Been waiting for prices to fall further..going to buy now..am I mad?

johnnyskeleton

jetski wrote: »

jmayo your a fool go back to bed and stay there.

OP its not clear what your deciding to do?

It's good to see that no one listens to jetski anymore, and clearly the OP is deciding not to listen to him too.

jmayo

newestUser wrote: »

While I agree that comparing the average salary/value ratio would lead one to conclude that houses are overpriced, I'd argue that salaries are higher than average in south Dublin, and I also think that historical salary/price ratios are somewhat redundant today because Ireland is much wealthier. Lots of people have parents who are willing to give them 10000's of euro towards their house.

OMG so unlike the rest of the world we should have different rules when determining house prices.
Why is a 3 bed house in South County Dublin worth so much more than rest of the country, when salaries in Dublin are not weighted as for instance in London ?

We will see how wealthy Ireland and Irish people really are in a couple of years.
Basing ones wealth on property as we can now see is not a great idea.
Example: On paper two years ago your Irish house may have been worth €1.5 million, your overseas apartment in Bulgaria worth €150,000 and your BMW 5 series worth €80,000 but what are they worth if you try and offload them right now and how much do you owe the bank ?

Factoring in what mammy and daddy are able to give you should not be factored into calculating how much property should be worth and how much of a mortgage you should get :rolleyes:

It is that kind of sh*** that us where we are today :mad:

TheCityManager

jmayo wrote: »

OMG so unlike the rest of the world we should have different rules when determining house prices.
Why is a 3 bed house in South County Dublin worth so much more than rest of the country, when salaries in Dublin are not weighted as for instance in London ?

We will see how wealthy Ireland and Irish people really are in a couple of years.
Basing ones wealth on property as we can now see is not a great idea.
Example: On paper two years ago your Irish house may have been worth €1.5 million, your overseas apartment in Bulgaria worth €150,000 and your BMW 5 series worth €80,000 but what are they worth if you try and offload them right now and how much do you owe the bank ?

Factoring in what mammy and daddy are able to give you should not be factored into calculating how much property should be worth and how much of a mortgage you should get :rolleyes:

It is that kind of sh*** that us where we are today :mad:

I should point out that we are both in very ordinary jobs..no bmws or jeeps here...no overseas apartments either...20k savings would be nice

Think I need to convince herself that we should wait ....

Thank you all for the time taken to respond......just hope now I can escape from this :rolleyes:

gurramok

newestUser wrote: »

Lots of people have parents who are willing to give them 10000's of euro towards their house.

Not now, the parents pensions have probably been wiped out and they need the dosh

dbyrne

if its the house you want buy it, if your not sure then dont. have a valuation done on the house with current prices in mind and if the house is not worth the amount you offered withdraw your offer and offer less.

Hanley

I'll just make one point....

Assuming you can afford the house now, think you're getting a good deal, and don't mind the idea of possibly being able to buy it 12-18 months down the road for less, you should consider it.

Negative equity only really matters if you're trying to re-sell the house. If you're staying there for the foreseeable future (15 years say), I wouldn't be too concerned.

The being said, if I was in the position to be able to buy now, I wouldn't.

I think it's only a matter of time before more builders break ranks and start to offer their unsold units at steeply discounted prices. Once one or two of the big ones do it, the rest will follow. And assuming the banks start to put more pressure on them to realise some of their unsold properties, the result will probably be amplified.

Suffice to say, I'm saving hard and watching things closely at the moment!

jmayo

TheCityManager wrote: »

I should point out that we are both in very ordinary jobs..no bmws or jeeps here...no overseas apartments either...20k savings would be nice

Think I need to convince herself that we should wait ....

Thank you all for the time taken to respond......just hope now I can escape from this :rolleyes:

Sorry OP, those comments were aimed at newestuser and his latter day Irish person's view that our property market is so different to the rest of the world and the rest of history, and that we are ever so wealthy a nation even though it is mostly a sham based on huge loans.

As some of us have said if you feel that this is the house you will be in long term and you can afford it with no huge mortgages involved then you can go for it, but as some have pointed out you will have to find rented accomodation in the near future anyway if there is huge amount of work to be done on the property.

A couple of things to remember or rather forget.
Disregard how much the house has been worth over the last 7 years and factor in at least a good sizable percentage off the advertised price for any property on the market in the area.

