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

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

How can you dismiss this it is as valid an explanation as what you are putting forward. At the end of the day we don't know what this 6k relates to.

I’m going to need some help understanding the validity.

How many properties that were habitable and included in counted stock in 2019, then became uninhabitable in 2020 but remained in the counted stock, would it take to increase the total stock by 6k in excess of new builds.

Presumably if this is a valid explanation it is mathematically possible, so could you help me out understanding the sums?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I’m going to need some help understanding the validity.

How many properties that were habitable and included in counted stock in 2019, then became uninhabitable in 2020 but remained in the counted stock, would it take to increase the total stock by 6k in excess of new builds.

Presumably if this is a valid explanation it is mathematically possible, so could you help me out understanding the sums?

My point is we don't know what the difference relates to... you have a theory good.... I am not dismissing it as we don't know.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

My point is we don't know what the difference relates to... you have a theory good.... I am not dismissing it as we don't know.

You asked me how I could dismiss Marius’ suggestion. My answer is I can dismiss it because I think it is mathematically impossible.

You said that Marius suggestion is as valid an explanation as mine, so presumably you think it is mathematically possible.

Are you still claiming that? And if so can you help me understand the maths?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

You asked me how I could dismiss Marius’ suggestion. My answer is I can dismiss it because I think it is mathematically impossible.

You said that Marius suggestion is as valid an explanation as mine, so presumably you think it is mathematically possible.

Are you still claiming that? And if so can you help me understand the maths?

Tell me when did the geodirectory start including student accommodation as housing stock? Answer we don't know as they don't share all the detail.. I can hazard a guess that it was in 2017 and is the 22k difference but I have no way of knowing as they don't say...

Villa05

MacronvFrugals wrote:

2021 - how it's going - Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for social housing

Does Ronan own the building (the toppling pint glass) where the Dail is sitting, I believe he was the developer

Timing belt

Villa05 wrote: »

Does Ronan own the building (the toppling pint glass) where the Dail is sitting, I believe he was the developer

Don't think so I think it is the Gov who own it via the strategic investment Fund.

He was one of a consortium of developers who developed it... It was like a who's who in building world

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Nonsense.

No surprise, since its not what you want to see.

Census show large vacancy, lets post it all over the boards as a simply vacancy.
Geodirectory showed large change in their housing stock change, lets call it an annual gain.
Same Geodirectory show much lower vacancy number.. why there is increase, why there is decrease, why is this, why is that... no, lets better recalculate it, and call as oversupply.

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

Does Ronan own the building (the toppling pint glass) where the Dail is sitting, I believe he was the developer

I believe he operates it under licence but the state own the building. Is that ok?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

You asked me how I could dismiss Marius’ suggestion. My answer is I can dismiss it because I think it is mathematically impossible.

You said that Marius suggestion is as valid an explanation as mine, so presumably you think it is mathematically possible.

Are you still claiming that? And if so can you help me understand the maths?

Why it's impossible? I'm not sure about number at all, and I'm not saying what it means.
But if as you say 21K new properties and 7K restored, (& if in reality there was 7K obsolete that was not adjusted in their DB). You get 28K of increase in their data. But the real annual gain would be just 21K

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

I believe he operates it under licence but the state own the building. Is that ok?

https://www.theccd.ie/about-us/board-of-directors#:~:text=The%20building%20itself%20is%20owned,Irish%20Infrastructure%20Fund%20(IIF).

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

No surprise, since its not what you want to see.

Census show large vacancy, lets post it all over the boards as a simply vacancy.
Geodirectory showed large change in their housing stock change, lets call it an annual gain.
Same Geodirectory show much lower vacancy number.. why there is increase, why there is decrease, why is this, why is that... no, lets better recalculate it, and call as oversupply.

Not sure how this is relevant to what I said was nonsense?:

Marius34 wrote: »

This could equally mean, that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.

So both you and Timing Belt think this is a perfectly valid explanation of an approx 6k increase in total housing stock but when challenged on it you deflect with talk of vacancies and Timing Belt deflects with student accommodation.

Are your claims and Timing Belts claims an example of misrepresenting the data, spinning the data, misunderstanding the data or simply refusing to admit when you are wrong?

in other words the sort of stuff Props is routinely vilified for.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Why it's impossible? I'm not sure about number at all, and I'm not saying what it means.
But if as you say 21K new properties and 7K restored, (& if in reality there was 7K obsolete that was not adjusted in their DB). You get 28K of increase in their data. But the real annual gain would be just 21K

Apologies had not seen you replied to this when I posted the above (but my comment on TB stands!)

If you think it is possible that a 28k rise in the total housing stock including 21k new builds can be explained by uninhabitable properties not being removed from the count can you explain the maths?

Because I cannot understand it.

Hubertj

Timing belt wrote: »

https://www.theccd.ie/about-us/board-of-directors#:~:text=The%20building%20itself%20is%20owned,Irish%20Infrastructure%20Fund%20(IIF).

Thank you. I stand corrected. I was presuming the question posed by the other poster was leading to something

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Not sure how this is relevant to what I said was nonsense?:



So both you and Timing Belt think this is a perfectly valid explanation of an approx 6k increase in total housing stock but when challenged on it you deflect with talk of vacancies and Timing Belt deflects with student accommodation.

Are your claims and Timing Belts claims an example of misrepresenting the data, spinning the data, misunderstanding the data or simply refusing to admit when you are wrong?

in other words the sort of stuff Props is routinely vilified for.

I'm not sure what you mean, where I was wrong, that I haven't admit?
While you are wrong about Geodirectory vacancy calling those numbers as oversupply, but you won't admit it.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Apologies had not seen you replied to this when I posted the above (but my comment on TB stands!)

If you think it is possible that a 28k rise in the total housing stock including 21k new builds can be explained by uninhabitable properties not being removed from the count can you explain the maths?

Because I cannot understand it.

21K new + 7K restored = 28K (without adjustment)
28K - 7K obsolete = 21K real gain.

Note, I'm not stating that this is the case, I'm simply answering to your question how this is mathematically possible.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Not sure how this is relevant to what I said was nonsense?:



So both you and Timing Belt think this is a perfectly valid explanation of an approx 6k increase in total housing stock but when challenged on it you deflect with talk of vacancies and Timing Belt deflects with student accommodation.

Are your claims and Timing Belts claims an example of misrepresenting the data, spinning the data, misunderstanding the data or simply refusing to admit when you are wrong?

in other words the sort of stuff Props is routinely vilified for.

FFS I give up with you for the last few pages I have been saying that no one knows why the difference is there....Instead of picking up on this message you say I am deflecting with student accommodation.. Its not deflecting its trying to show you that the reports have differences and they are not called out.

You are just looking for a fight and as I said last night go find a mirror maybe while you are there you will see that you have been obnoxious on more than one occasion during this thread... you said you want a debate... everyone debated with the exception of you and prop I thought the consensus was we don't know and it could be multiple things.

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

Thank you. I stand corrected. I was presuming the question posed by the other poster was leading to something

I think it probably was... The gov probably gave a lease to someone and is now renting back from them.... not ideal but then what is at the moment with covid.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

FFS I give up with you for the last few pages I have been saying that no one knows why the difference is there....Instead of picking up on this message you say I am deflecting with student accommodation.. Its not deflecting its trying to show you that the reports have differences and they are not called out.

You are just looking for a fight and as I said last night go find a mirror maybe while you are there you will see that you have been obnoxious on more than one occasion during this thread... you said you want a debate... everyone debated with the exception of you and prop I thought the consensus was we don't know and it could be multiple things.

I'm not looking for a fight, I have been perfectly civil, and am simply asking you how is it Marius suggestion that you said was a valid explanation, mathematically possible?

This is the simple question you seem to be deflecting.

I am keen to know how it is possible, because maybe I will learn something.

Hubertj

Could the 7k anomaly be down to 2020 being a leap year, February 29th and all that. Just a theory....

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Could the 7k anomaly be down to 2020 being a leap year, February 29th and all that. Just a theory....

Certainly as valid an explanation as that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Its not deflecting its trying to show you that the reports have differences and they are not called out.

By the way you are wrong on this too. If they make changes that means new published data is not comparable to previous years data they highlight the fact.

Not looking for a fight. Just saying.

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

FFS I give up with you for the last few pages I have been saying that no one knows why the difference is there....Instead of picking up on this message you say I am deflecting with student accommodation.. Its not deflecting its trying to show you that the reports have differences and they are not called out.

You are just looking for a fight and as I said last night go find a mirror maybe while you are there you will see that you have been obnoxious on more than one occasion during this thread... you said you want a debate... everyone debated with the exception of you and prop I thought the consensus was we don't know and it could be multiple things.

While I haven’t been really involved in this particular debate, I think the main conclusion is that our statisticians in the ESRI, CSO etc. aren’t up to scratch. The government could hire anyone straight out of college to put the data into an excel spreadsheet and export them into a fancy looking graph.

From our GDP figures to housing completions etc. they have proven themselves completely inept at their jobs over the past 20 years IMO

They basically just collect the data or accept at face value whatever data is given to them and then when there are any extreme outliers, they don’t seem to consider, interpret or question them or just appear to ignore them completely IMO

It’s near impossible to run a modern economy when the government has to rely on the “analysts” at the ESRI and CSO when planning for the future IMO

Just to add: the data collection and graphs from timing belt are very good and very much appreciated. I just expect much much more from the analysts at the CSO, ESRI etc. in their regular hefty reports instead of what appears to be mainly a copy and paste job from their previous reports in many cases

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

While I haven’t been really involved in this particular debate, I think the main conclusion is that our statisticians in the ESRI, CSO etc. aren’t up to scratch. The government could hire anyone straight out of college to put the data into an excel spreadsheet and export them into a fancy looking graph.

