Media: Rents at all-time high, supply all-time low - RTE

CruelCoin

Dravokivich wrote: »

High rise isn't the answer if it's gonna be high rise shoe boxes.

It's exactly what is needed.

People don't want a-rated premodelux homes, they just want homes

Relax the regulations, slap up a load of crap and let the market get us over the supply slump.

alias no.9

I have one rental property. It's been rented for nearly 4 years to the same tenants and is well below market rent. When it becomes available to rent, I will absolutely adhere to all of the relevant legislation but I simply cannot advertise it at the allowed rent as I would be inundated with calls and emails. It will be let through word of mouth, something that I've noticed other friends who have rental properties increasingly doing.

Wanderer78

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Ah yes the money tree argument

i do believe theyre are actual 'magical money trees' available to us, we just need a dramatic change in our thinking of money and its creation as explained very well by people such as steve keen etc. we seemed to be stuck in some what draconian methods of thinking in such matters. sadly i dont see much changing in the near future regarding these issues, in fact i suspect we may need to experience a couple of more dramatic incidents such as the crash of 2008, before we even consider these alternatives.

CruelCoin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i do believe theyre are actual 'magical money trees' available to us, we just need a dramatic change in our thinking of money and its creation as explained very well by people such as steve keen etc.

Inflation is imaginary then?

Wanderer78

CruelCoin wrote: »

Inflation is imaginary then?

unfortunately this is where my knowledge runs out on such matters, but there are many researchers out there explaining in great detail how some of these approaches wouldnt cause the inflationary issues regularly trotted out. i do think their ideas should at least be looked at as our current approaches and models are simply failing us

MayoSalmon

The_Conductor wrote: »

For the record- Greece's economy grew in each of the last 2 quarters- and only yesterday, their sovereign debt rating was increased to 'B'- firmly away from the junk status at which it has traded in the not so distant past........

A quarter of the country is unemployed over 2.5 million people..but yeah they have turned a corner

ChikiChiki

Dravokivich wrote: »

High rise isn't the answer if it's gonna be high rise shoe boxes.

It partly the answer though. If your a professional in your twenties getting started in life, you dont mind living in a high rise shoe box for a few years. Then the same property can be rented out to the next generation. It better than nothing which is where many are at now.

Supply has been an issue for a long time now and our govt seem wholly incompetent or not even bothered to deal with it.

Shame on them to be blunt.

CruelCoin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

unfortunately this is where my knowledge runs out on such matters, but there are many researchers out there explaining in great detail how some of these approaches wouldnt cause the inflationary issues regularly trotted out. i do think their ideas should at least be looked at as our current approaches and models are simply failing us

To quote Friedrich A. Hayek (nobel economics laureate) - “If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists.”

There is no such thing as free money.

CruelCoin

The_Conductor wrote: »

For the record- Greece's economy grew in each of the last 2 quarters- and only yesterday, their sovereign debt rating was increased to 'B'- firmly away from the junk status at which it has traded in the not so distant past........

They're on track to looking for yet another bailout. How on earth are they above junk status?

Michael D Not Higgins

Okay everyone, the credit status of Greece and competing macroeconomic theories are well outside the purview of the forum. Bring it back to A&P please.

sk8board

I can't seem to find where the RTB list the number of current landlords.
a press release last year said 170k (with 125k of them having 1 rental property) and just 16% had three or more.

Theres A lot of current talk that there are LLs leaving in their droves, but is it actually the case?

Tenancies are up from 300k in 2013 to 330k in 2017, but that doesn't mean the number of individual landlords has changed.

beauf

sk8board wrote: »

I can't seem to find where the RTB list the number of current landlords.
a press release last year said 170k (with 125k of them having 1 rental property) and just 16% had three or more.

Theres A lot of current talk that there are LLs leaving in their droves, but is it actually the case?

Tenancies are up from 300k in 2013 to 330k in 2017, but that doesn't mean the number of individual landlords has changed.

Consider the flip side. if the number of house sales, or AirBNB is up. Where did that housing stock come from.

Also how does net immigration impact the tenancies totals.

We have incomplete data. You have to be critical and consider if its being selectively reported.

sk8board

beauf wrote: »

Consider the flip side. if the number of house sales, or AirBNB is up. Where did that housing stock come from.

Also how does net immigration impact the tenancies totals.

We have incomplete data. You have to be critical and consider if its being selectively reported.

Agree, and also need to include the 25k solicitor letters the RTB send to LLs that haven't registered (although that would include people who moved to the airbnb market), but it wouldn't mean there are actually any more properties in the market than before.

Either way, it still doesn't answer the question - why does they publish the number of landlords? As you allude to, are they ignoring it as it's dropping.

Michael D Not Higgins

sk8board wrote: »

Agree, and also need to include the 25k solicitor letters the RTB send to LLs that haven't registered (although that would include people who moved to the airbnb market), but it wouldn't mean there are actually any more properties in the market than before.

Either way, it still doesn't answer the question - why does they publish the number of landlords? As you allude to, are they ignoring it as it's dropping.

They haven't published the 2016 report yet. Last year the 2015 accounts weren't approved until end of September, expect a similar timeline this year.

If you want to look the trend, this is what was published in the previous years.

2015 - 170k landlords - 320k tenancies
2014 - 160k landlords - 304k tenancies
2013 - 179k landlords - 283k tenancies
2012 - 212k landlords - 264k tenancies

That's a clear trend of fewer landlords and more tenancies, and taking into account the published increase in the size of REITs in Ireland, you can determine that one-off landlords are getting out of the market and REITs are replacing them.

beauf

I think its an inescapable conclusion policy is to move the market to REITs .

Villa05

Wanderer78 wrote:

Our politicians and their advisers are clueless, dangerous in fact.

It was policy to create an environment that supported higher house/rent prices

Expecting Government to fix this is a waste of time. They are a large portion of the problem.

jimmycrackcorm

ChikiChiki wrote:

Supply has been an issue for a long time now and our govt seem wholly incompetent or not even bothered to deal with it.

Shame on them to be blunt.

People are quick to complain but never have any actual solutions. The only one that is mentioned is that the government should build massive social housing, effectively handing out free 300k houses to people en masse.

The government doesn't have the money and the banks are still not in a position to fund the scale of developer builds needed. Even if the government could build lots of social housing art scale, people object because of social problems, instead of examining ways to curb those problems.

Where there are builds, people rise up in nimbyism. There was a guy posting not so long ago objection to a group of new houses being built on his road because it didn't suit the existing residents views.

Askthe EA

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

ChikiChiki wrote:

Supply has been an issue for a long time now and our govt seem wholly incompetent or not even bothered to deal with it.

Shame on them to be blunt.

People are quick to complain but never have any actual solutions. The only one that is mentioned is that the government should build massive social housing, effectively handing out free 300k houses to people en masse.

The government doesn't have the money and the banks are still not in a position to fund the scale of developer builds needed. Even if the government could build lots of social housing art scale, people object because of social problems, instead of examining ways to curb those problems.

Where there are builds, people rise up in nimbyism. There was a guy posting not so long ago objection to a group of new houses being built on his road because it didn't suit the existing residents views.

That's extremely unfair. He was asking what to expect as 50% of the estate was being taken over by respond. That's a huge amount of social housing in one estate.

audi5

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Who is going to buy these properties now to rent them out?
Any investor would be mad now to invest in the current pro tenant, anti landlord legislation ridden Ireland of today.
Possibly REITs if they don't have to pay tax I suppose.
But while landlords are being forced out, the other side of that is that no more will be attracted in.

So unless the government is going to buy all the houses and rent them out to people nice and cheap, I don't know how rental supply will increase no matter how many you build. Oh yes, they will probably just make the pensioners give over their houses to the rental market instead.

I agree with the sentiment that government is doing everything possible to discourage landlords. I will be in a position to let out a property in a few months time, wasn't overly keen due to outrageous personal taxation in this country (52% when you include PRSI + USC) on income but after seeing last few days news about HAP case and now after reading housing ministers statement in Irish times I am seriously reconsidering:

It is understood the Minister is also considering introducing a deposit protection scheme for renters as well as a deposit cap of one month’s rent. These will address situations where landlords have been demanding non-refundable deposits as well as deposits of two months rent or more in advance of agreeing a letting.

I don't know how these moves are going to increase supply in rental market. Maybe I have missed it but can someone show me one government move in recent times that will encourage me to let and not sell?

If government is relying on REITS to increase supply then perhaps they should read IRES REIT quarterly report from last week:

Continued evaluation of new acquisition opportunities, although it is I-RES’s belief that the multi-residential market is currently trading at unattractive prices for the Company

Given current rental prices/caps, they think Dublin apartment prices are not a good value at the moment. It seems to me they would either need lower prices or higher rents to justify further acquisitions. Then you add planning rejections on their new development projects due to height restrictions to the mix. Lot of their apartment were lent below market rate due to 2 year restriction and then government imposed rent cap.

Villa05

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

People are quick to complain but never have any actual solutions. The only one that is mentioned is that the government should build massive social housing, effectively handing out free 300k houses to people en masse.

I have seen plenty of workable solutions on these forums. Social housing does not mean free homes and can be built for 1/2 the cost of your quote.

What is the cost of losing productive investment as outlined in the conductors earlier post

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The government doesn't have the money and the banks are still not in a position to fund the scale of developer builds needed. Even if the government could build lots of social housing art scale, people object because of social problems, instead of examining ways to curb those problems.

