dor843088 wrote: » Reselling these homes will not qualify for help to sell The house is no longer brand new The property market is significantly weaker than when most of these properties were bought. Negative Equity
KennisWhale wrote: » I do not think we can say that we have had the covid event as of yet considering the government and central banks are still supporting the economy and markets. Until restrictions are eased and accompanying economic supports are wound down, the covid shock will be delayed. In the quarter that everything is unfrozen we will start to see the fallout in the economy, which will only then start to affect the housing market, then a couple quarters later we will see the property market data. At this stage, best guess is Q2 2021 (April, 2021, at the start of the new tourism season) when the economy is unfrozen which means people are getting back to their jobs and will find out if they can still be paid the same amount / given the same number of hours, if they are even still needed by their company. The covid impact on housing would start to show in the quarterly reports after this (so Q3 reports onwards).
dor843088 wrote: » Reselling these homes will not qualify for help to sell - True The house is no longer brand new - True The property market is significantly weaker than when most of these properties were bought. - too early to tell, some of these properties were bought today/yesterday/last week Negative Equity
fliball123 wrote: » Can you prove this? So by your calcs ..These houses have dropped by at least 10% (First time buyers deposit) + the 30k from the First time buyers scheme. Can you show me one property in this category?
donnaille wrote: » Responses in the quoted text, but main thing to highlight - this isn't negative equity. Negative equity is when the mortgage on the property is greater than the value of the property.
Shoden wrote: » Here's an interesting video on the subject just posted by Shane Fleming: https://youtu.be/H_rSohgB6JU
dor843088 wrote: » I know all too well what negative equity is believe me. Buying a brand new home in a seriously weakening market with a help to sell grant that will not be there on resale ? This is basically how to get yourself into negative equity 101.
Marius34 wrote: » FTB competes with STB and other buyers, who are not eligible for HTB grants. It makes no sense that resale properties are 30K lower. If new house cost 330K, and resale price is 300K, I'm confident non-HTB grant buyers would choose the second one, no point to compete for same quality more expensive ones.
Hubertj wrote: » watched this thank you. Very interesting insights provided in what i thought was an objective manner.
poker--addict wrote: » I am not sure i see this the same way, and I am all for decreases. Looking at price changes seems flawed - most people and agents start ambitious with their asking price, so surely the natural tendency is for asking price changes on the whole to average out as a downward trend, even in a solid marketplace? I read nothing into a -2% reduction in asking price changes. The very fact that there are still loads of properties still increasing their asking price is a bigger indicator to me that upward pressure remains. I would imagine asking price increases would reduce to practically zero in a bear enviroment. To be fair, he does explain it is flawed after showing loads of them
dor843088 wrote: » First time buyers are the overwhelming majority of buyers in new developments. In fact they are the majority of mortgages drawn down full stop. Buildings do not remain static in value they depreciate over time. The land beneath it on the other hand is different. All other things being equal a second hand house is worth less than a brand new one . And that's before you remove a 30k grant to buy the new one.
markjbloggs wrote: » There will not be sufficient doses of a coronavirus vaccine to cover the wider EU population before 2022, officials said today in an internal meeting. First line of that RTE 2022 report, pathetic journalism. Awful stuff
cnocbui wrote: » That's perfectly fine, there don't need to be.
cubatahavana wrote: » Exactly, let the most vulnerable have it first. I’d say citizens over 65 first.
cnocbui wrote: » That wasn't quite what I meant. I meant you only really need enough to cover high urban density areas of Europe and enough people to get herd immunity, but if it's safe for the vulnerable, that approach would work too.
silver2020 wrote: » Maybe because you have experienced negative equity, you have a one sided view I bought a car in March - it was in negative equity the minute I drove it out the garage. Homes are long term purchases. Here's a fact. If you bought in 2005/2006 and got a tracker mortgage of less than 1.25% and the extended interest tax relief, you will have spent substantially less over 30 years than someone buying the EXACT same property 30% lower in 2012 who did not get max tax relief and could not get a tracker. A 300.000 mortgage will cost 1250 fixed for the next 10 years. At the end of 10 year the balance will be 225,000. Or sit out and spend 20k a year rent? I bought an investment property earlier this month, I'm looking for another couple over the next few months. I don't fear temporary ups and downs, but there is nothing suggesting any type of deep drop (I bought my first property 32 years ago, so seen many ups and downs)
jill_valentine wrote: » You're also assuming they haven't lived anywhere, paid any bills, and worked in unbroken employment in that time. So I would say quite unrealistic, yes. In the real world, someone who left college ten years ago will have almost certainly been let go or had their employer go bust at least once and worked at least one zero hours contract in that time, a period when they would have been glad to get 200 a week, never mind save it. For perspective, ten years ago I was working in a video game shop sifting through CVs from engineers and chemists. I got a quote for car insurance around the same time for 7 grand a year, and we all spent quite a lot of time in the work kitchen when we were off because the tea and bread was free. 100k savings for a post 2007 thirty year old is fantasy land. Under present conditions most people in that age group will have their first shot at home ownership when their parents die.
dor843088 wrote: » https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40071143.html Rebuilding Ireland loans drop 50% . Demand has fallen off a cliff
Thierry12 wrote: » Not surprised Most people using those schemes are doing jobs which don't exist anymore over this lockdown farce
Donald Trump wrote: » I observe that people tend to spend a sizeable amount on income on crap. If you think it's not realistic to save it then that is your opinion. I know that it is not impossible. A reasonable cross section of society in their 20's could save 200 quid a week. You wouldn't need to be on 80k a year to do so. If you went to college then you probably survived on very little until you were say 22. If you stretched out that living like a student for say 2 years while working on a fairly low paid job, you would still be easily able to save 200 a week. No? Not sure why you seem to think that prepay phones work out as cheaper than billpay btw.
