Times article about pensions

[drainbrain]

NickCQ said:

DonkeyApple said:

gear your tits up on BTL

It's a bit 1990's - early 2000's but does anyone actually still do that these days?

[Jockman]

drainbrain said:

NickCQ said:

DonkeyApple said:

gear your tits up on BTL

It's a bit 1990's - early 2000's but does anyone actually still do that these days?

It would certainly be more difficult.

Those that did it during that period would most likely be 'lightly leveraged' by now.

[drainbrain]

Jockman said:

drainbrain said:

NickCQ said:

DonkeyApple said:

gear your tits up on BTL

It's a bit 1990's - early 2000's but does anyone actually still do that these days?

It would certainly be more difficult.

Those that did it during that period would most likely be 'lightly leveraged' by now.

Nope, the best of them would have completely paid off that leveraging and have reinstated it for the same arithmetical amount in order to add a whole new raft of stock but now with a huge unburdened portfolio standing behind it. Bags of security. Bags of income. And some of the challenger banks are well aware of it (Shawbrook for example).

Interestingly enough, if you looked back 10-15 years at archive PH you'd see the same naysay hyenas naysaying the strategy back then in the early editions of the 'how far will house prices fall' thread.

Hopefully big buying opportunity on the near horizon now which doubtless a new generation of now de-leveraged propertaaay zillionaires will be taking full advantage of.

[DonkeyApple]

drainbrain said:

NickCQ said:

DonkeyApple said:

gear your tits up on BTL

It's a bit 1990's - early 2000's but does anyone actually still do that these days?

You were doing it in 2008 Groak. Hence your ongoing ranting due to RBS wanting their money back.

But at least you have learnt your lesson and are investing in property without being balls deep in debt now.

And yes, everyone else is still doing it as you know. Hence the taxation changes to force the highly leveraged property speculators to de leverage. And you also know that a very large number of retail BTLs are not net positive on a monthly basis but are underpinned by high leverage on low rates angling with the hope of capital values rising.

Not everyone has moved on to pitching mis-priced, weakly regulated peer to peer lending. I'm sure you're ahead of that curve also.

[tighnamara]

drainbrain said:

Hmmm. Now if EVERYBODY globally stopped investing in anything but btl and ONLY invested in btl, what would happen to rents?
(Mind you, there would be some amount of available cheap rental property so it would stop a bit of moaning from some quarters...)

So are you kinda hinting at my secret mission being to vastly damage - maybe even destroy - my own investment strategy?

Or are you saying that my boring post above wishing goodwill to all pensionistas both clients and management was secretly some kind of twisted PH hyena disingenuousness?

Mate, my experience of pensions (including, I might add, the state pension) is risible. And on that basis alone I am fully entitled to say that they are not for me. They're not. But I'm well aware that Fred Goodwin, many an MP and others earn very comfortable money from their pensions. Not, tho' I think Joe Average.

As to 'other people', whilst, once more - boring I know but a required clarification - if asked I would advise them that my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with pensions is that they turned out to be a waste of time, I couldn't care less whether they decide to invest in pensions, invest in btl, or convert their entire life savings into 1p coins and stick them one by one up their anus.

Edited by drainbrain on Monday 3rd July 17:24

LOL
For someone who couldn't care less you certainly post enough about it...heres to the next time.

[drainbrain]

DonkeyApple said:

drainbrain said:

NickCQ said:

DonkeyApple said:

gear your tits up on BTL

It's a bit 1990's - early 2000's but does anyone actually still do that these days ?

You were doing it in 2008 Groak. Hence your ongoing ranting due to RBS wanting their money back.

But at least you have learnt your lesson and are investing in property without being balls deep in debt now.

And yes, everyone else is still doing it as you know. Hence the taxation changes to force the highly leveraged property speculators to de leverage.

I think you're confusing Rev. Ebeneezer Groak (taxis, secured loan broking, moneylending) with 'selmahoos' (high level borrowing for buy-to-sells).

None the less, unless you really are just a bullstter, would you care to share the name of even one lender who'll agree to an over leveraged position these days? Preferably on a portfolio of 50 -100. I mean if 'everyone's still doing it as I know' they must be getting the over leveraged funds from somebody?

Won't hold my breath for the reply

Actually, continuing the subject of bullst, who - esp. RBS - would have agreed to an over-leveraged position in 2008?

Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 4th July 02:14

[DonkeyApple]

Over leverage? Just leverage. That's what gearing is.

Why do you think the tax offsetting is being phased out as of this year? Why do you think we are having another regulatory review over LTVs? And just why do you think lending has been based on actual affordability measures these last few years?

Groak, as per usual you are a smart bloke who throws it all away in your obsession to rant against an industry which you spent years gobbing off that you were greater than and than until they wanted their money back.

Aren't you due to be promoting some incorrectly priced peer to peer banditry this week? Or has the fact that some are now sippable done your head in? What!!! The most awesome and equitable world of peer to peer now available in the most evil and wrong pension world!!!! How can that possibly work. Peer to peer is all about sticking it to the man and pensions are all about the man ripping everyone off. I can see how you might get be struggling with this devastating blow.

[drainbrain]

DonkeyApple said:

mixture of ad hominem, red herring and semi-unintelligible twaddle

So I guess you're keeping that lender who'll be happy to let me get balls-deep in debt (like everyone does as I know) a secret, then.

Hmm. Thought as much.

Oh well. Best get a cashpot ready for the buying orgy when the weak start bailing from the sector. I wonder how far down prices will go when the glut starts clogging up the already sluggish market especially at the lower end where most of the buyers were portfolio building landlords anyway.

And of course that supply contraction in the rental market should only have one impact on rent levels.

So I guess we're heading into a period of decreasing property prices and increasing rents. That co-incidence can't happen very often.

If only I was 25 again and there were businessmen-bankers hungry for a very safe chunk of THAT purple patch......



Ps: If anyone IS interested in a bit of borrowing beyond the "only so many" levels of the timid, Aldermore and Shawbrook are worth a call. Bit less formulaic and robotic than The Humiliated, High St, Anytown. Although (afaik) the days of institutional borrowing on an arithmetic based business plan appear to be at least temporarily over.

Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 4th July 12:01

[DonkeyApple]

Groak, just what do you think the historic LTV level is that ensures a near zero default risk on a debt book?

And how do you reconcile being able to place your beloved P2P products into tax wrappers such as a pension which you repeatedly state are rubbish?

5 years ago you were frothing about pensions and failing to comprehend the basics.

10 years ago you were banging on about leverage before coming a cropper to it and now banging on about zero leverage but arguing with anyone who dares suggest leverage isn't smart.

Since returning to PH you have banged on yet again about ghastly City money managers and their failed practices and yet insanely then try and promote P2P business which you of all people know only too well is not yielding the correct return for the risk the retail investor is in reality taking on.

You are simply a very angry chappie who twists, turns and contradicts yourself to try and convince the world that you are better than them. It is a fearsome insecurity and inferiority complex you are running and pretty sad for a man of your age and clear success. You are who you are. Be happy with that and be happy that unlike the masses you aren't running debt as we head towards the other side of the cycle.

[NickCQ]

drainbrain said:

And of course that supply contraction in the rental market should only have one impact on rent levels.

You forgot the demand side. The houses don't go anywhere...

[drainbrain]

I say old boy, that's a bit strong isn't it?

And just a touch negative too. And sooooo ad hominemy. Almost personally offensive and probably would be to someone with low self esteem too. And some people do have a bit of a lack of self worth and might be hurt by it. Seriously. Do you think It's getting you anywhere with me? Come on. Even Sid's largely stopped it. Give it the 'mirror test'. I'm sure you'll catch on.

Let me remind you yet again that this is an internet chatroom. A place of light entertainment and banter and - well - fun! And yes we all know that it's gradually got a bit more unpleasant, but hey - that doesn't mean you've got to go on a personal mission to add to that, does it?

Let's be honest, this need to stamp authority on everything is a bit of a self-esteem issue isn't it? And the hyena-style (where you try to get a little coterie of like-minded hyenas to add a bit of gang-up weight to the unpleasant diatribe) really has become a bit passe hasn't it? People don't really want to be hyenas any more, do they, which is why almost all have stopped it.

And it isn't really clever nor does it make you look big nor does it give any more weight to any opinions you may have nor make them any more either insightful or accurate.

Right now your agenda involves trying to present me as stridently "anti-pension". Not via pm, where personal issues are more appropriately furthered. But via the open board in order to try to get some hyenaism going. But the thing is, MOST people will read the thread before joining in. Not all. But most. And in the thread it is made very clear that my negative opinion of Planet Pension relates to what I have personally experienced and - to a certain extent - what I have read as the experience of others. I've also made it as clear as it is possible to make to anyone who can read English that it is obvious to me that SOME people have done very well from pensions. To me, a thoroughgoing waste of time and resource. To others, not so. Not at all so. To them a worthwhile and fruitful endeavour. And God Bless them!!

Tell you what, I've much the same feelings about golf. Tried it. Useless at it. Persevered. Got better. But in the end, to me, a pointless and unenjoyable waste of time. TO ME. Does that mean that I think golf is a waste of time for EVERYBODY? Erm...that'd be a bit silly, wouldn't it, given what huge enthusiasm there is for that "waste of a good walk". Well TRY, really TRY to see my opinion of pensions in the same way. I'm sure you'll get it if you make only the smallest effort.

Of course, in terms of this thread, all of that is wholly irrelevant anyway, because the only point of the thread was to bring to the attention of people who ARE interested in pensions an article which might be of interest to THEM.

So what have you achieved by turning a thread bringing an article from The Times to the attention of those who it might interest into a childish and unpleasant diatribe against another PH member?

Nothing really.

So why do you bother?

Look here's a tip for you which you appear to need because after eleventy zillion posts the penny doesn't appear to have dropped:

If you come across either a thread or an individual with which or whom you vehemently disagree, rather than 'fly into battle' with all jeery sneery offensive guns blazing, just bite your tongue and move on. Ignore them. You will thereby involve escalating an unpleasant scenario and it will also be good for your blood pressure allowing you to remain calmer and - well - less angry and uptight. This will have untold benefits and positive consequences for you life in general. TRY IT!!!

The world is changing. Many things in it are changing. How people do this that and the next thing are changing. And in terms of finance people are going to continue to chat in chatrooms about things like btl, btsell, crypto currencies, p2p lending, high yield bonds, alternatives to retirement planning, alternative investments, even looky looky men selling the idea of binary trading by youtube. All your bonnet bees and naysay topics. Chat chat chat. And I'm afraid all the jeering and naysaying and hyenas in the world aren't going to stop them.

So puh-lease. Give yourself a break. And be a sensible chap and just ignore stuff on the internet you don't like or at least keep the personal stuff for pm, though I think you're well aware of the response it'll elicit (i.e. The Bin).

[drainbrain]

NickCQ said:

drainbrain said:

And of course that supply contraction in the rental market should only have one impact on rent levels.

You forgot the demand side. The houses don't go anywhere...

How d'you mean?

I probably didn't put it very well, but if a load of landlords exit the market and dump their properties, then there will be less property available to rent. Can't see any reason other than Brexit consequences why demand for rentals should slow. So quite possibly rents will rise there being less rental property available. Obviously some of these dumped properties will be snapped up by continuing landlords, but many may not be. The first time buyer market has hugely changed and many of these dumped properties may just languish unsold unless they are heavily price dropped, and even then they may still stay as empties unless landlords can facilitate their purchases which is also being curtailed.

Not saying it's a given, but it's certainly a possibility, isn't it?

What I can say is that currently, if anything, demand for lower level tenancies is increasing although I haven't given any thought or looked into exactly why this should be.

[DonkeyApple]

drainbrain said:

NickCQ said:

drainbrain said:

And of course that supply contraction in the rental market should only have one impact on rent levels.

You forgot the demand side. The houses don't go anywhere...

How d'you mean?

I probably didn't put it very well, but if a load of landlords exit the market and dump their properties, then there will be less property available to rent. Can't see any reason other than Brexit consequences why demand for rentals should slow. So quite possibly rents will rise there being less rental property available. Obviously some of these dumped properties will be snapped up by continuing landlords, but many may not be. The first time buyer market has hugely changed and many of these dumped properties may just languish unsold unless they are heavily price dropped, and even then they may still stay as empties unless landlords can facilitate their purchases which is also being curtailed.

Not saying it's a given, but it's certainly a possibility, isn't it?

What I can say is that currently, if anything, demand for lower level tenancies is increasing although I haven't given any thought or looked into exactly why this should be.

The landlords that dump would be the most highly geared with the lowest margins or inability to fund the monthly losses. The properties won't cease to exist, if they fall low enough they will be bought by occupiers who will then cease needing to rent and regardless of that, they will be purchased by landlords with more capital than those exiting.

It is very unlikely that we would see huge areas of unoccupied, repossessed properties this time around as the institutional rental market now exists where it didn't before, banks have an obligation to sweat assets on their books which they didn't before, we have far more of the population wanting to be landlords than before and there are heavy political pressures that had far less weight than before.

Besides, we have been in a disconnect between rent and asset values for nearly 15 years so there is also a clear argument that a heavy decline in asset values may have no material impact on rents. Asset values are generally controlled by the amount of debt available whereas rents are obviously determined mostly by wages and wage inflation, hence the disconnect today.

The next cycle is an upcycle which generally means asset values decline as cash values increase but the big change is in ownership of the assets as they switch from the highly geared to the low geared.

[DonkeyApple]

drainbrain said:

I say old boy, that's a bit strong isn't it?

And just a touch negative too. And sooooo ad hominemy. Almost personally offensive and probably would be to someone with low self esteem too. And some people do have a bit of a lack of self worth and might be hurt by it. Seriously. Do you think It's getting you anywhere with me? Come on. Even Sid's largely stopped it. Give it the 'mirror test'. I'm sure you'll catch on.

Let me remind you yet again that this is an internet chatroom. A place of light entertainment and banter and - well - fun! And yes we all know that it's gradually got a bit more unpleasant, but hey - that doesn't mean you've got to go on a personal mission to add to that, does it?

Let's be honest, this need to stamp authority on everything is a bit of a self-esteem issue isn't it? And the hyena-style (where you try to get a little coterie of like-minded hyenas to add a bit of gang-up weight to the unpleasant diatribe) really has become a bit passe hasn't it? People don't really want to be hyenas any more, do they, which is why almost all have stopped it.

And it isn't really clever nor does it make you look big nor does it give any more weight to any opinions you may have nor make them any more either insightful or accurate.

Right now your agenda involves trying to present me as stridently "anti-pension". Not via pm, where personal issues are more appropriately furthered. But via the open board in order to try to get some hyenaism going. But the thing is, MOST people will read the thread before joining in. Not all. But most. And in the thread it is made very clear that my negative opinion of Planet Pension relates to what I have personally experienced and - to a certain extent - what I have read as the experience of others. I've also made it as clear as it is possible to make to anyone who can read English that it is obvious to me that SOME people have done very well from pensions. To me, a thoroughgoing waste of time and resource. To others, not so. Not at all so. To them a worthwhile and fruitful endeavour. And God Bless them!!

Tell you what, I've much the same feelings about golf. Tried it. Useless at it. Persevered. Got better. But in the end, to me, a pointless and unenjoyable waste of time. TO ME. Does that mean that I think golf is a waste of time for EVERYBODY? Erm...that'd be a bit silly, wouldn't it, given what huge enthusiasm there is for that "waste of a good walk". Well TRY, really TRY to see my opinion of pensions in the same way. I'm sure you'll get it if you make only the smallest effort.

