Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

1…341342344346347…351

Comments

  • #10292
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,091 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    SmokyMo wrote: »
    How about put tax on derelict properties and tax on vacant properties if more than 2 in possession as low hanging fruit?

    Go ahead, increase the Revenue head count by 25%. More taxes and more civil servants - go for it - just what this country needs.

    REITS are a huge problem but the discussion here has turned to inaccessible spaces above shops, and the like. Crazy. Deal with the elephant in the room, before worrying about the mice.

    How many property owners have the funds necessary to do the renovations? if they all are forced to do it, assuming a magic amount of money, what would that do to the rental values? If they all had to borrow money to fund this nonsense, the rental yield could be insufficient to service borrowings. Not to mention the net effect of all this on Irelands currently minuscule level of debt.

    Where are the workers coming from to do these soon to be white elephant property conversions? Where is the money coming from?

    I have a property currently for sale, the prospective buyer has applied for a mortgage. So far it's been 5 months without it being granted yet.

    You own a shop, which makes ends meet, but isn't a spectacular earner. The government drops a 10% tax on you for the inaccessible, uninsulated, unplumbed, old wiring, spaces above. You apply for a loan to do the conversion and the banks say no. Then what? Yeah, great if such small business owners go under, fire their one employee, and are forced to put their property on the market, along with the 12,000 others doing likewise at the same time, for the same reason. What a win for FTBers - the prices of uninhabitable commercial buildings falling through the floor.

    The sheer impracticality and negative consequences of what people are proposing here at the moment just spin my head.


  • #10293
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    fago wrote: »
    2nd hand YoY growth swung by 3%, new by .4%

    In one quarter second hand growth has caught up and passed new.

    Would the theory be, a combination of the lack of new supply, and the price of new supply edging up making 2nd hand more attractive again?

    Here you go, so high demands is not just for new houses, all sectors goes up. And WHF didn't removed demands for Dublin, prices going up here as well.
    There are lack of properties across all sectors. Without increase in construction, or economic collapse, housing crisis will not be solved.


  • #10294
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Go ahead, increase the Revenue head count by 25%. More taxes and more civil servants - go for it - just what this country needs.

    REITS are a huge problem but the discussion here has turned to inaccessible spaces above shops, and the like. Crazy. Deal with the elephant in the room, before worrying about the mice.

    How many property owners have the funds necessary to do the renovations? if they all are forced to do it, assuming a magic amount of money, what would that do to the rental values? If they all had to borrow money to fund this nonsense, the rental yield could be insufficient to service borrowings. Not to mention the net effect of all this on Irelands currently minuscule level of debt.

    Where are the workers coming from to do these soon to be white elephant property conversions? Where is the money coming from?

    I have a property currently for sale, the prospective buyer has applied for a mortgage. So far it's been 5 months without it being granted yet.

    You own a shop, which makes ends meet, but isn't a spectacular earner. The government drops a 10% tax on you for the inaccessible, uninsulated, unplumbed, old wiring, spaces above. You apply for a loan to do the conversion and the banks say no. Then what? Yeah, great if such small business owners go under, fire their one employee, and are forced to put their property on the market, along with the 12,000 others doing likewise at the same time, for the same reason. What a win for FTBers - the prices of uninhabitable commercial buildings falling through the floor.

    The sheer impracticality and negative consequences of what people are proposing here at the moment just spin my head.


    Agreed. The state has too much money. If it had less of it, it would be less able to cause the problems that it causes...


  • #10295
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,091 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    MacronvFrugals wrote: »
    Its a paywall article but interesting to note the IMF are recommending we increase taxes


    The IMF’s point man on Ireland on increasing taxes, fixing the housing crisis and helping SMEs survive the pandemic


    https://t.co/P3HggrjrRH?amp=1

    Oh great, those geniuses again.
    The International Monetary Fund has distanced itself from comments by the fund’s former mission chief to Ireland, Ashoka Mody, who said complete reliance on austerity was not “a reasonable” way to go.
    ...
    Speaking on RTɒs Morning Ireland yesterday morning, Mr Mody said the construct for Ireland’s rescue was wrong. “We are seeing a belated recognition of the fact that the constraint imposed only by austerity was untenable.

    "Clearly the experience, if experience was needed, has demonstrated that reliance on austerity is counterproductive."

    Earlier this year, Mr Mody said the legacy burdens of the crisis must be addressed.

