willbeuptuesday wrote: » A house in my estate in Lucan went on the market at 300k and sold a week later for 315k. At the moment the rate of increase in these areas will be far higher than the 5% suggested by the Daft and Myhome reports.
ThisRegard wrote: » The guy wanted the property until they saw another they preferred. Had the bid been completely made up in order to drive up the price then that's a phantom.
willbeuptuesday wrote: » Just checked the PPR and 3 houses all similar in size and standard sold in my estate. 1st sold 08-12-15 for 259k 2nd sold 18-02-16 for 275k and 3rd sold last week 315k!! In less than 12 months that's around 12%, the market for 3 bed semis in affordable areas is gone mad and the central bank rules only helped to increase a pent up demand which is now being realised.
asteroids over berlin wrote: » Your actions are contributing to pressurising the market, if everybody done this, prices would rocket, as you said it is already happening. If you weren't sure, don't bid on it and more so, don't go sale agreed. Foolish and selfish behaviour, unfortunately the way the world has gone!
SarahMollie wrote: » How exactly? If the CB rules were not in place, the same number of people would still be chasing the same number of available properties, only with much more debt on their backs. The issues are primarily on the supply side.
OfflerCrocGod wrote: I've said this before but parts of Dublin 15 doesn't seem to be going crazy. I know people have a negative impression of it but it isn't that bad.
willbeuptuesday wrote: » I If people we allowed to borrow more but under a much tighter lending rules then the banks could only lend amounts depending upon their capacity to repay, er)
willbeuptuesday wrote: » I think the CB rules are not a bad thing but the rules should be more focused on the banks and enforce lending rules and not allow them manipulate the market so they can dump more credit on people. If people we allowed to borrow more but under a much tighter lending rules then the banks could only lend amounts depending upon their capacity to repay
Bob24 wrote: » What do you mean borrow more under much tighter lending rules?
willbeuptuesday wrote: » In the past banks bent the rules to meet targets and as the economy improves this will occur again because in good times the bad days get forgotten (we have a long history of this). If banks imposed the rules as they are then credit can only be given out depending on people's capacity to repay then growth will only hapen as wages improve which is sustainable in the long run. But at the moment it depends how well your case is put together at the branch ( I have had two mortgage applications with two different banks for the same property and the difference was 70k in the final approval ). There needs to be consistency with the banks and the oversight they come under, it's called proper regulation. This is the only way to have a sustainable market, all other interventions such as tax breaks, large deposit requirements etc... Only favour a few who manage to steel a march on the rest. In the interest of the country the banks need to reduce the amount required for a deposit and then look at how the applicant managed to save this ( some fortunate people are able to get help from parents etc but does this mean they have the capacity to repay. A level playing field over time will stabilise the market and no more incentives will ensure it remains stable. That's just my opinion.
Letree wrote: It looks like this first time buyers grand in the budget is going to be for new builds only. So anyone hoping to buy or sell an older house is going to miss out on the boost.
draiochtanois wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Letree wrote: » It looks like this first time buyers grand in the budget is going to be for new builds only. So anyone hoping to buy or sell an older house is going to miss out on the boost.
The_Conductor wrote: » From what Minister Coveney was saying- it is only for new houses, the max purchase price will range from 200k up to 600k (depending on which part of the country you're in), it'll be for a max of 20k in income tax rebate for a first time buyer, and as mentioned, it only applies to new builds. Its also envisaged that this scheme would last for 24 months only- i.e. its to get the building industry up and running again- but once its standing on its feet again, it'll be expected to continue to do so. Looks likely it'll have to be revisited- as its not a sustainable scheme (from what we've heard thus far).
Monife wrote: » How does a tax rebate work? Will you get the money up front to put towards the deposit?
The_Conductor wrote: » Monife wrote: » How does a tax rebate work? Will you get the money up front to put towards the deposit? He doesn't want it to be cash-upfront, as he believes that would simply mean asking prices would rise by a commensurate amount. The tax rebate would be drip fed over a 2 year period (according to leaks)- how it would work is being kept under wraps though..........
The_Conductor wrote: » He doesn't want it to be cash-upfront, as he believes that would simply mean asking prices would rise by a commensurate amount. The tax rebate would be drip fed over a 2 year period (according to leaks)- how it would work is being kept under wraps though..........
Monife wrote: » Well that's ridiculous then and won't help FTBs at all as one of the main problems is getting that amount of cash upfront for a deposit.
Bob24 wrote: » Giving "free" money to FTBs for them to leverage it in order to contract more debt would not be helping them much though. What FTBs need is more supply, not a licence to borrow more.
Monife wrote: » You say contract "more debt". They may not be in any debt at all so that was a bit of an inflammatory remark to make.
