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*

1641642644646647915

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 210 ✭✭Mr Hindley


    I'd agree that interest rates probably have a little higher to go. But I'd also say that we're only starting to see the impact of the rates on house prices - that will take months to feed through into the situation on the ground in terms of what people are bidding etc.

    I did hear on the radio that the number of mortgage approvals was at a record high, though, which goes against the whole narrative of higher rates depressing house prices, so who bloody knows what's going to happen at this point...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭flexcon


    Yup! Problem was total lack of supply meant really compromising on location. At least now, some houses are coming up in the location.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Possibly, mortgage rates in Ireland are still low (although AIB news last week is changing that). Once that changes I’d expect price impacts (if there are to be any) will be swift, as they were in other countries. Every single new buyer is impacted immediately, there is no lead time for them in terms of bidding.

    On your second point. Hindsight is always 20/20 but given where rates were, property in Ireland really was extremely cheap back in 2019/20/21. I still have screenshots of the 30 year Avant mortgage, fixed at 2.5%. That meant the interest on a €1m mortgage was less than the rent on a 1 bed apartment in Tallaght. The mortgage was guaranteed for life. The 1 bed in Tallaght would be going up 3/4/5% a year for the 30 years.

    Prices really should have gone much higher with finance that cheap, but prices were kept in check by the restrictive lending rules. The fact we never really got the crazy ‘boom’ in prices from low rates, means I think we won’t get the crazy bust from increasing rates.

    Ability to repay mortgages has never been a problem, it’s just been getting a mortgage which has been the issue. That has remained unchanged with rising mortgage rates, and if anything gotten easier with the 4x lending change.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 744 ✭✭✭drogon.



    Couple of points to add, rents are still at all time high. In that for a lot of people, paying a mortgage will still make them better off than renting. Especially if they are looking for a new tenancy. I know few people at work, that have lived here for over 15 years (mainly from the continent) and have decided to buy because of rental prices.

    I live in Dublin, and live in the same area since 2004. Prices only reached the peak of 2007/08 during the bidding frenzy of 2022 ! For the most part, prices have been fairly content - especially in Dublin. Going forward I personally don't see people paying 100K over asking prices like we did see last year, so yes prices will drop when you compare it to 2022 prices, but if you compare them to prices of say 2019 it might be a very nominal drop.

    Overall the rental crises really needs to be sorted to relieve any pressure. This includes the large government subsidies in the private rental market. Last year over 50% of renters got some form of subsidies like HAP. This unnecessarily puts pressure on renters who don't qualify for any government support. This really annoys me, as HAP was a introduced as a temporary measure to use private rental market for social housing until the local councils got enough supply, unfortunately this never happened and all they kept doing was expanding the scope of HAP.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 GoingLinux


    Are prices really falling around Greater Dublin Area commuter counties, or just moving sideways? By which I mean, people are being forced to buy a lesser house, with people at the bottom being squeezed out.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I see the vacancy nonsense has reached the letters page of the Irish Times.

    Sir, – John McCartney (“Ireland has many housing problems. But lack of supply isn’t one of them”, Opinion & Analysis, June 27th) argues that undersupply is not a feature of the Irish property market, on the basis that Census 2022 shows an overall home vacancy rate of 7.85 per cent. Census data is notoriously unreliable as a source of actual property vacancy figures, as the only criterion is that nobody is home on census night. Official CSO vacancy figures are based on low or zero electricity consumption over a 12-month period and are a much more reliable indicator that homes are being left unoccupied for long periods.

    It's absurd. For example the author says: Census data is notoriously unreliable as a source of actual property vacancy figures, as the only criterion is that nobody is home on census night.

    Notoriously unreliable? Only according to the narrative. As as for "the only criterion is that nobody is home on census night", it is just pure fiction that somehow has become widely accepted as fact. The CSO specifically state this is not the case:

    A dwelling is classed as vacant by census enumerators if it is unoccupied on Census night, is not used as a holiday home and is not usually inhabited by occupants who are temporarily absent at the time of census.

    The point of the vacancy count is to identify properties that are uninhabited on Census night, not chalk them up as vacant if the occupants are away for the weekend:

    Census enumerators adhered to detailed procedures that have been developed by the CSO in consultation with key experts across several censuses. As part of these procedures, enumerators varied the times of the day, and days of the week, they called to dwellings in order to make contact with householders. For example, when an enumerator called to a home during the day and failed to make contact, they dropped off their contact telephone number on a calling card. The subsequent visits were at different times such as evenings and weekends.


