Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

House Prices 2021

24

Comments

  • #52
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    Hubertj wrote: »
    it doesn't matter who is in government - the relevant departments don't have the capability or competence to manage large infrastructure projects. Institutionalized incompetence due to poor government, poor management and unions. You think the likes of SF could change that?

    It has been mentioned many times but we need to setup a department of capital expenditure. To develop the skills to manage large scale building projects.


  • #53
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    FVP3 wrote: »
    I don't understand exactly why building costs ( particularly labour costs) wouldn't fall in a recession. Materials cost too if the demand is lower. And the government could reduce some taxes somewhere. 2008 was driven by a credit crunch. We haven't had that yet, and hopefully we wont.

    Is timber going to get much cheaper?
    Is insurance for gas installers going to reduce?
    Are folks sitting on plots valued at €100,000 going to sell it at a reduced price(unless they are in a destrssed financial state)
    Are the ESB going to reduce the costs of connection?


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    Is timber going to get much cheaper?
    Is insurance for gas installers going to reduce?
    Are folks sitting on plots valued at €100,000 going to sell it at a reduced price(unless they are in a destrssed financial state)
    Are the ESB going to reduce the costs of connection?

    Toss in unionised labour on the State building sites and you can be sure that labour costs will not drop too much.


  • #55
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Large amounts who would have been in a position to buy , havent lost their jobs and are currently likely to be able to save substantially more than pre virus.


  • #56
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I think the National Maternity Hospital and the issues with the construction company who the Government employed to build schools proves that the State is neither capable of building cheaper nor efficiently. The construction company involved in the NMH told the Government they were happy to walk away and Western Building Systems said they worked to the plans and spec given to them by the Dept of Education.

    You think a construction worker is going to accept a lower wage just because the State is the developer? Besides which, where would the money come from to build these State sponsored properties?

    You're quite correct that went the Governement let the HSE build their own hospital it was a disaster. However, as the population continues to grow we will have more capital expenditure projects. We need to build the team and the skills. The problem can't be outsourced.

    The point Villa05 makes is correct. A construction worker doesn't have to accept lower wafers. As the state can accept not taxing them. Building costs rougly 1/3 materials, 1/3 wages, 1/3 land and other taxes. If the state stops taxing housing to the hilt the costs would half overnight. I believe they will only do it if they have to (ie., construction sector going to fall flat on face) because it will bring down the price of housing which Government have been actively trying to avoid as they believe it's electorate suicide.


  • #57
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Hubertj wrote:
    it doesn't matter who is in government - the relevant departments don't have the capability or competence to manage large infrastructure projects. Institutionalized incompetence due to poor government, poor management and unions. You think the likes of SF could change that?

    I take your point,
    Maybe a better statement might be that policies change.

    Thats why I advocate letting housing associations do it through Gov funding and try not to get in their way


  • #58
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    Is timber going to get much cheaper?
    Is insurance for gas installers going to reduce?
    Are folks sitting on plots valued at €100,000 going to sell it at a reduced price(unless they are in a destrssed financial state)
    Are the ESB going to reduce the costs of connection?

    I hate this kind of answer, a non answer really, just a series of questions.

    Of the two things I asked for ( labour and materials) you only "answered" one, where that answer was itself a question.

    As for whether timber is going to get cheaper, I suppose so.

    The rest probably won't get cheaper but how significant are they ( except land costs which do in fact fall in recessions).


  • #59
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    OwlsZat wrote: »
    The point Villa05 makes is correct. A construction worker doesn't have to accept lower wafers. As the state can accept not taxing them. Building costs rougly 1/3 materials, 1/3 wages, 1/3 land and other taxes. If the state stops taxing housing to the hilt the costs would half overnight. I believe they will only do it if they have to (ie., construction sector going to fall flat on face) because it will bring down the price of housing which Government have been actively trying to avoid as they believe it's electorate suicide.

    This is a standard fallacy on taxes. The government tax is adding to the costs of development but not the final prices ( except for the stamp duty). If a house is going to sell for 300K that's the market price regardless of taxes.

    Only if lower taxes encourage more development would this not be the case. However they could just as easily encourage higher profits.


  • #60
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    FVP3 wrote: »
    I hate this kind of answer, a non answer really, just a series of questions.

    Of the two things I asked for ( labour and materials) you only "answered" one, where that answer was itself a question.

    As for whether timber is going to get cheaper, I suppose so.

    The rest probably won't get cheaper but how significant are they ( except land costs which do in fact fall in recessions).

    The questions I asked are likely to be answered in the negative, so prices for those will likely remain the same.

    If you own land currently worth 1 million are you really going to sell it for significantly loss unless you need cash urgently.

    Certain types of labour might reduce in cost, but trades require certification (gas & sparks) they are very unlikely to reduce. I know insurance for gas installers is quiet high, so you might see lads leaving the gas game, thus reducing supply most likely in line with demand


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    All speculation. This isnt like 2008 where we were largely at fault. They have no more of a clue what will happen, than the rest of us. This scaremongering, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Anyway, this awful rat race, many people I know are worse off financially but happier overall, than when this started. Nobody will be thrown out of their home here or die of hunger, regardless if there is another recession. I hope there isnt , but probably seems likely.

    Youd swear average joe soap was going.g from wolf of wall street to a bum on the street. When the vast majority of people have never had anything other than a very basic lifestyle, this bull**** scaremongering does my head in ...

    I would not write off Dunne's opinion so quickly. He has a lot of experience. A recession is not likely, it's guaranteed.
    Straight off the bat this is worse then 2008 in one very important data point - the government are projecting a budget deficit of 30 billion this year alone. I expect that figure to be higher and it has already been revised upward considerably. What will it be during the full 12 months of 2021?

    Back in the 2008 crash I believe the worst budget deficit we hit was 24 billion during 2009 with 19 billion the following year.
    From 2008 to 2014 the recovery was down to (a) Tourism (b) Agri-food (c) FDI/Multinationals and (d) Emigration. Demand and spend on a/b/c will decrease due to the global downturn and restrictions. Is (d) much of an option soon? We also have Brexit and a collapsing US economy to consider.
    Where do you see the economic recovery coming from?

    Personally I think the people on this thread suggesting house prices will stay the same or even increase are being deliberately misleading or refuse to grasp what is going on around them. I wont even hazard a guess on what will happen this year because I am not sure there'll be enough transactions to gauge from....but next year I expect house prices to drop by over 20%. Again it's speculation and I hope I am wrong - for the record, I am not buying or selling.


  • #62
    argolis
    Registered Users Posts: 148 ✭✭argolis


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Start your research now
    Set up email alerts from daft with what falls close to your affordability range
    Log these on an excel sheet with the following fields.
    Important: log all of the properties
    Address
    Agent
    No of beds
    Condition
    Aspect
    Broadband availability
    Ber score
    Asking price
    Sold price (fill from property price reg)
    Time on the market

    and any other aspect of the property that is important to you. This will arm you with indepth local knowledge of the market you wish to buy in. Many agents can be spoofers. This research will enable you to determine which agents are being honest with you and which are economical with the truth

    Price trends will become apparent quickly. You can see what purchasers are prepared to pay more for. This will also show properties may have less demand because they don't have an attribute that may not be all that important to you.

    Where a market has stalled or very low volume sales you will see when it has resumed quiet quickly, as properties you see as good value others will see the same thing and they will be the first to sell. This may be the time for you to make your move

    This research will take you maybe 15 minutes a week. For you, it could save you a small fortune

    I'd second this. I do this for the places I own mainly, where I track once a month for 15 minutes what similar properties are for sale or have sold recently on propertypriceregister.ie. If and when we go to sell, I'll have a better idea of the local trends. These are the fields I track:

    Date listed
    Date sale agreed (not always available)
    Date sold
    Address
    Type e.g. 3 bed, 3 bath
    Size (sqm)
    Asking
    Sold Price
    Management fee (where it's listed in the ads)

    From those, I can calculate time to sale, price per square metre, etc. although I don't really have a use for many of those.

    Personally I think the alerts aren't great. I get so many that don't meet the criteria. For example, everywhere in a 5 mile radius is in "Castleknock". You can't make it more specific by including keywords or specific addresses. So, I save the exact URL query I want for each place I'm keeping an eye on and I run it once a month. I put in specific address keywords which keeps the results tight and it's quick to see if there's anything new.


  • #63
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,453 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    What people seem to forget or ignore is the number of transactions. People go on about the highest price but there were very few sales at that point. They mention bottom prices and again don't mention the amount of sales.

    If prices drop the amount of property for sale drops too and noticeably.People couldn't get money either. Same will happen again.

    Unless you are selling or buying house prices don't make much difference.

    We are still in short supply of housing and it will now get worse. We were massively behind beforehand. WFH is not going to solve the issue and actually requires larger property for people to comfortably live with others WFH


  • #64
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    The questions I asked are likely to be answered in the negative, so prices for those will likely remain the same.

    If you own land currently worth 1 million are you really going to sell it for significantly loss unless you need cash urgently.

    Land prices fall in recessions though. So that is incorrect. People presumably sell because they need the money when they need it. You are never going to time the top of the market. Selling at 800K and not 1M is the same as selling at 1M but missing out on 1.2M. It doesnt really matter if the price has fallen to 800k.
    Certain types of labour might reduce in cost, but trades require certification (gas & sparks) they are very unlikely to reduce. I know insurance for gas installers is quiet high, so you might see lads leaving the gas game, thus reducing supply most likely in line with demand

    I am not arguing against your insurance point, that is probably true.


  • #65
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Snow Garden wrote: »
    I would not write off Dunne's opinion so quickly. He has a lot of experience. A recession is not likely, it's guaranteed.
    Straight off the bat this is worse then 2008 in one very important data point - the government are projecting a budget deficit of 30 billion this year alone. I expect that figure to be higher and it has already been revised upward considerably. What will it be during the full 12 months of 2021?

    Back in the 2008 crash I believe the worst budget deficit we hit was 24 billion during 2009 with 19 billion the following year.
    From 2008 to 2014 the recovery was down to (a) Tourism (b) Agri-food (c) FDI/Multinationals and (d) Emigration. Demand and spend on a/b/c will decrease due to the global downturn and restrictions. Is (d) much of an option soon? We also have Brexit and a collapsing US economy to consider.
    Where do you see the economic recovery coming from?

    Personally I think the people on this thread suggesting house prices will stay the same or even increase are being deliberately misleading or refuse to grasp what is going on around them. I wont even hazard a guess on what will happen this year because I am not sure there'll be enough transactions to gauge from....but next year I expect house prices to drop by over 20%. Again it's speculation and I hope I am wrong - for the record, I am not buying or selling.


    ehhmm did we not have to borrow over 200billion for the last recession I dont know where your getting your figures from but 64billion alone was borrowed for Anglo Irish.


  • #66
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    fliball123 wrote: »
    ehhmm did we not have to borrow over 200billion for the last recession I dont know where your getting your figures from but 64billion alone was borrowed for Anglo Irish.

    I don't really understand your question. All budget deficits are financed from borrowing. We borrowed heavily in from 2008 to 2016 when we finally started making a budget surplus (3 billion surplus in 2016 if I recall correctly).

    My point is that we are in Year 1 of this recession (we are only 3 months into it!), we will be borrowing 30bn+ in 2020. The highest budget deficit during all of 2008-2015 was 24bn.

    The privatisation of private banking debt (your 64bn) is different to the annual budget deficits. I cover that in another post...https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113532575
    Financing the years of high budget deficits and the banking bailout has resulted in our national debt going above 200bn.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Snow Garden wrote: »
    I don't really understand your question. All budget deficits are financed from borrowing. We borrowed heavily in from 2008 to 2016 when we finally started making a budget surplus (3 billion surplus in 2016 if I recall correctly).

    My point is that we are in Year 1 of this recession (we are only 3 months into it!), we will be borrowing 30bn+ in 2020. The highest budget deficit during all of 2008-2015 was 24bn.

    The privatisation of private banking debt (your 64bn) is different to the annual budget deficits. I cover that in another post...https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113532575
    Financing the years of high budget deficits and the banking bailout has resulted in our national debt going above 200bn.

    Someone on here said we would need to borrow 30billion for the oncoming recession which was why it is much worse than the one from 2008. I was under the impression that in the last recession we ramped up debts of 200billion regardless of bailing out banks the debt is ours to repay so the way I see it is 30 billion vs 200 billion I know which one I would rather


  • #68
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Someone on here said we would need to borrow 30billion for the oncoming recession which was why it is much worse than the one from 2008. I was under the impression that in the last recession we ramped up debts of 200billion regardless of bailing out banks the debt is ours to repay so the way I see it is 30 billion vs 200 billion I know which one I would rather

    It took us 7 years (2008 to 2014) to bring the national debt to 200bn by borrowing heavily every year. The worst year was 2009 (24bn). We probably should have closed the budget gap sooner.

    We do not know how long this global recession will last but Year 1 will add 30bn or more to our borrowings. We have no idea how this virus will impact business, tourism, interest rates, travel, trade, work practices etc but I very much doubt we will return to 2019 GDP levels for 5-10 years. If Year 1 costs 30bn+, what might years 2-5 cost? Will be double our national debt? Perhaps, if we allowed to.

    Btw, the bank bailout cost us 42bn net when you take into account equity and dividends.


  • #69
    99nsr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,195 ✭✭✭99nsr125


    Captain Bob wrote: »
    short answer: 2008 house market crisis multiplied at least by 2

    Nonsense,
    There was already an under supply
    'New Phases' will have increased prices to cover covid

    We haven't over borrowed or over leveraged
    Buy the house you want and don't be seeing it as a money maker or loser, see it as your home.


  • #70
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Snow Garden wrote: »
    It took us 7 years (2008 to 2014) to bring the national debt to 200bn by borrowing heavily every year. The worst year was 2009 (24bn). We probably should have closed the budget gap sooner.

    We do not know how long this global recession will last but Year 1 will add 30bn or more to our borrowings. We have no idea how this virus will impact business, tourism, interest rates, travel, trade, work practices etc but I very much doubt we will return to 2019 GDP levels for 5-10 years. If Year 1 costs 30bn+, what might years 2-5 cost? Will be double our national debt? Perhaps, if we allowed to.

    Btw, the bank bailout cost us 42bn net when you take into account equity and dividends.

    True but 30 billion is the supposed complete amount for covid with both this and next year taken into account


  • #71
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    fliball123 wrote: »
    True but 30 billion is the supposed complete amount for covid with both this and next year taken into account

    Who said that? Paschal said the budget deficit would be 30bn in 2020 alone. There are no projections for 2021.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    ciaranmul
    Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭ciaranmul


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Start your research now
    Set up email alerts from daft with what falls close to your affordability range
    Log these on an excel sheet with the following fields.
    Important: log all of the properties
    Address
    Agent
    No of beds
    Condition
    Aspect
    Broadband availability
    Ber score
    Asking price
    Sold price (fill from property price reg)
    Time on the market

    and any other aspect of the property that is important to you. This will arm you with indepth local knowledge of the market you wish to buy in. Many agents can be spoofers. This research will enable you to determine which agents are being honest with you and which are economical with the truth

    Price trends will become apparent quickly. You can see what purchasers are prepared to pay more for. This will also show properties may have less demand because they don't have an attribute that may not be all that important to you.

    Where a market has stalled or very low volume sales you will see when it has resumed quiet quickly, as properties you see as good value others will see the same thing and they will be the first to sell. This may be the time for you to make your move

    This research will take you maybe 15 minutes a week. For you, it could save you a small fortune

    This is wonderful advice. I've taken the liberty of creating this spreadsheet, and I added in a scoring system for each criteria. Here is the link
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oq0q1EUQHIEcmUqeW1I8aj7g21WkqonD/view?usp=drivesdk


  • #73
    TheSheriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭TheSheriff


    Excellent advice above, we started something similar several months back and it was very helpful (although not as detailed as above).

    We are signing hopefully early next week. Its quite nerve racking to be honest! We are sale agreed at well below asking (>50k), which should cushion the drop (if there is one?), and below what other properties have gone for recently in the area...... but I still have a niggling feeling there might be more to cut off it!

    Girlfriend happy to push ahead, we've been looking for nearly a year and the mortgage will be less than our current rent and ~20% combined income. All very affordable currently.

    I'll hopefully be in the new house in a few weeks, sipping on a beer in my garden and I can forget about this forum and the impending doom keeping me up at night :)


  • #74
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    As per previou post , if its somewhere longterm , negative equity wont massively matter. This post above , hits the nail on the Head of most reality, people waiting ages and usually the woman pushing to buy. Has been the case with several of my mates recently. The rationale of " nobody will buy " even with falling prices, is comedy.


