Martin Lewis stands up for renters on breakfast TV

note_2

'Martin Lewis said some home owners are losers while renters are winners.'

as martin says, this is true for when property prices are going down, or if you need to be flexible as to where you live, due to work or whatever.

for longer term renters however, you have little to no security, cant make any real adjustments to the house, and its never really your home. you're also paying more to live in the place than it would cost in mortgage payments sometimes....

its entirely different in the continent, in switzerland where i have family, renting is fine because tenants are treated with respect and have security, more rights than over here. in fact so well that sub letting is a problem, there is real competition for rental property over there. theres also the culture of keeping property in the family, we have a property that has been in the family for about 80 years for example..

here landlords simply charge market set prices, which have recently gone up and up, and the houses are usually no-where near what you'd expect for that sort of money in europe...

Rotor

The big difference here is we can all live without widgets, where as we all need somewhere to live.[/QUOTE]


Thats just a sentimenatlist arguement about homes being "special" but it's not, it's just another market.

Call the widgets food and the factory farmland if it helps
If you think homes are important wait till you've been without food. Wicked farmer borrows to buy land, population buys food which pays off loan and interest ; farmer owns land that we've paid for. Same same

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

Sounds great but my morals prevent me taking on such a thing.

Do you follow the same, "ethical", approach with your other investments?

I wouldn't invest in BTL as i'd think it a PITA.

chewmylegoff

FTBFun wrote: »

Do you follow the same, "ethical", approach with your other investments?

I wouldn't invest in BTL as i'd think it a PITA.

To be honest, Percy's school of being a landlord sounds like a highly ethical investment. Subsidising the rental payments of hard pressed tenants by providing them with housing at a fraction of its cost for 25 years and declaring it to be a successful investment for the landlord is right up there with ethical investment funds.

I am with you though, BTL requires far too much active management for my liking, and there would also be far too much concentration risk (both in terms of individual asset and sector concentration) for me unless i could afford a portfolio of 5 and that was only about 20% of my net wealth - which let's be honest, is probably not going to happen any time soon (not south of watford at any rate).

if i could invest in a fund which bought and managed BTL properties i would think about it, but that would be equivalent to investing in a fund of funds i.e. both the managing agent and the fund manager would be taking their cut of your profit...

ukcarper

note wrote: »

'Martin Lewis said some home owners are losers while renters are winners.'

as martin says, this is true for when property prices are going down, or if you need to be flexible as to where you live, due to work or whatever.

for longer term renters however, you have little to no security, cant make any real adjustments to the house, and its never really your home. you're also paying more to live in the place than it would cost in mortgage payments sometimes....

its entirely different in the continent, in switzerland where i have family, renting is fine because tenants are treated with respect and have security, more rights than over here. in fact so well that sub letting is a problem, there is real competition for rental property over there. theres also the culture of keeping property in the family, we have a property that has been in the family for about 80 years for example..

here landlords simply charge market set prices, which have recently gone up and up, and the houses are usually no-where near what you'd expect for that sort of money in europe...

I would have thought they charge what the market will bear not some arbitrary amount. I can see better security of tenure would be good but I’m not sure that it would reduce rents.

Percy1983

Rotor wrote: »

Thats just a sentimenatlist arguement about homes being "special" but it's not, it's just another market.

Call the widgets food and the factory farmland if it helps
If you think homes are important wait till you've been without food. Wicked farmer borrows to buy land, population buys food which pays off loan and interest ; farmer owns land that we've paid for. Same same

The farmer has to get up every morning and do something to earn money...

chewmylegoff

Percy1983 wrote: »

The farmer has to get up every morning and do something to earn money...

if i buy a farm and pay someone to run it for me, and make a profit as a result which i use to pay off the loan i took to buy the farm, is that ethically wrong then?

JonnyBravo

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if i buy a farm and pay someone to run it for me, and make a profit as a result which i use to pay off the loan i took to buy the farm, is that ethically wrong then?

The whole borrowing money thing is a real hornets nest with young Percy.

He loves getting other people to pay off his debts.

He's previously admitted to running up debts by basically wasting money, being a bit of a lad etc and then getting the Mrs to help pay it off when they got together. Presumably she got something in return?

But charging a tenant for use of a house and using that money to pay off a debt is entirely different. :rotfl:

It must be great in Percyworld.


Edit: I'm just wondering Percy... if I had bought the house outright, and didn't have a debt to pay off but charged someone for "borrowing" my house would that be ok? It's very complicated in Percyworld.

chewmylegoff

i think his conceptual problem might be around the idea that you should have to do an amount of work consummate with the financial gain that you receive, otherwise it is unethical. of course, percy will recognise the irony in this viewpoint given that he is an accountant and therefore works less hard than e.g. a nurse in return for greater reward.

JonnyBravo

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i think his conceptual problem might be around the idea that you should have to do an amount of work consummate with the financial gain that you receive, otherwise it is unethical. of course, percy will recognise the irony in this viewpoint given that he is an accountant and therefore works less hard than e.g. a nurse in return for greater reward.

Ah I see.
It's bitterness.
He thought he'd identified the job with least amount of effort for maximum returns, ie accountancy, but is bitter as he thinks BTL has usurped that position.

Well in a shocking new survey it has been found that photographers do even less work! That should cheer him up.