70k to invest, buy to let?
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Pesty said:
How much is this course I definitely need it.
If I were to make some basic suggestions on first steps that have helped me try to go from zero to hopefully having some kind of basic knowledge:- Go to YouTube and watch every single Fundsmith AGM video you can find
- Go buy a copy of Buffettology and read it
- Watch as many Berkshire Hathaway AGM videos as you can sit through
- Go here http://kroijer.com and watch all the videos
- Ask lots of questions and get lots of opinions
- Look at getting a Stocks & Shares ISA
- Play with small amounts to get a "feel" for how things work
Jon39 said:
Property values have doubled recently, and as you say you are not a risk taker, so it just seems perfect. ~
What could possibly go wrong?
Property is a market, so not very different from other business ventures. The exception in domestic property is our sole main residence, which is usually purchased with a mortgage (therefore the gearing magnifies profits ), and importantly any profit is tax-free.
All that I can suggest, is to learn as much as you can about the property rental market, and in particular the risks that you will be taking. If the unexpected happens, at least you will have been prepared.
Wil they go lower?possible but it won’t be the crash other places will see. Who knows.
That whole second paragraph might have been speaking greek to me. Gearing magnifies profits?
Pesty said:
They might have doubled where you are but around here they are lower than 12 years ago. In general.
Wil they go lower?possible but it won’t be the crash other places will see. Who knows.
That whole second paragraph might have been speaking greek to me. Gearing magnifies profits?
It'll be even worse, as during those 12 years if you invested elsewhere you will have (generally) made a lot more money too. So it's not even just the price drop of the properties.Wil they go lower?possible but it won’t be the crash other places will see. Who knows.
That whole second paragraph might have been speaking greek to me. Gearing magnifies profits?
As for the gearing bit he mentions - since you take out a mortgage then any price increases (or decreases) will be on the amount your mortgage is, not the downpayment you make. So you have your 70k deposit. If you invest that in stocks you will make say 10% a year, so that would be 7k profit. However you could use your 70k as a deposit on a house for say 140k. House prices in this example also go up 10% in that year. Since the 10% increase is on the house price and not your mortgage then you make 14k instead (although of course you pay a bit of interest on the mortgage loan). So the loan acts as a multiplier for any increase or decrease, as in this case you are gearing at 2x your actual money.
It's why so many people feel they have benefited from house ownership. You can make far bigger gains than you would elsewhere. It's also why you can get stuck in negative equity for years too if things go wrong. In the example above if it drops 10% then you will lose 14k by owning the house instead of 7k for having 70k of stocks/savings etc. However this is if you realise it (actually sell). In general this happens a lot with stocks - they might drop 4% in a day. In general though if you wait then they will go back up and increase more. So it's best not to panic sell when you make a paper loss.
Edited by NRS on Tuesday 19th June 22:44
Pesty said:
They might have doubled where you are but around here they are lower than 12 years ago. In general.
Wil they go lower?possible but it won’t be the crash other places will see. Who knows.
That whole second paragraph might have been speaking greek to me. Gearing magnifies profits?
The boner over property was that you could borrow at near 100 times leverage at one point so put down £1000, borrow £99,000 and if the value of the property went up £10,000 that was your return on a £1k punt. Leverage at those levels is toxic which is why it’s extremely good for all that it has been wound in on the BTL market. Wil they go lower?possible but it won’t be the crash other places will see. Who knows.
That whole second paragraph might have been speaking greek to me. Gearing magnifies profits?
But, in terms of risk, 2 times gearing is actually pretty negligible in most markets. Put down 50, borrow 50, lenders are generally chilled as the market is not likely to fall much more than 30% statistically in a hard sell off. So the risk doesn’t really vary if you gear up 2 fold but your return does double and this is still the big raw advantage of property over other investments where the cost of borrowing tends to be much higher and downsides also higher.
The next thing is your local property market. You say values haven’t risen. That’s not a bad thing. You’re investing primarily for yield not speculating for capital gain. If values haven’t gone up then they aren’t going to come down so hard in a fall. The key in your locale is rents. If you are investing for yield then it’s the rents that are vital first and foremost. The Local Authority underpins the rental market and wages define the rental rates. Rents aren’t directly linked to property values, that’s kind of secondary.
In short, you need to set down what local rents are, what local values are and from that work out the average yields. Recognise that you can double your yield from borrowing 50% and then look very honestly as to whether you want to rent and deal with the type of monumental, dirty, moronic
you’re likely to end up having a direct, personal relationship with. And that’s really the nub of it. Do you like the idea of welcoming and absolute turd muncher into your life in exchange for a few quid a month when you could just feed the money into some global trackers and know that you won’t be getting a call at 2am from some semi retarded f
ktard about a bulb having blown. Because the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter land and you will be making yourself one of their carers. DonkeyApple said:
.......... and then look very honestly as to whether you want to rent and deal with the type of monumental, dirty, moronic you’re likely to end up having a direct, personal relationship with.
