schmittel wrote: » the rental market and the sales market are intrinsically linked. Apologies, but the idea that they are priced completely independently of each other is laughably ignorant.
smurgen wrote: » Losing your home and getting kicked out of rental property has nothing to do with correlation of the prices between the rental market and house prices. The value of the house and the rent yield are linked. The two have deviated for now but I out that down to the fact it takes longer to sell and buy houses on average than it does to let or rent a house. This lag will catch up soon.
fliball123 wrote: » They are decoupled by the fact that affordability once your renting and once you have a mortgage are treated differently as in one instance renting if you cant afford it your going to be kicked out and a property is added to supply this is not the same with a mortgage, Also there is no point in arguing just because rents are down during a a lockdown with no students and very few foreign visitors coming to our shores mean that even if the correlation exists the same conditions will not be there when covid is gone. If they are priced the same then why have rents in the last 5 years sky rocketed above what you would pay for a mortgage? I don't doubt there is some commonalities between them but the game changer is the banks not being able to repossess that is the fly in the ointment to your theory. AS for being ignorant I think you need to have a look in the mirror as you must have a crystal ball and can see the future as your trying and tell people what to do as you are the all knowing and all powerful one..Go to bed will ye your talking sh1t again
Graham wrote: » I pointed out their track record might be considered less than stellar. Conclusions entirely your own.
smurgen wrote: » What's the value in pointing out they've previously been wrong?
fliball123 wrote: » no its nothing to do with that the rental market is seperate to the buying and selling of property. As I stated on here the biggest difference is if someone is paying a mortgage and losses their job there is a high likelihood that they will get to stay in their family home without losing it, the same cannot be said for those renting. So its to do with how the 2 are treated when affordability is in question
Ursabear wrote: » I'm going to write something that sounds harsh, but Im not sure public sentiment will stay predominantly in favour of keeping this status quo as it is. Theres a huge cohort of people in there late 20s up to late 30s early 40s who have been paying huge rents for years and would love a family but can't get onto the property ladder, and are maybe not feeling the same sentiment of support towards people who are not paying towards their mortgage staying in their homes - as it is it is preventing property being released to the market . ( When it is the case that the homes are high desirability and the people are choosing not to downsize etc and have the means too, there is more support for people genuinely struggling, I am thinking of some high profile cases last year)
Graham wrote: » Primarily because you're holding them up as some great predictors of markets despite their relatively recent track record.
fliball123 wrote: The only thing I will say is the state has a long long history of paying stupid money and your deluded if you think there is an alternative to the current government who are going to take support away if anything the opposition as it currently stands are far more left leaning and will be giving more support and money away. Unless you seen a party who have actively propositioned this in their manifestos during the elections. By the way I am not arguing with you I think you spot on with regards to the way government are handling things but I cannot see it changing if Sinn Fein get in they will be throwing money at the homeless or should I say those without their own house.
PropQueries wrote: » FYI. Article in today's Irish Times "Claim that 47,000 new homes needed a year isn’t credible" for whoever may be interested. Article link here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/claim-that-47-000-new-homes-needed-a-year-isn-t-credible-1.4333525
The objective, of course, is to talk up the market for investors while warning the Government off doing anything radical, or anything that might upset the current price dynamics.
schmittel wrote: » A good point:
brisan wrote: » If the returns on a 300k rental property do not add up then the investors will not buy Less demand means prices should fall until returns ie yield makes economic sense for the investor
Hubertj wrote: » It is... i think they need to look at all the costs and not just lay all blame at the cost of land. What about costs associated with connecting utilities? While regulation is important I’ve read it adds considerably to construction costs - is there truth in this? Can regulations be improved to reduce costs while maintaining quality and safety? We cant have a repeat of the last decade where there was virtually no construction for a period leading to some of the issues we have today
Bass Reeves wrote: » The article put a fairly simple logical case regarding population increase, migration and reduction in household size( basically people wanting to move out of home) to come to the figures. While 47 K/year would be on the high side, we are only building 18.5k units/ year. At present demand outstrips supply it will continue to do so on these figures. Most of the pressure is in the Dublin area. Even if the 47k figure is high the figures suggest we need 30k+/ year for a substantial amount of time that 12k units above present building rate or a 66%increase. SF and FF plan pre election was based in about 12k social and affordable units (mostly houses) for 5+ years. That the basis why I and other cannot see the price of houses collapse beyond 10% if they fall that far at all. Demand outstrips supply and will do for the next while anyway
Might it be that Ireland’s housing crisis has morphed from a supply crisis into an affordability crisis? People want to buy houses but can’t because their incomes don’t match up.
smurgen wrote: » Recent? What do you classify as recent?
Pelezico wrote: » The CSO numbers would not provide an impetus to buy. Plenty of time to wait and see. Just bide your time and there will be plenty to pick from.
schmittel wrote: » Interestingly the report that is the subject of the Irish Times article states that the Greater Dublin Area has a surplus of approximately 100k family homes. Who'd have thought it?
Cyrus wrote: » on the basis of perceived requirements, a shortage of apartments and a surplus of family houses, but irish people prefer to live in houses. young couples will tend to buy a house not an apartment generally, even if they dont plan on having kids.
cnocbui wrote: » Does this report give a reason as to why so few of this great abundance of surplus houses are available for sale?
