Ray Palmer wrote: No that is not what creates a bubble. It maybe the start of some bubbles but not cause and effect..
cnocbui wrote: » Rent is a large part of the problem in Dublin, I think. It is disproportionately high in comparison to house/apartment prices, compared with other cities in the EU. This has made it an extremely attractive proposition for investment, given such high returns, evidenced by Vulture REITs buying over 90% of all new built apartments in Dublin last year. This sort of thing has a significant impact on supply. With rents so high compared to the cost of mortgage repayments, there is a significant incentive for renters to purchase, but supply is limited, in part because supply has been reduced by corporations chasing the high rental returns.
Ray Palmer wrote: » When people blame the banks for it all they conveniently ignored all of this. Don't be fooled by the popular narrative about what went on. The people insisted on large mortgages while often lying. I was told how I could get more money by the estate agent and broker. I didn't do what they suggested, friends did and some got it and others didn't.
Ray Palmer wrote: There is no requirement for the government to intervene. You may want them to but they don't have to and when they have it didn't help. Don't confuse your desires with what the government must do and what they will do. We have a massive undersupply of housing and there is no magic socialist solution. There also isn't public desire to do it so unlikely any major changes such as massive social housing builds. Wait and see what happens in Coolock when they build all the housing planned. It will turn into the worst socially disadvantaged area in the country. That is with private building. Mass social housing has a proven track record of creating social disadvantaged areas. To create more is maddness that we will deal with for decades
Claw Hammer wrote: » The only ways rent will go down is if there is more supply or less demand. A lot of the new apartments wouldn't have been built at all but for funding by vultures.
combat14 wrote: » and this is all why younger voters are starting to turn to alternative political parties in increasingly larger numbers, they have enough of high rents and property prices, eventually something will give
cnocbui wrote: » The article I read on it stated that the developers did not build the apartments at the behest of the funds, but that they were approached by the funds once they were complete and took the easy option of selling the whole development, rather than piecemeal. This is not a case of funds commissioning and paying for construction from the start; they purchased them from developers once they were complete.
Shelga wrote: » I know the banks don’t have to lend me anything. I’m not in the civil service. I’m just saying, the possibility of an exemption, but with no clarity as to how to get it, “get in early in the year to get one”, “you have to be earning more than €45k, no wait you have to be earning more than €65k, no wait you don’t have a hope in hell no matter what you do” just all adds to the frustration and stress that is the process of trying to buy a property in 2020 in Ireland. I’m not stamping my feet, I’m just saying exemptions are just another headache.
wassie wrote: You mean the popular narrative that the banks actively encouraged reckless lending in an overheated market by incentivising staff & brokers to dish out credit on Joe Public, whom often was not financially literate enough to save their own skin.
eagle eye wrote: » I got an email from them in 2007 telling me I was pre-approved for another mortgage up to €270,000. I had two houses at that time, one bought in 1999, the other in 2002. Lost them both in the crash.
Villa05 wrote: » The following are contributing factors to asset price bubbles. Do you think this is in the public interest?
Villa05 wrote: » The following are contributing factors to asset price bubbles. 1 Low interest rates 2 Asset shortage: which in housing is systemically created as many barriers have been put their to restrict supply. Housing supply can be increased substantially were these barriers removed 3 Demand pull inflation: Basically demand supply imbalance bidding price up over its true worth 4 money printing: Traditionally done so that it filters its way down to the general public to increase inflation and economic activity. However this did not filter down after the last recession and instead stayed at the top and was used to drive up asset price mainly stocks, bonds and property 5 Taxation policy: allowing Reits in to buy up property without any tax on rents or capital appreciation. This policy becomes factored into the price paid for property and substantially increased price. This means the state has foregone the the value it adds to price of property in terms of road, water/waste infrastructure, services so taxpayers are paying for services used by Reits whom drive up rents they pay. Your tax is being used to increase the profits of Foreign Reits an pension funds. Do you think this is in the public interest?
