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

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

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?

Yes, I oppose your conclusions, as this kind of information is unknown and not provided. There can be many reasons for increase in those number, anyone could make their own conclusions they like, it's not a facts, nor report speaks about it.

MacronvFrugals

He certainly is right to question the figures, there's form in many places....

Homeless figures were added up incorrectly


https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30855461.html

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

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, I oppose your conclusions, as this kind of information is unknown and not provided. There can be many reasons for increase in those number, anyone could make their own conclusions they like, it's not a facts, nor report speaks about it.

Ok, great, that's what i was interested in discussing, what are some of the many other reasons for this increase? What other possible sources could the additional housing units be from?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, great, that's what i was interested in discussing, what are some of the many other reasons for this increase? What other possible sources could the additional housing units be from?

I mentioned, that there can be various reasons or adjustments.
It can be similar case to 2017, but as this is on much lower level than what was in 2017, they may not see a reason to report that kind of details. I don't think it's possible to give exact property stock numbers on a particular times. Or exactly to define when it's still a residential stock, or should not be counted as such. Different analyst may look it differently. There are so many reasons, that I would not know which is a right one for this case. Simply its unknown, as they don't provide this kind of information.

Timing belt

Marius34 wrote: »

I mentioned, that there can be various reasons or adjustments.
It can be similar case to 2017, but as this is on much lower level than what was in 2017, they may not see a reason to report that kind of details. I don't think it's possible to give exact property stock numbers on a particular times. Or exactly to define when it's still a residential stock, or should not be counted as such. Different analyst may look it differently. There are so many reasons, that I would not know which is a right one for this case. Simply its unknown, as they don't provide this kind of information.

I see you are still going...

You are correct the difference could be anything... it could be as simple as someone typing in numbers the wrong way around.. we don't know without seeing the granular data or it being highlighted in a report.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I mentioned, that there can be various reasons or adjustments.
It can be similar case to 2017, but as this is on much lower level than what was in 2017, they may not see a reason to report that kind of details. I don't think it's possible to give exact property stock numbers on a particular times. Or exactly to define when it's still a residential stock, or should not be counted as such. Different analyst may look it differently. There are so many reasons, that I would not know which is a right one for this case. Simply its unknown, as they don't provide this kind of information.

If you're referring to the difference between 2016 and 2017 the data was not comparable because they changed the methodology.

The whole purpose of the report is to provide exact, or as accurate as possible, housing stock numbers. Whilst inevitably they will miss a few here or there it is not credible to suggest they might overestimate the increase in housing stock by about 30%.

You say you do not reject the report, but you are suggesting that we cannot actually rely on the data because of 'adjustments' or a "different analyst" - which brings me back to my earlier point:

schmittel wrote: »

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.

MacronvFrugals

The below in bold about land hoarding I hadn't realized this was the consensus?


UN says Ireland applies 'preferential tax laws' to vultures funds and it 'cannot continue'

The report also warns States, such as Ireland, that the use of private equity and asset management firms in housing “in its current form runs afoul of international human rights norms and cannot continue.”

At this time we have identified six States, but there are many more where these same issues are of serious concern, including in the global South. We are ready to engage in a dialogue with all relevant States and financial investors as to how this problem can be addressed,” the experts said.

The UN report and letter by Leilani Farha said the situation was being made worse by land hoarding – investors sitting on vacant land to restrict supply and thus increase demand and value.

It also noted that private equity landlords, such as Ireland’s largest landlord, I-RES REIT, “have openly discussed policies of introducing the highest rents possible in order to increase returns for shareholders”.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I see you are still going...

Sure am. I think it is worthy of discussion if we are happy on here to hammer away at the need to build a heap of houses to replace the obsolete stock.

Timing belt wrote: »

You are correct the difference could be anything... it could be as simple as someone typing in numbers the wrong way around.. we don't know without seeing the granular data or it being highlighted in a report.

Again brings me back to my earlier point:

schmittel wrote: »

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.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Sure am. I think it is worthy of discussion if we are happy on here to hammer away at the need to build a heap of houses to replace the obsolete stock.



