BCR approaching 100%

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

Everything seems to be excellent news for landlords. I don't think I've seen a single item posted here that hasn't been framed as such.

Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you reply to my post and suggest why it might not be good news for existing landlords?

If you want to see bad news reported for landlords, what about these posts, which were posted by me? This is just a small sample, there are many many more:

chucknorris wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous, who the hell is going to invest in rental property (I wasn't going to anyway):

1. Higher deposits.
2. Mortgage interest tax expense capped at 20%.
3. Wear and tear allowance scrapped (although investors who never claimed it probably don't realise what an advantage it was.
4. An additional 3% stamp duty.

Maybe cash buyers (takes out 1 and 2) but they can't be a large proportion of the market.

chucknorris wrote: »

I think the forthcoming tax and stamp duty changes will massively reduce the need for any action, new BTL investment will fall.

EDIT: Although according to a new thread larger deposits are on the way.

chucknorris wrote: »

It is a large additional cost for any London landlords looking to invest, you don't get much for £500k, and that would be an extra £15k stamp duty to pay. When a FTB and landlord are competing for a property that gives the FTB a good head start.

Once the other new tax rules (scrapping the wear and tear allowance and the 20% cap on mortgage tax relief for higher rate tax payers) are applied, it will be quite a barrier for new BTL entrants to overcome, before there investment becomes profitable.

chucknorris wrote: »

No I couldn't have, the day after the budget changes were announced I looked at the first couple of properties that I bought, and re-ran the figures applying the new post budget tax rules. When I first bought I was only covering costs and showing a very small profit, but I was content with that, because I was investing for the long term. But with the new tax rules, there is no way that I would (or could) have taken on those initial losses, in not only the first year, but quite a few more subsequent years before breaking even. It definitely is a 'game changer' for new entrants (and highly geared current landlords), it will also be interesting to see what happens to rents.

mwpt

chucknorris wrote: »

Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you reply to my post and suggest why it might not be good news for existing landlords?

Touchy!

Sarcasm is sometimes my default response when I can't be bothered with the same old debates again. Maybe on Monday. Happy Easter.

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

Touchy!

Sarcasm is sometimes my default response when I can't be bothered with the same old debates again. Maybe on Monday. Happy Easter.

Have you not realised yet that I am more of a property bear (than bull)? I don't see a good future for London landlords who intend to enter the market. I have already posted numerous times that when the base rate gets near 2.5%, I intend to sell up and invest the equity in shares, because they will be equally profitable, but with far less hassle. I haven't invested in property since 2008, since then I have only invested in shares and to a far lesser extent buying additional pension in the TPS. If it wasn't for my low margin tracker mortgages (they distort the profits), I would have probably sold a few properties already.

Out of all the landlords on here, you pick the one landlord that thinks residential property is not a good investment going forward, to insinuate that I only post positive views on property, I have posted my negative views many times, you couldn't make it up that someone would post that about me (were you drunk?).

mwpt

chucknorris wrote: »

Have you not realised yet that I am more of a property bear (than bull)? I don't see a good future for London landlords who intend to enter the market. I have already posted numerous times that when the base rate gets near 2.5%, I intend to sell up and invest the equity in shares, because they will be equally profitable, but with far less hassle. I haven't invested in property since 2008, since then I have only invested in shares and to a far lesser extent buying additional pension in the TPS. If it wasn't for my low margin tracker mortgages (they distort the profits), I would have probably sold a few properties already.

Out of all the landlords on here, you pick the one landlord that thinks residential property is not a good investment going forward, to insinuate that I only post positive views on property, I have posted my negative views many times, you couldn't make it up that someone would post that about me (were you drunk?).

I wouldn't get too upset about my remarks. I realise you are fairly bearish on London property (not a crashist). It is a common meme here that whatever measures seem to be introduced, landlords can't lose. Costs just get passed on, rental market reduces therefore rents go up, blah blah... I really had no intention of directing my message at you, it's just that yours was the most convenient post to reply to. It seems that you're quite annoyed with me, but don't be.

Unfortunately, not drunk. I haven't been in some time due to needing to keep my brain working at (my) top level recently (work type stuff). Perhaps I'll have a glass or two this weekend. Happy Easter!

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Well if you think about it, and the landlord probably has for about 8 seconds, you can get a one bed flat for 400 p.m, so one with FOUR beds must be worth close to 1600 p.m, WOWCHER, roll up! roll up! live with some other students and a cheap TV! :rotfl:

Don't fancy living in a HMO with 3 students in my fifties but each to their own.

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

I wouldn't get too upset about my remarks. I realise you are fairly bearish on London property (not a crashist). It is a common meme here that whatever measures seem to be introduced, landlords can't lose. Costs just get passed on, rental market reduces therefore rents go up, blah blah... I really had no intention of directing my message at you, it's just that yours was the most convenient post to reply to. It seems that you're quite annoyed with me, but don't be.

Unfortunately, not drunk. I haven't been in some time due to needing to keep my brain working at (my) top level recently (work type stuff). Perhaps I'll have a glass or two this weekend. Happy Easter!

i'm not upset, but I was very confused, some fool like pizza laddie I could understand him posting what you did (as most of us know, he isn't particularly bright). But I have some respect for your opinion, so I couldn't really understand where you were coming from.

dharm999

mayonnaise wrote: »

It's a hypothetical person who bought in Dalry in 2015.
I assume Dalry prices are flat or down, so this hypothetical person is the perfect illustration of how it makes sense not to buy in '98 and live until your 50's in HMO's, bedsits and flatshares.

They aren't. At the moment 1 and 2 bedroom flats are rising significantly in Edinburgh. Presumably landlords getting in ahead of the stamp duty increase. One flat, which was a fixer upper, had over 40 notes of interest and went for 60k over the valuation, which was nearly 50% higher than the valuation report.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Crashy_Time wrote: »

WOLF! :rotfl:

I see Crashy is still posting his wonderfully insightful thoughts.....

mwpt

chucknorris wrote: »

i'm not upset, but I was very confused, some idiot like pizza laddie I could understand him posting what you did (as most of us know, he isn't particularly bright). But I have some respect for your opinion, so I couldn't really understand where you were coming from.

Well I apologise but I'll be frank, I think you overreacted. Never mind, moving on.

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

Well I apologise but I'll be frank, I think you overreacted. Never mind, moving on.

Over reaction? I think you over estimated my response. But obviously I accept your apology, no hard feelings.