Housing Bubble Bursting

Glenbhoy

It should also be noted that the economist reported in 2003 that Irish house prices were overvalued by 42%. I think that they also reported something similar more recently, but can't find anything on it.

Dakeyras

You only suppose that everyone is entitled to an opinion? Gracious of you I’m sure.

While I didn’t label everyone ‘dilettantes’ I of course refer only to those that deserve the term, and you can have your own opinion on who those are.

Neither am I denying ‘incontrovertible facts’ I am merely drawing attention to a study that I found interesting and which may be of interest to others which relates to the current topic. As to ‘drive-by’ economists, I will agree there have been an ever increasing number in the past year.

The best view of any situation is gained by examining all aspects and reviewing as much information as possible. Dismissing anything that does not fit ones own view is counter-productive to achieving any balanced view.

As to the exotic financial products, I’m still interested in exactly what you are referring to, are you referring to various banks mortgage types available to the public or the use of financial products by banks to package mortgages and diversify the financial risk?

As I said I posted earlier I posted the above study as it’s relevant to the current topic and should be of some interest. I’m not here to convince you of its validity or otherwise, as you supposed earlier everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Dakeyras

SimpleSam06 wrote:

EDIT: To clarify that a bit, they only factored in the unexplained price rises. If the only thing they are using as their downwards pressure is the number of houses built, their model is crucially flawed. Don't forget, they are calculating what prices should be, as opposed to what they are. Their model is the price should be such and such, based on number of houses built. I'm saying their model should factor in a great deal more as regards what prices should be.

Well I feel compelled to defend the study now since I posted it. Since the study is of rising markets and the key thing to remember is that they are looking for unexplained price rises.

They studied what effects “housing demand is driven by rising real incomes, population growth and declines in real interest rates” and discovered that that Irelands housing boom “is almost entirely explained away by rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates”.

They are not calculating what prices should be or are but based on their model what effect the above factors would have on house prices. While their model may be flawed in the mathematics somewhere I don’t see how you can say it is crucially flawed. What other downward pressures were there in the Irish housing boom? And what else should they have included in their model?

I don’t think you can argue that the combination of rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates started the housing boom and carried it along. The real argument is if/when/how far the boom entered a bubble and while everyone can theorise and guess and quote statistics and studies until everyone is blue in the face the fact is the existence, extent or duration of an asset bubble can only be fully understood and quantified in retrospect.

[EDIT]And I'm sure they have Glenbhoy, they've written quite a few articles on the global property boom. And of course this study wasn’t carried out by the economist, they are just commenting on its content. As I said I posted the article because I found it interesting and it’s from a respectable source.

SkepticOne

It is good to see counter-views from economists not tied up with vested interests in Ireland.

From the economist article "Some of the paper's results challenge accepted wisdom. Ireland's housing boom, often seen as a spectacular bubble, is almost entirely explained away by rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates."

Anyone have a link to the actual report? I would agree with the view that rising incomes have contributed to demand. What I would question is the extent to which rising incomes and other factors can be considered independent and therefore fundamental factors influencing the housing market.

A lot of these rising incomes are, in fact, dependent on a continued housing boom. Two thirds of new jobs for men since 2002 have been in the construction sector. Two thirds of new jobs for women have been in the public sector. The construction industry jobs are fairly obvious but the expansion of the public sector with its higher salaries than equivalent industrial wages are hugely dependent on revenue from the housing boom.

Has the construction sector expanded to the same extent in, say, the UK? Has there been an equivalent expansion of public sector jobs on the back of increased tax revenue in that country?

Afuera

Dakeyras wrote:

They studied what effects “housing demand is driven by rising real incomes, population growth and declines in real interest rates” and discovered that that Irelands housing boom “is almost entirely explained away by rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates”.

They are not calculating what prices should be or are but based on their model what effect the above factors would have on house prices. While their model may be flawed in the mathematics somewhere I don’t see how you can say it is crucially flawed. What other downward pressures were there in the Irish housing boom? And what else should they have included in their model?

Surely the supply of houses should feature somewhere in their model? The fact that we are already witnessing falls in the Irish market, which according to their model should be stable, strongly suggests that the model is badly off.

Dakeyras

SkepticOne wrote:

Anyone have a link to the actual report? I would agree with the view that rising incomes have contributed to demand. What I would question is the extent to which rising incomes and other factors can be considered independent and therefore fundamental factors influencing the housing market.

Alas I couldnt find the actual report which would help in assertaining exactly what data was used and included.

Whilst constructon connected wages are certainly not independent from the housing market, in that the more building work the higher demand for workers the higher the wages. Higher wages across the board are influenced by many other factors and it is higher wages (along with cheaper money) which allowed people to spend more on housing. Unfortunately wages don't increase automatically because you're house has increased in value

Rising incomes have more to do with the general economy and it has to be remembered that Ireland created something of an economical miracle with its growth in the last 15 years which is the main cause of real income growth.

SimpleSam06

Dakeyras wrote:

As I said I posted earlier I posted the above study as it’s relevant to the current topic and should be of some interest. I’m not here to convince you of its validity or otherwise, as you supposed earlier everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Thats great, but if you didn't want it debated, you shouldn't have posted it here, now, should you? I'm not discussing your reasons for posting it, just the post itself.

Dakeyras wrote:

I don’t think you can argue that the combination of rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates started the housing boom and carried it along.

Actually I most certainly can argue at least two of those points. Housing prices have far, far exceeded income growth in both the public and private sectors in Ireland, and while the population has grown, the majority of that growth was from economic migrants who have little to no interest in buying houses. The drop in interest rates certainly had an effect, but that effect was to prompt banks into irresponsible lending practices which led very directly to the bubble.

Dakeyras wrote:

The real argument is if/when/how far the boom entered a bubble and while everyone can theorise and guess and quote statistics and studies until everyone is blue in the face the fact is the existence, extent or duration of an asset bubble can only be fully understood and quantified in retrospect.

True, only time will tell. However you can attempt to predict things based on past experience and curent data - my point here is that they are only using a small subset of currently available information. And the data they are using they are not using correctly.

Dakeyras wrote:

They studied what effects “housing demand is driven by rising real incomes, population growth and declines in real interest rates” and discovered that that Irelands housing boom “is almost entirely explained away by rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates”.

And I am saying the report is crucially flawed, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Dakeyras

Afuera wrote:

Surely the supply of houses should feature somewhere in their model? The fact that we are already witnessing falls in the Irish market, which according to their model should be stable, strongly suggests that the model is badly off.

"The authors constructed a model in which housing demand is driven by rising real incomes, population growth and declines in real interest rates. They then estimated the downward effect on prices from increased homebuilding."

the increased homebuilding is a reference to the supply of houses.

The report doesn't state that the Irish market should be stable, it is simply saying that by using their model and data they can find a correlation between rising incomes, population growth, declines in interest rates and the increase in house prices. This correlation by their calculations simply means that rather than being in the midst of a property bubble the increases are a reflection of the factors mentioned earlier.

Afuera

SkepticOne wrote:

Anyone have a link to the actual report?

http://www.germany-re.com/files/00034800/MS%20Housing%20Report%202007.pdf

Afuera

Dakeyras wrote:

"The authors constructed a model in which housing demand is driven by rising real incomes, population growth and declines in real interest rates. They then estimated the downward effect on prices from increased homebuilding."

the increased homebuilding is a reference to the supply of houses.

Houses aren't exclusively supplied to the market through housebuilding so that is already opening a possible vulnerability to their model.

After having a quick look through their report, I think the obvious flaw in their representation of Ireland is the lack of timely data.

gurramok

Dakeyras wrote:

I don’t think you can argue that the combination of rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates started the housing boom and carried it along. The real argument is if/when/how far the boom entered a bubble and while everyone can theorise and guess and quote statistics and studies until everyone is blue in the face the fact is the existence, extent or duration of an asset bubble can only be fully understood and quantified in retrospect.

Cheap credit occurred straight after 9/11 and continued up until late 2006. Thats when the bubble became an out of control bubble as speculators using cheap money from banks betted on rising prices to make huge profits.

'But in the remaining five countries, the average “excess” increase in real house prices is 47%.'

Thats the average 'excess'. Our prices rose by 270%, we are way at the top of the average, they cannot be disputed.

