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

"average Dublin house prices should fall to ‘the €300,000 mark" according to Many Lou McD.

1323335373877

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,262 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I am no fan of SF.

    I think that rents must halve, and house prices must fall maybe 20-25%.

    I would like to hear a politican say:

    "rents are too high and need to fall"

    "house prices are too high and need to fall"

    Although I would traditionally support FF and FG, they will not come out and directly state this, so my support for them has fallen away.

    Although EOB plan has many holes in it, at least he has a plan to reduce the soft costs of construction.

    All FF and FG do is introduce schemes that add to demand, like HTB and shared equity.


    A party that did something like the follows would get my vote:

    savage, penal taxes on land to drive land costs down 90%

    reduce finance costs massively

    de-risk construction to reduce developers margins



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Why makes you so certain of a high correlation between those who cannot currently afford houses, and those whose employment prospects would be relatively worse during a recession?



  • Posts: 14,708 [Deleted User]


    Given that you need developers to build the necessary housing, what makes you think they would continue to do so if the purchase price and profits fall sharply and there is a penal tax on the land that becomes unprofitable to build on?

    You would vote for the party which stops developers building, to solve the housing crisis?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Finty Lemon


    Reduce the 'soft' costs of construction? How? EOB listed 3 things

    Builders margin- what company will quote for projects with no margin? Very likely that the 'margin' will be incorporated into the quoted cost anyway.

    Sales and marketing- what is covered here and how will it be reduced? The bureaucracy of administering the overall plan will dwarf this cost.

    Cost of finance- I assume this is to the developer not the purchaser I.e. financing the construction cost. How will this be cut- state borrowing at a lower rate? How will this be achieved? Cost will be borne by taxpayer, not a reduction in real terms.

    Soft costs is a nice catchphrase but I'd like to see the hard detail.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    It seems a lot of people think they can cut the margin of the workers, in a time when we haven't enough construction people and cutting the wages would mean more of them moving overseas.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Finty Lemon


    Eoin O Broin is saying he will solve a housing issue by making a government body be a more efficient administrator than profit-oriented private companies, by getting construction companies to work for free, and by getting free money from the market.

    How how how?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    Eoin says a lot, like a lot of Sinn fein. Would you scratch the surface then the issues start to show up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,885 ✭✭✭pureza


    He's not actually saying that to be fair

    He's saying he'll make a government body build the houses with public funds without the government body needing to make a profit at all

    You can still hire commercial companies at commercial rates if that's your strategy

    You and I making up the cost with our taxes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    Ok, so there will be an additional layer of cost, this new public body.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    and again I go back to the issue of construction workers, who is he getting to work on these houses?

    How is he paying them? is he taking existing staff from construction companies in Ireland?

    Are these staf becoming state employee? are they entitled to a full state pension?

    If so he is not reducing the price of a house but massively increasing it while also reducing the output for a couple of years while he creates this magical government construction company



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    I asked the poster of this where they got the chart and they never answered.

    I was suspicious about the numbers so went and had a look for it myself.

    The only result I can find is a reddit site where a poster talks about creating a version of this graph themselves.

    Whether it's a genuine error in trying to create the graph or an attempt to put fake numbers out there, in short it's b****x

    Here's a link to some CSO data showing housing output since the 1970's. Where we are now is just a little above the numbers we produced in the 1975 and 1980. Factoring in that we now have a significantly larger population, it's accurate to say that we produce now less houses per 1,000 people than we did in 1975 and 1980.

    And of course we're nowhere near the peak Celtic Tiger years of 90k houses per year.

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-mip/measuringirelandsprogress2012/economy/economy-housing/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,964 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...id like to see exactly where hes been saying he ll get companies to work for free, and this so called free money please?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    The only way it "works" is if all these builders are effectively civil servants and work for the state directly. If you contract out at all then you are paying for the contractors profit.

    The challenges I see off the top of my head:

    1) Finding all these people without just taking them from existing builders (as that will just increase the cost of building and hence increase the cost of houses)

    2) Creating this government body for a cost that is below the existing margin costs

    3) Dealing with the inevitable inefficiencies of workers who cannot be fired



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    It does seem to be a reddit source, here is an update version that looks a little different

    image.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    Plus as state employee they are entitled to a pension.

    So that will also have to be included. Plus all the additional people in the new or bigger state department to manage this.

    I think if anyone does the maths on this in the government the cost of the house will be massive, even if they are talking about selling it at no margin so cost=price.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,964 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...so a market based approach to housing will be better, i.e. what we re doing right now is just grand!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,885 ✭✭✭pureza


    Why all the questions when the answer is simple

    Private contractors are paid whatever they want to build houses for the government

    They stop what they're doing because the government pays more

    They don't become state employees

    We the taxpayer pay for this

    What could possibly go wrong ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    "what we re doing right now is just gradn!"

    I don't think I said that and I already outlined on this thread what I think we should do to help resolve the housing issue, just over next few years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,262 ✭✭✭✭Geuze



    There is a developers margin

    There is the builders margin

    SF plan is to reduce the first profit margin.


    Yes, more detail is required.




    I am friendly with a financial controller of a property developer. The banks lending to them expect them to make 15% net profits on the ex-VAT selling price.

    Their cost of finance is very high, it is like ECB + 4% plus a 1% arrangement fee. It is not far off 10% interest rate.

    It would be a great if somebody/anybody could reduce this cost of finance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,262 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    In all of my posts I never mentioned reducing any of the hard costs.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    The only thing the government should be involved in is council/state housing. They need to stay out of the private housing market or they will break it, as subsidies etc. undermine the whole premise of a free market.

    They should be providing cheap dwellings at the bottom of the market price. Their remit is to provide housing for the people at the bottom, who cannot get onto the private housing ladder.

    Now they cannot be crappy shacks, but I think its a valid question to ask if they really need to meet all the current private housing standards. Ideally they would be blocks of apartments with common amenities, but frankly I dont know how you prevent these from becoming slums.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    So now the banks lose out? Who pays to cover this shortfall?

    Or are you suggesting a state bank that lends money without expecting to make a profit?

    It seems this whole "reduced/no margin" approach requires everyone in the chain to accept low/no margin. Which means that the state needs to be every part of the chain, which will reduce margins, but massively increase costs



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    There is no 'free' market for housing in Ireland.

    A free market is one free from government interference. Hence the term. Those on the right love to worship it but in reality it rarely exists outside theory.

    We could only have an actual free market by removing planning and building regulation.

    If we had an actual free market a lot of our housing problems would disappear overnight. I could buy a nice dry piece of agricultural land and put a cosy prefab on it for circa 80k.

    There'd be a whole load of other environmental and safety problems with that solution which is why no-one pursues, it but that's what a 'free-market' for housing would look like.

    FFG love to bulls**t about it, but according to, you know, economics, that's what a free market is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Your definition of free market differs from mine.

    Planning & building regulations, in my opinion, don't detract from a free market.

    Things like rent control impact a free rental market. Government subsidies on private housing, HAP, etc impact on it. i.e. the market controls the prices of things, which it does today. If someone wants to pay 1M for your house, then thats what its worth, the government dont get involved. Equally if no one wants to pay more than 50K for your house, tough sh1t, thats what its worth, the government dont step in and demand people pay you more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




  • Posts: 14,708 [Deleted User]


    Again, you want to significantly cut the selling price of houses, cut the profit for developers, have an enormous tax on land that the developer may not be able to make a profit on if they develop it, and you want more houses built to solve our housing crisis?

    And you typed that nonsense twice.

    I can’t remember which poster who works in banking posted that Irish banks rarely if ever lend to developers, the finance comes from institutional investors/lenders. Maybe you might check with your friend if he was referring to Irish banks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    So the taxpayer pays more for construction workers, so how will it be cheaper for the government to build houses then?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,885 ✭✭✭pureza


    It's not meant to be

    He wants them built

    You pay



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,474 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    It will be cheaper for the people who don't pay any tax, i.e. the SF voters!

    The supremely wealthy (those earning over 100K) will pay for everything, it'll be grand.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Well your definition of free market then sounds like something you've made up yourself.

    The definition I learned when studying economics was that a free market 'is one where producers and consumers can enter and exit freely'.

    Contrast that with planning applications where only people from a certain area can apply, or buildings must be of a certain style, or where engineering experts are required to meet building regulations, or the cost of obtaining finance to build, or labor being in short supply.

    I'm not sure if FFG use the term through ignorance, or to sell the idea of them making selective interventions favorable to their voting base.



Advertisement