) but if I did the supermarket alternatives are likely to be as heinous as the coca colas.

I haven't bought cadburys (or green and black) for ages, but I hardly was a chocolate purchasing power anyway, so it makes little difference, and I bet I buy other same owned things unthinkingly.:o

System

Cleaver wrote: »

So, to ask again, is it a real moral issue with their business practice that you extend to all other areas of your life? Or is it "I want a cheap house, they push up the price of houses, I hate them" kinda deal?

Genuine question.

I think you know full well the answer to that.

Cleaver

shakerbaby wrote: »

Let not beat about the bush here this is a MASSIVE signal to all bulls to sell sell sell. i.e Get out while you can.:T

God, does every issue have to come down to some weird 'bull / bear' deal? It isn't a massive sign to any sterotypical group of investors at all. This is a business, run in a seemingly atagonistic and boastful way, by two people who put all of their eggs in one basket in the hope of making shed loads of cash and it appears that may have succeeded in some ways. If someone has a sensible business plan for their property investment, finds that it suits them and understands the risk then taking this story as a 'MASSIVE' signal to 'sell sell sell' would be rather shortsighted.

A business that solely operates in a high-risk, one dimensional environment such as this was always going to be a bit of an all or nothing deal. A discussion around the merits, te problems people have with the business and the reasons why would be a lot more interesting than sloganeering and generalisations.