Property Market 2020

Dav010 wrote: »

Why?

Excluding any potential improvements made by op, simply put wages did not increase by the same amount. So the only way the house price could increase that much is if people are borrowing more I.e. an asset bubble.

OttoPilot wrote: »

Excluding any potential improvements made by op, simply put wages did not increase by the same amount. So the only way the house price could increase that much is if people are borrowing more I.e. an asset bubble.

There are a multitude of reasons why a property may have increased by that amount after 2 years. Fair does to the poster, that was a really good investment.

In relation to borrowing, the CB only allows borrowing to a certain limit linked to wages.

Hey guys , just a quick ( maybe stupid ) question.

When using daft or myhome is there a way to see how long the property has been for sale, as in when it originally came to the market.

Finding a lot of them just have a date of when the add was updated and are all in the past few weeks when I know that some of the properties are up for over 12 months but will like to check on others in order to decide what’s a fair bid .

Cheers

cnocbui wrote: »

I was just looking at Daft, and down the bottom it says: 'Property Price history... First Listed on ...."
https://www.daft.ie/galway/houses-for-sale/clifden/gannoughs-cottage-cleggan-clifden-galway-2428652/

Are there any restrictions on Daft about relisting a property? I could swear I have seen entirely different ads for the same property. I assume maybe they changed EAs or something.

OttoPilot wrote: »

Nobody should be making a 65% gain from a residential property in two years. Did wages also go up 65%?

Thats like begrudging teachers their holidays.
If you wanted to invest in that property and make 65% you could have.
If you wanted long holidays you could have become a teacher yourself.


Noone is allowed to have any reward for risk in Ireland it seems.
Once the people who played it safe realize that a risk lead to a reward for someone else they want it taken away.

tastyt wrote: »

Hey guys , just a quick ( maybe stupid ) question.

When using daft or myhome is there a way to see how long the property has been for sale, as in when it originally came to the market.

Finding a lot of them just have a date of when the add was updated and are all in the past few weeks when I know that some of the properties are up for over 12 months but will like to check on others in order to decide what’s a fair bid .

Cheers

Here is a guide on a few ways. The one I use most often:

1. Grab the URL that you're trying to find the date it was published

2. Google that URL with "inurl:" prefixed before the url

3. In the search results you should see the date it was published

4. If not, then append "&as_qdr=y15" to the end of your search url



In this case it matches up, but a lot of the time it'll give the actual date it was first published.

JimmyVik wrote:

Noone is allowed to have any reward for risk in Ireland it seems. Once the people who played it safe realize that a risk lead to a reward for someone else they want it taken away.

Just out of interest and lest we forget recent history. Who were the risk takers that lead to the last crash and were they the same people that paid for it when it went belly up??

Did the corrective actions punish or reward the people who had no hand act or part in the bust ie renters, children,, new entrants to the employment market, people who had not been born when the damage was done, tax payers?

Did the corrective actions reward those instrumental in the actions that lead to the collapse? Banks, developers, politicians, media outlets etc?

If you really really want to invest in property. REITs may still be less risky than directly borrowing that 200-300k to invest in one house?

Mic 1972 wrote: »

property investment makes sense only if you have cash, makes not sense to me if you need to borrow huge amounts

Property investment makes more sense if you borrow. I was in an apartment this morning. The owner bought it in 1997 for about £80,000 roughly €100,000. He borrowed £86,000 so the entire purchase including fit out was funded from borrowed money. He qualified for section 23 relief of £64,000 saving himself about £30,000 in tax. The rent covered the interest payments on the apartment and it when cash flow positive after three years. It went cash flow negative for three years around 2010. Now the loan is paid off and the apartment is bringing in about €1600 month. For no cash at all, the owner has acquired an asset worth over €200,000 and apart from service charge and some maintenance has an income of €19,200 per annum.

Billythekid19 wrote: »

The reason for interest in this property is the decent location. They will be able to rent out the rooms in this apartment for 600 euro a month x3 =1800 rent a month. They will have made the 225,000 in 11 years so is a no brainer.
Also new builds down by Aldi in Blackrock are 495,000 for a 3 bed semi D, so makes this apartment seem fairly decent value.

You'll need to double that 11 years when you include tax.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Property investment makes more sense if you borrow. I was in an apartment this morning. The owner bought it in 1997 for about £80,000 roughly €100,000. He borrowed £86,000 so the entire purchase including fit out was funded from borrowed money. He qualified for section 23 relief of £64,000 saving himself about £30,000 in tax. The rent covered the interest payments on the apartment and it when cash flow positive after three years. It went cash flow negative for three years around 2010. Now the loan is paid off and the apartment is bringing in about €1600 month. For no cash at all, the owner has acquired an asset worth over €200,000 and apart from service charge and some maintenance has an income of €19,200 per annum.

Any investment makes more returns if you borrow. It's called leverage. Doesn't mean it's not risky. More leverage = more risk

I will admit the tax breaks for primary residence make it an attractive option however the benefits are rarely realised because anyone selling if just putting those gains into a bigger house, further inflating housing bubble.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

REIT,s look great on the surface but too much potential for corruption re_ directors paying themselves handsomely etc

add to that , they often involve foreign funds for the bulk of their capital , if the mood changes and those foreign funds decide to leave , share price takes a dive even the assets held are quality

at least by owning a single property , you are in control yourself , i agree about not being highly leveraged when it comes to property

True, but the details of payments to directors is public knowledge. The investment is highly liquid. That's not a bad thing. For instance, the prices of REITs fell sharply since Jan. If you believe the underlying assets are still quality, then it's a great buying opportunity for a stable dividend. Personally, I will be interested to see what non-payment and vacancy rates are like and how they compare to non-institutional landlords.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Property investment makes the most sense with borrowed money.

Buy a place with 100k of your money and a million of the banks.
If the value increases 10% you're up over 100% on your investment.

Any investment makes more returns if you borrow. It's called leverage. Nobody should be allowed to borrow 100% of an investment because more prudent taxpayers just end up paying for you when you need to be bailed out.