Banks are very comfortable with the current situation of restricted supply as it drives up prices and improves there balance sheet.

Government has the money they just don't spend it wisely. My local school is busy putting in an array of portakakins rented at extortionate prices. 2 years rent would easily build a proper permanent structure

Wheeliebin30

The_Conductor wrote: »

That's what politicians do- blame someone else- and when that doesn't work- use the old Roman idiom of divide and conquer. Hell, if works, why change their gameplay..........

It suits the government to have a bogeyman in the corner- who they can heap whatever manure that needs to be dolloped at..........

In related news- Dublin City Council, Dunlaoghaire Rathdown, South Dublin Co. Co. and Fingal Co. Co. - turned down planning applications for over 200 multi unit developments this year thus far, featuring over 7000 dwellings. Over 20 of the refused applications were for student halls- in the immediate vicinities of the major universities.

Sigh........ I'm getting old. Why does all of this sound so damn familiar..........

Who's the majority on Dublin city council?

Sinn fein and the alphabet groups.

jamesthepeach

I see threshold are off on their soap box now too. Blaming guess who?

I can't post a link. It's on the journal.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I see threshold are off on their soap box now too. Blaming guess who?

I'll take landlords for 10 bill.

sk8board

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If you want to look the trend, this is what was published in the previous years.

2015 - 170k landlords - 320k tenancies
2014 - 160k landlords - 304k tenancies
2013 - 179k landlords - 283k tenancies
2012 - 212k landlords - 264k tenancies

I see they quote 337k tenancies up to Q1 2017 here https://www.rtb.ie/landlords/rent-index-dec-2014
(Ignore the '2014' in the URL, its 2016/17 content

Macha

Jesus, why do we suck at this so much? It doesn't have to be houses vs high rise blocks of 200 units. It should be mid-rise and low-rise good quality, decent sized blocks of apartments with good communal facilities.

It's not complicated, we don't have to figure it out from scratch, we just have to copy countries that got it right. That includes most other European countries.

Every single planner and councillor should be sent on a study trip to Europe to learn how to do urban development properly.

jamesthepeach

Macha wrote: »

Jesus, why do we suck at this so much? It doesn't have to be houses vs high rise blocks of 200 units. It should be mid-rise and low-rise good quality, decent sized blocks of apartments with good communal facilities.

It's not complicated, we don't have to figure it out from scratch, we just have to copy countries that got it right. That includes most other European countries.

Every single planner and councillor should be sent on a study trip to Europe to learn how to do urban development properly.

They can't build that many now because nobody will buy them at the price they would have to charge. So you would end up with half empty buildings and broke developers.

Browney7

jamesthepeach wrote: »

They can't build that many now because nobody will buy them at the price they would have to charge. So you would end up with half empty buildings and broke developers.

How much would it cost to build a block of say 50 2 bed apartments ignoring land costs? Would it be a 200k build cost a unit?

It needs a creative solution but the state/government/people don't seem to want a solution. We keep electing governments despite their abject failings so we can't exactly be surprised when they do nothing?

Wanderer78

Browney7 wrote: »

How much would it cost to build a block of say 50 2 bed apartments ignoring land costs? Would it be a 200k build cost a unit?

It needs a creative solution but the state/government/people don't seem to want a solution. We keep electing governments despite their abject failings so we can't exactly be surprised when they do nothing?

im not sure any electable government could actually solve this one, im not convinced anyway.

awec

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

They haven't published the 2016 report yet. Last year the 2015 accounts weren't approved until end of September, expect a similar timeline this year.

If you want to look the trend, this is what was published in the previous years.

2015 - 170k landlords - 320k tenancies
2014 - 160k landlords - 304k tenancies
2013 - 179k landlords - 283k tenancies
2012 - 212k landlords - 264k tenancies

That's a clear trend of fewer landlords and more tenancies, and taking into account the published increase in the size of REITs in Ireland, you can determine that one-off landlords are getting out of the market and REITs are replacing them.

Interesting to see that the number of landlords has been steadily decreasing for 5 years at a pretty constant rate. The 2016 and 2017 figures will be interesting to see if the RPZ legislation has had any meaningful impact on the rate.

My guess for the steady decline is that accidental landlords have been getting out of negative equity and selling as soon as they could. Obviously not true in all cases but I'd guess it represents a large chunk of it.

ligerdub

yosser hughes wrote:

You're assuming the government see this as a problem. They really don't.

Exactly right. They couldn't give two ****s, it's one of those things which a lot of people will recognise the problem, comment on it, but besides that couldn't really care less.

Even at that there'll be some people negatively impacted by this and they'll still consider FG the best option. It's not a particularly vote loser.

It's my understanding that the govt earmarked all that cash to finance the builds but haven't exactly been quick in pulling the trigger, in fact it seems a more deliberately slow approval. They would much rather spend the money somewhere else.