Happened to stumble upon this....

nearlynew

shortchanged wrote: »

I'm sure julieq will be along soon to put you straight nearlynew.

She hasn't got a clue mate.

I've been a landlord for over 20 years and I know the difference between yield and cashflow.

shortchanged_2

julieq wrote: »

This report says it's a good business to be in.

Well they would. It's a bunch of Landlords.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

You really couldn't invent financial illiteracy at this level.

Seems you manage it!

UrWntr

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems you manage it!

Care to explain where julieq's mistakes are?

homelessskilledworker

shortchanged wrote: »

Thanks for explaining that julieq.

I really do not know what you are even trying to bother with her, can you not put her on ignore.
Putting aside whether she is right or wrong(and she is right on SOME points) she has managed to call you an idiot within a couple of posts along with a handfull of other insults.

But the really annoying part of her character is that when a really subjective issue comes up she will insult and give people in every instance a mental disorder if they do not follow her perfect straight line. She must be a tyrant to live with, I don't know of know an Englishman that would put up with such tyrant.

shortchanged_2

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I don't know of know an Englishman that would put up with such tyrant.

That will explain why she is not married to an Englishman.

Graham_Devon

UrWntr wrote: »

Care to explain where julieq's mistakes are?

Yep.

It's alright suggesting how much the yield is, but this totally ignores capital depriciation.

So what happens when you sell up and take on the capital loss. What happens to all those profits from the yield?

You can't just suggest it's making 100k a year and leave it as simple as that. If the capital is depriciating at 110k a year, you are on a loss. Julie ignores the capital depriciation completely.

This is the basic kind of dividend ramping you see on the share boards from people who have lost a large chunk of their capital.

Mr._Pricklepants

shortchanged wrote: »

That will explain why she is not married to an Englishman.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yep.

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I have aslo made that point in this thread,

3 losers in a row with a bigoted comment on top. Well done guys :T
I guess it's not a coincidence that the financially illiterates on this board are either homeless or owning half a house like the 2 posters above :rotfl:

shortchanged_2

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

3 losers in a row with a bigoted comment on top. Well done guys :T
I guess it's not a coincidence that the financially illiterates on this board are either homeless or owning half a house like the 2 posters above :rotfl:

Do you think someone like julieq who speaks to people the way she does deserves respect then?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yep.

It's alright suggesting how much the yield is, but this totally ignores capital depriciation.

So what happens when you sell up and take on the capital loss. What happens to all those profits from the yield?

You can't just suggest it's making 100k a year and leave it as simple as that. If the capital is depriciating at 110k a year, you are on a loss. Julie ignores the capital depriciation completely.

This is the basic kind of dividend ramping you see on the share boards from people who have lost a large chunk of their capital.

If there's a 92% chance of a profit in 3 months and 7% yield over a year that sounds like a good business. Certainly better than my pension has done.

If the yield is 7% and capital borrowed at 4% then there's plenty of cashflow to pay down some capital. No need to ingore capital depreciation either - at the end of the mortgage term the landlord has 100% equity, someone else has paid for it and the chances are high that there's plenty of profit ongoing.

I'm not a particular fan of BTL and would prefer to see owner occupiers increasing in number rather than falling but the business case for BTL is pretty compelling. The numbers clearly back this up.

I'm getting bored of saying this now but it's a BTL dream at the moment. Increasing rents, decreased competion from owner occupiers and lower prices - rich people are mopping up cheap houses and getting poorer people to pay for them.

We can pretend all we like that all BTL's are on high LTV IO mortgages and that an interest rate rise or price fall is going to wipe them out and lead to a flood of cheap houses. It's a fantasy though.