Remember Fergus Wilson?

chucknorris

N1AK wrote: »

Like someone who plays the lottery see you do get it after all.

Investing substantial amounts of money in a business and playing the lottery are entirely different things.

The reason he as lucky was because although his initial investment was sound, he failed to realise that property values are cyclical and a downturn would eventually come, he could have easily locked in £10m profit anytime between 2005 and 2007. Prior to that he had made his own luck, but IMO he pushed it too far and didn't do that. He bought more and leveraged himself more, therefore making himself vulnerable again from a position of massive strength. But it looks like thanks to the low interest policy adopted by the BOE he got away with his carelessness and greed.

You have to call it greed because it is unlikely that he would ever spend that £10m that he could have locked in as profit, and if that is the case he risked everything for further profit that probably would not have improved his lifestyle.

ruggedtoast

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Well this is moneysavingexpert.com, so you'd expect the debates to be about money. I'm sure there are other forums which may appeal to you if money is such a dirty word for to you.

This being said, I can't see anyone on this thread measuring a human being's worth by financial wealth only.

For all I know, Mr. Wilson could lead a very fulfilling life, probably loves his wife and daughters dearly and gets lots of joy out of horse racing and rugby. I also read he once ran for the police commissioner role. Used to be both math teachers, both of them. Busy bees, those Wilsons. It sure beats racking up thousands of posts spewing bitter, envious and ageist drivel on an internet forum.

If only you would take your own advice.

ILW

Anyone who is saying what a terrible thing all this is, and how easy it was for the Wilsons and how it has done people no good at all.

Why did you not do it yourself and give all the profits to charity?

Mr._Pricklepants

chucknorris wrote: »

I think I know this one, because it is against their principles?

Because they rather play the lottery? It's the same according to some genius on here.



...where did chuck's post go...

chucknorris

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Because they rather play the lottery? It's the same according to some genius on here.



...where did chuck's post go...

I deleted it as I couldn't be bothered getting involved in a long pointless argument with a silly bear or two over the principles of property investment.

ILW

Much as I would defend the Wilsons for being pretty canny, I still think BTL is a rather parasitic business on the whole and tends to do more harm than good.

IveSeenTheLight

ILW wrote: »

Much as I would defend the Wilsons for being pretty canny, I still think BTL is a rather parasitic business on the whole and tends to do more harm than good.

BTL only partially filled the gap left by the RTB sell off.

Without BTL, rents would have dramatically increased and there would have been a significant less options for those remaining renters.

Without BTL, I'm guessing there would have been a significant greater impact.

Remember BTL is only about 13% of the property market, meaning that losing stock from that has a bigger impact than the additional supply to owner occupancy.

Thrugelmir

OffGridLiving wrote: »

What people seem to forget when they state that these people 'got lucky because low rates saved them' is that the reason we have low rates was because of the banking crisis and the reason these people (and others) struggled was because of the banking crisis.

The Wilsons hit the rocks because they became greedy and were fortunate enough to have a lender that backed their plan.

They first spotted the opportunity in 1986, so 12 years before BTL was even invented as a concept. So weren't exactly poor when the boom finally took off.

grizzly1911

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

BTL only partially filled the gap left by the RTB sell off.

Without BTL, rents would have dramatically increased and there would have been a significant less options for those remaining renters.

One more option they may have had would be to purchase.. at lower price maybe?

I appreciate that overall supply would not have improved and there will always be a need for a private rental market -perhaps not routed through BTL.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Without BTL, rents would have dramatically increased and there would have been a significant less options for those remaining renters.

Another "market" would have evolved. As some cash rich people would have seen the opportunity to exploit and mine it.

On the continent there are listed companies that own and manage thousands of residential properties. Possibly the future direction of the UK rental sector in the longer term.