Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’

Victor

Zamboni wrote: »

Drawing conclusions of a rental market based on a sample size of 761 tenants paid for by a vested interest!

You could be the new Charlie Weston.

Constructive posts only please.

Moderator

Calina

cookie1977 wrote: »

Rather than personal comments about me you could always refute the publicly published and referenced stats that I provided with some stats of your own.

Cookie1977, I disagree. These are not statistics. They are conclusions drawn from data, which is not available. I have certain concerns about using a bin of 18-54 for example. That's far too wide. The responses with regard to motivations for buying a house are not clearly only focussed on the renters based on how the report is structured. The availability graphs do not appear to have any obvious source or explanation and as a visualisation, they are not that great.

Nor is it clear how the questions were structured and this is critically important.

That being said, the future policy issues section raises some valid points, unrelated to the figures in general. The question of long term leases, professionality and deposit holding schemes should be default considerations anyway.

_Kaiser_

MysticalRain wrote: »

So if I was to summarise this thread in a nutshell:

This is the best post I've seen on this forum yet! It should be made a sticky at the top of the list.

There are numerous posters on this forum who could do with the wake-up call

I didn't "go mad" in the Good ole Days and accept the "free" money and "pre-approved" mortgages for several hundred thousand Euro that I was offered every few weeks by my bank.

Despite this I ended up paying for the choices of others through higher taxation, higher costs of living and now higher rents - all while listening to others whinging about how their choice hasn't worked out and how "someone else" should pick up the tab!

Well feck that.. it's taught me one thing - acting responsibly in Ireland and doing things the supposed "right" way only leaves you exposed to more shyte as spouted daily on this forum/site in the name of continuing the property obsession that led us off a cliff once already.

So next time I WILL be taking every cent I can get because in the end (when it all inevitably falls apart again) I'll end up paying for it anyway!

cookie1977

Since 1973 when we joined (the now) EU we've been significant benefiters of other countries hard earned taxes. In the bailout this country took even more money from countries from all over the world. They didn't say "screw them it's their own fault they're poor with crappy infrastructure". Even today we as a country send a lot of money abroad for development aid. Again we dont say "screw them it's our money, they're in that situation because it's their own fault." Yes it might be on a macro scale and yes those countries and ourselves are hoping that through bringing countries along they'll buy our products now or in the future (it's the main reason for the cheap loan we got from the UK).

But at another level I see it as the exact same situation with the mortgage crisis. By not trying to get our pound of flesh out of everyone who's in a dire situation we might also get the country (and thus the economy) back working again. There are social and economic consequences to extracting as much pain out of people as possible that I dont think many on here want or care to consider. Yes it's an unfair situation for those that did the right thing throughout the "boom times" and now feel they're not getting credit for that. I'm happy to give you full credit for that. I tip my hat to you that you had the foresight to not get into crazy activities and I do see a lot of your points that you rightly make on here but I cannot see how punishing all of these people (and I dont believe they are as easily defined, or, as grouped as Calina and others have outlined) will help you in the long term. Each and every person in arrears has a unique story. I suppose in a fair world all those that are in arrears would loose their homes, start again or get some sort of state support where needed and carry on with their lives in conjunction with house prices dropping properly to levels that those on here see as the "right" level and our economy would get back on an even keel. But that's not how life works. So choices have to be made.

I've sided with and outlined on here what I (emphasis on I) believe is (in the light of all possible considered outcomes) a just, fair and acceptable solution to this mess. Not that any of my ideas are currently being implemented at all but isn't that the point? There is no perfect solution to this mess and we (including the government and banks) probably have no real control over that solution.

Gluts of repossessions are looking less and less likely that they will happen. So falls in house prices in the order of magnitude that many on here want to see will also not happen.

cookie1977

Calina wrote: »

Cookie1977, I disagree. These are not statistics. They are conclusions drawn from data, which is not available. I have certain concerns about using a bin of 18-54 for example. That's far too wide. The responses with regard to motivations for buying a house are not clearly only focussed on the renters based on how the report is structured. The availability graphs do not appear to have any obvious source or explanation and as a visualisation, they are not that great.

