2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

The arguments get more and more surreal

Get a mortgage, don't worry if you can't pay it, you'll still keep the house, someone else can pay

It takes 2 to make a child, let's stop focussing on 1 side of the equation

Affordability apparently is based on 2 income earners on average salary of apparently 49k, however household incomes of greater than 98k represent the top 10% of households

If that couple split up, what harm for property then they'll need 2

Our property bubble is built on solid foundations

Do you know many people who did or do buy a property on 1 income? I don’t. My father worked 2 jobs and my mum 1 job so they could buy. I don’t really get people banging on about this point.

Cyrus

A few people alluded to this but this stanford study shows people who wfh full time have much worse promotion prospects.

Bloom’s research suggests there is reason to be concerned. A study he did on a big Chinese travel company that tested working from home nearly a decade ago showed people at home were promoted at about half the rate of those in the office.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/think-that-working-from-home-is-here-to-stay-think-again-1.4484553?localLinksEnabled=false&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=RSS%3AITEM%3ATITLE&utm_campaign=lunchtime_latest_digest

Villa05

Hubertj wrote:

Do you know many people who did or do buy a property on 1 income? .

I do, but that's a function of my location.

Villa05

Hubertj wrote:

Do you know many people who did or do buy a property on 1 income? I don’t. My father worked 2 jobs and my mum 1 job so they could buy. I don’t really get people banging on about this point.

I think you may have misread my point, divorce/separation sucks more money out of the economy through rents.
Families can be seriously financially affected that the state needs to step in through subsidies or lost income

fliball123

Villa05 wrote: »

I think you may have misread my point, divorce/separation sucks more money out of the economy through rents.
Families can be seriously financially affected that the state needs to step in through subsidies or lost income

The main thing is that instead of needing one property you need two as its very rare to have a good breakup where people will live with the ex like roomies regardless of how the new family dynamic is paid for

Villa05

fliball123 wrote:

The main thing is that instead of needing one property you need 2 regardless of how the new family dynamic is paid for

That's my point check out the debt clock of the entity that will be underwriting it

Zenify wrote:

Just came across this:

Zenify wrote:

Watch the money tree go. If it doesn't scare you something is wrong.

hometruths

fliball123 wrote: »

Have you any evidence that we currently have a property bubble?

That's a tricky question as bubbles can really ony be definitively confirmed in hindsight - ie once it has burst.

However, unsurprisingly there is lots of academic studies on bubbles, for example:

The standard definition of an asset price bubble is a large and long-lasting deviation of the price of some assets – such as a stock, a bond or a house – from their ‘fundamental value’, which is the expected discounted income or other benefit and valuation increase over the holding time-horizon (Kindleberger and Aliber 2005, Blinder 2013). While the definition is conceptually clear, in practice it is very difficult to identify a bubble. What may appear ex post as a bubble, after an ensuing price crash, may have been seen ex ante as a rational investment by many sophisticated investors.

Have we deviated from the fundamental value of house prices?

I think we have, because the price increases have been driven by market manipulations and interventions rather than fundamentals.

By that I mean that some are saying property prices will remain strong because demand will continue to exceed supply - on the face of it solid argument based on fundamentals.

But it ignores the fact that demand will only hold up at current levels if it remains stimulated - eg shared equity schemes - and supply will only remain tight if it remains restricted - eg low turnover, vacancies etc.

So on closer inspection the sound fundamentals argument for current prices is not actually based on sound fundamentals.

Hubertj

Hubertj wrote: »

Do you know many people who did or do buy a property on 1 income? I don’t. My father worked 2 jobs and my mum 1 job so they could buy. I don’t really get people banging on about this point.

Loads of single people buy property?

jill_valentine

Cyrus wrote: »

A few people alluded to this but this stanford study shows people who wfh full time have much worse promotion prospects.



