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

I have held my hands up and said that I worded it incorrectly by saying more apartments are being built than houses.

You are putting words in my mouth....Where did I say that it fall from 2.75 to 2.5.... All I said is that it is projected to drop over time and the 2.75 figure was from 2016 and one of the factors is that more apartments are being built as a % of housing stock. Go back and read what I said...before you accuse me of clutching at straws for something I never said.

A simple calculation based on the figure of housing stock you shared earlier divided by the population gives you an average of 2.4 people per housing unit. If you excluded holiday homes and vacant the figure comes to 2.6 people per housing unit. As I said earlier on lets wait and see what the census tells us next year.

Do you think that high rents was mentioned in newstalk concern that Ireland was becoming anti business

No, not a squeak, lefties are the problem

These vested interests are using tried and tested methods of destroying a nation. Media and political capture a significant contributer to the last property bubble/bust

The spokesperson for the investment funds an ex politician as was the case (and continues to be) for the construction industry federation during the celtic tiger. Look at the banking and payments federation, another prominent former politician.

It's all too easy for some to pillage the country

Yet again putting words in my mouth where did I say figures were not worth talking about??? that’s twice you have tried to misrepresent me.

how do you define the average mortgage holder, because the average LTV in ireland will be around 60% or lower.

Also, from the article linked - Avant Money is offering a 3-year fixed rate of 2.20% at 90% loan to value.

Seems pretty good.

The 2.5 was taken from a different poster who was using it but I think it is more accurate than 2.75 as the average household size was 2.75 in 2016 and already as early as 2018 it had dropped to 2.6 and as has been pointed out birth rates are down, death rates are up and immigration has come down and building has gone up in the 3 years since 2018 so I can conservatively say 2.5 is a much more accurate measure for household size than 2.75. https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/housing-affordability-in-ireland/

Also straight away on your report so 92135 are vacant is there any explanation why, could it be that they are inhabitable as I see a lot in Dublin are vacant why would someone not have it up for rent or sale if it was in condition to be used, your losing money? It could also be a case that the infrastructure is not there to support a dwelling? Your calculation also does not take into account holiday homes which will not be used by anyone for long term rent so that's another 38791 out of stock that can be used.

So lets do the calcs again. Total amount of properties are 2,052,429 then take away the amount of housing that is unavailable to buy or rent for different reasons (holiday homes, inhabitable or no infrastructure) 130,926 = The total stock of housing available to buy or rent = 1921503 now using 2.5 as this is more accurate giving the information at hand and the latest household size given in 2018 and how the factors determining household size would bring this lower than 2.6.

1921503 * 2.5 = 4803757 or if we were in a time warp and we were still living in 2016 and it was 2.6 household size then it would be 4,995,907

Current population = 5011500

So the blind spots that neither of us know the answer for are the 92k odd houses that are empty. I cant imagine that any owner would just leave these idle for no good reason. My theory that they are either inhabitable or no infrastructure would be the most likely reason. Also why would there not be a push to get these properties into circulation if they were in a decent condition to house people? If we had nearly 100k properties in decent condition and not being used for sale or rent with the current homeless and housing rates as well as the lack of supply it would be a scandal of epic proportions for the government.

3 years fixed isn't great when rates will almost certainly be higher in the next 3 years. Low for long would be my preference; especially if repayments are already at the comfort limit.

It's sickening how we get fleeced in this country. My partner's family and friends are all German and we have often had conversations about housing over there. One of the things that really gets my goat is how they can get 100% mortgages at mortgage rates fixed at comfortably less than 2% for the duration of the mortgage. They even go below 1% with their mortgage rates. Friends in their late 20s over there are all buying their homes, in complete contrast to Ireland.

True throw in the different room capacity aswell. But we are talking about the average nationwide

Avant are so heavily selective that they would not be lending to people who are at their comfort limit for payments.

Right, but even Nationally applies the same logic, that families can have 2 properties, where both of them are used by the same family, but only one (principal) could be reflecting in CSO household statistics.

From what I see your focus is more towards housing stocks, which is different from what CSO consider household.

I am taking the properties that are vacant and holiday homes out of my math. So I was working with the actually number of houses out there in circulation. As I pointed out we cant use holiday homes as they are not going to be available for sale or rent. Same goes with vacant houses. The only reason why someone would have a house lying vacant these days is if the property is inhabitable or if the house is in an area where there is little or poor supporting infrastructure. You only have to look at selling and rental prices to see it would be madness not to have a property up for sale or rent with the current returns. So I have taken your logic out of the math altogether as there is no point taking about properties that are not going to be used for housing our population.

We will stay clear of it then. 😀

I see your point, and it's fair how you calculate household size. But it's different how CSO calculate it.

As you say: "as the average household size was 2.75 in 2016 and already as early as 2018 it had dropped to 2.6"

You would never get close to those numbers, if for 2016 and for 2018 would use the same methodology. In fact if it would be used the same methodology, it would likely show household size slight increase.

"but politicians will reap what they sow at the ballot box"

There are a large number of people who are alright Jack, thank you very much. You won't hear them complain that their house has doubled in value in the last number of years. I'm not saying it's right, but I wouldn't be so sure about FFG getting too much of a kicking. I think their handling of covid will have more of a bearing on it.