And that’s really the nub of it. Do you like the idea of welcoming and absolute turd muncher into your life in exchange for a few quid a month when you could just feed the money into some global trackers and know that you won’t be getting a call at 2am from some semi retarded fktard about a bulb having blown. Because the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter land and you will be making yourself one of their carers.
What a load of pish. you’re likely to end up having a direct, personal relationship with. And that’s really the nub of it. Do you like the idea of welcoming and absolute turd muncher into your life in exchange for a few quid a month when you could just feed the money into some global trackers and know that you won’t be getting a call at 2am from some semi retarded f
ktard about a bulb having blown. Because the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter land and you will be making yourself one of their carers. NRS said:
It'll be even worse, as during those 12 years if you invested elsewhere you will have (generally) made a lot more money too. So it's not even just the price drop of the properties.
As for the gearing bit he mentions - since you take out a mortgage then any price increases (or decreases) will be on the amount your mortgage is, not the downpayment you make. So you have your 70k deposit. If you invest that in stocks you will make say 10% a year, so that would be 7k profit. However you could use your 70k as a deposit on a house for say 140k. House prices in this example also go up 10% in that year. Since the 10% increase is on the house price and not your mortgage then you make 14k instead (although of course you pay a bit of interest on the mortgage loan). So the loan acts as a multiplier for any increase or decrease, as in this case you are gearing at 2x your actual money.
It's why so many people feel they have benefited from house ownership. You can make far bigger gains than you would elsewhere. It's also why you can get stuck in negative equity for years too if things go wrong. In the example above if it drops 10% then you will lose 14k by owning the house instead of 7k for having 70k of stocks/savings etc. However this is if you realise it (actually sell). In general this happens a lot with stocks - they might drop 4% in a day. In general though if you wait then they will go back up and increase more. So it's best not to panic sell when you make a paper loss.
Thank you.As for the gearing bit he mentions - since you take out a mortgage then any price increases (or decreases) will be on the amount your mortgage is, not the downpayment you make. So you have your 70k deposit. If you invest that in stocks you will make say 10% a year, so that would be 7k profit. However you could use your 70k as a deposit on a house for say 140k. House prices in this example also go up 10% in that year. Since the 10% increase is on the house price and not your mortgage then you make 14k instead (although of course you pay a bit of interest on the mortgage loan). So the loan acts as a multiplier for any increase or decrease, as in this case you are gearing at 2x your actual money.
It's why so many people feel they have benefited from house ownership. You can make far bigger gains than you would elsewhere. It's also why you can get stuck in negative equity for years too if things go wrong. In the example above if it drops 10% then you will lose 14k by owning the house instead of 7k for having 70k of stocks/savings etc. However this is if you realise it (actually sell). In general this happens a lot with stocks - they might drop 4% in a day. In general though if you wait then they will go back up and increase more. So it's best not to panic sell when you make a paper loss.
Edited by NRS on Tuesday 19th June 22:44
I actually understood that pretty well.
DonkeyApple said:
The boner over property was that you could borrow at near 100 times leverage at one point so put down £1000, borrow £99,000 and if the value of the property went up £10,000 that was your return on a £1k punt. Leverage at those levels is toxic which is why it’s extremely good for all that it has been wound in on the BTL market.
But, in terms of risk, 2 times gearing is actually pretty negligible in most markets. Put down 50, borrow 50, lenders are generally chilled as the market is not likely to fall much more than 30% statistically in a hard sell off. So the risk doesn’t really vary if you gear up 2 fold but your return does double and this is still the big raw advantage of property over other investments where the cost of borrowing tends to be much higher and downsides also higher.
The next thing is your local property market. You say values haven’t risen. That’s not a bad thing. You’re investing primarily for yield not speculating for capital gain. If values haven’t gone up then they aren’t going to come down so hard in a fall. The key in your locale is rents. If you are investing for yield then it’s the rents that are vital first and foremost. The Local Authority underpins the rental market and wages define the rental rates. Rents aren’t directly linked to property values, that’s kind of secondary.
In short, you need to set down what local rents are, what local values are and from that work out the average yields. Recognise that you can double your yield from borrowing 50% and then look very honestly as to whether you want to rent and deal with the type of monumental, dirty, moronic you’re likely to end up having a direct, personal relationship with.
And that’s really the nub of it. Do you like the idea of welcoming and absolute turd muncher into your life in exchange for a few quid a month when you could just feed the money into some global trackers and know that you won’t be getting a call at 2am from some semi retarded fktard about a bulb having blown. Because the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter land and you will be making yourself one of their carers.
Interesting about rents I didn’t know that.But, in terms of risk, 2 times gearing is actually pretty negligible in most markets. Put down 50, borrow 50, lenders are generally chilled as the market is not likely to fall much more than 30% statistically in a hard sell off. So the risk doesn’t really vary if you gear up 2 fold but your return does double and this is still the big raw advantage of property over other investments where the cost of borrowing tends to be much higher and downsides also higher.
The next thing is your local property market. You say values haven’t risen. That’s not a bad thing. You’re investing primarily for yield not speculating for capital gain. If values haven’t gone up then they aren’t going to come down so hard in a fall. The key in your locale is rents. If you are investing for yield then it’s the rents that are vital first and foremost. The Local Authority underpins the rental market and wages define the rental rates. Rents aren’t directly linked to property values, that’s kind of secondary.
In short, you need to set down what local rents are, what local values are and from that work out the average yields. Recognise that you can double your yield from borrowing 50% and then look very honestly as to whether you want to rent and deal with the type of monumental, dirty, moronic
you’re likely to end up having a direct, personal relationship with. And that’s really the nub of it. Do you like the idea of welcoming and absolute turd muncher into your life in exchange for a few quid a month when you could just feed the money into some global trackers and know that you won’t be getting a call at 2am from some semi retarded f
ktard about a bulb having blown. Because the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter land and you will be making yourself one of their carers. The last part yes that’s what I worry about.
mike74 said:
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
What a load of pish.
Another moronically pointless ''response'' from the forum's most irrelevant contributor But how stupid are you?
These days there is an absolute ton of legislation and regulation involving residential btl. And more and more oncoming. And this has numerous serious impacts. One is that it is only possible to operate slum property until it is reported/discovered. And it is then ordered into improvement and/or threatens landlord registration. And without registration it is not possible to legally rent residential property.
But the other impact is on the ever increasing need for the owner (and most certainly the portfolio owner of multiple properties) to engage professional management which in its turn is governed by regulation requiring the agent to be accredited which in turn requires certification which in turn requires a formal examination of the agent's understanding of how letting is properly done.
So it is getting increasingly sensible and practical to use a management agency in order to encertain an enormous raft of compliance is properly adhered to and especially when the accreditation process increasingly assures the landlord that the management agency have the ability to handle all aspects of letting from enacting The Repair Standard to operating tenancies in full compliance with regulation and law. In my opinion there is a day not too far off when it will be very difficult (possibly unlawful) to rent residential property without an agent. It will be a helluva lot easier to enforce and regulate compliance on a certain number of agents than a multitude of individuals.
Once management is involved, there is no further contact between tenant and owner or any relationship other than any both parties desire.
So how does a delinquent tenant phone the owner at 2 am to report some trivia when they don't know the owner's name, phone number, or even if they're in the same country?
And if a tenant phones an agent at 2am they will engage with an emergency service. I could give you an idea of the volume of calls the emergency service an agency operating 2000 tenancies receives but you wouldn't like it. Even less would you like the number of reactive responses those calls precipitate. But, stupid though you are, I'm sure even you can understand that one of the principal functions of the emergency service is to contain issues until normal operating hours, so even when (a couple of times a year) the plumber has to get out of bed at triple time to contain an active water burst his job is to switch off the building's water supply until the troops arrive in the morning.
So forget all about 2 am calls to owners to sort trivia. It's a LOAD OF PISH.
Lower end btl is far and away the biggest letting sector in the UK. And the people who own them are no less legislatively bound to keep them in decent condition than any other level of the industry. And there is a very wide spectrum of individuals who form the demand for them. They almost all have one thing in common. They are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, which is why they are looking to rent at the lower end of btl (because it is generally also the cheapest end).
Regardless of how stupid you are, I do not believe that even you directly correlate being at the lower end of earning with being a "monumental dirty moronic khunt". And if you don't, then ask yourself which sector of the market the multitude of lower earning people of all ages and races and orientations etc rent in? I'll explain it even more clearly. They don't have the income which allows them to rent more expensive private residential property so they rent at the lower - and to them affordable - end.
What percentage of tenants at the lower end of affordability do you think are "monumental dirty moronic khunts"? O there certainly are some, but what do you think? Do you think the majority? Or half - 50%? Or a quarter? Or even 10%? Y'know, the type of tenancy which requires serious attention and expenditure to return it back to rentability when you've dislodged them? I would say 'in your experience', but that pretty obviously doesn't exist, so what do you guess?
And it gets worse. In this age of agency management, references are required. Not bombproof by any means, but used effectively they certainly prevent many a situation no agent wants from ever arising in the first place. Not many agents will accept a tenant with a colourful history. And many a "monumental dirty moronic khunt" or "absolute turd muncher" is very easy to spot as soon as they're encountered.
