cuckoo property

maestroamado

I just wonder what is the view here as i have read lately that these companies have bought 3000 properties that were originally developed for people to call home?

Amirani

maestroamado wrote: »

I just wonder what is the view here as i have read lately that these companies have bought 3000 properties that were originally developed for people to call home?

Do people who rent properties not call them home?

We have a chronic under-supply of rental properties, which has manifested itself it rents that are now far higher relative to incomes than property purchase prices. We need extra rental supply to address this and these funds are increasing the supply of rentals.

The way this discussion gets framed is just amazing. The Indo ran an extremely negative front page article last week on this. The substance was that 2300 apartments were to be built (not bought, built) for rent. This is quite obviously a good thing imo, it would represent a massive proportional increase in the number of available units for rent. The way it gets framed though - "buyers locked out".

There is just no way to win with some people.

jester77

This is normal in most civilised countries and wouldn't even warrant a mention in a passing conversation. It is an attractive investment for large pension and insurance firms.

JimiMac

Amirani wrote: »

Do people who rent properties not call them home?

We have a chronic under-supply of rental properties, which has manifested itself it rents that are now far higher relative to incomes than property purchase prices. We need extra rental supply to address this and these funds are increasing the supply of rentals.

The cuckoo funds are not doing anything for supply. Are they building EXTRA units to rent out? Are they concerned about the drastic under-supply?
They only see the housing crisis as an opportunity to make vast profits.Cuckoo funds buying up properties does not do one iota for supply. It merely changes the ownership of such properties. Even if these properties are being bought to rent out as opposed being bought to own by struggling citizens with no tax breaks, do you think that this is somehow going to increase supply, ease demand and somehow bring down rents??? Not a chance!! They are buying them knowing that they will make fat profit margins and renters will be left with fewer and fewer alternatives. I'm not normally political but this housing situation is driving me nuts. I cannot believe anybody even remotely defending these cuckoo funds??? At the next election I will be voting for ANYBODY but Fine Gael!!

Graham

You're assuming the same number of apartments would be built over the same timeline without the security of pre-selling (and financing) entire blocks/developments.

Cyrus

Graham wrote: »

You're assuming the same number of apartments would be built over the same timeline without the security of pre-selling (and financing) entire blocks/developments.

exactly

imagine how the funding conversation with a bank goes when you have presold the whole development versus taking your chances with the market.

alwald

Cyrus wrote:

imagine how the funding conversation with a bank goes when you have presold the whole development versus taking your chances with the market.

Cyrus wrote:

imagine how the funding conversation with a bank goes when you have presold the whole development versus taking your chances with the market.

Taking your chance in a market that is undersupplied and that requires a lot of appartments to meet the current demand.

The issue here isn't about those funds buying full blocks, the real issue is that the timing is very bad as people are looking to buy a property that they can afford - in this case appartments.

The government should intervene to stop this practice for few years, they can at least make sure that 50% goes to these funds while the other 50% can be sold to individuals/families.

Graham

alwald wrote: »

Taking your chance in a market that is undersupplied and that requires a lot of appartments to meet the current demand.

You could argue the demand for apartments is predominantly generated by the property funds.

alwald wrote: »

The issue here isn't about those funds buying full blocks, the real issue is that the timing is very bad as people are looking to buy a property that they can afford - in this case appartments.

The government should intervene to stop this practice for few years, they can at least make sure that 50% goes to these funds while the other 50% can be sold to individuals/families.

There probably is a case to be made for this kind of mixed owned/rented approach.

I'm not sure if there are figures anywhere that measure the demand for privately owned apartments. Anectotally (even from this forum) demand always appears to lean towards the 3 bed semi 'forever home'.

Rew

Selling 2300 units to 2300 people takes a lot of time, effort and money v's selling them to 1 means the builder gets in and out very quickly and moves on the build more sooner. Supply is supply regardless of who buys them.

PhoenixParker

Selling 50% to individual families is a terrible idea.
The corporate investor would retain full control of the management company leaving all the other owners extremely vulnerable to a range of underhanded tactics.

