Hubertj wrote: » We discussed this before. I live near it. Couldn’t believe the price they put it up for. Crazy money.
fliball123 wrote: » ?? and whats your point?
Yurt! wrote: » Have you taken a look at interest rates lately? The world is awash with cheap money, banks are choking with cash looking for it to find a home.
cnocbui wrote: » Venture capital may be easy, but it isn't cheap.
DataDude wrote: » As per my first post. Credits can exacerbate bubbles but they are not an absolute requirement. Also credit exists in every single market to varying degrees, including the current housing market. So when an asset falls credit will always be referenced, as it’s always there. I remember creating a ‘bubble’ for the price of Aidan McGeady cards on Fifa Ultimate Team in the lead up to Paddys Day (good times) by buying all that came onto the market and sitting on them. Similarly GameStop a bubble was intentionally created by a bunch of retail investors. Sure some probably leveraged up through options, but you can absolutely move an asset from its intrinsic value without credit. Media hysteria is often a classic driver of bubbles also. Credit just makes the bubble bursting louder and faster.
fliball123 wrote: » have a look at the site herehttps://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/dotcom-bubble/ look at cause of the crash and look at 2. Abundance of venture capital
fliball123 wrote: » Then why are you arguing with me all I was saying if we are currently in a bubble that access to cheap credit which the government has had is what is fueling it ergo it seems to be one of the properties needed for a bubble historically
fliball123 wrote: » setting up lots of companies using cheap credit is what help start the dotcom bubble AS for the Dutch tuilips .. from the following website the last paragraph. I have bolded and underllied the part where credit is used . It was at that time that professional traders ("stock jobbers") got in on the action, and everybody appeared to be making money simply by possessing some of these rare bulbs. Indeed, it seemed at the time that the price could only go up; that "the passion for tulips would last forever." People began buying tulips with leverage - using margined derivatives contracts to buy more than they could afford. But as quickly as it began, confidence was dashed. By the end of the year 1637, prices began to fall and never looked back. A large part of this rapid decline was driven by the fact that people had purchased bulbs on credit, hoping to repay their loans when they sold their bulbs for a profit. But once prices started their decline, holders were forced to liquidate - to sell their bulbs at any price and to declare bankruptcy in the process. "Hundreds who, a few months previously had begun to doubt that there was such a thing as poverty in the land suddenly found themselves the possessors of a few bulbs, which nobody would buy," even at prices one-fourth of what they paid. By 1638, tulip bulb prices had returned to from whence they came.https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market_bubble.asp
Browney7 wrote: » Can you provide proof of this?
schmittel wrote: » I was saying that the cheap and easy access to credit that the funds and government have is inflating prices. Your failure to understand this is what I meant by the post going over your head.
DataDude wrote: » That’s nonsense. Setting up loads of companies isn’t a bubble. People buying shares in that company and elevating it far beyond its intrinsic value is the bubble. What about the textbook example of a bubble with Dutch tulips? The fertiliser produced by companies who accessed cheap credit...?
fliball123 wrote: » look at them again for example a lot of the dotcom companies that were started were started with what???? "access to cheap credit"
Mic 1972 wrote: » how do you know if the counsel outbid you?
sanfranbest wrote: » This house has been on the market for a few months, it was originally priced at 1.2 million, Now it has been relisted at 995k It's still a horrible house,, no curb appeal,,, dark and bad layout, Still not worth 995K,,, You are paying for the address,, not the house,,https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/detached-house-106-baggot-lane-ballsbridge-dublin-4/3152823
Mic 1972 wrote: » you answered your question then :-)
fliball123 wrote: » You mean you have no answer its ok If we are at the start of a bubble in 2021 (up until now the figures do not back up that we were in one till about sept of 2020) so if we are in one now are you saying that the access to the cheap credit our government has borrowed for 2020 will not have an impact in blowing up a bubble that maybe happening currently. Remember the government are now actively competing in buying existing 2nd hand and new property. They are also the biggest clients of rental from REITS and vulture funds ..But no that 20 billion borrowed in 2020 the cheap and easy access to that money that our government have gotten will have absolutely zero impact on this. Your such a snide when you cant win.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » The house that the council outbid my sister on was in poor nick, the antithesis of a new build!
Cyrus wrote: » you can just not everywhere.
DataDude wrote: » Surely most non-property asset bubbles aren’t built on easy access to credit? Dot Com, Dutch Tulip, Gamestop etc. Doesn’t credit just makes things worse as when the losses start investors get burned more, quicker and are forced to sell which causes things to spiral downward faster? Don’t see why credit is an absolute necessity in order for an asset to deviate from its fundamental value.
schmittel wrote: » I think my post went over your head to be honest.
fliball123 wrote: » And I said can you not work that out yourself? If you dont understand this key ingredient to every bubble in history then I am not doing your homework for you. just as a quick and recent example would property prices been as high as they were in 07 if banks were not throwing money around like confetti with thing like 110% mortgages?
Marius34 wrote: » That's not the same thing though. New builds is just a portion of residential property transactions. In fact it's less than half.
schmittel wrote: » Comparing the numbers of housing units built to number sold, listening to PropQueries, reading the Irish Times:State bodies playing role in squeezing Dublin housing market
Marius34 wrote: » Really? Where did you find this kind of information?
As noted by Goodbody chief economist Dermot O’Leary, the non-household sector (private companies, charitable organisations, and State institutions) accounted for 41 per cent of new home purchases in July and for 39 per cent over the past 12 months. “This included 48 per cent of new homes in Dublin over the past 12 months . . . this has been a trend that has been in place for some time and highlights the role that government vehicles (approved housing bodies, for example) and the private rented sector are having,” O’Leary said.
Mic 1972 wrote: » Because for that amount of money you should be able to get a mansion with plenty of space around
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