Senna

TheCityManager wrote: »

Did I mention that I can buy the house with no mortgage?

Will need to borow for renovations though :rolleyes:

This is one of the most important bits of information, you can buy the house without a mortgage but will have to borrow the 60k for renovations. There is a good chance (i'd say 100%, but that only an opinion) that in 1/2 years time you could get this house, or an ideal one like it, for the amount you have saved. Thus giving you that chance to be mortgage free in an ideal house.
I think you should pull out of this deal and watch the market for when your X amount of saving will buy the ideal house with no loan needed. When you find that house, it will be the perfect time to buy.
If you keep in the mind set of "what if the same house is on the market for X less than i paid" then you could well be in the same situation next year, or the year after or the year after etc.

If I had the ideal house and mortgage free i dont think i'd really care what the housing market is doing. Your so close to that right now, i think it would be worth the wait and probably not a long wait.

TheCityManager

Senna wrote: »

This is one of the most important bits of information, you can buy the house without a mortgage but will have to borrow the 60k for renovations. There is a good chance (i'd say 100%, but that only an opinion) that in 1/2 years time you could get this house, or an ideal one like it, for the amount you have saved. Thus giving you that chance to be mortgage free in an ideal house.
I think you should pull out of this deal and watch the market for when your X amount of saving will buy the ideal house with no loan needed. When you find that house, it will be the perfect time to buy.
If you keep in the mind set of "what if the same house is on the market for X less than i paid" then you could well be in the same situation next year, or the year after or the year after etc.

If I had the ideal house and mortgage free i dont think i'd really care what the housing market is doing. Your so close to that right now, i think it would be worth the wait and probably not a long wait.

That makes complete sense !!

That is my plan if I can extract myself without damaging my relationship...and sure if it does go ahead, it's not the end of the world as we wouldnt ever be moving out....mortgage free would be good though

Cheers all

ZYX

TheCityManager, one of the problems with the answers you are getting is the question you asked. If you had said; "a house on my street is for sale at €400,000. I am thinking of buying the house I rent. How much should I offer the landlord? "
The vast majority would have advised you to offer more than €240,000. If the €400,000 for your neighbours house is a realistic price then you are getting a very good deal. Not many people think house prices are going to fall more than 40% from current values.

Perhaps the first thing you should do is consult a builder or architect and see can you do the renovations needed, is it possible to convert the attic (and still call it a room) and how much will it all cost. You will then be in a much better position to decide if this house is for you or not.

newestUser

jmayo wrote: »

OMG so unlike the rest of the world we should have different rules when determining house prices.
Why is a 3 bed house in South County Dublin worth so much more than rest of the country, when salaries in Dublin are not weighted as for instance in London ?

We will see how wealthy Ireland and Irish people really are in a couple of years.
Basing ones wealth on property as we can now see is not a great idea.
Example: On paper two years ago your Irish house may have been worth €1.5 million, your overseas apartment in Bulgaria worth €150,000 and your BMW 5 series worth €80,000 but what are they worth if you try and offload them right now and how much do you owe the bank ?

Factoring in what mammy and daddy are able to give you should not be factored into calculating how much property should be worth and how much of a mortgage you should get :rolleyes:

It is that kind of sh*** that us where we are today :mad:

Woah woah woah jmayo, relax the cacks.

You're jumping to conclusions.

You assume that I when I say wealth, I mean property. Not necessarily. People have money tied up in other assets (cash, bonds, etc.)

Even if someone's parents did have property, it's quite possible that it was bought years ago at something approaching sensible prices, so a fall of 50% in the value of the property means their investment has doubled, not tripled, in 10 years.

Despite the obvious faults with the Irish economy, and the property bubble, there still is real wealth in the Irish economy. Lots of people still have parents in a position to give money to their kids, or have won a poker tournament in vegas, or have a website that makes them an extra 50k a year on the side, made great money in London/New York for a few years, or whatever. Not all this money has vanished into the ether, it's not all tied up in BMWs, Bulgarian apartments, and whatnot.

South Dublin is an area lots of people want to live in. And many of those people have access to money that isn't their salary. It might be gifts from parents, it might be some other form of windfall. Wealth tends to concentrate in ghettos, and South Dublin is the best example of such a ghetto in Ireland.

I'm not saying it's fair that some people are gifted money, or have some manner of windfall, and can afford to buy property at relatively inflated prices, but it's reality. I stand by what I said: a case could be argued that the country is wealthier now than 30/40 years ago when mortgage multiples were strictly limited to 3.5 times income, and that people are able to tap into different sources of cash, other than what comes in through their salary. You might not be able to, I don't know. I certainly can't. But I suspect lots of people can. There's a girl sitting across the desk from me now, whose parents will give her a significant lump sum towards a house, and have already done for her brother. I know lots of people for whom this was the case. The parents have their mortgage paid off, the kids are grown up, they have a bit of cash lying around and are willing to give it to the grown up kids now, in order to help them buy a home, as opposed to waiting until they pop their clogs. This is a lucky situation to be in, and I'm not arguing that it's the norm, but it's far from a rare set of circumstances, I've seen lots of people being helped out by parents in this manner, and I'd say that it's much more common now than 30/40 years ago, where no-one had a pot to piss in, and the older generation hadn't accrued any assets, other than their primary residence, and weren't in a position to pass on money to their kids.

I think that this is a reason that it could be argued that 3.5 times income as a guide for valuing property is somewhat redundant. I'm not saying it justifies house prices of 10 times average income, but I do think in the case of prestige areas, or mid-range houses, that these properties will not fall to 3.5 times average income.

There was a lot of bull and spin about the property market on the way up, and I think it's happening on the way down as well. With regards to your response to my post, you're making big presumptions going on the very little that I've said.

Sorry OP, those comments were aimed at newestuser and his latter day Irish person's view that our property market is so different to the rest of the world and the rest of history, and that we are ever so wealthy a nation even though it is mostly a sham based on huge loans.

That's a bit harsh, you're getting this from:

NewestUser wrote:

While I agree that comparing the average salary/value ratio would lead one to conclude that houses are overpriced, I'd argue that salaries are higher than average in south Dublin, and I also think that historical salary/price ratios are somewhat redundant today because Ireland is much wealthier. Lots of people have parents who are willing to give them 10000's of euro towards their house.

I never said anything about Ireland being 'different' or special. However, I argue that the world today, the amount of wealth in it, and how it is distributed, is different from 30/40 years ago, and that house prices, particularly in prestige areas such as South Dublin, are buoyed by wealth, not just income. Take note: when I say 'wealth', I mean accrued assets. Wealth could be 30,000 euro someone
who has been working for 5 years has invested in bonds or a deposit account: it's not necessarily JD Rockefeller style wealth.

I still believe that Irish property is ridiculously overpriced. I think the Irish economy is in serious trouble. I don't think that we Irish have rewritten the economic rulebook. I'm a bear on Irish property and the Irish economy in general. I consider Irish people's views over the last 5-10 years that property is a one-way bet, and that you can make money by just buying a pile of bricks and letting it sit there to be naive, and damaging to the economy in the medium-long term. However, arguing that prices *have* to come down to 3.5 times average local salary, everywhere, is IMO just as blinkered and naive as arguments like 'rent is dead money', 'property only ever goes up', or 'safe as houses'.

jmayo

newestUser wrote: »

Woah woah woah jmayo, relax the cacks.

You're jumping to conclusions.

You assume that I when I say wealth, I mean property. Not necessarily. People have money tied up in other assets (cash, bonds, etc.)

Sorry I did jump to conclusion and while I agreed with a lot of your argument, I feel that we cannot dump the 3/4 times average salary concept out the window just because someones parents have money.
Why should we be different to say UK ?
The idea should be that someone can afford property without having to rely on their parents.
From your original post you seem to factor into affordability the ability of parents to give loands or gifts, that is what helped us create a climate where have huge 100% mortgages etc.

Very true there are those that had the cop not to put all their eggs in the local property market. Some people will always have money and investments.

newestUser wrote: »

Even if someone's parents did have property, it's quite possible that it was bought years ago at something approaching sensible prices, so a fall of 50% in the value of the property means their investment has doubled, not tripled, in 10 years.

Yes very true, there are those that bought way back in the 70s/80s or even before and their properties went up but you also need to factor infaltion over those years.
I do know some of those people released equity and ran off an bought fancy cars, oversea property and then bought property for the kids.

newestUser wrote: »

Despite the obvious faults with the Irish economy, and the property bubble, there still is real wealth in the Irish economy. Lots of people still have parents in a position to give money to their kids, or have won a poker tournament in vegas, or have a website that makes them an extra 50k a year on the side, made great money in London/New York for a few years, or whatever. Not all this money has vanished into the ether, it's not all tied up in BMWs, Bulgarian apartments, and whatnot.

Yes there will always be rich and poor people.

newestUser wrote: »

South Dublin is an area lots of people want to live in. And many of those people have access to money that isn't their salary. It might be gifts from parents, it might be some other form of windfall. Wealth tends to concentrate in ghettos, and South Dublin is the best example of such a ghetto in Ireland.

You do know that there are areas in South Dublin that are not wealthy, that have huge social problems e.g drugs, unemployment where house prices are very inflated because next road over the address is better.

newestUser wrote: »

I think that this is a reason that it could be argued that 3.5 times income as a guide for valuing property is somewhat redundant. I'm not saying it justifies house prices of 10 times average income, but I do think in the case of prestige areas, or mid-range houses, that these properties will not fall to 3.5 times average income...

Sorry I was abrupt with your earlier post but this is where I have the big difference of opinion.
I don't think we can set the value of an average house based on the fact that some people have wealthier parents.
I believe prices of all property is way too high, but that doesn't mean that all houses have to come down to 3.5 or 4 times 35,000.

newestUser wrote: »

I still believe that Irish property is ridiculously overpriced. I think the Irish economy is in serious trouble. I don't think that we Irish have rewritten the economic rulebook. I'm a bear on Irish property and the Irish economy in general. I consider Irish people's views over the last 5-10 years that property is a one-way bet, and that you can make money by just buying a pile of bricks and letting it sit there to be naive, and damaging to the economy in the medium-long term. However, arguing that prices *have* to come down to 3.5 times average local salary, everywhere, is IMO just as blinkered and naive as arguments like 'rent is dead money', 'property only ever goes up', or 'safe as houses'.

I agree prices will not come down to 3.5 everywhere but we are talking average here. There will always be properties worth millions, just like there will be properties worth shag all.
It's all about location location.

Freddie59

EKRIUQ wrote: »

The property market is really on a downward spiral but there is grades of seller's,
(1) People who are in no panic of selling and still looking for crazy prices but don't really care because they've nothing planned and are still testing the market,
(2) The people who are very eager to sell but have to get a figure to pay what ever they had planned with their money (I'm guessing the OP landlord is in this situation) and then you have
(3)The desperate! The developers, the people who over stretched them self’s and then lost their jobs.

And at the moment theirs no hope in the market because theirs very little buyers in the market and the desperate are slashing prices as much as they can but no bank will let them sell in negative equity unless their sure they’ll get their money back through other ways. Thinking houses that were €350,000 selling for €120,00-€150,000 is wishful thinking but I don’t think that will happen not because people would just get re-possessed, bad credit and prefer live with that than having to repay bank a debt of €100,000 for the next 30 years.

At the moment advertised prices mean nothing because it’s a more take it of leave it market.

Almost like EA speak there.;):rolleyes::D

DON'T BUY!!!

Check these sites first:

www.thepropertypin.com

www.treesdontgrowtothesky.com

www.irishpropertywatch.com

www.irishhometruths.com

Just un-agree to buy it.:)

gurramok

newestUser wrote: »

I think that this is a reason that it could be argued that 3.5 times income as a guide for valuing property is somewhat redundant. I'm not saying it justifies house prices of 10 times average income, but I do think in the case of prestige areas, or mid-range houses, that these properties will not fall to 3.5 times average income.

However, arguing that prices *have* to come down to 3.5 times average local salary, everywhere, is IMO just as blinkered and naive as arguments like 'rent is dead money', 'property only ever goes up', or 'safe as houses'.

Alot will.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/stringent-homeloan-rules-examined-1677893.html

UK style restrictions maybe coming!

Duckjob

gurramok wrote: »

Alot will.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/stringent-homeloan-rules-examined-1677893.html

UK style restrictions maybe coming!

I'd say Country Tom and his buddies might have something to say about that...

Country Tom wrote:

Look what they're proposing to do to poor FTBs!

ZYX

gurramok wrote: »

Alot will.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/stringent-homeloan-rules-examined-1677893.html

UK style restrictions maybe coming!

Of course remember it is 3.5 times total household income. So a couple, both working buying first house could expect a mortgage of about €250,000. Older couples on higher incomes or with equity from a previous house or with large savings would get larger mortgages

Senna

gurramok wrote: »

Alot will.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/stringent-homeloan-rules-examined-1677893.html

UK style restrictions maybe coming!

I would say this is close enough to the lending levels banks are working to at the moment, even a bit less. If they had of said 3.5 main earner and 1 times second, then that would have been a better criteria. There is a lot of talk on here and other sites about banks not lending, but most (a couple have completely stopped) are lending if you meet these requirements.

ZYX wrote: »

Of course remember it is 3.5 times total household income. So a couple, both working buying first house could expect a mortgage of about €250,000. Older couples on higher incomes or with equity from a previous house or with large savings would get larger mortgages

So how many couples do you think both have enough job security to buy a house? the answer is not many. There are plenty of higher earners and trader-uppers who have more money but the market has still stalled because prices are still far to high. The market will find its level by itself and no amount of regulations or outside influences will chance that. When the average house price is 3.5 (4.5 i always believed) times one average wage (which is falling) then some kind of bottom might be near.
Its ridiculous to think two average wage works should be looking at a mortgage of a quarter of a million euro, and this is a restricted level for mortgages:rolleyes:

~Trixiebelle~

Citymanager!

I think i know how your gf feels... we are similar circumstances as yourselves and it is so frustrating living in a place that ... well basically is a kip!! Its hard as your kids get older (mine are 9 and 7) and you know you only have a couple more years with them under your roof and you want them to have all the things they deserve from their home.. ie..a nice home for them to have birthday parties, entertain and princess like bedrooms. oh and a decent shower!! A place to be proud of..

My dream home is to have a lovely spacious family home, 4 bedrooms, bay window and a utility room. Its not alot to ask considering myself and himself work full-time. Even though prices have dropped, it still would be a financial disaster to buy the house we want. The economy is a total mess and god knows if either of us will still have a job this time next year. so, i know that we have to wait and by the time the house prices drop to a level that are reasonably priced, the dream home will be of no use for just the two of us!!

It kills me!!:( but i will not buy...we have one life and hopefully, if we can retire 10 years earlier or have money left for the college funds coz we're not stuck with a hefty mortgage over us.

Its hard but you have to think long term...

if landlord wants you out, then just rent a nice modern house in your area and tell the new landlord you want to paint the kids room. Hit Ikea and decorate it for them cost you a €1,000 tops. It will give herself a project to do and then hopefully 2 years time will be a "perfect" time to buy....

this is what ive decided!!:)

Senna

~Trixiebelle~ wrote: »

it is so frustrating living in a place that ... well basically is a kip!!

Why are you living in a kip, there have never been so many houses to rent and i dont know of any particular area that has a shortage of houses.
You are right in your think, in 2 years time the market should be a lot more realistic, but 2 years is a long time to live somewhere you dont like.

If you have an area (and even a particular street or estate) that you would like to buy in, could you rent in that area at the moment? Moving rented accommodation can be very annoying and a lot of upheaval for a family but the rental market is in your favour with huge choice and dropping prices.

Freddie59

newestUser wrote: »

However, arguing that prices *have* to come down to 3.5 times average local salary, everywhere, is IMO just as blinkered and naive as arguments like 'rent is dead money', 'property only ever goes up', or 'safe as houses'.

How so? The market will dictate this, and current trends are indicating that it will be inevitable. For example, if the people are only allowed borrow 3.5 x salary, and house prices are running at, say, 6 x annual salary, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure what's going to happen there.

The price of the house DOES indeed HAVE to fall. It will not sell otherwise. Simple economics.:)

newestUser

Freddie59 wrote: »

How so? The market will dictate this, and current trends are indicating that it will be inevitable. For example, if the people are only allowed borrow 3.5 x salary, and house prices are running at, say, 6 x annual salary, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure what's going to happen there.

The price of the house DOES indeed HAVE to fall. It will not sell otherwise. Simple economics.:)

Argh, not another one! :P

I don't think that property is realistically priced in Ireland, even now. I think the price of property will fall further.

However, as far as I know, limiting mortgages to 3.5 times earnings is currently a proposal, it's not a done deal.

My argument was that property prices in prestige, in-demand areas are buoyed not just by income, but by wealth. This increases the price of property there beyond the 3.5 ratio. Property in prime areas are also trophies. There were a couple of lads on thepropertypin the other day mocking some guy who owned a large house valued at several million, who was renting it out. They pointed out that the rental yield was 1%, pitifully low. However, while I'd agree that the property was overpriced, I'd argue that the yield might not get to 6/7% or so, because it's a trophy property, and salary-price ratios/rental yield are meaningless for such high value properties, they're not purchased by PAYE folk, they're purchased by rich business owners, or landed gentry, Michael O'Leary, or whatever, who are prepared to pay a premium for the snob factor.

I also believe that the price of some houses will go below 3.5 times average salary, eg in places of massive oversupply like Longford, Roscommon, etc.

I don't have the hard stats to back my points up, but I'm pretty sure that if I went looking for them, I'd find the data I needed. Property prices in prestige areas are kept high not just by higher incomes, but also by higher levels of wealth.

Freddie59

newestUser wrote: »

I don't have the hard stats to back my points up

:D

newestUser

Freddie59 wrote: »

:D

I strongly suspect my point to be valid, but don't have time or inclination to go fishing for the references and stats to properly back up my point, and I'm not even sure if the data is obtainable.

At least I'm not talking about proposed changes to banking regulations as if they were already a fact of life...;)

A similar discussion almost broke out on the uk version of thepropertypin, housepricecrash.co.uk

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=108456

One guy says:

OK, there will be plenty of GPs, Hospital Consultants and Lawyers on silly money plus big-shots in the Uni, DVLA, etc, but, by and large, the average salary is pitiful down here and even if I were, for example, a GP earning mega-bucks why would I want to spend a vast sum on a house when so many others are plummeting in price?

And another guy responds:

I'm not so sure.

Agreed, prices will drop this year across all price ranges but I would expect any cap on lending multiples to have a more dramatic effect on first time buyers.

In my experience those buying at over £400k will not usually need a huge mortgage as they have sufficient equity in their current property. Or could even be downsizing from a £800k property to a £400k.

Your FTB is likely to be on a far more tight budget and have substantially less deposit.

Have a look at upmystreet where you'll find that areas where property prices are in this bracket will have a low to medium percentage of properties subject to a mortgage and those in the lower priced areas have a higher percentage.

I haven't a clue what that upmystreet thing is, maybe it could contain data that would confirm my point. Thing is, how can anyone know how much assets people in particular areas have? One thing that I think we can be sure of, is that people are more asset-rich now than they were 30 years ago, and that people in South Dublin are more asset-rich than the general Irish population.

Posting cute emoticons doesn't invalidate my point. I haven't proved it beyond doubt, and I don't know if it can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt, but applying common sense would lead one to conclude that it's likely to be correct.

Why are people eejits when they say that houses in Legoland Drive, Longford are worth 10-12 times average earnings, but are smart individuals when they say
that houses in the prestige area of the nations capital are going to fall to 3.5 times average salary? I'm not saying houses aren't overvalued, but I don't think they're going to fall in the South Dublin area as much as some people think they will, or would like them too.

Disprove my theory that wealth, ie parental gifts, windfalls, money from non-PAYE sources, is more of a factor in property prices in South Dublin than other parts of the country.

latenia

newestUser wrote: »

There were a couple of lads on thepropertypin the other day mocking some guy who owned a large house valued at several million, who was renting it out. They pointed out that the rental yield was 1%, pitifully low.

If you search 'the pin' for Donal Caulfield, you'll see exactly why that guy gets sneered at, and deservedly so.

Thoie

I'm just going to throw something else into the mix (and side with your girlfriend).

I'd take happiness over money - if the family is happy there, and the renovations will make them happier, I'd buy the house. Negative equity only affects you if you're trying to sell. So think about how long you plan to stay in the house, and how much of a begrudger you are. If it would really ruin your life to be living beside people who got their house cheaper, then don't buy. If you're planning on moving in 12 months, then don't buy.

If you're planning on living there for the next 10 years, then feck it, go for it.

I like finance, I like economics, I like logic, but there are times in your life when you need to do something that just makes you and your loved ones happy.

newestUser

latenia wrote: »

If you search 'the pin' for Donal Caulfield, you'll see exactly why that guy gets sneered at, and deservedly so.

