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

You didn't understand. I was merely giving an example of how hidden variable can skew your trend in opposite direction.

Lengthy article by Colm Keena in the Irish Times today (sorry if its paywalled) purporting how Govt Policy has been effectively reducing the number of available rentals since 2016 by pushing out small Landlords. Nothing in it that hasnt been discussed here before, but good that the conversation is being had.

And you trying sometimes to make sense from Sinn Fein. If I got it right, he is the main SF housing spokesperson, and goes against "evidence".

Ó Broin: ‘Its [Nama’s] hoarding of the land makes clear that they have contributed to inflated land costs, pushing up development costs and ultimately the price of buying or renting a home. State-backed Nama controls enough land to build at least 20,000 homes on but most of it remains undeveloped, according to new figures released by the Department of Finance."

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/nama-controls-enough-land-for-20-000-new-homes-1.4747306?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fnama-controls-enough-land-for-20-000-new-homes-1.4747306

Ye miss the point, situation of oversupply to undersuppy in a matter of 8 years.

In that time of low interest rates state owned banks were charging up to 14% for resedintial investment loans

I recall posting last year of a housing financier charging 7% for resedintial loans that had the guarantee of government long term leases. Absolute madness in a time the state was getting finance at 0%.

The highest return on housing going to a profession that adds no value

What was the point in dumping the debts of the banks on our children and theirs if this is the carry on. Why not let them burn

The banks are still commercial entities. Do you expect them to loose more money just because the shareholding of the state.

You could not let the banks fail. Every economy needs a banking system to process direct debits, credit card trans and all the other everyday transactions that every person and business transact every day that involves a bank.

Simply ingredients saying burn the bondholders takes no consideration of the bigger picture.

A loan to a housing development that has secured long term leasing from the state would carry less risk than a loan to a couple on average wages with 10% deposit.

The process of negotiating, securing the lease plus the 7% interest plus change are all unnecessary costs added to the price and still not a brick laid

What was the point in saving all of them. If we had just saved bank of Ireland and not propped up the others, would ulster bank and kbc have remained.

Revolut have abandoned plans to base in Dublin because of frustration with cb over the granting of a licence. You don't hear that on newstalk when they are spouting about an anti business culture. Our failure to deal with bad loans in a mature and rational manner has blocked others from basing in Ireland

All anti business,

Maybe a loan for building properties for a property on long term leasing to the State would attract a lower interest charge the if so why are developers not doing so after all that's,what they do, they develop.

The reason the banks were saved was competition and also the sheer number of customers impacted had they of let fail would have caused chaos.

I fully agree with you regarding dealing with bad loans but this is Ireland we don't have the culture to deal with it. How many mortgages are behind where people are still in the property, how many tenants both social and private are behind in their rent and still in the properties.

A loan for housing development uses far more of the banks capital that a loan to a couple on average wages. And therefore it may be a better use of capital not to lend to housing developments and hence the high rate to deter this type of lending. The capital the bank needs to hold for the loan is not dictated by the bank or the central bank but by the EU under CRDIV.

Ulster Bank and KBC have pulled out of the market because of the low interest rate environment because they can no longer turn a profit because there margins have reduced massively. This is not unique to Ireland and right across the EU there is a consolidation of banks for the exact same reason.

Revolut abandoning plans to base in Dublin has nothing to do with bad loans and comes down to permissions to operate a MiFID Investment Firm.

One of the main reasons in my opinion is the unwillingness to deal with non payment of mortgages & rents. All property loans are issued based on securing the loan on an asset. If you look at our property sector and the mentality of some not to pay mortgages rent and remain in the property for months and even years in some instances.

We need a functioning eviction process but nobody wants to admit it because its not a vote catcher.

Why do you think the State has gone away from directly providing housing and even closing the RAS scheme. Simple, they are liable for the non payment of rent and they know there is nothing they can really do about it.

So the State has decided to rely on the Approved Housing Bodies and the private sector. So with the private sector the private landlord takes all the risk and the State (specifically with the small landlord) gets over 50% of the rent back. Then if the tenant is a HAP tenant and they stop paying their part of the rent to HAP, then HAP stop paying the rent to the landlord completely.

The landlord then has to go to the RTB and it can take up to 2 yrs to actually get a tenant out. So the tenant has been housed for 2 yrs in this situation at no cost to the State. Then when the tenant is finally evicted lawfully they go to the State and are deemed in need of housing and the whole process starts again.

Whether you want to accept it we don't do responsibility.

The banks are making commercial decisions which is exactly what they should do.

You could probably solve land banking by bringing in a rezoning law such that land zoned residential, not being used for that purpose 2 years from the legislation date or future zoning change, revert to being designated agricultural with an 8 year moratorium on any futher rezoning applications attempting to revert the zoning. I think that would prove a greater incentive than taxation.

Because the State has a responsibility to house people and if you take money from any social welfare payments you remove the receiptents choice to spend their benefit how they see fit.

Then when they don't pay rent it takes months to garnish someone's social welfare payment. Depending on their benefit you may not get paid any of the outstanding rent because it would leave them with a welfare rate below what they are legally entitled to.

The system is rigged against the small landlord with the State and the tenant getting the majority of the benefits.

Fully agree they should have a use it or loose it policy. The only change I would add is to bring in a rezoning tax with government taking 60-70% of any profit generated from the land being rezoned. That way if they didn’t use it and it got rezoned back to agricultural and they thought they could sit on it and rezone in the future they will be hit by the tax.

It's not a vote catcher. Let the "evil" landlord suffer. The current parties in power are fearful those in the left are promising housing for all. This reminds me of the promises made by the politicians in the UK and Brexit. That's working out "well".

Politicians are promising everything and the public are falling for it exactly the same way the British voters who voted for Brexit did.

The sad part about all of this is its the tenants who are suffering because small landlords are leaving the market because of the toxic environment. I know a number of landlords who are getting out.

I am a landlord.

Agreed. The notion that a landowner can benefit from a massive capital gain simply by a decision of the state is bonkers & archaic thanks to our feudal land system. All of the ancillary costs of infrastructure supply to support proposed residential developments on rezoned land could be funded by these taxed profits, which could in turn drive down the costs of housing.

I think many people understand that politicians are the problem not the solution. This applies to both tennant and landlord.

What you see on media is those that make the most noise. You know what they say those.

And to echo what other posters have said there has been a concerted effort by government to demonise and eradicate the small landlord through taxation, regulation

The result has been that the sector has become monopolistic the same has happened in construction regulation and financing has made things difficult for the small builder and created barriers to entry for new business

Land is sold in large portfolios by state agencies again eliminating the small player from the business.

And the killer is the taxation system. Crucify the small player, while the large firms can escape without paying a cent.

This is a grim system for renters, buyers, small Irish business and even owners. Too few have so much power in an industry critical to the economy.

Politicians are not listening to the people, so it's time to give them a kicking. I don't think it people falling for false promises rather giving a kicking to those that have made their lives difficult