BTL, vile lowlife business, nobody wants to be living under their roofs

Spartacus_Mills

chucknorris wrote: »

Because this forum used to be a place where amongst the stupid rants there was a fair proportion of intelligent debates, now the stupid rants seem to be the main content.

So, apart from a snide dig at the OP and a few cheap shots, what are you ACTUALLY doing to change that ?

You rarely offer any insight into anything. You are in a glass house somewhat.

chucknorris

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

So, apart from a snide dig at the OP and a few cheap shots, what are you ACTUALLY doing to change that ?

You rarely offer any insight into anything. You are in a glass house somewhat.

Why should I do anything to change it? I'm struggling to see what my motivation would be to go on a crusade to save this forum, which IMO is almost a lost cause anyway and I have much more important things to do with my time.

Spartacus_Mills

chucknorris wrote: »

Why should I do anything to change it? I'm struggling to see what my motivation would be to go on a crusade to save this forum, which IMO is almost a lost cause anyway and I have much more important things to do with my time.

That's fine, but in that case I do not understand why you would want to either come into this forum or look at a thread which the title would make it pretty obvious the sort of invective that is likely to be contained within.

If you have more important things to do with you time then go do them.

chucknorris

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

That's fine, but in that case I do not understand why you would want to either come into this forum or look at a thread which the title would make it pretty obvious the sort of invective that is likely to be contained within.

Because sometimes light relief is needed between carrying out more meaningful activities

If you have more important things to do with you time then go do them.

I am doing them instead of following your suggestion of trying to change this forum.

As for your previous comment saying I rarely offer insight, this is incorrect because my nature is that I tend to analyse things to a fault. Obviously the scope on this rant thread to analyse and offer insight is very limited and offers little reward for doing so.

StevieJ

chucknorris wrote: »

I am doing them instead of following your suggestion of trying to change this forum.

As for your previous comment saying I rarely offer insight, this is incorrect because my nature is that I tend to analyse things to a fault. Obviously the scope on this rant thread to analyse and offer insight is very limited and offers little reward for doing so.

I suggest the scope for debating with ex HPC trolls is limited

chucknorris

StevieJ wrote: »

I suggest the scope for debating with ex HPC trolls is limited

Yes exactly, plus it isn't what I want to be doing either, although sometimes it's difficult to let some things pass with comment.

Changing the subject completely, do you think we might see the Ftse 100 break 6,000 before the new year?

twadge_face

StevieJ wrote: »

I suggest the scope for debating with ex HPC trolls is limited

Easy to dismiss a viewpoint when it doesn't suit you... you cannot deny the serious undercurrent of discontent with the current situation of overpriced property and shoddy BTL rules/landlords.

Fuse this dilemma with very limited lending and you might expect reductions in prices and a general rebalancing of affairs...

StevieJ

chucknorris wrote: »

Yes exactly, plus it isn't what I want to be doing either, although sometimes it's difficult to let some things pass with comment.

Changing the subject completely, do you think we might see the Ftse 100 break 6,000 before the new year?

Well it has been 5999.16 today so I guess so.

chucknorris

StevieJ wrote: »

Well it has been 5999.16 today so I guess so.

6,000 may be a trigger point for profit taking, so maybe there will be a fair bit of resistance to actually pass that milestone. Still I'm happy enough where it is despite selling my non isa tracker at around 5,850 as I only bought into it (at about 5,150) as an alternative to taking out a fixed rate savings bond at 4%.

chucknorris

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Easy to dismiss a viewpoint when it doesn't suit you... you cannot deny the serious undercurrent of discontent with the current situation of overpriced property and shoddy BTL rules/landlords.

Fuse this dilemma with very limited lending and you might expect reductions in prices and a general rebalancing of affairs...

Gosh where to start here, well here goes:

1. What shoddy BTL rules are you talking about?
2. Shoddy BTL LL's, isn't that a bit of a generalisation
3. Using the 'long term average of price to rents ratio' seems a novel way to value houses, how long was the period they are using, maybe some 'basis' changes have ocurred since then, hard to comment without knowing the precise nature of the data they have used. Did they use that data because it produced the table with the numbers in it that they wanted? Maybe I am being unfair though maybe in countries where rental property is much more common, the rental yield is a more appropriate way of valuing property. However if that is the case, I would suggest that maybe it is therefore not that appropriate to apply it to the UK where home ownership is much more common. That's just my hunch though, I do not actually know much about home ownership in other countries.