Pelezico wrote: » The market in Dublin is falling. The CSO states bear that out. Maybe people buying now represent the last bunch able to get mortgages before the drawbridge goes up. In that case the falls will be greater than ten percent.
Springy Turf wrote: » From my experience of the market in South Dublin, all a low asking price does it draw in a load of viewers who can't afford the place. Any house that I think looks undervalued on asking hits the limits (and beyond) of what I would think its worth when the final bids are in.
Springy Turf wrote: » It might be pure madness for your son to buy now (in your opinion), but there are lots of reasons, put forward by me and others now about why now might be the right time to buy, depending on circumstances. For example, Would a 10% drop on 12-15 months be worth: - Having kids miss out on the school you want them to attend - 12-15 months of rent. A family home in Dublin to rent would easily come to 24k in a year - Risking credit availability collapsing to the point where only cash buyers have a look in - Passing over a house in an area where you know opportunities only come up a couple of times a year - A year working in some ****ty rental situation where you are stuck all day working from home - Living with the possibility of your Landlord getting spooked by the market and wanting to sell up. The truth is, if there is a 10% drop, most people who bought now won't give it a second thought - they will have moved on with their lives while others sit around trying to time a completely unpredictable housing market.
Marius34 wrote: » You got 18,500 numbers purely on your own assumptions that 2,3,4 has no impact, nobody states this. It say's that 47,000 seems to high number. (by other analysis its estimated 35,000) But where did you see this: "builders own lobby group has stated we're already building more than enough homes each year" It appears it's a made up story.
PropQueries wrote: » From the Irish Times today "Claim that 47,000 new homes needed a year isn’t credible": https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/claim-that-47-000-new-homes-needed-a-year-isn-t-credible-1.4333525 It seems the 47,000 figure per year comes from: 1. Natural increase in population: 18,500 2. Reduction in household size: 12,500 3. Inward Migration: 8,000 4. Obsolescence: 8,000 Since we were building over 20,000 units pre-covid and the builders own lobby group state that the demand for new units from the natural increase in the population is 18,500, we're more than covering local demand.
PropQueries wrote: » The rest appear to be based on forecasts that the author states are probably unrealistic e.g. reduction in household size (household size increased in last Census) and obsolescence, which he also seems to debunk. Inward migration may actually reverse over the coming years due to the changes in the international tax regime.
Hubertj wrote: » What about 2, 3 and 4?
Marius34 wrote: » where did you get this?
PropQueries wrote: » Maybe you're right. It's just I don't see how bidding wars etc. can increase prices over the next few years when the builders own lobby group has stated we're already building more than enough homes each year to meet local demand and the banks can't have any money to lend.
PropQueries wrote: » You're right on the 2012 v 2013 low point. From looking at the property price index, May 2014 is at 87 and September 2019 is at 125. The seller of this property has an asking price that is only 8% above the selling price in May 2014. I'm obviously no maths genius, but if the CSO index is right, shouldn't the seller be seeking c. €630k instead of €475k?
Cyrus wrote: » how do you calculate that? per the latest CSO report: Dublin residential property prices have risen 91.4% from their February 2012 low That house was sold 2 and a bit years later.
Pelezico wrote: » Why would anyone buy now? Pure madness....they will repent at their leisure.
PropQueries wrote: » The point being that some sellers must be forecasting price falls in the order of c. 50% over the next twelve months and already appear to be factoring those forecasts into their asking prices.
PropQueries wrote: » Here's an example of the exact same house for asking prices 2020 vs selling prices in 2014. 6 Killeen Avenue, Malahide, Dublin - Asking €475,000: https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/6-killeen-avenue-malahide-dublin/4448824 6 Killeen Avenue, Malahide, Dublin - Sold €440,000 in May 2014. The CSO states that Dublin prices increased by 95% between 2013 and 2019.
Cyrus wrote: » i think it was that 20 was 3 bed but larger (the 4th bed being the attic room) 32 was 4 bed but smaller (didnt have or didnt include the space in the attic) one assumes the box room in 20 became a bathroom. they are the same house so the extra size is in the attic, im not sure if you are technically supposed to list it, or maybe you can but just not call it a bedroom.
Cyrus wrote: » id be with you on that but for some reason govts here (and i dont see any alternatives advocating a change) are very afraid of being seen facilitation forced evictions. non recourse lending would shake things up alright.
schmittel wrote: » Yes that's part of the meddling I'm referring to that is limiting the downside. Remove it all. I'd be in favour of non recourse mortgages, allowing the banks to lend whatever they wish, but only with the ability to repossess swiftly if contract is broken. And tell them there is no bail outs. Let a bank fail if it overextends itself. Let the bank take the risk, they will have learnt their lessons from the last time.
Cyrus wrote: » i think it was that 20 was 3 bed but larger (the 4th bed being the attic room) 32 was 4 bed but smaller (didnt have or didnt include the space in the attic) one assumes the box room in 20 became a bathroom. they are the same house so the extra size is in the attic, i'm not sure if you are technically supposed to list it, or maybe you can but just not call it a bedroom.
Villa05 wrote: » Govt meddling tried to relax get rid of the limits. Does meddling include these limits plus capital requirements for banks which put brakes on bank lending for obvious reasonsWould removing meddling release 50k odd houses to the market that are in substantial arrears
schmittel wrote: The lending rules are limiting prices to the upside, other factors are limiting them to the downside. Remove all the meddling and let the market set the price.
tigger123 wrote: Removing the 3.5 multiplier would be complete madness. People would be forced to get up to their neck in unsustainable date due to the lack of housing supply.
bubblypop wrote: » why does negative equity matter so much to him? It really only matters if he plans on selling the house, if he is buying fir the long term, negative equity doesn't matter
schmittel wrote: » I'd agree that number 20 seems to be a far nicer house. The larger, cheaper house obviously had a scrupulous estate agent who did not want to market the very large attic bedroom as an official bedroom. The 4th bedroom in no 32 is only 1.79m wide which is a bit rubbish really.
Cyrus wrote: » on the face of it even at the same price 20 seems more appealing than 32 (bit fresher inside etc) there may be some other reason that supports the difference but nothing that springs to mind. a few people have said, me included, that above 800k prices have been slowly decreasing for the past few years as this is the point where affordability has kicked in even for very well paid salaried folk. Effectively for a 1m house you need at least 200k plus circa 250k of income (if kids and childcare costs are involved). There are only so many buyers in that bracket. 32 came on at 1.1 but clearly had more than one interest party 20 was marketed at 10% less and achieved 15% less in reality. also a little odd, the smaller house (32) was a 4 bed and the larger (20) was marketed as a 3 bed.
Hubertj wrote: » i wouldnt live in Sandymount for 1 simple reason - getting stuck at the DART tracks drives my crazy!
