Julissa Bitter Jeep wrote: » One agent I follow in the East Meath / South Louth Area has agreed 10 houses in the past two weeks according to their social media (addresses and pics listed), boom is back baby.
PHG wrote: » How do you own a property and renting too?
cnocbui wrote: » That Norwegian link was talking about winding back their measures. The Swedish link suggests their rules are about rates of amortization, not borrowing limits. The UK; Not hard to see Ireland did the usual and just copied the UK. The link is all about calls to wind it back. Canada doesn't seem to limit borrowed amount, it's more a regulation of mortgage insurance. Australia; It's up to the lender. Singapore; Just seems to be 90% or less of the price, otherwise a free for all.
cnocbui wrote: » I'm pretty sure that in most other countries people are allowed to borrow as much as they and their bank are happy they can afford. Seems to work.
Cyrus wrote: » in norway its between the govt and the FSAhttps://www.reuters.com/article/norway-finmin-housing/update-1-norway-should-extend-mortgage-restrictions-but-remove-oslo-measure-fsa-idUSL8N1QI53Z Swedenhttps://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/h_duzxmkgvbx3hpxtslktq2 UKhttps://www.ftadviser.com/mortgages/2020/05/29/govt-urged-to-reconsider-post-2008-mortgage-restrictions/ they were literally the first few i googled, its relatively common as far as i know?
The Belly wrote: » I think the rules should not be blanket rules across the board. Example Couple on Minimum wages of 21k each no children Cost of apartment 250k Deposit of 10% 25k Repayment around 900 over 30 years. Couple on minimum wages job net income 3194 Repayments less then 30% of net income Net income after rent 2294 Rent for apartment 1600 Couple on minimum wages job net income 3194 Rent as a percentage of net income over 50% Net income after rent 1594 Current rules 3.5 times salary Gross salary 42k max mortgage 147k Should they be able to buy the apartment or should they be capped and forced to stay renting?
Graham wrote: » so the solution to all of this is to allow people to borrow more money irrespective of their income?
cnocbui wrote: » Which countries have their Central Bank dictating their borrowing limits?
Villa05 wrote: » I think that scenario is far more likely to happen at the top of the market than the bottom. Affordability issues will force you to compromise on too many aspects of the property that are important to you as well as location
Cyrus wrote: » lots of countries have guidance from their central bank or equivalent.
Graham wrote: » Think of it as the state protecting you from the actions of others
Graham wrote: » +1 We'd have triple the number of houses built per year. The average price for a 3-bed semi would be €600k. Construction crews would be arriving on site in 911s and we'd have 80,000 speculative builds waiting to hit the market. We'd also have 50,000 new homeowners wondering how they were going to pay back the 8 x income 100% mortgages.
cnocbui wrote: » I don't agree with it; nanny-stateism protecting people from themselves. Personally I don't need the state deciding what's in my best interests.
The Belly wrote: » Not if the new developments were targeted in the right places. We had property built where we didnt need it before. Now its the wrong way around we dont have enough new property being built as the cap on lending is restricting who can qualify. So rent go sky high investors flood in compounding the problem. Councils with the cash buy up houses and apartments at going market rates due to a lack of rent affordability again driving up prices. You have social welfare recipients living in 450k houses. A working couple unable to save as cost of renting is too high. People have to rely on HAP to rent when the average HAP payment would pay a mortgage for a couple. All of which drives up RE prices rents and creates a generation of renters on state reliance great for investors and REITS but bad for society overall.
Villa05 wrote: » I can absolutely say that if theses rules were not in place over the last 4 years, we would be facing a 2008 crisis now. Nobody said they would be temporary, rather they would be reviewed with the possibility of tightening or loosening I belive they have only been tightened since inception with a reduction in the exemptions
Graham wrote: » +1 We'd have triple the number of houses built per year. The average price for a 3-bed semi would be €600k. Construction crews would be arriving on site in 911s and we'd have 80,000 speculative builds waiting to hit the market.
JimmyVik wrote: » That, together with councils both buying up and getting a large share of new builds. Not to mention REITs buying whole blocks and councils then leasing them for top dollar and the REITs getting sweetheart tax treatment. Tax payer is rode silly from all angles.
lastusername wrote: » What about those who haven't been affected by the downturn and who may even be doing better financially now?
Villa05 wrote: » I can absolutely say that if theses rules were not in place over the last 4 years, we would be facing a 2008 crisis now.
Villa05 wrote: » Fianna fail and to a lesser extent. Fianna gael. Michael Martin had a go at the central bank about them just before the election. They also are going around with the motto of Ff are the party of home ownership. Fg had several attempts at work arounds on the rules with limited success
cnocbui wrote: I'm not sure they are a good idea anymore. They were supposed to be a temporary measure and people seem to think they should be a permanent fixture like the temporary USC.
cnocbui wrote: Anyone else thing central bank rules might also be responsible for low supply by acting as a disincentive to development?
AlmightyCushion wrote: » People still need somewhere to live but they can cut back and make compromises on the places they live. Move to less desirable areas or smaller, less desirable properties. They move home. They share instead of live by themselves.
Graham wrote: » I think lending limits should be a permanent measure for your average family home. We've already witnessed the fallout for the alternative.
cnocbui wrote: » Anyone else thing central bank rules might also be responsible for low supply by acting as a disincentive to development? I'm not sure they are a good idea anymore. They were supposed to be a temporary measure and people seem to think they should be a permanent fixture like the temporary USC.