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/think-that-working-from-home-is-here-to-stay-think-again-1.4484553?localLinksEnabled=false&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=RSS%3AITEM%3ATITLE&utm_campaign=lunchtime_latest_digest

I'm open to having my mind changed, but I'd suggest our attitude to WFH here going forward might be deeply coloured by the circumstances it came in.

When the pandemic flexed, Management had the luxury of declaring themselves WFH staff that grunts did not. Having to stay in the office is starting to take on something just short of negative connotations as a result - all the prestige work is WFH'able, the dogsbody jobs are for people in office. (Indeed all of my avenues to promotion from my current job mean going full time WFH for at least the next year.)

My experience is anecdata obviously, but it would lead me to think the psychology of 2020-1 Ireland might be at odds of the study done some years ago.

Quite a dramatic headline vs content clash here also

Think that working from home is here to stay? Think again

His latest co-authored study, based on months of surveys of 22,500 Americans up until December, suggests homeworking is indeed here to stay.

cnocbui

Hubertj wrote: »

Do you know many people who did or do buy a property on 1 income? I don’t. My father worked 2 jobs and my mum 1 job so they could buy. I don’t really get people banging on about this point.

I did.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

That's a tricky question as bubbles can really ony be definitively confirmed in hindsight - ie once it has burst.

However, unsurprisingly there is lots of academic studies on bubbles, for example:



Have we deviated from the fundamental value of house prices?

I think we have, because the price increases have been driven by market manipulations and interventions rather than fundamentals.

By that I mean that some are saying property prices will remain strong because demand will continue to exceed supply - on the face of it solid argument based on fundamentals.

But it ignores the fact that demand will only hold up at current levels if it remains stimulated - eg shared equity schemes - and supply will only remain tight if it remains restricted - eg low turnover, vacancies etc.

So on closer inspection the sound fundamentals argument for current prices is not actually based on sound fundamentals.

Surely the fact that the maths of 2 people on the median wage can afford half the stock available out there in the country would suggest that we have not deviated from the norm. People need to get over the fact that areas like the hill of howth or Kiliiney will have a premium to be paid if they want it. Same goes with any sea view around the country people will pay a higher rate for this than if your property had no views. People will also pay a premium for an area that has decent infrastructure and amenities. Surely the biggest driver of price will be affordability? If your argument was correct then why can we still buy nearly half the current stock available for sale for the Median Wage * 3.5 with a 10% deposit. If you look at that option of 3.5 times your salary this is actually quite low in comparison to other EU and other countries around the world.

Hubertj

bubblypop wrote: »

Loads of single people buy property?

I’m sure they have. I was asking the question because a number of people have referenced the fact that you need 2 incomes to purchase a property. I don’t really see an issue with that. If someone is able to purchase on their own that’s great for them but there is also nothing wrong if 2 incomes are required.

cnocbui

schmittel wrote: »

That's a tricky question as bubbles can really ony be definitively confirmed in hindsight - ie once it has burst.

However, unsurprisingly there is lots of academic studies on bubbles, for example:



Have we deviated from the fundamental value of house prices?

I think we have, because the price increases have been driven by market manipulations and interventions rather than fundamentals.

By that I mean that some are saying property prices will remain strong because demand will continue to exceed supply - on the face of it solid argument based on fundamentals.

But it ignores the fact that demand will only hold up at current levels if it remains stimulated - eg shared equity schemes - and supply will only remain tight if it remains restricted - eg low turnover, vacancies etc.

So on closer inspection the sound fundamentals argument for current prices is not actually based on sound fundamentals.

Fundamental is the cost of construction/provision. By how much do you think prices are deviating from that?

I had to get my house valued in 2011 and it came in at 22% less for the whole property, than the replacement construction cost of the house on it's own.

So had I put it on the market and sold it for that, not only would the buyer have got a 22% discount on the house, they would have got the land, shed, well, paving, paved driveway, lawn, garden and utility connections for free.

It's only in the last two years that the value of the whole package has reached that of the house on it's own.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

That's a tricky question as bubbles can really ony be definitively confirmed in hindsight - ie once it has burst.

