70k to invest, buy to let?
Discussion
In regards to the lower end of the scale.
If you have a property that could be offered as suggested above, some local authority's will take it and manage for you on your behalf.
For example Kent County Council (in certain towns/city's) will give you a 5 year guaranteed rent tenancy at market value, and agree to maintain, and put it back to its original condition, they also offer 0% loan/grant to a x% of Value, after the 5 years you can give notice if you wish to sell or renew for an additional period.
Works well for people in need of help and housing, also works for a professional landlord where you may own this type of housing.
If you have a property that could be offered as suggested above, some local authority's will take it and manage for you on your behalf.
For example Kent County Council (in certain towns/city's) will give you a 5 year guaranteed rent tenancy at market value, and agree to maintain, and put it back to its original condition, they also offer 0% loan/grant to a x% of Value, after the 5 years you can give notice if you wish to sell or renew for an additional period.
Works well for people in need of help and housing, also works for a professional landlord where you may own this type of housing.
Zoon said:
The harsh reality is that you've been very lucky. Even with an agent vetting tenants it is very easy to end up in a mess.
I do have experience of both good and bad tenants.
As do I and the one bad one causes more cost than any of the good ones can save you. I do have experience of both good and bad tenants.
Part of my problem has been the learning curve that if you buy small, cheap properties in cheap places then you don’t have the mindset at the outset to set up your product correctly. If you live one way it is very hard to understand how people who live another way do. Put in too nice furniture or fittings that you think are the bare minimum and they get broken or worn out, or in one case put on eBay!
I used to rent small places in Reading but the regularity of damaging tenants was too high. Wembley is much classier!
If you grew up in that environment then it gives a huge competitive advantage to understanding how to manage and maintain the property.
As for Scotland leading the way in regulation. That’s just a result of the fact that they led they was to depraved, exploitive slum landlording at the hands of the gangster community. They’ve only recently tried to claw the bottom end of the market back into the hands of humans by trying to ban certain people from being residential landlords. The way the vulnerable have been being exploited in places like Glasgow is truly horrific.
Zoon said:
The harsh reality is that you've been very lucky. Even with an agent vetting tenants it is very easy to end up in a mess.
I do have experience of both good and bad tenants.
Nah you can't be that lucky over that period of time. That was just one of the good ones. I do have experience of both good and bad tenants.
You say you have experience. So you know the score. If you've a largish number of properties - say 1000 in a good sized agency - you are always going to have a number of unsatisfactory tenancies. They're the ones that take up a disproportionate amount of the management time. I owned an agency for nearly 3 decades. About 60-70% lower end. Lower waged workers and benefit tenants of many types.
Tuesday morning was "s
t-list" time. All the personnel meeting to go over ALL the problems from late rent and repair issues to tenancies gone badly wrong. Badly wrong was NEVER EVER more than 1 or 2%. By 'badly wrong' I mean tenancies that had to be brought to an end. Anything else was fixable or a matter for managerial remedy. The entire 'st list' never got to 30 in my memory.And never more than 2 or 3 on the "end it" list, and often none at all.
For the Braying Ass to suggest that ALL - later reduced to "MANY" - lower end tenancies involve "turd-munching retards" constantly phoning owners with nonsense in the middle of the night isn't "hyperbole". It's simply a load of pish. And if the op is thinking of btl as a home for his dough then he really should understand that it's a load of pish. What the op should know is that there's a chance it won't go well and a small chance that it may go badly. Much less if it is handled by experienced and able management when it reduces to a VERY small chance. As you know very well. I mean, how many "turd-munching retards" have YOU been daft enough to let into YOUR properties, and how often have these "mhonghols" phoned you at silly o'clock to demand you change a bulb?
The op should also understand that any of the usual stuff that's suggested like ISAs, pensions, direct equity investment etc etc has a VERY HIGH chance of producing very disappointing results, and that it is a minefield of overcharging and incompetence which only a serious level of research etc on his part has much chance of surmounting, if at all.
That would be a bit more realistic, would it not?
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
The op should also understand that any of the usual stuff that's suggested like ISAs, pensions, direct equity investment etc etc has a VERY HIGH chance of producing very disappointing results, and that it is a minefield of overcharging and incompetence which only a serious level of research etc on his part has much chance of surmounting, if at all.
That would be a bit more realistic, would it not?
Groak, was one of your top rants until this point, where it turned into pish. That would be a bit more realistic, would it not?
