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

Marius34

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't think it's ever possible to say this, at least not for the last 15 years.
Even in 2012, the bottom of the market, you'd never know if it was going to keep falling.

The property market in this country has been f*cked for at least the last 20 years. If you got a good deal, it's more accident than design.

It would have been difficult to tell in 2012 that it has reached the lowest point. But it was fairly clear to me that Property Market was in bubble back in 2007, and it became fairly clear the direction of the price in the beginning of 2008 (I'm not saying that it was expected such a massive crash).

I agree that Property market is very unstable in Ireland. But I think there is a hope for some stability.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

It would have been difficult to tell in 2012 that it has reached the lowest point. But it was fairly clear to me that Property Market was in bubble back in 2007, and it became fairly clear the direction of the price in the beginning of 2008 (I'm not saying that it was expected such a massive crash).

I agree that Property market is very unstable in Ireland. But I think there is a hope for some stability.

I think anyone who had their eye on the ball in 2012 could have spotted that the government was about to inflate the market with two pieces of legislation.

1. They introduced the CGT tax reliefs in 2012 to allow investors to buy up houses and not pay any CGT tax if they held onto them for 7 years. That was to increase demand and reduce supply entering the market for the next 7 years.

2. They introduced various pieces of legislation to encourage both REITs and vulture funds into the market. This was to soak up all the excess supply.

Worked wonders as we saw. Unfortunately both these groups are now in the market to sell which will have the opposite impact on prices as they exit the market IMO

Cyrus

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Going up, after going down for the last while.
I'm not saying everything is rosey, but it's not the boom again.

I think there's a lot of people who are dead set on buying, lockdown or no, and are prepared to pay a premium just to get a deal done.

We're seeing these exceptions and applying them to the market as a whole

one thing is for sure, the cb rules have been important on keeping a lid on prices, in reality prices in the recovered markets have been relatively stagnant over the past 3-4 years.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

I think anyone who had their eye on the ball in 2012 could have spotted that the government was about to inflate the market with two pieces of legislation.

1. They introduced the CGT tax reliefs in 2012 to allow investors to buy up houses and not pay any CGT tax if they held onto them for 7 years. That was to increase demand and reduce supply entering the market for the next 7 years.

2. They introduced various pieces of legislation to encourage both REITs and vulture funds into the market. This was to soak up all the excess supply.

Worked wonders as we saw. Unfortunately both these groups are now in the market to sell which will have the opposite impact on prices as they exit the market IMO

You have an absolute gift for confirmation bias. As I have pointed out before, other major OECD countries are all experiencing and expecting property price rises due to COVID as a motivating factor, to a large part. Arguing that Ireland's property prices are going to go against the trend is naive. Australia's property prices just went up something like 3.4% in a month. Canada's market is boiling. NZ's is doing a charge of the light brigade. Covid has caused increased demand for ownership vs renting and for larger properties and a noticeable shift away from cities. Supply hasn't caught up.

Marius34

cnocbui wrote: »

You have an absolute gift for confirmation bias. As I have pointed out before, other major OECD countries are all experiencing and expecting property price rises due to COVID as a motivating factor, to a large part. Arguing that Ireland's property prices are going to go against the trend is naive. Australia's property rices just went up something like 3.4% in a month. Canada's market is boiling. NZ's is doing a charge of the light brigade. Covid has caused increased demand for ownership vs renting and for larger properties and a noticeable shift away from cities. Supply hasn't caught up.

Not only larger. But in general there is increase needs for living space. 4-6 people without kids sharing a house may have a problem now while working from home.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Not only larger. But in general there is increase needs for living space. 4-6 people without kids sharing a house may have a problem now while working from home.

Excellent point and if you’re right, property prices in the city will collapse.

Before you had 4 singles sharing a house at 500 each a month. Now, according to your theory, you would have two people, so unless they’re willing to pay double their existing rent, rents must drop.

If rents in the city drop, does that have no impact on property prices in the city?

Cyrus

In the interests of balance on the whole WFH thing,

the Goldman Sachs CEO says its an aberration and not the new normal for them at least

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/goldman-sachs-ceo-solomon-calls-working-from-home-an-aberration-.html

“I do think for a business like ours which is an innovative, collaborative apprenticeship culture, this is not ideal for us and it’s not a new normal,” Solomon said.

“It’s an aberration that we’re going to correct as quickly as possible,” he added.

Solomon said he was particularly focused on ensuring that the next cohort of young workers to join Goldman Sachs this coming summer didn’t start working at the firm remotely, as he believed they could miss out on “direct contact” and “direct mentorship.”

