Page 1 of 2

BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 11th, 2016, 3:29 am
by compscidude
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/ ... y/db0omvx/

I thought this comment on reddit was excellent. In relation to BTLers complaining about recent tax changes.
Anyone complaining is by definition not a buy-to-letter, they're a borrow-to-letter.

The reason is that buy-to-letters that actually bought with their own money, are unaffected by the change.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 17th, 2016, 12:18 pm
by JonE
compscidude wrote:The reason is that buy-to-letters that actually bought with their own money, are unaffected by the change.


Doesn't this also apply to landlords who do incur interest costs for their lettings business but who end up not having to pay HR IT after the full computation?

Cheers!

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 17th, 2016, 1:23 pm
by Alaric
JonE wrote:Doesn't this also apply to landlords who do incur interest costs for their lettings business but who end up not having to pay HR IT after the full computation?


There's always the possibility of individuals setting up a Company to manage a "borrow to let" business. What are the disadvantages of this which leave personal holdings as the route chosen by most landlords.

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that if borrowing to let is profitable, where does the profit come from, other than tenants who are being excluded from being able to upgrade from being a rent payer to being a mortgage payer?

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 17th, 2016, 1:40 pm
by youfoolishboy
The ultimate aim of the hate the landlords campaign by the government is to bring large companies into the market to run rentals. Great I hear the renters shout that will be fantastic but in reality you are more likely to have the same problems that you face with all large companies lack of response and high costs to cover their overheads and making a profit for shareholders. For the government it means a more easy tax base than a load of landlords avoiding paying tax, yes it does happen a fair bit, and having others using tax breaks to avoid tax legally. The only winners in this sea change will be large companies with the government's ear and politicians who are riding the wave of populism with some deluded renters from taxing landlords out of existence.
Short term I agree with previous posters rents will have to rise to cover the extra costs as like it or not there is actually a housing shortage in the UK and getting rid of landlords is not going to get more houses built. Medium term there will be a shortage of rental properties, more rises in rents then the large companies will see a market and step in and corner it and wait for it, raise rents.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 17th, 2016, 3:54 pm
by JonE
Alaric wrote:It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that if borrowing to let is profitable, where does the profit come from, other than tenants who are being excluded from being able to upgrade from being a rent payer to being a mortgage payer?


Well, one other source of gross income is tenants who simply don't wish to "upgrade" and find the private rented sector suits their needs very well. Relatively quick and easy relocation and general flexibility in housing choices have significant value for some folk: one can imagine many individual circumstance in which renting would be a preferred option.

One example I encountered recently is a single woman who had retired and didn't want the worry/burden of property maintenance along with the potentially lumpy hits to her purse so sold up and is now very happily renting (with a significantly fatter purse) and with maintenance issues addressed with a single phone call and no need to find a lump of loot. It's easy to forget that interest costs are not the only costs a landlord bears.

Cheers!
...sometime landlord, sometime tenant and sometimes both at the same time...

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 20th, 2016, 8:54 am
by Arborbridge
Alaric wrote:
It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that if borrowing to let is profitable, where does the profit come from, other than tenants who are being excluded from being able to upgrade from being a rent payer to being a mortgage payer?


That's an interesting point, bordering on philosophy :) Where does any profit within any industry come from - from its customers who are all tied into a system and excluded from influencing it. There is no other source of revenue. People in all walks of life are "excluded" from being able to upgrade to whatever they want to be by various limitations. This is only one tiny particular example.

Life's not fair. I really wanted so many things... but I was excluded. So what? I got on with it.

Arb.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 20th, 2016, 9:50 am
by Alaric
Arborbridge wrote: Where does any profit within any industry come from - from its customers who are all tied into a system and excluded from influencing it.


I see it more as distribution of wealth. In the parallel universe where "borrow to let" doesn't exist and is replaced by "borrow to buy ", it's the now ex-tenants who are taking the risk and the profits of being the equity holders. That was how it was in the past particularly when "borrow to buy" offered tax relief on the borrowings.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 20th, 2016, 5:26 pm
by LadyGagarin
Arborbridge wrote:People in all walks of life are "excluded" from being able to upgrade to whatever they want to be by various limitations. This is only one tiny particular example.

Life's not fair. I really wanted so many things... but I was excluded. So what? I got on with it.

Arb.


But housing - like food - is something that pretty much everybody needs. You can't draw full comparisons between the housing market and that for non-essential goods.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 20th, 2016, 7:05 pm
by richlist
I read somewhere that there are over 400,000 empty properties in Spain.....you know, the housing boom that fell flat.

Why not ship the homeless over there whilst we are still in the EU and Spain can't object.....free movement of people and all that.

Sorts out our problem and theirs......maybe the Gov can even buy them and rent them out to those that want social housing.

Sometimes thinking out of the box produces alternative ideas!

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 20th, 2016, 10:55 pm
by Arborbridge
LadyGagarin wrote:But housing - like food - is something that pretty much everybody needs. You can't draw full comparisons between the housing market and that for non-essential goods.


I don't think that makes any difference to the principle: life isn't fair. We are all excluded from one thing or another.
Government regulation can help, but then very many people (and newpapers) constantly moan on about how we already have too much regulation. We wouldn't like such control.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 20th, 2016, 11:33 pm
by Alaric
Arborbridge wrote:Government regulation can help, but then very many people (and newpapers) constantly moan on about how we already have too much regulation.


Government regulation can hinder as well. Is it any coincidence that the "borrow to let" market started to expand, complete with tax relief, when the Government first restricted and then removed tax relief from "borrow to buy"?

I was never sure whether you could borrow to let if you didn't already own a property. Perhaps you couldn't else what would stop A and B conspiring so that A was BTL landlord to B who in turn was BTL landlord to A? Legal costs etc permitting, they pocket tax relief unavailable if both borrow to own the properties they live in.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: December 21st, 2016, 3:13 pm
by IsleofWightPete
Alaric wrote:Is it any coincidence that the "borrow to let" market started to expand, complete with tax relief, when the Government first restricted and then removed tax relief from "borrow to buy"?


Yes I think it is coincidence - the two are unrelated.
The growth in Private Sector rentals was driven primarily by the two Housing Acts (1988 and 1996) which effectively ended automatic security of tenure for tenants (and also ended mandatory rent levels set by Rent Tribunals)
On the back of those Acts, the steady exodus of Landlords fed up with being unable to repossess their properties and receiving uneconomic rent, finally reversed, and turned into a flood of new entrants.
This was fully supported by lenders, who realised that this new market offered far better security for lending (properties could be repossessed for sale if required, and rent controls, that could slash a Landlords returns, were abolished on AST's). Hence the birth of, and subsequent and boom in, BTL mortgages.

As for tax relief, there was never "tax relief" on BTL mortgages. It was simply that tax was always payable on profits, and the calculation of profits has always been revenue less costs. Costs were always deemed to include the interest on capital borrowed to fund acquisition of the business assets (as with all other types of business).

It is only in the last year or so that the notion of taxing revenues, but making a tax allowance for interest costs, has been introduced.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 24th, 2017, 8:44 pm
by paulnumbers
youfoolishboy wrote:The ultimate aim of the hate the landlords campaign by the government is to bring large companies into the market to run rentals.


Where are you getting this information from?

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 25th, 2017, 2:06 am
by TahiPanas
paulnumbers wrote:
youfoolishboy wrote:The ultimate aim of the hate the landlords campaign by the government is to bring large companies into the market to run rentals.


Where are you getting this information from?


You'll be hard pressed to find supporting facts for that one! Sounds conspiracy theorey-ish to me.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 25th, 2017, 7:51 am
by youfoolishboy
TahiPanas wrote:
paulnumbers wrote:
youfoolishboy wrote:The ultimate aim of the hate the landlords campaign by the government is to bring large companies into the market to run rentals.


Where are you getting this information from?


You'll be hard pressed to find supporting facts for that one! Sounds conspiracy theorey-ish to me.


It is logic my dear Watson. If you kick out private landlords who is going to provide rentals? The costs are being ramped up so that only large companies can mange them. Where do you think the rental properties are going to come from or do you think everyone will buy a house? Please reply I would be interested to hear an alternative view there has been a rental properties shortage before the house prices rises due to the running down of council houses so the demand will not go away but the supply will reduce.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 25th, 2017, 8:22 am
by richlist
Some private landlords are moving towards incorporation.
Other landlords without mortgages will feel little effect.
Those with mortgages may have to adjust the way their business operates.

Every landlords situation is different.

Every year since I've been in residential letting there have been changes. We just need to learn to roll with the punches instead of becoming cynical.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 25th, 2017, 9:39 am
by paulnumbers
youfoolishboy wrote:
TahiPanas wrote:
paulnumbers wrote:
Where are you getting this information from?


You'll be hard pressed to find supporting facts for that one! Sounds conspiracy theorey-ish to me.


It is logic my dear Watson. If you kick out private landlords who is going to provide rentals? The costs are being ramped up so that only large companies can mange them. Where do you think the rental properties are going to come from or do you think everyone will buy a house? Please reply I would be interested to hear an alternative view there has been a rental properties shortage before the house prices rises due to the running down of council houses so the demand will not go away but the supply will reduce.


I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, I just wanted to know if it was an opinion or based in fact somewhere.

Personally I don't see it though.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 25th, 2017, 10:04 am
by youfoolishboy
paulnumbers wrote:
youfoolishboy wrote:
TahiPanas wrote:
You'll be hard pressed to find supporting facts for that one! Sounds conspiracy theorey-ish to me.


It is logic my dear Watson. If you kick out private landlords who is going to provide rentals? The costs are being ramped up so that only large companies can mange them. Where do you think the rental properties are going to come from or do you think everyone will buy a house? Please reply I would be interested to hear an alternative view there has been a rental properties shortage before the house prices rises due to the running down of council houses so the demand will not go away but the supply will reduce.


I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, I just wanted to know if it was an opinion or based in fact somewhere.

Personally I don't see it though.


If I was able to produce facts about the future I would be a rich man.

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 25th, 2017, 3:59 pm
by IsleofWightPete
richlist wrote:Every year since I've been in residential letting there have been changes. We just need to learn to roll with the punches instead of becoming cynical.


Yes, but there has been a major shift in emphasis recently.
Previous changes have usually been to improve the balance of power between tenants & landlords, eg the unfair contract terms in tenancies, the introduction of tenancy deposit schemes, the changes to the s21, etc etc. You can argue whether they were necessary, or if they achieved the objective, but at least there was an identifiable "good intention" to improve the way that the private rented sector operated.

But recently, the changes have been specifically aimed at damaging the economic model of the landlord. The imposition of 3% extra SDLT does nothing to improve the landlord Tenant relationship. Neither does the change to taxation of rents rather than taxation of profits (after allowing for interest costs) in the rental business.

I see this as quite different, and not something that can just be "rolled with", as the purpose is to damage the Private Rented Sector

Re: BTL: Buy to let vs Borrow to let

Posted: January 25th, 2017, 7:21 pm
by richlist
I don't see it like that at all.

The additional 3% SDLT is having little effect in my part of Essex. 2nd home property sales are still popular and at a similar level to that before the extra duty was introduced according to my agents. On a personal note I've had no trouble finding investment buyers for two properties since extra duty introduced.

No doubt the Gov will monitor nationwide and extra tax receipts will help to balance the books. I'm sure it will be reduced if the disadvantages to the country outweigh the expected benefits.......and that approach by the Gov will likely be used with all of the measures introduced, including the tax changes.

On the popularity scale the general public consider landlords are at or near the bottom. In my opinion at least a few notches worse than traffic wardens, bankers and Tony Blair or Philip Green.

I think the Gov are interested in slowing the private rented sector down, making more property available for 1st time buyers. There is a general shortage of property and the Gov don't want landlords buying them up and leaving to few for those trying to get on the housing ladder......even as a landlord, that makes perfect sense to me.