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

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

nah, it's only an internet forum !!!!!!.

me and you would be best buddies i'm sure... not that it's important anyway

I bet Devon is a hoot down the pub, I wonder if he causes any fights

undetterred

StevieJ wrote: »

I bet Devon is a hoot down the pub, I wonder if he causes any fights

probably the pub bore,the one you avoid eye contact with at the bar.your stuffed if they lock onto you,sharp exit to the bogs required.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't agree with pretty much everyone.

Many people wanted a nice house, and many would do up a house to sell it, agree, but that's more sense than anything else.

We can agree to disagree on this one then. I remember a decade where pretty much the majority of the general public got swept away on a wave of loving the increase in property prices and were pleased (often delighted) to sell their houses at higher prices. Obviously developers, landlords, investors etc. were part of this but the general public were loving it to. Why else would you have TV programmes, books, websites and investment products all related to property? It's because the public wanted these things.

But it's cool that we have different views on the last decade and maybe you're right and people weren't generally interested in property prices.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Should we blame cotton growers for the increase in cotton prices? Or should we look at the speculators and weather patterns?

Just like families selling houses in their communities didnt start, or set off HPI. Neither were they responsible for it. Which I think JanCee's point was trying to make out, by blaming those in communities for selling.

Are you seriously making this point? The housing market is generally made up of the general public selling to the general public. A seller is also a buyer at the same time, in 9 out of 10 cases I imagine. So it's nothing like a cotton industry where there is a supplier and and a consumer.

And there's no 'blame' here, the market will set the price and generally people will always sell an asset for the highest price they can get. Do you think people got their house valued at £200,000 but then said "these houses prices are getting out of control, let's sell it for £150,000 instead"? Of course not.

You say that families selling houses in their communities didn't set of HPI whereas I would say that people selling houses to each other creates a market, which will go up and down. So communities selling houses is exactly what creates ups and downs in the market.

StevieJ

undetterred wrote: »

probably the pub bore,the one you avoid eye contact with at the bar.your stuffed if they lock onto you,sharp exit to the bogs required.

Somehow I don't think so, more like the one who lights the blue touchpaper and retires to the background

julieq

Supply and demand sets prices Graham. Demand is constrained by the number of buyers in a market who wish to bid for something being supplied.

If you constrain the number of buyers by reducing their ability to finance their purchase, you're removing demand from the market and prices will tend to fall (or the rate of increase will slow). Obviously you are also reducing the capability of people outside the market to enter it, and because prices are now dropping back modestly it's obvious on a practical basis that this is a much more effective means of exclusion from home ownership than price based exclusion was during the increases.

Most people weren't using 125% mortgages or even 100% mortages. The average loan to salary multiple throughout the boom was 3.5. Measure that against around 40 years of income increasing at compounded rates due to wage inflation, and you'll see that that is an extremely conservative lending "cap", and it comes from the collective decision making process of the market participants, so it's a good measure of what people generally believe to be affordable.

It certainly isn't the case that bidders in a market will automatically bid to the limits of what they can borrow. If that were the case then everyone would have been on 125% and big multiples. Bidders choose what they want to buy as a function of cost and their view of priorities. And very few people strayed outside the "standard" multiples and LTV ratios, because they knew that otherwise they'd be overstretched financially.

But even with that self limiting, there was enough demand in the market because of the imbalance between household creation and home building to raise prices beyond wage inflation. The mechanism for that was from wealthier people being the primary participants for the transactions that took place. Prices are not set by median or average incomes of the general population, they're set by the median and average incomes of those who successfully participate in the market, which can be a small proportion of the total market size, and is self selecting.

I know that it's a general bear belief that HPI came from "liar loans", high multiples, and BTL, but every time that belief is examined against data it's shown to be false. All existed, all had some degree of influence, but all were insignificant beyond normal supply/demand effects that would have happened anyway.

leveller2911

chucky wrote: »

financial education as well as maths should be part of the curriculum at schools.


nah, it's only an internet forum !!!!!!.

me and you would be best buddies i'm sure... not that it's important anyway

I remember we had a chap come into school to give us a talk about work,unions, taxes,retirement etc and I remember him saying "You will pay for a national insurance stamp and when you retire at 65 you will be entitled to a state pension"...........Lying git

StevieJ

Cleaver wrote: »

You say that families selling houses in their communities didn't set of HPI whereas I would say that people selling houses to each other creates a market, which will go up and down. So communities selling houses is exactly what creates ups and downs in the market.

I would suggest it is the people providing the finance (and effectively valuing the houses) who have the biggest affect on the market. The buyers and sellers in this market are merely bit part players. I also acknowledge that most most mortgage holders were pleased by HPI but considered it a fait accompli or a done deal outside of their control.

