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

Balluba

It beggars belief if people are buying houses before they even set foot in them.

awec

Balluba wrote: »

It beggars belief if people are buying houses before they even set foot in them.

They aren't.

Big difference between going sale agreed and actually closing the sale.

DataDude

Balluba wrote: »

Angela Keegan director Myhome.ie says that she expects transaction prices to be lower than asking prices and she also seems to suggest that supply is not as low as some say. I’m left wondering just what the truth is.

Where did you see this? Don't see it on the Irish Times article and appears the full report isn't on MyHome yet?

RichardAnd

awec wrote: »

They aren't.

Big difference between going sale agreed and actually closing the sale.

This is true, but this is not a healthy way to transact business. If I were to make an offer on a home and have it accepted, then I would consider myself ethically obliged to purchase that property. Equally, if I accepted an offer from a buyer, then I would consider myself bound to sell the property to him.

To me, this "go sale agreed to view" cheapens the very concept of the sale-agreed status. In addition to the driving up of prices due to people's bidding on properties simply to view them, this is why the current process at work both worries and disgusts me.

The Spider

RichardAnd wrote: »

I ask myself this question too. IT could be investment firms, but then again, some people do have a hell of a lot of cash in savings. Two people on 70k+ would put away a lot of savings, and they would qualify for a large mortgage to boot.

Anyone working in IT is more than likely part of a share save scheme or is given shares and can put away usually up to 500 a month into shares that they cant touch for between 3 and 5 years, the shares usually tend to go up massively giving a lot of people quite substantial deposits for houses.

SheroP

thanks to all for help

cnocbui

Balluba wrote: »

Angela Keegan director Myhome.ie says that she expects transaction prices to be lower than asking prices and she also seems to suggest that supply is not as low as some say. I’m left wondering just what the truth is.

It must be just boardsies, then, who are finding everything going above asking at the moment and fierce competition for whats on offer: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058047890&page=395

JimmyVik

RichardAnd wrote: »

This is true, but this is not a healthy way to transact business. If I were to make an offer on a home and have it accepted, then I would consider myself ethically obliged to purchase that property. Equally, if I accepted an offer from a buyer, then I would consider myself bound to sell the property to him.

To me, this "go sale agreed to view" cheapens the very concept of the sale-agreed status. In addition to the driving up of prices due to people's bidding on properties simply to view them, this is why the current process at work both worries and disgusts me.

Sometimes it can be out of your control though.
If the banks turns around and refuses to give you the loan then you really cant do anything about it no matter how guilty you feel.

awec

RichardAnd wrote: »

This is true, but this is not a healthy way to transact business. If I were to make an offer on a home and have it accepted, then I would consider myself ethically obliged to purchase that property. Equally, if I accepted an offer from a buyer, then I would consider myself bound to sell the property to him.

To me, this "go sale agreed to view" cheapens the very concept of the sale-agreed status. In addition to the driving up of prices due to people's bidding on properties simply to view them, this is why the current process at work both worries and disgusts me.

The whole point of sale agreed is a halfway house between being for sale and actually sold. It's the time when someone indicates they do want to buy, but the i's need dotted and the t's crossed before they can legally commit to it.

It's a very necessary stage of the process as it provides some protection for both the buyer and seller to ensure everything is ok. For example, imagine you were selling your house and buying another one, but your purchase falls through as you find the house you wanted to buy is structurally unsound or something. You are hardly going to go through with your sale and leave yourself with no home.

I think, in these times, physically seeing the property and finding that it was not as advertised is a perfectly legitimate reason for backing out and is not at all ethically questionable.

RichardAnd

JimmyVik wrote: »

Sometimes it can be out of your control though.
If the banks turns around and refuses to give you the loan then you really cant do anything about it no matter how guilty you feel.

Well yes, this is true. What I mean really is that to simple change one's mind after making a deal without external factors is not good business practice. It's akin to the guy on adverts.ie who promises to buy a guitar you're selling only to never answer the PMs!