    “The alternative is unending human pain, a culture of national dependency and a fraying European economic and social fabric.”
    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/imf-distances-itself-from-comments-against-austerity-1.1358319


  • #10296
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,325 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Go ahead, increase the Revenue head count by 25%. More taxes and more civil servants - go for it - just what this country needs.

    REITS are a huge problem but the discussion here has turned to inaccessible spaces above shops, and the like. Crazy. Deal with the elephant in the room, before worrying about the mice.

    How many property owners have the funds necessary to do the renovations? if they all are forced to do it, assuming a magic amount of money, what would that do to the rental values? If they all had to borrow money to fund this nonsense, the rental yield could be insufficient to service borrowings. Not to mention the net effect of all this on Irelands currently minuscule level of debt.

    Where are the workers coming from to do these soon to be white elephant property conversions? Where is the money coming from?

    I have a property currently for sale, the prospective buyer has applied for a mortgage. So far it's been 5 months without it being granted yet.

    You own a shop, which makes ends meet, but isn't a spectacular earner. The government drops a 10% tax on you for the inaccessible, uninsulated, unplumbed, old wiring, spaces above. You apply for a loan to do the conversion and the banks say no. Then what? Yeah, great if such small business owners go under, fire their one employee, and are forced to put their property on the market, along with the 12,000 others doing likewise at the same time, for the same reason. What a win for FTBers - the prices of uninhabitable commercial buildings falling through the floor.

    The sheer impracticality and negative consequences of what people are proposing here at the moment just spin my head.

    Shops cannot be considered vacant so not libel for the vacancy tax. As well it is easy enough to class area above a shop as storage, faculties and office area. Finally most area's above shops need a lot of fire safety work to comply. That is why its important to incentive those with these premises to consider if it is practical to reconvert area's above these premises back into living accommodation.

    The vacancy tax would be to stop hoarding of sites or vacant property. The present one is impractical to enforce. Bring in one that is collectable but rebate to encourage rapid development along with tax relief..

    Carrot and stick have a better chance of working than a sledgehammer it easier on your hands as well

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • #10297
    PropQueries
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Go ahead, increase the Revenue head count by 25%. More taxes and more civil servants - go for it - just what this country needs.

    REITS are a huge problem but the discussion here has turned to inaccessible spaces above shops, and the like. Crazy. Deal with the elephant in the room, before worrying about the mice.

    How many property owners have the funds necessary to do the renovations? if they all are forced to do it, assuming a magic amount of money, what would that do to the rental values? If they all had to borrow money to fund this nonsense, the rental yield could be insufficient to service borrowings. Not to mention the net effect of all this on Irelands currently minuscule level of debt.

    Where are the workers coming from to do these soon to be white elephant property conversions? Where is the money coming from?

    I have a property currently for sale, the prospective buyer has applied for a mortgage. So far it's been 5 months without it being granted yet.

    You own a shop, which makes ends meet, but isn't a spectacular earner. The government drops a 10% tax on you for the inaccessible, uninsulated, unplumbed, old wiring, spaces above. You apply for a loan to do the conversion and the banks say no. Then what? Yeah, great if such small business owners go under, fire their one employee, and are forced to put their property on the market, along with the 12,000 others doing likewise at the same time, for the same reason. What a win for FTBers - the prices of uninhabitable commercial buildings falling through the floor.

    The sheer impracticality and negative consequences of what people are proposing here at the moment just spin my head.

    And who are the owners?

    I would guess, in many cases, it's the funds who purchased c. €200 Billion in distressed Irish bank assets between 2012 and 2016.

    The state can easily distinguish between a shop owner who actually does run a shop out of his own property and a fund. They can easily tax the fund owned under-used property which would have no impact on the small business property owner IMO


  • #10298
    yagan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,871 ✭✭✭yagan


    Amadan Dubh wrote: »
    If the government bans the entering into leases for 20/25 years by the councils and the institutionals have to try to draw €2k+ blood rents from the income tax payer stone, then I could see the "get rich quick" US investors starting to question the risk versus returns. The pension funds perhaps would just look to hold the asset and achieve some income over the long term.

    Bigger picture is as Timing Belt describes.
    I was wondering if restrictions introduced in Ireland could be the breach in the dam, but in reality all a bust does is reveal the unsustainable practices of the preceding boom and these funds have being piling into markets everywhere.

    I could be extremely wrong about this but pension funds tend to be passive, as in people aren't as engaged with the management of their pension fund as they would be with their weekly shopping bill.

    In the last decade many pension funds have gone from 20% exposure to property to 50%, but at some stage all those funds corralling themselves into the same illiquid asset class will swamp the market. I'm just curious as to how this pileup will reveal itself.