Bojo tends to agree

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/27/coronavirus-boris-johnson-workers-will-return-to-offices-in-a-few-short-months

“I know that some people may imagine that all conferences are going be like this, held over Zoom, Teams or what have you and we’ve got to prepare for a new age in which people don’t move around, do things remotely, they don’t commute any more,” he said.

“I don’t believe it. Not for a moment. In a few short months, if all goes to plan, we in the UK are going to be reopening our economy. And then, believe me, the British people will be consumed once again with their desire for the genuine face-to-face meeting that makes all the difference to the deal or whatever it is.”

MacronvFrugals

Cyrus wrote: »

In the interests of balance on the whole WFH thing,

the Goldman Sachs CEO says its an aberration and not the new normal for them at least

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/goldman-sachs-ceo-solomon-calls-working-from-home-an-aberration-.html


This was posted last week

Cyrus

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

This was posted last week

sorry, i see it didnt get much notice.

PropQueries

Cyrus wrote: »

In the interests of balance on the whole WFH thing,

the Goldman Sachs CEO says its an aberration and not the new normal for them at least

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/goldman-sachs-ceo-solomon-calls-working-from-home-an-aberration-.html



Bojo tends to agree

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/27/coronavirus-boris-johnson-workers-will-return-to-offices-in-a-few-short-months

I think governments are genuinely worried about the impact of WFH on city center retail, cafe etc. jobs. And rightly so.

But I don’t believe they can force companies to bring office workers back full time when both companies and employees have already embraced this new normal.

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

I think governments are genuinely worried about the impact of WFH on city center retail, cafe etc. jobs. And rightly so.

But I don’t believe they can force companies to bring office workers back full time when both companies and employees have already embraced this new normal.

They won't need to force anyone.

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

But I don’t believe they can force companies to bring office workers back full time when both companies and employees have already embraced this new normal.

i didnt see any one mention companies being forced?

and calling what we have right now a new normal is a bit bizarre, if we have the same level of WFH in a years time then maybe its a new normal but i would wager we wont see that.

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

Excellent point and if you’re right, property prices in the city will collapse.

Before you had 4 singles sharing a house at 500 each a month. Now, according to your theory, you would have two people, so unless they’re willing to pay double their existing rent, rents must drop.

If rents in the city drop, does that have no impact on property prices in the city?

It depends on different situation.
If there were 4 single professionals. Now one of them may move out to rent one bed apartment, able to pay more for rent. Other 3 may pay now 666 Eur each.
Same people now have demands for 2 properties.

It all depends on different situation, you can not concentrate on those case, but you need to look overall picture on Demands/Supplies.
And WFH change will impact only portion of people once we get out of the lockdowns.

fliball123

PropQueries wrote: »

I think governments are genuinely worried about the impact of WFH on city center retail, cafe etc. jobs. And rightly so.

But I don’t believe they can force companies to bring office workers back full time when both companies and employees have already embraced this new normal.

I seen conflicting reports I believe Varadkar is looking to incentivise working from home as it will reduce traffic, pollution and also give people a bit more work/life balance and then other sectors talking about about Dublin city center will lose a lot of business. IMO good enough for them it will be great not to have to go into Dublin city center if you dont need to it might force them into free parking and changing the nature of Dubin city center

PommieBast

PropQueries wrote: »

I think governments are genuinely worried about the impact of WFH on city center retail, cafe etc. jobs. And rightly so.

Given the tightness of the Irish lockdown (see various threads related to hospitality pubs) and the proposals to make work-from-home a legal right, I have doubts about that..

PropQueries

According to the Irish Independent "Century-old building firm G&T Crampton calls in a liquidator".

"G&T Crampton, the Dublin building firm famed for more than 100 years for the quality of its construction will seek to appoint a liquidator to two Irish companies at a meeting of creditors on March 12th."

"Houses built by the firm in the first half of the twentieth century continue to command a premium on the market – whether the homes were built for Dublin Corporation in Cabra or for the city’s wealthy elite in Herbert Park, Dublin 4 and Foxrock."

It's newsworthy given the company's history, but I have no idea what this liquidation relates to. But, it doesn't really look like it's due to the current market conditions, so maybe someone in the know can shed some light on the exact reasons?

Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/century-old-building-firm-g-and-t-crampton-calls-in-a-liquidator-40147469.html

fliball123

PommieBast wrote: »

Given the tightness of the Irish lockdown (see various threads related to hospitality pubs) and the proposals to make work-from-home a legal right, I have doubts about that..

I dont think you can do that as what would happen to professions that you need a physical body to be there, such as a garda or a doctor or a bin man etc..It just wont work. Going forward I can see some companies using it as a way to add an incentive to work for them by letting an employee work from home but I cannot see it becoming a legal right..It may even become a Benefit in Kind that may need to be taxed like a company car.

PropQueries

fliball123 wrote: »

I dont think you can do that as what would happen to professions that you need a physical body to be there, such as a garda or a doctor or a bin man etc..It just wont work. Going forward I can see some companies using it as a way to add an incentive to work for them by letting an employee work from home but I cannot see it becoming a legal right..It may even become a Benefit in Kind that may need to be taxed like a company car.

With the Greens in power, if encouraging WFH isn't top of the government agenda, given its obvious environmental positives, we would then have to assume that the Greens were only brought in as cover to increase taxes on all our heating and travel costs i.e. back-door tax increases dressed up as "protecting the environment" IMO

Cyrus

PommieBast wrote: »

Given the tightness of the Irish lockdown (see various threads related to hospitality pubs) and the proposals to make work-from-home a legal right, I have doubts about that..

proposal to make requesting to work from home a legal right, its an important distinction.

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

With the Greens in power, if encouraging WFH isn't top of the government agenda, given its obvious environmental positives, we would then have to assume that the Greens were only brought in as cover to increase taxes on all our heating and travel costs i.e. back-door tax increases dressed up as "protecting the environment" IMO

The Greens are the minor party in government, why would any of their policies be top of the government agenda? :rolleyes:

HansKroenke

Cyrus wrote: »

In the interests of balance on the whole WFH thing,

the Goldman Sachs CEO says its an aberration and not the new normal for them at least

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/goldman-sachs-ceo-solomon-calls-working-from-home-an-aberration-.html



Bojo tends to agree

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/27/coronavirus-boris-johnson-workers-will-return-to-offices-in-a-few-short-months

I think there are wealthy persons connected to the tory government and GS in whose financial interest it would be to have the offices filled with worker bees. There is also in my observation a link between the age of the person and the statement that the office is not dead; generally it is baby boomers. However, in my close group of friends, all in our early 30s, we are unanimous in our view that WFH is going to be essential going forward, with the extent of the hybrid model the only divergence in our own needs (that being said, it seems to be more like 1/2 days in the office per week which is preferred rather than 3/4 days in the office for those that would like to go back in).

After a year of WFH, with no strong push to get people back in until post-winter 2021, I have already adapted my living situation to the new normal which consists of predominantly WFH. We have moved out of Dublin to rent by the sea, with a lot more space (still renting), so I am now a lot more keen to avoid going into the office when the chance presents itself again. Life can't be put on hold forever and after a year of WFH, people must be allowed to start changing their living situation to adapt to this new scenario.

I've said it before possibly in this thread, but having gone into the office three times per week from June to October last year, I realise that people who get nostalgic for the office will lose their interest in returning once they start going in again. The WFH situation right now might feel draining but that is because there is no way to switch off with the social restrictions imposed on every day life. Once you can start going to cafes, bars, restaurants, meeting people, travelling, shopping etc. it will be far easier to switch off. As well, this WFH situation was sprung upon us with little time for people to get a proper desk, move to a bigger apartment that isn't within close proximity to the office etc., but when people have a chance to plan their next move they will be bale to look for the extra room for a home office which will make it a lot easier.

Some of the things that I had forgotten about during WFH March - June last year, that I really could do without in my working life; the commute; sitting at a desk in an office to do work with a feeling of being monitored and not having little home comforts nearby like your own kitchen and bathroom, pets, TV for those 10/15 minute breaks; having less time with your partner (and kids if you have them); being distracted a lot more with colleagues looking to chat or just generally making noise in the office and hogging the microwave or coffee machine. The novelty of going back to the office will grow thin for a lot of people who think they want to go back now, I am certain of this.

Cyrus

HansKroenke wrote: »

However, in my generation of those in our 30s, we are unanimous in our view that WFH is going to be essential going forward

really? speak for yourself by all means but speaking unanimously for people in their 30s is beyond presumptuous.

HansKroenke

Cyrus wrote: »

really? speak for yourself by all means but speaking unanimously for people in their 30s is beyond presumptuous.

I meant to phrase that as in my close group of friends, all in our 30s.

awec

HansKroenke wrote: »

I think there are wealthy persons connected to the tory government and GS in whose financial interest it would be to have the offices filled with worker bees. There is also in my observation a link between the age of the person and the statement that the office is not dead; generally it is baby boomers. However, in my generation of those in our 30s, we are unanimous in our view that WFH is going to be essential going forward, with the extent of the hybrid model the only divergence in our own needs (that being said, it seems to be more like 1/2 days in the office per week which is preferred rather than 3/4 days in the office for those that would like to go back in).

After a year of WFH, with no strong push to get people back in until post-winter 2021, I have already adapted my living situation to the new normal which consists of predominantly WFH. We have moved out of Dublin to rent by the sea, with a lot more space (still renting), so I am now a lot more keen to avoid going into the office when the chance presents itself again. Life can't be put on hold forever and after a year of WFH, people must be allowed to start changing their living situation to adapt to this new scenario.

I've said it before possibly in this thread, but having gone into the office three times per week from June to October last year, I realise that people who get nostalgic for the office will lose their interest in returning once they start going in again. The WFH situation right now might feel draining but that is because there is no way to switch off with the social restrictions imposed on every day life. Once you can start going to cafes, bars, restaurants, meeting people, travelling, shopping etc. it will be far easier to switch off. As well, this WFH situation was sprung upon us with little time for people to get a proper desk, move to a bigger apartment that isn't within close proximity to the office etc., but when people have a chance to plan their next move they will be bale to look for the extra room for a home office which will make it a lot easier.

Some of the things that I had forgotten about during WFH March - June last year, that I really could do without in my working life; the commute; sitting at a desk in an office to do work with a feeling of being monitored and not having little home comforts nearby like your own kitchen and bathroom, pets, TV for those 10/15 minute breaks; having less time with your partner (and kids if you have them); being distracted a lot more with colleagues looking to chat or just generally making noise in the office and hogging the microwave or coffee machine. The novelty of going back to the office will grow thin for a lot of people who think they want to go back now, I am certain of this.

Whether the novelty wears off or not is of no real relevance, it is not like employees get to decide whatever they want based on their own whims. It is always going to be a balance between the needs of the employer and the needs of the employee.

It is why the hybrid approach is so popular, it is a compromise and it suits both.

There are a few getting very far ahead of themselves in their excitement to declare that offices are dead.

HansKroenke

awec wrote: »

Whether the novelty wears off or not is of no real relevance, it is not like employees get to decide whatever they want based on their own whims.

I wouldn't be so sure that it is on the whims of employees. The companies which offer more attractive WFH packages will attract employees from the more rigid environments.

And of course, it is government policy to push WFH so it has a tidal wave of support which means the choice for companies will be to embrace it or lose employees. To not accept that is to the detriment of managers.

awec

HansKroenke wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure that it is on the whims of employees. The companies which offer more attractive WFH packages will attract employees from the more rigid environments.

And of course, it is government policy to push WFH so it is a tidal wave of support which means the choice for companies will be to embrace it or lose employees. To not accept that is to the detriment of managers.

If all else is equal, yes, but you are being overly simplistic.

WFH will absolutely grow as a result of this, people will work from home more often. Those that think there's going to be a sudden and mass transition to fully remote work are going to be disappointed.

HansKroenke

awec wrote: »

If all else is equal, yes, but you are being overly simplistic.

WFH will absolutely grow as a result of this, people will work from home more often. Those that think there's going to be a sudden and mass transition to fully remote work are going to be disappointed.

That's what we have had for a year now and it is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

PropQueries

awec wrote: »

Whether the novelty wears off or not is of no real relevance, it is not like employees get to decide whatever they want based on their own whims. It is always going to be a balance between the needs of the employer and the needs of the employee.

It is why the hybrid approach is so popular, it is a compromise and it suits both.

There are a few getting very far ahead of themselves in their excitement to declare that offices are dead.

Most companies don't yet know that the "hybrid" approach will work in real life and are just "hoping".

It can't work. How can employees in different teams "collaborate" if one team is out Thursday and Friday and the other team is out Monday and Tuesday.

Many companies will quickly realise it's either fully WFH or fully in the office.

A mix of both is absolute nonsense thinking IMO.

fliball123

HansKroenke wrote: »

That's what we have had for a year now and it is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

its not so do you think teachers are going to work from home in future or specialists within the HSE who have been doing zoom calls..It cant work for everyone . A one size fits all is not going to work with working from home. Out of my family members myself and a brother of mine so 2 out of 10 are allowed to work from home after lockdown the other 8 have to go back in to work. I can hazard a guess there will be a lot of people like that.

awec

HansKroenke wrote: »

That's what we have had for a year now and it is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Not really, what we've had is a government imposed forced work from home.

It is going to stay this way until restrictions are lifted and the true nature of the hybrid model reveals itself.

Hybrid work is here to stay, I won't dispute that. People will shift from WFH rarely to doing it often, maybe even the majority of their time.

But if people believe that 100% remote work is going to become the new norm they are going to be really disappointed.