PropQueries wrote: » Looks like they bought Blanchardstown Shopping Centre in 2016 for €950m with most of it funded through borrowings (AIG and investment bank Morgan Stanley, alongside AIB, are owed €580m and Goldman Sachs owed €150m of less well secured mezzanine debt according to the article). I'd assume they just want out and if they can easily pass the cost onto their lenders, I don't blame them.
schmittel wrote: » Conor Skehan, then Chairman of the Housing Agency writing in the Independent in 2015 raises some interesting points: Fast forward 5 years and we have builders left with levels of unsold stock of expensive semi-ds in the suburbs, according to Goodbody stockbrokers. We also thanks to COVID have a clear trend towards accelerated implementation of WFH, giving many of the potential buyers of these houses now the option of looking far beyond the suburbs. I get that everybody's circumstances are different, and I understand the argument about not putting one's life on hold, but if I was about to sign a 30 year mortgage contract for an expensive semi d in suburbia I'd being giving the point Conor Skehan raises some very serious consideration.
Bass Reeves wrote: » If I was one of the pillar lenders I would not do a deal either. There loans are only 60% of the 2016 funding, GS who lend 15%and Blackstone have put up 25%. Any bank will burn them before they take a loss. Blackstone is trying to play hardball with a balloon Sums speak for themselves
schmittel wrote: » And do you think any of what Conor Skehan said 5 years ago rings true?
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Wasnt he the guy who said "Great cities will only have the wealthy living in them in the future" on the 18th July edition of Brendan O' Connor's show
PropQueries wrote: » Maybe. But given that any equity they may have had in the centre is probably now permanently lost, why would they stick with an asset that will most likely keep falling in value. I'd assume they're not that interested in managing tenant issues going forward if there's no capital gain to be had, for the foreseeable future anyway.
Bass Reeves wrote: » 350k requires 100k in joint incomes to achieve the multiplier for a mortgage. Would a bank give an exemption to a couple with two young kids even at 4 times salary it s 87k joint income. They may have income not included such as OT or bonus. For that matter maybe part of the deposit may have come from an inheritance or they could be in there thirties.
Cyrus wrote: » ultimately builders build what people want, and most people want a house not an apartment and will stretch to get it.
Cyrus wrote: » also you refer to WFH pushing people to look outside dublin, if that all comes to pass prices in dublin will decrease but these cheap houses outside will start to get more expensive.
schmittel wrote: » certainly sounds like something he would say. he also said that a certain level of genuine homelessness was inevitable but media driven reactive govt policies had driven up numbers of those who were 'self identifying' as homeless - i.e gaming the system.
schmittel wrote: » Nothing to worry about here, this time it's a health crisis, not a financial crisis. Sure the banks are grand now.
schmittel wrote: » Agreed, builders built what people want now. Skehan's point is what happens to those houses in 10 or 15 years when people want something different?
Browney7 wrote: » To be fair, rental yields have an awful lot to do with the price of property. If an investor needs a 6% gross rental yield on a 300k property, they need 18 grand of rent. If the rent drops to 16 grand it stands to reason the property drops as well or else the investor drops their return requirements. Granted, investors make up a subset of the market and based on what people say on this forum you'd be mad to invest now at any price due to tenant rights. I really can't see many investors ploughing into the market now with all the covid uncertainty either....but there's no data for this so it can't possibly be true
schmittel wrote: » Agreed, builders built what people want now. Skehan's point is what happens to those houses in 10 or 15 years when people want something different? Yes and yes. That would be logical.
PropQueries wrote: » Seems logical. But aren't all those tens of thousands of empty properties in rural areas. If demand picks up, owners who didn't bother marketing them before because they thought they wouldn't sell, may now start doing minor renovations and placing them on the market. Isn't it possible it may have the opposite effect i.e. increased demand for rural homes may actually leads to an increase in supply in those areas? If the increase in supply is significant, it may actually result in better quality rural homes also coming in at lower prices?
smurgen wrote: » I think so. Another thing I was thinking of to help people see the possibility of rural loving will be the staycations. I'm sure those heading off to rural areas now for the breaks rather than abroad will more appreciate the possibilities outside of the cities and be curious enough to look up local property costs. Going back to the tiny 3 bed that costs then half a mil in deserted Dublin will probably adjust a few minds.
PropQueries wrote: » That's true. Also, a lot of those houses in the city that were previously rented out by the bedroom to young workers may now be converted back into family homes which may actually increase the number of family homes in the city. And the downward spiral continues...
Marius34 wrote: » Does anyone still know any larger ghost estates from last construction boom? I'm not talking about small projects with 5-10 houses, or not completed builds. There used to be many ghost estates during the crisis, but the ones I knew are mostly all got inhabited in the last few years.
awec wrote: » But why would they do that. Sure nobody is going to live in Dublin any more?
Cyrus wrote: » well that depends on the trajectory of your population. the house i bought at 37 will be the house i downsize from at 67 (so a 30 year window) unless things go really well and i move in the interim. one would assume the 37 year old version of me will want to buy it or something similar, its whether there are enough of them or are they outnumbered by the downsizers?
awec wrote: » Yea, they're going to leave "deserted Dublin" ( :pac: ) for bustling rural Ireland. We are lucky that Covid came along so that people in Dublin could leave the city for the first time ever, and learn what rural Ireland looks like, and realise that they can all trade their 3 bed semi for a half acre in the sticks. There is some absolute rubbish posted on here sometimes.
schmittel wrote: » Skehan's point is that the 37 year old version of you is unlikely to want to buy it or something similiar. Or if as you point out, even if they do want to buy it, they will be in the minority.
PropQueries wrote: » While this is the short-term benefit for potential WFH opportunities, I think the next big impact, admittedly about 10 -15 years away, is the self-driving car. This is what will truly open up every rural home to a potential buyer. And, apparently, there's tens of thousands of them right there, already built and ready to go.
