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

Even for funds it would not make sense. There management costs are away higher, again they would want a 10% ROI

First home scheme (shared ownership) ramping up into election year.

No they fo not have financing arrangements line BTL, but they need to generate pension returns of 5% to people investing.

No new house goes Upminster value innthe first 2 years. There is usually a reduction in value. That was shielded the last 10 years by increasing house prices.

Houses are like new cars they reduce in value the day you buy them. They no longer can avail of HTB schemes and an element of wear and tear enters the scenario as well. Finally pension funds now can really only sell the houses to other pension funds so this will have an effect on value as well.

To generate a 4-5% return to a pension holder funds will need to cover all costs from the plumber and painter to fund management fees and everything in between.

A first day investment by an individual through a broker will cost 1-4%, this is often no longer paid by the individual but paid for by pension funds, the pension fund provider will take there 1-2% a year on the total value of the fund. If this house is totally owned by the pension fund that is 5600/ year or nearly two months paid rent by your calculations.

If its 75% leveraged it's 1400 euro probably less. Leveraging interest rates are as high as BTL to rates

. At present with positive interest rates funds can access decent bond rates from AAA rated companies and banks. Do not always think big is beautiful

Not an uncommon scenario in today's world that Bass et al would have more business acumen than the financial industry

Are they ? They slowed down alot of apartment block developments they were at last year. The government and housing organisations took over some of them. They definitely not buying one off houses being build to any great extent unless they have LA or Corporate contracts in place.

Why would the buy a house costing 560k and rent it for 3k, when they walked away from apartment developments where 2 beds were going to cost them less than 300k with rents of 2.5k++ and a yield of 10%

Is the first home scheme still simple interest? I thought it was a great deal if you could get it.

Reinflating the property bubble was a deliberate effort so it is a lot more than just an I'm Alright Jack.

Half of the of the discussion on the last two pages of this thread has been about one particular development being bought in bulk this week. So yes, they certainly still are purchasing large blocks of units. So their accountants must disagree with you.

Because the people who run the state deliberately reinflated the property market and have no desire whatsoever to see their "progress" reversed?

I don't agree I think it goes much deeper than that. We have a societal issue that no one wants to address. We have an "entitlement" culture and no one wants to take the tough decisions to address this. If we look specifically at housing (as it relates to this forum).

The state has left the private sector deal with the housing situation because the State is incapable of dealing with social housing and the issues that come with it. I fall within SDCC and we have I think the figure was either 40% or 60% of social housing tenants under all of the different schemes (HAP, RAS etc) are in rent arrears. So if we just look at this as an example these rental rates are set at the differential rates (which take account of the income people earn, the make up of their family etc) and yet they are in arrears.

I don't have any breakdown of the figures regarding how long/how much people are in arrears but the fact that there are so many would suggest that the system is not working either people feel no consequences of not paying or underpaying rent or the figs need to be revisited.

If you privatise any product/service then there is always going to be a profit motive otherwise why do it?

Why should someone be able to go on the housing list once they reach 18? Should they not make the effort to house themselves and if they can't then they can go on the housing list? By all means there will always be a small number of people at 18 who need support because of family issues etc.

Every time I've brought it up there is push back here but in light of the decision to take outstanding child maintenance money from sw/wage payments I see little reason for those availing of subsidised housing to have the outstanding payments deducted from SW/wages as a condition of inclusion

Ze Germans are coming

Good little Irish renters, got to keep the German pensions funded somehow

Its absolutely bonkers that they aren't. If the state is providing your income directly, and the state is providing your housing in addition, and you're behind on your rent... surely it would take very little effort to take any rental arrears (or just the rent in general from the start..) directly out of your income.

German here:

Well you Irish left wing losers can leave the EU if you want? It’s not a cherry picking thing. The EU is a free market union explicitly protecting property rights. It wouldn’t work any other way.

German property rights are not “restrictive”

social housing and housing benefits are far less abundant than in Ireland.