The Moral of a BTL.....?

System

So... if he'd already doubled his money would that be moral?

Or if he sold at a loss would that be moral?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

You seem to be saying that his intent is all important and not the effect on the tenants.

So if he got out for another reason (approved by you) then that poor family forced out wouldn't have been a factor anymore and the landlord would bask in moral righteousness.

No.

What I am saying is, for the third time (I apologise you appear to be having trouble with it), a landlord taking that level of risk could be seen as immoral.

As I said, if he hadn't have been so greedy, he could have provided himself wuith a better footing, but less houses. As it stands, he didn't, he took the maximum houses he could at maximum debt, hence ending up, even today, in negative equity.

That is, IMO, immoral.

That's what I am saying, I'm saying none of the words you are trying to stuff into my mouth.

It would be immoral for Tesco's to put food hygiene and safety at risk for greater profits. It would be immoral for train companies to forego maintanance on the tracks to provide greater profits. Clothing stores who use labour from Bangladesh in crumbling buildings to provide higher profits are immoral. Where the risk to the customer or anyone down the line is needlessly high due to greed, it can often be seen as immoral.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.

What I am saying is, for the third time (I apologise you appear to be having trouble with it), a landlord taking that level of risk could be seen as immoral.

As I said, if he hadn't have been so greedy, he could have provided himself wuith a better footing, but less houses. As it stands, he didn't, he took the maximum houses he could at maximum debt, hence ending up, even today, in negative equity.

That is, IMO, immoral.

That's what I am saying, I'm saying none of the words you are trying to stuff into my mouth.

It would be immoral for Tesco's to put food hygiene and safety at risk for greater profits. It would be immoral for train companies to forego maintanance on the tracks to provide greater profits. Clothing stores who use labour from Bangladesh in crumbling buildings to provide higher profits are immoral. Where the risk to the customer or anyone down the line is needlessly high due to greed, it can often be seen as immoral.

He didn't deliberately get into negative equity.

You are confusing morality with business success.

Every landlord starts the business on the assumption that they will exit at a time that suits them (and not the tenant).

It is complete silly to say that because a landlord wants out then it's immoral.

The house goes on; there is no loss in the system some happy family will still be able to live there.
Millions of people move every year; it's not a moral issue, get a sense of proportion.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is complete silly to say that because a landlord wants out then it's immoral.

Clearly you are out to twist to the extreme in a quest to back up BTL landlords at every opportunity. I never said that either.

If you define success on being in negative equity because you were so greedy you took as many houses as you could at high debt levels, then we are never going to agree.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.


As I said, if he hadn't have been so greedy, he could have provided himself wuith a better footing, but less houses. As it stands, he didn't, he took the maximum houses he could at maximum debt, hence ending up, even today, in negative equity.

That is, IMO, immoral.

So being a business failure is immoral

ash28

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you have any figures for the number of people who are forced to quit their rental in Germany ; and how does this compare with the UK?

In Berlin there almost 10k applications to evict tenants....though they don't know how many were actually evicted.

In Hamburg there were almost 4.5k application to evict with around a third of those actually happening.

It's quite an issue in Germany at the moment, and people who think tenants don't get evicted in Germany they can and do.

Two articles worth a read. There seems to be a lot foreign money going into German property.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/09/pauls-berlin-high-rents.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/resident-groups-form-to-fight-evictions-in-germany-a-896188.html

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

So being a business failure is immoral

Good lord.

How many times do I have to say taking as many houses through greed and therefore taking the highest level of risk.....

A business failiure is not immoral.

Taking the level of risk he did, to cater for the level of greed he had, while involving innocent families, and relying on capital appriciation to make your business work, is, IMO, immoral.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good lord.

How many times do I have to say taking as many houses through greed and therefore taking the highest level of risk.....

A business failiure is not immoral.

Taking the level of risk he did, to cater for the level of greed he had, while involving innocent families, and relying on capital appriciation to make your business work, is, IMO, immoral.

so if he had taken fewer houses then that wouldn't have been immoral?

CLAPTON

ash28 wrote: »

In Berlin there almost 10k applications to evict tenants....though they don't know how many were actually evicted.

In Hamburg there were almost 4.5k application to evict with around a third of those actually happening.

It's quite an issue in Germany at the moment, and people who think tenants don't get evicted in Germany they can and do.

Two articles worth a read. There seems to be a lot foreign money going into German property.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/09/pauls-berlin-high-rents.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/resident-groups-form-to-fight-evictions-in-germany-a-896188.html

very interesting post

it seems the German model isn't without it's problems

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

so if he had taken fewer houses then that wouldn't have been immoral?

I'm wondering if there is any point responding as you are clearly being extremely difficult.

I've already written the answer to this twice.

If he had taken fewer houses and put more of a deposit down on that fewer number of houses he wouldn't now be in the mess he is in. Instead he took as many as he could at higher risk on each property (due to lower deposits and higher leverage).

That mess he is in has a knock on effect to his customers. In this case, he is going to sell up as soon as he can, presumably giving the tenants 2 months notice to get out. He'll kindly let them stay until he can break even and then chuck them out when he has.

He took a number of houses, putting as little in as he could and taking as much debt as he could. The idea was to make as much as he could through capital appriciation.

If he had instead taken fewer houses and put up more of a deposit on each, negative equity may not now be an issue. He may well have been able to remortgage (one of his issues was that no one would take him on) and may not have had to sell up, thereby never effecting the tenants.