Buy to let

[CivicDuties]

NowWatchThisDrive said:

Caddyshack said:

Yeah...what a rip off with all this talk of 14% and 8%...compared to the ????

Many people are very happy with their structured products.

But clearly it's not guaranteed, so the question is what risks are customers assuming - in terms of capital loss, foregone upside, counterparty credit etc - for a sniff at the touted 8/14/whatever %. I doubt the vast majority of customers properly understand the subtleties of these products.

Bullseye.

Some houses, I can predict things pretty reliably. Path of least resistance.

[Caddyshack]

NowWatchThisDrive said:

Caddyshack said:

Yeah...what a rip off with all this talk of 14% and 8%...compared to the ????

Many people are very happy with their structured products.

But clearly it's not guaranteed, so the question is what risks are customers assuming - in terms of capital loss, foregone upside, counterparty credit etc - for a sniff at the touted 8/14/whatever %. I doubt the vast majority of customers properly understand the subtleties of these products.

I am not here to promote products.

Of course it is not guaranteed but nor is property, not just in terms of value but interest rates and tenant quality.

These are sophisticated products and would not be for the beginner and they tend to have min £100k investment etc. so the IFA would need to be picky and educate the users.

Nobody can predict property values, they can tell what others are worth and many people feel the last 50 years will be replicated in the next 30 years which is not a forgone conclusion by any means.

[fasimew]

Portia5 said:

dogz said:

There are always differing perspectives on what is the best approach. You need to decide what personally works for you. For me its BTL coupled with a pension and some ETF's plus a bit of cash in the bank

Over the years, I've built up a 10 property portfolio which is essentially going to be my retirement fund. All will be fully repaid when I retire (on cap repayment mortgages) and in todays money will generate nearly £100k income without any erosion of capital. Yes, there are costs to maintain etc. Yes, a big bill with crystalise if I sell in terms of capital appreciation. Yes, houses are not the most liquid assets but for me it works

So much so, I'm continuing to buy.

Also, to all those who say there is no offset for interest on a BTL mtg - there is. The rules changed and its not as good but there is still a 20% off set allowance made when you do your self assessment

Between 2000 and 2010 my agency built probably over 100 portfolios like this for people. Which we then managed.

The nice thing I have to tell you is that its worked out well for every single one of the people we built them for. So it should be the same for you. We used to offer a buyback deal for anyone who wasn't happy with what they've bought. Of +/- 1000 units, only ONE was given back which I still own, and it's one of my favourites.

Funnily enough I've just sold a small portfolio of 5 supplied to my mate about 20 years ago.

Can you explain a bit more about 'building portfolios'? I wouldn't mind a 100k income on the side. I know nothing, so please explain to me like im special.

[Portia5]

fasimew said:

Can you explain a bit more about 'building portfolios'? I wouldn't mind a 100k income on the side. I know nothing, so please explain to me like im special.

Fill yer boots:

https://www.caledoniaportfoliobuilders.co.uk/portf...

[CivicDuties]

Portia5 said:

fasimew said:

Can you explain a bit more about 'building portfolios'? I wouldn't mind a 100k income on the side. I know nothing, so please explain to me like im special.

Fill yer boots:

https://www.caledoniaportfoliobuilders.co.uk/portf...

That doesn't say anything about helping people to build portfolios of their own properties, from which to gain an income. It's asking people to invest in projects on properties they won't own.

[Caddyshack]

CivicDuties said:

Portia5 said:

fasimew said:

Can you explain a bit more about 'building portfolios'? I wouldn't mind a 100k income on the side. I know nothing, so please explain to me like im special.

Fill yer boots:

https://www.caledoniaportfoliobuilders.co.uk/portf...

That doesn't say anything about helping people to build portfolios of their own properties, from which to gain an income. It's asking people to invest in projects on properties they won't own.

I saw a banner saying 100% ownership? Did you click on portfolio building or passive?

I am always a bit wary when the firm provide a broker and a lawyer etc, the people I have met who have owned property for 20+ yrs and only just worth what they paid for them didn’t have anyone to warn them, not saying the above is the same but it pays to be cautious. New build firms often do the same when selling inflated properties but profess to be selling at a discount.

Edited by Caddyshack on Friday 9th February 19:12

[Portia5]

I bought this today. Total impulse buy. Pure buy-to-let.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/143953850#/...

Owner unwilling to go a penny below 55k but happy to take that for it.

What it'll be worth in 20 years I really do not know. Nor do I know anyone who knows.

[Caddyshack]

Portia5 said:

I bought this today. Total impulse buy. Pure buy-to-let.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/143953850#/...

Owner unwilling to go a penny below 55k but happy to take that for it.

What it'll be worth in 20 years I really do not know. Nor do I know anyone who knows.

I think most people talk about buy to let as a standard resi house to be let out, as it stands, ready to go on an ast.

I assume you will convert this to resi or let it as a commercial property.

What I am saying is that you wouldn’t get a buy to let mortgage on it which is what many have been thinking about.

[Portia5]

Caddyshack said:

Portia5 said:

I bought this today. Total impulse buy. Pure buy-to-let.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/143953850#/...

Owner unwilling to go a penny below 55k but happy to take that for it.

What it'll be worth in 20 years I really do not know. Nor do I know anyone who knows.

I think most people talk about buy to let as a standard resi house to be let out, as it stands, ready to go on an ast.

whereas I would say that MOST commercial property is not owner occupied but rented from a landlord who bought it to let it. O and here no new resi lease since 1st Dec 2017 has been an ast

I assume you will convert this to resi or let it as a commercial property.

Eh? 100% won't be getting converted. It's already tenanted. And if she leaves (she won't) it will be immediately re-tenanted by one of 2 businesses.

What I am saying is that you wouldn’t get a buy to let mortgage on it which is what many have been thinking about.

I don't really do borrowing any more, but I know where I could borrow 100% on it if I did.

[Caddyshack]

Portia5 said:

Caddyshack said:

Portia5 said:

I bought this today. Total impulse buy. Pure buy-to-let.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/143953850#/...

Owner unwilling to go a penny below 55k but happy to take that for it.

What it'll be worth in 20 years I really do not know. Nor do I know anyone who knows.

I think most people talk about buy to let as a standard resi house to be let out, as it stands, ready to go on an ast.

whereas I would say that MOST commercial property is not owner occupied but rented from a landlord who bought it to let it. O and here no new resi lease since 1st Dec 2017 has been an ast

I assume you will convert this to resi or let it as a commercial property.

Eh? 100% won't be getting converted. It's already tenanted. And if she leaves (she won't) it will be immediately re-tenanted by one of 2 businesses.

What I am saying is that you wouldn’t get a buy to let mortgage on it which is what many have been thinking about.

I don't really do borrowing any more, but I know where I could borrow 100% on it if I did.

It wouldn’t be a buy to let high street lender though, which is what I was saying. Your answers are often like little hooks to draw people in, such as suggesting 100% funding…of course that is available if you know someone but it isn’t high street lending at 4-5% for the average buy to let buyer.

I think some of your comments on threads talking about buy to let have confused a few of us as if you were talking about bog standard houses and flats to let…which it why I posted the above.

Agree that a lot of commercial shops are not owned by the business in the shop. Most of Guildford high street is owned by big funds.

Edited by Caddyshack on Friday 9th February 23:29

[Portia5]

Caddyshack said:

It wouldn’t be a buy to let high street lender though, which is what I was saying. Your answers are often like little hooks to draw people in, such as suggesting 100% funding…of course that is available if you know someone but it isn’t high street lending at 4-5% for the average buy to let buyer.

I think some of your comments on threads talking about buy to let have confused a few of us as if you were talking about bog standard houses and flats to let…which it why I posted the above.

Agree that a lot of commercial shops are not owned by the business in the shop. Most of Guildford high street is owned by big funds.

Edited by Caddyshack on Friday 9th February 23:29

The problem with the "buy-to-let high street lender" is that since the Great Humiliation they don't really want to 'do business', do they? They want to somehow lend-by-numbers with a tickbox template. And the problem is that often neither the properties nor the borrowers (or both in many cases) fit the template/tick the box. So 'computer says no' becomes a commonplace, and guiding people through the lenders' jumbled obstacle course becomes a skill. Very frustrating for the dude who's just trying to make a living. Baffling too, given the scope for low risk rewards for all parties.

I also believe the hi-street lender's integrity tends to go out the window under duress, and really, who needs that, especially in 'interesting' times?

As to commercial, it's probably the first property diversification the resi btl collector ventures into. At which point 'bog standard' goes out the window given the enormous number of permutations of types of commercial that exist. Not that that isn't also the case with residential property.

Sad to hear that you see my comments as 'little hooks' and/or 'confusing'. Probably time to shush then and just let the enormous volume of nonsense being spouted about all aspects of property letting just get taken for granted as wisdom or good advice. And why not?

It's anyway just all a mixed up mess of rent defaulting tenants smashing up properties and crazy foreign people with little or no English disturbing one's sleep at 3 in the morning demanding a light bulb changed or reporting those pesky boilers that round these parts seem to constantly require replacing. What a nightmare! High tenant turnover frequently void moneypits which despite making zero returns are taxed more than multinationals!

[DoubleSix]

Agreed sale of my last BTL yesterday.

Proceeds into pension before tax year end with a bit of luck.

[Caddyshack]

Portia5 said:

Caddyshack said:

It wouldn’t be a buy to let high street lender though, which is what I was saying. Your answers are often like little hooks to draw people in, such as suggesting 100% funding…of course that is available if you know someone but it isn’t high street lending at 4-5% for the average buy to let buyer.

I think some of your comments on threads talking about buy to let have confused a few of us as if you were talking about bog standard houses and flats to let…which it why I posted the above.

Agree that a lot of commercial shops are not owned by the business in the shop. Most of Guildford high street is owned by big funds.

Edited by Caddyshack on Friday 9th February 23:29

The problem with the "buy-to-let high street lender" is that since the Great Humiliation they don't really want to 'do business', do they? They want to somehow lend-by-numbers with a tickbox template. And the problem is that often neither the properties nor the borrowers (or both in many cases) fit the template/tick the box. So 'computer says no' becomes a commonplace, and guiding people through the lenders' jumbled obstacle course becomes a skill. Very frustrating for the dude who's just trying to make a living. Baffling too, given the scope for low risk rewards for all parties.

I also believe the hi-street lender's integrity tends to go out the window under duress, and really, who needs that, especially in 'interesting' times?

As to commercial, it's probably the first property diversification the resi btl collector ventures into. At which point 'bog standard' goes out the window given the enormous number of permutations of types of commercial that exist. Not that that isn't also the case with residential property.

Sad to hear that you see my comments as 'little hooks' and/or 'confusing'. Probably time to shush then and just let the enormous volume of nonsense being spouted about all aspects of property letting just get taken for granted as wisdom or good advice. And why not?

It's anyway just all a mixed up mess of rent defaulting tenants smashing up properties and crazy foreign people with little or no English disturbing one's sleep at 3 in the morning demanding a light bulb changed or reporting those pesky boilers that round these parts seem to constantly require replacing. What a nightmare! High tenant turnover frequently void moneypits which despite making zero returns are taxed more than multinationals!

Thanks for the reply.

By “hooks” I mean a snippet of interesting info but no explanation ie selling capital gains tax free but then not elaborating or 100% funding but not explaining exactly how. Draw them in but leave them hanging on a hook.


Btl resi high st are hamstrung by the post credit crunch stress testing. They did lend on a lot of stinky properties before which were not what they were presented to be….the lenders probably knew this and didn’t care until it became a problem but it was scheme abuse by brokers and borrowers alike.


The people showing the harsh side of rentals are just trying to give some balance to the argument when people just say to invest in property without any consideration of what else is out there.

The reason I highlighted the understanding of buy to let is that you have talked about buy to let a lot being great but it seems that actually you seem to do better with commercial property however it hasn’t often been clear that you are not just talking about a flat / normal resi buy to let.

I have one commercial property but stayed away from more small units as I see a lot of shop fronts stay empty for quite some time and if you borrow from a bank the rates are very high and so are the arrangement fees.

[Portia5]

Caddyshack said:

Btl resi high st are hamstrung by the post credit crunch stress testing. They did lend on a lot of stinky properties before which were not what they were presented to be….the lenders probably knew this and didn’t care until it became a problem but it was scheme abuse by brokers and borrowers alike.

you don't seriously believe that lending on "stinky" properties (whatever that means) or an absence of stress testing was any problem to the high street lenders pre or since the GFC do you?

The reason I highlighted the understanding of buy to let is that you have talked about buy to let a lot being great but it seems that actually you seem to do better with commercial property however it hasn’t often been clear that you are not just talking about a flat / normal resi buy to let.

They're ALL btl. Who buys a tenanted letting concern other than a landlord? Sometimes resi 'does better', sometimes commercial.

I have one commercial property but stayed away from more small units as I see a lot of shop fronts stay empty for quite some time and if you borrow from a bank the rates are very high and so are the arrangement fees.

As many have said, letting property is a business whether it's dwellings or commercials. There ARE people who don't want to scale up profitable businesses but personally I do. Property letting has to be the world's easiest business to upscale. Just accumulate more. That's why us thickos like it. A lot of it's pretty simple really.

[Pit Pony]

Caddyshack said:

NowWatchThisDrive said:

Caddyshack said:

Yeah...what a rip off with all this talk of 14% and 8%...compared to the ????

Many people are very happy with their structured products.

But clearly it's not guaranteed, so the question is what risks are customers assuming - in terms of capital loss, foregone upside, counterparty credit etc - for a sniff at the touted 8/14/whatever %. I doubt the vast majority of customers properly understand the subtleties of these products.

I am not here to promote products.

Of course it is not guaranteed but nor is property, not just in terms of value but interest rates and tenant quality.

These are sophisticated products and would not be for the beginner and they tend to have min £100k investment etc. so the IFA would need to be picky and educate the users.

Nobody can predict property values, they can tell what others are worth and many people feel the last 50 years will be replicated in the next 30 years which is not a forgone conclusion by any means.

If the next 30 years went the same as the last.

Typical Engineer in the North West
1964
Income £1.5k
House Price £2k

1994
Income £25k
House Price £50k

2024
Income £50k
House Price £250k

2054
Income £100k
House Price £1.25M

No?

[Forester1965]

I think once in place the next government will embark on a mass housebuilding programme. The NIMBYs need to be sidelined in the national interest.

[Caddyshack]

Forester1965 said:

I think once in place the next government will embark on a mass housebuilding programme. The NIMBYs need to be sidelined in the national interest.

House building has lagged behind demand for the last 40-50 years. I wonder if they build huge amounts the prices will not inflate so much if there is a jump in supply.

If interest rates stay higher then people cannot afford as much.