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

Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

1195196198200201913

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Of course we're not going to tell people to stop having kids.

    When you say "this is where the country finds itself demand wise", do you mean that because we did not build enough to accommodate (average household size x population growth) over the last decade we have a massive bottle neck and thus have to build significantly in excess of (average household size x population growth) over the next decade just to catch up? Hence difficulty in the supply getting to where it needs to be?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 780 ✭✭✭dubal


    I am currently planning on using them, but I am in an urban centre. They are pretty risk averse in my experience.


    Ultimately, I want a low fixed rate. They were the lowest but I think they've been matched now, so hopefully they will go lower next week to compete.


    Dubal



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭fliball123


    That is what I am seeing, I am seeing an ever increasing housing list and homeless list and the term housing crisis is used infinitum. Throw in the record low number of houses for sale and rent over the last 2 years or so. There definitely seems to be an issue in this country with regards to housing

    Post edited by fliball123 on


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Sure, I see the ever increasing housing list and housing crisis cries too.

    The logic of calculating future supply and demand requirements by (average household size x population growth) only makes sense if you also accept that the present demand and supply situation is accurately represented by the (average household size x current total population).

    Would you accept that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭fliball123



    Well I have calculated the population change over the last decade and divided it by the the 2.5 average dwellers across all households and then taken away the new builds that have been built in that time and it leaves us needing housing for nearly 50k people and it does not take into account housing that have been demolished or dwellings built in areas that are more or less inhabitable as in no or poor infrastructure and no amenities close to the dwelling in that time either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I understand the calculation you have done, and how you arrived at the conclusion "it leaves us needing housing for nearly 50k people".

    I am just saying that the claims you are making based on your calculation would only have any validity if the current total stock of habitable housing x current average household size also showed a deficit of housing for nearly 50k people.

    Which oddly enough it doesn't. It in fact shows we have a fairly significant surplus.

    Hence by your calculations there should actually be very little difficulty in getting supply where it supposedly needs to be.

    It doesn't make a lot of sense to say future housing demand is very simple, its average household size and population growth, you can't argue with the figures and simultaneously say, pfft ignore the figures, I don't care what average household size and current population is, you can't argue with the headlines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Have you anything to back that up and does it take into account housing demolished or inhabitable and that are built in areas that have little or no infrastructure?? If not then your facts are skewed and I would take the current housing list, homeless list and the absolute clammer from people saying that they cant buy or rent a property in this country over a stat that includes a large amount of dwellings that are not fit for purpose in this country



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,696 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    I see Allianz are pulling out of the investment property market. We are in real danger of becoming a bad place to do business. Like it or not we need institutional money to build housing. The reality is, the small landlords are leaving the market in their droves, we need rental properties so who else is going to meet the demand.

    We really need to build at all costs, sure we'd love the state to build us all a house but its not remotely realistic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,152 ✭✭✭wassie



    Avant's lending criteria is such that they are only lending to the top prime borrowers. Essentially they are only picking the low hanging fruit in the Irish mortgage market which is not exactly great for competition given the majority of borrowers dont meet their criteria.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Have you anything to back that up and does it take into account housing demolished or inhabitable and that are built in areas that have little or no infrastructure??

    Sure. It's pretty simple.

    According to the most recent calculation, the total stock of habitable residential dwellings in Ireland was 2,052,429.

    Not sure where the average household size of 2.5 you mentioned came from, all official sources I have seen say it is 2.75 (eg the Housing Agency)

    Total housing capacity = 2.75 x 2,052,429 = 5,644,180 people

    Total current population = 5,011,500 (your figures which I'd broadly agree with)

    Capacity for 5,644,180 people minus 5,011,500 total people = 632,680 spare capacity or 230,065 spare houses (632,680/2.75). Some way off a 50k deficit as you suggested.

    Using your 2.5 figure you get housing capacity of 5,131,073 and 119,573 spare capacity or 47,289 spare houses. Still some way off a 50k deficit.

    If I made a mistake in the above, let me know? How are you coming up with the claim we are 50k houses short based on population figures and average household sizes?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    and the conversation slowly moves into the topic that has been banned as it has been done to death…lol



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭M_Murphy57




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,888 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    An assumption that urban/suburban will hold value better. There's arguments for and against that.

    Houses without fibre are going to be less and less attractive; in future there will probably be significantly heavier taxation on having your own car, having a septic tank/domestic WWT system, etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭M_Murphy57



    I suppose, but the vast majority of people pay their mortgage ie repossessions are rare. Seems overly cautious, but what do I know I'm not a number cruncher.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    It’s funny because once you account for the 90k vacant properties (which has been pretty consistent for some time and are vacant for a variety of reasons which can’t be discussed here). and 40k holiday homes your surplus of 47k becomes a deficit of 83k properties based on 2.5 people per property.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,888 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Repossessions are still exceptionally difficult to obtain.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Amadan Dubh


    The problem with traditional metrics used by our established regulators and government is found in stories like this and their being wedded to the likes of debt:GDP, household wealth etc as barometers of economic prosperity is directly correlating to a rise in populism and economic uncertainty. If things are so hunky dory then why are FF and FG, being responsible for the current situation, doing atrociously in the polls? Why is it so difficult to raise new taxes (i.e. taxes on this booming household wealth)? It really seems like there is a complacency and a mood of "this time it's different".

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-families-wealth-is-surging-helped-by-house-prices-1.4744937

    If Irish household wealth keeps increasing at current rates, it will exceed €1 trillion in 2022. In the middle of this year, thelatest Central Bank figures showed that net wealth – households’ assets minus borrowings – stood at €935 million, exactly €100 million higher than one year previously and more than €125 million above pre-pandemic levels. This equates to €186,589 per capita, though as the Central Bank points out, this says nothing about the distribution between households.


    Back before the financial crash, Irish households held gross housing assets valued, at the price peak in late 2007, at around €610 billion. Total wealth at the time was just over €700 billion. It was all about property. Total household borrowings, most of it mortgage driven, was around €200 billion.


    The problem, of course, was the value placed on property at the time was unrealistic. By 2013, the value of housing wealth had dropped to less than €300 billion.


    Now housing wealth, at €587 billion, is approaching the Celtic Tiger highs. With significant economic growth in the meantime and a rising population, economists in the ESRI have estimated that while house prices were overvalued in 2007, they are more in line with economic fundamentals now.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths


    That entire subject has been banned. Not just the reasons. So probably best to steer clear of it.

    Sure based on average household size of 2.5 people, it's not too difficult to talk your way into a deficit, based on a few ifs, buts and maybes. I only included the 2.5 household size figure because that is what fliball said he used to calculate.

    The most credible figure, as per the CSO, and as such most often quoted is 2.75.

    So how does it look on 2.75 as average household size? Probably not so funny.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    we will wait till we get the census data next year to see average household size as projections are that they are falling and the 2.75 figure is from 5 years ago. you repeatedly try to talk about it without stating it. Having said last year that you don’t believe there is a housing crisis says everything. So yes it is funny 😆



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths


    we will wait till we get the census data next year to see average household size as projections are that they are falling and the 2.75 figure is from 5 years ago. you repeatedly try to talk about it without stating it.

    Wait and see if the average household size decreases? In a rapidly increasing population with a chronic shortage of houses? I guess we can just chalk that up to another one of these odd anomalies of the Irish housing crisis! LOL indeed. 🙄

    I'm not repeatedly trying to talk about something without stating it, I was simply commenting on the flaw in fliballs logic re calculating demand using average household size and population growth.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    More apartments being built rather than houses is an odd anomaly 🙄



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths




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


    If the method will not change to calculate household size, I would be willing to bet that household size has increased since 2016.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,702 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    Hmm. Do you mean the population increased by 47k each year between 2011 and 2021? If it is an average of 2.5 per household that would mean we should have been building 18k units a year presuming no houses lost to dereliction etc and that in 2011 supply had met supply. Obviously 18k is not enough given we lose houses to dereliction and that household size should will slightly further. But 30k units would be enough a year to take into account Ireland's natural population increase and a net immigration of between 25-30k per year.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,888 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Apartment goes briefly over one-off houses, but never comes close to estate houses ("scheme") there.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    OK I may have worded it incorrectly by saying more apartments than houses were built.... what I was trying to say is that more apartments as a % of housing stock were built after the 2016 census which should drive down the no of people per housing unit.

    image.png




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Worded it incorrectly putting it mildly I would think.

    so approximately 1000 new apartments built in 2016 rising to approximately 4000 in 2020 versus approx 8500 houses in 2016 rising to approx 16,500 houses in 2020.

    so that is a relative outperformance of apartments as a % of new build stock going from 12% to 17%.

    and you think this 5% difference in new build stock is going to cause the average household size, calculated over the entire housing stock and population, to drop from 2.75 to 2.5?!

    LOL indeed. I think that is the biggest straw I’ve seen you clutch at yet.



Advertisement