Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1817818820822823943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I do recall an interview on primetime with Eoin where he said he was trying to attract pension funds looking for secure stable income closely linked to inflation. Your talking about people at pension age looking for income that tracks inflation. This scheme closely matches that customer requirement so if it were a rental solution maybe you could bypass the banks for funding. Said pension funds were completely put off by the speculative nature of the Irish market.

    FFG are wedded to developers and speculative finance. These people will run rings around FFG and take taxpayers to the cleaners and FFG buddies will be minted in the process.

    FFG's sole skill in this process is creating the illusion that they are the taxpayers and first time buyers friend. Amazingly they are getting away with it while most ftb are shopping in the uninterfered market of used homes.

    This morning it was announced that they are increasing the funding for the first home scheme with the liklihood of more rate cuts in the short term. We could well be entering the phase equivilant to 100% mortgages in the noughties.

    The next election is the last chance to avert another disaster and it will be missed just like the multiple opportunities that have been missed over the last decade



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    7.5 x income certainly looks terrible compared to apparently 4.5 x in the US.

    And that figure of 4.5 is triggering some bears to call their market an extreme bubble, saying it has only ever been that high twice in history

    Mad when you think about, in Ireland 4.5 times income is the stuff of SF wet dreams of affordability, in the US it's a red flag of a housing bubble!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    This is a very poor use of ‘data’ to draw a really poor conclusion!

    The Irish data is individual income to home price ratio. You’re quoting USA household income to home price ratio. And even the basis of that data is questionable. Median US home prices are $420k. Median household US income is c.$70k.

    The official looking graph is posted by the account of a sensationalist lunatic linking to his own website!

    The median US home price to median individual income ratio is at least as high as Ireland (likely a bit higher) AND they have mortgage interest rates almost double ours.

    House purchasing in Ireland is astronomically more affordable than the US, and indeed more affordable than pretty much all first world countries.



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


    I was fairly certain that USA house to income ratio is higher than Ireland are you sure your comparing like with like?

    A quick google brought this up



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    @DataDude and @Timing belt fair enough, I stand corrected, should have thought that one through a bit better.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Former FG TD and now MEP seems to have a big issue with an open market pricing system used in rent and housing when it's applied to concert tickets

    Its a shame they can't learn from the dangers of handing over the pricing power to a small number of vested interests



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Crikey, linking Oasis tickets to the property sector, that’s impressive.



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


    it’s like all your posts have become political broadcasts and you’re using the slightest link to properly in order to post….but his takes the biscuit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,093 ✭✭✭growleaves


    It's an "official looking graph" because the man claims the data is sourced from Zillow, the Case Shiller House Price Index and the US census bureau, which claim is either true or untrue.

    It looks correct to me because if you are familiar with this subject you already know the US price-to-income ratio is normally given as multiples of high 3 to 4 something while Ireland is usually multiples of high 7 to 9, in recent years. Look around then internet and read multiple sources if you doubt this.

    The US has had lower house to price income multiples than most countries in the world for a long time (and even now, though QE is causing multiples to escalate) for a specific reason: because the global reserve status of the dollar helps to create a floor underneath domestic US asset prices.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    The comparison made was poor because it took individual income to price ratios and compared to household. Apples and oranges.

    The guys data is questionable also because two seconds on his Twitter page or website would show him to be a deranged loon.

    Average US home prices are c.$420k. In order for the comparison to Ireland to be true. Median individual income in the US would need to be c.$95k…it’s nowhere close.

    Home price to income ratios between Ireland and USA are very similar but with US having massively higher interest rates. House purchasing is cheaper in Ireland now than USA (by a distance) which wouldn’t have been case historically



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,322 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Not sure of the number there, are they using dual incomes?

    Median US house price is approx $415000

    Average full-time salary is approx $60,000

    House price to salary ratio of 6.9

    The US is made up of many markets, so houses in places like SF, NY, and Boston could be extremely expensive, and places like Houston or Florida, are much more affordable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    In what way does it take the biscuit. A supply constrained product is exploited to extract the maximum out of consumers. The only difference is that the consumer can say, "no thanks" without a huge impact on their lives like housing. We have 40% of under 35's living with parents and 10k of our nationals possessing skills in high demand escaping to Oz alone on an annual basis

    I'd be the happiest poster if everything related to housing was removed from politicians, there incompetence is unquestionable



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    .

    Sinn Fein launched their policy document today to address the issue with shortage of supply, if elected, they commit to having Oasis play 20 concerts per year.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭combat14


    are SF going to build any houses with the 39 billion (plus possible interest) of tax payers money they are going to throw at the problem?

    who are these 300,000 alleged houses really being built for ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,926 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    What is really interesting from.those figures is the net cost per house is 130k. Are they going to reintroduce slave labour

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Have only really read the headlines so far rather than the detail, but at first glance I like the sound of:

    • Immediately end the policy of long-term leasing for social housing delivery.
    • Support the four Dublin Local Authorities to establish a publicly owned building contractor.
    • Reduce the use of private sector rent subsidies to meet social housing need.
    • Sell homes to eligible purchasers at prices between €250,000 and €300,000 depending on size and location
    • Ensure that residential zoning should be made on a use it or lose it basis.
    • Ending the First Home Scheme
    • Phasing out the Help to Buy Scheme

    I definitely don't like the sound of:

    • Introduce a three-year emergency ban on rent increases for all existing and new tenancies.

    Full details on their website



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭combat14


    there will be plenty of rent increases before xmas so



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Life is about timing. If we needed a reminder of why a public building company would be an expensive disaster, it comes in the form of a 300k plus bike shed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,139 ✭✭✭Jonnyc135


    Maybe but I dont think SF or Mary Lou will be in government after the November election.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Was it a public or private company that built it?

    The most competent at delivering public infrastructure are the Spanish and Italians who employ the expertise that ensure the taxpayer is not over a barrel



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The OPW oversaw it, there is likely to be some questions asked at committee level so we will get more info in time. But it doesn’t matter whether it was a private/public workers, it shows how costly it is when the State undertakes building projects, either there is no oversight on costs if it is a public company, or the State gets ridden by private companies.

    And you think the Government should plan to spend billions on building houses? The contractors, both private and those employed in a public company will be bringing their wheelbarrows to carry the money away. And like BAM did, they will just tell the Government to like it or lump it if they aren’t happy, the next contractor in will charge even more to finish the job because they will know they hold the cards.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The bike shed is a good example of a job that should have been able to be handled in house by the OPW, and instead the taxpayer got fleeced by outsourcing it.

    The state is already getting ridden by private companies in the quest for housing - whether it's the delivery of "affordable" homes on state land, eg Oscar Traynor, or Part V purchases for social housing, or long term leases, and many other examples, there is no shortage of snouts in the trough currently.

    In any event, my enthusiasm for the state to cut out the middlemen is more to do with removing the state from its role as marginal buyer in the private market, than some kind of delusion that politicians and civll servants are prudent with public funds. If they can reduce the contagion of the problem then that will be an improvement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    No no…anyone seen to be ripping of the nations coffers gets kneecapped.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,926 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Over 8k vacant properties have applied for the VH grant and over 5k have been approved. It started 18 months ago so we are looking at 5k+ houses/ year will be in the scheme costing the state on average slightly above 50k/unit

    If we hit 35k+ ish new units we are looking effectively about 40k houses a year. Yes some of these houses would have been refurbished anyway over time but the grant is speeding up the process

    https://www.farmersjournal.ie/news/news/over-8-000-applications-to-the-vacant-house-grant-822565

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, it really won’t. If the Government become property developers, they will either have to compete with the private sector for construction workers, or pay private developers to do the job. Either way, the State gets fleeced. If the State directly employs the builders, they will become public servants, with employment rights and about as much incentive to work more quickly or efficiently as any other PS. If they get a better offer in the private sector, they leave. If private developers are employed for projects worth billions, they will carve up the Dept in charge like a turkey at Christmas.

    If I were one of the property developers whose expertise for large scale construction projects the State would need to build on that scale, I’d be sincerely hoping your/SFs plan comes to fruition, I’d want as big a chunk of that 39Bl as I can get.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Thanks for the summary results of 100+ years of FFG governance



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭combat14


    so where is the 39 billion coming from to fund these houses - is SF planning income and property tax rises, will they be as bad as the greens.?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I'm under no illusion that there would be wastage.

    The argument against it seems to focus on the valid point that billions will be pissed away.

    My hope would be at least in pissing away billions the situation might improve.

    Currently we're pissing away billions and the situation is worsening.

    I struggle to see the logic in wanting to continue that strategy.



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You want 100% of the risk, cost and responsibility to be absorbed by the State? That would be utter madness.

    If you want properties built quickly, you incentivise the private sector to do it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I want 100% of the risk, cost and responsibility for social housing to be absorbed by state, yes. Which appears to be pretty much the status quo anyway.

    As regards the provision of affordable housing on state owned land, the recent Oscar Traynor situation is a timely example of the current problem of how successful outsourcing the risk, cost and responsibility has been.

    The state sold the land at a massive discount to market value, and ended up with affordable houses in Coolock that cost almost 500k. The affordable definition only applies because the state is taking a further risk, cost and responsibility of up to 30% of the equity.

    That's utter madness.

    And a state backed building firm mitigates the risk of being held over a barrel by the construction industry who threaten to stop building if subsidies dry up.

    And none of the above necessarily stops private sector properties being built by incentivising private sector construction if needs be. I don't see why the two cannot coexist.



Advertisement
Advertisement