johnnyskeleton wrote: » I'm not sure that this was the reason why prices starting falling. Prices seemed to have hit a ceiling and didn't drop dramatically. The drops since then have been modest, with an equally modest increase at the end of last year. All points to property being overvalued and stagnating or dropping, rather than a catastrophic crash which would be caused by funds dumping their property. Other funds have been buying more property during that period, so it isn't a case of a dramatic net reduction in investment properties.
fliball123 wrote: Well it will all depend on how supply goes as well as WFH if both of these go up in significant numbers then a cuople on the median wage will well be able to afford the average house in Ireland. Its all ifs and buts.
fliball123 wrote: But we were not in a boom and bust cycle up until last year as the historical prices since 2017 reflect this in how they trended.
"In Ireland, permissive planning concessions enable build-to-rent developers to circumvent design standards. This has raised concerns that build-to-rent may deliver smaller, less diverse and lower-amenity housing (less storage, for example) than standard build-to-sell development."
johnnyskeleton wrote: » My point more generally is that there are a variety of different reasons for funds to decide whether to sell or hold on to Irish property. But more specifically, on those funds, the point is that the business model was to buy and hold for 7 years, and then decide whether to sell or not. While some probably decided to sell, others decided to hold on. But their dynamic is very different to the pension fund who are looking at a 20, 30 or 40 year etc investment and are less prone to making decisions based on the immediate market forces.Well Dublin peak seems to be October, 2018, and the scheme was introduced in December, 2011, so yeah, a lot of those funds who had a 7 year cycle in mind would have sold during this period. I'm not sure that this was the reason why prices starting falling. Prices seemed to have hit a ceiling and didn't drop dramatically. The drops since then have been modest, with an equally modest increase at the end of last year. All points to property being overvalued and stagnating or dropping, rather than a catastrophic crash which would be caused by funds dumping their property. Other funds have been buying more property during that period, so it isn't a case of a dramatic net reduction in investment properties. Also, doesn't the quoted stated that you think they have been disposing of them quietly since 2018 undermine your main point that you think a big crash is on the way due to them suddenly all exiting at once? How can they all suddenly exit if they are already exiting?
Cyrus wrote: » i think we bounced off the affordability limits that the CB rules created to be honest.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Was reading this piece on apartments in Australia and noted the lets not do it like those guys section...Build-to-rent surge will change apartment living for Australians, but for better or worse?https://theconversation.com/build-to-rent-surge-will-change-apartment-living-for-australians-but-for-better-or-worse-154839
cnocbui wrote: » Apartments are really on the nose in Australia. There are a couple major sagas involving buildings with significant structural flaws that look to cost apartment owners dearly. then there's the Grenfell cladding problem on numerous buildings which seem nigh insoluble due to cost. I wouldn't touch an apartment with a barge pole, personally - in any country.
yagan wrote: » Projecting forward the apartment model is obsolete when businesses can relocate so much of their backoffice to WFH and away from high office rent clusters and having to offer city expenses packages. We may well up with something similar to Bangkok where even today there's still over 20 empty skyscrapers 20 years after their vertical bubble.https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/bangkok-abandoned-ghost-towers/index.html
Hubertj wrote: » Thank you for sharing. Have seen some of them when visiting Bangkok over the last few years. Good to get the background.
Joeyjoejoe43 wrote: » What is the general consensus on where the Irish property market goes in the next 1/3/5 years?
Marius34 wrote: » There is no general consensus. But here is what likely to happen. Prices up this year. High demands and low supplies for next few years. Wouldn't know price direction after 3 years, but there will be ups and downs, but very likely we will never see prices of lows of 2020.
Marius34 wrote: » , but there will be ups and downs, but very likely we will never see prices of lows of 2020.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Even you know that's complete fantasy
combat14 wrote: » price lows of 2020 .. the sky is the limit so
The_Conductor wrote: » We have a bond sale tomorrow- lets see what is happening in an Irish context. I think its inevitable that the price we pay- is going to have to rise, which in turn, over time, will prove a drag on equities and other asset prices. We are in the beginning of pulling the brakes..........
PropQueries wrote: » This partly explains to me the lack of media coverage of people queuing for either rental of buying over the past 3 years. .
johnnyskeleton wrote: » My point more generally is that there are a variety of different reasons for funds to decide whether to sell or hold on to Irish property. But more specifically, on those funds, the point is that the business model was to buy and hold for 7 years, and then decide whether to sell or not. While some probably decided to sell, others decided to hold on. But their dynamic is very different to the pension fund who are looking at a 20, 30 or 40 year etc investment and are less prone to making decisions based on the immediate market forces. Well Dublin peak seems to be October, 2018, and the scheme was introduced in December, 2011, so yeah, a lot of those funds who had a 7 year cycle in mind would have sold during this period. I'm not sure that this was the reason why prices starting falling. Prices seemed to have hit a ceiling and didn't drop dramatically. The drops since then have been modest, with an equally modest increase at the end of last year. All points to property being overvalued and stagnating or dropping, rather than a catastrophic crash which would be caused by funds dumping their property. Other funds have been buying more property during that period, so it isn't a case of a dramatic net reduction in investment properties. Also, doesn't the quoted stated that you think they have been disposing of them quietly since 2018 undermine your main point that you think a big crash is on the way due to them suddenly all exiting at once? How can they all suddenly exit if they are already exiting?
PropQueries wrote: » Some interesting comments on Bloomberg about today's ECB meeting and the possible impact of interest rate movements on house prices this year. While I think since interest rates are at rock bottom and current property prices fully reflect this, some may think that ever lower interest rates may indeed boost property prices or at least keep them stable going forward. According to Bloomberg: "Most European Central Bank policy makers have no intention of expanding their 1.85 trillion-euro ($2.2 trillion) emergency stimulus program despite their pledge on Thursday to step up the pace of bond buying to keep yields in check, according to officials familiar with the matter." They said "Policy makers will spend more now but plan to pull back later" But, more importantly (IMO): "Policy makers agreed that there had been some tightening of financial conditions as a consequence of higher yields in recent weeks, though a majority of those who expressed their views also said they weren’t too concerned, according to the officials." In my opinion, and I fully realise many disagree, there are far more countries in the eurozone who don't have a debt problem compared to the few countries who do (relatively speaking) and they appear to be increasingly making their voices heard at the table IMO Link to Bloomberg article here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/ecb-doesn-t-intend-faster-bond-buying-to-lead-to-more-stimulus?srnd=premium-europe
Timing belt wrote: » The ECB can do QE to keep rates low without the governments needing to increase borrowing.
The_Conductor wrote: » They can do it- however, increasingly, as individuals, the council members are expressing a reluctance to continue to do so. They are continuing to make nice fuzzy sounding noises to the media- but talk is cheap, and the perception is, if it comes to it, the ECB doesn't have the willpower to continue down the expansionary path. I'm not sure how much they've spent- seem to remember the figure 2.7 Trillion from somewhere......... Its a lot of money. National governments are going to have to do the heavy lifting as soon as Covid is no longer the financial drain that it currently is. In the context of heavily indebted nations- that is going to mean a whole lot of pain. Even with historically low interest rates- Ireland still paid over 7 billion in interest payments on its sovereign debt in 2020. Ireland is living on borrowed time- both literally and figuratively.
Mic 1972 wrote: » Prices haven't peaked in 2018, and very clearly aren't decreasing, this narrative is incorrect
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Interesting argument. Im basing my view on the CSOs published data:https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rppi/residentialpropertypriceindexdecember2020/ However Id be interested to see where youre coming from. Is it because there was a modest increase at the end of last year? Cos I mentioned that in my post, in case thats why you consider my narrative to be incorrect.
woejus wrote: » @Cyrus I see Mount Prospect on Killiney Hill Road is back on the market againhttps://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/mount-prospect-killiney-hill-road-killiney-co-dublin-a96-v09h/4468912