Of course, in terms of this thread, all of that is wholly irrelevant anyway, because the only point of the thread was to bring to the attention of people who ARE interested in pensions an article which might be of interest to THEM.

So what have you achieved by turning a thread bringing an article from The Times to the attention of those who it might interest into a childish and unpleasant diatribe against another PH member?

Nothing really.

So why do you bother?

Look here's a tip for you which you appear to need because after eleventy zillion posts the penny doesn't appear to have dropped:

If you come across either a thread or an individual with which or whom you vehemently disagree, rather than 'fly into battle' with all jeery sneery offensive guns blazing, just bite your tongue and move on. Ignore them. You will thereby involve escalating an unpleasant scenario and it will also be good for your blood pressure allowing you to remain calmer and - well - less angry and uptight. This will have untold benefits and positive consequences for you life in general. TRY IT!!!

The world is changing. Many things in it are changing. How people do this that and the next thing are changing. And in terms of finance people are going to continue to chat in chatrooms about things like btl, btsell, crypto currencies, p2p lending, high yield bonds, alternatives to retirement planning, alternative investments, even looky looky men selling the idea of binary trading by youtube. All your bonnet bees and naysay topics. Chat chat chat. And I'm afraid all the jeering and naysaying and hyenas in the world aren't going to stop them.

So puh-lease. Give yourself a break. And be a sensible chap and just ignore stuff on the internet you don't like or at least keep the personal stuff for pm, though I think you're well aware of the response it'll elicit (i.e. The Bin).

Or you could stop starting threads with your same old misleads and misrepresentations. It's hardly a sign of anger to highlight dishonesty and bigotry.

[drainbrain]

DonkeyApple said:

The landlords that dump would be the most highly geared with the lowest margins or inability to fund the monthly losses. The properties won't cease to exist, if they fall low enough they will be bought by occupiers who will then cease needing to rent and regardless of that, they will be purchased by landlords with more capital than those exiting.

It is very unlikely that we would see huge areas of unoccupied, repossessed properties this time around as the institutional rental market now exists where it didn't before, banks have an obligation to sweat assets on their books which they didn't before, we have far more of the population wanting to be landlords than before and there are heavy political pressures that had far less weight than before.

Besides, we have been in a disconnect between rent and asset values for nearly 15 years so there is also a clear argument that a heavy decline in asset values may have no material impact on rents. Asset values are generally controlled by the amount of debt available whereas rents are obviously determined mostly by wages and wage inflation, hence the disconnect today.

The next cycle is an upcycle which generally means asset values decline as cash values increase but the big change is in ownership of the assets as they switch from the highly geared to the low geared.

There are so many generalisations, mistaken assumptions, wrong opinions and misunderstandings in that post that it would take a week and 10 pages to straighten them all out. I take it you have no close contact with property and especially rental property markets or any familiarity with how they work.

Let me refer you to some of the archived PH conversations of a decade ago, particularly some of the dialogue between Noel Watson and others on the earliest volume(s) of the "How far Will House Prices Fall" thread. Noel was the King of Property Naysayers, known by me as Eeyore even tho he was a valued co-contributor and very insightful and in retrospect almost prophetic commentator, and I'd like to think in some ways my friend. Back then it was established and I believe finally accepted that there is really no such thing as "The UK Property Market". So there is really no point at all in trying to pontificate about it. Effectively, if for no other reason (and there are many), that renders your post valueless.

But here's what we actually know about short term change because it's in Real Time. There appears to be a widespread drop in demand for btl loans in all areas and at all levels. And here's what I can also tell you about one provincial market. There is a BIG drop in demand for property at the lower end which previously sold relatively quickly to landlords, including BMV property.

In your opinionated assumption this property will be getting bought up by cash buyers or people with low borrowings. But unfortunately that is not the case. It's just not selling. At any price. Not least because a chunk of it is also unlettable. And when it IS bought at really ridiculously low prices when it generates no income and begins to cost council tax to the owner it is returned to the sale market where it rinses and repeats until at the very bottom end it simply stagnates. Empty. Nil value. Dead.

You have not heard of Forgewood. Nor have you heard of South Carbrain. But there won't be any institutional investors or cash rich portfolio holders or asset sweating repossessors doing anything with anything there because they can't. Nor can I. Nor can anyone like me. And there are many such areas throughout Great Britain, their numbers being amplified by austerity which has also curtailed the intervention of the traditional last stop for disintegrating areas namely the Local Authorities.

As to new owner occupiers - traditionally the first time buyer market - clearly you ain't in touch there either. Here's a quick story. I recently sold two portfolios. 30 or so residential properties of value between £25k and £125k. These included properties marketed via national hi-volume agency chains. Do you know what %age of them sold to owner occupiers? 0%. 100% went to landlords. In my youth that figure would have been entirely reversed. And the point is if you think owner occupiers are going to buy property just because it hits a certain low price, you're dreaming. 1st time buyers throughout the land are now only interested in buying what I'd have once considered my 3rd time purchase.

So any property at the lower end - far and away the BIGGEST end - that landlords decide they'll dump is really only going to be bought in the main by one segment - the cash buying landlord. And I'm sorry to have to tell you this but they aren't going to buy stuff just because it's cheap either. And those who do may well be returning it to the market as fast as they buy it.

Here's hoping there's plenty of them rather than buyers looking for funding they can neither obtain nor afford, eh?

"Balls deep in debt"? Wrong century mate. And even the people who were back then have run tenancies that have paid big mahoosive chunks of it off in the intervening decade(s).

[drainbrain]

DonkeyApple said:

Or you could stop starting threads with your same old misleads and misrepresentations. It's hardly a sign of anger to highlight dishonesty and bigotry.

Yeah yeah yeah.

Just take the advice and quit trying to be a cheap little bully. Only the stupidest really want to be a cheap little bully's hangers on these days. So just accept your slap and back off from it.

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

Yeah yeah yeah.

Just take the advice and quit trying to be a cheap little bully. Only the stupidest really want to be a cheap little bully's hangers on these days. So just accept your slap and back off from it.

Stop posting nonsense and you won't need to be corrected.

[drainbrain]

sidicks said:

Stop posting nonsense and you won't need to be corrected.

sidicks

LOL!

You remember Noel, don't you? The hyenas and jackals finally convinced him to ps off from here and he never came back. What a pity.

My goodness you've had some amount of slaps since then, haven't you?

Back then, of course, you were the Champion of Annuities , no...?

So what happened to that daft position? Hadn't you convinced yourself that they were really good value and people just didn't understaaaaand them??

Anyway I take it you're not on my thread for any positive reason. So what's up? Go on....spit it out....

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

LOL!

You remember Noel, don't you? The hyenas and jackals finally convinced him to ps off from here and he never came back. What a pity.

My goodness you've had some amount of slaps since then, haven't you?

No.

drainbrain said:

Back then, of course, you were the Champion of Annuities , no...?

Again no. I simply explained what they were and how they worked, as you appeared not to understand them.

drainbrain said:

So what happened to that daft position? Hadn't you convinced yourself that they were really good value and people just didn't understaaaaand them??

See above, you demonstrably didn't understand them.

drainbrain said:

Anyway I take it you're not on my thread for any positive reason. So what's up? Go on....spit it out....

As you identified, this is an open forum where anyone can comment as they see fit. On Finance topics I choose to comment to help people or (as in this case) to correct certain people when they are talking nonsense.

You confuse people correcting your ignorant rantings with people 'ganging up on you'.

HTH

[drainbrain]

Oh Sid!

What have you learned about "empathy" since THAT riot?

Don't think "helpful" was exactly the adjective being used......lol

Anyway, what's troubling you about the Times article?

Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 4th July 19:45