AdamD

awec wrote: »

The whole point of sale agreed is a halfway house between being for sale and actually sold. It's the time when someone indicates they do want to buy, but the i's need dotted and the t's crossed before they can legally commit to it.

It's a very necessary stage of the process as it provides some protection for both the buyer and seller to ensure everything is ok. For example, imagine you were selling your house and buying another one, but your purchase falls through as you find the house you wanted to buy is structurally unsound or something. You are hardly going to go through with your sale and leave yourself with no home.

I think, in these times, physically seeing the property and finding that it was not as advertised is a perfectly legitimate reason for backing out and is not at all ethically questionable.

It is however creating false bidding wars based on offers that only exist subject to viewings. Went to a viewing the other day based on my 'offer' and by the next day the top 2 offers had withdrawn. People may end up bidding high just by virtue of being the 5th or 6th interest party to call the EA

RichardAnd

awec wrote: »

The whole point of sale agreed is a halfway house between being for sale and actually sold. It's the time when someone indicates they do want to buy, but the i's need dotted and the t's crossed before they can legally commit to it.

It's a very necessary stage of the process as it provides some protection for both the buyer and seller to ensure everything is ok. For example, imagine you were selling your house and buying another one, but your purchase falls through as you find the house you wanted to buy is structurally unsound or something. You are hardly going to go through with your sale and leave yourself with no home.

I think, in these times, physically seeing the property and finding that it was not as advertised is a perfectly legitimate reason for backing out and is not at all ethically questionable.

Agreed, but in normal times, one would have seen the property and inspected it before making an offer. These are not normal times, but I am concerned that some of what we're seeing now could carry over into the post-lockdown market.

Just to be clear, I dont' consider the Sale Agreed status to be binding, but to me, it seems wrong to agree to a sale on a house I've never seen.

Instead of the bid-to-view/sale-agree model that seems to be evolving, I think it would be better for prospective buyers to prove their funding before being giving a viewing. It would limit unnecessary viewings without accruing bids that only serve to drive the price up artificially.

SheroP

Bottom line question for me is , does the comfort of knowing purchaser is loan approved and already sold their previous house, outweigh the gamble of spending money on this house, having tyre kickers nosing, accepting possible higher offer only for it to possibly fall through ?? House is located in a very popular area and should draw some attention , however I would like process to complete promptly , my concern is I could be leaving ~€20k behind me , any thoughts would be great

Balluba

DataDude wrote: »

Where did you see this? Don't see it on the Irish Times article and appears the full report isn't on MyHome yet?

I have to admit Dude that I read it on page 4 Irish Daily Mail today.


In my defence I have read the other National newspapers as well

cnocbui

SheroP wrote: »

Thank you for your input
I have a buyer who approached me
I suggested a price and they snapped at it
Now hope to proceed between solicitors
Hope that I’m doing the right thing ?

I'm selling a property to someone who's been leasing it for grazing for years. I have had a few auctioneers look at it so I'm fairly happy with the price.

I'm fairly certain that it's going for less than it's worth and that there would be some people who would be interested in paying more for it if they happened to be looking for something unique at this point in time, but I think I might need to have it on the market for a couple of years and advertise it internationally to make that happen, so I'm ok with letting it go at the agreed value and just moving on.

zinfandel

Balluba wrote: »

It beggars belief if people are buying houses before they even set foot in them.

agreed, I have managed to get 2 viewings locally in empty properties and my goodness they were no where near as nice as the pictures led you to believe and way smaller in reality.

Balluba

RichardAnd wrote: »

Instead of the bid-to-view/sale-agree model that seems to be evolving, I think it would be better for prospective buyers to prove their funding before being giving a viewing. It would limit unnecessary viewings without accruing bids that only serve to drive the price up artificially.

Why has the government allowed this bid to view/sale agreed to continue when it is driving prices up ?

Villa05

Balluba wrote:

Why has the government allowed this bid to view/sale agreed to continue when it is driving prices up ?

