Off Topic Thread 4.0

Dubinusa

I grew up in the north strand and donaghmede.
Sutton is a lovely area, but probably expensive. Raheny is also very nice, but I've no idea how much a gaff costs in the mecca of metropolis these days. The northside will always be home.

awec

Discovered tonight that my 3 and a 1/2 month old daughter loves the Simpsons. For some reason my wife isn't as impressed as I am.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Discovered tonight that my 3 and a 1/2 month old daughter loves the Simpsons. For some reason my wife isn't as impressed as I am.

"Her first words were, 'Lisa needs braces'"

Dental Plan

Squidgy Black

Dubinusa wrote: »

I grew up in the north strand and donaghmede.
Sutton is a lovely area, but probably expensive. Raheny is also very nice, but I've no idea how much a gaff costs in the mecca of metropolis these days. The northside will always be home.

An absolute shít ton. I'm D5 (not raheny unfortunately) and the average 3 bed goes for around 350-400 at the moment for old council houses. One of the lads I grew up with bought a 4 bed in our estate and paid 490k for it and it needed a load of work.

The new developments at St David's beside the boys band are 675k for a 4 bed.

Buer

Dubinusa wrote: »

I grew up in the north strand and donaghmede.
Sutton is a lovely area, but probably expensive. Raheny is also very nice, but I've no idea how much a gaff costs in the mecca of metropolis these days. The northside will always be home.

If you're talking Howth Road or the estates directly off it then you're looking at anything from €550k to €750k.

But if you move up around Grange Woodbine and Edenmore you'll get a 3 up, 3 down semi for about €350k.

Sutton is silly money largely.

MaybeMaybe

Squidgy Black wrote: »

An absolute shít ton. I'm D5 (not raheny unfortunately) and the average 3 bed goes for around 350-400 at the moment for old council houses. One of the lads I grew up with bought a 4 bed in our estate and paid 490k for it and it needed a load of work.

The new developments at St David's beside the boys band are 675k for a 4 bed.

How big are these houses? Square meter wise

Squidgy Black

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

How big are these houses? Square meter wise

Roughly 1000 square feet or so for most of them, usually 3 up two down and a kitchen.

Dubinusa

Jesus really? Who can afford that?

sydthebeat

Dubinusa wrote: »

Jesus really? Who can afford that?

Its complete madness.

The only way those houses will ever hold that value is if we continue to have a volatile housing market with bubbles and bursts.

The damage caused by the last bubble is still on going because it is not in the government's interest to curb House prices due to the financial losses incurred if they did.

Now that they are artificially high again, the government can drip feed new housing policies to maintain that artificial value.

There should not be a 5X or 6X times difference in price of a 1000sq ft semi D, regardless of the location anywhere in the country.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Discovered tonight that my 3 and a 1/2 month old daughter loves the Simpsons. For some reason my wife isn't as impressed as I am.

I have you beat there. Mine watches rugby. She’s even watched SR with me! We’ve got pics of her watching non-Leinster Pro14 games with my dad too.

There’s no way that’s just because of the colour and movement. No way at all.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

Its complete madness.

The only way those houses will ever hold that value is if we continue to have a volatile housing market with bubbles and bursts.

The damage caused by the last bubble is still on going because it is not in the government's interest to curb House prices due to the financial losses incurred if they did.

Now that they are artificially high again, the government can drip feed new housing policies to maintain that artificial value.

There should not be a 5X or 6X times difference in price of a 1000sq ft semi D, regardless of the location anywhere in the country.

The government could fix the housing crisis virtually overnight if they wanted to. But doing so would permenabtly deflate house prices and piss off a lot of rich and middle class voters. It would only require implementing the laws that already exist around land banks, use or lose it. Or else implementing an extremely punitive tax on hoarding development land. If the government do anything radical though, there will be a lot of people permenantly stuck in negative equity.

molloyjh

stephen_n wrote: »

The government could fix the housing crisis virtually overnight if they wanted to. But doing so would permenabtly deflate house prices and piss off a lot of rich and middle class voters. It would only require implementing the laws that already exist around land banks, use or lose it. Or else implementing an extremely punitive tax on hoarding development land. If the government do anything radical though, there will be a lot of people permenantly stuck in negative equity.

It's a tough balancing act from that perspective. But also, the loss of income for the State would also be huge. They are looking to change the property tax to get an accurate reflection of the value of each house at the point of charging the tax. People who have lived in their homes for decades and paid nothing like the money their houses are now worth will be getting shafted with high property tax that they have absolutely zero control over. Property is a big money earner for the State and they won't be willing to change that as it will require making up the shortfall elsewhere.

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

The government could fix the housing crisis virtually overnight if they wanted to. But doing so would permenabtly deflate house prices and piss off a lot of rich and middle class voters. It would only require implementing the laws that already exist around land banks, use or lose it. Or else implementing an extremely punitive tax on hoarding development land. If the government do anything radical though, there will be a lot of people permenantly stuck in negative equity.

we had the chance to take the short sharp shock after the crash in 2008, and ensure this never happens again.

However the government(s) took the (undisclosed) course of action to ensure the inflated levels of 2007 were met again.

It was so frustrating to hear consecutive government ministers over the last few years refer to house prices "not yet reaching 2007 levels"... as if this was some sort of goal, and no credence to the fact that these house prices levels were a very significant factor in the crash in the first place.


at the end of the day, the price of building a 3 bed semi in Dublin 5 is probably at most 20% more than building a similar 3 bed semi d in ballyhaunis ..... but is valued at approximately 5 times as much. That level of discrepancy for what is basically a starter family home should be completely unacceptable to anyone in this country. A teacher in Coolock is not paid 5 times as much as a teacher in ballyhaunis.

Podge_irl

I'm far more skeptical of the government's ability to control house prices to the degree you're suggesting. Either in outright reality or political reality.

irishbucsfan

Ultimately the supply of housing is nowhere near enough and increasing it is realistically the only way to bring down prices in a manageable way. I heavily doubt there's any will within the established parties to do this, so I can't see it happening any time soon. We're far from the only city who have experienced this though

awec

Best thing that could happen to Ireland's housing market is the banks start repossessing houses where mortgages are not being paid.

Ultimately everyone who is paying their mortgage is also paying the mortgage of those who aren't thanks to Ireland's comparatively high interest rates.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Best thing that could happen to Ireland's housing market is the banks start repossessing houses where mortgages are not being paid.

Ultimately everyone who is paying their mortgage is also paying the mortgage of those who aren't thanks to Ireland's comparatively high interest rates.

That would be outrageously bad for both the economy and the banks!

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That would be outrageously bad for both the economy and the banks!

Hardly.

The lack of repossessions is why the market is all log-jammed up. People are living in houses that they aren't paying for, and everyone else is having to pay for it instead. Meanwhile, there isn't enough stock to satisfy demand, driving prices up.

awec

awec wrote: »

Hardly.

The lack of repossessions is why the market is all log-jammed up. People are living in houses that they aren't paying for, and everyone else is having to pay for it instead. Meanwhile, there isn't enough stock to satisfy demand, driving prices up.

That would make the homelessness problem far, far worse and do little for the housing shortage.

sydthebeat

awec wrote: »

Hardly.

The lack of repossessions is why the market is all log-jammed up. People are living in houses that they aren't paying for, and everyone else is having to pay for it instead. Meanwhile, there isn't enough stock to satisfy demand, driving prices up.

to be fair, in the sort term the costs to irish mortgage holders paying for 'non payers' is minuscule compared to the costs of hotel rooms to pay for families if homes are repossessed.

personally i dont think the level of "wont pay" is that high as to be significant.
The level of "cant pay" might be higher, and these people should be offered long term rental plans by these re-possessors, so they are not made destitute.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

That would make the homelessness problem far, far worse and do little for the housing shortage.

Would it?

Our rate of repossessions is low by international standards. I don't for a second believe that the majority of people in severe arrears on their mortgage would end up homeless if repossession was put in place - not least because of the time it takes to go through.

Interested Observer

The numbers of mortgages in arrears has been dropping every year since the recovery began as far as I know. I don't think people who are engaging with the banks, maybe restructuring their mortgage, etc should be kicked out of their home.

These people don't vanish either. They still need to live somewhere, even if their home gets repossessed.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Hardly.

The lack of repossessions is why the market is all log-jammed up. People are living in houses that they aren't paying for, and everyone else is having to pay for it instead. Meanwhile, there isn't enough stock to satisfy demand, driving prices up.

Banks don't want houses, houses are the bank's liability in that contract. Mortgages are assets and as long as they can convince people they will eventually be paid they're worth far, far, more to the banks than the house is. Your mortgage of 300k is worth far more than 300k to a bank. Your house, if repossessed, is worth less.

They'd much rather sell the debt to a vulture fund for a fraction of what you owe. If repossessions were in the interests of banks, those vulture funds wouldn't exist.

awec

A mortgage of 300k that's never going to be paid is worth nothing to a bank. Which is exactly why mortgages are so expensive in Ireland, everyone else has to cover the shortfall.

Squidgy Black

awec wrote: »

A mortgage of 300k that's never going to be paid is worth nothing to a bank. Which is exactly why mortgages are so expensive in Ireland, everyone else has to cover the shortfall.

It is though. They sell them on to vulture funds.

Squidgy Black

Repossessions on the other hand involve an absolute ton of paperwork and potential court cases etc, then arranging the sale of the house, if the house is damaged before it's repo'd then they'll make a loss on it, and so on so forth.

Whereas they get a bad mortgage, flip it to a vulture fund for 60% of the debt and not have to deal with it ever again.

irishbucsfan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

It is though. They sell them on to vulture funds.

Not only does the mortgage itself always have value, the act of repossessing the home or putting the home at risk of repossession (by selling it on to a vulture fund) causes great risk to the banks.

The number of mortgages in arrears is falling pretty consistently now and has been for years.

Podge_irl

Interested Observer wrote: »

The numbers of mortgages in arrears has been dropping every year since the recovery began as far as I know. I don't think people who are engaging with the banks, maybe restructuring their mortgage, etc should be kicked out of their home.

These people don't vanish either. They still need to live somewhere, even if their home gets repossessed.

No one who engages with the bank are in any real risk of repossession. It takes years of non-payment and non-engagement to be at risk at the moment. A bank would much prefer a restructured mortgage that you can afford to pay over trying to turf you out. The absolute hysteria over the sale of non-performing loans to vulture funds recently doesn't exactly make it a promising PR move at the moment either.

Zzippy

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Repossessions on the other hand involve an absolute ton of paperwork and potential court cases etc, then arranging the sale of the house, if the house is damaged before it's repo'd then they'll make a loss on it, and so on so forth.

Whereas they get a bad mortgage, flip it to a vulture fund for 60% of the debt and not have to deal with it ever again.

Problem is they're flipping good performing mortgages to vulture funds too, who AFAIK have less restrictions on increasing interest rates or how they treat customers.