A single owner responsible for the whole development is a decent way to go. There's a lot of new housing stock at planning and actually being built but we desperately need new rental units.

maestroamado

Personally i think this should be addressed at the planning stage as it is in other countries.
If a corporation want to build 50,000 apartments let them do the development and sell or rent.
There was something like 290 houses around Lepardstown sold to one of these funds.
I wonder what was in the original planning application...

jim o doom

Rew wrote: »

Selling 2300 units to 2300 people takes a lot of time, effort and money v's selling them to 1 means the builder gets in and out very quickly and moves on the build more sooner. Supply is supply regardless of who buys them.

And bowing to the whims of developers and builders during the boom period, which ended up in developments with major issues like Priory hall are a MAJOR part of what contributed to the "crunch" in Ireland.

Just because supply is supply, doesn't mean the government can't or shouldn't legislate. If there's profit to be made, the builders and corporate purchasers will adhere to that legislation in order to make the profit that is available.

Massive vulture and other sorts of funds are getting heavily into the rental market in the US, The last week tonight with John Oliver did an episode on it recently, and greedy funds controlling rent is NOT a recipe for success or reasonable priced rents.

I'm not offering a solution here, I'm just pointing out that it's not all rosy and perfectly fine.

Cyrus

alwald wrote: »

Taking your chance in a market that is undersupplied and that requires a lot of appartments to meet the current demand.

The issue here isn't about those funds buying full blocks, the real issue is that the timing is very bad as people are looking to buy a property that they can afford - in this case appartments.

The government should intervene to stop this practice for few years, they can at least make sure that 50% goes to these funds while the other 50% can be sold to individuals/families.

government intervention in the property market, what could go wrong....

the only sensible intervention we have had has been from the central bank.

alwald

Graham wrote:

You could argue the demand for apartments is predominantly generated by the property funds.

Because most of the well located appartments are bought by these property funds and didn't hit the sale market.

This might be irrelevant as it's a bit old but in 2015 and 2016 buyers were queuing for days to buy appartments in Baldoyle which is only 15 min by Dart to the city center.

Location is key, there are B rated new appartments (1 to 3 beds I think) in Clonee that went for sale about a month ago and are still not sold out due to the distance to the city center and the poor public transport from and to Clonee.

Graham wrote:

There probably is a case to be made for this kind of mixed owned/rented approach.

I'm not sure if there are figures anywhere that measure the demand for privately owned apartments. Anectotally (even from this forum) demand always appears to lean towards the 3 bed semi 'forever home'.

Traditionally yes, however with the new building regulations, proper insulation and noise proof walls I can see more buyers being interested in appartments than houses - especially due to the affordability factor.

People are desperate to stop paying over 1k to rent a room in a shared 2 bed flat and would rather buy to invest their hard earned cash.

What I also see in the forum is the split regarding this topic between those interested in buying appartments and others who are hoping for an increase in the rental supply with the hope to rent a better and/or cheaper place.

JimiMac

Graham wrote: »

You're assuming the same number of apartments would be built over the same timeline without the security of pre-selling (and financing) entire blocks/developments.

You're assuming that I am assuming.
Cuckoo funds are buying up properties to take advantage of an extremely dysfunctional property market. They are doing this to maximise profit at the expense of tenants with no other choice but to pay extortionate rents. They are not buying with the intention of increasing rental supply to bring down rents!

4ensic15

JimiMac wrote: »

You're assuming that I am assuming.
Cuckoo funds are buying up properties to take advantage of an extremely dysfunctional property market. They are doing this to maximise profit at the expense of tenants with no other choice but to pay extortionate rents. They are not buying with the intention of increasing rental supply to bring down rents!

Their intention is irrelevant. Offering units for rent increases the supply of rental accommodation in itself.

James Bond Junior

4ensic15 wrote: »

Their intention is irrelevant. Offering units for rent increases the supply of rental accommodation in itself.

Which in turn will depress prices down. Increased supply means more competition means price competition.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

government intervention in the property market, what could go wrong....

the only sensible intervention we have had has been from the central bank.

The central bank sat on their hands for a couple of decades and slept though a financial crisis of epic proportions before finally doing something. They are right up there with successive government's in how badly things have been handled.

Samuel T. Cogley

Lets not pretend this will do anything for rents. These properties will be marketed as 'luxury' accommodation with premium rents. People are getting exactly what they want, an end to the small time Landlord and it being done 'properly' by large investors.

Be careful what you wish for.

beauf

....

People wanted supply and they want large "professional" companies in the market. That's exactly what's happening. That they will focus on the high most profitable section was inevitable.

What we need was the govt to deliver balanced supply for different types of housing that are needed. But they are awol as usual.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Lets not pretend this will do anything for rents. These properties will be marketed as 'luxury' accommodation with premium rents. People are getting exactly what they want, an end to the small time Landlord and it being done 'properly' by large investors.

Be careful what you wish for.

The people who will live in them must be migrating from other rental accommodation. The important thing is to get as much accommodation on stream as quickly as possible. If the market will only build to rent and student units, then that is what must go up.

JimiMac

4ensic15 wrote: »

Their intention is irrelevant. Offering units for rent increases the supply of rental accommodation in itself.

Their intention is irrelevant if you don't care what you're paying for rent. The whole point of increasing supply is to bring down rents. If you apply a standard model increased supply should eventually ease demand and bring down rent. But this is not a standard situation. Fewer and fewer landlords controlling the majority of rental properties. The reason they are here in the first place is because of the ridiculously high rents being paid. Do you think they are buying them up to bring down rents ?? So if you care about rent levels then their intention IS relevant.

JimiMac

James Bond Junior wrote: »

Which in turn will depress prices down. Increased supply means more competition means price competition.

Fewer landlords controlling more units leads to LESS competition !

4ensic15

JimiMac wrote: »

Their intention is irrelevant if you don't care what you're paying for rent. The whole point of increasing supply is to bring down rents. If you apply a standard model increased supply should eventually ease demand and bring down rent. But this is not a standard situation. Fewer and fewer landlords controlling the majority of rental properties. The reason they are here in the first place is because of the ridiculously high rents being paid. Do you think they are buying them up to bring down rents ?? So if you care about rent levels then their intention IS relevant.

The cuckoos are not driving out other landlords. there are other factors involved in that exercise. If it wasn't for the cuckoos there would be fewer housing units built. Nobody is forced to live in a cuckoo owned unit.

PhoenixParker

JimiMac wrote: »

Fewer landlords controlling more units leads to LESS competition !

More units leads to more competition.

Fewer landlords may lead to less competition if they act as a cartel or it may lead to more competition if their economies of scale allow them to truly start to compete on price.

How the balance between more units and fewer landlords plays out in terms of actual levels of competition remains to be seen.

alwald

4ensic15 wrote: »

If it wasn't for the cuckoos there would be fewer housing units built.

I believe you are making an assumption here unless you have any proof that this is the case.

L1011

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Lets not pretend this will do anything for rents. These properties will be marketed as 'luxury' accommodation with premium rents. People are getting exactly what they want, an end to the small time Landlord and it being done 'properly' by large investors.

Be careful what you wish for.

The current takeup level in Capital Dock shows that there is bog all market for super-premium rentals.

alwald

PhoenixParker wrote: »

More units leads to more competition

That's not true because it's the demand VS supply that will create that competition. The real question is what's the required rental supply to satisfy the demand and thus create that competition.

4ensic15

alwald wrote: »

I believe you are making an assumption here unless you have any proof that this is the case.

The builders are selling to cuckoos because of the funding issues in spec building. That much is obvious and has been commented on by a government minister recently. What is wrong in this country is begrudgery. If begrudgery was outlawed and there wasn't an attitude that it is wrong to make a profit the housing problem could be solved easily.

Colonel Claptrap

Taking bets on the next boogeyman term coined by the indo. Vulture and cuckoo just don't cut it anymore.

Scarecrow funds anybody?

How about dodo funds? Making the irish property owner extinct. That could be an angle.

Ostrich funds? Bury their head in the sand until the media storm blows over?

Golden goose funds?

My money is on woodpecker funds - those new timber framed houses are surely lucrative.

Fowl play i say.
Somebody at Indo HQ is clearly bored.

alwald

4ensic15 wrote: »

The builders are selling to cuckoos because of the funding issues in spec building. That much is obvious and has been commented on by a government minister recently. What is wrong in this country is begrudgery. If begrudgery was outlawed and there wasn't an attitude that it is wrong to make a profit the housing problem could be solved easily.

The link to the article about the government minister would be highly appreciated as I must have missed that point.

That point aside, there is still no evidence that without the cuckoos there would have been less units built. My point is that those 3K units or so bought by the cuckoos could have been bought by regular buyers. In addition the cuckoos only came into the equation once those units were almost completed so they didn't have any involvement prior to that point so those units were going to be built regardless.

maestroamado

4ensic15 wrote: »

The builders are selling to cuckoos because of the funding issues in spec building. That much is obvious and has been commented on by a government minister recently. What is wrong in this country is begrudgery. If begrudgery was outlawed and there wasn't an attitude that it is wrong to make a profit the housing problem could be solved easily.

Can you please clarify who the minister is and what he said?
Saying somebody said is rubbish....

James Bond Junior

JimiMac wrote: »

Fewer landlords controlling more units leads to LESS competition !

Which would you prefer? Less landlords because of high tax and tenant biased laws or larger companies operating on a defined margin and running things professionally.

TSQ

JimiMac wrote: »

You're assuming that I am assuming.
Cuckoo funds are buying up properties to take advantage of an extremely dysfunctional property market. They are doing this to maximise profit at the expense of tenants with no other choice but to pay extortionate rents. They are not buying with the intention of increasing rental supply to bring down rents!

Jesus wept! Give a dog a bad name - a catchy headline will do just as well. In a subsequent, properly researched, piece, the Indo revealed that the real so-called cuckoos are local government https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-one-in-five-newbuild-homes-is-now-being-snapped-up-by-state-38082140.html. Personally, if I made huge personal sacrifices in my lifestyle and life choices (not starting a family for example) in order to save up over several years and put a deposit down for a nice home, and then found out the second half of the estate was sold to house the unemployed and single mothers, I’d be furious. This actually happened to friends of mine in Carlow. They would much prefer the properties had been bought by a vulture fund to rent to young working people.

As for making a profit.. in what universe does any one or any business invest to make a loss. As someone already pointed out, if builders have a guaranteed upfront purchaser, they are able to complete 100% of units in quick order, rather than building in stages because they need to sell the first lot of units in order to finance subsequent stages. This is how indigenous builders used to develop sites in the past. This kind of stop-go building will not solve the housing crisis. Some developments have been planned, financed, developed and completed incredibly quickly by the likes of Hibernian REIT purely for the rental market. Whatever about rents, for those wanting to buy, the fact that purpose built multi occupancy rental units are being built will take the pressure off the use of traditional housing for rent. Properties in D1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are already being returned to use as single family homes and this trend can only continue as more high quality rentals come on stream.

hmmm

It's interesting to see how easily certain people can be manipulated into taking up an agenda promoted by a newspaper.

4ensic15

alwald wrote: »

The link to the article about the government minister would be highly appreciated as I must have missed that point.

That point aside, there is still no evidence that without the cuckoos there would have been less units built. My point is that those 3K units or so bought by the cuckoos could have been bought by regular buyers. In addition the cuckoos only came into the equation once those units were almost completed so they didn't have any involvement prior to that point so those units were going to be built regardless.

In order for people to buy them, they have to be built. How many "regular" buyers can pay in advance?

Xterminator

Its all a smoke screen to disguise the ideological aversion to council built housing.

If councils built houses & apartments for rent and that rent went into the fund for housing maintenance and building future houses then the landlords would stop pocketing government funds set aside to supplement rent rates are current record high prices because less social housing tenants would be funneled into the private rent section.

More units available at the lower end of the price would do more to tackle rental price inflation than measure such as rent controls/ fast track planning permission and other measures put together.

Figures show councils can build housing cheaper than the rate at which they purchase turn-key properties form builders. They choose not to build. Its not simply about the budget available, it is a conscious choice in how those funds are spend, and by inference who benefits from the way public funds are allocated.

maestroamado

Xterminator wrote: »

Its all a smoke screen to disguise the ideological aversion to council built housing.

If councils built houses & apartments for rent and that rent went into the fund for housing maintenance and building future houses then the landlords would stop pocketing government funds set aside to supplement rent rates are current record high prices because less social housing tenants would be funneled into the private rent section.

More units available at the lower end of the price would do more to tackle rental price inflation than measure such as rent controls/ fast track planning permission and other measures put together.

Figures show councils can build housing cheaper than the rate at which they purchase turn-key properties form builders. They choose not to build. Its not simply about the budget available, it is a conscious choice in how those funds are spend, and by inference who benefits from the way public funds are allocated.

This is exactly my position. My view is that us voters should tell our government that we to build more units, i think if it was done properly the Councils could turn a modest profit to spend on whatever.
This country was brought down by banks, bad government, the developers and the free market just 10 years ago.
Now just 10 years later we are doing the exact same thing and someone said in an earlier post here that a government minister said it the right thing to do. I think the Galway tent" should return this year?
What are we like? we are eejits and we vote for eejits.


On a different note i was chatting a friend the other day who lives in Spain.
The Spanish had a general election last week, they elected 350 persons to represent almost 50 million.
We have 166 to represent the amount who would live in a modest city.

Cyrus

Xterminator wrote: »

Figures show councils can build housing cheaper than the rate at which they purchase turn-key properties form builders.

do you have a source for this, id find it hard to believe.

overkill602

Cyrus wrote: »

do you have a source for this, id find it hard to believe.

"obviously no" but free houses to everybody from the tax the rich lobby group always lurks around here
oh still blaming de banks and developers get a life council supplied/managed is a bankrupted idea they sold off properties cheaply never replaced and rents at a fraction when paid 100s million owed and many under occupied. :mad:

Cuddlesworth

TSQ wrote: »

As someone already pointed out, if builders have a guaranteed upfront purchaser, they are able to complete 100% of units in quick order, rather than building in stages because they need to sell the first lot of units in order to finance subsequent stages. This is how indigenous builders used to develop sites in the past. This kind of stop-go building will not solve the housing crisis.

They will still go through some form of staged building, especially the bigger it is. It just minimises the financial risk to the builder and developer, since regardless of end price they will get paid by a entity that is not going bankrupt.

Xterminator

Cyrus wrote: »

do you have a source for this, id find it hard to believe.

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=885&field=file

The SCSI research, published in May, was based on a study of live house building projects of at least 30 units in the Greater Dublin Area, and found that:

The construction cost of a three-bedroom semi-detached house is €150,251
But when VAT, developer’s profit, land costs and other fees are added, the cost of the house is €330,493
Construction only constitutes 45% of the total price of a house

Jaster Rogue

Xterminator wrote: »

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=885&field=file

The SCSI research, published in May, was based on a study of live house building projects of at least 30 units in the Greater Dublin Area, and found that:

The construction cost of a three-bedroom semi-detached house is €150,251
But when VAT, developer’s profit, land costs and other fees are added, the cost of the house is €330,493
Construction only constitutes 45% of the total price of a house

I haven't read the research yet but wouldn't land prices vary wildly depending on location? Where exactly is the land in that €330,493 estimate? Edit - sorry just read Greater Dublin area in your post. Even still there is a lot of variation depending on where in Dublin. A site in Darndale will be exponentially cheaper than a site in Donnybrook.

Cyrus

Xterminator wrote: »

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=885&field=file

The SCSI research, published in May, was based on a study of live house building projects of at least 30 units in the Greater Dublin Area, and found that:

The construction cost of a three-bedroom semi-detached house is €150,251
But when VAT, developer’s profit, land costs and other fees are added, the cost of the house is €330,493
Construction only constitutes 45% of the total price of a house

are you inferring that the council doesnt have to pay for land (or forego the opportunity cost of selling it), isnt levied with vat and other fees?

Cyrus

have a read of this

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-city-council-says-average-housing-unit-costs-330-000-1.3523127

TSQ

Xterminator wrote: »

Its all a smoke screen to disguise the ideological aversion to council built housing.

If councils built houses & apartments for rent and that rent went into the fund for housing maintenance and building future houses then the landlords would stop pocketing government funds set aside to supplement rent rates are current record high prices because less social housing tenants would be funneled into the private rent section.

More units available at the lower end of the price would do more to tackle rental price inflation than measure such as rent controls/ fast track planning permission and other measures put together.

Figures show councils can build housing cheaper than the rate at which they purchase turn-key properties form builders. They choose not to build. Its not simply about the budget available, it is a conscious choice in how those funds are spend, and by inference who benefits from the way public funds are allocated.

Yes, but you forget the ridiculously low rents council tenants pay - I think it is 15% of household income, so a pensioner living alone in a 3 Bed house could be paying under €50 a week in Dublin 6, plus there is an upper cap, not sure but think under €500 pm ( rant alert!! so you can have a People Before Profit TD on €87,000 holding on to his €450 a month council house and expecting us mugs to believe it is some kind of class solidarity thing) Out of this pittance the council has to pay maintenance, insurance, management including of antisocial tenants, interest on the loan to finance the build, etc. Rents don’t pay a fraction of the true cost of the day to day running, never mind providing a fund to pay for future builds. So that’s why councils would prefer to farm out the responsibility to the private sector, where rent allowance and HAP is capped at a fixed amount and the council has no additional outgoings. Simples.

maestroamado

overkill602 wrote: »

"obviously no" but free houses to everybody from the tax the rich lobby group always lurks around here
oh still blaming de banks and developers get a life council supplied/managed is a bankrupted idea they sold off properties cheaply never replaced and rents at a fraction when paid 100s million owed and many under occupied. :mad:

The problem in the article i read a few weeks ago is these Cuckoo funds buying properties are paying no tax at all according to a few articles i read which prompted this thread.


www.thejournal.ie/cuckoo-funds-review-fianna-fail-4583259-Apr2019
There are loads of articles on this topic.



I have being involved in renting properties and paid tax on income after expenses, my own opinion is if these funds are having an unfair advantage over people working people paying taxes and trying to raise families it is morally wrong.
The first duty of our Government is to try to make life as good as possible for our citizens and i am surprised this topic has not got more attention from the socialist politicians.

Who cares about these Corporations who are owned by shareholders. Unfortunately i do not this is what is being promoted by the current leaders of this country.

TSQ

maestroamado wrote: »

The problem in the article i read a few weeks ago is these Cuckoo funds buying properties are paying no tax at all according to a few articles i read which prompted this thread.


www.thejournal.ie/cuckoo-funds-review-fianna-fail-4583259-Apr2019
There are loads of articles on this topic.



I have being involved in renting properties and paid tax on income after expenses, my own opinion is if these funds are having an unfair advantage over people working people paying taxes and trying to raise families it is morally wrong.
The first duty of our Government is to try to make life as good as possible for our citizens and i am surprised this topic has not got more attention from the socialist politicians.

Who cares about these Corporations who are owned by shareholders. Unfortunately i do not this is what is being promoted by the current leaders of this country.

Agree there should be a level playing field though also believe there is nothing wrong with international funds being involved in the private rental sector. Section 110 has been shut down in fact. Stephen Donnelly has made vague claims that the property investments have been switched to other tax avoidance schemes but hasn’t offered any examples, and I wouldn’t count him among the most financially literate of commentators. As a landlord you will know that if you become tax resident abroad you still have to pay tax in Ireland on any IRISH rental income. Also, as a private landlord you can’t write off the acquisition or additional build costs against rental income (apart from some mortgage interest). Obvious and fairest solution would be to apply the same rules on rental income to corporations as to to private landlords.

Marcusm

alwald wrote: »

Taking your chance in a market that is undersupplied and that requires a lot of appartments to meet the current demand.

The issue here isn't about those funds buying full blocks, the real issue is that the timing is very bad as people are looking to buy a property that they can afford - in this case appartments.

The government should intervene to stop this practice for few years, they can at least make sure that 50% goes to these funds while the other 50% can be sold to individuals/families.

That would result in a significant reduction in overall supply of housing.

Marcusm

JimiMac wrote: »

You're assuming that I am assuming.
Cuckoo funds are buying up properties to take advantage of an extremely dysfunctional property market. They are doing this to maximise profit at the expense of tenants with no other choice but to pay extortionate rents. They are not buying with the intention of increasing rental supply to bring down rents!

The fatuous part of this argument is inherent in the assumption that this is a new phenomenon. Actually, Irish Estates Management, a subsidiary of Irish Lufe when it was still state owned, developed a number of apartment developments around Dublin. The most significant was the Mespil Estate. These were developed over a 20 year period from 1952 and were ultimately resold in the commercial market, very controversially, in the 1990s. The fact is that large scale investment requires committed investors. If Urush insurance companies and pension funds had continued to develop and/or invest us Urush residential property we would have a much better position today. Why, you might ask? Because institutional investors generally have more power and focus to ensure issues like Priory Halk, Beacon South Quarter, Longboat Quay and other similar deficient blocks would have been properly completed.

The daft us that most Irush people fon’t Want to live in apartments long term. iPso facto, they are better left to institutional investors.