The developers arre screwing us !

soden12

In the Independent today they had an article on house prices and the moaning from the Irish House Builders Association regarding how bad things were etc etc ochon ochon.

In the next breath they mentioned a thief/developer who was selling houses in Adamstown. He had to reduce the price from over 300k to around 159k but he was still making a profit...

So whilst the ordinary man is losing his job, the Quinn family are having their loans written off by the Quinn group (who have screwed young drivers) and the developers are still making money.

Offy

Nothing new in that. I remember an estate that was built in Athlone in '93, the houses and sites cost just over £3k each and sold for almost £53k each. The developer made over £1m in under a year. The same houses are now selling at £280k. Work out how much the banks made on a £53k house then subtract the cost and what do you have? Some poor sod paying hundreds of thousands for £3k worth of land and materials.

Soldie

Should we ban people from selling houses for a profit?

Offy

Good God no, we should insist that nothing can be sold without making a profit of 1000 times what was payed for an item.

MaceFace

Offy wrote: »

Good God no, we should insist that nothing can be sold without making a profit of 1000 times what was payed for an item.

And how different is a developer/builder who tries to get the best price for what he is selling than anyone else in this country?

Diarmuid

Soldie wrote: »

Should we ban people from selling houses for a profit?

Long Onion

soden12 wrote: »

In the Independent today they had an article on house prices and the moaning from the Irish House Builders Association regarding how bad things were etc etc ochon ochon.

In the next breath they mentioned a thief/developer who was selling houses in Adamstown. He had to reduce the price from over 300k to around 159k but he was still making a profit...

So whilst the ordinary man is losing his job, the Quinn family are having their loans written off by the Quinn group (who have screwed young drivers) and the developers are still making money.

What is the point of this post exactly. The house costs what it costs, it is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If you think the developer is taking the p1ss then don't buy the house. Every business has the right to charge what it wishes for the services it provides (bar exceptions where prices are set by law).

Your point with the Quinn group is also, in my opinion, null and void - Quinn are almost always the cheapest insurer for younger drivers, as the company is a private company, it has every right to pay its shareholders as it deems fit.

I fail to see how the Quinn group has anything to do with the prices charged by a developer in Adamstown. It seems to me that people are so intent on blaming developers and banks at any price that they are far to willing to transcend the boundaries of logic.

Change the record.

ardmacha

Should we ban people from selling houses for a profit?

No. But we should not compensate them if they make a loss or buy the houses from them at a "long term" price.

Long Onion

ardmacha wrote: »

No. But we should not compensate them if they make a loss or buy the houses from them at a "long term" price.

How are they being compensated for making a loss? And what do we want here a profit or a loss? Jebus, there is no pleasing some people.

jimmmy

ardmacha wrote: »

No. But we should not compensate them if they make a loss or buy the houses from them at a "long term" price.

They are not being compensated. They lost their deposits on the houses, and have the deeds / property confinscated from them. Nama / the banks hold the deeds.

skooby

the developers cant be blamed for making a profit. that is good business. why would they bother working for a loss. its not like you had a choice of one devloper to buy from. it was a wide market.
dont get me wrong im not a fan of developers by any means. the sub standard housing left behind by a few of them is a disgrace. the unfinished sites around the country is an eyesore. the bills left unpaid to suppliers and banks is crippling the economy
but this discussion was questioning they should make so much profit. simply put yourself in their shoes. if you have a house which cost you 120k to build and the market is there to sell at 300k wht would you do.

jimmmy

I am not a big fan of developers either, but I suspect most of them right now would love a job that paid 50k a year, flexitime, paid holidays + sickies, guaranteed pension etc. Most of them ( except for the really big ones possibly ) got greedy + reinvested whatever profits they made in to new development land etc , or bank shares, + in the process lost whatever profits they ever made.

dRNk SAnTA

To the OP I've got another newsflash, the costs involved in running hotels doesn't increase on six nation weekends either

Price is based on what the market is willing to pay! Don't pay it if you don't like it!

