schmittel wrote: » Sure in the last crash banks were probably bridging 110% on properties that had 10% equity or some other madness. I am talking about implementing lending limits off for example max 70% of the equity in your house. And it could be minimum loan size of eg 250k. So to qualify you'd have to have about 350k in equity in your house. Whatever the figures are the point is this is not a difficult product to control for risk. And if the state is thinking no way to something like this because they are risk averse, what on earth are they doing proposing stumping up 30% of equity for first time buyers. I always used to think the reason the state wouldn't do it is because, politically, they wanted to stay away from the idea of taking a charge on equity in peoples houses. That i could understand, but the shared equity scheme blows that theory out of the water.
Cyrus wrote: » It’s a good idea for sure but bridging loans have a bad rep from the last crash. They were a product once but Banks appear reluctant now and if a bank feels it too risky I don’t think the state has any business doing it.
schmittel wrote: » No doubt that to encourage downsizing in significant numbers new developments would be helpful, but why not start off with the bridging loans immediately? I am not buying the idea that people cannot downsize because the properties they need to downsize to have not been built yet. They have been built, it's just that the entire market is clogged up in a giant negative feedback loop. Introducing the finance to will turn that loop on its head. Early adopter downsizers will generate a positive feedback loop. Plenty of empty nesters living in big family homes would be very happy to move to some of the newer apartments. Plenty of young couples in the newer apartments would be happy to move to the big family homes. Both types of property currently exist, they are just occupied by the wrong people. This is what we need to change. It could be started almost immediately and it would take very little to get that ball rolling.
Hubertj wrote: » Very good point. I think it would have to be done in parallel or after developments you refer are built. From my in laws experience they had great difficulty finding something suitable to downsize to and that prolonged the search.... and they had to sell first, then move,then rent, then buy, then move...
schmittel wrote: » IMO the biggest factor in this is the removal of bridging loans from the market, and whatever about the vacancies, the decline in turnover of second hand stock contributes massively to the fact that we have the highest rates of underoccupancy in Europe. What we need with far greater urgency than 30/40/50k new builds a year is a giant game of musical chairs in the existing stock. The solutions to get this ball rolling are so maddeningly obvious I just cant understand why govt don't implement them. If I was minister my very first act would be to scrap shared equity scheme and take the complete opposite path - introduce state backed bridging loans for up to 70% of the value of the equity in your house. There are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, sitting happily in their fully paid off houses who would quite like to move if it was made easy for them. Currently the biggest barrier is finance. They are too old to get mortgages, so they are left with the option of trying to sell and buy and one go, and if the chain collapses, end up trying to find a rental, what do they do with a lifetime of stuff etc. They read the news about the current state of the market and think, no thanks, that sounds like a nightmare, I am better off staying put. Bridging loans would solve these problems. Govt can borrow at almost zero, but they could charge 3.5% interest rolled up. Use the profits to build developments targeted specifically for these downsizers (exempt them Part 5 etc) in order to encourage more to trade down and free up even more stock of family homes. This will have an immediate positive effect on supply without pushing up the debts of the FTB generation and the risks of the taxpayer. I have posted on this before and posed the question - what am I missing? to me it is such an obvious solution and so clearly better than shared equity schemes etc, that I just cannot understand why it has not been done. And for the avoidance of doubt, I am emphatically not talking about hounding old people out of their homes. Quite the opposite. I am talking about making it as simple as possible to move if they want to, but only if they want to.
