Wanderer78 wrote: » mainly because we have allowed the fire sectors to dictate our economies, we are not the only country experiencing these problems, most western countries have engaged in this approach, hence why we re all experiencing similar outcomes as explained previously, this would worsen the situation dramatically, as we do not have the systems and processes required to do so, ultimately costing you the tax payer even more
yagan wrote: » Eviction to where? Passing the parcel does not tackle anti social behaviour. Is it any different to the RCC moving sex offenders around? Fianna Fail thought they were lining their own landlord pockets by turning a housing list into long yielding rental bonds but they were gazumped at their own game!
bubblypop wrote: » 20 years of past experience then, does that sound better to you? My last experience has shown me that the majority of neighbour issues are not involving social tenants. So why the issue with social housing?
yagan wrote: » 90% of the apartments sold last year in Dublin bypassed the market and went straight to rent farming funds. It was government planning policy that is destroying home ownership and the security of tenure that comes with it in favour of a quick buck profit. If these policies are allowed to continue you may find yourself mostly chatting with grandkids via zoom.
Ozark707 wrote: » This is a tough one for the REIT's. If you are that young professional paying top dollar and then HAP is used to fill the rest you might consider moving on when your lease it up. On the other hand as you can see most of the new builds are priced out of the reach of these young professionals so the vacancy level is very high. The question boils down to how long they can sit on the vacant ones. Either way if HAP was not the renter of last resort at such high prices we would have considerably cheaper rents.
fliball123 wrote: » How does it erode as house prices increase so are you saying now that we should only look after people for a short time so half property prices now and let those in their 20s and 30s get on the ladder and then its ok for prices to go up? Kind of sounds like your in your 20s/30s and looking to buy currently Timmy I could be wrong but your post sounds very self serving If prices go up in situation 1 they still have 50k more equity. How exactly is it eroded? They will also have been able to afford a better home and they will have had more choice and less competition as is the way of our property market the higher the property the less competition and less chance of bidding wars pushing the price up higher.
Evil_g wrote: » Are we just calling everything a vulture fund now?
timmyntc wrote: » What good is it having twice the equity when you try to buy your first house, when the price is twice as high? In absolute terms yes you will have more equity, but relative to the price of the house the equity is the same.
timmyntc wrote: » As explained previously? You havent explained anything. You just make vague statements about the fire sectors running the world. Most western countries have seen asset inflation in property due to record low interest rates and QE. But none have seen anything close to the rise Irish property has because it is not the same situation.
fliball123 wrote: » Look the mod has asked us not to continue with this. Just to say it was her own choice to have kid 2 and 3 knowing she could not afford them That decision has tax payers picking up a tab they should not be picking up.
fliball123 wrote: » READ paragraph 2 again and its not the same 50k in equity in a house is 50k regardlesss of if the house is worth 100k or 500k.
timmyntc wrote: » Its not passing the parcel - its putting a deterrent in place for bad behaviour. Would you consider prison sentences for criminals to be a case of "pass the parcel" too?
Wanderer78 wrote: » there is an enormous amount of research going into this now, from respected commentators and institutions asset prices have been rapidly rising over the last few decades due to whats called the 'financialisation' of our economies, the primary drivers being, the fire sectors. yes, central banks have also played a significant role in this form of inflation, as you have explained, but prices have largely risen due to the availability of credit , which is created by private sector financial institutions, which lead us straight into 08, as can be seen from the graph
yagan wrote: » Has one Irish bishop gone to jail for protecting pedophiles from the law? Nor has one developer ever been fined for not meeting the social housing quota of their planning permission. Perpetuating poverty traps is a planning failure.
timmyntc wrote: » Whataboutery - I'll ask you again. Would you consider prison sentences for criminals to be a case of "pass the parcel" too?
timmyntc wrote: » I'm not getting into this with you again - just know that the private debt in that graph is greatly distorted by corporations domiciled in Ireland and loaded with debt. And we already have restrictions on banks lending to stop runaway asset inflation from residential buyers (2008). What you have there is correlation != causation, even then from that graph its tenuous at best to suggest private debt alone causes rising house prices.
Wanderer78 wrote: » yes, its been well documented, particularly since 08, before it actually, credit has been in fact one of the main reasons for the rise in asset prices, particularly in relation to property
yagan wrote: » From what I've seen it's actually yield seeking pension funds with cash outbidding those with mortgage approval. So even credit isn't good enough for this market.
PwC Dublin docklands HQ being readied for €265m sale Middle Eastern investors paid record €242m to acquire One Spencer Dock offices in 2016
One Spencer Dock is let to PwC under a 25-year lease with upward-only rent reviews every five years. The lease has just under 11 years left to run.
Wanderer78 wrote: » i suspect these pension fund investors are actually using credit for the process, i.e. theyre borrowing the money, as rates are so low, but i could be wrong there
Arthur Daley wrote: » Could you walk us through this. Just genuinely curious what the deal is. So I invest in a pension, and I'm desperate for yield because interest rates are on the floor. So my answer is to leverage by borrowing, paying interest. Why do I need the middle man here?
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Do pension funds now heavily rely on sucking generation rent dry to make up the necessary yields?
Wanderer78 wrote: » it would make sense to me for such a fund to borrow, as rates are at record low levels, credit is known to inflate markets, so the actual act of borrowing, and using the credit to invest, would in fact cause the overall value to rise, therefore covering the loaned amounts easily, i.e. using the capability of money making money effectively. of course there is a risk in borrowing, but it wouldnt really be as much as you think, particularly if all goes to plan
DataDude wrote: » A couple of noteworthy comments from Michael Martin today after the Mullen Park debacle. Will be interesting to see if anything is actually done about it. If I was CEO of one of these funds, I think I'd be taking a breather from these deals for a few weeks in the hopes the fuss blows over! "The purchase by institutional investors of completed housing estates is unacceptable and will be examined, Taoiseach Micheál Martin has insisted as the row intensified over the purchase by investment funds of the majority of homes in developments in north Dublin and Co Kildare. “We do not want institutional investors competing with first-time buyers,” Mr Martin said. “Our priority is first-time buyers.” He said that institutional investment was brought in “to add supply, not to displace supply, and that is the critical differential point”. They had to “distinguish between good capital and bad capital”.Mr Martin also warned that local authorities should not be engaging in long-term leases with these investment funds.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/investors-buying-up-housing-estates-unacceptable-taoiseach-1.4556135
