Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

Options
1…1314151618

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    cordy1969
    Closed Accounts Posts: 129 ✭✭cordy1969


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Listen I'm perfectly happy to detail the sacrifices I made but I think you should lose the chip on your shoulder.

    Your initial quote

    "Even if you operate at a loss (I did for eight years) you should eventually break even."

    I have asked you on 2 or 3 previous posts to please describe the sacrifice as you put it, that you experienced the same as LL's have experienced and how you broke even at the end of it. You have politely danced around in every post since. Then you place some rubbish link up about few over priced rentals in Dublin that we all agreed are just plain silly and overpriced. I have on numerous occasions explained to you and others, that there is ample property for rent in a commutable distant from Dublin for under 1000 but again you choose to ignore these FACTS. The simple FACT is people like yourself are more interested in handouts and what they are missing out on instead of making sacrifices in regards to your lifestyle choices on where to live.
    As for yourself you have on many occasions told us about your views which would put you into the socialist category and the "sacrifices you have made" yada yada yada and how LL's and corporations are ruining society. Yet in your choice of career you are quite happy to take the wages of that capitalist corporation you so rightly hate?

    Anyways back to the original post. The current laws are too biased towards tenants ( and the snowflakes) and why this is still the case your housing crisis will continue to worsen because the one thing you all seem to miss is: Without capital investment and tax concessions your houses/apartments won't be built. The LL's and small investors will continue to leave in droves.The state as you put it can not keep affording to prop up the snowflake generation. The state won't build the houses they need because they can't afford to.

    And the chip on my shoulder is no bigger than the smashed avocado on your toast.


  • Options
    #513
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    cordy1969 wrote: »
    Are you seriously that deluded, you can buy a house anytime you like. Do what others have had to do for generations. And I will try and say it slowly for you......BUY IN AN AREA YOU CAN AFFORD NOT AN AREA YOU ASPIRE TO LIVE IN...Why are the tax payers expected to provide housing for you and others who can't be arsed to better themselves in life?

    And as I mentioned before and we are still waiting...... What was your loss making experience for 8 years eddy?


    Hey Cordy. My loss making experience for eight years was a degree, masters and a PHD. I worked through all of the aformentioned programs to support myself. I got a grant for fees but as I had to leave the house at an early age due to family breakdown it was made near impossible to get a grant to cover food, rent ect as it was very hard to prove seperation from family. I worked two jobs throughout those years while renting in Dublin with no money from the bank of mammy and daddy. The masters had no grant attached so I took out a loan to pay for fees and worked two jobs to fund myself and repay the loan. For the PhD my bench fees were paid and that was it. I had to work two jobs to put through four years of work while balancing a four year degree with teaching students ect. During the PhD I also put my own money into developing a molecule that I eventually got to patent. I won't describe what this did to my bank account and the losses incurred trying to make this all work. I also won't go into detail about some of the landlords I've met since moving out of home at 16.

    Eventually I paid off the loans and started work. If you where trying to insinuate I had anything handed to me you'd be wrong.


  • Options
    #514
    cordy1969
    Closed Accounts Posts: 129 ✭✭cordy1969


    Excellent so you worked hard to put yourself through university just like thousands of other students around the world. Whilst I am sorry for your family breakup it is the same for many many others around the world. Myself being one of those just like yourself. Yes and like you I worked hard and made my own way in life, just like generations have done for years and years before me. And yes I get annoyed when I watch systems that are continually broken and youth/ socialists telling us how hard they have it and how mistreated they are yada yada yada.

    And whilst I congratulate you on your masters and PHD and subsequent patent. Your career will now start to reap the benefits of those choices. So how much of your wage now are you going to give back to the poor student/ socialist now to make sure they don't have the same struggles you did. Not much I'm tipping.

    So now I ask you why should a LL be expected to offer housing at a loss to them or stand by and watch a tenant not pay rent for 2 years and destroy their investment. Then and even after judgement is passed in court to know that they will never see the money/loss ever anyways. So why should they be expected to do all that?

