"Investment opportunity" (buy-to-let, or buy-to-sell-higher)

[woolley]

2 hours ago, Rushen Spy said:

No, under crony capitalism (as opposed to genuine FREE MARKET capitalism which I 100% support) they get rich and kick the ladder down.

Kick it down, pull it up; it means the same. Like champagne socialists.

[CharlieBrown]

3 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Yeah but what do higher prices make. Higher commision

On fewer sales.

[kevster]

11 hours ago, Rushen Spy said:

It is also why the Isle of Man has a problem encouraging people to come and live and work here from across.

Says the man who is always moaning about comeovers

[woody2]

12 hours ago, Rushen Spy said:

Obviously, but as a smaller economy, it is more pronounced and harmful, especially a small economy with an inability (due to lack of legislation and regulation) to extricate itself from encroachment by persons and corporate entities coming from larger economies. We need to have safeguards in place.

Other small islands have made laws and regulations to help their local populations in some way against outside persons and businesses from buying up properties, but on the Isle of Man it's literally a free for all.

There need a regulatory framework to protect the island's actual local society. I am not happy that the current administration, having done a lot of good in so many other areas, appears to have done literally nothing in this area.

didn't jersey do this and it pushed prices higher?

[BallaDoc]

This conversation seems a bit one sided so I'd just like to put in a good word for landlords (or would be landlords) who are considering buy-to-let.  Mrs Balladoc and I have certainly considered it.  Put yourself in the position of a would be landlord for a moment.  You are approaching retirement, or maybe recently retired, you are not rich but you have a nest egg saved up which is meant to carry you through your next 20-30 years or whatever, and maybe pay for a few years in a nursing home at the end of it, so what do you do with the money in the meantime?  Invest it in an investment company?  Not without risk, as this article from today's news shows:

 http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=51427&headline=Millions of client funds diverted&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2019

Put it in the bank?  Bank interest rates are minimal and probably won't keep pace with inflation over the long term.  Do commodity trading with it?  Give us a break.  So a reasonably sensible option is investing it in something tangible, like a piece of land or a building, and then trying to cover your ongoing costs by letting it.  And the ongoing costs of a building can be quite significant, for example, tenants don't have to worry about what to do when the roof starts leaking, they just leave that to the landlord to sort out.

I appreciate that this may be pushing up the purchase price of properties, but it's swings and roundabouts isn't it, because it is making more choice of rental property available, and maybe at some stages in their lives, people might prefer to rent than buy because it gives them more flexibility.

So anyway, we are still considering buy to let.

[Declan]

I sympathise with Balladoc and Rushen Spy's positions. I think perhaps a better way of structuring it would be Insurance Companies rather than landlords or owner-occupiers, own most property, they make these into funds where the rental income pays a dividend then Retirees buy into their funds for a regular income. 

• Property stock is maintained professionally. 
• Landlords are professional. 
• Young people don't need to worry about getting on the ladder.
• Property costs lose the interest element.
• People are not relying on an ever increasing property value to maintain wealth. 
• Old people get a safe return on their investment. 

I think there'll be cultural resistance in the British Isles though. 

[Mr Helmut Fromage]

12 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Properties are generally advertised as investment opportunities because they have or have had tenants.

Correct - often the case when dealing with deceased estates or change in circumstances of the owner, if the lease does not allow the current owner the option to hoof their tenant out immediately the property can be sold with a sitting tenant and advertised as "Investment".

One certain developer advertises new properties for sale with a rent guarantee for the first 2 years - FOR EXAMPLE ONLY FAG PACKET FIGURES a 24 month guaranteed income of £950.00 on a new build purchased off plan. This is purely to encourage the purchase as the true market figure is nearer £800.00.

Makes the sales figures look good and the initial yield attractive for the investor as no months sitting empty and any snagging covered by the developer NHBC warranty etc. but from the start of year 3 income starts to drop.

[Andy Onchan]

Google "impending global economic collapse" and see what pops up.

The writing's on the wall/screen, whatever.

[TheTeapot]

Haven Homes are due to start a new development in Castletown, apparently half are already sold off plan. Try and buy one yourself today.

Edit - this development https://haven.im/developments/castletown/?location=22

[woody2]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

I sympathise with Balladoc and Rushen Spy's positions. I think perhaps a better way of structuring it would be Insurance Companies rather than landlords or owner-occupiers, own most property, they make these into funds where the rental income pays a dividend then Retirees buy into their funds for a regular income. 

• Property stock is maintained professionally. 
• Landlords are professional. 
• Young people don't need to worry about getting on the ladder.
• Property costs lose the interest element.
• People are not relying on an ever increasing property value to maintain wealth. 
• Old people get a safe return on their investment. 

I think there'll be cultural resistance in the British Isles though. 

do you mean a investment company........

[woolley]

3 hours ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said:

 One certain developer advertises new properties for sale with a rent guarantee for the first 2 years - FOR EXAMPLE ONLY FAG PACKET FIGURES a 24 month guaranteed income of £950.00 on a new build purchased off plan. This is purely to encourage the purchase as the true market figure is nearer £800.00.

Makes the sales figures look good and the initial yield attractive for the investor as no months sitting empty and any snagging covered by the developer NHBC warranty etc. but from the start of year 3 income starts to drop.

I always scratch my head at these silly deals. All they are doing is loading the price and giving you some back over 24 months. How thick do punters have to be not to see the obvious?

[Rushen Spy]

9 hours ago, BallaDoc said:

This conversation seems a bit one sided so I'd just like to put in a good word for landlords (or would be landlords) who are considering buy-to-let.  Mrs Balladoc and I have certainly considered it

Of course it's one-sided: the side of truth and decency. Exploitation for personal monetary gain is unethical. There is no "other side" to this unless you're literal garbage.

Also, this thread isn't criticising landlords. There are many landlords who have properties which they rent out and they did not purchase the property to rent out but inherited it or they built the properties themselves, or a long list of other scenarios. Such landlords are well within their rights to let those properties. I am very specifically talking about those who purchase with the sole intent to let or to sell at a higher price.

[Rushen Spy]

8 hours ago, Declan said:

I sympathise with Balladoc and Rushen Spy's positions. I think perhaps a better way of structuring it would be Insurance Companies rather than landlords or owner-occupiers, own most property, they make these into funds where the rental income pays a dividend then Retirees buy into their funds for a regular income. 

• Property stock is maintained professionally. 
• Landlords are professional. 
• Young people don't need to worry about getting on the ladder.
• Property costs lose the interest element.
• People are not relying on an ever increasing property value to maintain wealth. 
• Old people get a safe return on their investment. 

I think there'll be cultural resistance in the British Isles though. 

Nonsense. People themselves should own their own homes. There should be a law against owning more than a specific number; and law and regulation to ensure protections for people who are from the island, as we are effectively unprotected prey from vultures.

[Rushen Spy]

10 hours ago, kevster said:

Says the man who is always moaning about comeovers

I never moan about "comeovers". I don't even like that word; I think it's stupid.

[mad_manx]

5 hours ago, woolley said:

I always scratch my head at these silly deals. All they are doing is loading the price and giving you some back over 24 months. How thick do punters have to be not to see the obvious?

As per a friend of mine some people who put money into these schemes may not be as stupid as you think.

There are SIPP schemes which allow you to invest in residential property .

Pension contributions did not have any limits and were tax free till a few years ago without any upper limit.

It's now restricted to 50k per tax year.

Returns can still roll up tax free.