How much can house prices keep rising ?

ukcarper

Conrad wrote: »

That's ok, no offence taken.


I don't think Brits are lazy, after all why would the world migrants be so wanting to come here if we were lazy, as a lazy society would not produce such a great nation.




London - so back to my first point - I do not buy into this 'London is unaffordable' meme too readily as it is at odds with my years of experience of poor migrants pouring into the place and soon managing to acquire property wealth - its just what they do.


The latest change I've spotted is with Africans - they too have this awesome focus on property. Many live above my office here - they arrive with nothing but within a few years have some properties, it's amazing how they do it - it does require a lot of imagination and street smarts.


To give an example they don't buy a property as a couple, instead they use one name only. This then leaves the spouse to buy by themselves later with only a 5% deposit as a FTB - which they then let out.


Now after say 2 years those 2 London properties have gone up say £75k each and they both remortgage, release capital and buy a third place as an official B2L

How do thier earnings come into this to borrow £300k you would need to be on £60k a year plus?

cyantist

andydownes123 wrote: »

There is no make do, only buy and then rag the credit card for 5k for funishings and wonder why they have money problems. People don't want a fixer-upper, they want new build, new stuff, full Sky package and car on PCP now NOW NOW!!

Indeed. There are lots of people our age and younger who don't live that sort of lifestyle and are prepared to go without - they are the ones who end up buying. It's very frustrating when you get told how 'lucky' you are to own somewhere, by someone who has a £100 a month sky package, new car on finance, and a 3 times a week takeaway habit. Especially when they would only have to save a tenth of the deposit you needed to buy somewhere.

But is that going to change? I don't think so. So those people who aren't prepared to make those sacrifices will find house prices moving further out of their reach.

In London and nearby there will probably always be more demand and a lot of people who earn a lot of money, and I don't see prices stopping rising there, but elsewhere where wages are lower, the rental market isn't ridiculous and competition for housing isn't stupid, why will prices keep rising?

Crashy_Time

Conrad wrote: »

I first worked within the Asian, Turkish and Greek communities of North London back in the late 80's, on leaving education. I was struck by how these entire communities thought packaged investments such as Pensions were not for them. Whether a kebab shop owner or a leather importer they almost to a man had an absolute laser like focus on property.


They were way ahead of us gentiles with our funny pensions and endowment policies. They pioneered what later became known as buy to let.


There were no buy to let mortgages really, and I had great battles with lending designers to get them to appreciate this massive market, but really until about the late 90's this fell on deaf ears.


I recall sitting in meetings with middle and higher managers - all of us white British, with a mix of wonder and bemusement at how these ethnic minorities had property portfolios - it really was an alien concept to most British back then. It tickles me how we soon forget.


Then once b2l lending came on stream, it became quickly normalised, and British people piled in


To this day I see the same thing, immigrants tend to have this DNA level drive to acquire property. They always find a way, often for example clubbing together


A classic case I will see is the Newsagent living above his shop in a pokey flat, but he owns 6 or 7 houses. Often quite humble but behind it all is considerable asset wealth


Takeaway owners (fried chicken shops etc) tend to be particularly ambitious property wise. I have a kebab shop worker (the bloke serving drunks late at night), not a business owner. Well he owns 2 commercial properties and 3 houses - no customer would ever suspect this.


I think a lot immigrants are drawn to the UK on account of the feedback they get back from those already in the UK with millions of pounds worth of property

Hope they all enjoy being the governments tax !!!!! in future......:rotfl:

padington

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Hope they all enjoy being the governments tax !!!!! in future......:rotfl:

Properties wrapped up in a company is quite tax efficient regarding yield.

westernpromise

A colleague of mine is looking quite hard at esoteric wrappers for this kind of thing. There is, for example, a type of company structure in Liechtenstein called an Anstalt, or institute, that pays a flat fee of 15k euros a year, and is exempt from taxes if its main business is property management. Directors can be nominees.