Incomes didnt rise by 270%. It was a fraction of that hence where did all the money come from? (see answer above)

Dakeyras

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Thats great, but if you didn't want it debated, you shouldn't have posted it here, now, should you? I'm not discussing your reasons for posting it, just the post itself.

I’m afraid you are misinterpreting the words I’m using, as I said earlier I’m not here to convince you of its validity which has nothing to do with debating its content. Feel free to debate away but try to at least read and understand what I’ve said first.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Actually I most certainly can argue at least two of those points. Housing prices have far, far exceeded income growth in both the public and private sectors in Ireland, and while the population has grown, the majority of that growth was from economic migrants who have little to no interest in buying houses. The drop in interest rates certainly had an effect, but that effect was to prompt banks into irresponsible lending practices which led very directly to the bubble.

Again I would ask you to read what I posted, in fact let me quote and highlight the relevant sections for you “I don’t think you can argue that the combination of rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates started the housing boom and carried it along."

How are you measuring how house prices have exceeded incomes, do you mean the ratio of house prices to incomes or just in general anecdotal terms they’ve become too large? Why are you stating that the majority of economic growth is due to migrant workers? Were did that little nugget of truth come from? Have migrants been the instigator and propeller of economic growth since the early 90’s?

And as to a drop in interest rates leading banks into an automatic irresponsible lending policy, now that’s just a plain idiotic thing to say. While banks may have developed a lax lending policy in later years they do not say “right, low interest rates time to throw money at everyone”. They are not in the business of making loans or mortgages which cannot be repaid, banks don’t want bad loans or repossessions.

And as to irresponsible lending practices leading directly to a bubble I’d recommend that you study some past asset price bubbles and their causes before you go declaring the exact cause of the Irish property bubble.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

True, only time will tell. However you can attempt to predict things based on past experience and curent data - my point here is that they are only using a small subset of currently available information. And the data they are using they are not using correctly.

Using a small subset of currently available information is what every commentator on the Irish property market report or commentator has been doing for quite a while. In the aforementioned report they are using data from throughout the world to compare how various countries compare using their model.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And I am saying the report is crucially flawed, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

As to outlining reasons earlier why the report is flawed you simply said “If the only thing they are using as their downwards pressure is the number of houses built, their model is crucially flawed.” That is one reason and you have not answered my earlier questions. These were what other downwards pressures are there in a rising market and what else would you have added to their model to make it an accurate representation of the housing market?

Dakeyras

Afuera wrote:

Houses aren't exclusively supplied to the market through housebuilding so that is already opening a possible vulnerability to their model.

After having a quick look through their report, I think the obvious flaw in their representation of Ireland is the lack of timely data.

While obviously there are many existing dwellings brought to the market it is only through the construction of new dwellings that the housing stock is increased and thus in the long run having an effect on house prices. In the short term a larger amount of houses on the market would obviously have an impact on house prices in a falling market but in a rising market as we are discussing at the moment the amount of existing dwellings for sale would not effect house prices.

I only quickly browsed the report but I will give it a more through read tonight, but I’d have to disagree that the lack of timely data is relevant. The report contains data for Ireland up to 2006 and since prices have stagnated or fallen in 2007 the addition of up to the minute house prices would be largely irrelevant.

gurramok wrote:

'But in the remaining five countries, the average “excess” increase in real house prices is 47%.'

Thats the average 'excess'. Our prices rose by 270%, we are way at the top of the average, they cannot be disputed.

Incomes didnt rise by 270%. It was a fraction of that hence where did all the money come from? (see answer above)

The report is stating that the Irish increase in house prices (251%) can be explained by accounting for rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates.

Obviously incomes didn’t rise by 270% nor is that what is stated, the report is stating that by taking the above mentioned factors into account these explain the increase according to their model. Since Afuera helpfully posted a link to the actual study we can now have a look at the data and methodologies used and if someone can show were they got it so wrong I’m very happy to listen to it. I’ll be reading the report tonight myself to see what their exact methodology was

patrickolee

Afuera wrote:

http://www.germany-re.com/files/00034800/MS%20Housing%20Report%202007.pdf

Thanks for digging that out... very interesting reading. Does the "IV The Future Design of Mortgage Contracts - Indexed and Shared Equity Mortgages" sound very like shared ownership scheme which we currently have?

Bertie the trailblazer, who'd have thunk it

patrickolee

Dakeyras wrote:

Obviously incomes didn’t rise by 270% nor is that what is stated, the report is stating that by taking the above mentioned factors into account these explain the increase according to their model.

Incomes have increased a lot over the last 10 years to be fair. Since 10 years ago, 232% for me. Have to admit that I wouldn't have had the same experience level as now, but that would be typical given the age profile of the population. If you actually take your current salary and the salary you had exactly 10 years ago (adjusting for Euro), plug them into a calculator, it's not far off... and many salaries in the private sector (IT at least) have actually been decreasing or staying the same since 2001.

Afuera

Dakeyras wrote:

In the short term a larger amount of houses on the market would obviously have an impact on house prices in a falling market but in a rising market as we are discussing at the moment the amount of existing dwellings for sale would not effect house prices.

Nonsense. The amount of existing dwellings for sale has an impact on the price whether the market is rising or not.

Dakeyras wrote:

I only quickly browsed the report but I will give it a more through read tonight, but I’d have to disagree that the lack of timely data is relevant. The report contains data for Ireland up to 2006 and since prices have stagnated or fallen in 2007 the addition of up to the minute house prices would be largely irrelevant.

House price data for Ireland was obtained from 2004.

Dakeyras wrote:

The report is stating that the Irish increase in house prices (251%) can be explained by accounting for rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates.

The report in the Economist makes this assumption, but the study itself does not make such a clearcut judgement. The study, after presenting it's model, points to a number of countries that look extremely likely to have speculative markets. It does not include Ireland on that list.

Dakeyras

Afuera wrote:

Nonsense. The amount of existing dwellings for sale has an impact on the price whether the market is rising or not.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that one, from any experience I have had during the Irish housing boom the number of existing properties for sale in any given area hasn't effected the market price whatsoever. In a rising market the prices for the area are set at the threshold of the last sale (depending on house type of course), prices do not drop accordingly because of a large number of existing houses for sale in an area. To put it another way in a rising market there are never enough existing dwellings for sale at the one time to have a downward effect on prices.

In a falling market a large number of properties in an area for sale will cause the prices to fall.

Afuera wrote:

House price data for Ireland was obtained from 2004.

I see in appendix 1 they say housing stock data from us, spain and ireland is up to 2006, where did you get the 2004 figure?

miju

Dakeyras wrote:

While obviously there are many existing dwellings brought to the market it is only through the construction of new dwellings that the housing stock is increased and thus in the long run having an effect on house prices.

so are you basically saying there that they only way supply increases is if we build more houses? if you are then you are spectactularly wrong on that point

Dakeyras

miju wrote:

so are you basically saying there that they only way supply increases is if we build more houses? if you are then you are spectactularly wrong on that point

since you quoted me you should really see what i was saying. I said "The only way the housing stock is increased is through the construction of new dwellings."

for your information:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=E8i&defl=en&q=define:housing+stock&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

one should really try to understand the content of a post before using the words 'spectaculary wrong'

JupiterKid

I really don't undeerstand your logic Dalkeyras.

Housing supply is caused by two factors - the exisitng housing stock and new build. In terms of the housing market, that comprises of the stock of second-hand housing for sale and new housing on the market. The two combined equates to the overall supply on the market.

In the past year in Ireland, the supply of housing on the market has been steadily rising but demand has been falling. This a simple principle of market economics - falling demand, increased supply - equals falling prices.

Afuera

Dakeyras wrote:

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that one, from any experience I have had during the Irish housing boom the number of existing properties for sale in any given area hasn't effected the market price whatsoever. In a rising market the prices for the area are set at the threshold of the last sale (depending on house type of course), prices do not drop accordingly because of a large number of existing houses for sale in an area. To put it another way in a rising market there are never enough existing dwellings for sale at the one time to have a downward effect on prices.

It sounds like you are describing a "mania" here rather than a normal "rising market". Be careful about making any assumptions based on a boom time.

Dakeyras wrote:

I see in appendix 1 they say housing stock data from us, spain and ireland is up to 2006, where did you get the 2004 figure?

Appendix 2

SimpleSam06

Dakeyras wrote:

I’m afraid you are misinterpreting the words I’m using, as I said earlier I’m not here to convince you of its validity

Your words were very clear indeed, and that is what I responded to. For someone not trying to defend the validity of the report, you appear to be spending a lot of time trying to defend the validity of the report. Its not too often that you see someone contradict themselves in the same sentence. You managed it though.

Dakeyras wrote:

Again I would ask you to read what I posted, in fact let me quote and highlight the relevant sections for you “I don’t think you can argue that the combination of rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates started the housing boom and carried it along."

Err...

Dakeyras wrote:

How are you measuring how house prices have exceeded incomes, do you mean the ratio of house prices to incomes or just in general anecdotal terms they’ve become too large?

The rate of growth in house prices has far and away exceeded the rate of growth in incomes for the last several years. Is that clear enough?

Dakeyras wrote:

Why are you stating that the majority of economic growth is due to migrant workers?

You've lost me again. I said population growth. I in fact said it in the same sentence. You actually quoted me.

Dakeyras wrote:

Were did that little nugget of truth come from? Have migrants been the instigator and propeller of economic growth since the early 90’s?

Wow.

Dakeyras wrote:

And as to a drop in interest rates leading banks into an automatic irresponsible lending policy, now that’s just a plain idiotic thing to say.

Well, good thing I didn't say it then. The banks didn't "automatically" get led into irresponsible lending policies, they managed to lead themselves there just fine.

Dakeyras wrote:

While banks may have developed a lax lending policy in later years they do not say “right, low interest rates time to throw money at everyone”.

Funnily enough, thats pretty much what they did say. Witness the spreading ripples from the sub prime crisis in the US, for example, if you've managed to keep up with current events.

Dakeyras wrote:

And as to irresponsible lending practices leading directly to a bubble I’d recommend that you study some past asset price bubbles and their causes before you go declaring the exact cause of the Irish property bubble.

Words just cannot express what I'd like to say. I recommend you start here, with a little light reading.

Dakeyras wrote:

Using a small subset of currently available information is what every commentator on the Irish property market report or commentator has been doing for quite a while. In the aforementioned report they are using data from throughout the world to compare how various countries compare using their model.

Yes but what they are doing is more like trying to build a car without those tiresome wheel thingies.

Dakeyras wrote:

These were what other downwards pressures are there in a rising market and what else would you have added to their model to make it an accurate representation of the housing market?

Yup, covered those in earlier postings. Its not my fault you somehow managed to miss them.

The report uses old and incomplete data, uses misconceived methodologies, and arrives at fallacious conclusions, particularily with regard to the Irish property market.

Dakeyras

JupiterKid wrote:

I really don't undeerstand your logic Dalkeyras.

Housing supply is caused by two factors - the exisitng housing stock and new build. In terms of the housing market, that comprises of the stock of second-hand housing for sale and new housing on the market. The two combined equates to the overall supply on the market.

In the past year in Ireland, the supply of housing on the market has been steadily rising but demand has been falling. This a simple principle of market economics - falling demand, increased supply - equals falling prices.

I dont think I've disagreed with market logic yet and I’ve not disagreed with the above at any point in this thread that I’m aware.

Afuera wrote:

It sounds like you are describing a "mania" here rather than a normal "rising market". Be careful about making any assumptions based on a boom time.


Appendix 2

But that’s what this thread is about is it not, we are not discussing general economic theory here but the Irish housing boom and the economic theories and situations relevant to that topic.


Appendix 2 states:


Ireland: average price in 2004 from HSEU; EMF growth rates for 2005-06.


and Appendix 1 states:


US & Spain and Ireland
Housing stock data is up to 2006.

Afuera

Dakeyras wrote:

But that’s what this thread is about is it not, we are not discussing general economic theory here but the Irish housing boom and the economic theories and situations relevant to that topic.

I still don't see why second hand houses that are for sale should not be included in the housing supply. It seems quite relevant to the topic.

Dakeyras wrote:

Appendix 2 states:


Ireland: average price in 2004 from HSEU; EMF growth rates for 2005-06.


and Appendix 1 states:


US & Spain and Ireland
Housing stock data is up to 2006.

I'm presuming they got the housing stock data from the CSO's consensus in 2006 which is quite up to date. We don't have an accurate measurement of the average house price in Ireland, so they took a figure from 2004 and then infered what it would be in 2006 using a growth rate obtained from another source. The accuracy that can be obtained from this is very questionable, but since they constantly refer to their methods and model as being "rough", I don't think we can slate them too much.

Dakeyras

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Your words were very clear indeed, and that is what I responded to. For someone not trying to defend the validity of the report, you appear to be spending a lot of time trying to defend the validity of the report. Its not too often that you see someone contradict themselves in the same sentence. You managed it though.

Yup, covered those in earlier postings. Its not my fault you somehow managed to miss them.

Rather than quote you all i'll roll it up in one big summation for you. I never said i wasn't defending the validity of the report i said i wasn't here to convince you of its validity, you really are finding it difficult aren't you. House price growth and income growth have never been and never will be two tightly correlated figures and the comparison of both side by side holds little relevance without other economic factors taken on board.

As to the comment about population growth, my mistake, i read it wrong. apologies.

You really do amuse me if you think that's the way banks in general act all the time. As to the sub-prime crisis in america, as i'm sure you'll know there are a number of specific sub-prime lenders which have specific exposure to these loans and a number of banks, funds etc. but by no means all banks. and of course you'll also know that sub-prime lending only took off in the last number of years because of the high rates of return being offered to investors? as always there are no higher returns without higher risk. but as you're so up to date with current events i see there's no need to go on.

lol, if one is looking for balanced information on economic theory and the history of asset price bubbles pointing someone to the beginning of this thread is possibly the worst idea in the world. but then I didnt expect much more.

cars without wheels you say, good analogy, that could even have come from the David Mc Williams school of thought.

and as to you covering the downward pressures in a rising market you never stated any only that if they only use new houses built then the model is flawed. but then you never got round to answering that, well in a way you tried but those were all aspects that would have an upward pressure on house prices in a rising market

Dakeyras

Afuera wrote:

I still don't see why second hand houses that are for sale should not be included in the housing supply. It seems quite relevant to the topic.

in relation to this topic of course it is relevant but we were discussing the non-inclusion of second hand houses for sale as a factor missing in the report in question.

Afuera wrote:

I'm presuming they got the housing stock data from the CSO's consensus in 2006 which is quite up to date. We don't have an accurate measurement of the average house price in Ireland, so they took a figure from 2004 and then infered what it would be in 2006 using a growth rate obtained from another source. The accuracy that can be obtained from this is very questionable, but since they constantly refer to their methods and model as being "rough", I don't think we can slate them too much.

i'll agree that the accuracy must be questioned but not to such an extent that would deem their entire study worthless. Still maybe i'll think different after i read it tonight.

SimpleSam06

Dakeyras wrote:

Rather than quote you all i'll roll it up in one big summation for you.

Ah no, its alright. Upon further consideration, I realise you are correct, there is no house price bubble in Ireland, and at most the prices will slightly drop in a mild correction.

Dakeyras wrote:

Still maybe i'll think different after i read it tonight.

Will you come back here to tell us if you do?

Dakeyras

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Ah no, its alright. Upon further consideration, I realise you are correct, there is no house price bubble in Ireland, and at most the prices will slightly drop in a mild correction.


Will you come back here to tell us if you do?

lol, you really do like to read between the lines when there isn't anything there. I never said there was no price bubble, I posted an article that's relevant to the current topic and decided to defend the content against the general opinion.

indeed I will come back when I read it I won't ask you to do the same though but if by any chance you do read it maybe you could explain exactly what the misconceived methodogies were and exactly what fallacious conclusions they reached particularly with regard to the Irish property market were?

No hold on i have it, morgan stanley has actually made a large bet on the Irish house market rising, nearly slipped that one past us. Damn vested interests everywhere

SimpleSam06

Dakeyras wrote:

I never said there was no price bubble

Dakeyras wrote:

Ireland's housing boom, often seen as a spectacular bubble, is almost entirely explained away by rapid real-income growth, rising population and the drop in real interest rates

I see...

Dakeyras wrote:

No hold on i have it, morgan stanley has actually made a large bet on the Irish house market rising, nearly slipped that one past us. Damn vested interests everywhere

Er, you do know theres a conspiracy theories forum?

miju

oh please dont send him my way