Property Market 2017

The_Conductor · 21-11-2017 4:49pm

Henbabani wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/13300-new-homes-contribute-to-44pc-rise-in-newbuilds-36338922.html
not the number that Ireland need but better than nothing i guess, the wheels moving too slow.

That's in the first 9 months of the year- we have another 4,150 anticipated completions before EOT.

Its still below 18k units- and equilibrium is still allegedly in the 25k unit region- so as the old election slogan went- lots done, lots more to do........ (think it was Jack Lynch?)

Henbabani · 21-11-2017 4:59pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Henbabani wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/13300-new-homes-contribute-to-44pc-rise-in-newbuilds-36338922.html
not the number that Ireland need but better than nothing i guess, the wheels moving too slow.

That's in the first 9 months of the year- we have another 4,150 anticipated completions before EOT.

Its still below 18k units- and equilibrium is still allegedly in the 25k unit region- so as the old election slogan went- lots done, lots more to do........ (think it was Jack Lynch?)

yeah, a lot more to do agree with you, but still i think Ireland is in the good way to catch to demand.
i'm really don't agree with the slogan that Ireland needs 50,000 homes every year.

aloooof · 21-11-2017 5:15pm

Henbabani wrote: »

yeah, a lot more to do agree with you, but still i think Ireland is in the good way to catch to demand.
i'm really don't agree with the slogan that Ireland needs 50,000 homes every year.

Where have you seen this??

The_Conductor · 21-11-2017 5:47pm

Henbabani wrote: »

yeah, a lot more to do agree with you, but still i think Ireland is in the good way to catch to demand.
i'm really don't agree with the slogan that Ireland needs 50,000 homes every year.

Where have you seen this?
The consensus figure most commonly used both in the media and research groups- is 25,000 units. I honestly don't think I have heard/seen any reputable source quoting 50,000- ever. A few sources suggest figures in the low 30,000's for a couple of years to quench builtup demand- but no-one is using a 50k figure.

cnocbui · 21-11-2017 8:16pm

The number of houses the State must build to meet demand could be as high as 50,000 per year, according to analyst Davy.

The group said it had updated its population and housing demand forecasts following the results of Census 2016, which revealed that the population was 2 per cent larger than preliminary estimates.

It said the new analysis of housing demand and supply in the Republic revealed “an even larger imbalance” than previously thought.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/state-may-need-to-build-50-000-homes-per-year-says-davy-1.3211214

AlmightyCushion · 21-11-2017 9:29pm

cnocbui wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/state-may-need-to-build-50-000-homes-per-year-says-davy-1.3211214

"Davy said housing demand was “at a minimum” of 35,000 units and “perhaps as high” as 50,000 units per annum out to 2021."

It looks like they're saying that's only needed for a few years.

Gloomtastic! · 23-11-2017 7:48am

This guy seems to have his finger on the pulse with what’s going on out there.....

https://m.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/the-right-moves-has-the-government-learned-nothing-from-the-disastrous-crash-36344429.html

cnocbui · 23-11-2017 11:14am

Ideology driven government - he got that right as a cause of problems. And it's not just housing that nonsense stuffs up.

Look at DIRT tax - nothing could me more effective in starving banks of normal funding to finance mortgages than that if it had been intentional. You might as well make saving a criminal offense and lock people up for doing so. Spend every cent you earn - or else!

mel123 · 23-11-2017 12:08pm

Was there meant to be a review of the CB rules this month? If so, did i miss it or has it happened yet?

Idbatterim · 23-11-2017 12:11pm

mel123 wrote: »

Was there meant to be a review of the CB rules this month? If so, did i miss it or has it happened yet?

What are they reviewing? Allowing more debt and sending prices higher again?

mel123 · 23-11-2017 12:55pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

What are they reviewing? Allowing more debt and sending prices higher again?

No I think its more just a review of them, as in say how they went/helped the market, maybe how long more they will be in place, some people were saying possibly reducing the amount of exemptions they give might be something on the cards, that type of thing. There wont be a chance in hell they will be relaxing on them id imagine.

Thargor · 01-12-2017 10:35am

An Bord Planalla are such a joke, this project was badly needed in Bray:

https://fora.ie/bray-clay-pigeon-club-houses-3724794-Nov2017/

And they overruled the council for what are basically made up nonsense reasons like clay pigeon shooting. This is pure vested interests protecting their interests in high rents and property prices. I hope someone takes a case to Europe about this crap.

Graham · 01-12-2017 10:41am

Thargor wrote: »

An Bord Planalla are such a joke, this project was badly needed in Bray:

https://fora.ie/bray-clay-pigeon-club-houses-3724794-Nov2017/

And they overruled the council for what are basically made up nonsense reasons like clay pigeon shooting. This is pure vested interests protecting their interests in high rents and property prices. I hope someone takes a case to Europe about this crap.

Any evidence of something untoward or do you just not like the decision?

Cuddlesworth · 01-12-2017 10:43am

Thargor wrote: »

An Bord Planalla are such a joke, this project was badly needed in Bray:

https://fora.ie/bray-clay-pigeon-club-houses-3724794-Nov2017/

And they overruled the council for what are basically made up nonsense reasons like clay pigeon shooting. This is pure vested interests protecting their interests in high rents and property prices. I hope someone takes a case to Europe about this crap.

Nothing to do with the fact that the N11/M11 is a carpark at peak times, the estate is being built without, and a I quote the article.

"The planning body gave several reasons for its decision. One was due to the scale of the retail aspect of the project, which the board said was “significantly in excess of the needs of the proposed local residents”.

It said that this could have a negative impact on established retail areas, such as Bray town centre.

An Bord Plean also said that the housing development did not have sufficient access to public transport.

Due to this, and because of the project’s location, it was found that the residents would be too dependant on their cars to get around.

It also found that residents would not have access to important amenities, such as social and education facilities."

I can't help but notice the headline and the reasons given by the same article, but fail to see the connection.

The estate was banned because its 680 units with no infrastructure, leaving them driving everywhere for everything, in a area which is probably the worst in the region for traffic problems right now.

Browney7 · 01-12-2017 11:49am

mel123 wrote: »

No I think its more just a review of them, as in say how they went/helped the market, maybe how long more they will be in place, some people were saying possibly reducing the amount of exemptions they give might be something on the cards, that type of thing. There wont be a chance in hell they will be relaxing on them id imagine.

They've amended the rules regarding exemptions. Banks no have to subdivide their books by First time buyers and second and subsequent buyers and allocate exemptions to these blocks. There was evidence that exemptions were being allocated by banks to each category in different proportions. The level of exemptions on their overall book was fine though.

Also interesting from that report is that pretty much all exemptions were distributed in the first six months of the year

mattcullen · 01-12-2017 1:16pm

Browney7 wrote: »

They've amended the rules regarding exemptions. Banks no have to subdivide their books by First time buyers and second and subsequent buyers and allocate exemptions to these blocks. There was evidence that exemptions were being allocated by banks to each category in different proportions. The level of exemptions on their overall book was fine though.

Also interesting from that report is that pretty much all exemptions were distributed in the first six months of the year

That's interesting. Seems reasonable to assume that proportionately more mortgages will issue in the first 6 months of 2018 also and that may accelerate price rises from January..Hope not.

Bob24 · 01-12-2017 5:59pm

mattcullen wrote: »

That's interesting. Seems reasonable to assume that proportionately more mortgages will issue in the first 6 months of 2018 also and that may accelerate price rises from January..Hope not.

I haven’t been activity on the market every year, but on the years I have it did seem to me that things were cooling down from October to become very quiet in December, and that a whole new cohort of buyers was joining the market and January and February.

The_Conductor · 01-12-2017 6:37pm

Bob24 wrote: »

I haven’t been activity on the market every year, but on the years I have it did seem to me that things were cooling down from October to become very quiet in December, and that a whole new cohort of buyers was joining the market and January and February.

A whole new cohort of 'new' buyers hitting the market in Jan/Feb- if anything there will probably be a cooling in the second hand market (thankyou Central Bank :mad: ) - arguably it'll be significantly more difficult to trade up in future.

thebsharp · 01-12-2017 7:33pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Thargor wrote: »

An Bord Planalla are such a joke, this project was badly needed in Bray:

https://fora.ie/bray-clay-pigeon-club-houses-3724794-Nov2017/

And they overruled the council for what are basically made up nonsense reasons like clay pigeon shooting. This is pure vested interests protecting their interests in high rents and property prices. I hope someone takes a case to Europe about this crap.

Nothing to do with the fact that the N11/M11 is a carpark at peak times, the estate is being built without, and a I quote the article.

"The planning body gave several reasons for its decision. One was due to the scale of the retail aspect of the project, which the board said was “significantly in excess of the needs of the proposed local residents”.

It said that this could have a negative impact on established retail areas, such as Bray town centre.

An Bord Plean also said that the housing development did not have sufficient access to public transport.

Due to this, and because of the project’s location, it was found that the residents would be too dependant on their cars to get around.

It also found that residents would not have access to important amenities, such as social and education facilities."

I can't help but notice the headline and the reasons given by the same article, but fail to see the connection.

The estate was banned because its 680 units with no infrastructure, leaving them driving everywhere for everything, in a area which is probably the worst in the region for traffic problems right now.

It's the inconsistencies across the planning system that always gets to me. What's the bets they allow the equivalent number of units to go ahead in somewhere like rathnew instead with no mention of car dependancy

scouserstation · 01-12-2017 7:42pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

A whole new cohort of 'new' buyers hitting the market in Jan/Feb- if anything there will probably be a cooling in the second hand market (thankyou Central Bank :mad: ) - arguably it'll be significantly more difficult to trade up in future.

How the hell are the Central bank allowed to get away with crucifying 2nd time buyers every year, its like they are being punished for the mistakes that have been made by everybody else over the last 10 years. First time buyers need only to pay a 10% deposit which is reasonable enough, yet trade up (or even trade down) mortgage holders need a 20% deposit regardless of how much equity they may or may not have like a blunt one size fits all directive, its basically discrimination.

The_Conductor · 01-12-2017 8:31pm

scouserstation wrote: »

How the hell are the Central bank allowed to get away with crucifying 2nd time buyers every year, its like they are being punished for the mistakes that have been made by everybody else over the last 10 years. First time buyers need only to pay a 10% deposit which is reasonable enough, yet trade up (or even trade down) mortgage holders need a 20% deposit regardless of how much equity they may or may not have like a blunt one size fits all directive, its basically discrimination.

The argument is we need to build new houses- we do not need to incentivise people to trade up. Aka- if you buy a 'starter home' you are stuck- unless your circumstances change to the extent that you can afford to move without assistance- regardless of whether you were assisted to buy the initial house, or not......... A maxium of 10% of subsequent buyers in any quarter are now entitled to a relaxation of the income multiple rules- versus 20% for FTBs (and of course FTBs are entitled to both the FTB 'grant' and a lower deposit requirement).

scouserstation · 01-12-2017 9:09pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

The argument is we need to build new houses- we do not need to incentivise people to trade up. Aka- if you buy a 'starter home' you are stuck- unless your circumstances change to the extent that you can afford to move without assistance- regardless of whether you were assisted to buy the initial house, or not......... A maxium of 10% of subsequent buyers in any quarter are now entitled to a relaxation of the income multiple rules- versus 20% for FTBs (and of course FTBs are entitled to both the FTB 'grant' and a lower deposit requirement).

I agree we need to build more new houses, and while we do not "need" to help people trade up, what about all the people who were casualties of the last property crash? Do they not have any right to live in a suitable home? Many people got caught out buying over priced property that may not have been suitable for their long term needs and many families have outgrown their "starter" homes but are stuck where they are like it or lump it.
If i were living in a council house now and had outgrown the property i now live in i would be legally entitled to a more suitable home, why aren't mortgage holders entitled to the same rights?

pilly · 01-12-2017 9:33pm

scouserstation wrote:

How the hell are the Central bank allowed to get away with crucifying 2nd time buyers every year, its like they are being punished for the mistakes that have been made by everybody else over the last 10 years. First time buyers need only to pay a 10% deposit which is reasonable enough, yet trade up (or even trade down) mortgage holders need a 20% deposit regardless of how much equity they may or may not have like a blunt one size fits all directive, its basically discrimination.

Does the equity not cover the deposit or am I missing something?

But yeah you're right. Doesn't take into account those that want to trade down either.

scouserstation · 02-12-2017 1:01am

pilly wrote: »

Does the equity not cover the deposit or am I missing something?

This is the point im trying to make, whether you have a €1,000 or €20,000 equity you still need a 20% deposit, its a one size fits all approach that fails to take into account any form of circumstance and discriminates against a wide range of mortgage holders that are currently caught in an equity trap, im sure in years to come it will be just as big a scandal as the tracker mortgage fiasco.

So if i had a mortgage of €250,000 and my house was worth €255,000, and i wanted to trade up to a house worth €300,000 i would then need to save a deposit of €55,000 all the while trying to pay off my existing mortgage and bills, seems very fair doesn't it.

VW 1 · 02-12-2017 1:03am

I don't understand the scandal, what alternative would you suggest? The bank take your word you will repay or that you wont up and leave?

scouserstation · 02-12-2017 1:07am

VW 1 wrote: »

I don't understand the scandal

It is 1 set of rules for first time buyers and different rules for 2nd time buyers, why are they being discriminated against?

VW 1 · 02-12-2017 8:33am

In your example above, you show someone with 5k equity and think it unfair they can't trade up. People in negative or low equity situations can't trade up because the risk for the bank is too high, with insufficient deposit. It's not a scandal akin to the mortgage tracker one as you described.

Interested Observer · 02-12-2017 9:56am

scouserstation wrote: »

So if i had a mortgage of €250,000 and my house was worth €255,000, and i wanted to trade up to a house worth €300,000 i would then need to save a deposit of €55,000 all the while trying to pay off my existing mortgage and bills, seems very fair doesn't it.

Paying off your mortgage contributes to the deposit on the new house so no you don't need to save an additional 55k.

myshirt · 02-12-2017 10:06am

It is ever more important that FTB's 'get it right' the first time, so they don't 'waste' the advantage.

Borrow as much as they will give you, buy a property with solid fundamentals, hopefully worth it, and trade your way down if required. That's the way it's going now, it's totally flipped in its head. Mad.

The_Conductor · 02-12-2017 10:17am

myshirt wrote: »

It is ever more important that FTB's 'get it right' the first time, so they don't 'waste' the advantage.

Borrow as much as they will give you, buy a property with solid fundamentals, hopefully worth it, and trade your way down if required. That's the way it's going now, it's totally flipped in its head. Mad.

+1
The system now is you buy properly the first time- as you're not going to be assisted to move at any cost.

Aka- the system is get people out of renting- but then they are on their own, and god have mercy on them if they imagine they can buy any old property and 'trade-up' to a more appropriate property down the road.

The writing was on the wall when you had hundreds of thousands who bought in the run up to 2007- who were left to hang.

Property Market 2017

Comments