    Enumerators also looked for signs of vacancy such as post and junk mail building up, no lights on at night, no cars in driveways, overgrown gardens, or no windows open. If they observed any signs of occupancy, they could not record the home as vacant. Where they could not make contact with a particular household, the enumerator checked with neighbours to enquire about the dwellings. If neighbours told them there were people living in these dwellings, the enumerator could not record them as vacant.

    And these visits occurred numerous times between March and May. If there was evidence of occupancy on any of those visits, the property was not recorded as vacant.

    And the author again goes on to say Official CSO vacancy figures are based on low or zero electricity consumption

    Official CSO figures?! As in the census figures are so notoriously unreliable they are "unofficial"?! Says who. Certainly the CSO don't consider the electricity consumption figures as the "Official CSO vacancy figures". Quite the opposite, as mentioned in a previous post they regard them as experimental:

    CSO Frontier Series outputs may use new methods which are under development and/or data sources which may be incomplete, for example new administrative data sources. Particular care must be taken when interpreting the statistics in this release.

    Again, the idea that the electricity figures are some sort of best in class vacancy date is a pure fiction that has somehow come to be regarded as fact.

    The reason the whole "Ah sure you cannot trust the census, that's clearly wrong" spiel annoys me so much is it a perfect example of the power of the narrative related to housing in Ireland. For some reason people are adamant that black is white, and they're utterly convinced of it - the letter writer in the Irish Times is just one example of many.





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Who runs the census

    What makes you think you know more about stats than them

    If the vacancy rates are high doesbtbthe market reflect this



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Did anyone ever draw down on this avant mortgage though?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I am not claiming I know more about the stats than the CSO who run the census. That's ridiculous. I am claiming that the people who claim things like the census is notoriously unreliable do not know more than the CSO.

    No the market does not reflect the high vacancy rates. Therein lies the problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    If they were happy with the vacancy rates in the census why create another batch


    Other than the census is run every 5 years only so not much use


    And has the above mentioned flaws

    Why would they state the numbers in the census should not be used for long term vancancy rates on their own website

    Time to drop this sillyness






  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    If they were happy with the vacancy rates in the census why create another batch

    The CSO were happy with the vacancy rates in the census. They stoutly defended them. They didn't see the need to create another batch. That's the point. It was various other interested parties who claimed there was something wrong and there was a need for "better" figures. Are you suggesting they know more about statistics than the CSO?

    Why would they state the numbers in the census should not be used for long term vancancy rates on their own website

    Because the census is not designed as a long term measure. It is designed as a measure of vacant properties at a point in time. Again that's the whole point.

    The vacancy figures at the point in time in April 2016 and April 2022 are way way higher than you would expect given market conditions, availability etc etc.

    It doesn't matter how many measures of long term vacancy you devise to specifically measure long term vacancy, it does not change the fact that at the point in time of the census the vacancy figures were extraordinarily high.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    on their own website they state that the census is not a measure of long term vacancy rates

    That's is what the other stats are for

    That's why the on the day vacancy rates are higher they always will be

    This is getting beyond silly now

    Definitely in 5g territory

    They even list some items that are actually not vacant that are included in their numbers



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    i'm not talking about long term vacancy, I am talking about the vacancy rate at that point in time. I think the census estimate is an accurate count of that figure.

    Do you think that the vacancy numbers identified in the census are an accurate count at that point in time?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Why are you going On about short term vacancy numbers?

    The fugures of interest in the discussion of housing stock are long term vacancies

    People can't live in a propert that is not vacant long term, because they aren't vacant

    Sheesh



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It appears we agree that the census point in time figure is accurate.

    I am just fascinated why nobody is interested in discussing the elephant in the room that it is way higher than you would expect during a time of shortage of housing.

    Or are you suggesting that you don't think it is high?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,733 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    This scheme is nothing more then a PCP deal on a house. Buy a 400k gaff and take a 250k mortgage out, that 150k doesn't go away, it's like a balloon payment. Atleast currently your buying a new house, that would be a ridiculous scheme to add to the "used" market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    its not high


    It is low


    As a result of the low long term vacancy numbers


    The long term vancy rates are extremely low


    There are no elephants, you are fascinated by nothing



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    What people don't seem to understand is that the short term vacancies at a point it time are extremely important, as these include properties for sale, for rent etc vacant because they are between owners/tenants.

    For example, where reasons for vacancy were known, there were 35,380 vacant dwellings which were rental properties between tenants. That is a colossal number compared to the numbers actually apparently available to rent at the same time. The same is true of properties for sale - a far higher number than you would expect given the apparently available stock at the time.

    The vacancy numbers of the census are being dismissed along the lines of the only thing that matter is long term vacancies so you can disregard most of the census count because they're vacant for valid reasons i.e for sale or rent.

    But that totally ignores the fact that the census is showing a number of properties for sale or for rent that indicates there is absolutely no crisis in supply.

    That's why short term vacancies are important.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    It's not the CSO disagrees with you

    So you are wrong

    For exactly the same reasons stated already

    Short term will always be wrong, they are in use

    You are incapable of understanding this simple fact

    Email the cso I'm sure they can explain it to you



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's not the CSO disagrees with you

    On what point does the CSO disagree with me?

    Short term will always be wrong, they are in use

    You appear to be reverting back to the argument that the properties are not actually vacant?

    And the only reason for that explanation is that the CSO is not able to carry out the census properly. That seems unlikely to me.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    They are not actually vacant

    Why is the only type of vacant that is useful

    They are only temporary vacant

    Because someone lives there

    This is why they have another figure, thele leccy one

    Why do you ignore this

    Dublin city council did a follow up on the 2016 cencus that shows this

    Sheesh

    Now if all thee houses are vacant why is it that you think they are just lying there unused

    Maybe you can provide some useful info



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    As I expected, we're back to the argument that even though the CSO has recorded them as vacant - i.e uninhabited - we can ignore that because "They are not actually vacant" and "Because someone lives there".

    But that's quite a stretch.

    Because it essentially amounts to the idea we should disregard the census because the CSO are incompetent. Personally I've seen no evidence of that, and it strikes me as the least likely explanation.

    Now if all thee houses are vacant why is it that you think they are just lying there unused

    I suspect the most likely explanation is the most obvious one - it's financial. Opportunity costs are low. Considering low interest rates, attractive capital gains, and a regulated rental market, for most of them it is a simple case of risk/reward. It pays to leave them vacant.

    That's far less of a stretch.

    Whatever the explanation, you and I are going around in circles. We can agree to disagree, it is no skin off my nose.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Come on now it is you who is stretching logic here

    Massive returns on selling and massive rent

    Regulated rent? Theres no regulation on these unrented vacant properties, you could charge top dollar

    How can it pay to leave them vacant, it cost an arm and a leg to insure them too

    Why if they are vacant are they using electricity in these vacant properties

    And now prices supposedly falling and where are these properties?

    You are just wrong, the cso says you are wrong



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    Is there any chance we can carve off the vacancies discussion to another thread? It is an important subject but it is making this thread almost impossible to follow if you don't want to see the debate on this topic.



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


    The census is a snap shot on one night. If you're not home will your property show up as vacant? It is vacant that night but if you are home next day is it really vacant.


    In this day and age given people travel so much the number of vacant properties is not suprising. And travelling might not be the only reason for a property being vacant the night of tge cencus


    It reminds when economists say the economy has full employment but there will still be an unemployment rate of at least 3% when at full employment l. Like there is now for instance. There will always be people between jobs or just new to workforce. But how can 3% unemployment mean full employment.

    Post edited by ittakestwo on


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The census is a snap shot on one night. If you're not home will your property show up as vacant? It is vacant that night but if you are home next day is it really vacant.

    As I have pointed out numerous times here this is a very widely held belief that is totally untrue.

    From the CSO FAQ on their vacancy figures:

    A dwelling is classed as vacant by census enumerators if it is unoccupied on Census night, is not used as a holiday home and is not usually inhabited by occupants who are temporarily absent at the time of census.

    They establish this over a few visits, asking neighbours, looking for sings of occupancy etc.

    The wide scale dismissal of the vacancy figures from the census as nothing to see here is entirely based on number of fictions.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I take your point, but it does amaze me how few people who are interested in the property market, it's direction, impact of interest rate rises etc etc have zero interest in the glaring anomalies thrown up by the vacancy figures.

    I raise it from time to time in the hope that somebody out there is willing have a more sensible discussion than just parroting a narrative that is entirely untrue.

    IMO anybody who has an interest in the property market and the housing crisis should be asking themselves how did this narrative become so widely accepted?



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


    Nobody is interested as it has been done to death time and time again on this thread…



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Yep, it's been done to death and still people believe that if you're away for the night on census night, your house is recorded as vacant.

    The CSO will be publishing more detailed info in a few weeks on housing figures from the census.

    If more is revealed on the subject then that shows we have significant potential spare capacity, would that be relevant in a property market chat thread then?

    Or should we continue to say, nothing to see here, the CSO got it wrong?



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Because its a complete red herring so long as the construction industry is out max output. There are no builders or tradespeople to make these uninhabitable vacant buildings habitable.



Advertisement