Even Merryn gets it..... (at last)

Davesnave

Just as you can prove most things with well-chosen graphs or statistics, so you can also invent features which don't exist by choosing a duff picture:



So those are buck teeth, eh?

nembot

Cleaver wrote: »

I find this opinion rather strange and have said what I'm about to say before. Even if you're incredibly bullish about a specific asset (as Hamish seems to be with property) you still don't spend every last penny you have investing in that asset. For example, I'm bullish about the Indian stock market's prospects over the next 5-10 years. Therefore around 15% of my portfolio is currently in India and I stick around 10% of my new investment money each month in India. However, I obviously wouldn't invest 100% of my money in India as this would be a foolish approach, but I'm still very bullish about this asset.

Therefore, I understand that Hamish can be extremely bullish about property yet not wish to buy / invest any more at the moment. Can you not see or understand this?

Woah, there cowboy - where did I say 100% investment?

Lets look at the facts, or at least what's been posted over the last couple of years.

Hamish says he's on 100k per annum (dual income), he's got one mortgage (other house was gifted) so there's some rental income (not full rent, as it's family) please correct me if I'm wrong.

On a BTL interest only mortgage, the outgoings required would be less than a 5th of a 100k earner's disposable income and nowhere near the 100% financial commitment you're suggesting. Taking into account additional rental income, on the newly purchased property there's even a small opportunity for profit (perhaps?).

So yes, I understand perfectly well that there are many here who would like us "do as they say, but not as they do".

Wookster

The point here hamish is that Mervyn is encouraging those who can afford it to spend.

That's not everyone in the economy, it is those who can afford it.

That is all.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

nembot wrote: »

Hamish says he's on 100k per annum (dual income),

True

he's got one mortgage

True, on a house bought in 2007, so it's not an insignificant mortgage.

(other house was gifted)

False.

We paid for almost all of the first house. Our parents matched our saved deposit as a wedding present. The rest we paid off in around 18 years.

Then immediately bought another one.

so there's some rental income (not full rent, as it's family)

False.

There is no rental income at all, and has never been.

We allow an aging family member to live there rent free after a change in their circumstances.

They pay the utilities, council tax, and minor upkeep costs. We receive no rent and we pay for the insurance and any major maintenance.

please correct me if I'm wrong.

Consider yourself corrected.

On a BTL interest only mortgage, the outgoings required would be less than a 5th of a 100k earner's disposable income and nowhere near the 100% financial commitment you're suggesting.

I have 75% of my wealth in property, which is plenty of skin in the game. Of the rest, much of it is in company share plans and pensions, and not easy to put into property.

No matter how bullish you are on property, some level of diversification is prudent.

Suggesting I should eliminate all diversification and go 100% into property, is no different to me suggesting you should take 100% of your savings and place it on a spread bet against the Halifax index. After all, if you're so sure that prices will fall......

nembot

Fair comment Hamish, although please stop trying to put your words and Cleaver's in my mouth - I never said 100%, merely why aren't you buying another property?

Would an extra £400 a month push you over the edge?

You've said on many occasions, the returns on property have beaten many other forms of investment over the last years - has this now changed?

poppycod

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Are you really this stupid?

Or is this just deliberate trolling.....

Your entire act could be described as trolling.

All you do is come here and peddle propaganda for your own ends.

If you were real then fair enough, but stooges and pieces of fiction deserve only scorn.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

nembot wrote: »

Fair comment Hamish, although please stop trying to put your words and Cleaver's in my mouth - I never said 100%, merely why aren't you buying another property?

Would an extra £400 a month push you over the edge?

I have no desire to be a BTL landlord.

If you're going to do it, I think you should do it right, manage the properties yourself to maximise returns, run it with the same effort you would any other business, and treat your tenants well.

In short, it sounds like a right pain in the ar5e to me.

The next property I buy will be a retirement property, and when I find the right one, I'll buy it. Whether that be next week or in a decade, because I've been looking for a few years now and have yet to find one for sale that I want.

I'm looking for a very specific type of property, in a very specific location, with very specific attributes. It's annoyingly difficult to find.

You've said on many occasions, the returns on property have beaten many other forms of investment over the last years - has this now changed?

They have. And it hasn't.

Wookster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

True, on a house bought in 2007, so it's not an insignificant mortgage.

But house prices have never been more affordable?

Emy1501

So Hamish finally gets its. Peoples ability to credit has a huge factor on prices. It wasn't so long ago that Hamish was saying its all to do with supply and demand that couples would club together and by a flat to share and people would get 50 year plus mortgages. It also was not long ago that he guaranteed real term house prices would be double what they are now in 10-15 years.

As for Hamish not getting into property well Harry Powell one of his bullish mates upset him not that long ago regarding this. Hamish must clear jointly about 60K a year. He has no kids and must have a small mortgage as he has not bought for ages. With the amount of disposable income he has he must have lots of money to invest but does not invest in something which is guaranteed to double in real terms in 15 years. a 40K investment into a BTL of say 150K would net Hamish about 200K in 15 years but hes not interested because he does not want to be a Landlord! Why not get the properties fully managed then. He also claimed to have lots of cash saved up for a rainy day incase he lost his job, again not the signs of a bullish person who should be investing all the money he has especially in view of his comments on other threads how saver should be spending spending spending.

The guys admitted lots of times he is here simply to argue and in fairness the place would not be the same without him. He is simply the opposite of some of the bears who are here for comical value.

There should be a face off with him and the other scottish comedian Jonathan Davis.

System

3 pages about Hamish and nothing about the article. You guys are getting worse.

Hamish, PM me the article next time and I'll post it instead. Or even better someone like Cleaver so that it can be debated rather than glossed over with personal attacks.

RE: Merryn, I can see this being the start, she'll be ramping within 2 years.