I don't think it's a function of government

Cal4567

Most people I think understand what Part V is, google is your friend if you don’t. The concern is that in its negotiation, undertaken between the developer and the local authority during the planning process, that wily developers have run rings around inept local authority officials. It is actually a fixed financial mechanism based around costs and value, but the developer has ‘wiggle room’, namely the amount of their costs to construct, that they have to present to the local authority.

Developers have been arguing increasingly in recent years about how they are struggling to make a profit, usually using the cost of materials and labour and the inherent costs they have to pay back to the State, in various taxes. This assumption of theirs is no doubt correct but only if you compare it to the basic free for all they had in the Celtic Tiger years, which allowed them to accrue substantial profits under a much reduced level of regulation and scrutiny. The glory days of 25-30% profit have now been reduced to sub 10%.

It’s a very patchy framework. Some Councils are better than others in challenging developers on costs, others less so. It’s also flawed in areas of high value, city centre and smart parts of the southside mainly. Commentators here have quite rightly worked out that if you put those Part V properties on the market, their value would be a lot less.

Yes, it is yet another issue in housing policy that needs serious attention, but events such as the need to house large numbers of people have taken over, has forced the hand of stakeholders. It does look like money is just thrown at the entire arena of housing support, whether that’s through leasing, Part V and other supports such as HAP, to the benefit of the lucky ones who are housed.

As a footnote, it does appear to me to be all about now, with very little regard to where we will be in 10 or 20 years time. I reckon in 20-30 years it will be seen as another example of a lack of foresight into long term planning, which we do seem to be as a country rather good at.

Balluba

Villa05 wrote: »

I don't think it's a function of government

Who should step in so when the property services regulatory authority is not doing its job?

RichardAnd

Balluba wrote: »

Why has the government allowed this bid to view/sale agreed to continue when it is driving prices up ?

It's not a state mandate. Estate agents are doing this ostensibly because they are not allowed to do physical viewings.

Reins

Villa05 wrote: »

I don't think it's a function of government

Well if the government allowed viewings to resume on the 12th April along with construction it would help with the situation,no?

JimmyVik

Reins wrote: »

Well if the government allowed viewings to resume on the 12th April along with construction it would help with the situation,no?

Stepping back a bit though, how could anyone justify multiple strangers walking around another families house at the moment?

PropQueries

Cal4567 wrote: »

Most people I think understand what Part V is, google is your friend if you don’t. The concern is that in its negotiation, undertaken between the developer and the local authority during the planning process, that wily developers have run rings around inept local authority officials. It is actually a fixed financial mechanism based around costs and value, but the developer has ‘wiggle room’, namely the amount of their costs to construct, that they have to present to the local authority.

Developers have been arguing increasingly in recent years about how they are struggling to make a profit, usually using the cost of materials and labour and the inherent costs they have to pay back to the State, in various taxes. This assumption of theirs is no doubt correct but only if you compare it to the basic free for all they had in the Celtic Tiger years, which allowed them to accrue substantial profits under a much reduced level of regulation and scrutiny. The glory days of 25-30% profit have now been reduced to sub 10%.

It’s a very patchy framework. Some Councils are better than others in challenging developers on costs, others less so. It’s also flawed in areas of high value, city centre and smart parts of the southside mainly. Commentators here have quite rightly worked out that if you put those Part V properties on the market, their value would be a lot less.

Yes, it is yet another issue in housing policy that needs serious attention, but events such as the need to house large numbers of people have taken over, has forced the hand of stakeholders. It does look like money is just thrown at the entire arena of housing support, whether that’s through leasing, Part V and other supports such as HAP, to the benefit of the lucky ones who are housed.

As a footnote, it does appear to me to be all about now, with very little regard to where we will be in 10 or 20 years time. I reckon in 20-30 years it will be seen as another example of a lack of foresight into long term planning, which we do seem to be as a country rather good at.

Some interesting comments over the past few days and much appreciated and keep them coming. However, I don't believe for one second that the high cost being paid by the state is due to a lack of foresight or that our council officials are somehow being hoodwinked (my word, not yours) by the developers.

Anyone here can walk down to their nearest half built development site (incl. apartment schemes) and it's very little different to a half built development site in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's or 2000's. It's still basically four walls and a roof no matter how they dress it up with with fancy big windows, solar panels, a bit of additional insulation or a few additional plug/USB points.

Sisk Living was able to design and build 90 A-rated houses for South Dublin council for under €180k each, all in, back in 2018 and construction inflation has not risen by much in the meantime. And, it definitely hasn't risen by over 100% if the DCC statement a few months ago that they can't build on council land for under €400k is to believed.

There's also no reason why standard new built a-rated three beds in the midlands are selling for about half the cost that DCC say they can build on their own land in the city.

With the Biden tax reforms estimated to cost us €2 billion per year (I think it will be much much higher, but I will go with that massaged media figure), higher health care another possible €2 billion per year going forward (clearing that backlog of appointments/operations is going to be very very expensive IMO), I don't see how the state can continue to keep paying what they currently are, either for new builds, second-hand homes, new long-term leases or new HAP agreements past July, borrowings or no borrowings IMO.

I don't know the reason, but it's definitely not a lack of foresight or a panic measure and appears more to do with keeping property prices high for whatever reason as a simple proper vacant property tax would have resolved all housing issues by now if implemented two years ago at no cost to the state IMO

Reins

JimmyVik wrote: »

Stepping back a bit though, how could anyone justify multiple strangers walking around another families house at the moment?

They seemed to do it very well before.

No more than 2 in one group

Masks + hand sanitizer

Hubertj

Is it safe to presume that anything which appears on ppr now would have been sale agreed pre lockdown? Therefore people would have physically viewed the property before purchasing?
I can’t see how anyone would actually purchase without viewing in person (bidx1 etc excluded). So a lot of what went sale agreed in q1 could go back on the market once people have a chance to set foot in a gaff?

DataDude

Hubertj wrote: »

Is it safe to presume that anything which appears on ppr now would have been sale agreed pre lockdown? Therefore people would have physically viewed the property before purchasing?
I can’t see how anyone would actually purchase without viewing in person (bidx1 etc excluded). So a lot of what went sale agreed in q1 could go back on the market once people have a chance to set foot in a gaff?

Probably for some, but definitely not all. Even under current restrictions it's completely allowed to view in person once you go sale agreed. Add in the fact that many EA's are not applying the rules rigidly, I think it's very possible that many properties have been viewed and sold during the lockdown.

RichardAnd

Reins wrote: »

Well if the government allowed viewings to resume on the 12th April along with construction it would help with the situation,no?

Are viewings to return on the 12th? I've not heard this.

However, given that the current model of going sale-agreed to view or bidding to view is driving up prices, estate agents may not so easily give this up.

Cal4567

PropQueries wrote: »

Some interesting comments over the past few days and much appreciated and keep them coming. However, I don't believe for one second that the high cost being paid by the state is due to a lack of foresight or that our council officials are somehow being hoodwinked (my word, not yours) by the developers.

e IMO

Yes, I agree. I'm just trying to remain on the side of the moderators here. so I have had to curtail some of my more outlandish views.

Yes, a clear need to keep property prices high to keep voters reasonably content, if they have homes now mortgage free or are coming to the end of their terms. I do stand by my concerns that this is yet another area where we haven't thought through the consequences and that appears to be a national trait.

Reins

RichardAnd wrote: »

Are viewings to return on the 12th? I've not heard this.

However, given that the current model of going sale-agreed to view or bidding to view is driving up prices, estate agents may not so easily give this up.

I think if they were to we'd of heard by now so assume they aren't.

Due to a low volume of what estate agents must have to sell right now I think they'd be happier to get back to physical viewings plus I've heard there's increased sale agreeds falling through which benefits no one.