dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » The property bubble was not caused by 90% mortgages. It was caused by speculators, banks lending way, way over what they should have lent based on income and 110% mortgages. I myself was lent way more over what I should have been lent, the bank took future earnings increases into account and non-existent rent from letting out rooms in a house I didn't even own yet. Then I took out a loan for the deposit. ("Is this for a holiday and car and NOT a deposit" they asked and I said "eeerrrm, yeah, why not?" At the same time the limit on my credit card was increased without my asking. It was duly maxed out). That sort of thing is not great. I lived to tell the tale, I still have my house, most debt is paid and I'm not in negative equity. So it's not all doom and gloom.
MouseTail wrote: » Are these 1500 properties vacant or tenanted?
It does not give a breakdown of where in the country the properties are or whether they are currently idle or rented.
gaius c wrote: » Linky I know of a few empty ones. Viewed one last night. It's been empty for at least 4 months, possibly longer.
Deco99 wrote: » So people who cant afford to borrow are coming on here to complain they are not allowed borrow? Or at least if not themselves that others who dont earn enough should be encouraged and allowed get into massive unaffordable debt? The media spin has well and truly wotked on this one.
gaius c wrote: » Truthfully, I don't think the "FTBs" complaining about the rules are believable. That letter Edna released simply isn't plausible. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is actually coming from folk who have "interests" in property, either owning it or making money on the buying & selling of it. A trade unionist wanting more expensive housing just takes the biscuit and shows how nuts Ireland is with respect to property.
johnp001 wrote: » It is very disingenuous of those with vested interests in property to be protesting these new rules under the guise of championing the interests of the downtrodden FTB/low income family/etc...
bluesteel wrote: » bizarre logic. The land is the most volatile part of the price - builders won't build if the market value is less than cost of materials, labour etc. but the price of land is not fixed! If you were asked to value an empty site how would you do it? You'd get the market value of a completed house and site - and subtract the costs like materials, building, solicitor etc. It's not rocket science
Deco99 wrote: » I am sick of this already, the longer the rules are held off being introduced the longer the vested interests have to get involved. Jack O'Connor claiming that the builders wouldnt build was ludicrous, He is saying builders wont build for the huge profits they used to earn, but there is still profit to be made and someone will fill that gap, as has been said, the price of land and scarcity will only remain high as long as the expectation of a price rise is there, cool that expectation and that comes down, most wont be able to sit on it forever. Like any other industry, the construction one will have to adapt. Scandalous that our National Broadcaster and the Property papers are constantly putting this back up to try and pressurise a change of policy. Greed is a terrible sin.
The Spider wrote: » So why didn't builders build since the crash, I'm sure there would have been some profit, in fact land prices were more than likely cheaper in 2012, the reason there is a supply shortage is because no houses were built for six years.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Maybe I'm misreading this but the way you have phrased this puts the responsibility on the banks. They lent you way too much, the bank took account of future earnings and rent from letting a room in the new house. They lent you the deposit and increased your credit limit. You might have said: I borrowed way too much. I speculated about my earnings to get more credit and said I'd let a room in the house. I lied to the bank when taking a loan for the deposit. And then I maxed out my credit card. You also say you've paid most of your debts. Good for you. Hope you'll be paying the rest. Anyway, you reckon speculators caused the crash under the old 'lend/borrow loads' regime. And that a new 'lend/borrow prudently' regime would also favour speculators. Can both of those assertions be true? To be honest, your tale just screams 'Regulate this system pronto'.
El_Dangeroso wrote: » Exactly, credit is still ridiculously tight for builders. We have credit tightening on the supply side and credit loosening on the demand side when the exact opposite needs to be taking place.
mickman wrote: » how do you know this ?
Greyian wrote: » I thought it would be interesting to look at the Property Price Register website, to see what kind of deposit/salary people would need under the new rules (20% deposit/3.5 times income, obviously subject to changes though). For the period October to December 2014, there were 4376 entries for Dublin, excluding any transactions marked as "not full market value". These had an average sale price of €364,604.08, and a median selling price of €269.127.00. However, some of these entries were for purchases of multiple properties at once (e.g. a €20,216,517.86 payment for 75 apartments at Lansdowne Gate). Obviously, this skewed the average and the median higher than they actually are. I tried to adjust for this, by dividing the total expenditure on property (€1,595,507456) by the adjusted number of sales (i.e. counting that €20m payment as 75 different apartments, each sold at €20m/75), which gave total properties sold of 4820.Note: I may have missed some of the multiple property purchases, so the revised average I give could actually still be higher than the real average. Using the new properties sold figure, the average selling price would fall 9.2%, from €364,604.08 to €331,086.83). There would also be a (much smaller) adjustment to the median, but I will need to manually create entries for each of the multiple properties to calculate the exact change. But what do these figures actually mean? Well, we can use the original median figure for our calculation, along with the revised average figure, as it more accurately reflects reality than the original average figure found. If the average property price is €331,086.83, the minimum deposit required to purchase the average property is €66,217.37. That would leave a mortgage figure of €264,869.47. To drawdown a mortgage of this size, a minimum (combined) salary of €75,676.99 would be required. It would be fair to say, however, than the median property price is far more relevant. If the median property price is €269,127.00, a minimum deposit of €53,825.40 would be required. That would leave a mortgage figure of €215,301.60. To drawdown a mortgage of this size, a minimum (combined) salary of €61,514.74 would be required. So, to purchase a median property in Dublin, you will need a deposit of €53,825.40, along with a combined salary of €61,514.74. These figures are a far cry from some of the statements made so far in this thread, suggesting people would need salaries of €150,000 (or higher) to afford to purchase in Dublin. What these figures, also omit, is the fact that many first-time buyers would be expected to purchase a property that is regarded on being on the lower-end of the "property ladder", before trading up. As such, it isn't unreasonable to expect them to purchase lower-cost properties, thus requiring lower deposits and lower salaries in order to purchase. The difficulty of raising a larger deposit (when "trading up") should be less of an issue, as their deposit should be derived (partially, at least) from the property they are selling (as they have increased their equity while repaying the mortgage).
matt-dublin wrote: » Problem with your information Grayian is that a lot of people don't have equity on their old property. This is where the new rules will destroy the market. The people with apartments looking to move to a house and start a family
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » The bottom line is, to get into the property market you need €40k if you do indeed manage to buy one of the finest Celtic tiger cardboard and plasterboard kips. Its all well and good saying "oh, but your mortgage is only 160k (leaving aside the outrageous interest rates at around 5% from robbing bastard Irish banks), first time byers do not have that kind of money. With the rents they way they are going (I guarantee you double digit increases for the foreseeable future), that kind of savings can only be achieved by not spending any money whatsoever and not having kids. I'm all for sensible but 20% deposit is silly.
Deco99 wrote: » the price of land and scarcity will only remain high as long as the expectation of a price rise is there, cool that expectation and that comes down, most wont be able to sit on it forever.
Electric Sheep wrote: » Yes, that is why historically people did the saving of the deposit before getting married and having kids. It's common sense. It's silly to expect to do the saving after you have kids and so much less disposable income as a result.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » How long does it take to save €50k?. People will have to put off marriage and kids till their 50's.
matt-dublin wrote: » Problem with your information Grayian is that a lot of people don't have equity on their old property. This is where the new rules will destroy the market. The people with apartments looking to move to a house and start a family. Also those figures sound like they're for a 2 bed bungalow in Saggart, not Dublin.
Greyian wrote: » They're not first time buyers if they already have a property though, and it seems that most of the complaints seem to be about how hard it is to get on the property ladder in the first place. You can also seem from this, that prices (at least in Dublin) aren't all that far off peak prices at this point. The only people who would be negative equity at this stage would be people who have been paying interest only (is that even still possible?) or who bought right at the peak, and at current prices they'd be close to getting rid of negative equity at this point. Over the next few years, which would be the equivalent of saving for a deposit for most people, they'll continue to pay off their mortgage, which should then put them in a good spot equity wise. Many of these people would also have trackers, so they should be able to make savings alongside their mortgage repayments, thereby having part of their deposit in savings, and part in equity in their current property.http://www.daft.ie/sales/148-glasmore-park-swords-dublin/1006370/http://www.daft.ie/sales/apartment-2-block-e-smithfield-market-queen-street-smithfield-dublin/1021764/http://www.daft.ie/sales/no161-the-oval-tullyvale-cabinteely-dublin/1005705/ Those are just some of the examples from a (very) quick look on Daft, which wouldn't be unreasonable homes for first time buyers to target. No, you don't. Roughly 15% of the properties sold in Dublin in October to December 2014 were sold for less than (or equal to) €150,000. So you'd need a deposit of €30,000 and a combined salary of €34,285 to purchase one of these properties. Those aren't exactly outrageous expectations for people who want to own a property. Interest rates aren't at 5% either on mortgages, AIB and KBC (at the very least) have mortgage offerings under 4% currently. All of these figures are easily found online, yet to keep ignoring them, and throwing out figures you've made up off the top of your head. Why?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3178042671b79ccd7c14cb99d430e76b.svg)