    I've had a self managing private pension before so I wonder if it will simply be members electing to cut their losses by recalibrating their pension away from property and more into cash.


  • #10299
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    I just caught the end of a show on the radio there. Not sure if it was him, but did I just hear Darragh O'Brien suggesting that they increase stamp duty for everyone but FTBs to curb REITs?
    I knew it wouldnt take them long to figure out how to gouge more money off ordinary workers, thinly veiled as helping them.
    What about second time buyers? I hope he isnt intending on upping stamp duty for them too.
    That guy is worse even than the housing ministers who came before.


  • #10300
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Amadan Dubh wrote: »
    The big question is how, in a housing crisis, can properties be left vacant rather than dropping rents until they are let?

    The data on the state of the market indicates rents have decreased slightly over the last year in Dublin but are potentially starting to increase again in Dublin. However, due to the level of vacancies, it is quite obvious that the Daft report is not a complete picture of the state of the market. Do we potentially already have our ghost estates from the economic growth period from 2012?

    The consensus seems to be, and apologies if I have this arseways, that the funds are calculating the on-paper valuation of these properties is going up so quickly that it outpaces whatever real cash they'd make by being rented out. So on on paper they make so much money every year just by being property and sitting around getting more valuable that the cash any actual tenants hand over is just lunch money on the side.

    Bizarrely though, part of that valuation figure though takes the potential rent into the equation, rather than the occupancy, as a previous commentor noted. How much you can ostensibly charge for that unit every month affects the valuation of it, while how much you are actually getting in the real world doesn't. So an unoccupied unit for €2000 a month "makes" more in a year than one occupied for €1000 a month, because it will go up by more than 12k, and more than the 1k one next door.

    And this is why their rents stay high, not because rents themselves are making the Reits rich, but because they expect such high on-paper rents to make their assets balloon in value year to year on the spreadsheet indefinitely. This is also why half empty developments are still finding new ways to staple on and sandwich in new units anywhere they can - because a new unit can have any rent they like thrown onto it for the sake of valuation, which is far more important to the investor report than filling the existing ghost block.

    This is my understanding of what's happening in those developments based on chatter on here and Reddit. And there is an internally logical dynamic to it, just as there was internal logic in sending beef and wheat abroad during the famine. Its just absolutely ****ing insane from the outside, is all.


  • #10301
    Cilldara_2000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Cilldara_2000


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    The consensus seems to be, and apologies if I have this arseways, that the funds are calculating the on-paper valuation of these properties is going up so quickly that it outpaces whatever real cash they'd make by being rented out. So on on paper they make so much money every year just by being property and sitting around getting more valuable that the cash any actual tenants hand over is just lunch money on the side.

    Bizarrely though, part of that valuation figure though takes the potential rent into the equation, rather than the occupancy, as a previous commentor noted. How much you can ostensibly charge for that unit every month affects the valuation of it, while how much you are actually getting in the real world doesn't. So an unoccupied unit for €2000 a month "makes" more in a year than one occupied for €1000 a month, because it will go up by more than 12k, and more than the 1k one next door.

    And this is why their rents stay high, not because rents themselves are making the Reits rich, but because they expect such high on-paper rents to make their assets balloon in value year to year on the spreadsheet indefinitely. This is also why half empty developments are still finding new ways to staple on and sandwich in new units anywhere they can - because a new unit can have any rent they like thrown onto it for the sake of valuation, which is far more important to the investor report than filling the existing ghost block.

    This is my understanding of what's happening in those developments based on chatter on here and Reddit. And there is an internally logical dynamic to it, just as there was internal logic in sending beef and wheat abroad during the famine.

    Another win for the accountants so (I'm an accountant). Fair value, market value, marked to market etc are all nonsense and lead to this sort of carry on.

    Absolutely bonkers that people get so tied up in unrealised notional profits.


  • Advertisement
  • #10302
    DataDude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭DataDude


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I just caught the end of a show on the radio there. Not sure if it was him, but did I just hear Darragh O'Brien suggesting that they increase stamp duty for everyone but FTBs to curb REITs?
    I knew it wouldnt take them long to figure out how to gouge more money off ordinary workers, thinly veiled as helping them.
    What about second time buyers? I hope he isnt intending on upping stamp duty for them too.
    That guy is worse even than the housing ministers who came before.

    This was so nearly a good idea. Why not scrap the HTB scheme, shared equity etc. and make the increased stamp only apply to non PPR purchases (probably with an exception for LA/AHB which they'd insist).

