Hubertj wrote: » They need an outrage gauge to determine what will cause greater outrage.
schmittel wrote: » That's the problem. The government are afraid of the outrage. But there is outrage now so what is the difference? It's just outrage from different quarters but so what?
Bass Reeves wrote: » Disks building costs in 2018 could not compare to what they would quite now
PropQueries wrote: » But these quarters are adding up to a whole You have the homeless, you have the working class, you now have the middle class (e.g. Maynooth) and you have the upper class (e.g. Ailesbury road billionaire residents against the RTÉ site plans). That’s the four quarters adding up to everyone
schmittel wrote: » No, they need to start doing the right thing and not just kneejerk government depending on who is whining the loudest.
timmyntc wrote: » The council dont build directly - its tendered out. It will be expensive either way - after a 25year lease on a property they will have almost paid the whole value of the property but own nothing. Building makes sense as they get an asset in addition to housing someone. Its called long-term planning. As for the housing list growing - the housing list will grow either way. In fact it might grow more if they continue to lease and buy properties instead of build, as it pushes rents and house prices up causing more people to *NEED* social housing. The only practical way to reduce social housing lists is to reduce house and rent prices, so that lower income people no longer need a govt provided house and can afford to rent or buy privately. Your defence of the status quo because there might be some short term pain is a pathetic stance - and its thinking like that thats landed us where we are in the first place. Short term thinking.
schmittel wrote: » Exactly, hence why I say they should not fret about the outrage because sooner or later everybody will find something to be outraged about. You can't try and please all of the people all of the time. Instead do the right thing and combat the outrage with good old fashioned common sense - we need to repossess houses because the level of default is a financial burden on everybody. I suspect the silent majority will understand the point.
PropQueries wrote: » I get the point on repossessions. But given that ECB rates are already rock bottom and can only go one way IMO and there will be little banking competition going forward, I’m not sure it will translate into lower rates or adding much to supply.
Cyrus wrote: » the issue is the margin on the ECB rates and its too high and if the base rates increase the margin will still be too high.
PropQueries wrote: » I don’t think the margin is too high. If repossessions become too easy, who already owns many of these non-performing loans? The funds. If they can repossess easily, they will flood the market with repossessed homes, cause an almighty collapse in home prices which will then justify the ECBs capital requirements to begin with IMO And given what the funds paid for the non-performing mortgages, they can most likely sell at a significant discount to current market prices and still walk away with a hefty profit IMO
schmittel wrote: » The ECB capital requirements are based on the number of NPLs not property prices. We need repos to lower the capital requirements.
mcsean2163 wrote: » House prices recovered and flatlined by 2019. We've had a covid19 surge imo fueled by government spending, leases/ direct purchases.https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/71cfc-99-decrease-in-the-number-of-households-on-social-housing-waiting-list-nationally/ Now that restrictions are easing will be interesting to see what happens to house prices especially if the government stops intervening.
Hubertj wrote: » Did you also say something about % recovered from repossessions is very low compare to other countries? Does that also impact?
Hubertj wrote: » And is the % recovered low because the length of time that elapses means interest accrues on top?
PropQueries wrote: » I agree and it will work out as a positive in the long run. But I do think that it would destroy the economy/banking sector in the short to medium term. Maybe even destroy it permanently.
PropQueries wrote: » Does the state have the resources to house the occupants of the repossessed homes?
schmittel wrote: » How will it destroy the economy/banking sector? Genuine question. I've heard this notion touted but never heard anybody explain why. Yes.
