Good Old Fergus!

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

I find it difficult to get upset when I hear about a fall in risk free reward.

I'm paying 2.29% for my mortgage which I'm delighted about. What do you think is an acceptable totally risk free reward for the depositor on the other side of that debt?

I don't 'do' cash but hold a small cash ISA with my lender at 1.2% and, also with them, put £500 per month in a regular saver at 5% which following the tax changes is also tax free.

As you ponder this think about some of the reasons you dislike BTL and ask yourself if sitting on a deposit requires hard graft, is a productive endeavour or makes a contribution to society.

The trouble with the debt is bad attitude is the world is viewed in a binary black and white.

I have taken the points you and cells make onboard and will adjust my views accordingly as I digest them.

I don't think I made it black and white. I have repeatedly stated that I am not against BTL and that we need a private rental sector. I just think that the offerings to BTL at the moment makes it too attractive vs many other investments and has resulted in a shift from OO to BTL. If this is inevitable, I will accept it, but instead I'll argue for better tenants rights. Germany seems to manage well, where property is not seen as get rich scheme.

Btw, I don't hold all that much cash. Where are you getting your 5%? I have a santander account where we receive cash back for bills and earn 3% interest on deposits up to £20k. I have some cash in an offshore Euros account and some spread out in a coupe of other foreign accounts. The rest of my liquid "cash" is in stocks and shares.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

I have taken the points you and cells make onboard and will adjust my views accordingly as I digest them.

I don't think I made it black and white. I have repeatedly stated that I am not against BTL and that we need a private rental sector. I just think that the offerings to BTL at the moment makes it too attractive vs many other investments and has resulted in a shift from OO to BTL. If this is inevitable, I will accept it, but instead I'll argue for better tenants rights. Germany seems to manage well, where property is not seen as get rich scheme.

Btw, I don't hold all that much cash. Where are you getting your 5%? I have a santander account where we receive cash back for bills and earn 3% interest on deposits up to £20k. I have some cash in an offshore Euros account and some spread out in a coupe of other foreign accounts. The rest of my liquid "cash" is in stocks and shares.

Where I usually end up is asking myself if BTL is just so attractive then why doesn't everyone do it and are the yields really that high on a risk adjusted basis. If they can't be sustained then they won't be.

5% if from a Nationwide regular saver. Max £500 month. Finishes in December. I hold almost no cash but what I've started to do post referendum is divert pension savings into cash savings and will invest a lump sum in April instead. Gives me a bigger accessible cash buffer but I don't feel like it's dead money.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

I have taken the points you and cells make onboard and will adjust my views accordingly as I digest them..

There are two factors in the debate

1. Those who wish to maximise ownership
2. Those who wish to see lower (often much lower) house prices.

Although both are linked to some degree it doesn't follow that if 2 happens 1 will definitely happen. You can observe this clearly in the UK where many regions are a lot cheaper (capital mortgage payments) in real terms vs a decade ago BUT ownership is now lower! The midlands and North and Scotland and Wales are all testament to this.

So although the evidence is staring them in the face the crash wishers pray daily for a house price crash and think that will bring about 1


A few things need to happen in the UK to maximise the net good with regards to Housing. First we need a return to 95% self cert interest only mortgages (or at least a hybrid of 10 years interest only followed by 25 years of prepayment). Second we need to reduce the COST of building new homes which means looking at building regs and planning costs and contributions. And finally a significant (50%??) portion of the social stock (especially in London) needs to be sold to the private market.

Those three combined will see a real term fall in new house prices and a significant increase in ownership in a positive way.

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

That's interesting. Do you know how much debt he's carrying?

Whenever these fillers come up involving Fergus Wilson they're usually devoid of any real detail so you might be confusing wishes with predictions again.

But he was supposed to have sold, and there was a little circle jerk on here to celebrate :T Are you telling us he hasn`t actually sold?

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

But he was supposed to have sold, and there was a little circle jerk on here to celebrate :T Are you telling us he hasn`t actually sold?

Other than the gift of seeing you get in a one man circle jerk over him I couldn't care less.

Do you know how much debt he's got or even how many houses by the way? No, didn't think so. He's a walking fairy story.

danothy

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you know how much debt he's got

We've been through this before, Crashy has already established that it's "too much" because it's not "none".

PasturesNew

I thought the resurrection of this thread was about this, where he's suing a tenant:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/property-mogul-sues-mum-over-99461/

MJ12

PasturesNew wrote: »

I thought the resurrection of this thread was about this, where he's suing a tenant:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/property-mogul-sues-mum-over-99461/

So this Carley Ingram (mum or not being irrelevant) accused Fergus Wilson (mogul or not being irrelevant) of sexual assault. Fergus got arrested, but no charges were made against him. So basically the police had probably decided there wasn't enough evidence to say he had done it.

Now Fergus is seeking restitution from being falsely accused by someone of a serious crime he had not done (it was not proven that he had done it) and the suffering that he had endured because of said accusation. (arrested and subject to bail for 4 months, he is now on the system)

Only the courts can decide whether Carley Ingram did it maliciously.

However IF someone did cry wolf, I would want to see justice being served.

Crashy_Time

danothy wrote: »

We've been through this before, Crashy has already established that it's "too much" because it's not "none".

No, it is "too much" because if he hadn`t been bailed out by emergency interest rates he would have been f*ucked, and he probably still will be because of the Brexit vote, which I must admit is quite amusing......:rotfl:

Crashy_Time

MJ12 wrote: »

So this Carley Ingram (mum or not being irrelevant) accused Fergus Wilson (mogul or not being irrelevant) of sexual assault. Fergus got arrested, but no charges were made against him. So basically the police had probably decided there wasn't enough evidence to say he had done it.

Now Fergus is seeking restitution from being falsely accused by someone of a serious crime he had not done (it was not proven that he had done it) and the suffering that he had endured because of said accusation. (arrested and subject to bail for 4 months, he is now on the system)

Only the courts can decide whether Carley Ingram did it maliciously.

However IF someone did cry wolf, I would want to see justice being served.

Fergus should just shut off her hot water, that`ll teach her....:T