So the idea of the lower end of btl being entirely or even largely populated by "monumental dirty moronic khunts" or "absolute turd munchers" is, as I said, a LOAD OF PISH.
Then there's the idea of "semi retarded f
ktards" and the fantasy that "the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter Mhonghland and you will be making yourself one of their carers".Ignoring the offensive terminology of a bygone age, yes there certainly are such people. Some don't have carers or haven't yet come to the attention of the care industry. Feral junkies (not on the methadone project) for example. Or homeless via unattended mental welfare problems. 99.9% easy to immediately identify and reject. An experienced agent can spot them at 50 paces. In fact anyone can spot them pretty easily. It generally isn't possible to house them, and they can really only be housed in special housing units or where they can squat.
The non-feral "retards" become tenants via the many and various care agencies both state and NGO who are employed to deal with these "retards". I'll give you 2 fairly common groups.
1) traumatised and institutionalised ex-service people. Yes they often have dreadful issues, compounded by alcohol and drug and other social issues. The agencies who deal with them will only deal with certain management agencies, and it is the care agency who becomes the tenant and the lease is with them. They operate the tenancy. They arrange and supervise the state benefits. They also supervise and monitor the tenancy. The property agent is requested to stay at arm's length, and whilst there are no deposits, there are guarantees on the returned condition of the dwelling although often they will want a dwelling for an extended period of many years.
2) Asylum seekers and refugees. Again, the agencies which deal with them operate these tenancies in much the same way as the ex-militaries. The landlord never has any contact with them, and the agency deals with the care agencies. It operates pretty well for the most part. Some of these people are severely traumatised and have experienced life changing incidents including as the victim, so it is unsurprising that they have developed mental welfare issues. Unlike the servicemen very few of them have "co-morbidities" such as drug addiction. And I have housed literally hundreds of them, and the number of these tenancies which have had to be ended because of what you term "the retard" is less than 5.
How a landlord who owns a property which is used to house one of these "retards" can be seen as becoming "one of their carers" is beyond me to fathom. And to suggest it is best described as A LOAD OF PISH.
If you have neither any experience of 'lower end btl' nor of 'how it works' you are better not to comment on it. IMO.
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
I don't imagine you know any more about the matter I commented on than its original author.
But how stupid are you?
These days there is an absolute ton of legislation and regulation involving residential btl. And more and more oncoming. And this has numerous serious impacts. One is that it is only possible to operate slum property until it is reported/discovered. And it is then ordered into improvement and/or threatens landlord registration. And without registration it is not possible to legally rent residential property.
But the other impact is on the ever increasing need for the owner (and most certainly the portfolio owner of multiple properties) to engage professional management which in its turn is governed by regulation requiring the agent to be accredited which in turn requires certification which in turn requires a formal examination of the agent's understanding of how letting is properly done.
So it is getting increasingly sensible and practical to use a management agency in order to encertain an enormous raft of compliance is properly adhered to and especially when the accreditation process increasingly assures the landlord that the management agency have the ability to handle all aspects of letting from enacting The Repair Standard to operating tenancies in full compliance with regulation and law. In my opinion there is a day not too far off when it will be very difficult (possibly unlawful) to rent residential property without an agent. It will be a helluva lot easier to enforce and regulate compliance on a certain number of agents than a multitude of individuals.
Once management is involved, there is no further contact between tenant and owner or any relationship other than any both parties desire.
So how does a delinquent tenant phone the owner at 2 am to report some trivia when they don't know the owner's name, phone number, or even if they're in the same country?
And if a tenant phones an agent at 2am they will engage with an emergency service. I could give you an idea of the volume of calls the emergency service an agency operating 2000 tenancies receives but you wouldn't like it. Even less would you like the number of reactive responses those calls precipitate. But, stupid though you are, I'm sure even you can understand that one of the principal functions of the emergency service is to contain issues until normal operating hours, so even when (a couple of times a year) the plumber has to get out of bed at triple time to contain an active water burst his job is to switch off the building's water supply until the troops arrive in the morning.
So forget all about 2 am calls to owners to sort trivia. It's a LOAD OF PISH.
Lower end btl is far and away the biggest letting sector in the UK. And the people who own them are no less legislatively bound to keep them in decent condition than any other level of the industry. And there is a very wide spectrum of individuals who form the demand for them. They almost all have one thing in common. They are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, which is why they are looking to rent at the lower end of btl (because it is generally also the cheapest end).
Regardless of how stupid you are, I do not believe that even you directly correlate being at the lower end of earning with being a "monumental dirty moronic khunt". And if you don't, then ask yourself which sector of the market the multitude of lower earning people of all ages and races and orientations etc rent in? I'll explain it even more clearly. They don't have the income which allows them to rent more expensive private residential property so they rent at the lower - and to them affordable - end.
What percentage of tenants at the lower end of affordability do you think are "monumental dirty moronic khunts"? O there certainly are some, but what do you think? Do you think the majority? Or half - 50%? Or a quarter? Or even 10%? Y'know, the type of tenancy which requires serious attention and expenditure to return it back to rentability when you've dislodged them? I would say 'in your experience', but that pretty obviously doesn't exist, so what do you guess?
And it gets worse. In this age of agency management, references are required. Not bombproof by any means, but used effectively they certainly prevent many a situation no agent wants from ever arising in the first place. Not many agents will accept a tenant with a colourful history. And many a "monumental dirty moronic khunt" or "absolute turd muncher" is very easy to spot as soon as they're encountered.
So the idea of the lower end of btl being entirely or even largely populated by "monumental dirty moronic khunts" or "absolute turd munchers" is, as I said, a LOAD OF PISH.
Then there's the idea of "semi retarded fktards" and the fantasy that "the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter Mhonghland and you will be making yourself one of their carers".
Ignoring the offensive terminology of a bygone age, yes there certainly are such people. Some don't have carers or haven't yet come to the attention of the care industry. Feral junkies (not on the methadone project) for example. Or homeless via unattended mental welfare problems. 99.9% easy to immediately identify and reject. An experienced agent can spot them at 50 paces. In fact anyone can spot them pretty easily. It generally isn't possible to house them, and they can really only be housed in special housing units or where they can squat.
The non-feral "retards" become tenants via the many and various care agencies both state and NGO who are employed to deal with these "retards". I'll give you 2 fairly common groups.
1) traumatised and institutionalised ex-service people. Yes they often have dreadful issues, compounded by alcohol and drug and other social issues. The agencies who deal with them will only deal with certain management agencies, and it is the care agency who becomes the tenant and the lease is with them. They operate the tenancy. They arrange and supervise the state benefits. They also supervise and monitor the tenancy. The property agent is requested to stay at arm's length, and whilst there are no deposits, there are guarantees on the returned condition of the dwelling although often they will want a dwelling for an extended period of many years.
2) Asylum seekers and refugees. Again, the agencies which deal with them operate these tenancies in much the same way as the ex-militaries. The landlord never has any contact with them, and the agency deals with the care agencies. It operates pretty well for the most part. Some of these people are severely traumatised and have experienced life changing incidents including as the victim, so it is unsurprising that they have developed mental welfare issues. Unlike the servicemen very few of them have "co-morbidities" such as drug addiction. And I have housed literally hundreds of them, and the number of these tenancies which have had to be ended because of what you term "the retard" is less than 5.
How a landlord who owns a property which is used to house one of these "retards" can be seen as becoming "one of their carers" is beyond me to fathom. And to suggest it is best described as A LOAD OF PISH.
If you have neither any experience of 'lower end btl' nor of 'how it works' you are better not to comment on it. IMO.
An excellent point. Suggest you abide by this rule when it comes to other aspects of financial services. IMOBut how stupid are you?
These days there is an absolute ton of legislation and regulation involving residential btl. And more and more oncoming. And this has numerous serious impacts. One is that it is only possible to operate slum property until it is reported/discovered. And it is then ordered into improvement and/or threatens landlord registration. And without registration it is not possible to legally rent residential property.
But the other impact is on the ever increasing need for the owner (and most certainly the portfolio owner of multiple properties) to engage professional management which in its turn is governed by regulation requiring the agent to be accredited which in turn requires certification which in turn requires a formal examination of the agent's understanding of how letting is properly done.
So it is getting increasingly sensible and practical to use a management agency in order to encertain an enormous raft of compliance is properly adhered to and especially when the accreditation process increasingly assures the landlord that the management agency have the ability to handle all aspects of letting from enacting The Repair Standard to operating tenancies in full compliance with regulation and law. In my opinion there is a day not too far off when it will be very difficult (possibly unlawful) to rent residential property without an agent. It will be a helluva lot easier to enforce and regulate compliance on a certain number of agents than a multitude of individuals.
Once management is involved, there is no further contact between tenant and owner or any relationship other than any both parties desire.
So how does a delinquent tenant phone the owner at 2 am to report some trivia when they don't know the owner's name, phone number, or even if they're in the same country?
And if a tenant phones an agent at 2am they will engage with an emergency service. I could give you an idea of the volume of calls the emergency service an agency operating 2000 tenancies receives but you wouldn't like it. Even less would you like the number of reactive responses those calls precipitate. But, stupid though you are, I'm sure even you can understand that one of the principal functions of the emergency service is to contain issues until normal operating hours, so even when (a couple of times a year) the plumber has to get out of bed at triple time to contain an active water burst his job is to switch off the building's water supply until the troops arrive in the morning.
So forget all about 2 am calls to owners to sort trivia. It's a LOAD OF PISH.
