awec wrote: » The Greystones apartments were luxury, high end apartments. Almost no FTBs would have been buying those. You were talking 550-600k for a 2 bed apartment, the top floor apartments closer to a million. 3k a year fees too for owners. I think Glenveagh misread the market for these at the time. The houses in marina village, as far as I know, sold with little issue. The thing I always found odd about these apartments is for the price many of them offer almost zero privacy. They are right on the marina, on a very busy public walkway. It's a fairly big design flaw for properties at this price.
PropQueries wrote: » The Government's current policy of relying on pension funds etc. to keep buying build-to-rent apartments may be hitting a brick wall sooner than they think. As reported today, the consumer price index in the states rose to 4.2% in April from a year earlier. I've noticed my local barbers haircut prices have increased from €20 to €30 so it's already here or on the way here IMO And, according to the financial press today, many investors in the markets aren't believing the feds narrative that it's "transitory". So, if those funds are currently seeking a yield of 3.5%, how's that going to work out for financing all these apartments should interest rates rise to e.g. 3% on this side of the atlantic assuming that this inflation isn't "transitory" and becomes a worldwide phenomenon? Will they start demanding 6% - 7% which may then result in existing build-to-rent apartments falling in value by up to c. 50% or more even if current "market" rents etc. all remain the same? How will all these apartments that the Government is relying on be built given what they have said they currently cost to build?
yagan wrote: » I presume units built for the to let market but were never rented out wouldn't appear on that.
Mic 1972 wrote: » What houses in D15 weren't being sold? Any particular estate? i'd like to know because i have been trying to buy in D15 for a while now, they all seem to go pretty quickly and for much higher than asking
DataDude wrote: » Don’t think that’s quite true on both counts. Still advertising the two beds at 475 (less 30k HTB). Not sure how that is if the German pension fund bought them all though.https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/2-bed-apartment-marina-village-greystones-wicklow/4454040 Also, whilst the cheaper houses down the Marina sold quick enough (I think). I do remember them struggling to shift the last few in the more expensive ‘The Shore’. The show house was up at €1.2m for ages (was the most comically overpriced house of all time) but after nearly a year they cut it down to €900k and it sold.
bubblypop wrote: » Yeah, the houses too! Friend of mine bought a house in the beginning, first row, knowing the apartments would be build in front, walkway right in front of house! Everyone walking the coast road walks in front of his house, cost almost 700K. I thought it was mad.
bubblypop wrote: » Yeah, that estate that was bought up, was it Bay meadows? Around hollystown area
Villa05 wrote: » The Irish Times are reporting that Gov are considering blocking local authorities from entering long term lease deals with investment funds
Mic 1972 wrote: » that one? ok, yes that's a bit far out. I didn't know it hadn't sold but I'm not surprised
PropQueries wrote: » Leo Varadkar has told the FG parliamentary party meeting tonight that the local property taxes will be revised: “While carbon taxes would rise and the local property tax would be revised, he said, the Government should not “concede” to increases to income taxes” Link to article in Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/half-of-ireland-s-corporate-tax-receipts-could-be-wiped-out-imf-warns-1.4563390
Hubertj wrote: » https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/12-zion-road-rathgar-dublin-6/4499162 Would you need another €1m to renovate and extend this? Could be a cracking gaff if done properly.
Reits are not the enemy and emotion is not a policy If we turn our back on them we better be ready for the implications of adding €20bn to our national debt criminately hoovering up all sorts of housing stock,” says another. You’d be forgiven for feeling alarmed when you read these sorts of comments. I know I am because it is one of my biggest sources of professional pride to have led the campaign for the introduction of Real Estate Investment Trusts (Reits) into Ireland, which was achieved in early 2013. We are reaching an Orwellian point of promoting the idea that capital that produces jobs is good, while capital that produces housing is bad and therefore should be forbidden or penalised by penal rates of taxation. And this concern applies to other kinds of property investment funds, not just Reits. Let’s not forget that a political discourse that depends on bashing Reits or the avian label du jour will not lay one brick or house one family, and that’s surely what counts.
Amadan Dubh wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/reits-are-not-the-enemy-and-emotion-is-not-a-policy-1.4563313?mode=amp It really says a lot that the only supporters of the regime as is are those directly benefitting from it. But it is infuriating how they are somehow legitimised by the media giving them a platform rather than interviewing them and critiquing the points raised. This is just gaslighting of the public to allow the lobbyists spout their side of the story unchallenged; "we're not the bad guys, we're actually the good guys". Note that the author in this piece directly profits from the current state of affairs (ie the housing crisis).
Hubertj wrote: » I think the author makes some good points. I don’t see a problem with REITs in the Irish market provided that they do not corner the market and purchase properties which would otherwise have been offered for sale to the general public. The problem is not their existence or presence. From a tenants perspective others on here have commented that REITs are better landlords in terms of repairs and addressing other issues in a timely manner.
PropQueries wrote: » To be fair, I think he does makes some decent points. As he says in the opinion piece: "There have only ever been four Reits in Ireland, and only one – Ires Reit – can be said to be a major player in the Irish residential market." and that Round Hill Capital of recent Maynooth fame isn't a Reit. Back in 2016, the outgoing chief executive of Ires Reit at that time said that: "It’s a great market... We’ve never seen rental increases like this in any jurisdiction that we’re aware of... I truly feel badly for the Irish people.". So, he was being up front and honest at that time. Ires Reit didn't ask the state the turbo charge rents and house prices over the past 5 years through HAP, long-term leases, not directly building social homes etc. I think they would have been happy enough without these Government subsidies but I would think at this stage, along with many other landlords (big and small) they now most likely depend on them to keep existing rents and valuations high. What I think is interesting is the €20 Billion figure he states and that "then we better be ready for the implications of adding €20 billion to our national debt and the need to service that debt when interest rates rise, perhaps sooner rather than later if bond markets are spooked by our spending." Sounds like a lot of money until you look at yesterday's IMF extreme predictions that we could potentially lose c. €6 Billion per year from the global tax reforms i.e. that's c. €30 Billion every 5 years. The state really does need a plan B and the only real option that could potentially resolve the issue quickly and with little cost to the state is getting all that vacant, underused or potential housing stock into the market by any means possible IMO
Amadan Dubh wrote: » I think you've hit the nail on the head, that they now have an expectation and dependence even on certain levels of rent being achieved, which is part of the problem. So I wonder how supportive they would be of a government policy seeking to bring average rents down 30-40% in conjunction with supply increasing significantly!
Hubertj wrote: » And if such a ridiculous policy was implemented resulting in a large number of private landlords being unable to afford their mortgages? Populism is great but real solutions are required.
The_Conductor wrote: » Honestly- I think the cost of debt should not be an allowable cost for tax purposes- for anyone. Go for a flatrate tax on gross rental income- and let folk pay off their mortgages or whatever they'd like to do with the balance- but debt as an allowable cost- has to be hit on the head, across all sectors, for once and for all.
PropQueries wrote: » If a landlord has an unaffordable mortgage, it's most likely due to Celtic Tiger gambling debts. In many cases, the rent levels during the Celtic Tiger years would never have been enough to meet both principal and interest payments. Their gamble at that time was to leverage up, buy and then sell onto the next investor/unfortunate family home buyer. It didn't work out and they've had incredible help over the past several years through state/bank forbearance, ever lower interest rates, HAP etc. etc. It's time to let any landlord with unaffordable mortgages from the Celtic Tiger years go IMO We have to move on.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