    Disadvantage all the REITs, foreign private investors etc. and just generally makes a statement that we support people living in Ireland buying houses to live in above all else. FTB, SSB, whatever. If it's a purchase for you to live in (house/apartment whatever) - we've got your back.


  • #10303
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,091 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    PropQueries wrote: »
    And who are the owners?

    I would guess, in many cases, it's the funds who purchased c. €200 Billion in distressed Irish bank assets between 2012 and 2016.

    The state can easily distinguish between a shop owner who actually does run a shop out of his own property and a fund. They can easily tax the fund owned under-used property which would have no impact on the small business property owner IMO

    The state has chosen not to tax funds as is, and you expect them to change that stance to suit your grand vision? The Irish state basically operates a cargo cult when it comes to large foreign enterprises and nonexistant taxation is the method they use as their version of runways cleared through the jungle to attract the big silver bird down from the sky with all it's goodies.

    There is no such thing as 'easily' in Ireland, other than coming up with ideas for things that are not easy.


  • #10304
    yagan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,871 ✭✭✭yagan


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I just caught the end of a show on the radio there. Not sure if it was him, but did I just hear Darragh O'Brien suggesting that they increase stamp duty for everyone but FTBs to curb REITs?
    I knew it wouldnt take them long to figure out how to gouge more money off ordinary workers, thinly veiled as helping them.
    What about second time buyers? I hope he isnt intending on upping stamp duty for them too.
    That guy is worse even than the housing ministers who came before.

    His background is in the pension industry, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's already got a vested interest in protecting them.


  • #10305
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    The consensus seems to be, and apologies if I have this arseways, that the funds are calculating the on-paper valuation of these properties is going up so quickly that it outpaces whatever real cash they'd make by being rented out. So on on paper they make so much money every year just by being property and sitting around getting more valuable that the cash any actual tenants hand over is just lunch money on the side.

    Bizarrely though, part of that valuation figure though takes the potential rent into the equation, rather than the occupancy, as a previous commentor noted. How much you can ostensibly charge for that unit every month affects the valuation of it, while how much you are actually getting in the real world doesn't. So an unoccupied unit for €2000 a month "makes" more in a year than one occupied for €1000 a month, because it will go up by more than 12k, and more than the 1k one next door.

    And this is why their rents stay high, not because rents themselves are making the Reits rich, but because they expect such high on-paper rents to make their assets balloon in value year to year on the spreadsheet indefinitely. This is also why half empty developments are still finding new ways to staple on and sandwich in new units anywhere they can - because a new unit can have any rent they like thrown onto it for the sake of valuation, which is far more important to the investor report than filling the existing ghost block.

    This is my understanding of what's happening in those developments based on chatter on here and Reddit. And there is an internally logical dynamic to it, just as there was internal logic in sending beef and wheat abroad during the famine. Its just absolutely ****ing insane from the outside, is all.

    Their main business and income is from actual Rental, they made much money even in the last 3 years, when property prices were stable, while they have plenty of expenses.


  • #10306
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Cilldara_2000 wrote: »
    Another win for the accountants so (I'm an accountant). Fair value, market value, marked to market etc are all nonsense and lead to this sort of carry on.

    Absolutely bonkers that people get so tied up in unrealised notional profits.

    It is, and I keep thinking of that documentary about Enron, Smartest Guys in the Room, when a load of people all over the US only discovered their pensions relied on Enron's performance when it blew up and took their retirements down with it. The figure in the pamphlet every year looked solid up until then, why would they look any deeper?

    That was where I first heard the phrase "Mark to Market", too.


  • #10307
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,902 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Home is where the city is
    Mick Clifford Irish Examiner podcast

    A study of dereliction focused on Cork City finds 340 derelict buildings within a 2 km radius in Cork


    Worth a listen on your evening walk


  • #10308
    yagan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,871 ✭✭✭yagan


    Marius34 wrote: »
    Their main business and income is from actual Rental, they made much money even in the last 3 years, when property prices were stable, while they have plenty of expenses.
    Their "declared" income on the many vacant properties we know exist.

    The easiest way to rob a bank is to run one, and the same applies to pension funds.

    I've elderly relatives whose weekly household expenses are less than the state pension but they obsess about their savings earning small interest and they're the kind of suckers that people like Smethurst ponzi scheme targets.

    Davy's were running a very dodgy ad specifically aimed at catching pensioners on LyricFM until they got rumbled.