Again brings me back to my earlier point:

What is your point do you think the reports are 100% correct with no erroneous data?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

What is your point do you think the reports are 100% correct with no erroneous data?

No report like this is 100% correct. But I have no reason to believe they are not an accurate measurement of the housing stock.

SO if they say housing stock has increased by 28k, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept that as a fact.

I also think there is enough info in the report to conclude that 7k of that increase is from existing properties, not previously classified as habitable.

Thus it seems most likely to me that bulk of these properties are coming from renovations/change of use.

I am interested to hear any other ideas of the likely source but I don't think data entry error is a likely suggestion.

Do you have any other ideas?

MacronvFrugals

It would be naïve not to question figures if discrepancies are present


CSO explains discrepancy in housing figures to Oireachtas committee

The Central Statistics Office has explained the discrepancy between its figures on the number of new houses built and the Department of Housing's figures at an Oireachtas committee.

The CSO's Census figures published in recent weeks showed Ireland's housing stock increased by 8,800 units between 2011 and 2016, a rise of just 0.4%, with 33,000 householders indicating their home had been built in the previous five years.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0510/874008-housing/

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

If you're referring to the difference between 2016 and 2017 the data was not comparable because they changed the methodology.

The whole purpose of the report is to provide exact, or as accurate as possible, housing stock numbers. Whilst inevitably they will miss a few here or there it is not credible to suggest they might overestimate the increase in housing stock by about 30%.

You say you do not reject the report, but you are suggesting that we cannot actually rely on the data because of 'adjustments' or a "different analyst" - which brings me back to my earlier point:

They equally can change slightly methodology, but much more insignificant than of 2017, which I consider as adjustments. I said there could be many reasons, other adjustments
I don't reject the report, ok, I told many times this already. Stop making-up this stuff... I mentioned you many times, I don't reject the report, but your conclusion! Write it down for next time!
You ask a question, and then looking what you can find some meaning between the words, and not what I mean. It start to get annoying...

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

They equally can change slightly methodology, but much more insignificant than of 2017, which I consider as adjustments.
I don't reject the report, ok, I told many times this already. Stop making-up this stuff... I mentioned you many times, I don't reject the report, but your conclusion! Write it down for next time!
You ask a question, and then looking what you can find between some meaning between the words, and not what I mean. It start to get annoying...

Ok you accept the conclusions of the report. I get it.

You accept that housing increased by 28k.

You just don't accept my conclusions that the bulk of the increase over new builds is likely to be renovations. I get that too. You think it is more likely to be "adjustments".

But you keep telling me I am wrong, and am spinning data or whatever, but you have no plausible explanation to refute my conclusions other than some vague talk about adjustments without giving any logic to your argument.

What exactly do you think they are adjusting?!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

No report like this is 100% correct. But I have no reason to believe they are not an accurate measurement of the housing stock.

SO if they say housing stock has increased by 28k, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept that as a fact.

I also think there is enough info in the report to conclude that 7k of that increase is from existing properties, not previously classified as habitable.

Thus it seems most likely to me that bulk of these properties are coming from renovations/change of use.

I am interested to hear any other ideas of the likely source but I don't think data entry error is a likely suggestion.

Do you have any other ideas?

As I have said over and over again we don't know what is driving the 6.2k difference... I have emailed them on the one off chance that they come back and tell us....
I would be surprised if it was a data entry error but in the 2019 Q2 the total stock reported is lower that the figure quoted on page 3 because someone typed 2,009,809 instead of 2,009,089.

This is not me discrediting the data all I am pointing out is that there can be errors in the data reported.... Just look at the mistake I made the other day when I messed up sorting data and it showed Carlow with high rise.

Likewise I don't understand why detached properties are showing a decrease of housing stock of 5/6% between 2017 and 2020... It doesn't seem right but yet the overall figures appear to make sense.

As I have said all day we don't know what is driving the difference and is it just a one off correction to data or is it something that will happen every year.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok you accept the conclusions of the report. I get it.

You accept that housing increased by 28k.

You just don't accept my conclusions that the bulk of the increase over new builds is likely to be renovations. I get that too. You think it is more likely to be "adjustments".

