Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Property Market 2016

Options
1…4849515354…62

Comments

  • Options
    #1502
    OfflerCrocGod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,307 ✭✭✭OfflerCrocGod


    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.
    That is in fact 5%, if the original asking price was near achieved selling prices from earlier in the year/end of last year then growth is around 5%.

    Anyway the CB has released a study on how long its taking people to save up a deposit http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1004/821325-first-time-buyer-deposits/


  • Options
    #1503
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,298 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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.

    Well - that's a slightly different thing. That's connivance. Result is largely the same though.


  • Options
    #1504
    willbeuptuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 121 ✭✭willbeuptuesday


    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.


  • Options
    #1505
    SarahMollie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭SarahMollie


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #1506
    draiochtanois
    Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭draiochtanois


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1507
    whiskeyman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    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!
    I was sure on it, so I bid on it and went sale agreed as I was happy with it.
    It was only AFTER this point was I informed that the other property came back on, so I'm chasing that instead and have since pulled out of the first sale agreed one.
    There's nothing wrong in that. I've to keep my options open otherwise everything will be pulled under my feet.
    Besides, sale agreed means sweet fa. You can read back and see so many people have had sale agreeds collapse. I'm of the opinion to keep options open until you're about to close.
    The market is ruthless out there. I've been burnt so many times and I'm not letting it happen again


  • Options
    #1508
    Glen_Quagmire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #1509
    OfflerCrocGod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,307 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1510
    willbeuptuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 121 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1511
    Glen_Quagmire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1512
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #1513
    Q&A
    Registered Users Posts: 556 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1514
    willbeuptuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 121 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1515
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭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 ...


  • Options
    #1516
    AsianDub
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1517
    Letree
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1518
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,529 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #1519
    draiochtanois
    Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭draiochtanois


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1520
    AsianDub
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1521
    draiochtanois
    Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭draiochtanois


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1522
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #1523
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭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 ...


  • Options
    #1524
    AsianDub
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭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..


  • Options
    #1525
    Monife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,014 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #1526
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭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..........


  • Options
    #1527
    REFLINE1
    Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #1528
    Monife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,014 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1529
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1530
    Monife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,014 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1531
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement