Property Market 2019

Semi d in my estate sold about 18 months ago for 380k or so. They put probably 100k work into it.

Now the attached house is up for sale. Will be very interested to see what it sells for.

JJJackal

similar condition?

JJJackal wrote: »

similar condition?

I have to check it out on daft. Either way, the other people spent I'd say approx. 100k onto the 380k ~

Up on daft for 435k!

The_Conductor

lleti wrote: »

I have to check it out on daft. Either way, the other people spent I'd say approx. 100k onto the 380k ~

Up on daft for 435k!

So- they're only getting back half of the outlay they spent on the property (and that's assuming that it actually fetches what is suggested). Unless they manage to persuade a few prospective buyers that its worth the difference in price- they're going to be very disappointed...….

aloooof

The_Conductor wrote: »

So- they're only getting back half of the outlay they spent on the property (and that's assuming that it actually fetches what is suggested). Unless they manage to persuade a few prospective buyers that its worth the difference in price- they're going to be very disappointed...….

I think OP means the neighbours house is up for sale ("attached") rather than the renovated house?

The_Conductor wrote: »

So- they're only getting back half of the outlay they spent on the property (and that's assuming that it actually fetches what is suggested). Unless they manage to persuade a few prospective buyers that its worth the difference in price- they're going to be very disappointed...….

No no, this is the attached house onto it, so same garden etc.

I believe the other house was up for 400k+ and went for approx 387k

JJJackal

thats a large increase in asking price.

fliball123

lleti wrote: »

Semi d in my estate sold about 18 months ago for 380k or so. They put probably 100k work into it.

Now the attached house is up for sale. Will be very interested to see what it sells for.

property will not go up by what you put in I would be supprised if they get a quarter of the 100k back

fliball123 wrote: »

property will not go up by what you put in I would be supprised if they get a quarter of the 100k back

all depends on what you put the 100k into, if its gone into an extension you might get it all back and more

anyway its pure conjecture, sounds like the OP is guessing on what they spent.

jay0109

Soc Dems want the Mortgage rules relaxed

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/mortgage-rules-time-for-common-sense-1.4037927

However, it is folly to ignore the very real contribution the Central Bank rules have made to the severe inflation seen in the rental market over the past few years and how this in turn has trapped families and raised the risk of homelessness for many. It is time for some common economic sense to prevail.

Luckily they are a small fringe party and nonsense like this will be ignored

In fairness to them, they're only asking for an exemption to the rules (and there are already exemptions) for long term renters who can prove that they can pay a stress tested mortgage payment.

While the multiple on salary is eminently sensible, I've never understood the 20% rule for all second time buyers. I think it is to prevent second time buyers from using equity in their first home to put a deposit down on an investment property. Renters fall completely out of this category. It's not the worst suggestion in the world.

fliball123

Cyrus wrote: »

all depends on what you put the 100k into, if its gone into an extension you might get it all back and more

anyway its pure conjecture, sounds like the OP is guessing on what they spent.

It really doesnt I had a brother who put 175k in to a house extended it to the back a bespoke kitchen worth 40k on top of extending to the side along with an attic extension and a shomra room out the back. The back was decked in stone cost about 5k just for that. Had the best of cosmetics in the bedrooms and bathrooms. A house around the corner went for 370k with nothing done 4 bed his went 6 months later with supposedly 6 beds and with prices going up at the time for 395k he got 25k for all that work..Its all about location you will not get much more for it well thats my experience of it anyway

It does, if you still hold that property. If you've sold it and are renting, the equity isn't of any benefit to you.

fliball123 wrote: »

It really doesnt I had a brother who put 175k in to a house extended it to the back a bespoke kitchen worth 40k on top of extending to the side along with an attic extension and a shomra room out the back. The back was decked in stone cost about 5k just for that. Had the best of cosmetics in the bedrooms and bathrooms. A house around the corner went for 370k with nothing done 4 bed his went 6 months later with supposedly 6 beds and with prices going up at the time for 395k he got 25k for all that work..Its all about location you will not get much more for it well thats my experience of it anyway

thats one anecdotal example.

if you have a house in say donnybrook and one is as it was and the other has had 200k spent on it which extended and modernised the house i would be shocked if you didnt get a premium on the 200k invested.

jay0109 wrote: »

Soc Dems want the Mortgage rules relaxed

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/mortgage-rules-time-for-common-sense-1.4037927

Luckily they are a small fringe party and nonsense like this will be ignored

In fairness, the mortgage rules are a reason the rents are insane.

The mortgage rules protect the bank but they're shafting renters.

I'm in a decent paying job and have a good deposit saved but I am single and the 3.5 rule means I can't buy.

It's all well and dandy for those with long term partners wanting to buy but this generation are settling much later meaning they have to rent.

lleti wrote: »

In fairness, the mortgage rules are a reason the rents are insane.

The mortgage rules protect the bank but they're shafting renters.

I'm in a decent paying job and have a good deposit saved but I am single and the 3.5 rule means I can't buy.

It's all well and dandy for those with long term partners wanting to buy but this generation are settling much later meaning they have to rent.

The mortgage rules also protect the buyer as they don't borrow at an overall extended rate. They stop house prices going up as much as they are. They also protect us all so we don't have to bail out the banks again.

The income multiple protects the buyer, and the market. The deposit ratio protects the lender.

I'm actually thinking this is more and more sensible by the Social Democrats. I'm not even sure I had heard of them before as a political party (I think I had assumed they were the alliance formed between Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, etc).

Bluefoam

Cyrus wrote: »

thats one anecdotal example.

if you have a house in say donnybrook and one is as it was and the other has had 200k spent on it which extended and modernised the house i would be shocked if you didnt get a premium on the 200k invested.

We'll if the previous owner had extended in a way I didn't like, or had decorated in a taste not of my liking, then that 200,000 worth of work would devalue the house, because I'd have to redo it...

lleti wrote: »

In fairness, the mortgage rules are a reason the rents are insane.

The mortgage rules protect the bank but they're shafting renters.

I'm in a decent paying job and have a good deposit saved but I am single and the 3.5 rule means I can't buy.

It's all well and dandy for those with long term partners wanting to buy but this generation are settling much later meaning they have to rent.

if you have a deposit then it isnt high rents that are your issue its your salary.

Bluefoam wrote: »

We'll if the previous owner had extended in a way I didn't like, or had decorated in a taste not of my liking, then that 200,000 worth of work would devalue the house, because I'd have to redo it...

most houses arent done the way you like, thats the issue with buying a second hand house.

if you add sq footage in a desirable location the price will go up accordingly.

i cant believe im even trying to explain this.

Bluefoam

Cyrus wrote: »

most houses arent done the way you like, thats the issue with buying a second hand house.

if you add sq footage in a desirable location the price will go up accordingly.

Only if you do a good job of it. If you do a ****e job or take the attitude that just adding square footage will add value then you probably won't see the benefit of your investment.

JDD wrote: »

The income multiple protects the buyer, and the market. The deposit ratio protects the lender.

I'm actually thinking this is more and more sensible by the Social Democrats. I'm not even sure I had heard of them before as a political party (I think I had assumed they were the alliance formed between Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, etc).

No. It also protects from negative equity, which protects us all and the buyer. It also stops house prices from rising too fast. Where you not around for the last crash?

I can't believe anyone is arguing for 100% mortgages again. Amazing

L1011

JDD wrote: »

I'm not even sure I had heard of them before as a political party (I think I had assumed they were the alliance formed between Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, etc).

They're disgruntled ex-Labour people who will likely end up merging back in after some time period has elapsed; as has happened before.

ELM327

lleti wrote: »

In fairness, the mortgage rules are a reason the rents are insane.

The mortgage rules protect the bank but they're shafting renters.

I'm in a decent paying job and have a good deposit saved but I am single and the 3.5 rule means I can't buy.

It's all well and dandy for those with long term partners wanting to buy but this generation are settling much later meaning they have to rent.

a property you can't afford.
Finished that sentence for you

The 3.5 rule protects us all from having to bail out banks again, it is one good piece of prudence that we learned from last time. If this is removed or relaxed we're into 2006-7 again.

DodoLurker

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No. It also protects from negative equity, which protects us all and the buyer. It also stops house prices from rising too fast. Where you not around for the last crash?

