Electric Sheep wrote: » I suspect because he has inflated ideas of the home and neighborhood he is "entitled" to.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » How long does it take to save €50k?. People will have to put off marriage and kids till their 50's. Edit Though a lot if people would have the deposit if they just have a smaller wedding. The Irish must all be hugely wealthy if they think nothing of digging out 20k on a wedding and 60k on a house. Enviable to have that kind if cash just lying around.
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?
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
matt-dublin wrote: » They're way off peak prices!! My folks house was valued at 1.2m at the peak and currently sits between 6-700k
The Spider wrote: » I have a question,not sure if it needs it's own thread, but what do people think Quantitative Easing is going to do to house prices? Seeing as deflation is off the table and now inflation is being encouraged.
jay0109 wrote: » It'll cause them to fall for sure
donkeyoaty0099 wrote: » Difficult one. I suppose the aim of quantitative easing is to essentially provide more credit to the market in general (as well as to devalue the currency but that doesn't really make a huge difference unless you plan to buy in America soon). More credit could mean an increase in prices as more people will be able to get mortgages which will increase demand. But it could also mean a decrease in cost as more developers will be able to get loans and build more houses thus increasing supply. Ultimately I don't know if it'll make any difference. The Irish banks still seem to be moderately cagey with their money so I don't know how much of the money will filter down to your average punter. Tl;DR I don't have a breeze.
mrmitty wrote: » I've posted this before but it's worth repeating. Generally, there are three accepted methods of finding the value of a property. 1) comparative analysis method where a property is compared to a group of similar properties which have been recently sold (usually within 3 months) and assigning a numerical value to the subject property based upon comparable sales figures for comparable properties. 2) The cost approach, where the improvements such as a building etc. are valued on a replacement cost basis. In the cost approach method, the value of the land will be achieved by the comparative analysis method described in 1) above and added to the calculated cost of improvements. 3) The income approach. In this method, the existing or potential rental yields minus maintenance and any other costs such as property taxes etc. of the property is taken into account and a percentage return on investment ( 3-3%) used to extrapolate a value for the property. Valuation of a property is not an exact science and as the cliche goes, a property is worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay for it.
The Spider wrote: » I suppose the theory is that it'll push up the amount that banks can lend, and push up salaries as more money is in the system and goods become more expensive due to the currency being worth less. We've had little inflation over the past 6ish years. I find the pint index is as good as any to see how inflation has occurred over the years.http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/bestprice/guinnessindex.htm The weekly wage column is interesting.
bluesteel wrote: » what's your point? I was responding to someone who thinks that builders won't build because of land prices are high. My point is that the land component is a derivative of the completed asset price (house + site) - I'm well aware that the completed house price depends on various factors. The thrust of my argument is that historical land prices cannot be used to justify sitting on land/not building. Builders will hoard land if they believe property prices [and by implication the land price] will continue to rise
The Spider wrote: » How so?
donkeyoaty0099 wrote: » Will the house prices inflate at the same rate though , or will they gallop off into the distance leaving Joe Soap renting for years to come? People seem to think the QE is too little too late anyway. The entire world economy is still flagging and I don't think 1 trillion over two years is going to help us much. The euro has already fallen against the dollar so we should see how that affects our exports more quickly than we'll see an inflation increase. Ultimately the price of exports is more important to the Irish economy than the rate of inflation since we trade extensively with the US and England.
The Spider wrote: » This makes no sense, so you're saying if prices don't rise they won't hoard land and will build? Why would they do that, they can just keep the land until they see fit to build on it, and that could be ten years down the road.
The Spider wrote: » Don't know honestly some people are for it some against, but surely our exports being cheaper will be a good thing?
bluesteel wrote: » If prices don't rise and they're paying interest all the time it's costing them to sit on the land. This attitude - "shure it'll be worth loads in 10 years" is what got us into this mess. Just goes to show how a land based tax is needed in Ireland
Deco99 wrote: » This is why the new rules are important, to get rid of this attitude. To provide stablility that a credit driven bubble wont.
gaius c wrote: » The floppy haired one had a good article recently on how QE is failing because the "trickle down" aspect isn't working. ...
kippy wrote: » Over a long period house prices rise in line with a number of variables. Even in a "functioning economy". One of the issues with the bubble was that they rose too fast too soon, however there are still plenty of people (generally those who remained in gainful employment) who are paying their mortgages without issue - even at the prices they paid. House prices are still much more expensive now (in general) than they were in 99,89,79 etc. If there isn't a profit for the variable people involved in the entire process of house building, including landowners etc, then I don't see what these rules will do to "force" them to sell land or develop land at something that won't achieve a profit for them. Unless a major tax comes in on the retention of these landbanks etc, it is feasible that the owners will hold onto them.
Deleted User wrote: » There has been no attention given to the 60% deposit requirement for investors. On top of them having to pay Capital Gain Tax from here on, property has become significantly less attractive compared to some other options. For a 250k property, you'd need 100k cash in your pocket - not insignificant.
makeorbrake wrote: » I guess there hasn't - have been following this discussion here and elsewhere and it's the first I've heard of it. Presumably, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference - as most would have sizeable deposits in any event...or do the stats show otherwise...?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3178042671b79ccd7c14cb99d430e76b.svg)