Lower end btl is far and away the biggest letting sector in the UK. And the people who own them are no less legislatively bound to keep them in decent condition than any other level of the industry. And there is a very wide spectrum of individuals who form the demand for them. They almost all have one thing in common. They are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, which is why they are looking to rent at the lower end of btl (because it is generally also the cheapest end).
Regardless of how stupid you are, I do not believe that even you directly correlate being at the lower end of earning with being a "monumental dirty moronic khunt". And if you don't, then ask yourself which sector of the market the multitude of lower earning people of all ages and races and orientations etc rent in? I'll explain it even more clearly. They don't have the income which allows them to rent more expensive private residential property so they rent at the lower - and to them affordable - end.
What percentage of tenants at the lower end of affordability do you think are "monumental dirty moronic khunts"? O there certainly are some, but what do you think? Do you think the majority? Or half - 50%? Or a quarter? Or even 10%? Y'know, the type of tenancy which requires serious attention and expenditure to return it back to rentability when you've dislodged them? I would say 'in your experience', but that pretty obviously doesn't exist, so what do you guess?
And it gets worse. In this age of agency management, references are required. Not bombproof by any means, but used effectively they certainly prevent many a situation no agent wants from ever arising in the first place. Not many agents will accept a tenant with a colourful history. And many a "monumental dirty moronic khunt" or "absolute turd muncher" is very easy to spot as soon as they're encountered.
So the idea of the lower end of btl being entirely or even largely populated by "monumental dirty moronic khunts" or "absolute turd munchers" is, as I said, a LOAD OF PISH.
Then there's the idea of "semi retarded f
ktards" and the fantasy that "the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter Mhonghland and you will be making yourself one of their carers".Ignoring the offensive terminology of a bygone age, yes there certainly are such people. Some don't have carers or haven't yet come to the attention of the care industry. Feral junkies (not on the methadone project) for example. Or homeless via unattended mental welfare problems. 99.9% easy to immediately identify and reject. An experienced agent can spot them at 50 paces. In fact anyone can spot them pretty easily. It generally isn't possible to house them, and they can really only be housed in special housing units or where they can squat.
The non-feral "retards" become tenants via the many and various care agencies both state and NGO who are employed to deal with these "retards". I'll give you 2 fairly common groups.
1) traumatised and institutionalised ex-service people. Yes they often have dreadful issues, compounded by alcohol and drug and other social issues. The agencies who deal with them will only deal with certain management agencies, and it is the care agency who becomes the tenant and the lease is with them. They operate the tenancy. They arrange and supervise the state benefits. They also supervise and monitor the tenancy. The property agent is requested to stay at arm's length, and whilst there are no deposits, there are guarantees on the returned condition of the dwelling although often they will want a dwelling for an extended period of many years.
2) Asylum seekers and refugees. Again, the agencies which deal with them operate these tenancies in much the same way as the ex-militaries. The landlord never has any contact with them, and the agency deals with the care agencies. It operates pretty well for the most part. Some of these people are severely traumatised and have experienced life changing incidents including as the victim, so it is unsurprising that they have developed mental welfare issues. Unlike the servicemen very few of them have "co-morbidities" such as drug addiction. And I have housed literally hundreds of them, and the number of these tenancies which have had to be ended because of what you term "the retard" is less than 5.
How a landlord who owns a property which is used to house one of these "retards" can be seen as becoming "one of their carers" is beyond me to fathom. And to suggest it is best described as A LOAD OF PISH.
If you have neither any experience of 'lower end btl' nor of 'how it works' you are better not to comment on it. IMO.
mike74 said:
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
What a load of pish.
Another moronically pointless ''response'' from the forum's most irrelevant contributor joyless lobotomised parrot said:
What a load of pish.
Nope. The honest reality. It’s why we pay to stick agents in the middle to buffer us from the risk of ending up doing business with one of the many screaming idiots that frequent that end of the market from their inability to move money correctly, inability to use a chair properly or the fact that they are so hooked on having everyone around them wipe their bum that they genuinely don’t comprehend that calling at 2am about a light bulb is the act of a fktard. With any investment you have to have your eyes wide open and the BTL market is still riddled with deluded punters who believed it was all a bed of roses with no downsides.
Besides which Groak when it comes to slum landlording and over extending with debt and folding then you are the one person who knows the truth and it is not what you post today but rather what you are at pains to hide from yesterday.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 21st June 09:56
Badda said:
mike74 said:
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
What a load of pish.
Another moronically pointless ''response'' from the forum's most irrelevant contributor Now obviously he's got no experience of lower end btl (other than what some other chinless Rupert whose brush with the lower classes didn't work out has told him) but this notion of owners whose property is agency-managed getting 2 am calls from helpless "turd munching retards" is puzzling. When the owner is anonymous, and as likely to be a company as an individual, how are these "retards" getting the ruperts' contact details?
