psst ... someone just bought a buy to let empire

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

He was in an extremely dodgy situation at one point (around early 2009), there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. If the market had continued to fall, and interest rates were not reduced to next to nothing, he would have been in serious trouble. I think his debt was much higher back then, he would have paid quite a bit off since 2009, due to the low interest rates.

But the point is that it was totally unnecessary for the Wilsons to have stuck their neck out so far, they ended up risking everything for additional profit that they probably will not live long enough to spend (certainly in a meaningful way).

Yes I think he was worried then but if rents covered mortgage int he would probably have got by. But now I don't see his position as being that bad. Mine you I wouldn't want £80m of debt even if the assets covered it.

mwpt

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes I think he was worried then but if rents covered mortgage int he would probably have got by. But now I don't see his position as being that bad. Mine you I wouldn't want £80m of debt even if the assets covered it.

I think the recession hit him with a lot of voids or missed payments. If rates had not fallen he'd have gone bust.

Graham_Devon

westernpromise wrote: »

It's interesting that what some of us predicted as a consequence of Osborne's tax attacks - the corporatisation and offshoring of ownership to new landlords - is already happening. Anyone who imagined these portfolios would all be sold to tenants and cause a price crash they could profit by should feel a chill at this news.

Not sure foreign companies will be homing in on BTL landlords with 1 or 2 properties to be fair.

The wilsons were pretty unique.

danothy

westernpromise wrote: »

It's interesting that what some of us predicted as a consequence of Osborne's tax attacks - the corporatisation and offshoring of ownership to new landlords - is already happening.

How long does it take to set up a deal of that size? How likely is it that this had been in the works since before the BTL tax changes?

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

He was in an extremely dodgy situation at one point (around early 2009), there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. If the market had continued to fall, and interest rates were not reduced to next to nothing, he would have been in serious trouble. I think his debt was much higher back then, he would have paid quite a bit off since 2009, due to the low interest rates.

He was on interest only on a special deal to keep him afloat.

So unless he made a concerted effort to pay down the debt, he was only ever paying the interest.

As purch said, I'd take the 250m with a pinch of salt. It's simply Furgus saying it afterall, and he's hardly going to go to the papers on his own accord and say he lost out.

Infact, he's said all this before hasn't he? I'm sure we discussed it with the same glee offered that the bears "lost"?

mayonnaise

Do those foreign investors not realise that the Debt Fueled Ponzi Bubble™ is about to burst??

PasturesNew

One website says it's Arabs. Maybe they've a plan in mind.... they'll agree to take a good proportion of immigrants .... but house them in Kent.

westernpromise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure foreign companies will be homing in on BTL landlords with 1 or 2 properties to be fair.

The wilsons were pretty unique.

Agreed, but people with 50 or 100 will get taken out. People with 1 or 2 will sit tight. A handful will get sold but will displace more tenants then they convert to owner-occupation.

HPC calls it wrong again; all's well with the world. Our friend TheCountOfNowhere is inconsolable over there BTW. He was desperately, desperately hoping for some awful misfortune to befall the Wilsons but now they've cashed out successfully he's in literal shock - "whey should British people pay rent to Chinese investors?", he wants to know.

:-)

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes I think he was worried then but if rents covered mortgage int he would probably have got by. But now I don't see his position as being that bad. Mine you I wouldn't want £80m of debt even if the assets covered it.

Exactly! A few years earlier to the downturn (around 2005/6) he had about £150m equity, from that position 'probably getting by' is an unacceptable position to allow yourself to sleep walk into, he definitely took his eye off the ball.

chucknorris

westernpromise wrote: »

Agreed, but people with 50 or 100 will get taken out. People with 1 or 2 will sit tight. A handful will get sold but will displace more tenants then they convert to owner-occupation.

HPC calls it wrong again; all's well with the world. Our friend TheCountOfNowhere is inconsolable over there BTW. He was desperately, desperately hoping for some awful misfortune to befall the Wilsons but now they've cashed out successfully he's in literal shock - "whey should British people pay rent to Chinese investors?", he wants to know.

:-)

We've got 8 investment properties, my plan originally (back in 1991) was to sell at about my 60th birthday (I'm 58 in Jan, don't get anything too expensive for me). So I will probably sell 2 or 3, to lock some profit in, and retain some property to maintain portfolio diversity. In recent years I have been diversifying anyway. As I approach retirement it is time to de-risk, as the reward for taking on/retaining risk is diminishing.