PropQueries wrote: » Basically because I believe the funds, Reits etc. control a much bigger share of the property market than many assume and as they leave they will destroy all value gained in the property market over the past several years. Easier repossessions would mean they’re not going to hang around to see if a SF or similar party enters power in the next few years IMO And it doesn’t look like we can rely on massive future increases in FDI or borrowing going forward to pay for such a fallout. Either way, your right and it’s a good policy. But I think the Irish economy is going to be much much different in two years time. I’m thinking near enough a modern day equivalent of the 1950’s and I’m not actually exaggerating a point to make a point this time
PropQueries wrote: » Basically because I believe the funds, Reits etc. control a much bigger share of the property market than many assume and as they leave they will destroy all value gained in the property market over the past several years. Easier repossessions would mean they’re not going to hang around to see if a SF or similar party enters power in the next few years IMO And it doesn’t look like we can rely on massive future increases in FDI or borrowing going forward to pay for such a fallout. Either way, your right and it’s a good policy. But I think the Irish economy is going to be much much different in two years time. I’m thinking near enough 1950’s and I’m not actually exaggerating a point to make a point this time
schmittel wrote: » This is what I am trying to understand. The idea that if the REITS leave thus destroying all value gained in the property market over the past several years means our economy is destroyed? It's simply equating high property prices with a healthy economy and it does not make sense. It's not like vulture funds leaving is going to drive up unemployment, or hammer MNC earnings. I doubt ta take will be heavily impacted, sure they don't pay much tax anyway. So yes, property prices will fall because there would be a dramatic increase in supply, but how does the increase in supply of houses destroy our economy?
timmyntc wrote: » IF that were too happen (big if) - the value of existing houses could drop well below the cost to build new houses, and developers would go out of work due to a glut of supply. Once our construction industry is gone then we'll be in trouble.
PropQueries wrote: » Tourism is under attack by plans in Europe to try get rid or limit low cost air travel due to climate change (e.g. france is planning to ban or limit short-haul flights in France etc.). [
PropQueries wrote: » From my perspective, we have four main areas. Multinationals, property, tourism and agriculture. All four are under sustained attack at the moment. The public sector and most of the rest of the economy live off these and their workers wages. Multinationals here are under attack from the Biden/EU tax reforms. Agri is under attack from CAP reform/ climate change etc. Tourism is under attack by plans in Europe to try get rid or limit low cost air travel due to climate change (e.g. france is planning to ban or limit short-haul flights in France etc.). The property market is massively influenced by the future decisions of the funds in Ireland. The future direction of the Irish economy and property market is now in the hands of people/organisations we have little or no control over IMO
L1011 wrote: » The French plans are specifically and solely for domestic flights with alternative high speed rail. International flights are very hard to restrict due to the treaties involved. It will be quite some time before there's a realistic restriction even proposed for that.
schmittel wrote: » Getting back to the original point, none of the above explains why repossessing homes in default would tank our economy.
PropQueries wrote: » Maybe. But they may start taxing them at an EU level to combat climate change etc. a lot sooner. The Germans and French don’t like Ryanair etc. due to it’s impact on their national carriers. Throw in multinationals limiting business travel to boost their carbon footprint image and the tourism sector (especially in the cities) could be hit badly IMO
RichardAnd wrote: If one attempts to question the ethical nature of the council's out-biding working people to provide social housing, they will be attacked by an army of lefties.
Cyrus wrote: The argument for years was that we dont have enough institutional landlords and there is no option to rent long term, thats what these funds will provide but now we dont want that either.
Cyrus wrote: Maybe Sisk can make more money doing other things now?
Bass Reeves wrote: We have over the last twenty years increased the specification on houses and this had added to cost. As well costs will be higher in Dublin than elsewhere for tradespeople and time inefficiency effects costs. Sisks building costs in 2018 could not compare to what they would quite now
schmittel wrote: » Getting back to the original point, none of the above explains why repossessing homes in default would tank our economy. I believe Irish thinking is too ingrained with high prices = good economy, low prices = bad economy. We have heard it loads of times on here, be careful what you wish for, if prices dropped, we're all f8cked why would you wish for that etc etc. It completely ignores the question of what causes prices to drop. If prices drop because the economy falters and unemployment rockets, then yes we're all f8cked to some degree or another. But the economy does not falter because property prices drop. A lot of people have got their ideas of cause and effect arseways. IMO.
yagan wrote: » A better repossession regime would be better for everyone, but before that's politically acceptable the current fiasco of FTB having to bid for a home against their own government and vulture funds has to end. Bringing up repossessions as a priority after this weeks events is political suicide. It's grand to talk hypotheticals but try selling repossessions to the voter. After the Maynooth fiasco I've hear life long Fianna Fail voters say their going SF next just to get the piggies snout out of the trough. I reckon this week will have as big an effect on Irish politics as the Eamon Casey affair had on the RCC faithful.