However, unsurprisingly there is lots of academic studies on bubbles, for example:



Have we deviated from the fundamental value of house prices?

I think we have, because the price increases have been driven by market manipulations and interventions rather than fundamentals.

By that I mean that some are saying property prices will remain strong because demand will continue to exceed supply - on the face of it solid argument based on fundamentals.

But it ignores the fact that demand will only hold up at current levels if it remains stimulated - eg shared equity schemes - and supply will only remain tight if it remains restricted - eg low turnover, vacancies etc.

So on closer inspection the sound fundamentals argument for current prices is not actually based on sound fundamentals.

Yea but if you cover the bubble in tape and then try to pop it with a pin it deflates much slower, or you can try to inflate it again.

hometruths

cnocbui wrote: »

Fundamental is the cost of construction/provision. By how much do you think prices are deviating from that?

I had to get my house valued in 2011 and it came in at 22% less for the whole property, than the replacement construction cost of the house on it's own.

So had I put it on the market and sold it for that, not only would the buyer have got a 22% discount on the house, they would have got the land, shed, well, paving, paved driveway, lawn, garden and utility connections for free.

It's only in the last two years that the value of the whole package has reached that of the house on it's own.

Our construction costs are among the highest in Europe and have risen fastest in Europe. That is the relevant deviation.

Cyrus

jill_valentine wrote: »

Having to stay in the office is starting to take on something just short of negative connotations as a result - all the prestige work is WFH'able, the dogsbody jobs are for people in office. (Indeed all of my avenues to promotion from my current job mean going full time WFH for at least the next year.)

My experience is anecdata obviously, but it would lead me to think the psychology of 2020-1 Ireland might be at odds of the study done some years ago.

that is your experience, where i am its the executive team that are in all the time, both anecdotal i suppose.

cnocbui

schmittel wrote: »

Our construction costs are among the highest in Europe and have risen fastest in Europe. That is the relevant deviation.

As I aluded to in my earlier misinterpreted sarcastic comment - who are you proposing to volunteer to take the income hit in order to get the costs down?

Tradespeople, builders, material suppliers, banks, local councils, the Irish government or let me guess the favourite - land owners?

DataDude

Cyrus wrote: »

A few people alluded to this but this stanford study shows people who wfh full time have much worse promotion prospects.



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/think-that-working-from-home-is-here-to-stay-think-again-1.4484553?localLinksEnabled=false&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=RSS%3AITEM%3ATITLE&utm_campaign=lunchtime_latest_digest

I think there's two problems with the extrapolating the above to the future of Ireland's work habits:

1. It's from 10 years ago. So much has changed since then in terms of technology and so much has changed in terms of societal perception in the last 12 months. I have no doubt an "out of sight out of mind bias" might exist, and there has definitely been a perception in the past that people who requested WFH weren't serious about their careers. Both could be reduced if more senior managers take up the option. Also, have said before on this thread that D&I is quite possibly the single biggest focus of most companies and boards these days. I can easily this WFH promotion bias/discrimination being tied in with this agenda to promote healthy work life balance options to increase female participation at senior levels in the company. Wouldn't it be great if people received promotions based on their output rather than the "lads, lads, lads - pints/GAA" culture that's currently so strong!

2. He's referenced some company in China as his case study. I think it's safe to say that China has a very different (and toxic) work culture compared with Ireland (e.g. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-workers-sleep-idUSKCN0Y12TB)

hometruths

cnocbui wrote: »

As I aluded to in my earlier misinterpreted sarcastic comment - who are you proposing to volunteer to take the income hit in order to get the costs down?

Tradespeople, builders, material suppliers, banks, local councils, the Irish government or let me guess the favourite - land owners?

I am not proposing anybody volunteers to take an income hit. That’s nonsense. But if it is impossible to build a house for less than (for example) 400k and there is no demand to buy houses at 400k, something has to give.

Either the buyer has to earn more or borrow more or the seller has to earn less.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

I am not proposing anybody volunteers to take an income hit. That’s nonsense. But if it is impossible to build a house for less than (for example) 400k and there is no demand to buy houses at 400k, something has to give.

Either the buyer has to earn more or borrow more or the seller has to earn less.

Well the affordable residential units in Lusk, Co. Dublin start at c. €166k, so it’s not labour costs, construction material costs etc., so it’s definitely land costs and/or developer profit margins

“Ó Cualann Cohousing Alliance, which has built houses in Ballymun for sale to low and middle-income workers starting at €140,000, has been appointed by Fingal County Council to build 51 homes at Dun Emer in Lusk, of which 39 will be affordable purchase homes and 12 will be social housing.

Prices will start from €166,000 for two-bedroom apartments; from €206,000 for three-bedroom duplexes; from €250,000 for three-bedroom terraced houses; and from €258,000 for three-bedroom semi-detached houses.”

Link to Irish Times article on Lusk affordable housing scheme: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/affordable-housing-one-of-state-s-first-schemes-to-be-built-in-lusk-1.4480279?mode=amp

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

Prices will start from €166,000 for two-bedroom apartments; from €206,000 for three-bedroom duplexes; from €250,000 for three-bedroom terraced houses; and from €258,000 for three-bedroom semi-detached houses.”

What percentage of the house do the above figures buy?

An equity charge will apply to the sale with purchasers remaining liable to repay the percentage discount below market value they benefited from when buying the property. They can pay this off at any time or if the property is sold.

PropQueries

Graham wrote: »

What percentage of the house do the above figures buy?

Good point. Article says we will know in c. 8 weeks. But we do know they will definitely cost less than €200k to design and build if Sisk Living built 90 houses for SDCC for c. €180k each back in 2018. So, yes the buyers will probably still be overcharged whatever the percentage is IMO

Link to Sisk Living article here: https://www.irishbuildingmagazine.ie/2018/11/01/sisk-living-delivers-90-social-houses-in-tallaght/

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

we do know they definitely cost less than €200k to design and build if Sisk Living built 90 houses for SDCC for c. €180k each back in 2018.[/url]

No, we don't know.

We could guess I suppose but lets not pretend we know.

PropQueries

Graham wrote: »

No, we don't know.

We could guess I suppose but lets not pretend we know.

An educated guess?

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

An educated guess?

I'd half agree

combat14

schmittel wrote: »

I am not proposing anybody volunteers to take an income hit. That’s nonsense. But if it is impossible to build a house for less than (for example) 400k and there is no demand to buy houses at 400k, something has to give.

Either the buyer has to earn more or borrow more or the seller has to earn less.

unfortunately doesnt look like buyers will earn more money at the moment irish people already are on high wages compared to other european countries

Hubertj

Hubertj wrote: »

I’m sure they have. I was asking the question because a number of people have referenced the fact that you need 2 incomes to purchase a property. I don’t really see an issue with that. If someone is able to purchase on their own that’s great for them but there is also nothing wrong if 2 incomes are required.

there is something wrong if two incomes are required!
that means that single people cannot buy property.

Idbatterim

just looked at that debt clock, sure its only going up about five hundred euro a second...

Eric Cartman

cnocbui wrote: »

As I aluded to in my earlier misinterpreted sarcastic comment - who are you proposing to volunteer to take the income hit in order to get the costs down?

Tradespeople, builders, material suppliers, banks, local councils, the Irish government or let me guess the favourite - land owners?

take vat off the price of new houses, abolish stamp duty for PPR's , abolish CGT on land sold to build residential housing , abolish council contributions, development levies and the requirement to build social housing in private estates, stop this crap of building fake creches that never open in estates.

CorkRed93

Government's affordable housing plan would raise house prices – ESRI

https://www.independent.ie/news/governments-affordable-housing-plan-would-raise-house-prices-esri-40094936.html

* pretends to be surprised *