Hubertj wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/which-way-are-house-prices-heading-depends-on-the-data-1.4523010?mode=amp Read this earlier. What I found interesting was that the number of 2nd hand homes coming to market has been declining YoY for the last decade. I wonder how this correlates to increases in vacant property in some areas and what other factors drive this continued reduction
standardg60 wrote: » The construction industry has long been a cabal here, controlling supply, directing Pub/Priv partnerships to their benefit, and divvying up land between themselves to avoid competition, while lobbying the state for vat reductions and subsidies.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Keep in mind developers chose not to bring 5% of new property onto the market in 2019 because they thought the market prices wouldn't be achieved
[Deleted User] wrote: » This is normal same as rising savings. People not sure about the future. But at the moment today is the best time sell property.
standardg60 wrote: » Doubt you'd need to look too much further than a burgeoning rental market. Thanks for changing the subject btw
schmittel wrote: » Yes.
fliball123 wrote: » Did I ever say anything else. I have said it now maybe half a dozen times today alone. I am saying had Brexit been dominating the psyche where Covid is currently for the year of 2020 till it passed it could of had a similar effect on supply.
fliball123 wrote: » Sorry but supply was coming off stream from back in Dec 2019 even before Covid entered the country. Its hard to know if Covid made this worse
schmittel wrote: » Fair enough, if you're saying you now accept that Covid has impacted supply then presumably you'll accept that your post saying "Its hard to know if Covid made this worse" was in fact nonsense as I posted. Everything else since then is just silliness, and apologies to others for derailment.
fliball123 wrote: » I have said Covid impacted supply numerous times . I am pointing out that we could of had a supply problem due to Brexit even if Covid had never existed and I contend that you would of had to have super powers to know otherwise or to know the tragectory of property prices if Covid was not here...That is all your the one talking absolute garbage. Its been proven that there was a slowdown in supply Q3 of 2019 to which you said "Rubbish". Your full of it.
DataDude wrote: » Final post on it, as I hate to dominate the thread on something stupid. I'm only doing it as you are the first person to call people out when they say things that you feel aren't based in fact. I took the time to download the stats. Take a look at those numbers, and ask yourself, am I being reasonable to suggest that the figures in 2020/2021 are not the aberration and in fact it was Q4 2019 where this "downward trend" became evident. I don't think you need a masters in statistics to answer that one. Q4 2016 20,875 Q4 2017 18,024 Q4 2018 21,700 Q4 2019 19,928 Q4 2020 14,390 Q1 2021 11,800
schmittel wrote: » This is an old trope on this forum - nobody knows that for certain; you don’t have a crystal ball (or time machine) in this case. It’s most often used to try and undermine somebody whose opinion a poster doesn’t agree, or occasionally as in this case, to try and claim an opinion so far fetched might true, just because nobody can definitively say otherwise without a crystal ball or time machine. Classic clutching at straws to avoid simply say, yep, I see I didn’t really think that one through. I have neither a crystal ball nor a time machine but I am 100% certain that Covid has negatively impacted supply. Anybody who thinks otherwise is living in dreamland, never mind a different dimension.
Stark wrote: » This I wondered about. I think it's one of the many tricks estate agents use to instil fear and panic buying. Using scary phrases like "war chests" to describe the extra savings people made during lockdown. Doesn't explain the crazy bids unless people were able to save twice their annual gross salary in the space of a year.
Deleted User wrote: » No wories people in Ireland saved about 11 billions. They will buy houses for cash at any price . No matter that each one saved only 4K Just because they did not take 1500 euros loan from credit union for holiday in Spain.
PropQueries wrote: » For those hoping that interest rates won’t rise in the near future as “we’re all in this together”, there was an interesting opinion piece in Bloomberg yesterday titled: “The ECB's Claims of Unity Are Woefully Misleading” “There’s growing pressure to scale back the central bank's bond purchases. So European yields are likely to rise, sooner and faster than the ECB wants.” I think it’s important as a big factor underpinning the current future predicted value of property in Ireland is that interest rates will remain at their current low levels for many years yet. There is a better than evens chance that they could rise before the year is out IMO Link to article in Bloomberg here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-31/the-ecb-s-claims-of-unity-on-bond-buying-are-woefully-misleading?srnd=opinion
Deleted User wrote: There may be small corrections. But IMO the only thing that would lead to any substantive change in the dynamics would be a mass withdrawal from Ireland of MNCs. And although many are highly conscious of the costs of doing business here (my own MNC revisits the Ireland salary uplift annually, and I know that there are grumblings at board level about it) they are not going anywhere any time soon
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