Nor is it clear how the questions were structured and this is critically important.

That being said, the future policy issues section raises some valid points, unrelated to the figures in general. The question of long term leases, professionality and deposit holding schemes should be default considerations anyway.

I disagree. As the link I posted shows they are conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of data collected (I only posted two representative images of a much larger document. Why is 18-54 too wide? The previous comment which lead me to post the data was:

Are you under the impression that only students and young professionals rent in Ireland?

Would you agree that that's what the data is showing?

MysticalRain

cookie1977 wrote: »

Since 1973 when we joined (the now) EU we've been significant benefiters of other countries hard earned taxes. In the bailout this country took even more money from countries from all over the world. They didn't say "screw them it's their own fault they're poor with crappy infrastructure". Even today we as a country send a lot of money abroad for development aid. Again we dont say "screw them it's our money, they're in that situation because it's their own fault." Yes it might be on a macro scale and yes those countries and ourselves are hoping that through bringing countries along they'll buy our products now or in the future (it's the main reason for the cheap loan we got from the UK).

You still don't get it, do you? This isn't about a transfer of wealth from a richer section of society to a poorer one. If you dig through the statistics, you'll see that those supposedly struggling with arrears are typically the better off in society - civil servants in safe, secure jobs, professionals who over leveraged themselves. They have statistically less levels of unemployment than non-home owners. I tend to agree with banking official from AIB who got shouted down last year for pointing out that up to a third of people who were behind on arrears were "won't pays" rather than "can't pays".

A more apt analogy would be the richer countries in Europe transferring wealth from the poorer ones like ourselves (which is sort of what happened anyway with the bailout money going to wealthy bondholders, and German/French banks).

Again, one side of the debate merely asks for a free and open market to take it's course so we end up paying a fair price for accommodation, and the other side asks for socialism at the expense of the rest of society, not to mention the risk of another property bubble.

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

Rather than personal comments about me you could always refute the publicly published and referenced stats that I provided with some stats of your own.

I am refuting the "publicly published and referenced stats" by highlighting the small sample size used and the conflict of interest of the body that commission the survey.
I don't need to provide opposing stats to nonsensical data!

MysticalRain

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

This is the best post I've seen on this forum yet! It should be made a sticky at the top of the list.

There are numerous posters on this forum who could do with the wake-up call

I didn't "go mad" in the Good ole Days and accept the "free" money and "pre-approved" mortgages for several hundred thousand Euro that I was offered every few weeks by my bank.

Despite this I ended up paying for the choices of others through higher taxation, higher costs of living and now higher rents - all while listening to others whinging about how their choice hasn't worked out and how "someone else" should pick up the tab!

Well feck that.. it's taught me one thing - acting responsibly in Ireland and doing things the supposed "right" way only leaves you exposed to more shyte as spouted daily on this forum/site in the name of continuing the property obsession that led us off a cliff once already.

So next time I WILL be taking every cent I can get because in the end (when it all inevitably falls apart again) I'll end up paying for it anyway!

I too am I'm sick of hearing these same old arguments over and over again. I'm paying more in extortionate rent at the moment than I would if I had a mortgage, and at least those in arrears will have a house to show for it after 30 years.

I've already paid for the mistakes of other people in this property crash - once through loosing my job, and facing reduced wages when I finally got back in the jobs market, a second time through higher taxes, and now once more I am expected to pay again for people who think somebody else should pay their mortgage.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

I am refuting the "publicly published and referenced stats" by highlighting the small sample size used and the conflict of interest of the body that commission the survey.
I don't need to provide opposing stats to nonsensical data!

Sorry but RedC undertook the survey and just over 2000 people was the total sample size.

Cuddlesworth

cookie1977 wrote: »

Sorry but RedC undertook the survey and just over 2000 people was the total sample size.

I actually agree with the numbers. But ive been a part of redc surveys and I would not consider them accurate or reliable. Did the census not cover this.

cookie1977

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I actually agree with the numbers. But ive been a part of redc surveys and I would not consider them accurate or reliable. Did the census not cover this.

I looked at the CSO site but could find nothing. In terms of RedC. Whatever about people not liking the results RedC are not some dodgy market research company. How people/clients interpret the data they collect is another thing.

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

Sorry but RedC undertook the survey and just over 2000 people was the total sample size.

You posted the link to a survey to provide evidence in relation to the age profile of tenants.

The overall survey was based by 2,005 interviews.
Only 38% of those interview respondents were tenants.
38% of 2,005 = 761.9

RedC is simply the company that conducted the survey.
Society of Chartered Surveyors (vested interest) commissioned the survey.

MouseTail

Zamboni wrote: »

You posted the link to a survey to provide evidence in relation to the age profile of tenants.

The overall survey was based by 2,005 interviews.
Only 38% of those interview respondents were tenants.
38% of 2,005 = 761.9

RedC is simply the company that conducted the survey.
Society of Chartered Surveyors (vested interest) commissioned the survey.

Census stats concur, those renting are more likely to be young and/or foreign nationals. Why someone would argue this, i don't know, its completely intuitive. Cant link, but read "The roof over our heads" from CSO.

dinnyirwin

MouseTail wrote: »

Census stats concur, those renting are more likely to be young and/or foreign nationals. Why someone would argue this, i don't know, its completely intuitive. Cant link, but read "The roof over our heads" from CSO.

It is indeed, but so are a lot of things and people will argue all day because their original position was the opposite and they just dont want to be wrong.
Look at the people arguing for a year or two that property prices and rents werent going up in Dublin. Even though it was easy to open their eyes and see it happening right in front of them.
Slowly they stopped arguing this and have come to accept it, but now they are sore about it and have changed their arguments to say yes they have increased but its a bubble or its unfair. They are even trying to change the original point of the thread by making it about other things now too.

There should be a poll put on this thread now just to see if people are set on keeping their heads in the sand forever. Ask people something like ---

After a year of this thread has there been a Glut of repossessions
After another year will there be.
Would you agree that property prices have gone up.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

You posted the link to a survey to provide evidence in relation to the age profile of tenants.

The overall survey was based by 2,005 interviews.
Only 38% of those interview respondents were tenants.
38% of 2,005 = 761.9

RedC is simply the company that conducted the survey.
Society of Chartered Surveyors (vested interest) commissioned the survey.

I don't think you really understand how surveys and statistics work.

Villa05

dinnyirwin wrote: »

There should be a poll put on this thread now just to see if people are set on keeping their heads in the sand forever. Ask people something like ---

After a year of this thread has there been a Glut of repossessions
After another year will there be.
Would you agree that property prices have gone up.

Thread title

Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%

Note the words "could" and "up to"

40,000 mortgages are > 2 years in arrears, repossessions are very low. Some of the bulls here have accepted that these mortgages are dead. So who exactly has there head in the sand.

Vested Interests (Banks, State, Media) have contrived to create an artificial market. It worked eventually, but how long will it last given that all the vested interests are themselves debt monkeys. We have been through a very painful lesson with VI's and property. Have we forgotten that lesson already?

This is not an SCD or a Dublin thread but these areas are at most risk from my third point

Your questions
1. No
2. There will be a significant increase in the coming years (voluntary surrenders)
3. In my city, stabilised in some areas, in general still falling, Higher sales volumes driving prices down

Zamboni

MouseTail wrote: »

Census stats concur, those renting are more likely to be young and/or foreign nationals. Why someone would argue this, i don't know, its completely intuitive. Cant link, but read "The roof over our heads" from CSO.

I'm not disputing the point.
I'm calling cookie on his source.
Quite frankly I don't care about the dumb tangents in this thread anymore but at least have the courtesy and intellect to use unbiased quality evidence.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

I'm not disputing the point.
I'm calling cookie on his source.
Quite frankly I don't care about the dumb tangents in this thread anymore but at least have the courtesy and intellect to use unbiased quality evidence.

You agree with the findings of the scsi but disagree with the source?

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

I don't think you really understand how surveys and statistics work.

I don't think you understand the importance of good quality data.
If you did you may have referenced the CSO instead of a tiny survey.
And saved us all the hassle of this little tangent.

Piriz

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

enjoy renting and stop wishing hardship and misery on others let it go you missed the boat. I live in affluent area of SCD and too cycle to work and I have a nice car and beautiful home.

there it is people, we can close this thread now..thanks to everyone for contributing.. !

MouseTail

Zamboni wrote: »

I don't think you understand the importance of good quality data.
If you did you may have referenced the CSO instead of a tiny survey.
And saved us all the hassle of this little tangent.

There was noyhing wrong ewith Cookies source, RedC are probably the most reputable polling company out there. Certainly political hacks quiver in anticipation of their findings.

This thread is full of tangents, the original question was answered long ago. Could reposessions depress the market 25%? Yes, possibly. Have they...No, will they...No.

Villa05

MysticalRain wrote: »

So if I was to summarise this thread in a nutshell:

Quality post, straight to the point. Legend!

Piriz

cookie1977 wrote: »

Gluts of repossessions are looking less and less likely that they will happen.

you know the IBRC residential loan book is being sold to vulture capitalists right?

Zamboni

Piriz wrote: »

you know the IBRC residential loan book is being sold to vulture capitalists right?

And over half of those loans are in arrears iirc...

Villa05

MysticalRain wrote: »

You still don't get it, do you? This isn't about a transfer of wealth from a richer section of society to a poorer one. If you dig through the statistics, you'll see that those supposedly struggling with arrears are typically the better off in society - civil servants in safe, secure jobs, professionals who over leveraged themselves. They have statistically less levels of unemployment than non-home owners.

Another story of a permanent, pensionable €88,000 p/a salary struggling to survive
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2014/02/13/as-benefit-creep-meets-wage-shrink-whats-the-point-in-anyone-working

How do the majority of households on 40k or less with nowhere near the same pension and job security manage?

gaius c

cookie1977 wrote: »

Since 1973 when we joined (the now) EU we've been significant benefiters of other countries hard earned taxes. In the bailout this country took even more money from countries from all over the world.

Going to have to stop you right here. Yes, we took their money but we're paying every red cent back. With interest.

With that appeal to emotion tone to start with, I have to confess that I didn't bother reading beyond that.

dinnyirwin

Villa05 wrote: »

Thread title

Note the words "could" and "up to"

40,000 mortgages are > 2 years in arrears, repossessions are very low. Some of the bulls here have accepted that these mortgages are dead. So who exactly has there head in the sand.

Vested Interests (Banks, State, Media) have contrived to create an artificial market. It worked eventually, but how long will it last given that all the vested interests are themselves debt monkeys. We have been through a very painful lesson with VI's and property. Have we forgotten that lesson already?

This is not an SCD or a Dublin thread but these areas are at most risk from my third point

Your questions
1. No
2. There will be a significant increase in the coming years (voluntary surrenders)
3. In my city, stabilised in some areas, in general still falling, Higher sales volumes driving prices down

Why do you mention SCD at every opportunity?
Everyone knows its not just SCD, yet several people keep mentioning it and then accusing others of mentioning it.

"Could" and "coming years".

How about just "hasnt" and "doesnt look likely."

Its almost a year since this thread started?
Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda.

Mousetail is right. The question has been answered long ago.

Villa05

Zamboni wrote: »

And over half of those loans are in arrears iirc...

Subprime lenders only account for 3% of mortgage lending but they have been responsible for up to a quarter of all home repossessions, according to figures released by the Central Bank.

Would imagine that vulture capitalists would use similar tactics

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/cwojidojidid/rss2/

MouseTail

Piriz wrote: »

you know the IBRC residential loan book is being sold to vulture capitalists right?

So? They aren't the first Vulture Capitalists to purchase residential loan books, they will abide by the CCMA, or be forced to.

Villa05

dinnyirwin wrote: »

Why do you mention SCD at every opportunity?
Everyone knows its not just SCD, yet you keep mentioning it and then accusing others of mentioning it.

"Could" and "coming years".

How about just "hasnt" and "doesnt look likely."

Its almost a year since this thread started?
Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda.

Mousetail is right. The question has been answered long ago.

Well done on dodging the main points and focusing on minute detail. Join the others in the Bull corner and ignore the main issues and they will go away...