michael fickling

Registered with Property118.com
Saturday 19th July 2014


Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 121

michael fickling

19:41 PM, 6th September 2019
About 2 weeks ago

McDonnell's distorted and dangerous version of Right to Buy

It is fundamentally wrong for any government to effectively grab anyones property against their wishes and pass it on to someone else.. Thats the basic point here. There are of course many other problems with this proposal.. like the fact that the government allowed/encouraged us to put domestic property into pension plans and indeed many of us actually invested in property effectively as our pension/income provision for later life. Effectively forcing such landlords to sell to tenants is to seize these peoples pension and prevent any further growth in same through either capital gain or rental profit. Also what about the many of us who have built up tax losses whilst doing so. The only way to benefit from such a loss was to eventually get into profit and have the profit of later years untaxed or at reduced tax due to carried forward losses .If such a landlord is forced to sell they take a further loss because they lose the benefit of being able to effectively use any accrued losses to offset taxation on later profits achieved on rents. There will be many other double loss scenarios too such as mortgage redemption penalties on what may be long term fixed rate mortgages etc etc. Whilst we raise all these things and no doubt more.. the central plank of our argument to oppose forced sales to tenants must be that it is just plain wrong to force anyone to part with their possessions to a third party at the whim of that third party. The continuing attacks and vilification of private landlords is really the big issue...from which this forced sale scenario is just one more crazy offshoot. Where does it all stem from ??............well..
.....Much of all this silly stuff comes from two or three incorrect perceptions and mydia promoted myths...as follows..
Myth A..... Property prices have dramatically increased in some exponential and strange way in the U>K as a whole.....they havent. National figures even with the big distortions of the south east show a long term average of about 2.5%.....thats fact not opinion..see the big building society figs and the gov. s own O.N.S..figs and charts..all three show very very similar figures about 2.5% average.per annum for the whole of U.K average since the so called GFC up to the present time.
MYTH ..B>> First time buyers cant afford to buy..in numbers massively greater than any long term pattern. Again complete nonsense as mortgages have never ever been cheaper..and first time buyers buy with a mortgage!...one might add to this that there are dozens of 95% mortgages available including for first time buyers. That hasnt always been the case in the past...
One might also add a point C..MYTH too..because the overall rental situation here with domestic property is NOT markedly different to other similar/comparable countries. Its is also perfectly normal for house prices to rise in such countries.. and indeed in most westernised countries this is accepted as normal and indeed helpful to the respective economy as the real estate with all ts connected finance ,trades,professions ,builders,solicitor,insurers..tradies etc etc is... taken ......as a whole effect to be just about the biggest employer in any democratic westernised type society. Kill or suppress house prices and investment therein by gov. interference and you are very likely going to have a negative effect on the whole economy and also on employment levels as a whole.
Its all quite crazy that after the GOVERNMENT sold off billions of severely discounted council home years ago...and did nothing effective to prepare for the NEXT generation of inevitable renters.....corbyns team now propose to effectively repeat and greatly compound the same mistake firstly at our expense..and later again at our expense as taxpayers when the next generation of renters have no where to rent. All taxpayers will end up paying for that one way or another to solve it. HIstory repeats because people dont bother to consider it !...and also because they act upon myths and misunderstandings rather than reality.
Whatever our personal circumstances as both landlords and decent people we should resist any such draconian government interference in our investments such as forced sale arrangements to tenants and fight for our liberty to control our assets as the rightful owners. To condone it or be seen to condone any part of it would be a big mistake .Its plain wrong in every respect.... Read More

michael fickling

9:27 AM, 9th June 2017
About 2 years ago

What does a Hung Parliament mean for Landlords?

We should take the hung parliament as a positive.... from the result.. May and her cronies have alienated a lot of traditional tory voters ( including hundreds of thousands of landlords )...they have had numerous u- turns and silly socialist populist type policies..eg...they promised no tax rises and actually invented a completely new one in a tax based on a cost ( Cl 24)..they tried to raise national ins. tax for self employed etc etc. and various other nonsense. Both May and towards his end..cameron.. made the major error of trying to focus more on gaining new supporters with socialist type policies. They failed in that and at the same time forced many of traditional tory voters to abandon them...We should encourage them to take due note and get back to supporting business..especially small enterprises including landlords. They needed a big slap for their arrogance and foolishness and theyve finally got one.
Maybe they will be now a little more inclined to listen to us and other investors and business people. May is no leader and her conceptual thinking around politics and the electorate has not been good since she moved to No10. .She has now made a number of major blunders with this election being the last and biggest. Hopefully the conservative party will perhaps now wake up and remember that they need to support business and investment with real policy not rhetoric and increased taxes and interference as they have been doing.. In the long term its a good result for us.... Read More

michael fickling

11:18 AM, 27th April 2017
About 2 years ago

Sadiq Khan announces new database of criminal landlords and agents amid opposing industry views

The problem with any one sided "list" such as the one the Mayor is creating is it will have the effect of painting a bad picture of landlords and cant show anything negative on any of the hundreds of thousands of tenants that miss paying rents...or any of the other problems they
can create..such as damage......stealing ...dirt and mess etc etc. which just about all of us have seen occur at some time or other.The media will only report from that list of course. In fact there are almost very certainly more rogue tenants than landlords..and probably certain stats. ( bonds ? ) that would support that...certainly stats on offending and social income type- groups or similar would raise the very strong probability that ratios of law breaking are higher by tenants than landlords. The mayor would of course hate that statement....he would see his
new landlords list as the truth..and justify it as such....but he wouldnt like to handle the real truth! .... Most landlords have never had legal action taken against them by a tenant...but very many of us have had to take legal actions against tenants...often several times...and with
eventual court findings generally in the favour of landlords...and we dont generally bother where amounts are relatively small.
Once again landlords are effectively discriminated against... with this mayors list.. without any balance whatsoever. Perhaps we should ask him if he would support such a problem based list..identifying rogues in any other single section of the community.??...without any opposite to give a balance view. Seems landlords are a minority so its ok to prevent one sided information against them..( mmhh where have we heard that before ! )...one..cant discriminate on gender, age, faith or race..marriage..sexuality.etc etc but landlords ..yep no problem. >>>>He cant ethically or morally speak out or resist discrimination against minority groups whilst creating a one sided list such as this...when he would not tolerate let alone create such an index in any of those spheres.<<<<<<< If anyone creates a list relating to any of those areas hes in a tough spot... got himself nicely hooked up..on his own moral maze. His own prejudice against landlords would appear to have clouded his judgement. Can someone ask him how hed feel about the creation of a rogue tenants list and for him to also explain/rationalise his probable contrary positions.... Read More

michael fickling

8:34 AM, 26th April 2017
About 2 years ago

Busting The Great Myth of House Price Growth

REPLY ON MYTH OF HOUSE PRICES SOARING ETC..UPDATE REPLY I RECEIVED.. FROM O>N>S
The office of National Stats. have replied to my comments as outlined in the lead article i put together above.
Not the easiest reply to understand or summarise I have to say...bottom line..I dont think from their reply... that their data truly reflects the "over time" effect of significant and typical improvement to properties as they are re sold over the years. There is certainly nothing in it that would appear to capture internal improvements and additions.
They do make a comment that "houses are not traded" often?? which basically misses the point completely that a house re sold some years down the track is very likely to have been improved... a markedly more likely scenario than denuded value. Eg ( note only by illustration) the average 1940s terrace home will be hugely improved in many ways from its original features. Indeed a simple upgrade such as double glazing would ..twenty years after first sold probably exceed the original purchase price. OR.. If you prefer something over a shorter period>> a 10k kitchen on a cheap four year old house ..will also maybe effectively double its apparent "growth" price if then re sold.
I remain convinced that house prices achieved are very significantly affected in terms of GROWTH calculations ..over time ..by improvements to properties..which are constantly being fed into the figures on hundreds of thousands of sales each year. ...and given the small fractions involved in true growth and the significant value added by improvements and upgrades the figures are not showing true organic growth.They significantly over exaggerate the apparent growth to the upside.They will continue to do so until a better method is used ( incorporating full allowance for improvements..by some sort of typical formula figure )...and this goes along way to explain how each subsequent generation seems to have house price growth significantly in front of other economic indicators. That cant be both real and sustained in the way it broadly appears to have been.... Read More

michael fickling

20:37 PM, 21st April 2017
About 2 years ago

Busting The Great Myth of House Price Growth

Reply to the comment left by "John Frith" at "21/04/2017 - 17:49":

Your point about the achievement of CAPITAL appreciation by leverage is well made. ie organic growth on domestic dwellings is actually tiny..and it is generally only via leverage by finance that, for most of the country and most periods.., it becomes a sensible aim to make appreciable gains on house price inflation.( please>>> no diatribes about London or rental income.... ). And despite the silly headlines and rhetoric... there are huge areas of the uk which have still only just about got back to pre G>F>C price levels. including some cities.
Hence why Clause 24 is so destructive and ill conceived. Finance leverage is generally key to capital growth investment on houses and it being a reasonable investment aim..
For the country as a whole.. and long term.... true growth...without leverage... is very low single digit stuff....hardly different to bank deposits...and much more troublesome to manage and difficult to exit/realise gains.

Moving to rents... few normal and sensible small business persons would be remotely interested..generally... in a business generating income at around 4 or 5% .GROSS..on cost of same business. Those figs would be pretty typical. with a rental of a house at present...maybe even generous at current entry..

So..if one wants serious rental income its HMOs etc with all the aggro accompanying same to get that % up......or ordinary house and single family/or whatever.... leveraged by at least 50% finance...... or some sort of combination of the two..The myth that houses are a money fountain is just that. Their attraction is the long term, almost, certainty of growth..coupled with the potential of leverage via finance. Unless you are prepared for the frequent aggro of multi occupancy...houses.......then houses without leverage by finance do not stack well compared to % returns on other small businesses.
The geography student who drafted C 24 was probably ignorant of these facts....and the problems which will now follow..... Read More