flintash wrote: » personally i dont see anything wrong with long mortgages. even lo ger what they are now. see all it matters is montly repayment. so lets say you have 40 years mortgage and payment say of 400. cant check calculators online but from my head it would be it over 100k. you could afford gaff down the country. you would put rainy day money and in the case of job loss you would not default on your payment.
handlemaster wrote: » Any ponderings from the educated economists where we will property going after ECB QE starts in marchhttp://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/ecbs-quantitative-easing-will-drive-investment-in-irish-property-market-659185.html
The_Conductor wrote: » So Savills think that investors will abandon the bond markets as yields are too low- and instead chase property again? While ignoring the fact of where the suggestion is coming from- they are onto something. There is going to be additional excess liquidity sloshing around, seeking a home. Thats a simple fact. Whether it comes to rest in Irish property, gold, US equities- or whatever, is a point of conjecture. If you want to view the excess liquidity purely as a asset whose value you are trying to save- the safer people are shying away both from equities and property- as there are even larger cadres of pundits, suggesting both are in bubble territory already. That leave bonds- which may not keep pace with even weak inflation (already investors are effectively paying to hold some classes of German bonds for example)- and gold........... If I had a few million- and I was seeking a home for it- I'd sit down and crunch the numbers. Even with sky high rents in Ireland- the ROI doesn't make sense to invest in property. Even Savills should be able to see that- but of course this would punch a hole in their 'advertisement' for Irish property......... I think I'd try and ascertain who the stronger (both from a financial and a regulatory perspective) of the BRICs are- and buy equities there........ I don't see any merit in buying Irish (or indeed European) bonds or equities- or indeed US equities. If I wanted a relatively safe punt with a still reasonable return- I'd pour my money into Mexico........
The Spider wrote: » Ok Irish property fine, however with the extreme lack of supply in Dublin, and no reasonable amount coming onstream for the forseeable future then Dublin property may indeed be the place to invest any extra cash that's floating around. Not a popular viewpoint but if you wanted to invest for a year or two, you may be guaranteed of a return especially if more investors snap up wht's available in Dublin. I'm aware of the .1 percent drop but lets face it that was before QE, you may find a situation where Dublin is simply unaffordable for even people with very good salaries. Dublin is still good value as capital cities go, use this to compare the prices of Dublin to other Capitalshttp://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/comparison.jsp
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » Typed in Dublin and London, those Brits are having a Giraffe with their prices!
The Spider wrote: » Dublin is still good value as capital cities go, use this to compare the prices of Dublin to other Capitalshttp://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/comparison.jsp
Deleted User wrote: » Cool tool. Based on prices of 90m2 apartments but still, interesting.
Deleted User wrote: » The guy from Savills is right. This only makes it less attractive to leave money in the bank and bonds are almost equally pointless.In his note, he is mainly taking about commercial property. These are the guys who might otherwise buy bonds. What he says about residential is that weakening the euro makes Ireland more attractive if you live in UK/US. There surely have been some expats and others buying places as an investment that you'd like to live in a few years down the line. Are they a big chunk of the market? I doubt it. Foreign-based investors are the most disadvantaged by the CB's new rules so you're talking about people with a big stash of cash. He's an interesting chap Dr McCartney. Used to be a CSO statistician so I treat him as a scientist (to be respected) rather than a hyperbolic estate agent (to be taken with a dollop of salt) taking up the market. Indeed he has cast doubt on the sustainability of last year's rapid growth. Even before that small fall in Dublin prices, he had called the dip. His reasons were:Reduced cash-sales as much of the boom-time ‘mattress money’ has been spent Tighter bank lending with further restrictions to come Gradual scaling-back of investor demand due to lower yields Withdrawal of CGT incentives which allowed some investors to pay more So he's right about QE and he's probably right about the other factors. How much weight you apply to each of these things is the big question. Personally, I rarely see people who I think are professional investors at viewings. Definitely see middle-aged parents with their adult kids, and often see couples in their 50s looking to invest in a property. Although whether there will be as many this spring as last spring remains to be seen.
The Spider wrote: » Think you'll find Dublin is cheap or average compared to almost any other capital in Europe, when you compare salaries to affordability, so a lot of the talk about being unaffordable is nonsense.
gaius c wrote: » Yeah, in theory QE will make saving even less attractive but for asset prices to rise indefinitely, it needs to be backed up by increased credit and increased wages to support the increased credit. Seeing as we're already at peak bubble affordability (or lack of) and that wages are static or close to, how is increased lending going to be supported? We already have the situation where younger people do the exact same jobs as older ones but get paid considerably less. Japan is instructive because their bubble collapse was followed by ZIRP and zombie banks. Wealth then got trapped in the geriatric layer because younger people had no capacity to take on the debt required to re-inflate the bubble.
gaius c wrote: » Apples =/= oranges. Dublin is the 3rd smallest capital city in the EU in a country with the lowest population density in western Europe (by quite some distance). It's also the 53rd or 54th largest city in the EU. Comparing Dublin to mega-cities like Paris, London or Rome is nonsense.
Deleted User wrote: » Great site
The Spider wrote: » Ok how about Helsinki?
gaius c wrote: » Pick and mix to suit your narrative all you want. I'm not that interested. When you look at the % of disposable income required to be spent on rent in Dublin, you can see there's clearly a problem.
by the seaside wrote: » Mate of mine in a nice but ordinary area of North London just paid £850,000 for a nice but ordinary 1930's 4 bed semi. It's only going to end one way (but who knows when). It will be interesting to see whether a bursting bubble in London has an effect in Dublin.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » I do not understand the London housing market. The have been going boom-bust-boom-bust on a fairly regular basis since forever. They seem to be happy with it, so the people who run the banks seem to say "yep, everything is fine and dandy here" and the government agrees. At least we're trying to do something about it, while in the UK they seem to say "Bring it on! Loadsamoney!!"
Muahahaha wrote: » many are spending 40% of their income on rent, some even higher, €1500 seems to be the market price of a 2 bed inside the canals of Dublin these days so €750 per person per month just to share a gaff, single people are now completely priced out. You'd wonder where the tipping point is at this stage.
handlemaster wrote: » So true and their are others that believe you should be able to buy a home with little effort and very little savings
Deleted User wrote: » Why shouldn't you? What is desirable about a situation in which a young couple have to save 40,000 euro to buy a house? I understand there might be reasons WHY it is hard to buy a house but the objective should be making good, affordable housing available to all. Shouldn't it? What else do you think should be really difficult to buy?
BoatMad wrote: » The central bank is attempting to control the amount of credit in the market, in previous times it would simply have jacked up interest rates Now it can only set lending rules, essentially bank risk conditions Credit in Ireland does need to be reigned in. the 20% is somewhat collateral damage to young couples, But then again young couples have time in their hands to collect the 20%