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
Nah you can't be that lucky over that period of time. That was just one of the good ones.
You say you have experience. So you know the score. If you've a largish number of properties - say 1000 in a good sized agency - you are always going to have a number of unsatisfactory tenancies. They're the ones that take up a disproportionate amount of the management time. I owned an agency for nearly 3 decades. About 60-70% lower end. Lower waged workers and benefit tenants of many types.
Tuesday morning was "st-list" time. All the personnel meeting to go over ALL the problems from late rent and repair issues to tenancies gone badly wrong. Badly wrong was NEVER EVER more than 1 or 2%. By 'badly wrong' I mean tenancies that had to be brought to an end. Anything else was fixable or a matter for managerial remedy. The entire 'st list' never got to 30 in my memory.
And never more than 2 or 3 on the "end it" list, and often none at all.
For the Braying Ass to suggest that ALL - later reduced to "MANY" - lower end tenancies involve "turd-munching retards" constantly phoning owners with nonsense in the middle of the night isn't "hyperbole". It's simply a load of pish. And if the op is thinking of btl as a home for his dough then he really should understand that it's a load of pish. What the op should know is that there's a chance it won't go well and a small chance that it may go badly. Much less if it is handled by experienced and able management when it reduces to a VERY small chance. As you know very well. I mean, how many "turd-munching retards" have YOU been daft enough to let into YOUR properties, and how often have these "mhonghols" phoned you at silly o'clock to demand you change a bulb?
Once again demonstrating a huge ignorance about risk, and in particular the massively different tick profile of renting a single property compared to a portfolio of hundreds.You say you have experience. So you know the score. If you've a largish number of properties - say 1000 in a good sized agency - you are always going to have a number of unsatisfactory tenancies. They're the ones that take up a disproportionate amount of the management time. I owned an agency for nearly 3 decades. About 60-70% lower end. Lower waged workers and benefit tenants of many types.
Tuesday morning was "s
t-list" time. All the personnel meeting to go over ALL the problems from late rent and repair issues to tenancies gone badly wrong. Badly wrong was NEVER EVER more than 1 or 2%. By 'badly wrong' I mean tenancies that had to be brought to an end. Anything else was fixable or a matter for managerial remedy. The entire 'st list' never got to 30 in my memory.And never more than 2 or 3 on the "end it" list, and often none at all.
For the Braying Ass to suggest that ALL - later reduced to "MANY" - lower end tenancies involve "turd-munching retards" constantly phoning owners with nonsense in the middle of the night isn't "hyperbole". It's simply a load of pish. And if the op is thinking of btl as a home for his dough then he really should understand that it's a load of pish. What the op should know is that there's a chance it won't go well and a small chance that it may go badly. Much less if it is handled by experienced and able management when it reduces to a VERY small chance. As you know very well. I mean, how many "turd-munching retards" have YOU been daft enough to let into YOUR properties, and how often have these "mhonghols" phoned you at silly o'clock to demand you change a bulb?
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
The op should also understand that any of the usual stuff that's suggested like ISAs, pensions, direct equity investment etc etc has a VERY HIGH chance of producing very disappointing results, and that it is a minefield of overcharging and incompetence which only a serious level of research etc on his part has much chance of surmounting, if at all.
That would be a bit more realistic, would it not?
Once again, please follow your own advice and stop demonstrating your ignorance:That would be a bit more realistic, would it not?
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
If you have neither any experience of XXX nor of 'how it works' you are better not to comment on it. IMO.
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
BarryGibb said:
Groak, was one of your top rants until this point, where it turned into pish.
Remind me what the current rate for one of Sid's index-linked annuities is per £100k for a 65 year old male non-smoker Remind me how BTL is in any way comparable from a risk perspective.
Remind me why you aren't taking note of your own rules about not commenting on things you don't understand.
Pure trolling from you, pure and simple. How ignorant, how dull.
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
BarryGibb said:
Groak, was one of your top rants until this point, where it turned into pish.
Remind me what the current rate for one of Sid's index-linked annuities is per £100k for a 65 year old male non-smoker I have similar money tied up in BTL and it's returning me 7% gross, so before repairs etc. I'm taxed on every penny I make, and will be taxed when I sell. When Mr Corbyn is PM I expect to be taxed even more (or shot)
If I was the OP my cash would be in S&S isas, invested in something like Lindsell Train Global Equity
98elise said:
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
BarryGibb said:
Groak, was one of your top rants until this point, where it turned into pish.