So under this structure, he has the rents paid to the Anstalt's multi-currency bank account in Liechtenstein. If any nosy parker from say HMRC wants to know who owns the company, they will learn only that the names of the nominee directors are Mr. Khan and Mr. Horowitz at a box number in Liechtenstein. That's all the authorities there know or want to know about the Anstalt so they can't disclose more even if forced.

The beauty of it is that you can have a different trading name for each property but they're all the same Anstalt, so there's only one fee and nothing that associates them with each other.

As a way of flying under the radar it seems to have no peer.

The other neat idea he is looking at, and this works with a UK company, is the one where all the rental profits go into the company pension scheme (which - of course! - has only one member). This wheeze results in a nil tax bill as well.

These structures seem likely to proliferate. The state needs to understand that people will find a way round this nonsense like water finding its way downhill. Where none is possible, then doing stupid things like hiking stamp duty to insanely greedy levels simply destroys the sector, and results in less money for the state, not more.

Cloudydaze

westernpromise wrote: »

A colleague of mine is looking quite hard at esoteric wrappers for this kind of thing. There is, for example, a type of company structure in Liechtenstein called an Anstalt, or institute, that pays a flat fee of 15k euros a year, and is exempt from taxes if its main business is property management. Directors can be nominees.

So under this structure, he has the rents paid to the Anstalt's multi-currency bank account in Liechtenstein. If any nosy parker from say HMRC wants to know who owns the company, they will learn only that the names of the nominee directors are Mr. Khan and Mr. Horowitz at a box number in Liechtenstein.

The onus would be on the tenants/letting agents to inform HMRC. The tenants would pay the tax to HMRC.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/paying-tax-on-rent-to-landlords-abroad

Crashy_Time

padington wrote: »

Properties wrapped up in a company is quite tax efficient regarding yield.

Lets see how many of the "It (was) my pension" brigade go this route then shall we....:money:


I hear Trump is specifically targeting Wood Green as a threat to financial stability...be afraid...be very afraid! :rotfl:

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

A colleague of mine is looking quite hard at esoteric wrappers for this kind of thing. There is, for example, a type of company structure in Liechtenstein called an Anstalt, or institute, that pays a flat fee of 15k euros a year, and is exempt from taxes if its main business is property management. Directors can be nominees.

So under this structure, he has the rents paid to the Anstalt's multi-currency bank account in Liechtenstein. If any nosy parker from say HMRC wants to know who owns the company, they will learn only that the names of the nominee directors are Mr. Khan and Mr. Horowitz at a box number in Liechtenstein. That's all the authorities there know or want to know about the Anstalt so they can't disclose more even if forced.

The beauty of it is that you can have a different trading name for each property but they're all the same Anstalt, so there's only one fee and nothing that associates them with each other.

As a way of flying under the radar it seems to have no peer.

The other neat idea he is looking at, and this works with a UK company, is the one where all the rental profits go into the company pension scheme (which - of course! - has only one member). This wheeze results in a nil tax bill as well.

These structures seem likely to proliferate. The state needs to understand that people will find a way round this nonsense like water finding its way downhill. Where none is possible, then doing stupid things like hiking stamp duty to insanely greedy levels simply destroys the sector, and results in less money for the state, not more.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/dec/09/buy-to-let-landlord-days-numbered-fergus-wilson-tax-changes-mortgage-rules


Your hero seems to be saying no? Thought this guy sold up ages ago according to the collective Group Hope on here?

AdrianC

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Thought this guy sold up ages ago

You didn't actually get as far as the second paragraph of the article you just posted, then?

...now in the process of selling up...

A two-second google finds reportage from a year ago that he'd "struck a deal" with Arab money to sell the lot for £250m. Then reportage from this September that he'd sold "almost half" in the last year, and more coverage from July that brexit had "caught him" in "turmoil".

Since he was also reported to be selling up as far back as 2008, then turned out in 2009 to be £350k in mortgage arrears, there's probably a fair bit of scepticism justified about his claims.

Crashy_Time

AdrianC wrote: »

You didn't actually get as far as the second paragraph of the article you just posted, then?

I quoted that line on the other thread. Has he sold up, or is he still trying to sell up, that is the question. According to the spanners on here he had banked "millions" months ago.....:rotfl: