The thing that really concerns me about all of this is how naiive the financial modelling seems to be before people set off on what is a pretty major investment in property.
The general attitude even on this forum seems to be "if it washes its face" then it is OK.
i.e. the rule for assessing a deal is:
if I have a good feeling, and current achievable rental > current mortgage payments then everything is fine.
The main reason that buy to let seems to be attractive is that you only need a small initial investment, and the mortgage is someone else's money.
But what this ignores entirely is that the mortgage is real financial gearing. It may be the bank's money, but if things go wrong, it is still your debt.
Whilst gearing works in your favour in a rising market, it will equally bite you in a static or falling market.
Imagine the following simple example.
House 222K
Investment 30K
Mortgage: 192K at 5% = 800 per month
Rental income 1000 per month
costs: negligible for simplicities sake
tax: ignored (!)
Capital appreciation: taken at market value as a profit at the end of the life of the property, but only if you are not a forced seller.
I mean if your model is rent > mortgage = invest, then you would look at this deal and say rent = 1000, mortgage = 800 so go for it, really attractive return of 200 per month on 30K = 8% plus any capital appreciation minus costs.
But now ask yourself one simple question: "what if interest rates really do shock?"
We've been in benign, almost freak, financial conditions for the last 5-10 years. Inflation around 2%, property soaring in value way faster than generic inflation, interest rates at historic lows of 4.5 - 5 %.
Note the words "historic lows."
I remember when I bought my first property, the mortgage rate was 15.5%.
Yes. Fifteen and and a half percent per year.
So a couple of points rise in base interest rates to 7 or 8% (perfectly "normal" in times gone by) is going to mean that those mortgage payments jump to 1120-1280 per month in our example. So that is a pretty huge negative shift to a loss of 280 + costs per month, from a healthy profit of 200 - costs per month, on an investment of 30K of equity = a shift from a 8% profit per annum to 11.2% loss per annum.
Even if you have a fixed rate mortgage, these are generally only fixed for 5 years. Meanwhile rents will probably continue increasing somewhere near generic inflation of 3%.
Once there is significant oversupply, the rental market income may also dry up or decrease as people chase tennants. That means reduced rental income from maybe 1000 down to 900 per month, making the loss a whopping 15.2% p.a. on your initial 30K, if you can get a tennant at all. If you cannot get a tennant the loss is 51% p.a. (15.36K mortgage/30K equity). This is already observable in cities like Manchester.
You don't need to be a genius to work out that once you go significantly below 0 on your current account then it is game over.
This is the key point. You have effectively created a geared "contract for difference" between the rental and owning markets. At the minute the rental and owning markets seem to be headed in synch in the wrong directions. And you need hard cash to cover that difference. If shares go down, you do not need cash. You can sit and wait and ride things out. But you always need to pay the mortgage or else risk losing your entire asset, or even your own house.
Unless you either have substantial liquid assets to ride out any problem, or have a balanced investment portfolio, you are going to become a forced seller sooner or later as your cash dries up. It is not like you can sell half of the house easily. And once that starts to really hit, it is a triple whammy. Not only do you have the reduced rental income, you are not in control as a forced seller and lose your potential capital gain, and the general capital value will also reduce as more forced sellers dump on the market.
I mean do people seriously not do best, worst, and medium case planning with such major investments of 100K+?
I think it is obvious even from the above simple example that buy-to-let is a highly geared asset and merits decent risk analysis. The "smart" guys seem to be the ones with huge amounts of cash targeting the forced sellers. They are buying well below market value and then renting back the same house to those same distressed people who were forced to sell in the first place..... whatever you think about them personally at least the numbers stack up. Even if things go wrong, they can dump the house at their own convenience gaining a fraction of someone else's years of equity appreciation.
Hedge funds are banned from selling such highly geared assets to retail investors. And yet the property market is more than happy to service them, and is virtually unregulated, especially overseas. Buyer beware.