Good Old Fergus!

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

simple question
but the answer makes no sense
why would that be?

.. for the simple reason that the answer, itself, was a heterdoxy.

Running_Horse

Maybe they should all make their way to Wilson Towers at Boughton Monchelsea for a civilised discussion about where they should live next.

ruggedtoast

I actually don't blame the Wilsons any more than I would blame mold for growing on an old piece of cheese that has been left out. They are a symptom of an irreconcilably broken housing system.


A system that puts human beings most vulnerable need, that of shelter, at the hands of misanthropists, banks and short term speculators.

They were the very epitome of Brown's venal greed driven financial idiocy. Applying for and being given mortgage after mortgage based on imaginary equity in their debt fuelled house of cards, until they had borrowed so much the banks were scared to ask for any of it back, when it turned out they had no idea how they were going to pay it back.

I actually hope the Wilsons keep up their nefarious deeds and I hope each one ends up on the news.

They are not Rachmans, they are blockheads. But it is only by dint of people the public perceives as the Rachmans of the world sticking their heads up that anything will change, because politicians will never, ever, do anything for tenants without a significant upsurge of public sentiment.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

Well yes Graham, it is OK.
If it wasn't, Mr. Wilson should be arrested.
But I'm sure out of the kindness of your heart, you would happily rent out your property to tenants who have a 50% chance of being in arrears.

Altruist of the year award!

Every tenant has a chance of being 50% in arrears.

It's called risk.

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Every tenant has a chance of being 50% in arrears.

It's called risk.

Eh?

Mr Wilson stated that 50% of his HB tenants are in arrears.

Mr Wilson did not state that 50% of his tenants are in arrears.


It's really not that complicated.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Every tenant has a chance of being 50% in arrears.

It's called risk.

How would you advise on mitigating that risk?

ruggedtoast

I think anyone who rents from the Wilsons isn't in much doubt about what kind of landlord they are getting.

The problem is that most of them have no other options. We are supposed to favour private landlords because they are an exemplar of the 'free market'.

But there is no free market for tenants. There is so little accommodation and the odds are so stacked in favour of these toads that people are forced to take whatever they can get.

The Wilsons, mostly by luck more than judgement, own 1000 properties in Ashford. It is probable that the 200 housing benefit tenants they believe they have are not going to find anywhere they can rent in that town now.

Which is ironic considering David Camerons big plan for expelling the poor from London is pretty heavily dependent on private landlords like the Wilsons taking on housing benefit tenants in places like Ashford.

Oh dear. It does look like the high house prices brigade have a bit of a problem.

:-)

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Every tenant has a chance of being 50% in arrears.

It's called risk.

Firstly, you can't fall 50% into arrears, that'd be like digging half a hole. You are either in arrears or you aren't.

Secondly, an individual tenant's binary possibility state of being in arrears or not does not equate to a 50% chance of that tenant falling into arrears. Each tenant will have their own circumstances in and out of their control that will dictate their own percentage risk of falling into arrears.

Thirdly, any subset of all tenants you care to pick will have a risk that is an aggregate of the individual risks. If you are intelligent about how you pick those subsets you group them by similarity of circumstance (and therefore influencing factors). As such the group risk of falling into arrears (a parameter that is more easily and accurately measurable than for an individual) will be representative of each of the individuals in it. This is the risk you act on. But it's not necessarily 50%, and it's not the same for everyone.

dktreesea

editor1 wrote: »

Funny old world, I actually publish an international journal on "Risk".

What risk are you actually discussing, apart from your support of the Wilson's business model, which involves no risk whatsoever in a period of exponential house price inflation and zero interest rate policy!

Please elaborate further - but its rather impossible to have "risk" related to property, when said value of property is underwritten by the state - or am I missing something about QE - me and a few thousand other economists shall I say.

That's true, but alas, the State is an unreliable guarantor. They reduce benefits or stop them altogether at the drop of a hat.

dktreesea

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And dktreesa was responding to a post specifically about the wilsons.

Cute though. Look at you all!

Actually, I was replying to a post that mentioned the Wilsons and landlords in general, specifically editor1's post:

"The Wilson's are an abomination, as is anyone who is a part of the rent extracting economy that's actually destroying the fabric of many a nation... "

I can understand that people don't like the Wilson's attitude. And they certainly aren't media savvy. There would probably be a lot of people who see their side were it not for their snobby attitudes. But even so, they provide a service people want and need, just like any other landlord.