Is Donal Caulfield the guy with the designer dogs? Yeah, he seemed like a bit of a gimp from what I read about him. I can't find the post where the guys were saying that his house was overvalued because the rental yield was too low. Thing is though, I don't think rental yield is the best way to price multi-million euro houses which are trophy residences for millionaires (or people who were millionaires when they bought them)! These trophy homes aren't being purchased to be rented out, they're being purchased by exceedingly wealthy people for far in excess of what it costs to build them, and for amounts not commensurate with the money that could be generated by them if they were rented out, as a dick-waving exercise.

<edit> found silverdale house on the web. Hmmm, it's not *faaaaaaaaaaaabulous* from the outside, and it's been rented out for upwards of 36,000 a year. That's at least 6%-ish of 550-600k. The thread on the pin where this is discussed is http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19901&p=226440&hilit=donal+caulfield#p226440.

I think that you could add a couple of hundred grand on to that price for "snob value". Even at 1 million, it'd be 36% of what it was when it was put on the market originally.

~Trixiebelle~

Senna wrote: »

Why are you living in a kip, there have never been so many houses to rent and i dont know of any particular area that has a shortage of houses.
You are right in your think, in 2 years time the market should be a lot more realistic, but 2 years is a long time to live somewhere you dont like.

If you have an area (and even a particular street or estate) that you would like to buy in, could you rent in that area at the moment? Moving rented accommodation can be very annoying and a lot of upheaval for a family but the rental market is in your favour with huge choice and dropping prices.

fortunately/unfortunatly!! (depends on how you look at it!!)

We are in a council house... the rent is great €575 per month but its a very bad estate... fights at 3am in the morning and neighbours from hell!!

What can you do though?? you just have to keep your head down and save, save, save!!! we just have to look at what we are saving renting off the council and not privately (around €500pm). With childcare costs, cars to run and general bills, we would find it difficult to save in private accomadation.

its not even just wanting to be penny pinching and wanting to buy a cheap house... its just really not wanting to get in over our heads. I never understood the whole 100% mortgages... It would scare the bee-jaysus out of me owing so much... I actually hope we have a 50% deposit when we buy... fingers crossed!!:o

~Trixiebelle~

Thoie wrote: »

I'm just going to throw something else into the mix (and side with your girlfriend).

I'd take happiness over money - if the family is happy there, and the renovations will make them happier, I'd buy the house. Negative equity only affects you if you're trying to sell. So think about how long you plan to stay in the house, and how much of a begrudge you are. If it would really ruin your life to be living beside people who got their house cheaper, then don't buy. If you're planning on moving in 12 months, then don't buy.

If you're planning on living there for the next 10 years, then feck it, go for it.

I like finance, I like economics, I like logic, but there are times in your life when you need to do something that just makes you and your loved ones happy.

I agree with some of your points but i really don't agree with being deemed a begrudger if someone else buys their home 50k-100k cheaper!! Its not the money, its the time you spend in work and sacrifices you make not being there with your family because you have to work harder to pay off that money!!! Its looking like things are going to get particularly grim in this country for the next couple of years, so why put yourself through it and instead spend the time with your family.. go on holidays/treat yourselves and thank your lucky stars that your not like alot of folks out there that cant even pay for their homes anymore...

this is what i have to keep telling myself!!!:)

Highsider

The answer is nobody knows. For what it's worth for that reason alone i'd say hold tight for a while

Thoie

~Trixiebelle~ wrote: »

I agree with some of your points but i really don't agree with being deemed a begrudger if someone else buys their home 50k-100k cheaper!! Its not the money, its the time you spend in work and sacrifices you make not being there with your family because you have to work harder to pay off that money!!! Its looking like things are going to get particularly grim in this country for the next couple of years, so why put yourself through it and instead spend the time with your family.. go on holidays/treat yourselves and thank your lucky stars that your not like alot of folks out there that cant even pay for their homes anymore...

this is what i have to keep telling myself!!!:)

True - I was looking at it from the perspective of everyone on the street doing 9-5 jobs or whatever. Yes, if you have to work a second job, or longer hours or whatever to fund the extra loan, then it's not so good. I suppose I still have the old fashioned pre-boom view of not borrowing what you can't afford. I agree that if you're missing out on family time, then it's not begrudgery.