Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

Ray Palmer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What makes him look like a clown then?

See above

Smouse156

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No you are making yourself out to be a victim by exaggerating. Nobody is getting €3k rent paid because the is double the rate +
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/historic_rent_supplement_limits.html#
You also exagerate an misunderstanding tax payments. You don't actually pay 52% on income and while part of the calculation you are exaggerating.

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote I stated “on a lot of my income”...in other words 52% on all my income over €70,000!

Considering you as a landlord are profiting off these state inflated rents you clearly don’t see anything wrong with social tenants getting apartments the vast majority of working people can’t afford.

Ray Palmer

Smouse156 wrote: »

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote I stated “on a lot of my income”...in other words 52% on all my income over €70,000!

Considering you as a landlord are profiting off these state inflated rents you clearly don’t see anything wrong with social tenants getting apartments the vast majority of working people can’t afford.

Maybe should read what I wrote again because I acknowledged it was part of the calculation. So you are married and your partner doesn't work. Nice for some to be able to afford that.

I have no problem with people with disabilities unable to work getting accommodation provided by the state. As my rents are above the rates for RA my rents aren't inflated. What is inflated is your claims of how much the state pays but you haven't acknowledged that either.

It has been proven that RA limits don't inflated the prices and it is why they brought in the RPZs. You seem full of exagerations, can you explain why you need to do that when the situation is actually bad enough on its own merit? I pay 54% on rental income using your logic.

Smouse156

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Maybe should read what I wrote again because I acknowledged it was part of the calculation. So you are married and your partner doesn't work. Nice for some to be able to afford that.

I have no problem with people with disabilities unable to work getting accommodation provided by the state. As my rents are above the rates for RA my rents aren't inflated. What is inflated is your claims of how much the state pays but you haven't acknowledged that either.

It has been proven that RA limits don't inflated the prices and it is why they brought in the RPZs. You seem full of exagerations, can you explain why you need to do that when the situation is actually bad enough on its own merit? I pay 54% on rental income using your logic.

What logic???
I don’t know where you seem to be deriving this from, I only stated I pay 52% tax on a decent part of my income. I never stated whether I was married or not. I am and my partner does work.

State support as you put it have taken an entire block in Dundrum reducing supply for the regular market. Of course state paying rent inflates the cost. It’s delusional to think otherwise. The €1 billion in HAP payments does have some inflationary effect.

I have no problem with people on disability getting state assistance or any other truly needy cases. I do believe the state has duty of care to its people. My issue is the state giving/assisting premium apartments to people on social housing lists that the vast majority of working people couldn’t afford. I know a few tradesmen from home on the lists, claiming dole and doing side jobs while declaring nothing. It’s unfair to PAYE taxpayers! That’s my only point!

Manion

Top 1% punches down on bottom 1% in discussion on social welfare. let them eat their children, they have plenty, one user on twice the industrial wage asserted.

This thread has descended into rank fantasy.

Graham

Mod Note

ok folks, safe to say we're way off-topic now.

Friendly reminder, the topic is "Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming"

rocketspocket

Posted here a few months back saying that my REIT Landlord put up my rent by 4% in the middle of the pandemic so i served notice - quick update; moved out & took 3 1/2 weeks to get my deposit back (even though i was told getting full deposit returned on the day of leaving);

Anyway, back on topic - walked past my old apartment today & is still empty (moved out 5 weeks back); this is another 1 to their 400 empty apartments they are trying to shift yet still haven't reduced the prices looking at daft.. they have no intention of reducing the rents anytime soon & i would expect they have the cash reserves to see out the covid hoping for the return of the 2019 market...

Ozark707

rocketspocket wrote: »

Posted here a few months back saying that my REIT Landlord put up my rent by 4% in the middle of the pandemic so i served notice - quick update; moved out & took 3 1/2 weeks to get my deposit back (even though i was told getting full deposit returned on the day of leaving);

Anyway, back on topic - walked past my old apartment today & is still empty (moved out 5 weeks back); this is another 1 to their 400 empty apartments they are trying to shift yet still haven't reduced the prices looking at daft.. they have no intention of reducing the rents anytime soon & i would expect they have the cash reserves to see out the covid hoping for the return of the 2019 market...

Incredible move by them. They now have had a minimum of 10% vacancy with it being empty for 5 weeks but tried to squeeze you for 4%. They are obviously happy to do this. If capital values decrease then they might not be so content to have so many empties.

PommieBast

rocketspocket wrote: »

Anyway, back on topic - walked past my old apartment today & is still empty (moved out 5 weeks back); this is another 1 to their 400 empty apartments they are trying to shift yet still haven't reduced the prices looking at daft.. they have no intention of reducing the rents anytime soon & i would expect they have the cash reserves to see out the covid hoping for the return of the 2019 market...

I do wonder if there is a tax write-down somewhere along the line here..

brisan

PommieBast wrote: »

I do wonder if there is a tax write-down somewhere along the line here..

People with more knowledge about this than me saying it worked like this
If you get 3k a month rent that could work out at 5% yield
Get 2.7k a month that is 4% yield
The higher the yield the higher the value of the asset
So if only one unit rented out at 3k it means they all have a notional yield of 5% ,therefore higher asset value
I am open to correction though

Figures purely for illustration

Smouse156

brisan wrote: »

People with more knowledge about this than me saying it worked like this
If you get 3k a month rent that could work out at 5% yield
Get 2.7k a month that is 4% yield
The higher the yield the higher the value of the asset
So if only one unit rented out at 3k it means they all have a notional yield of 5% ,therefore higher asset value
I am open to correction though

Figures purely for illustration

Yeah they don’t want to crystallise their losses on their balance sheets. Easier to pretend. Eventually it fills up and they sell the whole building. I suppose if they are looking short-mid term then makes sense

Ozark707

Smouse156 wrote: »

Yeah they don’t want to crystallise their losses on their balance sheets. Easier to pretend. Eventually it fills up and they sell the whole building. I suppose if they are looking short-mid term then makes sense

But at the rates most of these places are quoting now they won't fill up. 2.5k+ for a 2 bed is not possible in todays market. If rents continue to go down then they will be in danger of losing existing tenants (unless they cut side deals with them).

Yyhhuuu

Dreadful that the RPZ appears to disincentivise/penalize good Landlords who want to keep the rents static/ low with good long term tenants or landlords who might want to decrease the rent. The RPZ incentivised to increase the rent pre-covid as the higher the rental yield the higher the capital value to investors.

PommieBast

Ozark707 wrote: »

But at the rates most of these places are quoting now they won't fill up. 2.5k+ for a 2 bed is not possible in todays market. If rents continue to go down then they will be in danger of losing existing tenants (unless they cut side deals with them).

Welcome to the wonderful world of accounting where actual cash-flow is not the critical factor

JimmyVik

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Dreadful that the RPZ appears to disincentivise/penalize good Landlords who want to keep the rents static/ low with good long term tenants or landlords who might want to decrease the rent. The RPZ incentivised to increase the rent pre-covid as the higher the rental yield the higher the capital value to investors.

RPZ has been screwing good landlords for years now.
They were hung out to dry.
Not surprised they are all getting out while they can.
Probably the vast majority buying investment properties now are REITS.
No sane person who has to pay tax would invest in rental property now.

Smouse156

Ozark707 wrote: »

But at the rates most of these places are quoting now they won't fill up. 2.5k+ for a 2 bed is not possible in todays market. If rents continue to go down then they will be in danger of losing existing tenants (unless they cut side deals with them).

I’m sure they’ve lost many tenants already! Yeah I don’t agree with the strategy personally and I think it will fail as they won’t see 2019 rents until at least 2022 and even at 2019 rents most of those buildings were empty

brisan

JimmyVik wrote: »

RPZ has been screwing good landlords for years now.
They were hung out to dry.
Not surprised they are all getting out while they can.
Probably the vast majority buying investment properties now are REITS.
No sane person who has to pay tax would invest in rental property now.

While I agree with that you have to look at the reasons RPZs were introduced in the first place
No one forecast a market in which rents would fall ,especially landlords

Marius34

Smouse156 wrote: »

I’m sure they’ve lost many tenants already! Yeah I don’t agree with the strategy personally and I think it will fail as they won’t see 2019 rents until at least 2022 and even at 2019 rents most of those buildings were empty

I don't think they have large numbers of rental properties without tenancy.
Demands likely to recover by August 2021.

JimmyVik

brisan wrote: »

While I agree with that you have to look at the reasons RPZs were introduced in the first place

No one forecast a market in which rents would fall ,especially landlords


I would argue that RPZs made rents higher than they would otherwise have gone. A lot higher.

brisan

JimmyVik wrote: »

I would argue that RPZs made rents higher than they would otherwise have gone. A lot higher.

Rents were rising at record rates before RPZs and would have continued to do so
Covid put a stop to that and RPZs negatively affected landlords abilities to reduce rents
However without Covid things would have stayed the same and rents would have continued to rise at the 4% rate

NuMarvel

JimmyVik wrote: »

RPZ Greedy landlords have been screwing good landlords for years now.

Fixed that for you.

RPZs are a response to excessive rent increases. If the rate of rental increase in a given area didn't reach certain thresholds (an average of 7% I think), then that area wouldn't be an RPZ.

If you have a problem with RPZs, take it up with the landlords who weren't happy with reasonable rent increases.

Smouse156

Marius34 wrote: »

I don't think they have large numbers of rental properties without tenancy.
Demands likely to recover by August 2021.

One Ballsbridge was 70% empty last year. Now that’s likely higher. Capital Dock was over 50% empty. Quayside quarter same. The expensive ones had massive vacancy rates. The cheaper ones were full alright, although they’ve definitely had tenants lost since if they didn’t offer incentives.

https://www.98fm.com/news/hundreds-of-high-rent-luxury-dublin-apartments-lying-empty-971988

Ozark707

Smouse156 wrote: »

One Ballsbridge was 70% empty last year. Now that’s likely higher. Capital Dock was over 50% empty. Quayside quarter same. The expensive ones had massive vacancy rates. The cheaper ones were full alright, although they’ve definitely had tenants lost since if they didn’t offer incentives.

https://www.98fm.com/news/hundreds-of-high-rent-luxury-dublin-apartments-lying-empty-971988

It is not just in the the CC or general GCD/D4 area that there are empties galore. In the likes of Dun Laoghaire there are huge developments that have had the same listings up since pre-Covid times...and some of these are developments where there are still cranes on site...so a shed load of them to hit the market in due course. Whatever trying to get 2.2k in GCD but trying to get that sort of rent out there is absolutely ludicrous.

When the likes of Quayside Quarter are complete you would have to wonder what the strategy will be. I am guessing a couple of hundred apts alone will be added down there. Maybe they will offer two months free at that stage...

Edit: as an aside. I have had the same daft filter in a certain price range in parts of D2/4/6 for the past few years. Pre Covid it sometimes had no entries but generally 3-7 in the six months pre-Covid. Yesterday it passed 50 for the first time after having been hovering in the 40-45 range for a few months.

brisan

Ozark707 wrote: »

It is not just in the the CC or general GCD/D4 area that there are empties galore. In the likes of Dun Laoghaire there are huge developments that have had the same listings up since pre-Covid times...and some of these are developments where there are still cranes on site...so a shed load of them to hit the market in due course. Whatever trying to get 2.2k in GCD but trying to get that sort of rent out there is absolutely ludicrous.

When the likes of Quayside Quarter are complete you would have to wonder what the strategy will be. I am guessing a couple of hundred apts alone will be added down there. Maybe they will offer two months free at that stage...

Edit: as an aside. I have had the same daft filter in a certain price range in parts of D2/4/6 for the past few years. Pre Covid it sometimes had no entries but generally 3-7 in the six months pre-Covid. Yesterday it passed 50 for the first time after having been hovering in the 40-45 range for a few months.

Eventually they will have to reduce rents
Their investors will want to see a return
300x 1700 real euros is better than
50X 3000 real euros and 250 x 3000 notional euros

Marius34

Smouse156 wrote: »

One Ballsbridge was 70% empty last year. Now that’s likely higher. Capital Dock was over 50% empty. Quayside quarter same. The expensive ones had massive vacancy rates. The cheaper ones were full alright, although they’ve definitely had tenants lost since if they didn’t offer incentives.

https://www.98fm.com/news/hundreds-of-high-rent-luxury-dublin-apartments-lying-empty-971988

Those are probably luxury new builts, it may take longer term decisions. We don't know much about it, maybe they are in process for sale, or looking to provide a long term lease for corporates.
It appears all point to the same article, there maybe no proper analysis, just one journalist tried todo its own math. I have seen lots of post trying to calculate something in their own way, giving a large misrepresentation of actual situation.
At the beginning of January this year, there were lots of articles that in 2019 number of sales has dropped. I wrote that they don't know what are they telling. Month later Register showed an actual increase of sales in 2019 vs 2018.

Ozark707

Marius34 wrote: »

Those are probably luxury new builts, it may take longer term decisions. We don't know much about it, maybe they are in process for sale, or looking to provide a long term lease for corporates.
It appears all point to the same article, there maybe no proper analysis, just one journalist tried todo its own math. I have seen lots of post trying to calculate something in their own way, giving a large misrepresentation of actual situation.
At the beginning of January this year, there were lots of articles that in 2019 number of sales has dropped. I wrote that they don't know what are they telling. Month later Register showed an actual increase of sales in 2019 vs 2018.

We know that after a year Capital Dock had 50% vacancy (albeit at very high cost). Eventually someone has to look at the cash flow as someone else pointed out here. What will happen when the marquee developments start to reduce prices? How far will this ripple out?

In fairness to journalists it is hard to get this information as these developments only have one ad on daft for multiple listings. Daft themselves would not be able to tell you the extent of the empties.

brisan

Ozark707 wrote: »

We know that after a year Capital Dock had 50% vacancy (albeit at very high cost). Eventually someone has to look at the cash flow as someone else pointed out here. What will happen when the marquee developments start to reduce prices? How far will this ripple out?

In fairness to journalists it is hard to get this information as these developments only have one ad on daft for multiple listings. Daft themselves would not be able to tell you the extent of the empties.

The REITS would not you know either
I know someone who years ago (I am talking 15yrs or more) looked at an apartment in an MKN property.
80-100 1-2-3 beds
They were shown one 2 bed
When they asked to see another vacant unit they were asked
How many do you need
Even then they would not tell you how many were vacant
Gannon was the same with the Casino in Malahide
Bad business to let otherS know how many empty units you have

PommieBast

brisan wrote: »

Eventually they will have to reduce rents
Their investors will want to see a return
300x 1700 real euros is better than
50X 3000 real euros and 250 x 3000 notional euros

Naah. Blame the shortfall on Covid and then flog the shares to someone like a pension fund who notionally looks for longer-term value.

PommieBast

JimmyVik wrote: »

I would argue that RPZs made rents higher than they would otherwise have gone. A lot higher.

Until the RPZ came along my rent had never been increased. Then again the landlord then went complete opposite and even whinged about rounding of the rent calculation that made a difference of about €2.

Marius34

Ozark707 wrote: »

We know that after a year Capital Dock had 50% vacancy (albeit at very high cost). Eventually someone has to look at the cash flow as someone else pointed out here. What will happen when the marquee developments start to reduce prices? How far will this ripple out?

In fairness to journalists it is hard to get this information as these developments only have one ad on daft for multiple listings. Daft themselves would not be able to tell you the extent of the empties.

Ok, you discussing luxury high end apartments, would not be sure about it, as their projects may be so unique. I lived once in Amsterdam in corporate let luxury apartments, and it looked very empty. I don't know the reason, but it seems luxury rentals seems more empty.
I don't think there are high vacancy on regular REIT rental properties, below 3K mark.