nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Property Market 2016

castle2012

So any thoughts? With the country's unemployment levels getting lower. Demand is sure to increase. People that would have bought this year but the CB deposit ratio held them back may now well have their deposit.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hollister11

One of the my mates bought an apartment in town for 200K in 2011, he sold it for 500k and few months back, and just spent 1m on a house in howth. Lucky fecker

riclad

The government could help first time buyers by raising the density and the maximum height for apartment buildings in citys and certain urban areas.
And by maybe giving grants or tax credits to self build co ops .
This would require maybe some changes to current regulations or making it easy for councils to give empty sites to housing charitys,
so it probably won,t happen.
A small grant to first time buyers won,t make much difference in a place like dublin.
Theres a problem with many local authority house,s being empty for months,
just waiting for basic repairs .

air

This grant is sheer laziness by the government once again, throwing taxpayers money at the problem instead of making proper long lasting changes such as a site value and / or vacant property tax. Will we ever learn?

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

Is there any indication that this will be focused on areas where there is a shortage of supply.

If it is not I suspect it will only result in building on commuter belts well outside demand areas which is not what we want

It will definitely result in further development in areas like North Kildare/West Dublin- but short of tearing up the rule book on building heights, densities etc etc- you're not going to get meaningful levels of development in areas convenient to Dublin/Cork/Galway City Centres.

Its thought that the new Docklands scheme in Dublin- in conjunction with what looks increasingly likely to be a hard Brexit- may be the impetus needed to get high spec units in Dublin City Centre going (it even looks like Galway may get Financial jobs out of the mess).

You and I know where you or I would like to live- this scheme is not going to result in targetted development- it'll be a scatter gun approach- and even then, market forces will dictate prices for high demand areas (hence the 600k ceiling for Dublin properties- falling as low as 200k elsewhere).

The Minister is already trying to control stupidity such as the Sallins project- and has shown he is happy to over-rule ridiculous rezonings etc by councils. Perhaps his new found enthusiasm for sanity- may be sufficient to make developers think twice before they invest time and money in projects that are never going to get off the ground?

Villa05

The_Conductor wrote:

It was explained to the meeting with the Construction Industry Federation- that this is a short term mechanism to unblock supply side issues- and *not* an invitation to construct to a newer higher ceiling price.........

Is there any indication that this will be focused on areas where there is a shortage of supply.

If it is not I suspect it will only result in building on commuter belts well outside demand areas which is not what we want

The_Conductor

It was explained to the meeting with the Construction Industry Federation- that this is a short term mechanism to unblock supply side issues- and *not* an invitation to construct to a newer higher ceiling price.........

Supplyside issues are what the Minister is trying to address- its not that he is trying to sop a lumpsum at First Time Buyers which will promptly be eaten up as they compete against one another for limited supply...........

We need more supply- at reasonable price points- what is key here- is how the scheme is structured- so it brings property onto the market- without inflating the price of it.

Its also said to be set at 5% of a purchase price- to a maximum of 20k- and it applies to properties up to 600k in 2 of the Dublin LA areas.

The devil is going to be in the detail- and we're not going to see that until at least budget day............

Bob24

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.

This is not what I meant.

You are saying the goal should be to allow FTBs to gather a larger deposit. The purpose of that larger deposit, I assume, would be to be able to borrow more than they currently can (each extra euro of deposit will allow people to borrow an additional 4 or 9 euros depending on where they are in the CBI brackets). Since the "free" money would be available to anyone and supply is constrained, all it would do is increase the price of every property on the market. Someone who can't buy today still won't be able to (they will have more budget but so will everyone, and as supply is not sufficient prices will have increased accordingly making their increased budget still insufficient). Someone who can afford to buy today will still be able to, but in order to buy the same property they would have to borrow more as the price of the property would have increased to reflect everyone's increased borrowing capacity.

I am a potential FTB myself and I don't want free deposits for anyone. It would possibly allow me to borrow an extra 50k or 100k, but so would it for anyone who is in a financial situation similar to mine and competing with me on the market. So all it means is that all of use competing for the same limited pool of houses will have to pay more money and get a larger mortgage.

Monife

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.

I agree that supply is the main issue but this proposal is not helping people who are stuck in high costing rentals unable to save significant amounts per month for a deposit. Something needs to be done in the short term, houses take years to be built in this country.

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.

Bob24

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.

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

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..........

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.

REFLINE1

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..........

This article has a different spin on it but who knows.

http://www.independent.ie/business/budget/budget-2017-firsttime-buyers-grant-to-be-available-for-limited-time-only-35107863.html

The_Conductor

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..........

Monife

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).

How does a tax rebate work? Will you get the money up front to put towards the deposit?

AsianDub

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ha yeah. A house I was interested in I did offer over asking and its now at 90k over. Change area is what I need to do..

Bob24

I thought one goal for the scheme was to encourage the construction of affordable housing. Having an upper limit of 600lk seems like an admission that affordable housing for the middle class is not on the table for the Dublin area ...

The_Conductor

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.

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).

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

AsianDub

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True but the areas I'm looking in are selling for over asking according to the PPR. Dublin 5.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Villa05

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.

Less than 25% of sales are to ftb's

Letree

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.

AsianDub

Before would offer below asking and work up from there but am fed up and am offering asking on anything I'm interested in and still getting outbid and then some. Depressing.

Bob24

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.

Bank are already under the same rules though. What explains differences is that some banks might have internal checks which are more stringent than the regulation and as part for the regulation banks also have limited leeway not to follow the CBI caps for a small part of their portfolio.

What exactly would you change in the current rules to effectively achieve the ability to "borrow more under much tighter lending rules"? I still don't get that ...

willbeuptuesday

Bob24 wrote: »

What do you mean borrow more under much tighter lending rules?

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.

Q&A

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

Not sure how you can borrow more yet tighten rules.

But on the broad point is that not what we have? A LTV rule to act as a buffer for the banks position and a LTI rule to protect buyers from loose lending standards and more importantly themselves!

Can't have it both ways. All those people during the crash complaining that the banks "made them spend it". The central bank listened and realised how irresponsible people are and did something about it. As sad as it is, as a collective we do need protecting from ourselves. The mortgage rules just give it some semblance of dignity. You still have to fight it out for your house. Its just boxing with gloves and head guards now rather than the bare knuckle boxing of the boom.

Bob24

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)

What do you mean borrow more under much tighter lending rules?

Glen_Quagmire

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.

I'd happily live in certain parts of Dublin 15, although there are some parts that wouldn't go near. Same can be said for Dublin 11 and 7.

Single salary mortgage doesn't open a lot of doors in the nicer parts of these areas though

willbeuptuesday

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, this would over time ensure a more normal housing market. What has happened since the rules have come in is that the market stalled and in some areas dropped slightly, people saved like mad because we are obsessed with owing our own home and now we have a lot of desperate couples with hard cash who meet the rules and find themselves in a new frenzie of bidding wars to get their foot on the magical property ladder. This also effected supply because accidental landlords (product of the Celtic tiger) saw their houses stall in price rises while rents were rising which made more sense to hold onto their houses, if houses are making good money in the opinion of the seller then more houses will appear on the market.

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

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.

Glen_Quagmire

This thread is depressing me

I'm saving for a house hopefully in North or West Dublin on a single salary and the way property price are going and the demand for houses in my price range doesn't instill a lot of hope