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

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

How do you rent it if it is not habitable? Is the bank going to let you sell part of their building? And the building might not be configured, access wise, in a way that would let you sell a bit of it.

What's isn't the problem would be more like it. Your solution is the owner go out of business and loses their income and livelihood to satisfy the ill considered reasoning of a bunch of socialists.

If it cant be sold as a separate building then it would come under the building that is already part occupied as a shop - and there would be no vacant unit tax, as that unit is not vacant.
That situation you've described is equivalent to somebody having an empty room in their house. A total non-runner.

Why do you have to invent bizarre scenarios to justify your hatred of socialists?

Hubertj

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Who knew Part V could be soo profitable! At this rate the developers who lobbied FF for a reduction to 10% from 20% in the early 2000s will be wanting a return to 20%


'Social housing at up to €2,500 a month at Ballymore’s new Dublin scheme'





https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/social-housing-at-up-to-2-500-a-month-at-ballymore-s-new-dublin-scheme-1.4511304

I presume all the developer has to do is offer but the council is not required to accept?

Villa05

cnocbui wrote:

How do you rent it if it is not habitable? Is the bank going to let you sell part of their building? And the building might not be configured, access wise, in a way that would let you sell a bit of it.

Does the corporation have schemes to bring empty property back to habitable status

timmyntc

Villa05 wrote: »

Does the corporation have schemes to bring empty property back to habitable status

If you lease it to the council they will bring it up to standard before subletting to a tenant.

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

Does the corporation have schemes to bring empty property back to habitable status

Not unless you let the property to them for the housing list........

PropQueries

timmyntc wrote: »

If it cant be sold as a separate building then it would come under the building that is already part occupied as a shop - and there would be no vacant unit tax, as that unit is not vacant.
That situation you've described is equivalent to somebody having an empty room in their house. A total non-runner.

Why do you have to invent bizarre scenarios to justify your hatred of socialists?

Don’t fall for the spiel that the owners of these million euro city centre properties are poor.

If there’s debt attached to the property, it’s most likely linked to Celtic tiger property speculation debt and that’s not the next generations problem IMO

If he goes bankrupt, so be it. It’s about time IMO.

That’s capitalism. Creative destruction and all. The owners of such properties have got way too much government help over the past 10 years and way more help than people on social welfare IMO

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

If it cant be sold as a separate building then it would come under the building that is already part occupied as a shop - and there would be no vacant unit tax, as that unit is not vacant.
That situation you've described is equivalent to somebody having an empty room in their house. A total non-runner.

Why do you have to invent bizarre scenarios to justify your hatred of socialists?

We'll have to disagree on everything as I don't believe there is anything bizzare about that scenario.

Why do you and props have to propose stupid proposals before considering all the possible consequences? I am up sh​it creek without a paddle because of some stupid and lazy public servants who didn't think of all the possible scenarios before telling a minister they had everything sorted and proposed legislation should be enacted.

timmyntc

PropQueries wrote: »

Don’t fall for the spiel that the owners of these million euro city centre properties are poor.

If there’s debt attached to the property, it’s most likely linked to Celtic tiger property speculation debt and that’s not the next generations problem IMO

If he goes bankrupt, so be it. It’s about time IMO.

That’s capitalism. Creative destruction and all. The owners of such properties have got way too much government help over the past 10 years and way more help than people on social welfare IMO

If they're "struggling" to get by, they can always sell up.
If they have vacant units above, they can sell those separate or rent them.
If they dont have the funds to renovate vacant units, the council will usually renovate if a long-term lease is agreed with them.

There is no case where someone would be forced into bankruptcy, by being made fully use their asset. A vacant unit gives them no income, so forcing them to use that vacant asset is just forcing them to generate an income from it.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

We'll have to disagree on everything as I don't believe there is anything bizzare about that scenario.

Why do you and props have to propose stupid proposals before considering all the possible consequences? I am up sh​it creek without a paddle because of some stupid and lazy public servants who didn't think of all the possible scenarios before telling a minister they had everything sorted and proposed legislation should be enacted.

Why do you disagree? Genuine question - in what scenario would a property owner be worse off for having to rent or sell their vacant asset.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

Why do you disagree? Genuine question - in what scenario would a property owner be worse off for having to rent or sell their vacant asset.

We have already been over this, so it doesn't seem like a genuine question.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

We have already been over this, so it doesn't seem like a genuine question.

Yes and your rebuttal was simply that you don't agree.
You don't agree how - what did I say that was wrong?

If you have a reason as to how this wont work, then let it be known. You can start by addressing the below:

If they're "struggling" to get by, they can always sell up.
If they have vacant units above, they can sell those separate or rent them.
If they dont have the funds to renovate vacant units, the council will usually renovate if a long-term lease is agreed with them.

There is no case where someone would be forced into bankruptcy, by being made fully use their asset. A vacant unit gives them no income, so forcing them to use that vacant asset is just forcing them to generate an income from it.

Ush1

schmittel wrote: »

My point exactly. You're a perfect example of how I see the market playing out over the next few years.

You are the target buyer for that house. You can afford the house and it is in your ideal area, but it sounds like you don't see value in it. Your c. 1m budget will buy you a better house somewhere else eg Greystones.

I'd say in the current market there is a greater fool out there who will be the marginal buyer at that price (or higher), but it seems to me that the supply of greater fools is diminishing, and more and more of those buyers are thinking along your lines. i.e Are we really going to spend 1m+ on a small and ugly house?

If people in the top 1% of earners with a budget of over 1m are turning their back on them, who is going to buy these houses at these prices over the next few years? And there are thousands of them.

I am not saying I think that house is suddenly going be worth sub 400k, just that I think it is currently very close to the highest price the market will bear (barring significant inflation which I think is a possibility).

That's always been the way it's been. Greystones isn't as desirable as Sandycove so you will get a better house but in a less desirable location.

hometruths

Ush1 wrote: »

That's always been the way it's been. Greystones isn't as desirable as Sandycove so you will get a better house but in a less desirable location.

Sure, but the point is if the market had legs for further increases the top 1% would be buying in Sandycove, and those earning less would be headed for Greystones. When even the top 1% are going for Greystones it suggests this segment of the market can bear no more.

DataDude

Ush1 wrote: »

That's always been the way it's been. Greystones isn't as desirable as Sandycove so you will get a better house but in a less desirable location.

I think the point more generally is, collectively between all of the South Dublin areas and elsewhere, there are just so so many houses for €1m+. I suspect if you knock on the doors of the people living in them. A huge percentage are older and absolutely do not, and never had, have income profiles to justify a houses of such value.

How many households of in the 25-40 age bracket have incomes in excess of €200k to afford such houses? I would contend there isn't enough of them. Very rough analysis of income distributions and house price distributions show that there are far more €1m houses in Ireland than there are €200k household incomes. I'd be hugely interested in any data driven analysis which concluded differently to the above statement.

So how does the equilibrium sustain itself over the next 20 years? Trade-up equity for those who bought at lower prices are likely to be a support, but again not sustainable forever and ownership rates have fallen drastically in those under the age of 40 versus the past.

The only other support I can think of is inheritances/family gifts. (And I know of several 30 somethings in million euro houses with modest incomes courtesy of mum and dad)

To me, the fundamentals don't quite stack up but it could be many years before that comes home to roost. Personally I'm not willing to wait, but I certainly wouldn't be long prime Irish property over a 10 year horizon from an investment standpoint.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

Yes and your rebuttal was simply that you don't agree.
You don't agree how - what did I say that was wrong?

If you have a reason as to how this wont work, then let it be known. You can start by addressing the below:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116600209&postcount=5892

Villa05

MacronvFrugals wrote:

Who knew Part V could be soo profitable! At this rate the developers who lobbied FF for a reduction to 10% from 20% in the early 2000s will be wanting a return to 20%

The_Conductor wrote:

Not unless you let the property to them for the housing list........

Are they not paying top dollar for rentals right now. It may well be uninhabitable now and when you get it back but in between its generating close to maximum income.

Does the owner not gain in this scenario should there not be an accompanyinging stick to go with this particular carrot.

Maybe housing is a bugs bunny heaven full of carrots only

MacronvFrugals

I see Mary-Lou is now bookies favorite to be the next Taoiseach, will the market sustain ever increasing prices with that type of uncertainty.

If I was any of the guys on here buying at the upper end of the market not a chance would I pull the trigger now

Ush1

schmittel wrote: »

Sure, but the point is if the market had legs for further increases the top 1% would be buying in Sandycove, and those earning less would be headed for Greystones. When even the top 1% are going for Greystones it suggests this segment of the market can bear no more.

The top 1% don't only live in Sandycove. There is multimillion houses all across the country. Someone will buy the house or the price will drop.

DataDude

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/laurel-lodge-granville-park-newtownpark-avenue-blackrock-dublin/4484934

This will be an interesting barometer of the mid-COVID vs ‘post-COVID’ market.

Two houses built in garden of larger house. Larger of the two new builds sold quickly (1.1m I think). This went on the market right as COVID hit at €995k with no interest. Taken down and put up for rent around September, initially at €5k, then €4.5k, then €4K. No takers. Finally back for sale again a year later with a €5k increase in price.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Sure, but the point is if the market had legs for further increases the top 1% would be buying in Sandycove, and those earning less would be headed for Greystones. When even the top 1% are going for Greystones it suggests this segment of the market can bear no more.

Not quite sure this holds up , if the same buyer looks at two locations and decides the ‘slightly’ less prestigious address with the bigger house suits his or her requirements better I’m not sure that signifies anything about the market especially if they spend the same or more in the other location.

If that house in Sandycove is still on the market at the end of the summer you may have a point but I’d be willing to wager a large amount of money they it won’t be.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/laurel-lodge-granville-park-newtownpark-avenue-blackrock-dublin/4484934

This will be an interesting barometer of the mid-COVID vs ‘post-COVID’ market.

Two houses built in garden of larger house. Larger of the two new builds sold quickly (1.1m I think). This went on the market right as COVID hit at €995k with no interest. Taken down and put up for rent around September, initially at €5k, then €4.5k, then €4K. No takers. Finally back for sale again a year later with a €5k increase in price.

Absolutely that seems a tall order at 1m and that end of Newtownpark avenue is a fair old walk into blackrock.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

I think the point more generally is, collectively between all of the South Dublin areas and elsewhere, there are just so so many houses for €1m+. I suspect if you knock on the doors of the people living in them. A huge percentage are older and absolutely do not, and never had, have income profiles to justify a houses of such value.

How many households of in the 25-40 age bracket have incomes in excess of €200k to afford such houses? I would contend there isn't enough of them. Very rough analysis of income distributions and house price distributions show that there are far more €1m houses in Ireland than there are €200k household incomes. I'd be hugely interested in any data driven analysis which concluded differently to the above statement.

So how does the equilibrium sustain itself over the next 20 years? Trade-up equity for those who bought at lower prices are likely to be a support, but again not sustainable forever and ownership rates have fallen drastically in those under the age of 40 versus the past.

The only other support I can think of is inheritances/family gifts. (And I know of several 30 somethings in million euro houses with modest incomes courtesy of mum and dad)

To me, the fundamentals don't quite stack up but it could be many years before that comes home to roost. Personally I'm not willing to wait, but I certainly wouldn't be long prime Irish property over a 10 year horizon from an investment standpoint.

Inheritance / family wealth plays a big part alright , difficult to quantify I’m sure but like you I know more people than not who had help buying in socodu. It’s like a self perpetuating cult .

Hubertj

DataDude wrote: »

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/laurel-lodge-granville-park-newtownpark-avenue-blackrock-dublin/4484934

This will be an interesting barometer of the mid-COVID vs ‘post-COVID’ market.

Two houses built in garden of larger house. Larger of the two new builds sold quickly (1.1m I think). This went on the market right as COVID hit at €995k with no interest. Taken down and put up for rent around September, initially at €5k, then €4.5k, then €4K. No takers. Finally back for sale again a year later with a €5k increase in price.

That’s such a “meh” part of Blackrock. In laws looked around there when they were downsizing but it’s just very non descript area. No idea how that price looks against others in area. It looks nice but that’s really about it - nice for a €1m gaff just because it is in Blackrock

DataDude

Cyrus wrote: »

Absolutely that seems a tall order at 1m and that end of Newtownpark avenue is a fair old walk into blackrock.

Yup, currently renting nearby and can confirm it’s a bit far from anything.

New estate agent and new name. ‘Laurel Lodge’ sounds a fair bit better than ‘1B Granville Park’, maybe that’s how they justified the €5k price bump.

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

Not quite sure this holds up , if the same buyer looks at two locations and decides the ‘slightly’ less prestigious address with the bigger house suits his or her requirements better I’m not sure that signifies anything about the market especially if they spend the same or more in the other location.

If that house in Sandycove is still on the market at the end of the summer you may have a point but I’d be willing to wager a large amount of money they it won’t be.

As I said in earlier post that Sandycove house will probably sell. The point is there of thousands of houses like this, all worth 1m+ on paper currently.

Who do you see buying these houses at these levels or higher in the future? Do you think there are enough future buyers with sufficient desire and wealth to maintain these prices?

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

Yup, currently renting nearby and can confirm it’s a bit far from anything.

New estate agent and new name. ‘Laurel Lodge’ sounds a fair bit better than ‘1B Granville Park’, maybe that’s how they justified the €5k price bump.

There is also new build at the bottom facing you at the newtownpark avenue junction which is on at 1.35 I think with no sale so far , better location but seems expensive too and not much of a garden.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

As I said in earlier post that Sandycove house will probably sell. The point is there of thousands of houses like this, all worth 1m+ on paper currently.

Who do you see buying these houses at these levels or higher in the future? Do you think there are enough future buyers with sufficient desire and wealth to maintain these prices?

Depends on how quickly they come to the market I suppose , I do agree on paper there is a disconnect between earnings and prices but there is also family wealth at play in these locations .

DataDude

Cyrus wrote: »

There is also new build at the bottom facing you at the newtownpark avenue junction which is on at 1.35 I think with no sale so far , better location but seems expensive too and not much of a garden.

Is this ‘Sancta Maria’ that you are referring to? Can’t find the old advert, but if so it finally sold there a few weeks ago after ages on the market. It went a good bit below asking at €1.21m. Much much better value than ‘Laurel Lodge’.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

Is this ‘Sancta Maria’ that you are referring to? Can’t find the old advert, but if so it finally sold there a few weeks ago after ages on the market. It went a good bit below asking at €1.21m. Much much better value than ‘Laurel Lodge’.

Yes that’s the one

That seems a bit more like it for it decent location but a very busy road and a tight site .

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

Depends on how quickly they come to the market I suppose , I do agree on paper there is a disconnect between earnings and prices but there is also family wealth at play in these locations .

Sure but I'd argue family wealth has always been at play in these locations, historically disproportionately so. i.e your average Dalkey resident would have had far smaller % of net wealth tied up in their house compared to your average Greystones resident. That gap has narrowed significantly I reckon.

That was capable of keeping the kids in the style they're accustomed to 30 years ago, far less so today.

If you've raised two kids in that house in Sandycove and you sell it for a million. That's just over 400k each after taxes for the kids. Are they going to turn round and drop a further 600k into a similiar property?