Vacant Properties in Ireland

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

Regardless of who own's them they are having very little bearing on "affordable" housing and I doubt they are stopping builders from building new houses.

If there was no intervention by government's etc then FTB's would get the credit to buy which would push prices of all property up and would result in builders building houses again. The problem with this is that you end up with a housing bubble again so instead you end up with people not being able to get credit who in turn rent which in turn keeps the house prices from dropping to affordable levels as Cash Buyers/Funds enter the market to cash in on the rent.

Or, the investment funds could offload their existing properties to people for c. €100k each instead of trying to bulk sell them to another investor as per the 10 properties in the MyHome.ie link below. This ties up both the affordability and supply problem. This is where I see the market going in the very near future.

10 properties for €800k in Co. Tipperary: https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/10-x-residential-houses-ballagh-co-tipperary/4456806

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

The affordable price is dictated by the central bank rules on multiple of salary. So if you took the average industrial wage and multiplied it by the Cap you would get close to the affordable price

Ok, well in that case we're looking at sub 200k I guess.

I have no idea what proportion of the properties currently on the market are priced less than 200k - not many I'd guess, so to illustrate will pick arbitrarily low number of 10%

If that were the case it would follow that 10% of those vacant properties would be valued at sub 200k at current market prices.

It would make sense that if the majority of those vacant properties were in use, (where possible), there would be a lot more sub 200k properties, both in real terms and as a % of market.

So these vacancies are affecting the affordable sector in very real terms - its affecting FTBs negatively far more than any other sector.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

Or, the investment funds could offload their existing properties to people for c. €100k each instead of trying to bulk sell them to another investor as per the 10 properties in the MyHome.ie link below. This ties up both the affordability and supply problem. This is where I see the market going in the very near future.

10 properties for €800k in Co. Tipperary: https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/10-x-residential-houses-ballagh-co-tipperary/4456806

That looks more like a bank selling rather than a fund and the reason they sell in bulk is because they want to wait around to sell 10 properties and less admin. The selling price is not the driver here.... It will be to shift the 10 properties off their NPL book as quickly as possible.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, well in that case we're looking at sub 200k I guess.

I have no idea what proportion of the properties currently on the market are priced less than 200k - not many I'd guess, so to illustrate will pick arbitrarily low number of 10%

If that were the case it would follow that 10% of those vacant properties would be valued at sub 200k at current market prices.

It would make sense that if the majority of those vacant properties were in use, (where possible), there would be a lot more sub 200k properties, both in real terms and as a % of market.

So these vacancies are affecting the affordable sector in very real terms - its affecting FTBs negatively far more than any other sector.

Yes I hear what you are saying and if the properties were "affordable" market forces would result in them no longer being vacant and hence why I don't think a lot of the vacant housing stock is affordable.

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

That looks more like a bank selling rather than a fund and the reason they sell in bulk is because they want to wait around to sell 10 properties and less admin. The selling price is not the driver here.... It will be to shift the 10 properties off their NPL book as quickly as possible.

Apparently all ten were bought for €152k or €15,200 each in 2015. Another poster previously provided the details to the development on the PPR.

PPR link: https://www.propertypriceregister.ie/website/npsra/PPR/npsra-ppr.nsf/PPR-By-Date&Start=1&Query=%5Bdt_execution_date%5D%3E=01/01/2015%20AND%20%5Bdt_execution_date%5D%3C01/01/2016%20AND%20%5Baddress%5D=*Ballagh*%20AND%20%5Bdc_county%5D=Tipperary&County=Tipperary&Year=2015&StartMonth=&EndMonth=&Address=Ballagh

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

Apparently all ten were bought for €152k or €15,200 each in 2015. Another poster previously provided the details to the development on the PPR.

PPR link: https://www.propertypriceregister.ie/website/npsra/PPR/npsra-ppr.nsf/PPR-By-Date&Start=1&Query=%5Bdt_execution_date%5D%3E=01/01/2015%20AND%20%5Bdt_execution_date%5D%3C01/01/2016%20AND%20%5Baddress%5D=*Ballagh*%20AND%20%5Bdc_county%5D=Tipperary&County=Tipperary&Year=2015&StartMonth=&EndMonth=&Address=Ballagh

Ok probably a fund then making a nice profit

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

Ok probably a fund then making a nice profit

Exactly And, there's plenty more of where they came from.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

Exactly And, there's plenty more of where they came from.

I am surprised to see that they are selling as a job lot and not individually.... That is why I thought it was a bank.

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

I am surprised to see that they are selling as a job lot and not individually.... That is why I thought it was a bank.