Remind me what the current rate for one of Sid's index-linked annuities is per £100k for a 65 year old male non-smoker I have similar money tied up in BTL and it's returning me 7% gross, so before repairs etc. I'm taxed on every penny I make, and will be taxed when I sell. When Mr Corbyn is PM I expect to be taxed even more (or shot)
If I was the OP my cash would be in S&S isas, invested in something like Lindsell Train Global Equity
My s&s ISA (maxed like yours) has done 5.13% gross and 4.16% inc charges
. Deffo going to have to have a word with GingeR about this! Your btl yield's crap tho. 7%? Something's not right there.
btw, what IS the industry average for that annuity I asked about? 3%? 2?
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
Wow!! 20-30%!! You are definitely The Daddy!!
My s&s ISA (maxed like yours) has done 5.13% gross and 4.16% inc charges. Deffo going to have to have a word with GingeR about this!
Your btl yield's crap tho. 7%? Something's not right there.
It's almost as if different asset strategies have different risk profiles and hence are likely to have different returns. Who'd have thought it? I guess it's only obvious to people who have a clue what they are talking about.My s&s ISA (maxed like yours) has done 5.13% gross and 4.16% inc charges
. Deffo going to have to have a word with GingeR about this! Your btl yield's crap tho. 7%? Something's not right there.
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
btw, what IS the industry average for that annuity I asked about? 3%? 2?
Still wrong, still ignorant, still trolling. Risky asset has higher yield than risk free asset. How surprising.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 22 June 20:35
Pesty said:
That whole second paragraph might have been speaking Greek to me. Gearing magnifies profits?
I was referring in particular to our own homes (sole main residence), because the tax treatment is so beneficial.
To use round numbers.
Purchase say £100,000.
Deposit (your equity ownership amount in the property) say £10,000.
Mortgage say £90,000.
If there is a 20% value increase, your equity ownership amount becomes £30,000.
You have trebled your money, even though the value has only risen by 20%.
That is the effect of gearing (borrowing).
Beware though, because gearing in reverse can be a disaster.
A value decrease of 20% in this example, would mean your equity ownership has been wiped out. The property value becomes £80,000, but the mortgage debt could be more than that.
Many home owners will have benefited greatly by gearing during the last 20 years, so might that experience have been the encouragement, for some people to invest in the buy to let market? Gearing was even more effective about 40 years ago (as long as you kept your job), because annual inflation levels were high. Mortgage debt was reduced quickly by the fall in the value of money, although mortgage interest rates were correspondingly high (think of 15%). Could that happen again?
Edited by Jon39 on Friday 22 June 22:42
NRS said:
Annuities are amazing value if they are 2%! If you left it in the bank in a normal use account you'd get something like 0.5%!
But don't you get your deposit back on demand from a normal use account? Not sure sidannuities have the same feature
As an investment the dreaded annuity carries a risk. That risk is that you DIE!! Honest to goodness, you couldn't make that up if you tried, could you? And it's not that long ago since you had no choice but to buy one!
Edited by joyless lobotomised parrot on Saturday 23 June 01:32
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
But don't you get your deposit back on demand from a normal use account?
Not sure sidannuities have the same feature
As an investment the dreaded annuity carries a risk. That risk is that you DIE!! Honest to goodness, you couldn't make that up if you tried, could you? And it's not that long ago since you had no choice but to buy one!
Please follow your own advice and stop trolling the thread with your moronic nonsense.Not sure sidannuities have the same feature
As an investment the dreaded annuity carries a risk. That risk is that you DIE!! Honest to goodness, you couldn't make that up if you tried, could you? And it's not that long ago since you had no choice but to buy one!
joyless lobotomised parrot said: said:
If you have neither any experience of XXX nor of 'how it works' you are better not to comment on it. IMO.
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
NRS said:
Annuities are amazing value if they are 2%! If you left it in the bank in a normal use account you'd get something like 0.5%!
But don't you get your deposit back on demand from a normal use account? Not sure sidannuities have the same feature
As an investment the dreaded annuity carries a risk. That risk is that you DIE!! Honest to goodness, you couldn't make that up if you tried, could you? And it's not that long ago since you had no choice but to buy one!
Edited by joyless lobotomised parrot on Saturday 23 June 01:32
I don't believe annuities can drop in value (unless interest is below inflation)?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff