Property Market 2019

Mickiemcfist · 07-02-2019 1:02pm

L1011 wrote: »

There is significant existing social housing stock within the SCR/NCR. We had a poster making the patently bonkers suggestion that there shouldn't be any at all in that area, which they have not yet come back to justify.

Experience from the previous times we moved large quantities of social housing outside the city centre en masse basically shows its an awful idea.

Plenty of people living further outside the city are barely, or not coping at all with the services provided and commute times. And the site in question is in "Temple Bar" only to lazy journalists, basically. I've linked to where it is - its a derelict shop between existing apartment blocks on a side street nowhere near what people imagine when Temple Bar is mentioned.

I agree there shouldn't be any in that area at all. Prime location on the island & we have social welfare recipients living there. However I agree you can't move them out en masse, however rather than building new ones I'd just mix any new social housing in with private housing as they're currently doing elsewhere. Break it down to one block of flats with 100 families in there, should each of their 4 children get another flat/apartment/house in town once they grow up? That's 5 flats in the space of two generations. Should we start knocking down private dwellings in the city so they can live where they want? Consequences for not working do not exist in this country once you're in that system.

Ok Temple bar/Christchurch/Whatever you want to call it. Doesn't change the fact that you'd get 2x the amount of houses on a greenfield site.

My main point is, why, if people who are working hard & earning their own living are struggling with commutes & lack of services, are people who are on social welfare treated preferably? Why should they get that city centre, commute free lifestyle?

L1011 · 07-02-2019 1:09pm

The majority of people in social housing are not social welfare recipients. If you're going to base your argument on mistaken beliefs you're not really going to make a coherent argument.

tigger123 · 07-02-2019 1:12pm

L1011 wrote: »

The majority of people in social housing are not social welfare recipients. If you're going to base your argument on mistaken beliefs you're not really going to make a coherent argument.

It's not that their social welfare recipients, it's that the State is going above and beyond* in providing housing for certain people while others struggle.

If there were adequate, appropriate, affordable, well serviced properties available elsewhere it probably would be less of an issue. But there isn't, and the State is doing sweet f*ck all about it.

*when I say above and beyond, I mean building in Dublin 2.

Subutai · 07-02-2019 1:17pm

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

I agree there shouldn't be any in that area at all. Prime location on the island & we have social welfare recipients living there. However I agree you can't move them out en masse, however rather than building new ones I'd just mix any new social housing in with private housing as they're currently doing elsewhere. Break it down to one block of flats with 100 families in there, should each of their 4 children get another flat/apartment/house in town once they grow up? That's 5 flats in the space of two generations. Should we start knocking down private dwellings in the city so they can live where they want? Consequences for not working do not exist in this country once you're in that system.

Ok Temple bar/Christchurch/Whatever you want to call it. Doesn't change the fact that you'd get 2x the amount of houses on a greenfield site.

My main point is, why, if people who are working hard & earning their own living are struggling with commutes & lack of services, are people who are on social welfare treated preferably? Why should they get that city centre, commute free lifestyle?

Based on Revenue's individualised income data (and applying the simplifying assumption of taking everyone as a single person with no kids), over three quarters of income earners would fall below the threshold for social housing in DCC (net income below €35k)

L1011 · 07-02-2019 1:20pm

tigger123 wrote: »

It's not that their social welfare recipients, it's that the State is going above and beyond* in providing housing for certain people while others struggle.

If there were adequate, appropriate, affordable, well serviced properties available elsewhere it probably would be less of an issue. But there isn't, and the State is doing sweet f*ck all about it.

*when I say above and beyond, I mean building in Dublin 2.

They were intending to use a long-derelict site of limited commercial value. They have decided not to due to the costs involved.

One way to improve the quantity and quality of properties available for lower rents is to significantly increase the volume of social housing. This was an attempt to somewhat increase the volume of social housing.

If you want to get incensed about specific social housing provisions, the two story houses built in D2 in the 1980s and three story in significant volumes in D1/2 up in to the 1990s (Gregory Deal stuff) are where people should start. These need to be replaced with significantly higher densities.

Mickiemcfist · 07-02-2019 1:23pm

L1011 wrote: »

The majority of people in social housing are not social welfare recipients. If you're going to base your argument on mistaken beliefs you're not really going to make a coherent argument.

If you're going to avoid answering an entire post based on a slight statistical misnomer, not much point arguing with yourself either.

