New Buy to Let Boom Fuelled By Higher Rents

Cleaver

marblesfound wrote: »

A one bed flat near me was recently sold and is now available to let at £1200pcm - one less property available for FTBs. If someone has access to a large deposit they can get a mortgage which would see them paying under £350 a month interest only - a nice little earner. This can't be right - it is exploitation and it is state funded.

How much did that flat sell for? If it was recently sold then the BTL mortgage on that 1-bed flat would have been on at least 4%, and let's say with a 50% deposit. If the mortgage payments are £350 a week then the mortgage amount would be £65,000. If the deposit is around 50% then that means the flat was purchased for around £130,000.

What area are you in where you can buy a 1-bed flat for around £130,000 and then rent it out for £1,200 a month?

FTBFun

Cleaver wrote: »

What area are you in where you can buy a 1-bed flat for around £130,000 and then rent it out for £1,200 a month?

It doesn't half annoy me when people make up figures to prove a point.

£1,200 pcm is the rent you'd pay on a flat in a decent part of London (like West Hampstead). You're looking at least £250,000 for a flat there.

chucknorris

FTBFun wrote: »

It doesn't half annoy me when people make up figures to prove a point.

£1,200 pcm is the rent you'd pay on a flat in a decent part of London (like West Hampstead). You're looking at least £250,000 for a flat there.

I have 2 flats that I rent out in Battersea for £1,200 and £1,190/month their current value is approx £275k

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

Ahh I was wondering when you would revert to your usual trick when you realise when you are losing the argument, you play the fool and deliberately misinterpret the point (although I must admit you should win an oscar for your pretence of stupidity).

Do you mean my usual trick of exposing the innacuracies, diversionary tactics and smokescreening so apparent in a certain sub-groups forum contributions?

chucknorris wrote: »

Or perhaps I am being too generous and you really are a fool. However it does signify that I have won the arguement (you however I suspect will go on for quite a few posts yet, pretending not to understand, just don't expect me to waste my time too like you). I haven’t got the patience of ISTL who you do this to quite often.

I have asked you to confirm what you think I was wrong about.
You have attempted to do so but have in fact tied yourself in knots.
It seems clear that I hdid not in fact make the claim you suggested was incorrect.

And I suspect its clear to you to, as rather than clarify your original statement you have elected to throw something of a hissy fit and engage in an ad hominem attack.

Your predictions aren't all that impressive. The majority of forum encounters appear to drag on past their natural end.
And I certainly have previously demonstrated that I am unwilling to allow posters to "get away" with transparent diversionary rants.

Of course the key difference is I'm not indulging in the behaviour I've simulataneously seen fit to criticise.


Of course theres a quick and ready way you can prove you're correct Chuck.
You could just clearly state the argument you believe I've made and why you believe it to be incorrect.
How about it?;)

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Do you mean my usual trick of exposing the innacuracies, diversionary tactics and smokescreening so apparent in a certain sub-groups forum contributions?




I have asked you to confirm what you think I was wrong about.
You have attempted to do so but have in fact tied yourself in knots.
It seems clear that I hdid not in fact make the claim you suggested was incorrect.

And I suspect its clear to you to, as rather than clarify your original statement you have elected to throw something of a hissy fit and engage in an ad hominem attack.

Your predictions aren't all that impressive. The majority of forum encounters appear to drag on past their natural end.
And I certainly have previously demonstrated that I am unwilling to allow posters to "get away" with transparent diversionary rants.

Of course the key difference is I'm not indulging in the behaviour I've simulataneously seen fit to criticise.


Of course theres a quick and ready way you can prove you're correct Chuck.
You could just clearly state the argument you believe I've made and why you believe it to be incorrect.
How about it?;)

You couldn't make this up! So you really do not understand, are you really that slow?

Right here we go, I will explain it as if I was explaining it to a child (well why not as I actually am doing exactly that).