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

I am not a big fan of developers either, but I suspect most of them right now would love a job that paid 50k a year, flexitime, paid holidays + sickies, guaranteed pension etc. Most of them ( except for the really big ones possibly ) got greedy + reinvested whatever profits they made in to new development land etc , or bank shares, + in the process lost whatever profits they ever made.

Only jimmmy could post in a thread about developers and try to turn it into a public sector bash.

#15

jimmmy wrote: »

I am not a big fan of developers either, but I suspect most of them right now would love a job that paid 50k a year, flexitime, paid holidays + sickies, guaranteed pension etc. Most of them ( except for the really big ones possibly ) got greedy + reinvested whatever profits they made in to new development land etc , or bank shares, + in the process lost whatever profits they ever made.

:rolleyes:

In all fairness Jimmy, do you need to bash the public sector even in unrelated threads?

P. Breathnach

#15 wrote: »

In all fairness Jimmy, ...

Your question collapses there.

[I'm still struggling with the idea that if we cut public sector pay the price of private sector dentistry would come down.]

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

Only jimmmy could post in a thread about developers and try to turn it into a public sector bash.

I never mentioned the "public sector" - you did. My point was that most of them are bust. As Colm McCarthy said on RTE's Frontline a few weeks ago, if you squeeze them fully, they would only be able to pay the national debt borrowing for "about an hour and a half ".

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your question collapses there.

[I'm still struggling with the idea that if we cut public sector pay the price of private sector dentistry would come down.]

Who mentioned "the idea that if we cut public sector pay the price of private sector dentistry would come down" ? This thread is about developers, please keep on topic. If you want to talk about dentists prices, I am no fan of the prices dentists charge here, but if you reduce tax + vat then their prices should come down. They charge what the market will bear. I asked one of them once why his prices were higher than those in N. Ireland, he said why shouldn't he, wages are less up North. He did not say " his wife came from N. Ireland and her brother was in the public service there and only earned half what he would in the public service south of the border.";)

To get back on topic, the original poster wrote "The developers arre screwing us ! ".
I wonder are there any developers left in the country who have a viable business left ?

Gurgle

soden12 wrote: »

a thief/developer who was selling houses in Adamstown. He had to reduce the price from over 300k to around 159k but he was still making a profit...

The bastard, trying to maximize profit margins in his business.
What is the world coming to?

skooby

jimmmy wrote: »

I wonder are there any developers left in the country who have a viable business left ?

a viable business, no
still a high class of living most of them.
has anybody seen liam carroll busking on the streets. didnt think so

optocynic

skooby wrote: »

a viable business, no
still a high class of living most of them.
has anybody seen liam carroll busking on the streets. didnt think so

Even if he was busking, no one would throw him any money anyway!

But, he was a successful business man for a long time. He has earned that standard of living (mostly)

MaceFace

skooby wrote: »

a viable business, no
still a high class of living most of them.
has anybody seen liam carroll busking on the streets. didnt think so

No, but I bet he would trade it now for a quiet life without the damage he has done to his health.

optocynic

MaceFace wrote: »

No, but I bet he would trade it now for a quiet life without the damage he has done to his health.

What health?
He is a rich and successful business man... so clearly he is a demon-spawn of the dark one... with deep black oil running in his evil veins...

We don't like successful people here in Ireland. Don't you know that?

skooby

optocynic wrote: »

!
But, he was a successful business man for a long time. He has earned that standard of living (mostly)

i agree he has earned the standard of living but my last post was done in haste and left out a bit of info. these people are certainly entitled to their high life. in fairness they created a lot of tax revenue and employment when they were doing well. the point i was trying to get across is how can these developers walk away now after been successful. surely these men that are so personally wealthy now could re-invest soemthing into the company to save it sinking.
sorry for straying from the point of the thread. but i feel that the selling houses part is not where they are screwing people, its the fact that they can walk away from it now and be still financially sound.

optocynic

skooby wrote: »

i agree he has earned the standard of living but my last post was done in haste and left out a bit of info. these people are certainly entitled to their high life. in fairness they created a lot of tax revenue and employment when they were doing well. the point i was trying to get across is how can these developers walk away now after been successful. surely these men that are so personally wealthy now could re-invest soemthing into the company to save it sinking.
sorry for straying from the point of the thread. but i feel that the selling houses part is not where they are screwing people, its the fact that they can walk away from it now and be still financially sound.