The_Fox_3

JanCee wrote: »

Who sold the properties to these patronising city types? Was it those salt of the earth locals, the heart of the community types, who wanted to sell to the highest bidder rather than to another local who would have kept the community spirit going?

Of course most people will take what they can and if they were allowed to they would do what they like as well, thats why we have GOVERNMENT.
What would you say if there was a shortage of food and your kids were starving, yet the bloke in the ivory tower had years of food supplies because he could afford the market price.

Sometimes you just cant let market forces do what they want.

Cleaver

StevieJ wrote: »

I would suggest it is the people providing the finance (and effectively valuing the houses) who have the biggest affect on the market.

I would agree to a certain extent, but then who drives the market for these financial products? I think we all know that massive lending caused the boom in prices to a certain extent over the last decade, but then we're in to a chicken and egg situation: did people wanting to buy houses then result in lenders creating more flexible financial products, or did the creation of flexible financial products result in more people buying more and more expensive houses?

StevieJ wrote: »

The buyers and sellers in this market are merely bit part players. I also acknowledge that most most mortgage holders were pleased by HPI but considered it a fait accompli or a done deal outside of their control.

On an individual basis I agree. A person comes round, values your house and you sell it for that. And when you buy a house you see what you can borrow and then buy accordingly. So as an individual you don't have much control.

But the public, as a collective, all seemed to be quite happy with ever increasing prices during the last decade. If they weren't then there wouldn't have been a market for 6x mortgages and the like.

I see your point though and it's made me think differently.

Flyboy152

The_Fox wrote: »

I am not mincing about with my words anymore, again today i witnessed the lowest form of reptilian scum that is the modern day BTL landlord.
For too long i have been an apologist for that vile business, even though i argued that it was causing many of the social problems in this country today i would still attack it in "an ever so civilised way". Many of you will know what i am talking about, coming out with stuff like "you cannot blame them for making a buck" or " BTL is needed in some areas and for some people".

Most people who are living under a BTL roof are doing so because they have no choice, those people have created a speculative bubble which traps many. The only people buying today are those with money burning a hole in their pockets, and then those who want to buy can't as rents are being put up, catch 22.

I have met and seen many of these reptiles in many ways(living and media), none(NONE) have a decent bone in their body. Kirsty Allsopp, Grant Bovey, Rosie Millard, The Wilsons, van hoogstraten, endless MP's(big reason why it is nurtured), all those soulness cold lowlife on singing pig, you have a scrawny looking plumber who looks like he has never had a friend in his life bragging constantly and laughing at the less well off wannabe FTB's on PMT motley fool along with Kingofnowhere with his pants around his ankles and Kleenex in hand posting 24/7 why rents are going up.

I have met dozens of them, the types you would see on THE ONLY WAY IS ESSEX, slick, sneaky, won't pay their bills, ex bankrupts, only love is money, lying cheating, filth the lot of them, not once have a ever met one with a social conscience. I know this is strong stuff, and if i had seen any different with my own eyes i would say, there is no exception.

The BTL is killing aspiration, it is just creating temp homes, homes where in many cases you have few rights and can be kicked out with 2 months notice should those worms decide. Homes that the landlord will always refer to as HIS/HERS, he/she will never let the tenant feel like it is truly theirs.

Those that have all purchased their own homes(and good luck to them, REALLY), who live with BTL propertys have to put up with endless tenants, people who never really feel like part of the community.
The BTL landlord will say they work hard, RUBBISH!!!, they are after an easy life and easy money. They will say that they took the chance, ok i will take a chance and rob a Bank tomorrow.
Socially we don't need many of them, they will tell you that they are housing the thick and useless :rotfl:, arrogant prats.

If David Cameron really cares about peoples happiness like he claims and not the BTL landlords that flood Parliament then he will start making it economicaly difficult for the wealthy to keep the poorer workers in the pockets of spivs and those with more money then sense.

Seriously, i really hate them, i have kept it quite for so long, tried to fight my corner in a civil way with constructive argument. The fact is that not one of these reptiles have a decent bone in their body, it's about time people started to take them.

I watched today as a working single woman was brought to tears by one of these heartless worms who for the first month had money problems and was asking for help.
It's the nearest i have ever come to sticking a mans head through a wall, i walked off the job before i did.

Please don't tar all landlords with the same brush as the one you have described here. Not all are the same as you seem to generalise about. I have never described any of my tenants as "thick and useless" and neither do I take them for granted. I treat them all with respect and give them my loyalty as a housing provider. My rents are fair and in line with market conditions, all my properties are in excellent condition and I have mechanisms in place that help tenants in times of difficulties. On the rare occasion, where a tenant does not comply with the terms and conditions of the tenancy, I give them practical help to adjust their behaviour (this may include seeking advice and assistance from the local housing department, social services, or even the youth offending service/police), or to help them find somewhere else to live (and no, these are not euphamisms for being heavy henaded or quick to run to the authorities or courts).