Naaa. I'll stick to what I said. It's a load of pish.
Ps: Keys came back on Monday for a studio a young Pole had for a year or so. Apparently he left it 'spotless' as they say in the trade. Quick "professional clean" (£30) and I believe Y-People sign up for it today. So it's goodbye to that one for 4 years with no deposit, max HB rate (£93pw) and guaranteed returned back in the condition it was videoed in.
THAT's the "harsh reality". And from where I'm standing it's not too harsh for a 40sqm unit I overpaid £25k for 10 years ago.
Edited by joyless lobotomised parrot on Thursday 21st June 15:00
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
Nothing much in terms of quality of tenant changes as you pass thru Gretna. And whilst Scotland's probably taken the lead in legislation/regulation of residential letting it's not long before England adopts anything that's seen to have worked positively, so really there isn't any much difference in Scotland at all.
Now obviously he's got no experience of lower end btl (other than what some other chinless Rupert whose brush with the lower classes didn't work out has told him) but this notion of owners whose property is agency-managed getting 2 am calls from helpless "turd munching retards" is puzzling. When the owner is anonymous, and as likely to be a company as an individual, how are these "retards" getting the ruperts' contact details?
Naaa. I'll stick to what I said. It's a load of pish.
Ps: Keys came back on Monday for a studio a young Pole had for a year or so. Apparently he left it 'spotless' as they say in the trade. Quick "professional clean" (£30) and I believe Y-People sign up for it today. So it's goodbye to that one for 4 years with no deposit, max HB rate (£93pw) and guaranteed returned back in the condition it was videoed in.
THAT's the "harsh reality". And from where I'm standing it's not too harsh for a 40sqm unit I overpaid £25k for 10 years ago.
Yet you run a portfolio and you pay out the management and are trying to insist that the risks are the same for a single asset that is self managed. Now obviously he's got no experience of lower end btl (other than what some other chinless Rupert whose brush with the lower classes didn't work out has told him) but this notion of owners whose property is agency-managed getting 2 am calls from helpless "turd munching retards" is puzzling. When the owner is anonymous, and as likely to be a company as an individual, how are these "retards" getting the ruperts' contact details?
Naaa. I'll stick to what I said. It's a load of pish.
Ps: Keys came back on Monday for a studio a young Pole had for a year or so. Apparently he left it 'spotless' as they say in the trade. Quick "professional clean" (£30) and I believe Y-People sign up for it today. So it's goodbye to that one for 4 years with no deposit, max HB rate (£93pw) and guaranteed returned back in the condition it was videoed in.
THAT's the "harsh reality". And from where I'm standing it's not too harsh for a 40sqm unit I overpaid £25k for 10 years ago.
Edited by joyless lobotomised parrot on Thursday 21st June 15:00
You’re being fundamentally and deliberately dishonest again, as is your way.
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
DonkeyApple said:
.......... and then look very honestly as to whether you want to rent and deal with the type of monumental, dirty, moronic you’re likely to end up having a direct, personal relationship with.
And that’s really the nub of it. Do you like the idea of welcoming and absolute turd muncher into your life in exchange for a few quid a month when you could just feed the money into some global trackers and know that you won’t be getting a call at 2am from some semi retarded fktard about a bulb having blown. Because the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter land and you will be making yourself one of their carers.
What a load of pish. you’re likely to end up having a direct, personal relationship with. And that’s really the nub of it. Do you like the idea of welcoming and absolute turd muncher into your life in exchange for a few quid a month when you could just feed the money into some global trackers and know that you won’t be getting a call at 2am from some semi retarded f
ktard about a bulb having blown. Because the very harsh reality about owning low end BTL is that you are paying money to enter land and you will be making yourself one of their carers. SCEtoAUX said:
Your comment is pish, the above is spot on
Hmmm. Dunno if you ever watch these TV things about "Tenant from hell // Rogue landlord" but you may have noticed something interesting.
ALL the 'rogue landlords', without exception, are operating lower end dungeons. And but for the kindness of the intervening authorities they'd all be in legal trouble including being de-registered and effectively barred from letting residential property at all.
But NOT ONE SINGLE ONE of the "tenants from hell" is in a lower end property. Not a single one.
A lot of them are in properties which certainly aren't particularly well suited to or prepared for letting but none of the dreadful tenants seem to be in lower end dwellings. In fact some of them are in pads that are quite posh.
Anyway, give us your answer to the puzzle. How do the 'turd munching retards' who are the typical tenants of lower end btls phone the owner of the dwelling at 2am if they don't know who he is never mind where or what his number is?
Give us some believable clue as to how you think they do this?
About 20 years ago I actually did get a 2am call. It was a policeman. To tell me there'd been a fire. I asked him if anyone was injured? Nope. So I asked him if the fire had been put out. Yep. So I asked him if the tenant was there. Yep. So I asked the cop to put him on.