I agree, but, as we saw with Carroll's titanic battle in the courts. He tried everything to keep his employees in a job!..

It is the great Irish lie, that all successful people don't care about their employees. That is NOT my experience!

skooby

optocynic wrote: »

It is the great Irish lie, that all successful people don't care about their employees. That is NOT my experience!

i would like to point out that most employers i know are very caring towards there employees. more so now in the tough times as they dont want the stress of worrying about putting another family on the streets. liam carroll was a bad example on my behalf as no matter what he tried it was a losing battle.

jimmmy

optocynic wrote: »

Even if he was busking, no one would throw him any money anyway!

But, he was a successful business man for a long time. He has earned that standard of living (mostly)

Actually, it is reported ( and was over the years of the Celtic tiger ) that despite the thousands of jobs Liam Carroll created, despite the tens of millions of euro tax he collected in employing these people, despite the tens of millions of euro he paid to the govt in stamp duty etc , he still drove an ordinary Toyota Corolla hatchback, dressed normally and lived in a ordinary semi-d in suburbia ( Mount Merrion / Churchtown I think it was ). To see him on a site, as he often was, you would think he was an ordinary foreman. I do not know him personally, but nobody would call it "a high class of living " as a poster on this board wrote.

N.B. I disagree with him building his apartments so small etc but that is a different debate.
He done what the market wanted at the time, as he saw it.

optocynic

jimmmy wrote: »

Actually, it is reported ( and was over the years of the Celtic tiger ) that despite the thousands of jobs Liam Carroll created, despite the tens of millions of euro tax he collected in employing these people, despite the tens of millions of euro he paid to the govt in stamp duty etc , he still drove an ordinary Toyota Corolla hatchback, dressed normally and lived in a ordinary semi-d in suburbia ( Mount Merrion / Churchtown I think it was ). To see him on a site, as he often was, you would think he was an ordinary foreman. I do not know him personally, but nobody would call it "a high class of living " as a poster on this board wrote.

Really?
That's interesting. A lot of successful guys out there like that. They like to make the money, but they don't like to appear to be garish with it. It is quiet commendable actually.

CamperMan

the property developers were in it to make a profit... that is what business is about... making a profit. The people I blame are the banks for loaning people far to much money to buy these overpriced houses in the first place!

P. Breathnach

CamperMan wrote: »

the property developers were in it to make a profit... that is what business is about... making a profit. The people I blame are the banks for loaning people far to much money to buy these overpriced houses in the first place!

But they, too, were doing no more than seek to make a profit.

Our property bubble can not be blamed on any single sector of society -- although I agree that the financial sector, a fairly amorphous group, were more culpable than most other sectors.

optocynic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But they, too, were doing no more than seek to make a profit.

Our property bubble can not be blamed on any single sector of society -- although I agree that the financial sector, a fairly amorphous group, were more culpable than most other sectors.

The list of sectors and people to blame is almost endless.
And I do agree that we are ALL to blame.

But, why did our regulator not have his finger on the pulse of the financial sector. A bit of proactive regulation 5 years ago on mortgage sizes would have been an enormous help!!

skooby

CamperMan wrote: »

The people I blame are the banks for loaning people far to much money to buy these overpriced houses in the first place!

like myself this is far from the point of this thread but a truely valid point. they should have valued the properties themselves and not just thrown money at whoever asked for it

jimmmy

optocynic wrote: »

The list of sectors and people to blame is almost endless.
And I do agree that we are ALL to blame.

But, why did our regulator not have his finger on the pulse of the financial sector. A bit of proactive regulation 5 years ago on mortgage sizes would have been an enormous help!!

+1. Also the government encouraged people to invest in the economy by offering section 23, section 27 and section 50 tax incentives. This was a ten year scheme, with clawbacks within the 10 years if exited etc. The govt kept extending the deadlines for expiry of the section 23 / 27 incentives, which together with promises of decentralisation, gateway cities etc led to overdevelopment of property in some parts of the country. Many of these people, like the developers, have got burnt.

MaceFace

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But they, too, were doing no more than seek to make a profit.

Our property bubble can not be blamed on any single sector of society -- although I agree that the financial sector, a fairly amorphous group, were more culpable than most other sectors.

Me - I blame the politicians. They were elected to govern and there has been a lack of that for a long time.

P. Breathnach

optocynic wrote: »

... But, why did our regulator not have his finger on the pulse of the financial sector. ...

Because a lot of people, including builders, developers, bankers, politicians, estate agents, bank shareholders (including bodies like pension funds), people selling on their homes, and people seeking to buy homes, did not want it.

The property bubble was a collective mistake, but the regulator was doing what was expected of him. It is unfortunate that we did not have a regulator who had a mindset that enabled him to resist such expectations, but it is also possible that if he had been tougher he would have been replaced.

In my view, the disaster could have been prevented or moderated only by the political establishment.

niamh4626

I am a FTB and I bought an apartment in Adamstown in June for €190k, it was initially priced at €350k......:D How do I know it was that price, because I used to work out there for Gunne at the start of time. When I was buying I haggled with the main man himself, he did want €220k for it initially.

It makes me feel good anyways 'saving' €160k on what my neighbours paid for their apartments plus I rented out my spare room and the tenant is practically paying my mortgage, all I have to put towards it is €11.05/month!!!

optocynic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because a lot of people, including builders, developers, bankers, politicians, estate agents, bank shareholders (including bodies like pension funds), people selling on their homes, and people seeking to buy homes, did not want it.

The property bubble was a collective mistake, but the regulator was doing what was expected of him. It is unfortunate that we did not have a regulator who had a mindset that enabled him to resist such expectations, but it is also possible that if he had been tougher he would have been replaced.

In my view, the disaster could have been prevented or moderated only by the political establishment.

Exactly. Or in my more simplistic terms. Stamp Duty would have stopped increasing. maybe the financial regulator sould not be a political appointee!

optocynic

niamh4626 wrote: »

I am a FTB and I bought an apartment in Adamstown in June for €190k, it was initially priced at €350k......:D How do I know it was that price, because I used to work out there for Gunne at the start of time. When I was buying I haggled with the main man himself, he did want €220k for it initially.

It makes me feel good anyways 'saving' €160k on what my neighbours paid for their apartments plus I rented out my spare room and the tenant is practically paying my mortgage, all I have to put towards it is €11.05/month!!!

Why you capitalist monster!:D
Kudos on the success.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

the regulator was doing what was expected of him.

People expected him to have his finger on the pulse of the financial sector, but instead he put his feet up + done nothing....
He still gets his big fat p.s. pension I am sure.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

People expected him to have his finger on the pulse of the financial sector, but instead he put his feet up + done nothing....

I have just explained why I think that people expected him not to have his finger on the pulse, and your response is to ignore what I said.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have just explained why I think that people expected him not to have his finger on the pulse, and your response is to ignore what I said.

You gave a list of the people ( " a lot of people, including builders, developers, bankers, politicians, estate agents, bank shareholders (including bodies like pension funds), people selling on their homes, and people seeking to buy homes,) and said they " did not want it. "

You then wrote "The property bubble was a collective mistake, but the regulator was doing what was expected of him. It is unfortunate that we did not have a regulator who had a mindset that enabled him to resist such expectations, but it is also possible that if he had been tougher he would have been replaced." I think the general public deserved to have a regulator who knew what was going on at the banks.
People invested a lot of money and life savings in bank shares on the expectation that the banks were properly regulated. If they were, the banks would not have collapsed as much as they have. The regulator should have done his job, and if he got sacked by the govt for speaking out, he could have crossed that bridge when he came to it.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

You gave a list of the people ( " a lot of people, including builders, developers, bankers, politicians, estate agents, bank shareholders (including bodies like pension funds), people selling on their homes, and people seeking to buy homes,) and said they " did not want it. "

You then wrote "The property bubble was a collective mistake, but the regulator was doing what was expected of him. It is unfortunate that we did not have a regulator who had a mindset that enabled him to resist such expectations, but it is also possible that if he had been tougher he would have been replaced." I think the general public deserved to have a regulator who knew what was going on at the banks.
People invested a lot of money and life savings in bank shares on the expectation that the banks were properly regulated.