    And as I said previously imagine the people paying mortgages off during 70's through to early 90's that were paying in excess of 10% up to 17% interest rates on their mortgages. I don't recall seeing media and the general public jumping up and down like they do nowadays do you.

    So sorry for your sacrifices but they aren't anything truly unusual. And yes you are a credit to yourself to come through it the way you did and succeed. And whether you invest your money in the future into real estate, stocks, bonds or anything similar you will be looking for protection of your investment just like every other LL on here posting.

    And lastly there is nothing more enjoyable than smashed avocado on your toast in the morning with a blueberry muffin and a coffee. But seriously how the hell do they justify 9 euro's for a toasted sandwich and 5 euros for a coffee. Now if you want to talk about an inflated market taking advantage of its customers/clients thats what we should be getting mad at.


  • Options
    #515
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    cordy1969 wrote: »
    Your initial quote

    "Even if you operate at a loss (I did for eight years) you should eventually break even."

    I have asked you on 2 or 3 previous posts to please describe the sacrifice as you put it, that you experienced the same as LL's have experienced and how you broke even at the end of it. You have politely danced around in every post since. Then you place some rubbish link up about few over priced rentals in Dublin that we all agreed are just plain silly and overpriced. I have on numerous occasions explained to you and others, that there is ample property for rent in a commutable distant from Dublin for under 1000 but again you choose to ignore these FACTS. The simple FACT is people like yourself are more interested in handouts and what they are missing out on instead of making sacrifices in regards to your lifestyle choices on where to live.
    As for yourself you have on many occasions told us about your views which would put you into the socialist category and the "sacrifices you have made" yada yada yada and how LL's and corporations are ruining society. Yet in your choice of career you are quite happy to take the wages of that capitalist corporation you so rightly hate?

    Anyways back to the original post. The current laws are too biased towards tenants ( and the snowflakes) and why this is still the case your housing crisis will continue to worsen because the one thing you all seem to miss is: Without capital investment and tax concessions your houses/apartments won't be built. The LL's and small investors will continue to leave in droves.The state as you put it can not keep affording to prop up the snowflake generation. The state won't build the houses they need because they can't afford to.

    And the chip on my shoulder is no bigger than the smashed avocado on your toast.

    My point is relating to the attidues of yourself and one or two people on this thread. The idea that no matter how bad the investment, be it buy to let or mortgage to let the tenant or market should protect the landlord from their bad inestment.

    You have someone who buys a second house outright due to years of hard work at their primary job and obtain a healthy profit in the absence of the mortgage (taxes and other expenses taken into account). They wait until houses are cheap to buy and then make the investment.

    Then you have someone who intends to live soley as a landlord, doesn't understand the business or the profit margin, buys an expensive house with a high interest buy to let mortgage before a collapse in the housing market (e.g Brexit), gives up their day job and intends to live exclusively as a landlord.

    So two types of landlord, both own and rent a second house. The pirmary determinant as to whether they make a proft is what type of investment they make. In other words make a good investment and you'll do well. Don't and it won't. Even if it's a bad inevestment it can still eventually pay off.

    Now for some reason all of the landlords on here seem to be demanding that tenants pay a level of rent to completely cover any costs the landlord has with enough left over to generate a profit. At exactly what point should a landlord suffer from a bad investment?

    Speaking of socialist, why exactly should a sector such as the housing sector be priced and regulated to cover bad investments when some landlords with a second house can make a profit?


  • Options
    #516
    cordy1969
    Closed Accounts Posts: 129 ✭✭cordy1969


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    My point is relating to the attidues of yourself and one or two people on this thread. The idea that no matter how bad the investment, be it buy to let or mortgage to let the tenant or market should protect the landlord from their bad investment.

    No one has been asking for protection from a bad investment. The investment turns bad when if you have brought at the wrong time when you sell you will make a loss, thats the gamble with being a LL. You are investing based on future market growth if the growth doesn't come then so be it thats on you the investor.
    What the LL are asking for is protection from loses made from non payment of rent and damage etc. The length of time it takes to evict someone and how their losses are treated.
    LL's would like some general protection from the tenant and possible losses incurred from them.