FYI - I grew up in what would be categorised as social housing. In *Shock horror* the suburbs.

L1011 · 07-02-2019 1:25pm

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

If you're going to avoid answering an entire post based on a slight statistical misnomer, not much point arguing with yourself either.

FYI - I grew up in what would be categorised as social housing. In *Shock horror* the suburbs.

You made repeated references to welfare and non working. Bit more than "slight". It made your entire post rather easy to answer as it was nearly entirely based on an inaccuracy. I pointed out the inaccuracy - post answered.

There needs to be social housing provision in all communities, so I'm not sure what your second point is.

Pussyhands · 07-02-2019 1:41pm

<SNIP>

Mickiemcfist · 07-02-2019 2:40pm

L1011 wrote: »

You made repeated references to welfare and non working. Bit more than "slight". It made your entire post rather easy to answer as it was nearly entirely based on an inaccuracy. I pointed out the inaccuracy - post answered.

There needs to be social housing provision in all communities, so I'm not sure what your second point is.

Just because it's not all, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. I was highlighting the ones I have particular issue with.

However, I don't think social housing should be in all communities, they should be in cheap places to build, surrounded by private houses. Plus I think the suburbs are a better place to bring up children.

rosmoke · 07-02-2019 6:28pm

Sorry, this thread it's just too funny

)
Can't believe people honestly believe it's fair to build social houses in capital, nevermind city centre.

There are loads of working people thinking about emigrating to make ends meet and yet we come with arguments who is gonna make your coffee .. cause that's the issue we face now, not the fact that we pay for crappy built houses at least 5 times their real value, not the fact that we have an incompetent government that tries really hard to keep house prices up through violating EU laws (ie. local needs), not building enough, and the list goes on.

What's the point working anymore now?

Samuel T. Cogley · 07-02-2019 6:58pm

rosmoke wrote: »

What's the point working anymore now?

So you don't end up in social housing in the city centre.

BBFAN · 07-02-2019 8:49pm

This argument about not having social housing in the city centre always makes me laugh. Maybe most posters on here are too young to remember but it was once the case that the poorest of the poor lived in the city centre because no-one else wanted to live there.

Anyone with money wanted the 4 bed semi with large gardens. When I did an Anco course back in the day the "townies" were always considered a lower class.

Now that it's trendy to live in an apartment in the city centre people want all the "poor" people gone. Unreal. :rolleyes:

Kidkinobe · 07-02-2019 9:02pm

rosmoke wrote: »

Sorry, this thread it's just too funny )
Can't believe people honestly believe it's fair to build social houses in capital, nevermind city centre.

There are loads of working people thinking about emigrating to make ends meet and yet we come with arguments who is gonna make your coffee .. cause that's the issue we face now, not the fact that we pay for crappy built houses at least 5 times their real value, not the fact that we have an incompetent government that tries really hard to keep house prices up through violating EU laws (ie. local needs), not building enough, and the list goes on.

What's the point working anymore now?

it may not sound fair but every city in every first world country provides social housing in city centres for the people that provide the mimimum wage services...If min age workers could not afford to live in city centres , the cost of getting a cup of coffee would increase three fold because getting staff to serve coffee would mean increasing their wages three fold so they could afford the accommodation close to their place of work.
You can see how this works in many exclusive tourist hotspots around the world, coffees are twice the price because the staff that serve them get twice the wage and becuase these tourist hot spots don't have social housing, staff need the wage to be able to afford to live in the area. Social housing also serves as a mechanism to prevent city centres prices getting out of control.

Subutai · 07-02-2019 9:08pm

Kidkinobe wrote: »

it may not sound fair but every city in every first world country provides social housing in city centres for the people that provide the mimimum wage services...If min age workers could not afford to live in city centres , the cost of getting a cup of coffee would increase three fold because getting staff to serve coffee would mean increasing their wages three fold so they could afford the accommodation close to their place of work.
You can see how this works in many exclusive tourist hotspots around the world, coffees are twice the price because the staff that serve them get twice the wage and becuase these tourist hot spots don't have social housing, staff need the wage to be able to afford to live in the area. Social housing also serves as a mechanism to prevent city centres prices getting out of control.

You can qualify for social housing in DCC with a net income of 35k. That's nowhere near minimum wage. It's in the top 25% of income earners.

