Remember Fergus Wilson?

ILW

N1AK wrote: »

He's lucky in the same sense that a lottery winner is: the benefactor of a random event. It wasn't skill or business savvy, unless you're seriously suggesting that he positioned himself knowing that rates would change and his bank would bail him out; which he has never claimed to be the case himself.

I don't know him and don't begrudge them anything but only a fool would think they are an example to follow.

What I'm interested to know is how they managed to get so many properties? I wouldn't have thought they'd be able to secure enough lending, but I'm probably basing that on bank behaviour since I entered the market post crash.

The main reason he was lucky is because he gave it a go. As opposed to sitting back and complaining.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why couldn't the lender (s) simply appoint administrators (at the crux point) rather than keep propping them up to run down the book?

Business is asset rich but cash poor. So selling off properties to reduce debt burden has probably resulted in a stronger but smaller business. Offloading multiple properties in the same locality too quickly would have caused a price depression. Which would not have been to the lenders benefit.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Everything is in Devon.

Worry, worry, worry, all day every day....;)

You (and wotsthat) are doing this more frequently to many points put to you. instead of claiming muddling, any sticky point is simply ignored by claiming "oh hes worrying again".

What happens should the wilsons not be able to keep this thing running?

They have been lucky up until now. But what happens to the tenants should the wilsons not be able to keep up due to health or some other event? They were supposed to sell all this to another business, but they can't.

First thing is the lender goes under. What happens to the houses and therefore the tenants then? I'd just like to explore this instead of hailing this bloke as a genius. You can call me jealous and worrying within your explanation if you wish, but can you not see the issue here?

People who sold up repackaged debts did very well too. As did people who massaged LIBOR figures. As did loads of other people who have left us all high and dry.

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

What I'm interested to know is how they managed to get so many properties? I wouldn't have thought they'd be able to secure enough lending, but I'm probably basing that on bank behaviour since I entered the market post crash.

I'm not sure we've ever seen any in-depth figures but I suspect they nearly went under due to cash flow problems rather than lack of profitability. The overall LTV was probably not as high as people like to make out either. As business stories go theirs isn't untypical.

The Wilsons are as relevant to the housing market as Kirsty Allsopp but guaranteed to get the usual suspects to get hot under the collar.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Business is asset rich but cash poor. So selling off properties to reduce debt burden has probably resulted in a stronger but smaller business. Offloading multiple properties in the same locality too quickly would have caused a price depression. Which would not have been to the lenders benefit.

They haven't sold any according to the articles. He had 700 in his distrssed state in 2010. He has 700 now in the recent article.

IveSeenTheLight

the_flying_pig wrote: »

some tall tales in there.

estate agents always know roughly what a house in their patch will fetch if up for sale.

the idea of someone just rocking up & paying £30k for a house that's in any way worth £120k [or even £44k], it's just the stuff of fantasy.

I bought a house that was valued at £240k for only £222k.
I then put in a new Kitchen (£4.5k), carpets, painted throughout, spruced the place up all in for circa £6.5k.

It was then valued at £258k. (Partly because I sold the house next door for £255k between buying the £222k and renovating the property)

I've not sold as I'm renting now for £1300 pcm on an invested £72k.
This is a return of 21.66% of my invested sum or more realistically 13% after all the costs / taxes are deducted.

There are opportunities to snap up bargains out there if you are ready and prepared to move.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

First thing is the lender goes under. What happens to the houses and therefore the tenants then? I'd just like to explore this instead of hailing this bloke as a genius. You can call me jealous and worrying within your explanation if you wish, but can you not see the issue here?

I don't think he's a genius - just got lucky with jam on top.

The houses will still be occupied whether the Wilson's get ill or die.

Why would the lender go under as soon as they got ill or died? What's the current LTV of the portfolio?

If you're worried that their business failing would have such devastating consequences you must be delighted that rates fell when they did.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They haven't sold any according to the articles. He had 700 in his distrssed state in 2010. He has 700 now in the recent article.

700 properties to achieve £250k profit a month means they need on average £357.15 per month.

Not sure of the valuations or rents achieved but I can envisage that rents could have increased £357 per month in profits since dropping 5% in the base rates.

Lets average a £150k property (mortgage) at 5.5% would mean the interest was £687.50 per month.
If the rates dropped to 1.5%, then the interest would only be £187.50 per month, meaning a £500 per month per property profit.

Even at lower figures a £100k property (mortgage) dropping from 5.5% to 1.5% would increase the profit by £333.33 per month.

With 700 properties, the interest rate drop could have provided a £250k increased profit theoretically.

nicko33

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

I don't think they are geniuses, and yes they got lucky. But luck just doesn't come around, you have to make your own luck.

Yes, their failed business was saved by the "luck" of the banking crisis. How did they make that "luck" exactly?

You don't make luck. You take gambles and sometimes you get luck. Some of it good, some of it bad.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't think he's a genius - just got lucky with jam on top.

Right, so whats the problem then. As that's what I said.

You've thanked pricklepants post making a mockery of the fact I said he got lucky. You then state "he got lucky". Which no doubt pricklepants will thank you for.

You are not really here to discuss the issue are you? Just here to try and argue again.