Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
.............. works if you have eligible equity in another property (or across a portfolio).
100% funding for the purchase (not 100%LTV secured on any one property), works like this;
raise, say, 80% LTV on the target purchase property
and raise the additional 20% as a second charge or further advance, from existing.
Or any other balance / permutation of LTV options too.
Alternatively, borrowing at 70 or 75% on the target property, and if you raise the balance on an existing and still keep the new LTV at under 70 / 75% there too, then this could be even more cost effective than raising an 80% or 85%LTV first charge. And of course, further advances on existing properties could be quicker and lower cost than a remortgage as well.
For details and personalised quotes, call the Team anytime.
FOR INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE AND INSURANCE ADVICE
PROPERTY TRIBES FINANCIAL SERVICES
CONTACT US FOR LIFE INSURANCE QUOTES AND STRATEGIES. PORTFOLIO MORTGAGES (VARYING TERMS) COVERED
Doesn't seem very prudent as advisors to recommend people leverage to the hilt in this climate........
I am afraid I fully agree.
The title of this post may give you a misleading impression this is not "leverage to the hilt".
It is not "no money down" and it is not "100% LTV".
It is the same as remortgaging a property to release deposit / equity to use on another property.
Client Starts With
Client has 1 property at 50% LTV.
Client Ends Up With
Client has original property now at 70% LTVClient has 2nd property at 80% LTV
I do hate the tendency of Gurus to call this thing "No Money Down" as the equity in your property is money.It grates me more when they call this 100% LTV as it is nowhere near.Its fraught with a miselling scandal when a client complaints to FOS. When they suddenly have 20% extra debt on a property after adviser, advertised it as "No Money Down". Well where has my money gone!
Let me be clear - we advise this strategy all the time at bespoke (typically only if client is on a good mortgage on current property, otherwise remortgage/further advance often better). Its just the terminology that i dislike.
_________________________________________________________________________The above post is not financial advice, its often me rambling - passing time on a coffee break.If you are looking for the Best BTL Mortgage? Call the Specialist Team at Bespoke Finance._________________________________________________________________________
I would disagree that this is misleading, especially as the opening paragraph clearly states "100% funding for the purchase (not 100%LTV secured on any one property)"
It is only when the full article is not read in it's entirety and comments are spuriously made, that scaremongering ensues.
The issue is with the heading no money down BTL purchases, it implies 100% LTV.
In the Sun today the headline was "EU dirty rats" Does that imply that politicians are actually rodents? ....... :-)
I think they were purposely (mis)quoting James Cagney.
The heading still implies 100% LTV. How many potentially new landlords have started a thread on this forum about no money down purchases? The theme of those threads is not that the 100% can be acheived by spreading borrowings over various properties that they own so it is reasonable to take from your headline that you are referring to 100% LTV, accurate or not.
Leveraging is a borrower specific requirement.
The post above is not a recommendation, it is a potential solution for the very many such requests we receive.
Yet again today we had a meeting in our offices with a client who is one of the most astute, entrepreneurial, experienced and politically and financially aware business people we have the pleasure to work with.
His reasoning to extract maximum equity is based on his perception that the future may not offer him such opportunity again for a very long time, hampering his acquisitions and further property wealth creation.
His considerations are;
Property values slowing or declining
Interest rates increasing
PRA rules and portfolio landlord underwriting tightening
... and more
So, generally speaking, higher leveraging doesn't work for everyone (especially smaller portfolio landlords who own properties in own name) but for the professional corporate landlords who have no intention of selling, this strategy - backed up by further professional legal and tax advice - is continuing to be proven as beneficial on many levels.
I`m with PTFS. Its a bold , attention grabbing headline yes but why not
It offers an opportunity .
I don`t think people need to be protected too much. They can decide if its for them
I used to use every avenue I could to raise finance to grow my portfolio
Took out many a further advance or remortgage
I used two different properties to gain 100% LTV on a new purchase
None of my money in - so any rental income has an ROI of infinity . You simply cant beat that
If you believe in property and believe in your skills to build a portfolio then grab the opportunity
Andy Shaw bought 74 properties in a year on other peoples money
A 12 mil portfolio . In 20 years that will be 24 mil - Wow
If I was still building I wouldn`t hesitate to do what PTFS is offering
And yes there are risks but people who take considered proportionate risks get rich
SpaceX sells tickets to citizens to hop on board to travel to the moon .
That`s risky as well
But that`s what we humans do
Entrepreneur shouldn`t be a dirty word.
Jonathan Clarke. http://www.buytoletmk.com
But Andy Shaw went bankrupt?!
Vanessa Warwick Landlord and Co-Founder of PropertyTribes.com **If you have got value from Property Tribes, find out how you can support it in remaining a free to use community resource**