From our GDP figures to housing completions etc. they have proven themselves completely inept at their jobs over the past 20 years IMO

They basically just collect the data or accept at face value whatever data is given to them and then when there are any extreme outliers, they don’t seem to consider, interpret or question them or just appear to ignore them completely IMO

It’s near impossible to run a modern economy when the government has to rely on the “analysts” at the ESRI and CSO when planning for the future IMO

I agree with you that some of the stuff published for projections in the future seems a bit bonkers but I don't agree that CSO etc are unable to measure the data as it stands today. There is no evidence that they have got it wrong as far as I can see, though very happy to be corrected.

What I find a bit odd is the housing data that is measured rather than forecast, is riddled with anomalies that seem off in the context of what we are told about the housing crisis.

It is curious that people try to explain these anomalies away with a nothing to see here, various implausible explanations and failing that a simple damning of the data - sure you can't trust the CSO, they haven't a clue or look at GeoDirectory their reports are all over the place from one year to the next.

But weirdly these same data sources are seen as reliable to justify calls for building 30, 40, 50k housing units a year in the future.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I agree with you that some of the stuff published for projections in the future seems a bit bonkers but I don't agree that CSO etc are unable to measure the data as it stands today. There is no evidence that they have got it wrong as far as I can see, though very happy to be corrected.

What I find a bit odd is the housing data that is measured rather than forecast, is riddled with anomalies that seem off in the context of what we are told about the housing crisis.

It is curious that people try to explain these anomalies away with a nothing to see here, various implausible explanations and failing that a simple damning of the data - sure you can't trust the CSO, they haven't a clue or look at GeoDirectory their reports are all over the place from one year to the next.

But weirdly these same data sources are seen as reliable to justify calls for building 30, 40, 50k housing units a year in the future.

Some others who oppose you, including me, do not reject those report. I oppose your conclusions, not the reports. So no need to make this up.
You are the one who rejects major reports, which shows that there are not enough properties for housing.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Some others who oppose you, including me, do not reject those report. I oppose your conclusions, not the reports. So no need to make this up.
You are the one who rejects major reports, which shows that there are not enough properties for housing.

Ok fair enough. Just so I understand, and don't make stuff up - are you opposing my conclusions that GeoDirectory shows an increase of 28k properties in total residential stock from Dec 2019 to Dec 2020?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok fair enough. Just so I understand, and don't make stuff up - are you opposing my conclusions that GeoDirectory shows an increase of 28k properties in total residential stock from Dec 2019 to Dec 2020?

That's what report shows. I did not reject it. Equally as I don't reject that report shows only 20K increased from 2016 to 2020.
I oppose what conclusions you make out of it, not what report tells. As simple as that.

Hubertj

It’s the extra day

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Some others who oppose you, including me, do not reject those report. I oppose your conclusions, not the reports. So no need to make this up.
You are the one who rejects major reports, which shows that there are not enough properties for housing.

He’s right to question and interpret the reports IMO

The CSO and ESRI are incredibly incompetent on the interpretation side IMO. The best examples are the 2016 census with vacant properties and 2015 leprechaun fiasco.

The higher ups in the both the CSO and ESRI should have spotted the obvious furore that would result from both i.e. we were in the middle of an apparent housing crisis in relation to the time of the census 2016 and the 2015 GDP growth of 25% would obviously have raised eyebrows at that time.

Instead they ignored both issues at the time and it took them c. 2 years to respond when they should have had the foresight to explain (or at least make an attempt at explaining both) prior to publication IMO

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

That's what report shows. I did not reject it. Equally as I don't reject that report shows only 20K increased from 2016 to 2020.
I oppose what conclusions you make out of it, not what report tells. As simple as that.

You cannot compare 2016 Geo data with 2020 Geo data as they changed the methodology.

My conclusions are based on what we know for sure:

Total housing stock increased by c. 28k
New builds increased by c. 21k
Therefore c 7k properties were added to the total housing stock that were not new builds.

If they are not new builds, the only possibly source for these properties are from existing properties that were not counted as habitable residential stock in 2019.

The above is what we know for sure.

My conclusions are:

If we are adding c. 7k properties from reclassifying uninhabitable properties we clearly are overestimating the problem of obsolete properties and should be careful about making housing need projections based on 5000 properties per annum becoming obsolete.

Do you oppose those conclusions and if so why?

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

He’s right to question and interpret the reports IMO

The CSO and ESRI are incredibly incompetent on the interpretation side IMO. The best examples are the 2016 census with vacant properties and 2015 leprechaun fiasco.

The higher ups in the both the CSO and ESRI should have spotted the obvious furore that would result from both i.e. we were in the middle of an apparent housing crisis in relation to the time of the census 2016 and the 2015 GDP growth of 25% would obviously have raised eyebrows at that time.

Instead they ignored both issues at the time and it took them c. 2 years to respond when they should have had the foresight to explain (or at least make an attempt at explaining both) prior to publication IMO

In fairness to the CSO I think they played the vacancy situation well.

The whole point of the census is to report the actual statistics that are on the ground irrespective what the policitical/media/social narrative is and what the public might expect the results to be.

They collected the data and published the results without fear or favour or any commentary. When the inevitable fury unfolded and everybody said they were wrong they published further data and calmly defended their accuracy.

Hats off to them in my opinion. It would have been easier for them to bow to the pressure and fudge something. I just hope the next census does not become politicised.