Villa05 wrote: » Whether we desire Government intervention or not is irrelevant because no matter what party we put in power there will be meddling My argument is what is in the countries best interests, not Tennant's, landlords or any other vested interest Paying 1 billion per year in private rents plus hotel bills plus homeless hubs is easily the most expensive way of doing it therefore the least favourable solution. There are plenty of example's around Europe of best practice in delivering housing for their people mainly Netherlands, Finland, and Austria, not exactly socialist utopias and very wealthy nations. One of those countries has to manafacture their own land to deliver their housing so we have a significant advantage over them. Our public sector is amongst the highest paid in Europe, I'm sure it's not beyond them to copy and paste solutions from best in class in europe to deliver sustainable affordable housing. Even if they are unwilling we have housing associations that are experienced in not only building houses, but also communities
Hubertj wrote: » Regarding supply, where would one magic up the resources (manpower mainly) to build the required number of units (of whatever type)? You can't argue that resources could have been allocated from building offices as offices also needed to be built. 3 is true of any scarce resource, it is not just confined to property. I agree with you on 4 and 5.
Claw Hammer wrote: » The developers were approached by the funds either before building or in the early stages, whatever the developers are saying after the event. There is little attraction for a developer after building to sell to the funds. The funds offer part prepayment as the build progresses saving the developer the need for borrowing to fund construction and relieving him of the worry that there will be a market crash before the complex is complete. Spec building of apartments has almost disappeared because of financing issues. A spec builder could have had an almost complete lock quarantined because of Covid with massive interest accruing and no way of opening a showflat and getting deposits and sale in.
Dublin with the higher density apartment developments in the capital being predominantly purchased by the funds and Irish and international investors for use in the higher end rental market.
Government helping vulture funds push citizens out of homes - UN... The United Nations has condemned Ireland for allowing multinational vulture funds to buy up vast swathes of properties and then rent them out at sky-high costs. The international body hit out at what it called the "egregious" business practices of the giant private equity and investment firms. It said they were scooping up low-income and affordable homes, upgrading them, and substantially raising rents - forcing tenants out of their own homes. In the past 12 months alone, hundreds of new apartments distributed across several schemes have been acquired by institutional investors here with a view to offering them to the rental market.
OwlsZat wrote: » We are in huge over supply of commercial property. 626 commercial properties for sale across Dublin alone. It went through a huge bubble and a soft landing there looks unlikely. The WFH and decimation of the high street spells disaster on that front.
Hubertj wrote: » according to a survery carried out by the SCSI, nearly 60% of respondents highlighted a lack of suitably sized and located modern offices. I don't know what type of commercial properties are for sale but it looks ot me that over the last few years there was definitely a shortage of quality offices.
Hubertj wrote: Regarding supply, where would one magic up the resources (manpower mainly) to build the required number of units (of whatever type)? You can't argue that resources could have been allocated from building offices as offices also needed to be built. 3 is true of any scarce resource, it is not just confined to property. I agree with you on 4 and 5.
cnocbui wrote: » With rents so high compared to the cost of mortgage repayments, there is a significant incentive for renters to purchase, but supply is limited
OwlsZat wrote: » We are in huge over supply of commercial property. 626 commercial properties for sale across Dublin alone.
TheSheriff wrote: » Think this is over egged tbh; for many companies I would expect a hybrid WFH approach where people are in the officer x% of the week; therefore there will still be footfall. I doubt the likes of grafton street or <insert high street name> will see tumbleweed blowing by any time soon.
Villa05 wrote: » We are part of the EU, There is no shortage of labour, more a shortage of will. Our beef industry would be non existent if it we're not for Brazilian workers. Caution would be needed of course to prevent overheating our econonmy
Ray Palmer wrote: None of which are the cause just contributing factors and badly described.The way you stated point 2 is laughable. Such unbelievable bias.
Ray Palmer wrote: Firstly the cost of providing housing by renting and hotels is not the most expensive way. Going around buying up every house for sale would be. You pay a premium for instant housing. You also save money by not maintaining the property. As the government is exempt for rental regulations it means you get more. No white goods for social housing that have to be maintained nor heating. Of course the government do pay for these goods through emergency payments for some. Means test though so if you are on HAP and your boiler breaks down it costs you nothing. If a council tenant and you don't pass means test you pay. The money spent is paying for a service there is no alternative immediately available. You can't stop it while you build. It is not the least favourite solution.
Villa05 wrote: » No recession has one root cause, it's a collection of factors that lead to a recession. Bank lending was not the only root cause identified from the last recession. I'm not sure what you mean, my only bias is to solve problems which the private sector have stated they can't solve on their own It think it's quiet clear that Gov policy for the past 8 years was to restrict supply and increase demand largely because of their stake in Nama and the banks. Somebody has to pay the price for that policy. I feel that the people least culpable for that mess are paying that price, mainly our youth.