    In regards to rents, rents will come down with investment into the property market by increasing supply. This will not come without non government money i.e. the investor/ developers. The large REIT's are being offered tax incentives why aren't the normal LL?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    cordy1969 wrote: »
    No one has been asking for protection from a bad investment. The investment turns bad when if you have brought at the wrong time when you sell you will make a loss, thats the gamble with being a LL. You are investing based on future market growth if the growth doesn't come then so be it thats on you the investor.
    What the LL are asking for is protection from loses made from non payment of rent and damage etc. The length of time it takes to evict someone and how their losses are treated.
    LL's would like some general protection from the tenant and possible losses incurred from them.

    In regards to rents, rents will come down with investment into the property market by increasing supply. This will not come without non government money i.e. the investor/ developers. The large REIT's are being offered tax incentives why aren't the normal LL?


    But people are! The landlords here are talking about not being able to make a profit while covering a buy to let mortgage either won't see their investment pay off for a while or they will own the house sans mortgage and be able to make a living off it.

    The landlords here are complaining the tenant's rent doesn't cover bad investments like some buy to let mortgages. It would make a profit if it wasn't a buy to let or the investment was better. Why complain about rents not being enough if the investment was bad? Not everything is the fault or responsibility of the government.


  • Options
    #518
    cordy1969
    Closed Accounts Posts: 129 ✭✭cordy1969


    I haven't read into like that, currently the laws are very bias towards the tenant. Thats what most LL are concerned about (maybe a few exceptions but I could be wrong).


  • Options
    #519
    yuridwyer
    Registered Users Posts: 82 ✭✭yuridwyer


    Accidental landlord here.... have seen both sides of it...first tenant stayed for two years and then fcuked off during the second coldest winter in a row (2011 I think) without paying the last month's rent, would have been happy enough if the gas hadn't been cut off the previous winter and pipes froze, burst and destroyed the bathroom. He hadn't used the wheelie bins either, I took out 75 bags of rubbish from the shed, the back and the house. Found dead snakes in the shed and the freezer......spent nine months and thousands trying to bring to the place up to scratch again, serious pressure on finances and more importantly relationship. Still paying it off. On the other hand now have great tenants (even if the rent is much lower than market rate) for past 6/7 years.

    House still miles in negative equity. So while I ultimately hope to get a pension out of the house, if I could go back in time and somehow have avoided it all, I would have.

    Not all landlords are money-hungry b@stards!


  • Options
    #520
    Taylor365
    Registered Users Posts: 2,994 ✭✭✭Taylor365


    yuridwyer wrote: »
    Not all landlords are money-hungry b@stards!
    Very few I'd say.


    You only hear the rotten stories, from both sides.


  • Options
    #521
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    cordy1969 wrote: »
    No one has been asking for protection from a bad investment. The investment turns bad when if you have brought at the wrong time when you sell you will make a loss, thats the gamble with being a LL. You are investing based on future market growth if the growth doesn't come then so be it thats on you the investor.
    What the LL are asking for is protection from loses made from non payment of rent and damage etc. The length of time it takes to evict someone and how their losses are treated.
    LL's would like some general protection from the tenant and possible losses incurred from them.

    In regards to rents, rents will come down with investment into the property market by increasing supply. This will not come without non government money i.e. the investor/ developers. The large REIT's are being offered tax incentives why aren't the normal LL?
    Ffs that's not what landlord investment is about! That's property speculation, buying low so you can sell high - that's an idiotic way to invest - and that's precisely what we don't want people doing in society, as it's completely destructive and completely the wrong incentive, for property.

    When you reward people for that, you incentivize the creation of a system that maximally worsens the downturns and upturns of each cycle, in the property market - for maximum profit, at the right stages of each cycle.

    Morons engaging in property speculation - debt fuelled property speculation, no less! - need to be driven from the market, and heavily disincentivized, before they build up enough Private Debt to cause fallout in other areas of the economy.

    The only landlords we want, are those in it for the long-game - not just looking to fucking flip property.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    KyussB wrote: »
    Ffs that's not what landlord investment is about! That's property speculation, buying low so you can sell high - that's an idiotic way to invest - and that's precisely what we don't want people doing in society, as it's completely destructive and completely the wrong incentive, for property.

    When you reward people for that, you incentivize the creation of a system that maximally worsens the downturns and upturns of each cycle, in the property market - for maximum profit, at the right stages of each cycle.

    Morons engaging in property speculation - debt fuelled property speculation, no less! - need to be driven from the market, and heavily disincentivized, before they build up enough Private Debt to cause fallout in other areas of the economy.

    The only landlords we want, are those in it for the long-game - not just looking to fucking flip property.

    You seem to have misread his entire post.


  • Options
    #523
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,151 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    yuridwyer wrote: »
    House still miles in negative equity. !

    Yuridwyer,

    How can a house bought in 2009 or before that still be in negative equity?

    You're not confusing negative equity with capital losses?

    Maybe in rural Ireland this might be possible?


  • Options
    #524
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Geuze wrote: »
    House still miles in negative equity. ![/quote]

    Yuridwyer,

    How can a house bought in 2009 or before that still be in negative equity?

    You're not confusing negative equity with capital losses?

    Maybe in rural Ireland this might be possible?[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely. Properties bought from 2004 to 2008 are still worth less than the price paid in many cases. A huge number of home loans were made and remortgages occurred in 2007 when the downturn had started.


  • Options
    #525
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

    I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

    I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

    I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.


  • Options
    #526
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

    I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

    I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

    I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.

    I bought a house in 2009. €195k. Had to spend about €70k to get it in good nick. So that's a total of €265k. I would struggle to get €200k for it today if I put it up for sale (town in rural Ireland). That's a fair bit of negative equity right there. Doesn't matter a jot to me though as I'm not planning on selling.


  • Options
    #527
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

    I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

    I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

    I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.

    &0 to 80% is an average. Some are still below 50%. After 10 years on a 30 year mortgage, very little capital would have been paid down.


  • Options
    #528
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I bought a house in 2009. €195k. Had to spend about €70k to get it in good nick. So that's a total of €265k. I would struggle to get €200k for it today if I put it up for sale (town in rural Ireland). That's a fair bit of negative equity right there. Doesn't matter a jot to me though as I'm not planning on selling.

    There is no negative equity shown there. You don't say how much the mortgage was in 2009 or how much it is now.


  • Options
    #529
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    There is no negative equity shown there. You don't say how much the mortgage was in 2009 or how much it is now.

    I'd rather not tell all of my business online if you don't mind.


  • Options
    #530
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'd rather not tell all of my business online if you don't mind.

    Well then you can't claim to be in negative equity.
    You have a house of a particular value and a loan secured on it of a particular amount. Loan higher than house value = negavive equity.
    You have said "negative equity right there" but all you have shown is that the house is worth less than you have spent buying it and working on it.


  • Options
    #531
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

    I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

    I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

    I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.

    You would be surprised. There were some truly insane prices paid for property during the boom that were no where near what the property was really worth. Lots of houses especially have recovered as the prices while high were not totally insane but there were lots of apartments which went for money far far in excess of what they will ever be worth.

    I know of one complex in Cork city where apartments went for around the 300k mark or slightly above. They dropped to as low as 100k in the depth of the recession and the last one that sold went for around the 170-180k mark a little while back. They will never sell for anywhere near there original price again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    &0 to 80% is an average. Some are still below 50%. After 10 years on a 30 year mortgage, very little capital would have been paid down.

    Would there really still be some as low 50% of peak?

    I'm basing it of https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rppi/residentialpropertypriceindexaugust2018/ which yeah to be fair is averages and doesn't have much location detail but rest of Ireland is at 75%. I wouldn't have thought there would be any still at 50%.

    Out of curiosity do you have any source with more data, or is just kind of individual houses you know of.


  • Options
    #533
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    My point is relating to the attidues of yourself and one or two people on this thread. The idea that no matter how bad the investment, be it buy to let or mortgage to let the tenant or market should protect the landlord from their bad inestment.

    I hope you aren't including me in these people who you think are asking protection from bad investments?

    I have never suggested that bad investments should be protected. I do have an issue with the fact the government made them bad investments by increasing taxes and charges after people invested. The lack of protection from non payment that makes it a bad investments.

    Then capping rents to lock in losses was another insult and reckless act.


  • Options
    #534
    cordy1969
    Closed Accounts Posts: 129 ✭✭cordy1969


    KyussB wrote: »
    Ffs that's not what landlord investment is about! That's property speculation, buying low so you can sell high - that's an idiotic way to invest - and that's precisely what we don't want people doing in society, as it's completely destructive and completely the wrong incentive, for property.

    When you reward people for that, you incentivize the creation of a system that maximally worsens the downturns and upturns of each cycle, in the property market - for maximum profit, at the right stages of each cycle.

    Morons engaging in property speculation - debt fuelled property speculation, no less! - need to be driven from the market, and heavily disincentivized, before they build up enough Private Debt to cause fallout in other areas of the economy.

    The only landlords we want, are those in it for the long-game - not just looking to fucking flip property.

    I know what property speculation is and also what a flip is. Neither of what I was talking about.
    I was talking about the losses LL incur from tenants not paying and damage they do to properties and the fact LL's have absolutely no protection from them which means for me as a LL LOSS.


  • Options
    #535
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,151 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    House still miles in negative equity. !


    I bought in 2005 and still face a capital loss, yes.

    But I am long out of negative equity.

    It seems like just interest-only mortgages would still be in negative equity.


  • Options
    #536
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,151 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I bought a house in 2009. €195k. Had to spend about €70k to get it in good nick. So that's a total of €265k. I would struggle to get €200k for it today if I put it up for sale (town in rural Ireland). That's a fair bit of negative equity right there. Doesn't matter a jot to me though as I'm not planning on selling.

    Please note that's a capital loss.

    Don't confuse capital losses with negative equity.

    It's shocking, but I met an AIB mortgage official who made this mistake.


  • Options
    #537
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cordy1969 wrote: »
    Are you seriously that deluded, you can buy a house anytime you like. Do what others have had to do for generations. And I will try and say it slowly for you......BUY IN AN AREA YOU CAN AFFORD NOT AN AREA YOU ASPIRE TO LIVE IN...Why are the tax payers expected to provide housing for you and others who can't be arsed to better themselves in life?

    And as I mentioned before and we are still waiting...... What was your loss making experience for 8 years eddy?



    who are you shouting at? im a private renter.


  • Options
    #538
    yuridwyer
    Registered Users Posts: 82 ✭✭yuridwyer


    Geuze wrote: »
    Yuridwyer,

    How can a house bought in 2009 or before that still be in negative equity?

    You're not confusing negative equity with capital losses?

    Maybe in rural Ireland this might be possible?


    Old 2 bed townhouse in Waterford City bought for 175k in 2005-ish, had agreement to sell for 187,500 which fell through because the other couple's mortgage fell through, then couldn't sell, house now worth 90k and 105 left on mortgage. House prices in Waterford are still quite low, look at Daft, Kilkenny up the road is far more expensive


  • Options
    #539
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,151 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Fair enough.

    Still 50% down on 2005 prices, unusual.

    I paid 278k in 2005, now worth maybe 220-240k.


  • Options
    #540
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Just curious. LLs say they have to charge high rents due to high tax. I presume then if taxes were lowered LLs would decrease rent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    I hope you aren't including me in these people who you think are asking protection from bad investments?

    I have never suggested that bad investments should be protected. I do have an issue with the fact the government made them bad investments by increasing taxes and charges after people invested. The lack of protection from non payment that makes it a bad investments.

    Then capping rents to lock in losses was another insult and reckless act.

    Say two people buy the same value house, one with cash and one with a high interest mortgage then one investment will be more profitable than the other, tax or not.

    Why shouldn't someone who made a worse investment operate at a loss?


Advertisement