You said (exact words):

Certainly a better time to buy a couple of BTL flats than in 2007

Therefore you are saying it is 'certainly' (so no room for doubt) financially better to buy the flats now rather than in 2007. I then corrected you, by pointing out that if the flats were bought with a typical 2007 tracker mortgage then they would NOT be a better buy now because in fact they would work out cheaper in the long run if they were bought in 2007. I have of course now elaborated where necessary to compensate for your apparent lack of understanding.

Now what is complicated about that? If you cannot understand this then don't expect me to waste any more time trying to educate you, it would be a complete waste of my time.

chucknorris

would_be_FTB wrote: »

I can see what the problem is here, he can't see beyond the purchase price. He dosen't understand that over a long period of time the savings in the mortgage payments will more than cover the extra cost of buying in 2007.

I realise that but there is only a number of times I am going to explain it (the last time was exactly that, ie the last time).

My wife said to me last night that I should be happy the world is full of people like him as it makes it far easier to be successful.

JonnyBravo

<listens out for lunch time bell>

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

You couldn't make this up! So you really do not understand, are you really that slow?

Right here we go, I will explain it as if I was explaining it to a child (well why not as I actually am doing exactly that).

You said (exact words):

Certainly a better time to buy a couple of BTL flats than in 2007

Therefore you are saying it is 'certainly' (so no room for doubt) financially better to buy the flats now rather than in 2007. I then corrected you, by pointing out that if the flats were bought with a typical 2007 tracker mortgage then they would NOT be a better buy now because in fact they would work out cheaper in the long run if they were bought in 2007. I have of course now elaborated where necessary to compensate for your apparent lack of understanding.

Now what is complicated about that? If you cannot understand this then don't expect me to waste any more time trying to educate you, it would be a complete waste of my time.

Right you are chuck. But the comment was in fact directed at Pimperne1 who did indeed buy two flats in 2007.

You however have given your own anecdotal (which may or may not be true) in response to a comment specifically not directed at you. Naturally I confirmed that this statistical sample of one was irrelevant both in the specific sense and in the general case, which I confirmed I wasn’t in fact making.

Rather than admit your mistake, to justify your original response, you have suggested that my comment applied to “everyone” and that this was incorrect.

Realising your error you now seem to be insisting that the advice applies to everyone who bought “2 flats in 2007”. A rather strange flight of fancy from yourself.
And of course taking this to its logical conclusion if you were to properly engage in such a weak yet predictable strategy of pedantry, technically the advice would appear to apply to “everyone” who “bought two flats in 2007” and who also claimed that lost “profits” do not really count as a loss. Which of course neither you nor “everyone” has.

Percy1983

Cleaver wrote: »

You want to remove the incentive of a stable or increasing capital / asset price? Firstly, why? And secondly, how would you do this?

Also, if you all of your money in to a BTL isn't next to 'zero risk', it's quite a high risk investment. Let's say you have £50k to invest and rather than investing via a portfolio route in a variety of assets you opt to throw it all at a £150k or £200k property as a deposit then it's quite high risk. Firstly, you're putting all your eggs in one basket - property needs to rise, or you need a very good yield in order to make money. All of your money is in one investment, which is one house in one area. What if something happens to that one area? Secondly, you're risking all your money on one venture, so there's a risk that what you could have invested in (shares, a business, metals, commodities etc.) might have performed better over the same timeframe.

But anyway, I'm more interesting about why and how you'd take the incentive of asset growth away from property investment.

I still fail to see the risk.

I invest £50k, get poor souls to pay the remaining £100k and then keep paying until I have my £50k back.

Even is house prices dropped 50% I would still have a £75k asset I have done nothing for and probably earned a profit along the way charging more in rent than the mortgage costs.

To be honest if I didn't have morals I would invest too.

JonnyBravo

Percy1983 wrote: »

To be honest if I didn't have morals I would invest too.

I do have morals but still invest.
How we going to square that circle?



Still I guess morals are funny things. You see you'd rather let your partner pay off debts incurred by yourself.

To be honest if I had your morals I guess I would too.