2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1

Hubertj · 05-02-2021 08:23AM

schmittel wrote: »

But if we’re seeing a net gain of we are not losing 5-8k properties a year. That’s the point. Older properties are being maintained better or brought back into use.

It would be silly to make new build need projections based on losing 8k houses a year when we are actually gaining 7k a year. That’s a 15k swing.

It was be extremely silly not to consider obsolescence when considering housing projections. To suggest the geeks that crunch these numbers don’t consider obsolescence and older properties being renovated / put back into use is just madness. I think a bit of cop on is required. Are you really suggesting nobody else considers this?

Hubertj · 05-02-2021 08:33AM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/councillors-to-be-bypassed-in-land-sale-to-state-housing-agency-1.4476557

This is a good move. The fact that councillors could block this process is ridiculous. Some of them can barely spell.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 08:38AM

Hubertj wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/councillors-to-be-bypassed-in-land-sale-to-state-housing-agency-1.4476557

This is a good move. The fact that councillors could block this process is ridiculous. Some of them can barely spell.

Definitely a good move as councillors will block and delay everything unless it comes from their own political party.

PropQueries · 05-02-2021 08:55AM

schmittel wrote: »

Strangely you did not quote the full sentence:

"Our scenario assumes that 5,000 new dwellings are required each year to replace existing housing stock lost due to obsolescence based on Duffy et al.(2014)”

So they’re basing their projections of obsolescence in 2019 on 2014 figures, when we’d just finished up knocking ghost estates.

That’s a good point. Never made sense to me to take the obsolescence rate during the downturn and apply it to now. Many obvious reasons (like the one you mentioned) why the obsolescence rate would have been higher during that period.

Given that the pre-Covid projected estimates of housing demand per year going forward were broken down as c.18,000 for existing domestic demand, c.12,000 for continued inward net migration and c.5,000 to replace obsolete stock each year, the rate of obsolescence is a big part of the projected future demand for housing.

If the projected annual rate for obsolescence (same goes for projected annual net inward migration) is wrong, it matters a lot IMO

hometruths · 05-02-2021 09:02AM

Hubertj wrote: »

It was be extremely silly not to consider obsolescence when considering housing projections. To suggest the geeks that crunch these numbers don’t consider obsolescence and older properties being renovated / put back into use is just madness. I think a bit of cop on is required. Are you really suggesting nobody else considers this?

Of course they consider obsolescence, as they should. But what they should not to do is simply say well 5000 homes become obsolete each year so we need to include an additional 5000 homes every year to replace these.

As you say they need to balance that with projections for numbers coming back into use, and crucially where the obsolescence and renovation is happening.

If 5000 properties are becoming obsolete in Leitrim and 12000 are being renovated in Dublin it has a massive effect on housing need.

I would hope the boffins who calculate projections have some mechanism of weighing this up, but some posters on here seem to think that we're losing 5000 a year of our existing housing stock and we need 5000 new builds to replace these.

That is extremely silly. As you say a bit of cop on is required.

Hubertj · 05-02-2021 09:02AM

Timing belt wrote: »

Definitely a good move as councillors will block and delay everything unless it comes from their own political party.

Couldn’t agree more.

hometruths · 05-02-2021 09:19AM

Timing belt wrote: »

What is also interesting is that in 2017 geo-directory added 36k new address but the no of completions that year was only 14k giving a difference of 22k and no explanation was provided in the report. It is also the same time that they excluded derelict dwellings from their housing stock and started reporting vacant properties which may just be a coincidence but I think they did a tidy up exercise when they had the CSO data to compare against IMO

I also think they did a "tidy up" exercise in 2017. A lot of changes happened in 2017, it's almost like somebody had a word in their ear.

A big one was they no longer even commented on the turnover rate, which is a very important figure in the property market. In previous reports turnover had a dedicated in depth subsection and analysis by county, and in the 2015 report was considered to be a "key statistic":

Annette Hughes, director of DKM Economic Consultants said: “ The key statistic which the report highlighted was that the national average housing turnover rate in the year to December 2015 stood at 2.2 per cent.

“This rate is showing very few signs of improving and is still well below what would be deemed to be a more normal housing turnover rate of around 4 per cent to 5 per cent,” she said.

Then all of sudden in 2017 they never mentioned it again, though it remained at or close to 2015 levels.

2015 - 2.2%
2016 - 2.1%
2017 - 2.5%
2018 - 2.7%
2019 - 2.8%
2020 - 1.74%

The "conspiracy theorist experts" here might suggest they removed it to remove the focus and comment on it. If so, it seems to have worked.

Marius34 · 05-02-2021 09:20AM

schmittel wrote: »

Yes honestly I do. I think total housing stock means total housing stock. Not sure what else it could mean.

Timing belt Pointed out something interesting here to your point.

Timing belt wrote: »

Geo new address added Difference
2020 2,042,420 28,063 21,851 6,212
2019 2,014,357 20,685 20,359 326
2018 1,993,672 19,323 21,207 -1,884
2017 1,974,349 -46,174 36,218 -82,392
2016 2,020,523 10,627 13,842 -3,215
2015 2,009,896

Between 2016 & 2020 Geo Directory housing stock increased only 22K in total in 4 years.
Let see if you still defending that housing stock is housing stock and we had only gain of 22K in all 4 years?

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 09:21AM

schmittel wrote: »

Of course they consider obsolescence, as they should. But what they should not to do is simply say well 5000 homes become obsolete each year so we need to include an additional 5000 homes every year to replace these.

As you say they need to balance that with projections for numbers coming back into use, and crucially where the obsolescence and renovation is happening.

If 5000 properties are becoming obsolete in Leitrim and 12000 are being renovated in Dublin it has a massive effect on housing need.

I would hope the boffins who calculate projections have some mechanism of weighing this up, but some posters on here seem to think that we're losing 5000 a year of our existing housing stock and we need 5000 new builds to replace these.

That is extremely silly. As you say a bit of cop on is required.

I believe the ESRI take into account the different obsolesce rates by region in their projections

hometruths · 05-02-2021 09:25AM

Marius34 wrote: »

Timing belt Pointed out something interesting here to your point.

Between 2016 & 2020 Geo Directory housing stock increased only 22K in total in 4 years.
Let see if you still defending that housing stock is housing stock and we had only gain of 22K in all 4 years?

:rolleyes: Yes I am still claiming that when Geodirectory refer to total residential housing stock they mean total residential housing stock.

Timing Belt also pointed out they changed their methodology in 2017. Indeed that was kind of the point of his post, but maybe you missed that.

Marius34 · 05-02-2021 09:34AM

schmittel wrote: »

:rolleyes: Yes I am still claiming that when Geodirectory refer to total residential housing stock they mean total residential housing stock.

Timing Belt also pointed out they changed their methodology in 2017. Indeed that was kind of the point of his post, but maybe you missed that.

Yes, its housing stock, but we don't know how exactly they derived to new numbers each year, they doesn't explain this. It doesn't mean that its a new stocks has been added in Ireland in the year. It doesn't tell this.

If their housing stock numbers means exactly the same thing each year to you, it means only 22K has been added in 4 years to you.

hometruths · 05-02-2021 09:47AM

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, its housing stock, but we don't know how exactly they derived to new numbers each year, they doesn't explain this. It doesn't mean that its a new stocks has been added in Ireland in the year. It doesn't tell this.

It tells us the total housing stock has increased by 28k. 21k of these are new builds and 7k are from some combination of renovation/repurposing. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

Marius34 wrote: »

If their housing stock numbers means exactly the same thing each year to you, it means only 22K has been added in 4 years to you.

That's nonsense. And you know it. It means exactly the same to me if they don't say they have calculated the figure differently hence we can compare 2019 to 2020 like for like but cannot compare 2016 to 2020 like for like.

Again this is not a difficult concept to understand.

Hubertj · 05-02-2021 09:52AM

schmittel wrote: »

Of course they consider obsolescence, as they should. But what they should not to do is simply say well 5000 homes become obsolete each year so we need to include an additional 5000 homes every year to replace these.

As you say they need to balance that with projections for numbers coming back into use, and crucially where the obsolescence and renovation is happening.

If 5000 properties are becoming obsolete in Leitrim and 12000 are being renovated in Dublin it has a massive effect on housing need.

I would hope the boffins who calculate projections have some mechanism of weighing this up, but some posters on here seem to think that we're losing 5000 a year of our existing housing stock and we need 5000 new builds to replace these.

That is extremely silly. As you say a bit of cop on is required.

Why are you picking on Leitrim? Everyone seems to pick on Leitrim. Can we use Longford instead please.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 09:54AM

schmittel wrote: »

It tells us the total housing stock has increased by 28k. 21k of these are new builds and 7k are from some combination of renovation/repurposing. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

That's nonsense. And you know it. It means exactly the same to me if they don't say they have calculated the figure differently hence we can compare 2019 to 2020 like for like but cannot compare 2016 to 2020 like for like.

Again this is not a difficult concept to understand.

You are assuming that the annual stock figures are correct and accurate.. I don't for a second think in 2017 that 22k of additional stock just came back to life that year.. I think it will have been a tidy up for prior periods.

likewise I think that the 7k in 2020 will be a tidy up for prior periods... I have no proof that this is the case but likewise all we know is that they included it during this period. But when you compare to the ESB reconnections data and take into account the repossessed properties the annual properties being reconnect is less than 1k in 2020.

If we are to look at the housing stock on a like for like with the CSO stock increased by 71k between Dec 2016 and Dec 2020... During the same period we had 74k of house completions.

hometruths · 05-02-2021 10:00AM

Hubertj wrote: »

Why are you picking on Leitrim? Everyone seems to pick on Leitrim. Can we use Longford innate as please.

Poor old Leitrim. I will use Longford in future. I do think Leitrim is much nicer.

Re property in Longford it is odd that when we are discussing vacant properties the view on here seems to be that they're most likely old worthless decaying houses in the arsehole Longford, but when we are discussing the 6000 lost detached houses people are worried that they represent prime properties!

hometruths · 05-02-2021 10:09AM

Timing belt wrote: »

You are assuming that the annual stock figures are correct and accurate.. I don't for a second think in 2017 that 22k of additional stock just came back to life that year.. I think it will have been a tidy up for prior periods.

likewise I think that the 7k in 2020 will be a tidy up for prior periods... I have no proof that this is the case but likewise all we know is that they included it during this period. But when you compare to the ESB reconnections data and take into account the repossessed properties the annual properties being reconnect is less than 1k in 2020.

If we are to look at the housing stock on a like for like with the CSO stock increased by 71k between Dec 2016 and Dec 2020... During the same period we had 74k of house completions.

Well yes I am assuming the figures are correct and accurate. This does not seem unreasonable.

Like all of these things I look at the figures, assume they are correct, unless any evidence to the contrary, and simply point out what the figures are telling us.

Yet again, posters such as yourself say something along the lines of, well that's not right, you cannot believe the figures.

Which begs the obvious question that if we cannot believe the figures that are being published regarding the movements in current total housing stock why can we believe the figures published regarding the need for future housing stock?

PropQueries · 05-02-2021 10:10AM

Timing belt wrote: »

You are assuming that the annual stock figures are correct and accurate.. I don't for a second think in 2017 that 22k of additional stock just came back to life that year.. I think it will have been a tidy up for prior periods.

likewise I think that the 7k in 2020 will be a tidy up for prior periods... I have no proof that this is the case but likewise all we know is that they included it during this period. But when you compare to the ESB reconnections data and take into account the repossessed properties the annual properties being reconnect is less than 1k in 2020.

If we are to look at the housing stock on a like for like with the CSO stock increased by 71k between Dec 2016 and Dec 2020... During the same period we had 74k of house completions.

It's entirely possible for two reasons:

1. The Government introduced the CGT tax exemptions in late 2011 and they expired in December 2014. Many investors would have purchased run down properties, especially in Dublin during that period. By the time they renovated them and re-introduced them back into the market, 2017 would seem about right? You must also remember that Noonan basically banned c. 5,000 bedsits in 2013 so many of these would also have also re-entered the market a few years later as they were renovated to cater for the new standards.

2. The so-called vulture funds also purchased a couple of hundred billion in loans attached to many of the boom era built properties during this period also. By the time they got through the paperwork etc. and figured out exactly what they had bought, some of these would have started re-entering supply around 2017 too.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 10:13AM

schmittel wrote: »

Well yes I am assuming the figures are correct and accurate. This does not seem unreasonable.

Like all of these things I look at the figures, assume they are correct, unless any evidence to the contrary, and simply point out what the figures are telling us.

Yet again, posters such as yourself say something along the lines of, well that's not right, you cannot believe the figures.

Which begs the obvious question that if we cannot believe the figures that are being published regarding the movements in current total housing stock why can we believe the figures published regarding the need for future housing stock?

If there were 7k properties actually added over an above the cso completions data they could only be student accom if there is no ESB connections... That is all I am saying so maybe try not to be so defensive. Its not unreasonable to point out that the ESB data is telling us something different.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 10:21AM

PropQueries wrote: »

It's entirely possible for two reasons:

1. The Government introduced the CGT tax exemptions in late 2011 and they expired in December 2014. Many investors would have purchased run down properties, especially in Dublin during that period. By the time they renovated them and re-introduced them back into the market, 2017 would seem about right? You must also remember that Noonan basically banned c. 5,000 bedsits in 2013 so many of these would also have also re-entered the market a few years later as they were renovated to cater for the new standards.

2. The so-called vulture funds also purchased a couple of hundred billion in loans attached to many of the boom era built properties during this period also. By the time they got through the paperwork etc. and figured out exactly what they had bought, some of these would have started re-entering supply around 2017 too.

unfinished houses (UFHD) connections to the ESB were less than 500 in 2017 that is a big difference from 22k

hometruths · 05-02-2021 10:22AM

Timing belt wrote: »

If there were 7k properties actually added over an above the cso completions data they could only be student accom if there is no ESB connections... That is all I am saying so maybe try not to be so defensive. Its not unreasonable to point out that the ESB data is telling us something different.

I don't think the student accommodation argument stacks up. We're talking about 7k properties - intuitively that seems too high to all be student accommodation.

PropQueries · 05-02-2021 10:25AM

schmittel wrote: »

I don't think the student accommodation argument stacks up. We're talking about 7k properties - intuitively that seems too high to all be student accommodation.

To be fair, it seems all the councils and the state were caught completely off guard by how much student accommodation went up and how quickly it did.

I think they still have no idea how much was built, as amazing as that sounds.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 10:25AM

schmittel wrote: »

I don't think the student accommodation argument stacks up. We're talking about 7k properties - intuitively that seems too high to all be student accommodation.

There were 10k student apartments built between 2016-2020 so I agree I don't think it is student apartments.. they will contribute maybe 1/2k but they do not make up the full difference.

Which means that if it a domestic dwelling that came back to life I would expect to see the ESB reconnections that would correspond with it.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 10:28AM

PropQueries wrote: »

To be fair, it seems all the councils and the state were caught completely off guard by how much student accommodation went up and how quickly it did.

I think they still have no idea how much was built, as amazing as that sounds.

The following shows the data but it is not the easiest to read and doesn't give breakdowns by year etc so yes you are probably right and they use ball park figures
https://assets.gov.ie/42542/1327d875a3754e54b0f966d72ecb94c5.pdf

hometruths · 05-02-2021 10:33AM

Timing belt wrote: »

There were 10k student apartments built between 2016-2020 so I agree I don't think it is student apartments.. they will contribute maybe 1/2k but they do not make up the full difference.

Ok we agree, but that's an about turn to what you posted 10 mins ago;

Timing belt wrote: »

If there were 7k properties actually added over an above the cso completions data they could only be student accom if there is no ESB connections....

So where does that leave us?

Timing belt wrote: »

Which means that if it a domestic dwelling that came back to life I would expect to see the ESB reconnections that would correspond with it.

To me the most plausible explanation is that many properties that were renovated/repurposed had an active ESB connection during the time which they were not classified as part of the housing stock. It's a ball ache to get reconnected so many people leave the connection live.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 10:43AM

schmittel wrote: »

Ok we agree, but that's an about turn to what you posted 10 mins ago;

There is no about turn... what I said ten mins ago was that if there was really 7k new properties that they would have to be student accom because we are not seeing the data in the ESB connections.

So where does that leave us?

That leaves us guessing at what makes up the 7k.. we only know that the figure was added to housing stock in 2020... it could be a correction to prior years data we don't know

To me the most plausible explanation is that many properties that were renovated/repurposed had an active ESB connection during the time which they were not classified as part of the housing stock. It's a ball ache to get reconnected so many people leave the connection live.

I don't think this will be the case as vacant property is included within the housing stock figure so for it to be additional stock it would need to be derlict..... How they define derelict from Vacant I don't know. It's as good as me saying its from prior years... There is no way of knowing

hometruths · 05-02-2021 11:09AM

Timing belt wrote: »

There is no about turn... what I said ten mins ago was that if there was really 7k new properties that they would have to be student accom because we are not seeing the data in the ESB connections.

Fair enough, I misunderstood. You're saying that you don't believe the 7k. But it is still wrong to say the only plausible explanation is student accommodation.

Timing belt wrote: »

I don't think this will be the case as vacant property is included within the housing stock figure so for it to be additional stock it would need to be derlict..... How they define derelict from Vacant I don't know. It's as good as me saying its from prior years... There is no way of knowing

With respect I am not sure saying it's most likely they found these additional units that were unaccounted for in error in previous years is as plausible as saying these units are most likely renovated/repurposed.

For them to make a 7k mistake we'd need to ask why were units unaccounted for. Given that they are part of An Post, have a database of every single address in the country and can call on a workforce that visits every address almost daily the opportunities for error are few.

Sure they might wrongly classify a number of houses, but they are not going to suddenly find a heap of unaccounted ones behind the bushes.

How many might they wrongly classify?

As you say yourself the most plausible area to wrongly classify is vacant or derelict.

So it's possible they wrongly classified 7k properties last year as derelict and not part of the housing stock which now represent vacant properties and part of the housing stock.

But if that is the case the actual result is the same. The total residential housing stock figure has increased by 7k over and above the number of new builds - a total gain of 28k for the year.

Whether they have moved out of the derelict column because they got a new roof or because of an admin error makes little practical difference.

Timing belt · 05-02-2021 11:29AM

schmittel wrote: »

Fair enough, I misunderstood. You're saying that you don't believe the 7k. But it is still wrong to say the only plausible explanation is student accommodation.

With respect I am not sure saying it's most likely they found these additional units that were unaccounted for in error in previous years is as plausible as saying these units are most likely renovated/repurposed.

For them to make a 7k mistake we'd need to ask why were units unaccounted for. Given that they are part of An Post, have a database of every single address in the country and can call on a workforce that visits every address almost daily the opportunities for error are few.

Sure they might wrongly classify a number of houses, but they are not going to suddenly find a heap of unaccounted ones behind the bushes.

How many might they wrongly classify?

As you say yourself the most plausible area to wrongly classify is vacant or derelict.

So it's possible they wrongly classified 7k properties last year as derelict and not part of the housing stock which now represent vacant properties and part of the housing stock.

But if that is the case the actual result is the same. The total residential housing stock figure has increased by 7k over and above the number of new builds - a total gain of 28k for the year.

Whether they have moved out of the derelict column because they got a new roof or because of an admin error makes little practical difference.

It does if it is an error that relates to prior years....

I have emailed them the following:

Geoview - Residential Buildings Report

RE: unexplained increase in Housing Stock reported in the 2019 Q4 Report and 2020 Q4 Report.

Total stock of residential dwellings in the 2020 Q4 reported was 2,042,426 an increase of 28,069 from the figure you published in 2020 Q4 Report (2,014,357)

The 2020 Q4 reports mentions that 21,851 new address were added during the 12 months.

Can you please explain where the extra 6,218 has come from.

Kind Regards,

hometruths · 05-02-2021 11:38AM

Timing belt wrote: »

It does if it is an error that relates to prior years....

I have emailed them the following:

I don't follow how it makes much difference other than it means they are underestimating their vacancy figures fairly significantly...

Good work on the email.

HansKroenke · 05-02-2021 12:23PM

Timing belt wrote: »

Definitely a good move as councillors will block and delay everything unless it comes from their own political party.

A good news story this 6 Nations Friday!

Villa05 · 05-02-2021 01:20PM

Hubertj wrote:

This is a good move. The fact that councillors could block this process is ridiculous. Some of them can barely spell.

Is removing checks and balances regarding the disposal of state land by a Fianna fail led department wise

You used the word credibility yesterday. Does this exist with Fianna fail and their relationship with developers

This land development agency combined with Fianna fail scares me. It has the potential to plunder state assets for the wealthy in a manner that would make Putin in Russia blush

Be careful what you wish for and stop being selective in the history lessons you choose to study

2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Comments

2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1