Martin Lewis stands up for renters on breakfast TV

ILW

Wonder if ML has a BTL portfolio?

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I would say you would have made a very nice loss due to poor financial management.

Either way even if the rent doesn't full pay for the house you still get x% of a house for nothing.

Even if you make a 'loss' every month you are still getting a subsidised mortgage.

only if the rent covers more than the interest on mortgage which could easily happen.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Shelter has always been bad enough, but now having to quote from "Netmums" to get their case articulated is rather tacky.

Why does their website proclaim "1 in 5 delay having children due to cost of housing", rather than "80% of people don't need to delay having children despite the cost of housing."?

Indeed. They would be far better talking to LSL property services.

Netmums is quite unique, it's got thousands of mums, so you can get snapshot opinions straight away. Doesn't rely on any biased surveys. Care should be taken when trying to sweep their opinions under the carpet.

Most opinions such as this are swept under the carpet when it comes to the I'm Alright Jack brigade.

olly300

HOMEOWNING_FTW wrote: »

Let's not beat around the bush here, no one in their right mind actually wants to nor enjoys renting. It's matters not one jot what Mr Lewis says. Renting = Paying off someone elses mortgage when you could be paying off your own mortgage.

Whose sockie are you?

One well-known reason to rent is because your job moves around.

While some renters have 6-12 month ASTs not all do. Even if you do and you find a better paying job in another part of the country depending on your landlord (and location) you may still be able to end the contract early and move.

Try selling a house quickly when you are in a chain even in a rising market.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

only if the rent covers more than the interest on mortgage which could easily happen.

Even if it doesn't cover the whole interest its still subsidising the mortgage payments even if its only taking a bite out of your interest payments for you.

olly300

Percy1983 wrote: »

Even if it doesn't cover the whole interest its still subsidising the mortgage payments even if its only taking a bite out of your interest payments for you.

You have heard of accidental landlords haven't you?

Well some of these people actually have a property they can't sell otherwise they would end up owing thousands to the bank. So instead they rent it out and in turn rent another place elsewhere near their new place of work to live.

Point is not all landlords are in exactly the same position.

Oh and landlords like these will sell if they get the chance. Some do finally take the hit and lose by a couple of thousand pounds just to get rid of the headache of having to maintain a property for someone else to live in.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed. They would be far better talking to LSL property services.

Netmums is quite unique, it's got thousands of mums, so you can get snapshot opinions straight away. Doesn't rely on any biased surveys. Care should be taken when trying to sweep their opinions under the carpet.

Most opinions such as this are swept under the carpet when it comes to the I'm Alright Jack brigade.

Not a question of sweeping opinions under the carpet. And certainly not a question of 'I'm Alright Jack'. More a case of "Most of us have been there, Jack, but we didn't winge about it."

Most of us form our opinions from fact, observation, and experience. The arguments by the likes of Shelter - and the original cutting here - contain very weak arguments.

They say "The research found one in three first-time buyers are now aged over 35. Large deposits and strict lending criteria along with the weak economy is stopping many from getting on the property ladder."

That's fine. Most of us sympathise. Yes, we are in a recession. Yes mortgages are hard to find, and need more deposit. Indeed the lack of deposits partly got us into this mess. The recession affects virtually all of us in different ways.

But they wrap it up as "high cost of housing" rather than 'cheapest mortgage rates ever, but you need a bigger deposit.' And then proceed to winge that more houses should be built. And that they should be [even more] 'affordable'.

Houses are extremely 'big ticket' items. Always have been. Why, in a recession, therefore, do they expect something extra be 'done' about it? How do you make an 'unaffordable' house 'affordable'? Knock 20% off the price? [That's maybe £25K]. Start 100% mortgages again? Reduce mortgage rates from 4% to 2%?

... all for a few young people who feel they need to delay having a child?

With all that money, wouldn't it be better to subsidise food or energy costs? Try to help a much wider lot who are suffering the recession?

Just take a look at how much housing subsidies [benefits where rent is paid in full] are already costing us, compared to 10/15 years ago. These jokers are implicitly asking for tens of £'000's per person, simply to make their life better, and advance their ability to have more kids.

This is not what we need right now, and it will not get us out of recession.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

Even if it doesn't cover the whole interest its still subsidising the mortgage payments even if its only taking a bite out of your interest payments for you.

I thought you were an accountant so you would realise that if you don't pay all your interest you owe more at the end of the year than you do at the beginning.

chewmylegoff

Percy1983 wrote: »

Even if it doesn't cover the whole interest its still subsidising the mortgage payments even if its only taking a bite out of your interest payments for you.

this assumes you can afford to hold the mortgage to term, and you don't go bankrupt or get forced to sell. i know a couple of people who have made a real hash of BTL and ended up with 0% of a property and less money than they started with before even taking inflation into account.

it is not some kind of subsidised house buying scheme for greedy explotative HPI goons (although no doubt some greedy HPI goons think that it is), it is a business and as with any business it is quite easy to get it wrong and end up losing everything you have.

to go on insisting that it is a free lunch is a pointless and ideological position based on nothing but your prejudices.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

this assumes you can afford to hold the mortgage to term, and you don't go bankrupt or get forced to sell. i know a couple of people who have made a real hash of BTL and ended up with 0% of a property and less money than they started with before even taking inflation into account.

it is not some kind of subsidised house buying scheme for greedy explotative HPI goons (although no doubt some greedy HPI goons think that it is), it is a business and as with any business it is quite easy to get it wrong and end up losing everything you have.

to go on insisting that it is a free lunch is a pointless and ideological position based on nothing but your prejudices.

The failure rate for start up businesses is around 70%.
Think BTL is a lot less risky than this, but has much less social benefit in terms of employment etc.