People, especially investors in bank shares, were ambiguous about regulation. They also wanted the banks to chase profits.

If they were, the banks would not have collapsed as much as they have.

On that we can agree.

The regulator should have done his job, and if he got sacked by the govt for speaking out, he could have crossed that bridge when he came to it.

I agree that he should have acted differently, but if the political environment in which he operated favoured "light touch", then his choosing to make a martyr of himself might not have achieved anything useful. That is why I also said that

In my view, the disaster could have been prevented or moderated only by the political establishment.

For some reason, you ignore that point although, oddly, when MaceFace made the same point you thanked him/her.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People, especially investors in bank shares, were ambiguous about regulation. They also wanted the banks to chase profits..

Investors in bank shares wanted the banks to make profits, that is true, but they expected the banks to be properly regulated. They clearly were not. Investors, inc many pensioners and small savers, lost a high percentage of their life savings in the whole mess. The regulator, like the Central bankers and the politicians , get to keep their pensions, funded by the taxpayer, who has no choice but to fund them.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

For some reason, you ignore that point although, oddly, when MaceFace made the same point you thanked him/her.

Maceface replied to you and made a different point to the point you made. Maceface stated "Me - I blame the politicians. They were elected to govern and there has been a lack of that for a long time. ". I agree with Maceface and thanked him / her as I made that point before in different threads.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... Maceface replied to you and made a different point to the point you made...

Please be so kind as to explain the essential difference.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Please be so kind as to explain the essential difference.

Certainly. In his post no. 34 he referred to your post " Our property bubble can not be blamed on any single sector of society -- although I agree that the financial sector, a fairly amorphous group, were more culpable than most other sectors"
Maceface wrote / replied : ".Me - I blame the politicians. They were elected to govern and there has been a lack of that for a long time.".

OMD

niamh4626 wrote: »

I am a FTB and I bought an apartment in Adamstown in June for €190k, it was initially priced at €350k......:D How do I know it was that price, because I used to work out there for Gunne at the start of time. When I was buying I haggled with the main man himself, he did want €220k for it initially.

It makes me feel good anyways 'saving' €160k on what my neighbours paid for their apartments plus I rented out my spare room and the tenant is practically paying my mortgage, all I have to put towards it is €11.05/month!!!

Thats the way it goes with property. However don't be surprised when those on rent allowance move in and laugh at you for paying 190K. Then your tenant moves out and interest rates rise.

SkepticOne

With regard to the regulators (both the FSRA and Central Bank) the thing was that they too got sucked into the bubble and failed to see it as such. They are specifically paid by the public to stand outside the various fads and manias and view things objectively. It is an indictment of the government, imo, that the governor of the central bank had his contract extended during the recent crisis when really he should have been sacked.

Another thing that needs to come to an end, if we are to prevent future bubbles, is the idea of zoning, i.e. creation of artificial scarcity driving up land prices. It has not led to good use of land in the country as we can all see on a daily basis, but has led to corruption in local authorities.

Sponge Bob

SkepticOne wrote: »

really he should have been sacked.

He should be stripped of his pension , the crook .

jimmmy

SkepticOne wrote: »

corruption in local authorities.

never:rolleyes:

jimmmy

SkepticOne wrote: »

Another thing that needs to come to an end, if we are to prevent future bubbles, is the idea of zoning, i.e. creation of artificial scarcity driving up land prices.

Too much land was zoned in different parts of the country. In some western counties enough land has been zoned to last for the next 70 years ! In Leitrim 2/3 of houses / apartments already built are unoccupied ....and God only knows what other land has been zoned for development but not yet built on.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Certainly. In his post no. 34 he referred to your post " Our property bubble can not be blamed on any single sector of society -- although I agree that the financial sector, a fairly amorphous group, were more culpable than most other sectors"
Maceface wrote / replied : ".Me - I blame the politicians. They were elected to govern and there has been a lack of that for a long time.".

Thank you. I understand now. I asked for the difference between A and B, and you explain the difference between A and C.

What a waste of time.