Kidkinobe · 07-02-2019 9:14pm

Subutai wrote: »

You can qualify for social housing in DCC with a net income of 35k. That's nowhere near minimum wage. It's in the top 25% of income earners.

And how many people do you know that can afford anything within 10ks of the city centre that can buy a house on 35k, or even rent one for that matter. Even a couple on 70 K. would only be allowed a mortgage of 240 K.

Subutai · 07-02-2019 9:46pm

Kidkinobe wrote: »

And how many people do you know that can afford anything within 10ks of the city centre that can buy a house on 35k, or even rent one for that matter. Even a couple on 70 K. would only be allowed a mortgage of 240 K.

That's my point.

It's not just people on minimum wage, you could easily have professionals like nurses and teachers who qualify for social housing and have little other option.

Pussyhands · 07-02-2019 10:23pm

Kidkinobe wrote: »

it may not sound fair but every city in every first world country provides social housing in city centres for the people that provide the mimimum wage services...If min age workers could not afford to live in city centres , the cost of getting a cup of coffee would increase three fold because getting staff to serve coffee would mean increasing their wages three fold so they could afford the accommodation close to their place of work.
You can see how this works in many exclusive tourist hotspots around the world, coffees are twice the price because the staff that serve them get twice the wage and becuase these tourist hot spots don't have social housing, staff need the wage to be able to afford to live in the area. Social housing also serves as a mechanism to prevent city centres prices getting out of control.

I'd say most people commute to work in citycentre no matter what wage they earn.

You'd have a good argument as well to say someone on 10 euro an hour and a new free house in the city centre is better off than someone on 40k having to buy their own house. A big motivation for me to be working is so I don't have to share a rented house with others for the rest of my life.

Kidkinobe · 07-02-2019 10:53pm

Subutai wrote: »

That's my point.

It's not just people on minimum wage, you could easily have professionals like nurses and teachers who qualify for social housing and have little other option.

exactly and thats why social housing is needed in cities...So teachers/trainee nurses starting on 35 K a year would be enticed to take a job in the city as a step up until they are a few years in and at which point they earn more and eventually purchase their own home.

Sheeps · 08-02-2019 8:43am

Pussyhands wrote: »

I'd say most people commute to work in citycentre no matter what wage they earn.

You'd have a good argument as well to say someone on 10 euro an hour and a new free house in the city centre is better off than someone on 40k having to buy their own house. A big motivation for me to be working is so I don't have to share a rented house with others for the rest of my life.

Did you know that social homes aren't free?

tigger123 · 08-02-2019 10:13am

Just for perspective, I've no problem with social housing, or people receiving social welfare. While there will always be a segment of the population who are chancers, you have to view social welfare as part of a broader capitalist system in which some people find it very difficult (for whatever reason) to get ahead in life. I come from fairly modest beginnings myself but both my parents were determined that myself and my siblings go to university to get a third level education.

What does wind me up though is that there's so many people out there like myself and my family who are struggling to find a home in any way of a decent area (public transport, facilities, commute times etc) and set against that context social housing is being built in excellent locations such as D2.

Dublin is not that big, and you can commute to lots of jobs from lots of different locations. You can also do what everyone else does and find a job within a reasonable distance of your home.

Pussyhands · 08-02-2019 10:21am

Sheeps wrote: »

Did you know that social homes aren't free?

Considering you make it appear that someone on 10e an hour should be able to afford to live in a brand new house in the most expensive part of Dublin, it might as well be free.

cruizer101 · 08-02-2019 10:33am

Kidkinobe wrote: »

exactly and thats why social housing is needed in cities...So teachers/trainee nurses starting on 35 K a year would be enticed to take a job in the city as a step up until they are a few years in and at which point they earn more and eventually purchase their own home.

I'll fully admit I'm a little bit ignorant of social housing policies but does a person not have to be on a queue for a good while before they would stand a chance of getting a social house, not really useful for newly qualified teachers.
Also once you get a house isn't it more or less yours for life if you want it.

If you could change the above so that they were to be rented on a medium term basis (~5 yrs) i could maybe see the value.
But even at that there are plenty of places a little bit further out that would be cheaper and not too far to commute.

Bob24 · 08-02-2019 10:54am

Kidkinobe wrote: »

exactly and thats why social housing is needed in cities...So teachers/trainee nurses starting on 35 K a year would be enticed to take a job in the city as a step up until they are a few years in and at which point they earn more and eventually purchase their own home.

cruizer101 wrote: »

I'll fully admit I'm a little bit ignorant of social housing policies but does a person not have to be on a queue for a good while before they would stand a chance of getting a social house, not really useful for newly qualified teachers.

Also, are there no criteria to prioritise people on that list and does that teacher actually have any realistic chance of getting anything? i.e. won't there be a constant flow of higher priority people who are homeless, unemployed, on minimal wage, large families, etc who are jumping in front of the queue meaning that in practice the teacher who technically qualifies has no realistic chance of reaching the top the the list?

My impression is that if we want people like a a newly qualified teachers or nurses to consistently and timely have access to social housing we would need a large part (a third? half?) of the rental stock to be public housing. Not sure that would be a good thing tbh.

L1011 · 08-02-2019 10:54am

Any form of time-limited tenancy on them is a recipe for disaster.

Uncap the differential rents so that they hit market rate when the tenant is earning enough, remove the option to buy them and remove the ability to inherit a tenancy. People will move on if it suits them rather than staying because its a cheap house but it doesn't leave a Sword of Damocles of an end date hanging over them.

Social housing with differential rents can actually be a profit maker for the operator, just not with the current cap on the rents - although I think one or two of the rural councils actually take more in rent than they spend now, mainly due to not having built/bought anything new in years.

A single national scheme would be sensible also - rates, allowances and caps differ in every council area. Some appear to have got rid of the cap already, others haven't

Ush1 · 08-02-2019 11:45am

L1011 wrote: »

Any form of time-limited tenancy on them is a recipe for disaster.

Uncap the differential rents so that they hit market rate when the tenant is earning enough, remove the option to buy them and remove the ability to inherit a tenancy. People will move on if it suits them rather than staying because its a cheap house but it doesn't leave a Sword of Damocles of an end date hanging over them.

Social housing with differential rents can actually be a profit maker for the operator, just not with the current cap on the rents - although I think one or two of the rural councils actually take more in rent than they spend now, mainly due to not having built/bought anything new in years.

A single national scheme would be sensible also - rates, allowances and caps differ in every council area. Some appear to have got rid of the cap already, others haven't

Totally agree on the rent caps. If you make enough money you should have to pay the market rate, same goes for if you get the option to purchase the property. The subsidising should end.

Confused by your last paragraph though. I think rates should be different per council as cost of living will differ quite a bit.

optogirl · 08-02-2019 12:02pm

Pussyhands wrote: »

Considering you make it appear that someone on 10e an hour should be able to afford to live in a brand new house in the most expensive part of Dublin, it might as well be free.

What might as well be free? A hypothetical scenario that is blatantly not happening ?

L1011 · 08-02-2019 12:15pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Totally agree on the rent caps. If you make enough money you should have to pay the market rate, same goes for if you get the option to purchase the property. The subsidising should end.

Confused by your last paragraph though. I think rates should be different per council as cost of living will differ quite a bit.

The rates are a % of income so reflect local costs and incomes automatically. But the % varies heavily

Ush1 · 08-02-2019 12:25pm

L1011 wrote: »

The rates are a % of income so reflect local costs and incomes automatically. But the % varies heavily

Don't see that an issue per say, the caps are the main thing and subsidised price when the tenant has the option to purchase.

Cuddlesworth · 08-02-2019 1:56pm

Sheeps wrote: »

Did you know that social homes aren't free?

4 working Adults in 4 bed council house(2 early/mid 50's, 2 circa mid/late 20's). Combined household income of roughly 160k(50k*2, 30k*2). A net household income of roughly 10k a month. I use this example as I know a household like this.

They live in D18, in which in the private accommodation rate in the area for a 4 bed house in one of the rougher areas is current 2.5k a month conservatively or 25% of their current household budget or 33% of the Adults earning capacity.

How much do they pay in rent a month to the council?
Do they pay property tax, building insurance?
Are they liable for large or small scale repairs on the property, like a boiler breaking beyond repair?
Are they eligible for free house upgrades, like insulation?

For DLR, the rent for that household would be circa 650 quid a month or 6.4% of total household net income. Some people could have been paying significantly less(fixed rent schemes). Dublin city council would never even get that high.

The issue with council housing is that in a lot of cases, the only incentive to leave the house is if the house is in a ****hole location surrounded by complete assholes. There is zero reason why a tenant in that situation would or should ever leave. They could even rent both rent rooms in the house and turn a profit on the councils property, rent and income adjustments included. Council housing intended purpose is to help those that are unable to help themselves with appropriate accommodation. But when they are placed into a situation where they can help themselves or their situations changed, it doesn't work.

Why can they not create a system that does exactly what it was meant to do? Create a escrow system and charge rates based on household income above the standard rate. The additional money accumulated can be used towards a purchase of another private house or the eventual purchase and ownership of the council house they live in. Failure to do either, money goes back to the council on death of the primary tenants for more housing. A forced savings scheme to incentivize leaving in a positive way.

Pussyhands · 11-02-2019 10:44am

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0211/1028791-imf-warns-on-global-economy/

IMF sending out warnings.

Graham · 11-02-2019 11:31am

Pussyhands wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0211/1028791-imf-warns-on-global-economy/

IMF sending out warnings.

How do you think a reduction in economic growth forecasts from 3.7% to 3.5% will effect the Irish property market in 2019?

Pussyhands · 11-02-2019 11:50am

Graham wrote: »

How do you think a reduction in economic growth forecasts from 3.7% to 3.5% will effect the Irish property market in 2019?

"When there are too many clouds, it takes one lightning (bolt) to start the storm," she said.

Are we only allowed discuss absolute fact about forecast growth and not about the potential lightning bolt? If that lightning bolt does strike, which the IMF are saying could happen as there's clouds overhead, then prices will come down and fast.

You seem to infer that my post has nothing to do with the property market. Economy and property are tightly connected.

Graham · 11-02-2019 12:02pm

Pussyhands wrote: »

Are we only allowed discuss absolute fact about forecast growth and not about the potential lightning bolt? If that lightning bolt does strike, which the IMF are saying could happen as there's clouds overhead, then prices will come down and fast.

You seem to infer that my post has nothing to do with the property market. Economy and property are tightly connected.

It's hard to tell what you were implying with your post.

That's the problem when someone just does a link-dump.

AlmightyCushion · 11-02-2019 12:08pm

Graham wrote: »

It's hard to tell what you were implying with your post.

That's the problem when someone just does a link-dump.

It seemed pretty obvious to me when I seen it. IMF are saying that growth is lower than forecast and there are multiple risks to the global economy. If the global economy takes a hit, it could have a negative effect on the Irish economy and/or could cause a drop in house prices. I think it's safe to say most people would know that last bit without it having to be spelled out.

Bluefoam · 11-02-2019 12:14pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It seemed pretty obvious to me when I seen it. IMF are saying that growth is lower than forecast and there are multiple risks to the global economy. If the global economy takes a hit, it could have a negative effect on the Irish economy and/or could cause a drop in house prices. I think it's safe to say most people would know that last bit without it having to be spelled out.

The benefit that Ireland has in this scenario is that they are limiting access to finance... therefore they can adjust the valve to allow more access to the housing market if necessary... They don't have to release it fully, just make some adjustments and they can open up the housing market to more potential buyers... They can do this multiple times... thus limiting our exposure to a declining market.

awec · 11-02-2019 12:15pm

Pussyhands wrote: »

Are we only allowed discuss absolute fact about forecast growth and not about the potential lightning bolt? If that lightning bolt does strike, which the IMF are saying could happen as there's clouds overhead, then prices will come down and fast.

You seem to infer that my post has nothing to do with the property market. Economy and property are tightly connected.

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever if this will happen.

Prices will probably come down. Fast? Nobody knows. How much? Nobody knows.

AlmightyCushion · 11-02-2019 12:20pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

The benefit that Ireland has in this scenario is that they are limiting access to finance... therefore they can adjust the valve to allow more access to the housing market if necessary... They don't have to release it fully, just make some adjustments and they can open up the housing market to more potential buyers... They can do this multiple times... thus limiting our exposure to a declining market.

What do you mean? Are you talking about the central bank limits. If so they should not be increased even if house prices start falling. The last thing we need when the economy is taking a hit is to increase the amount of money people can borrow and allow them to over extend themselves.

q85dw7osi4lebg · 11-02-2019 12:24pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

What do you mean? Are you talking about the central bank limits. If so they should not be increased even if house prices start falling. The last thing we need when the economy is taking a hit is to increase the amount of money people can borrow and allow them to over extend themselves.

As opposed to over extending, we are currently under-extended in terms of what we can borrow. I think if these limits were slowly increased in a declining market (say 4x), realistically it won't have much of a negative affect and when prices start to rise, those with higher borrowings will still have decent equity.

Arthur Daley · 11-02-2019 12:27pm

Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: »

As opposed to over extending, we are currently under-extended in terms of what we can borrow.

We have 28,000 mortgages in this country that haven't paid in the last two years according to the Central Bank. You just don't see that in other countries. This country is over extended from the view that the CBI has.

Kidkinobe · 11-02-2019 12:51pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

We have 28,000 mortgages in this country that haven't paid in the last two years according to the Central Bank. You just don't see that in other countries. This country is over extended from the view that the CBI has.

28,000 out of two million homes/apartments in Ireland isn't all that many. lots of them will be in the west side of Ireland where they were building apartment blocks in villages miles from anywhere or anything and pretty much worthless.

q85dw7osi4lebg · 11-02-2019 12:51pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

We have 28,000 mortgages in this country that haven't paid in the last two years according to the Central Bank. You just don't see that in other countries. This country is over extended from the view that the CBI has.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of those are are people who purchased with 100% mortgages at the height of the boom, not in a recession.

Arthur Daley · 11-02-2019 12:59pm

Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of those are are people who purchased with 100% mortgages at the height of the boom, not in a recession.

Many of these 100% mortgages would have been at property values close to where the market is now. It proved unaffordable in 2005/6, it's not clear why it should be more affordable today.

Bluefoam · 11-02-2019 1:02pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Many of these 100% mortgages would have been at property values close to where the market is now. It proved unaffordable in 2005/6, it's not clear why it should be more affordable today.

Have a look at lending terms in 2005/6 & compare to now, then come back when you are informed.

Pussyhands · 11-02-2019 1:04pm

awec wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever if this will happen.

Prices will probably come down. Fast? Nobody knows. How much? Nobody knows.

That's my opinion yes.

No one has any idea what will happen in the future so maybe we should have rules we can only talk about past history of 2019 in this thread?

Arthur Daley · 11-02-2019 1:09pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

Have a look at lending terms in 2005/6 & compare to now, then come back when you are informed.

Classy. getting a little close to the bone maybe.

Villa05 · 11-02-2019 1:17pm

Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote:

As opposed to over extending, we are currently under-extended in terms of what we can borrow. I think if these limits were slowly increased in a declining market (say 4x), realistically it won't have much of a negative affect and when prices start to rise, those with higher borrowings will still have decent equity.

In a declining market banks will reduce credit and look for higher deposits.

Central bank rules will not be adjusted in such a manner they are there to prevent this behaviour

Bluefoam · 11-02-2019 1:25pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Classy. getting a little close to the bone maybe.

Not sure which bone you're talking about...? I'm saying that you made a statement that didn't make sense, I suggested you figure out why people were overstretched in 2005/6 (your dates) as opposed to the current lending criteria... But you failed to understand what I was suggesting and instead made some weird personal statement.

Kidkinobe · 11-02-2019 1:26pm

Villa05 wrote: »

In a declining market banks will reduce credit and look for higher deposits.

Central bank rules will not be adjusted in such a manner they are there to prevent this behaviour

Ive just come from a country where the central bank adjusted their lending rules as the property market was slowing down. Admittedly their lending conditions were way OTT 20% deposit for a home and 40% deposit if you were an investor. But Central banks will adjust lending criteria, they can make it more difficult, as they have done or they can make it easier, as they will do when required.

q85dw7osi4lebg · 11-02-2019 1:36pm

Villa05 wrote: »

In a declining market banks will reduce credit and look for higher deposits.

Central bank rules will not be adjusted in such a manner they are there to prevent this behaviour

I'm well aware of that, those hoping to buy in a drop will struggle to get finance at all.

I'm just agreeing that it's not the worst idea I've ever heard, bare in mind the powers that be are up to their neck in property.

klaaaz · 11-02-2019 2:10pm

Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: »

I'm well aware of that, those hoping to buy in a drop will struggle to get finance at all.

Not so. Those with a good savings history with that hefty deposit will still get credit, just like in the last crash. Lending from banks back then for mortgages was reduced not wiped out.

Property Market 2019

Comments