Buy-to-let investors will need 50pc deposit - or no mortgage

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

Only in exceptional circumstances I have used an agent, I don't think that they represent value. Last time I used an agent was in 2005, when I was on holiday in Turkey.

You may not, but plenty do.

As an aside, I don't ever regard you as a "BTL Landlord" when I am discussing these things. I see you more as an investor. For a start, you are not actively buying to let. You let the properties you currently have and have had for years. Hope that makes sense!

The property118 forums open an eye or two and shows just how "on the edge" some of their plans are. The leverage is collosal and a 1% change in anything can see the whole deck of cards collapsing - which I guess gives reason for some of the threads which are truly mindblowing in terms of their utter contempt for their own tenants.

It's these people I talk of when I talk of greed. And there are plenty of them. Just as greed ruined the financial sector, it's ruining the BTL sector.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You may not, but plenty do.

As an aside, I don't ever regard you as a "BTL Landlord" when I am discussing these things. I see you more as an investor. For a start, you are not actively buying to let. You let the properties you currently have and have had for years. Hope that makes sense!

Yes I know what you mean, I think it is speculators that you don't particularly warm to. Although I think the recent changes will discourage speculators even more, IMO it was always a long term investment, even more so now.

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

Yes I know what you mean, I think it is speculators that you don't particularly warm to. Although I think the recent changes will discourage speculators even more, IMO it was always a long term investment, even more so now.

Yes, speculators who hold little regard for tenants, the quality of the housing or the amount of debt they are taking on.

But also agencies coming up with a raft of new, ever more expensive fees which in some cases amount to extortion. Many tenants are funding these fees with loans. And then they arrive in your property freshly saddled with new debt which means you are more at risk - but it doesn't seem to matter to many BTL landlords - all that matters is getting the absolute most in rent per month.

And BTL lenders too. Paragon the other day announced it was making double profits on the back of sub prime packaged lending. Well hello?! 2008 anyone?!

There is a thread right now on Property118, "top" thread on the active list. They are discussing how best to use their tenants in order to obstruct the governments plans. In other words, throw the tenants out en masse and flood the councils so that the government have no choice but to U-Turn.

They are giving people like you a very bad name. I realise you are not one of them, but all landlords come under the bracket "BTL Landlord" and the more these people ruin it through greed, the more we will see the responsible ones pulled in and hit with new regulation.

Theres an interesting thread on there at the moment regarding a property fire (known fault) and re-housing tenants while the house is sorted . Full or moralities. Interesting read, but you can clearly sense where most landlords are coming from - and it's certainly not the interest of the tenants. As I say, some, an dindeed the OP of the thread come across as pretty decent. But many others are simply suggesting that he ends the tenancy and lets the 3 tenants find their own accommodation as it will otherwise cost the landlord. That's OK, but those 3 tenants are having their lives turned upside down, will face further agency fees quicker than they expected - but that's their problem apparently.

IMO, the law should be sound in these situations. At the moment is seems it's up to the morals of the landlord as to what happens to tenants.

Generali

Haha. I'd not seen property118 before. It's like HPC only for landlords.

It's been obvious for 20 years that the biggest risks for BTL were:

- Political
- Lack of diversification

Heck, I've been banging on about these for a decade on here.

I'm not going to go over my thoughts again because I'm sure you're all bored of them. Suffice to say that as prices and rents rose, the risks of political interference in the market rose too.

I suspect that this isn't over.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Haha. I'd not seen property118 before. It's like HPC only for landlords.

It's been obvious for 20 years that the biggest risks for BTL were:

- Political
- Lack of diversification

Heck, I've been banging on about these for a decade on here.

I'm not going to go over my thoughts again because I'm sure you're all bored of them. Suffice to say that as prices and rents rose, the risks of political interference in the market rose too.

I suspect that this isn't over.

I might take a look myself, is there any particular thread that you (and you Graham) would recommend (for comedy value).

Another big risk is a (worse than) bad tenant.

But the total nightmare is rent controls, not the soft ones that the labour party were talking about, personally I think they are OK. I mean the full on rent controls similar to that used to exist, I don't think they would be introduced, but never is a long time.

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

I might take a look myself, is there any particular thread that you (and you Graham) would recommend (for comedy value).

Another big risk is a (worse than) bad tenant.

But the total nightmare is rent controls, not the soft ones that the labour party were talking about, personally I think they are OK. I mean the full on rent controls similar to that used to exist, I don't think they would be introduced, but never is a long time.

http://www.property118.com/spending-review-2015-3-increase-on-stamp-duty-for-btl-and-second-homes/82625/

Theres loads, but that's a good start.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://www.property118.com/councils-of-britain-are-you-ready-for-osbornes-housing-crisis/82490/

Theres loads, but that's a good start.

Thanks I've just signed up.

cells

In some parts of London BTL are the majority buyer

For example in hackney 40% of the stock is social so that is out. 40% is rented 20% is owned.

That means nearly 70% of transactions are BTL buyers.

If BTL is removed from the market or even reduced the clearing price would have to go down.

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

In some parts of London BTL are the majority buyer

For example in hackney 40% of the stock is social so that is out. 40% is rented 20% is owned.

That means nearly 70% of transactions are BTL buyers.

If BTL is removed from the market or even reduced the clearing price would have to go down.

I've been wondering about the affect that this will have, for the very reasons that you cite.

HappyMJ

cells wrote: »

In some parts of London BTL are the majority buyer

For example in hackney 40% of the stock is social so that is out. 40% is rented 20% is owned.

That means nearly 70% of transactions are BTL buyers.

If BTL is removed from the market or even reduced the clearing price would have to go down.

Down? Why down? Rents will go up due to restricted supply. The young couple who have just got together find it's not worth keeping their old one bedroom flats any more when they buy a house together so they sell their flats to buy a house to avoid the increased SDLT. The larger BTL landlords will snap them up avoiding SDLT as they are buying through a company. They are more hard nosed than the young couple and increase rents more regularly and by market rates. Increased rents = higher yields which have an upward pressure on prices pricing the younger single first time buyer who just wanted to buy a one bed flat out of the market even further.