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

Its not a good policy if your plan is to increase new housing delivery.

Anyone in the industry will tell you that the rent caps are stifling new investment and therefore restricting the number of new homes getting built each year.

If we let the rents rise to their natural level and then subsidise the increase in the rents in the short term, the number of homes being built will increase as investment floods in and then the rents will start to level off naturally, as supply finally takes control.

We can then reduce or remove the rent subisidies.

Carrying on as we are means we still see moderate supply hitting the market at 30k to 40k homes per year, but unless there is a crash or an exodus of well paid jobs and household wealth from the country, we will stay in the same feedback loop we are in today.

We also need the state to start building social homes and leave the private developers to build private homes. This would also help sales and rent prices come down as it means more supply hits the private market.

Champions of Europe declining for the third month in a row

the are RTB figures, so the governments figures and they raise more questions than answers.

60,243 supposed housing starts in 2024 and the sector is in contraction 3 months in a row

Serious questions need to be answered. The taxpayer is being played

There are over 40k plannings in Dublin alone, ready to go and around 15k of those are due to expire because they have been left idle so long.

This means that Planning permissions isnt the problem either.

Planning permissions are now treated as a commodity, you get planning on a site and then the site is worth more, then you try sell. So many of those planning permissions do not belong to developers and many will not be purchased because the asking prices are too high (little urgency to sell a site), or the sites have insufficient services.

This is all straight from the horses mouth, high profile developers have all admitted as much - very few sites in the country are shovel ready because either planning appeals or services are stopping them.

There is a lot of vested interest contributors in that article from March 2023.

The RTB figures for 2024 still refute that Landlords are leaving the market in their droves.

It's not hypothetical it an actual reality of people I know. I just showed you how the number of landlords can increase but less people are housed. I even ignored the rent is more expensive for the 3 involved. Older landlords can be fleeing and there be more landlords overall but less homed. They aren't mutually exclusive hence knowing how many people are housed in rental is important. If it is older landlords as estate agents are saying then it is the cheaper rental leaving the market.

The rental houses near me are being sold and going into the private market. Many having been rented for decades

It’s doesn’t. It infers that by saying registrations are up.

Taxpayer is absolutely getting played but it's happening in all sectors. Did anybody notice a decrease in pricing when the hospitality VAT rate dropped to 9%?

But we could use this to our advantage. The most recent from the construction federation is to levy 0% VAT on house building materials in order to promote growth. Why not a refund at the end of the year of the VAT paid on the condition of 60,000 homes being built and sold in that year?

Not an anecdote either but a real world example.

It's the definition of an anecdote, not sure how you could dispute that.

My family have rented out property for a long time and know the areas we rent in very well. I can see the rentals being sold

You're just providing further anecdotes and confirmation biases to try and prove a point.

As I have already said, I know plenty of people getting married, yet the numbers are down this year. My anecdotal experience does not disprove that and neither do your anecdotes.

Unless you can provide any actual evidence that isn't "I know that…" or "Estate agents say…" that landlords are fleeing the market, there's no point discussing it as we're going around in circles here.

More rentals does not mean landlords are fleeing. Net gain doesn't mean more people are housed. The figure do not reflect size nor reflect how that as a percentage of new builds are rental only. There are a lot of builds that are rent only so the number of tenancies increases and landlord numbers can go down. Company structures can also mean the figures show more landlords but in reality there is just one landlord company running several companies.

Forget anything you want to call "anecdotal" and just realise the figures are easily misleading because they don't actually include the details to say if more are housed and there isn't a reduction in actual landlords.

We are moving to a situation where large landlords will control the market and if you don't understand the dangers of that or want to ignore the ramifications so be it. The figures won't show that or the exodus of smaller landlords

I know 2 landlords that sold under the tenant in situ scheme (fleeing the market narrative) and purchased different properties

What is happening, they are selling a low yielding property stuck in rpz limbo and purchasing a unit that can charge current market rates easily doubling rental income

The process can be labelled as landlords fleeing by estate agents but in reality the process has doubled rental units.

Do you know any of the financial details of why this was viable and if they made more or less money from a rental sale and new purchase?

Putting it very simply If they got revenue x from property A and decide to keep the same revenue certain things must happen.

Sale price of A must at least equal price of property B+CGT+sales costs+purchase costs otherwise they are reducing their capital investment. Rent from property B must still give x or x+new profit.

In reality their is no way property A and B are equivalent unless CGT is very low. If it was low then it wasn't rented that long. What would really be happening is B is smaller but the rent can be either the market which is at least equal to rent for a larger property. The renters are paying more in the end of the day. You can double rentals and increase rental prices and end up with less people houses and your example didn't double the rental units it remained neutral but would likely mean less people living in the rental provided by both landlords and most definitely higher rents for individuals renting.