I asked the tenant if he was ok. He was. He told me he'd fallen asleep and a candle had set light to a curtain. A worktop was slightly burned and the curtain was destroyed and the room had a fair bit of smoke damage. I asked him if he thought he'd be able to stay the night in the flat. He could. So I told him we'd get in touch in the morning and get it sorted. And then I ended the call and went back to sleep.
And next day the agency contacted the insurers and the damage, such as it was, was quickly put right, and the tenant promised 'no more candles'.
Dramatic, eh? But not really life-changing.
As other's have said BTL can work well provided you do your research. Mine allowed my wife and I to retire at 51. I use an agent to fully manage the properties but do most repairs myself, my properties are all about 1 hour from home.
Last year I sold the least profitable house, it was in a rubbish town on a rubbish council estate, I'd owned it for 10 years. With a full 10 years of accounts I could see that the property had produced a net profit of approximately £3k per year and gave me a £30k capital gain. This was with an initial outlay of £15k (deposit, legal etc)
Yes I had problems along the way, and entering the market is more difficult and costly now, but providing you learn from your mistakes as you gain experience you can minimise your risk. Like the OP I don't have a clue about the financial market's, had my fingers burned before, and I don't wish to go there again.
Last year I sold the least profitable house, it was in a rubbish town on a rubbish council estate, I'd owned it for 10 years. With a full 10 years of accounts I could see that the property had produced a net profit of approximately £3k per year and gave me a £30k capital gain. This was with an initial outlay of £15k (deposit, legal etc)
Yes I had problems along the way, and entering the market is more difficult and costly now, but providing you learn from your mistakes as you gain experience you can minimise your risk. Like the OP I don't have a clue about the financial market's, had my fingers burned before, and I don't wish to go there again.
Badda said:
It wasn’t the most detailed post but I wouldn’t say it was pointless. DA is normally on the money with stuff on here but is really tarring everyone with a brush that’s had little experience imo. Choose your tenants correctly, use an agent and the ownership of low end BTLs is nothing like he described. Unless he’s talking about a lower end than I’m used to, I’ve no experience of Scotland for instance....!
All I’m doing is using hyperbole to highlight the other side of the fantasy view that running a BTL is risk free and a bed of roses. It’s obvious that most tenents are fine but it is also obvious that many are a human disaster that destroy all potential returns. The fact that you need to put middlemen in place to deal with this tends to highlight where the middle ground is and it remains that posters always publish gross returns and conveniently discount the risks and the costs to mitigate those risks. It is also the case that running a portfolio is very different from trying to run a single BYL and trying to extract the highest return.
joyless lobotomised parrot said:
Nothing much in terms of quality of tenant changes as you pass thru Gretna. And whilst Scotland's probably taken the lead in legislation/regulation of residential letting it's not long before England adopts anything that's seen to have worked positively, so really there isn't any much difference in Scotland at all.
Now obviously he's got no experience of lower end btl (other than what some other chinless Rupert whose brush with the lower classes didn't work out has told him) but this notion of owners whose property is agency-managed getting 2 am calls from helpless "turd munching retards" is puzzling. When the owner is anonymous, and as likely to be a company as an individual, how are these "retards" getting the ruperts' contact details?
Naaa. I'll stick to what I said. It's a load of pish.
Ps: Keys came back on Monday for a studio a young Pole had for a year or so. Apparently he left it 'spotless' as they say in the trade. Quick "professional clean" (£30) and I believe Y-People sign up for it today. So it's goodbye to that one for 4 years with no deposit, max HB rate (£93pw) and guaranteed returned back in the condition it was videoed in.
THAT's the "harsh reality". And from where I'm standing it's not too harsh for a 40sqm unit I overpaid £25k for 10 years ago.
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.Now obviously he's got no experience of lower end btl (other than what some other chinless Rupert whose brush with the lower classes didn't work out has told him) but this notion of owners whose property is agency-managed getting 2 am calls from helpless "turd munching retards" is puzzling. When the owner is anonymous, and as likely to be a company as an individual, how are these "retards" getting the ruperts' contact details?
Naaa. I'll stick to what I said. It's a load of pish.
Ps: Keys came back on Monday for a studio a young Pole had for a year or so. Apparently he left it 'spotless' as they say in the trade. Quick "professional clean" (£30) and I believe Y-People sign up for it today. So it's goodbye to that one for 4 years with no deposit, max HB rate (£93pw) and guaranteed returned back in the condition it was videoed in.
THAT's the "harsh reality". And from where I'm standing it's not too harsh for a 40sqm unit I overpaid £25k for 10 years ago.
Edited by joyless lobotomised parrot on Thursday 21st June 15:00
I do have experience of both good and bad tenants.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff