MarkAnthony wrote: » I can see you're really upset, I'm sorry that was not my intention. In regards to out of context you are saying thing like 'would solve the rental crisis' where what I have said it there is a rental crisis and measures like this might help in limited circumstances. As for the extra expense argument that was dealt with in a post to another person discussing - this is what I mean by missing posts, sorry for not being clearer. This is why I feel that we should not engage any further the only interest seems to be a tit-for-tat back and forth and not an all encompassing discussion. Again I'm really sorry that this has resulted in upset for you that was not my intention. I hope everything works out for you.
Barely Hedged wrote: » Answer the questions i have put in bold in my previous post and stop deflecting with personal slights such as im upset and im middle class, which im neither. Im calling you out as you are not backing up your points - plain and simple.
MarkAnthony wrote: » Again sorry that was not meant to be a personal slight. I'll leave it there until the mods have reviewed the situation.
The_Conductor wrote: » Mark- and Barely Hedged- this tit-for-tat scrapping- will not be tolerated. This is your one and only warning- behave- or take it elsewhere- if you continue here- you will have a little holiday......... Regards, The_Conductor
Deleted User wrote: » Mine was very short and was sent early in the process Seriously, if the DoF and the banks hadn't waited until the last minute to deliver their relatively lengthy submissions it would have helped things along - although that is obviously not the goal of the DoF or the banks!
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: » Well you suggested it was driven by second homes so I'll let you field that one. It's clear there are more principal homes than second homes so it stands to reason the principal home had more of an effect on the market. You still haven't grasped the reasoning of the regulations. You still think the central bank are trying to control the housing market. They're not, they're regulating the lending industry.
ciaranlong wrote: » I think somewhere along the line we had a misunderstanding here. I never put any emphasis on the phrase "second homes", but probably referred to "property purchases in addition to the family home" or something like that, i.e. those purchases which are an investment and require rent from tenants to pay the mortgage. That type of property-purchasing certainly drove the bubble based on anecdotal accounts (which I admit are not hard evidence).
makeorbrake wrote: » That doesn't stand up. Yes, people got into BTL's in a big way - but both BTL's and first time home purchases were driven on the back of the very same thing - i.e. HIGHLY available cheap credit.
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: » You still haven't grasped the reasoning of the regulations. You still think the central bank are trying to control the housing market. They're not, they're regulating the lending industry.
ciaranlong wrote: » I appreciate that the Central Bank regulate the lending industry, I meant to say earlier. But as the ESRI pointed out yesterday (and their comments have been covered in today's papers), the Central Bank's new regime could affect the supply of housing as well as the lending industry. From the Indo: "In hard-hitting comments, the influential think tank's Kieran McQuinn said it is not clear the planned lending rules are justified and warned that the proposals could lead to lower levels of construction activity, just when new homes are desperately needed." From the Times: "The Economic and Social Research Institute has questioned moves by the Central Bank to damp down the housing market, saying immediate measures to restrict mortgage lending could curtail the supply of new homes." P.S. Another issue was raised by Donal O'Donovan in yesterday's Indo: "The dominance of cash in the property market means the Central Bank's own plan to keep a lid on the mortgage market with caps on the amount banks can lend to customers will likely have a limited impact."
Deco99 wrote: » You're quoting the Indo, might as well quote the Beano or Dandy, incredibly biased and I didnt realise it for a while but serious agenda with that paper on this issue. Everyday they are publishing spin.
Deco99 wrote: » You're quoting the Indo, might as well quote the Beano or Dandy, incredibly biased and I didnt realise it for a while but serious agenda with that paper on this issue. Everyday they are publishing spin. I'll bet they wont have anything from the Finnish Banker in front of the Banking inquiry today. Not impressed with the Dept of Finance lack of Regulation during boom, a step they are repeating now.
ciaranlong wrote: » There wasn't much difference between the Indo and the Times on this as far as I could see. I quoted both, and both were a fairly straight account of what the ESRI said.
mr_seer wrote: » Did either mention that Mr. McQuinn also admitted that Dublin house prices are currently overvalued? This was directly in contradiction to a report he compiled for NAMA and the Banks recently where he said that they were undervalued. This guy worked on the Financial Stability team in the CB during the bubble so pardon me if I take everything he says about systemic risk and house prices with a barrel of salt. Suggesting that the IT is impartial is hardly backing up the Indo's credibility. They did not have a single article on the CB's publication a couple of days ago where the CB issued a warning about the pace of house price growth. That should have been front page stuff. They own myhome.ie and both papers make a large potion of their revenues in property advertising - incidentally the only portion of their revenues that is currently increasing.... No vested interests at all so
BarneyThomas wrote: » You cant "admit" that house prices are over valued. Unless you are from the future and actually have come back with the actual future prices of property.
Vain wrote: » I was bidding on a house in the Kildare area, was in a bidding war with a few people but ended up on top with the highest offer, estate agent rang to say congrats we are highest bidders etc and he will get on to owner. Owner came back to estate agent and wanted another 10k for the house, we refused and said we wont be paying a extra penny. So anyway a few weeks has passed now and I see the house is removed from daft. Im guessing it will be back on daft in the near year with a higher asking price!!
MarkAnthony wrote: » I doubt it. If prices do take a bit of a tumble in the new year (which I suspect they will do for Q1 and maybe Q2) I expect the commuter towns will be hit hardest. I don't think for one minute we'll see an overall decline on the year (not in Dublin anyway) but if they were under the gun to sell, I expect you'll see it again.
Deleted User wrote: » Why do you think the commuter towns will be hardest hit? It would suit me if you were right(!) - I'm just wondering what makes you think it will pan out that way.
MarkAnthony wrote: » I just think they are areas many end up in as they are forced out of Dublin. If prices fall in Dublin then the demand in the commuter towns drops off. I could be wrong of course.
gene_slackman wrote: » because their is no shortage of space outside dublin relatively speaking , outside dublin was in an even bigger bubble than the capital during the boom as demand was always lower
Deleted User wrote: » There have definitely been price increases over the past 24 months, at least in areas like Maynooth. See this thread on the propertypin about a house that went for 363k in 2012; a similar one went for 400k earlier this year; then another one came to market last week asking 469k. There's an epic boards thread on a new estate in Maynooth where large detached houses had been asking 380k in 2011, then went to 450k in early 2014 and recently the last phase went for around 500k. Sell now (I'm completely biased, of course)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3178042671b79ccd7c14cb99d430e76b.svg)