I can't believe anyone is arguing for 100% mortgages again. Amazing

There are arguments for and against. It's not that black and white. For instance, if there's any kind of oversupply on the market (which is starting with certain properties at the moment, mainly 3/4 bed family homes) and a developer can't drop the price because of the current construction material and labour costs then those houses will be left on the market and the young couple will be locked out by the deposit/LTI rules and stuck in a dysfunctional rental trap. And developers will stop building again.

In summary, if the inflation level of construction outpaces salary inflation and rents are at an all time high (where there's no capacity at all for renters to save a deposit especially in Dublin) - then an argument could be made to relax the deposit requirement of mortgages. I agree with maintaining the 3.5x income ratio though. Most people would be in a far better financial position, now and in the long term future if they were paying down a mortgage instead of rent. It's usually a fraction of the rental cost for the same property. And they are gaining a small bit of equity every month.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No. It also protects from negative equity, which protects us all and the buyer. It also stops house prices from rising too fast. Where you not around for the last crash?

I was in the midst of it. Bought a house with family in the boom, plunged into negative equity for a long time. While waiting for the first property to emerge from negative equity I rented with my husband and children and as time went on, and childcare and rent payments went up, it became virtually impossible to save for a deposit to buy a house of our own. Luckily, we secured a deposit exemption and even still we needed a hefty contribution from our parents in order to buy. If we did not get the exemption or the gift from our parents we'd still be renting, paying €500 more than our mortgage payment.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a deposit ratio. I'm saying that I absolutely do not see the point of a higher one for second time buyers in circumstances where they do not still own their first home. 10% is a sensible cushion for everyone.

Holding people in a never ending state of renting does not stabilize property prices either. It just keeps the rental market artificially inflated and more attractive as an investment for institutional landlords.

In addition, you have to look at the bigger picture here. The longer we keep this situation going, the older the long-term renters get, and the less and less likely they will ever be able to get mortgage approval. Fast forward 20/30 years when these people retire, we're going to have an almighty problem on our hands when their pension payments (if they have one) won't cover market rent. House owners will not have the same exposure.

I'm very much in favour of the Central Bank rules. We'd be in an awful state right now without them. But I think it's a sensible plan to make an exemption for second time buyers who are long term renters. That's all.

cruizer101

I do feel sorry for those stuck in rental accommodation trying to save for a mortgage but the solution is not to change the central bank multiple rules.

I can't see that it would make it any easier, change the rules and house prices will likely just move up to reflect that change.

Ultimately the only real solution is more supply.

Edit: Just saw your last reply and would agree with I'm not saying there shouldn't be a deposit ratio. I'm saying that I absolutely do not see the point of a higher one for second time buyers in circumstances where they do not still own their first home. 10% is a sensible cushion for everyone. The 20% could potentially be relaxed.

JDD wrote: »

I was in the midst of it. Bought a house with family in the boom, plunged into negative equity for a long time. While waiting for the first property to emerge from negative equity I rented with my husband and children and as time went on, and childcare and rent payments went up, it became virtually impossible to save for a deposit to buy a house of our own. Luckily, we secured a deposit exemption and even still we needed a hefty contribution from our parents in order to buy. If we did not get the exemption or the gift from our parents we'd still be renting, paying €500 more than our mortgage payment.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a deposit ratio. I'm saying that I absolutely do not see the point of a higher one for second time buyers in circumstances where they do not still own their first home. 10% is a sensible cushion for everyone.

Holding people in a never ending state of renting does not stabilize property prices either. It just keeps the rental market artificially inflated and more attractive as an investment for institutional landlords.

In addition, you have to look at the bigger picture here. The longer we keep this situation going, the older the long-term renters get, and the less and less likely they will ever be able to get mortgage approval. Fast forward 20/30 years when these people retire, we're going to have an almighty problem on our hands when their pension payments (if they have one) won't cover market rent. House owners will not have the same exposure.

I'm very much in favour of the Central Bank rules. We'd be in an awful state right now without them. But I think it's a sensible plan to make an exemption for second time buyers who are long term renters. That's all.

I completely agree with you on the second hand home of 20% is way too high. 10% for everyone would be more logical. It makes it much harder for the second house.