As you said probably a fund. But, it does show that such properties were bought for what the Americans say, pennies on the dollar, and they bought €200 billion of property and business loans between 2012 and 2016.

What and where they are is anyones guess, but it does show that they can buy and refurbish and sell them at knockdown prices and at a significant return very quickly should they ever wish to leave the market and I believe it will be much sooner than many people believe.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Yes I hear what you are saying and if the properties were "affordable" market forces would result in them no longer being vacant and hence why I don't think a lot of the vacant housing stock is affordable.

Are you saying that you think because a chunk of these properties are on the market For Sale or Rent - that if they're empty its because they're too expensive?

I agree with that in the case of properties like Michael O'Leary's on Elgin Rd that Hubert linked. But I don't believe the bulk of these properties that are claimed to be for sale/rent are actually advertised on the market.

Either way, it just reaffirms my beleif that the whole thing warrants a lot further analysis. If it turns out that vast majority are people like O'Leary with trophy home in Ballsbridge, then yes for sure there's nothing to see here, if he wants to keep that empty leave him at it.

But there was 43,000 vacant apartments in the figures, and the one area that had a low vacancy rate was South Dublin - where the property values are highest.

Still smells wrong to me!

Hubertj

PropQueries wrote: »

Apparently all ten were bought for €152k or €15,200 each in 2015. Another poster previously provided the details to the development on the PPR.

PPR link: https://www.propertypriceregister.ie/website/npsra/PPR/npsra-ppr.nsf/PPR-By-Date&Start=1&Query=%5Bdt_execution_date%5D%3E=01/01/2015%20AND%20%5Bdt_execution_date%5D%3C01/01/2016%20AND%20%5Baddress%5D=*Ballagh*%20AND%20%5Bdc_county%5D=Tipperary&County=Tipperary&Year=2015&StartMonth=&EndMonth=&Address=Ballagh

I also pointed out that €80k was about average for houses in that area but you don’t need to mention that as it doesn’t suit your narrative.

thomas 123

Hubertj wrote: »

I also pointed out that €80k was about average for houses in that area but you don’t need to mention that as it doesn’t suit your narrative.

Where in Ireland can you get a new build for 80k please tell me? Links ideally.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying that you think because a chunk of these properties are on the market For Sale or Rent - that if they're empty its because they're too expensive?

I agree with that in the case of properties like Michael O'Leary's on Elgin Rd that Hubert linked. But I don't believe the bulk of these properties that are claimed to be for sale/rent are actually advertised on the market.

Either way, it just reaffirms my beleif that the whole thing warrants a lot further analysis. If it turns out that vast majority are people like O'Leary with trophy home in Ballsbridge, then yes for sure there's nothing to see here, if he wants to keep that empty leave him at it.

But there was 43,000 vacant apartments in the figures, and the one area that had a low vacancy rate was South Dublin - where the property values are highest.

Still smells wrong to me!

You have gone off on a tangent...lol what I am saying is that the demand for affordable houses in Dublin would mean that if there were properties that were vacant in that price range and in liveable condition they would be sold without needing to advertise

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

As you said probably a fund. But, it does show that such properties were bought for what the Americans say, pennies on the dollar, and they bought €200 billion of property and business loans between 2012 and 2016.

What and where they are is anyones guess, but it does show that they can buy and refurbish and sell them at knockdown prices and at a significant return very quickly should they ever wish to leave the market and I believe it will be much sooner than many people believe.

Yet again I question the amount of property that was sold. The majority was loans that were in arrears and that are still being paid off

Timing belt

Timing belt wrote: »

Yet again I question the amount of property that was sold. The majority was loans that were in arrears and that are still being paid off

Edit: even if the fund restructured the finance on the loans they made a killing it’s won’t all be repossessed assets

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

I also pointed out that €80k was about average for houses in that area but you don’t need to mention that as it doesn’t suit your narrative.

Average house price in that area (eircode E25) is 160k according to COA

https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/visualisationtools/housepricesbyeircode/

Timing belt

thomas 123 wrote: »

Where in Ireland can you get a new build for 80k please tell me? Links ideally.

Do a search on daft and you will see some properties for 80k in mayo Roscommon. Not a lot of them though

Hubertj

thomas 123 wrote: »

Where in Ireland can you get a new build for 80k please tell me? Links ideally.

As provided by another poster

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/10-x-residential-houses-ballagh-co-tipperary/4456806

Graham

Hubertj wrote: »

As provided by another poster

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/10-x-residential-houses-ballagh-co-tipperary/4456806

Slightly disingenuous claim

Hubertj

Timing belt wrote: »

Average house price in that area (eircode E25) is 160k according to COA

https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/visualisationtools/housepricesbyeircode/

If I recall I looked on property price register and confined the search to ballagh as opposed to cashel.

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

If I recall I looked on property price register and confined the search to ballagh as opposed to cashel.

Only 18 Properties sold since 2012 and 10 of them were these properties at 15k so average price is not that accurate a ballagh level due to lack of volume.

Hubertj

Timing belt wrote: »

Only 18 Properties sold since 2012 and 10 of them were these properties at 15k so average price is not that accurate a ballagh level due to lack of volume.

It appears to be a rural area with a population of 64 in the 2911 census. There were only a couple of other houses sold. I was only making the point that property prices in that area are low

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

It appears to be a rural area with a population of 64 in the 2911 census. There were only a couple of other houses sold. I was only making the point that property prices in that area are low

I didn't realise it was the small... :-)

hometruths

Are the properties classified as vacant because they are between tenancies actually genuinely available to rent?

Savills have (unsurprisingly!) done their own detailed research on Private Rental Sector - PRS

According to them in Q2 2016:

Total PRS stock in Dublin stood at just under 124k
Dublin vacancy rate just under 1.5% - "razor thin"

• Theory suggests that low vacancy rates drive up rents by creating competition between tenants
• More specifically, if the vacancy rate lies below the Natural Vacancy Rate (NVR) the market is undersupplied and rents will be rising
• The NVR can be mathematically calculated and currently stands at 5.55%. As the actual vacancy rate is below this figure residential rents have continued to rise.

I guess none of this will be of any surprise to anybody who tried to rent a property in Dublin in 2016.

What is slightly more surprising is comparing Savills findings with the Census/GeoDirectory findings:

8539 properties listed as vacant rentals (3757 + extrapolate: 0.3*15940)
(-1000) Less non PRS voids/vacants
= 7539 PRS vacancies

7539/124000 = 6% vacancy rate in private rental sector.

What am I missing here?

Why is Savills market data saying the vacancy rate is 1.5% and the census data is saying it is 4 times that at 6% - in oversupply territory.

Have I made a mistake with my maths?

If not then it suggests these properties are not actually available to rent. And if they are not available to rent, why are they vacant?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Are the properties classified as vacant because they are between tenancies actually genuinely available to rent?

Savills have (unsurprisingly!) done their own detailed research on Private Rental Sector - PRS

According to them in Q2 2016:

Total PRS stock in Dublin stood at just under 124k
Dublin vacancy rate just under 1.5% - "razor thin"



I guess none of this will be of any surprise to anybody who tried to rent a property in Dublin in 2016.

What is slightly more surprising is comparing Savills findings with the Census/GeoDirectory findings:

8539 properties listed as vacant rentals (3757 + extrapolate: 0.3*15940)
(-1000) Less non PRS voids/vacants
= 7539 PRS vacancies

7539/124000 = 6% vacancy rate in private rental sector.

What am I missing here?

Why is Savills market data saying the vacancy rate is 1.5% and the census data is saying it is 4 times that at 6% - in oversupply territory.

Have I made a mistake with my maths?

If not then it suggests these properties are not actually available to rent. And if they are not available to rent, why are they vacant?

Because savils are saying 1.5k rental properties vacant and you are using CSO figure. Does CSO include Airbnb and Savils not?

Timing belt

Timing belt wrote: »

Because savils are saying 1.5k rental properties vacant and you are using CSO figure. Does CSO include Airbnb and Savils not?

2.7k properties on daft for Dublin at the moment which will be higher than last year due to wfh

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Because savils are saying 1.5k rental properties vacant and you are using CSO figure. Does CSO include Airbnb and Savils not?

Yes I suspect some of those are Airbnbs. Savills does not include Airbnbs in their figures.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

2.7k properties on daft for Dublin at the moment which will be higher than last year due to wfh

From memory (daft report Q2 2016) only about 1300 available on daft, 1st week of May, record lows apparently.

CSO saying there were over 5 times that available a week earlier.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

From memory (daft report Q2 2016) only about 1300 available on daft, 1st week of May, record lows apparently.

CSO saying there were over 5 times that available a week earlier.

you've mentioned a few times about leading a horse to water. I think i get it now. You're unhappy with the number of vacant properties that also have stables, meaning you are unable ot lead the horse to water. No need to be so cryptic about it.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

you've mentioned a few times about leading a horse to water. I think i get it now. You're unhappy with the number of vacant properties that also have stables, meaning you are unable ot lead the horse to water. No need to be so cryptic about it.

I don't think there is anything cryptic about the Savills post.

Are you saying you still don't see a problem with the vacancies?

If not, why not - because you think the data is false?