No money but want to buy a property

jimjames

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

I appreciate you have to speculate to accumulate but i could not envisage myself putting my home at risk for anything.

As long as you're sensible about the borrowing then it's not a massive risk.

I find it incredible that someone can inherit over £100k, spend it all on property yet not retain a bit for eventualities.

savings_my_hobby

jimjames wrote: »

As long as you're sensible about the borrowing then it's not a massive risk.

I find it incredible that someone can inherit over £100k, spend it all on property yet not retain a bit for eventualities.

I know right, i'd like to think that I'd have had one apartment as opposed to four with a descent lump put down and a back up fund for when the tenant messes up.

you are right about the borrowing if your sensible but putting down minimum amount on four would set my alarm bells ringing straight away. I guess some people are missing that little voice in the back of their head. with reference to post #19

droopsnoot

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

I know right, i'd like to think that I'd have had one apartment as opposed to four with a descent lump put down and a back up fund for when the tenant messes up.

I think the point of having four is that if one tenant messes up, you've still got the income from the other three to keep things going.

savings_my_hobby

droopsnoot wrote: »

I think the point of having four is that if one tenant messes up, you've still got the income from the other three to keep things going.

agreed, but obviously not enough of the original capital (which most has been used for meeting the deposits i'm guessing) to bail themselves out when needed.

jimjames

The OP doesn't seem to be coming back to enlighten us how this no deposit purchase thing works.

The latest wheeze from the "property training" guys seems to be turning your house into serviced accommodation. As if managing one tenant isn't enough that's now possibly different people every day.

BeansOnToast_2

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Some examples of how many people buy with 100% loan would be interesting.

If you buy at a high ltv you will get a really extortionate interest rate, so your monthly payments may be unaffordable.

Cheers fj

I did it (well technically it was a 99.9% mortgage), and got the standard interest rate at the time from the Halifax Building Society as it then was. But it was over 30 years ago

Never missed a payment.

BelfastFTB

BeansOnToast wrote: »

I did it (well technically it was a 99.9% mortgage), and got the standard interest rate at the time from the Halifax Building Society as it then was. But it was over 30 years ago

Never missed a payment.

Over 30 years ago being the key detail here...

Deposits aside, is the OP's concept of affordability somewhat clouded/non-existent?

racing_blue

Actually I think this may be possible in Zimbabwe under the Mugabe regime

Pincher

Without 100% mortgages, you just need to do it in two stages.


In year 1, you buy a £150k house for £50k down, and £100k mortgage. Interest only to keep it simple. LTV = 67%.


In year 5, the property is worth say £250k. You re-mortgage for £150k, LTV = 60%, which releases the initial £50k investment, so it's now NO MONEY DOWN.


You can only get mortgage interest tax relief on the initial acquisition cost, i.e. £150k, so if you get a £200k mortgage, you only get tax relief on £150k worth of interest. No relief for the interest on the extra £50k.

jimjames

racing_blue wrote: »

Actually I think this may be possible in Zimbabwe under the Mugabe regime

But you need to be best mates with the Mugabe family instead. Saving a deposit might be easier