New Buy to Let Boom Fuelled By Higher Rents

System

Percy1983 wrote: »

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

I don't think you'd get much with £208.

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

You however have given your own anecdotal (which may or may not be true) in response to a comment specifically not directed at you.

This is a public forum not a private one for you and pimperne!


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

No I did not, this was merely your misinterpretation

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.

Again no I did not, this was merely your misinterpretation

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.

Of course past profits can count as a future loss, again you are misunderstanding (although I don't know how as I didn't even mention this aspect).

See my other responses above in red also.

I'm really glad that you are not one of my students to communicate with you is painfully slow.

Percy1983

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I don't think you'd get much with £208.

:rotfl:very true, I guess I am going to buy myself a home before I consider getting somebody else to buy me a second one.

JonnyBravo wrote: »

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.

You will be glad to hear that in 7 months my other halfs and I contributions to paying debts/saving deposits will be fully balanced.

With that if or incomes stay the same that will then mean I am contributing more and she therefore owes me.

Or maybe just maybe as I have said before, we are going to get married and really don't care we have combined finances and now use a term 'our money', so we used our money to pay our debts to which we are saving our money to by our house to spend the rest of our happy lives together not counting who paid which penny where,

Yes if everything has to be done 50/50 then yes I have gained now and she will gain for the rest of her life, I can assure you the way we a doing things if we where to count pennies I will be the one worse off in the long run.

So morally we did what was best for us as a team which in turn seems to be giving us the best outcome. Nobody has been hoodwinked or such like and all involved knew the risks and benefits or a fail to see the moral problem.

Buying a house and expecting a stranger to pay for it for me on the other hand I can see has many moral problems.

JonnyBravo

Percy1983 wrote: »

Nobody has been hoodwinked or such like and all involved knew the risks and benefits or a fail to see the moral problem.

Buying a house and expecting a stranger to pay for it for me on the other hand I can see has many moral problems.

How remarkable.

Well I've not "hoodwinked or such like" my tenants. They are young professionals who (presumably) can't yet afford a house. Either that or they don't want to buy a house.
They rent off me. I've not told them they can keep the house. No hoodwinking there.
I've told them they can use my house (and I can't use it) whilst they pay me a monthly fee. Anytime they want to stop paying me that fee they give notice and move out at which point they are not able to use my house.
No hoodwinking there.


Where are people supposed to live if they can't stay with their parents or can't afford to/don't want to buy a house?



Have you got a solution Percy or is your thinking still at a level where you managed to run up debts due to your inability to balance a budget?

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure you fully understand the concept of risk in relation to investments. The rule of thumb is that the more you diversify the more you reduce risk, so if you have £50,000 to invest and you invest it in any one asset then people would generally all agree that you have done something risky. I've been through the reasons, but as a summary:

• The house you buy may have something catastrophic happen to it: something built next to it, that type of house goes out of fashion, slippage etc. and from that one thing you're entire investment portfolio could be significantly reduced.
• Property can, and does, fall 20% or more over a very short timeframe. Most investors would not want this level of volitility for their portfolio.
• Property is illiquid. Not a problem per se, but having your entire investmet portfolio in one very illiquid asset is risky.
• By having one asset you've pinned your hopes on return on one thing. What if South American stocks outperform it? What if gold outperforms it? What if the FTSE 100 outperforms it? They may not of course, but having one asset is risky as it's an all or nothing bet on that asset.
• You've made the point that if houses drop 50% you don't lose anything. From an investment prospective that's incorrect, as you've lost the opportunity the invest that money somewhere else for higher returns. Diversification would have protected you against this. In your example you've failed to assess risk properly, the market fell on your one asset and you've made no gain whatsoever over a very long timeframe. That's very poor investment, because you didn't consider the risk you were taking.

There's other reasons, but that should do to tell you that investing all your money in property is risky. Please don't think that I'm saying that a BTL is a poor deicison, or that it isn't a good way of making money. I'm simply saying that if you have £50k to invest and you invest it all in a BTL you're taking a very high risk.

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

Buying a house and expecting a stranger to pay for it for me on the other hand I can see has many moral problems.

Do you feel as strongly about the moral aspect of renting a car? Or renting a spot in a restaurant to eat a meal? Or renting a suit for a wedding? Or renting a hotel room when you go on holiday? Or renting a taxi to take you home? All of these things are pretty similar as far as I can see. You have the option to buy or rent the service and in all of the above examples you might wish to rent rather than buy, but it comes at an increased cost. Are all of these businesses as bad?

FATBALLZ

julieq wrote: »

It's actually good for renters that there are lots of landlords with small numbers of properties competing for their business and scared of void periods. If you get to a situation where it's not attractive for smaller investors to rent houses out you're going to see the big corporates steaming in and setting rents on a hard nosed business basis. Beware of what you wish for.

Yes it would be a shame to push out our population of decent, professional landlords that act in an entirely fair way to the tenant that so clearly definitely exist in huge numbers at the moment.

geneer

G: to justify your original response, you have suggested that my comment applied to “everyone”

CN: No I did not, this was merely your misinterpretation

erm...

chucknorris wrote: »

NO! you were implying 'everyone' (note the word 'certainly' in post 2) I was identifying a secenario that demonstrated that it may not necessarily apply.

:T

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

G: to justify your original response, you have suggested that my comment applied to “everyone”

CN: No I did not, this was merely your misinterpretation

erm...


:T

Ahh I now see what you are referring to (you in red, me in blue):

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


You seemed to be implying that everyone who bought near peak are on ultra low life time trackers.



NO! you were implying 'everyone' (note the word 'certainly' in post 2) I was identifying a scenario that demonstrated that it may not necessarily apply.


Yes I correct what I said and stand by my original statement. You said 'certainly' (leaving no room for doubt) that it is a better time to buy now.

You don't seem to be able to remain focused on the main issue of a topic for long (or indeed grasp what the main issue is) you always seem to run off on irrelevant tangents. I honestly don't know if you do that as a defensive mechanism to create a smoke screen or whether you are just incapable of seeing what the issue is.

To remind you the issue is 'Is now certainly a better time to buy property than in 2007'. The asnwer is no, not necessarily because if the motgage is a lifetime (or very long term) tracker it would work out cheaper to buy in 2007, therefore you were wrong.

EDIT: What do you do for a living (I asked on the other thread but that thread seems to have been deleted)?

JonnyBravo

He flits from argument to argument, changing his tune like the wind.
He is neither consistent or credible despite his assertions otherwise.