  • #10309
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,090 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I just caught the end of a show on the radio there. Not sure if it was him, but did I just hear Darragh O'Brien suggesting that they increase stamp duty for everyone but FTBs to curb REITs?
    I knew it wouldnt take them long to figure out how to gouge more money off ordinary workers, thinly veiled as helping them.
    What about second time buyers? I hope he isnt intending on upping stamp duty for them too.
    That guy is worse even than the housing ministers who came before.

    I thought the suggestion was to hike stamp duty when multiple properties were being bought?


  • #10310
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Home is where the city is
    Mick Clifford Irish Examiner podcast

    A study of dereliction focused on Cork City finds 340 derelict buildings within a 2 km radius in Cork


    Worth a listen on your evening walk

    I could see that when I lived in cork from 2007-2012. So many derelict building in the city centre. Couldn’t get my head around it. Yards from Patrick st down cormarket past the bodega.


  • #10311
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    yagan wrote: »
    Their "declared" income on the many vacant properties we know exist.

    The easiest way to rob a bank is to run one, and the same applies to pension funds.

    I've elderly relatives whose weekly household expenses are less than the state pension but they obsess about their savings earning small interest and they're the kind of suckers that people like Smethurst ponzi scheme targets.

    Davy's were running a very dodgy ad specifically aimed at catching pensioners on LyricFM until they got rumbled.

    You are welcome to share, where did you find this information.
    If they declare income on vacant properties, their expenses/tax would go up. And if they manipulate their reports, there are massive fines for manipulating financial reports.


  • Advertisement
  • #10312
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,902 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Marius34 wrote:
    Their main business and income is from actual Rental, they made much money even in the last 3 years, when property prices were stable, while they have plenty of expenses.

    Hubertj wrote:
    I could see that when I lived in cork from 2007-2012. So many derelict building in the city centre. Couldn’t get my head around it. Yards from Patrick st down cormarket past the bodega.

    Interestingly they compare how it has deteriorated over time and becomes viral from Google Street View data. The first street view was done in the early noughties
    The bedsit ban may have been a significant factor in accelerating it


  • #10313
    yagan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,871 ✭✭✭yagan


    Marius34 wrote: »
    You are welcome to share, where did you find this information.
    If they declare income on vacant properties, their expenses/tax would go up. And if they manipulate their reports, there are massive fines for manipulating financial reports.
    Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed.

    Did that broker primetime exposed that rang his mate in the bank to find out how much the applicant could be squeezed for go to jail or get fined?

    It's impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good.


  • #10314
    PropQueries
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Home is where the city is
    Mick Clifford Irish Examiner podcast

    A study of dereliction focused on Cork City finds 340 derelict buildings within a 2 km radius in Cork


    Worth a listen on your evening walk

    And, as David McWilliams said last year:

    "People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use."


  • #10315
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    yagan wrote: »
    Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed.

    Did that broker primetime exposed that rang his mate in the bank to find out how much the applicant could be squeezed for go to jail or get fined?

    It's impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good.

    this doesn't tell anything about REITs profits.


  • #10316
    Cyrus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,903 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    yagan wrote: »
    Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed.

    to get audits passed?

    they would have 'passed' their audit anyway, it was to understate directors loans which are required to be disclosed but it would have no impact on the entities ability to continue as a going concern.

    even if he had been found guilty, im not sure it was an offence that would require jail time.


  • #10317
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,091 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    PropQueries wrote: »
    And, as David McWilliams said last year:

    "People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use."

    You and McWilliams are wrong. You are assuming you can generate a viable return given the cost involved. You are also assuming being able to get the finance in the first place.

    I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.


  • #10318
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    PropQueries wrote: »
    And, as David McWilliams said last year:

    "People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use."

    Agreed - there are few if any "poor" people with a disused building in prime central locations in cities and towns of this country.


  • #10319
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    cnocbui wrote: »
    You and McWilliams are wrong. You are assuming you can generate a viable return given the cost involved. You are also assuming being able to get the finance in the first place.

    I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.

    If you can't afford to renovate your extra home, then sell it!


  • #10320
    yagan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,871 ✭✭✭yagan


    Marius34 wrote: »
    this doesn't tell anything about REITs profits.
    Profits?

    Asset appreciation isn't profit.


  • Advertisement
  • #10321
    MacronvFrugals
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals


    cnocbui wrote: »
    You and McWilliams are wrong. You are assuming you can generate a viable return given the cost involved. You are also assuming being able to get the finance in the first place.

    I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.

    Its anti-social

    If you cant afford to renovate then sell it!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement