BTL, one with lower LTV or three with 75% LTV?

ACG

wolfplayer wrote: »

How are multiple BTLs spreading the risk?

If you have 3 properties and 1 becomes empty you have the other 2 bringing in an income.

If you have one property and it is empty, you do not have that luxury.

Thrugelmir

wolfplayer wrote: »

And perhaps end up with voids if tenant decides to give notice and go to a LL who has less debt. A BTL LLs debt doesn't determine rental values.

While it may only happen to a few people ever year. Being highly leveraged means that some people will fall a very long way due to the circumstances they are exposed to. It's due to this that lending terms are modified. Not for the vast majority who believe it could never ever happen to them.

wolfplayer

SavingSteve wrote: »

What a contemptible human being you are. How about focusing on your own shortcomings rather than wishing for the demise of others?

Welcome to the real world.

It is a housing market and almost every time a BTLer has bought a house they've outbid a potential OO for a home.

It appears you are only just learning about what the BTL tax-changes really mean. BTL is an unregulated market.

SavingSteve wrote: »

Is this strictly true? I thought the only change was to limit the tax relief on interest payments to max 20%?

SavingSteve

wolfplayer wrote: »

Welcome to the real world.

It is a housing market and almost every time a BTLer has bought a house they've outbid a potential OO for a home.

It appears you are only just learning about what the BTL tax-changes really mean. BTL is an unregulated market.

Yes, the real world where the lack of housing stock means BTLers can benefit from the market place. Instead of focusing your anger towards them focus it on the excess population and lack of housing growth that is the real cause.

Doesn't matter how you spin it wishing others to fail is pathetic really.

wolfplayer

SavingSteve wrote: »

Yes, the real world where the lack of housing stock means BTLers can benefit from the market place. Instead of focusing your anger towards them focus it on the excess population and lack of housing growth that is the real cause.

Doesn't matter how you spin it wishing others to fail is pathetic really.

Angry? Can't you tell I'm delighted with the situation BTLers are facing as Section 24 gradually kicks in the BTLers from 2017?

BTL is pathetic. Anyway, enjoy the market ahead. Should be interesting. Many BTLers to lose all their properties 'diversification lol' and become tenants themselves. What's the problem? BTLers think renting is good enough for other people.

Section 24. Seem there is a lot for you and other BTLers to learn about.

Demand for rental accommodation is created by landlords when they outbid owner occupiers, because every time a landlord buys a house they create a tenant. For the most part, landlords are creating the demand they pretend to service. We've not been able to build houses faster than BTL spivs been outbidding would-be OO for.

The Times
January 1 2015

Home ownership levels in Britain are about to fall behind France for the first time after a decade-long surge in buy-to-let lending that has pushed more people into the rental sector.

[...]Departmental figures show that the vast majority of new housing in the UK since the turn of the millennium has been bought by landlords. Between 2000 and 2012, the private rented sector has accounted for some 2.5 million of the extra homes. Only 400,000 have been bought by occupiers.

http://www.thetimes....f4bb875d204d1d6

wolfplayer

ACG wrote: »

If you have 3 properties and 1 becomes empty you have the other 2 bringing in an income.

If you have one property and it is empty, you do not have that luxury.

Well good luck those BTLers who've followed such 'spread the risk' approach, entirely into buying ever more BTL properties, as Section24 kicks in.

If you have 3 BTLs you're 3 times more exposed to Section 24.

Spreading the risk lol. :rotfl:

SavingSteve

Please do comeback and enlighten us all when the crash you're so looking forward to happens.

wolfplayer

SavingSteve wrote: »

Please do comeback and enlighten us all when the crash you're so looking forward to happens.

You see little risk of that? Many BTLers felt the same way as they continued to buy ever more BTLs, to make other people rent from them. Now they have Section 24 to look forward to.

It's been a joy seeing someone so defensive of BTL only learn today about some of the more advanced parts of Section 24. What is it now..something like 18 months since Section 24 set out in the 2015 Summer Budget, and so many BTLers still completely oblivious to what Section24 means. Some investors/business people! Ancient news now but so many BTLers don't realise anything about it. Roll on 2017 as it gets phased in.

You might also be delighted to learn many BTLers will find themselves in high/higher tax bracket, given the adjustments that come with Section 24, and way it treats gross rents before mortgage costs. Research and read for the complete explanation.

BTL people-farmer investors get no sympathy from me and I do want them to fail in large number, for their part in creating a situation where homeownership has plummeted. The BTLers chose their side and they chose one where they wanted multiple properties, whilst others priced out and forced to rent from them.

AnotherJoe

There doesn't have to be a crash for the BTLs to get out. For the most part they can take their capital gains which will cancel out losses from the new law.
Sales would you'd think be far more spread out than the artificial purchase boom before the new SDLT came in, so other factors apart, a soft landing seems more likely to me. And hopefully more room for FTBs.

However, the fact that many LLs won't make a profit would it seems only dawn on many of them after some considerable time, judging by the number of pathetically amateur profit forecasts by the wannabes LLs here. So it's also possible you'll see a cycling of one LTB property from one LL to the next to the next, each losing money but only realising after 2 or 3 years.

More useful as a deterrence will be the 145% rental test plus at least 25% deposit and bigger would IMO be better.

SavingSteve

wolfplayer wrote: »

It's been a joy seeing someone so defensive of BTL only learn today about some of the more advanced parts of Section 24.

I actually don't care about what happens to BTL, my initial comment, which I stand by, is that I find any person who actively wishes ill of another contemptible. My second view is I feel you're grossly overplaying the impact s24 will have, IMHO.

I come on these forums to learn (hence my question on the impact of the new rules) and help where I can. You obviously come on to make yourself feel better about yourself. I would laugh at you, but deep down I just feel sorry for you. Carry on ranting, hope it gives some meaning to your life.