But you keep telling me I am wrong, and am spinning data or whatever, but you have no plausible explanation to refute my conclusions other than some vague talk about adjustments without giving any logic to your argument.

What exactly do you think they are adjusting?!

I can not give the answer, for things that we don't know, this information simply is not provided. It can be so many things. For example maybe they remove obsolesce only every few years, maybe they change some kind multiple use properties to count as residential, I have no idea, nor I'm interested to go in that type of speculation for the things we don't know.. I would need to spend many hours to look for possible cases for you, not interested in wasting time on this analysis.
I equally wouldn't know the reason why there was a fall of housing stock numbers in 2017, if they wouldn't tell.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

As I have said over and over again we don't know what is driving the 6.2k difference... I have emailed them on the one off chance that they come back and tell us....
I would be surprised if it was a data entry error but in the 2019 Q2 the total stock reported is lower that the figure quoted on page 3 because someone typed 2,009,809 instead of 2,009,089.

This is not me discrediting the data all I am pointing out is that there can be errors in the data reported.... Just look at the mistake I made the other day when I messed up sorting data and it showed Carlow with high rise.

Likewise I don't understand why detached properties are showing a obsolesces rate of 5/6% between 2017 and 2020... It doesn't seem right but yet the overall figures appear to make sense.

As I have said all day we don't know what is driving the difference and is it just a one off correction to data or is it something that will happen every year.

I know you have said over and over again we do not know for sure. And I have agreed with that. I am not saying that renovations/repurpose is the definite answer, just that I think it is the most likely.

All I am asking is what do you think is the most likely explanation?

I am not asking for a certain answer, that you can stand over in court. Just an educated guess!

MacronvFrugals

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank

in Ireland, vacant housing units rose from 140,000 in 2002 to over double with 289,451 in 2012 according to a report issued by Deutsche Bank. Their report translates that it would take 43 years to fill such a number of houses.

In April 2010, Nama boss Brendan McDonagh told the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee that the state agency would consider bulldozing properties in certain circumstances, but that this would not be the "first option".

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

hometruths

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank





https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

I think we'll turn back to oversupply just as quickly.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I know you have said over and over again we do not know for sure. And I have agreed with that. I am not saying that renovations/repurpose is the definite answer, just that I think it is the most likely.

All I am asking is what do you think is the most likely explanation?

I am not asking for a certain answer, that you can stand over in court. Just an educated guess!

It could be anything from student accommodation to data cleanse of the data because they know the census was coming.... whatever it is it has increased the housing stock reported.

Your explanation is plausible but as I previously pointed out the ESB Reconnection data does not back this up... You have suggested that 6.2k properties never had their ESB cut in the first place and yes that is possible at now point have I disagreed.

I think the most likely explanation is that there are multiple things driving the difference I think student accommodation accounts for about 2k of it but I have no proof, I think a data cleansing exercise was undertaken and I would suspect that Postman pat may not have been that diligent in filling numbers as it would not be his main priority. yet again I have no proof or even an estimate of how much this would contribute. It is for this very reason that I have said we don't know it could be anything.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

I think we'll turn back to oversupply just as quickly.

Interesting heat graph. Very insightful.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

It could be anything from student accommodation to data cleanse of the data because they know the census was coming.... whatever it is it has increased the housing stock reported.

Your explanation is plausible but as I previously pointed out the ESB Reconnection data does not back this up... You have suggested that 6.2k properties never had their ESB cut in the first place and yes that is possible at now point have I disagreed.

I think the most likely explanation is that there are multiple things driving the difference I think student accommodation accounts for about 2k of it but I have no proof, I think a data cleansing exercise was undertaken and I would suspect that Postman pat may not have been that diligent in filling numbers as it would not be his main priority. yet again I have no proof or even an estimate of how much this would contribute. It is for this very reason that I have said we don't know it could be anything.

It's not new student accommodation - they've been including that in new addresses since 2018.

I think data cleansing is more plausible than students. Though if so, it begs the question as to why they feel the need to tweak their findings in anticipation of the census.

Whatever it is I'll just have to add add it to my ever growing list of evidence that we don't need to build 30k units a year.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Interesting heat graph. Very insightful.

Apologies. Light on substance. But you know as well as I do if I explain all the reasons I think why we are in danger of seeing oversupply again, I'll need to put a trigger warning on it!

PropQueries

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank





https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

And one year later we had a housing “shortage”:

Link here to 2013: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

The only thing that changed in that 12 month period was the vulture funds beginning to enter the market and the CGT tax breaks.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

And one year later we had a housing “shortage”:

Link here to 2013: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

The only thing that changed in that 12 month period was the vulture funds beginning to enter the market and the CGT tax breaks.

It's amazing to compare two quotes, only 12 months apart:

"Over 200,000 houses would need to be demolished in order for the housing supply to fall to three years of current population growth."

and

Bob Jordan, Chief Executive of Threshold, said that up to 30,000 new houses need to be constructed annually to meet the ongoing demand for new homes.

MacronvFrugals

PropQueries wrote: »

And one year later we had a housing “shortage”:

Link here to 2013: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

The only thing that changed in that 12 month period was the vulture funds beginning to enter the market and the CGT tax breaks.

I think this commenter seen the shared equity scheme 8 years ago...

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

It's not new student accommodation - they've been including that in new addresses since 2018.

My whole point is we don't know so you can't say it's not student accommodation. Yes they have been capturing it but we don't know how often or what they classify as a dwelling is it a bed or unit.....

I think data cleansing is more plausible than students. Though if so, it begs the question as to why they feel the need to tweak their findings in anticipation of the census.

Post man pat not updating correctly who knows..Why do they have lower housing stock than the CSO we don't know.

what is interesting is that actual no of vacancies has dropped since 2017

2020 2020 2019 2019 2018 2018 2017 2017
Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2
Housing stock 2,042,426 2,025,732 2,014,357 2,009,809 1,993,672 1,983,715 1,974,349 1,967,698
Vacancy rate 4.60% 4.50% 4.70% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90%
no of vacants (Stock x Rate) 93,951 91,157 94,675 96,436 95,696 95,218 94,769 96,417
Qtr movement 2,794 -3,517 -1,761 740 478 450 -1,648 -2,466


The 2020 Q4 has obviously been impacted by Covid.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Apologies. Light on substance. But you know as well as I do if I explain all the reasons I think why we are in danger of seeing oversupply again, I'll need to put a trigger warning on it!

Oversupply where? Which is better over or under? How many should be built? What type? Where? When? By who?
Tried to follow the thread the last few days. Mad stuff altogether. I thoroughly recommend the ignore function which I recently figured out how to use. Cuts out noise.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

My whole point is we don't know so you can't say it's not student accommodation. Yes they have been capturing it but we don't know how often or what they classify as a dwelling is it a bed or unit.....


Post man pat not updating correctly who knows..Why do they have lower housing stock than the CSO we don't know.

what is interesting is that actual no of vacancies has dropped since 2017

2020 2020 2019 2019 2018 2018 2017 2017
Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2
Housing stock 2,042,426 2,025,732 2,014,357 2,009,809 1,993,672 1,983,715 1,974,349 1,967,698
Vacancy rate 4.60% 4.50% 4.70% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90%
no of vacants (Stock x Rate) 93,951 91,157 94,675 96,436 95,696 95,218 94,769 96,417
Qtr movement 2,794 -3,517 -1,761 740 478 450 -1,648 -2,466


The 2020 Q4 has obviously been impacted by Covid.

What is interesting is number of vacant in Dublin has risen since 2017.

I Can’t add that fact to my list. It’s been pinned to the top for a while.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Oversupply where? Which is better over or under? How many should be built? What type? Where? When? By who?
Tried to follow the thread the last few days. Mad stuff altogether. I thoroughly recommend the ignore function which I recently figured out how to use. Cuts out noise.

My guess is Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow, Meath.

Timing belt

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank





https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

And to think that Deutsche Bank own circa 750m of property in Ireland with the majority purchased over the previous few years.