  • #75
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭Villa05


    TheSheriff wrote:
    I'll hopefully be in the new house in a few weeks, sipping on a beer in my garden and I can forget about this forum and the impending doom keeping me up at night


    Best wishes, hope everything works out for ye


  • #76
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,717 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Someone on here said we would need to borrow 30billion for the oncoming recession which was why it is much worse than the one from 2008. I was under the impression that in the last recession we ramped up debts of 200billion regardless of bailing out banks the debt is ours to repay so the way I see it is 30 billion vs 200 billion I know which one I would rather

    See the public debt here:

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsapril2020/

    200bn at the end of the last recession, say 2014, but it wasn't zero in 2008.

    So we didn't borrow 200bn.

    Here is the 2014 report:

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsapril2014/


  • #77
    0gac3yjefb5sv7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,948 ✭✭✭0gac3yjefb5sv7


    TheSheriff wrote: »
    Excellent advice above, we started something similar several months back and it was very helpful (although not as detailed as above).

    We are signing hopefully early next week. Its quite nerve racking to be honest! We are sale agreed at well below asking (>50k), which should cushion the drop (if there is one?), and below what other properties have gone for recently in the area...... but I still have a niggling feeling there might be more to cut off it!

    Girlfriend happy to push ahead, we've been looking for nearly a year and the mortgage will be less than our current rent and ~20% combined income. All very affordable currently.

    I'll hopefully be in the new house in a few weeks, sipping on a beer in my garden and I can forget about this forum and the impending doom keeping me up at night :)

    Congratulations! What area of Ireland / Dublin did you buy?


  • #78
    addaword
    Registered Users Posts: 671 ✭✭✭addaword


    SimpNation wrote: »
    this country is as corrupt as they come and i think there is too many TDs/Government mules involved in the property game to let it fall. They'll pull something out of the hat to ease the pain.

    I remember people using the same excuse as a reason for a "soft landing " in 2007.
    They said the government was making too much money out of property to let it fail.

    Yet in the next few years in did fail, and fell 60 to 70% in parts of the country.


  • #79
    bdmc5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭bdmc5


    SimpNation wrote: »
    No offense but that school of thought and advice is dangerous.

    For most people buying property is the biggest financial decision/commitment in their life, if one can wait and save 10%,20%,30% etc on such a transaction and thus save tens of thousands in mortgage interest repayments alone it can do wonders for their quality of life long term.

    Advising someone to buy the house they want regardless of where we are at in a market cycle is reckless thinking to be honest.

    Likewise posters on here telling people not to buy is equally reckless as they don’t have a clue what is going to happen housing market not do they know that person circumstances . You could be talking someone out of buying a dream home they might sell in 5 years for 10/20/30 more than today. That home available now might not be in 12 as sellers take houses off the market.

    You could forever second guess the market putting life on hold so I totally understand anyone proceeding with buying now at prices they are comfortable With but also anyone feeling uncomfortable and holding off as it’s a stressful to be a buyer. At the end of day anyone that decides to buy or not based on advice from a lad on the internet shouldn’t be buying anyways :)


  • #80
    Umaro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭Umaro


    bdmc5 wrote: »
    You could be talking someone out of buying a dream home they might sell in 5 years for 10/20/30 more than today.

    Selling their dream home after 5 years? What went wrong :(


  • #81
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭Villa05


    bdmc5 wrote:
    Likewise posters on here telling people not to buy is equally reckless as they don’t have a clue what is going to happen housing market not do they know that person circumstances.

    I think the lending rules will protect most people from serious drops in property prices, however the ruling government and the then main opposition party were going out of there way to have these rules relaxed. Now these people are handsomely paid to represent you and your countries best interests

    In the last bust these people bet the country, our children's future on maintaining high house prices. The anglo tapes gave us an insight into how management at banks think. It would be naive to think the others were much better.

    The Government was the largest holder of real estate in the world after the last crash and from such a position, in 4 short years we were in position described to be a housing crisis, in 4 further years the state was paying 1 billion a year in subsidising private resedintial rents, thereby driving up rents for people who were paying their rents in full.
    This mismanagement of housing stock drove up prices and rents into what I would see as bubble in price by controlling supply.

    People are left in a no win situation of either paying extortionate rents or paying huge sums of money for a house in a market where supply is controlled by vested interests

    Buying a house for your family should not feel like you are walking into betting shop with the odds stacked against you

    Many of the wealthiest countries in Europe have housing systems that protect their citizens from this and at the same time generate revenue for the state.
    We allow our politicians to do the opposite. Why?
    Save your powder for them and we will all be better off


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    bdmc5 wrote: »
    Likewise posters on here telling people not to buy is equally reckless as they don’t have a clue what is going to happen housing market

    Equally reckless? Seriously? How can you write that with a straight face.

    People talking down the house prices at the start of one of the biggest economic shocks in the history of the state are equally reckless to people saying house prices will stay the same or go up. Wow.


  • #83
    DubCount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭DubCount


    If you laid all the economists in the world end to end you would never reach a conclusion.

    There are any number of views on what will happen property prices over the next year. None of them are reckless - almost all of them will be wrong.

    Buying a home is a long term purchase and the FTB of today has a choice. They can stay renting/living with family for 12/24/36 months and hope that prices where they want to buy go down, or buy now and move on with their lives. Maybe prices will fall in 2021 - I think they will. However, over the lifetime you expect to live in a home, the movement in property in the next year will be of little relevance. Someone who bought in 2007 before the last property fall, would have done better waiting until 2008/09/10 etc. You don't live life looking backwards. There were any number of views in 2003/04/05/06 that property would fall, but in those years it kept increasing. In 2008, many suggested there would be a soft landing - and there wasn't. For the person that bought in 2007 though, if they afforded their mortgage and liked where they live - I suspect they are happy not to be still living at home/renting.

    My advice, buy what will make you happy when you can afford it, and forget about economics.


  • #84
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,453 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Villa05 wrote: »
    I think the lending rules will protect most people from serious drops in property prices, however the ruling government and the then main opposition party were going out of there way to have these rules relaxed. Now these people are handsomely paid to represent you ...

    There are some very suspect claims being made there.

    Nama was apparently the largest holder of real estate. While government owned the government didn't own the property nor direct Nama. They legally couldn't.

    Susbsidised private rent is pretty misleading. The government paid for a service they got because they didn't have enough social housing to deal with the demand of the people.

    It was so popular with landlords they had to make it illegal to refuse social welfare rent payments. They also had to up the rent payments because it wasn't the market rate they were paying. Rents were higher than the allowances so that is some weird subsidy system.

    Many of the wealthiest countries have historical reason for their abilities such as the death of huge parts of their population, destruction of masses of housing stock, huge reparation payments etc... We literally can't do what they do. They also protect landlords in these counties.

    When you put all the risk on to developers and landlords you have to pay a premium for what they supply. Want cheaper rents and mortgage then you have to allow easier evictions and ways to recover non payment.

    Nothing happens in a vacuum


  • #85
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    DubCount wrote: »
    If you laid all the economists in the world end to end you would never reach a conclusion.

    You would, but it would be 5 years after the event when they explained why things had worked out the way they worked out.


  • #86
    addaword
    Registered Users Posts: 671 ✭✭✭addaword


    bdmc5 wrote: »
    Likewise posters on here telling people not to buy is equally reckless as they don’t have a clue what is going to happen housing market...)

    Some people who have been through three or more recessions and house slumps know what one looks like by now. Ask Ben Dunne on the tv the other night.


  • #87
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭fliball123


    addaword wrote: »
    Some people who have been through three or more recessions and house slumps know what one looks like by now. Ask Ben Dunne on the tv the other night.

    Ben Dunne doesnt know his ass from his elbow only he with the ego could do ads for ben dunne fitness and have a weight profile that would be close to obese shows how deluded he is.


  • #88
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    addaword wrote: »
    Some people who have been through three or more recessions and house slumps know what one looks like by now. Ask Ben Dunne on the tv the other night.

    Who cares what Ben Dunne thinks?
    He makes his money from shares in Dunnes Stores that his dada gave him.


  • #89
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,997 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Villa05 wrote: »
    I think the lending rules will protect most people from serious drops in property prices,

    The lending rules exist to protect the banks liquidity because they are incapable of regulating themselves.

    They are not there to protect consumers or the government.
    They are not there to maintain high house prices, lower them or stabilise them.


  • #90
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 54,087 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    The lending rules exist to protect the banks liquidity because they are incapable of regulating themselves.

    They are not there to protect consumers or the government.
    They are not there to maintain high house prices, lower them or stabilise them.

    :confused:

    They are there to protect consumers and help stabilise the market by avoiding huge surges in prices. This in turn shields the banks.

    The lending rules have demonstrably succeeded in capping price surges, their ability to soften drops is an untested theory so far.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    TheSheriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭TheSheriff


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    The lending rules exist to protect the banks liquidity because they are incapable of regulating themselves.

    They are not there to protect consumers or the government.
    They are not there to maintain high house prices, lower them or stabilise them.

    But they have likely had the impact of stabilizing them? Surely if not in place we would have had much higher houses prices over the past number of years.

    I know we are in fairly solid employment, and were offered 4.6 x our combined income from day one by one bank, and 4.8x by another.

    We chose to stick to the 3.5.

    But if everyone was able to obtain >3.5x the past few years it would be carnage.


  • #92
    TheSheriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭TheSheriff


    awec wrote: »
    :confused:

    They are there to protect consumers and help stabilise the market by avoiding huge surges in prices. This in turn shields the banks.

    The lending rules have demonstrably succeeded in capping price surges, their ability to soften drops is an untested theory so far.

    I imagine we will know soon enough.


  • #93
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭Villa05


    awec wrote:
    The lending rules have demonstrably succeeded in capping price surges, their ability to soften drops is an untested theory so far.


    With around 50% of sales cash, I suspect these were the reits and vulture funds. They purchased with a government granted close to 0 tax on income from these assets. This would put a significant premium on the property. This then pushes up the price for everyone else
    I think they may have a capital gains tax exemption if they hold the property for certain period of time., which is probably up now

    That is some gift from the state to foreign private funds who basically milked Irish people and businesses for all they could get out of them.

    This, to me is the big uncertainty, These institutions struck gold here, will they now flood the market when the tide is starting to turn the other way.

    Nama 2.0 anyone?


  • #94
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,453 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Villa05 wrote: »
    With around 50% of sales cash, I suspect these were the reits and vulture funds. They purchased with a government granted close to 0 tax on income from these assets. This would put a significant premium on the property. This then pushes up the price for everyone else
    I think they may have a capital gains tax exemption if they hold the property for certain period of time., which is probably up now

    That is some gift from the state to foreign private funds who basically milked Irish people and businesses for all they could get out of them.

    This, to me is the big uncertainty, These institutions struck gold here, will they now flood the market when the tide is starting to turn the other way.

    Nama 2.0 anyone?

    Again this is pretty misleading. I dislike how REIT have been allowed tax breaks but their effect is limited.

    They aren't buying houses but entire apartments blocks and also funding their construction in the first place. The property simply wouldn't exist without foreign funding. They aren't pushing up the prices as a result if anything they are lowering it by increasing supply.

    NGOs buying entire housing estates and renting them as social housing cause more issues in housing on Dublin. Apartments make up a small portion of housing in the country.

    Fine if you want prices lower but there is real causes for high prices without exaggerating minor contributing factors


  • #95
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    The lending rules exist to protect the banks liquidity because they are incapable of regulating themselves.

    They are not there to protect consumers or the government.
    They are not there to maintain high house prices, lower them or stabilise them.

    they absolutely are to protect the consumer from themselves. We saw what happened last time, properties that were clearly bad financial decisions and consumers went mad queuing for them.

    I think those rules will absolutely be key to the recovery, will mean the banks can't just grand approval to some lad who's spent the last 5-6 months on the covid payment / JSB and go 'well shure your back to work behind the bar now, everythings grand'


  • #96
    TheSheriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭TheSheriff


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    they absolutely are to protect the consumer from themselves. We saw what happened last time, properties that were clearly bad financial decisions and consumers went mad queuing for them.

    I think those rules will absolutely be key to the recovery, will mean the banks can't just grand approval to some lad who's spent the last 5-6 months on the covid payment / JSB and go 'well shure your back to work behind the bar now, everythings grand'

    I tend to agree with this.

    I think we'll see large price drops at the higher end of the market.

    I tend to think the average joe will be protected from huge 50% swings in prices (still expect some swings; just don't think Ill be getting my house in Killiney for 300k) I think any exceptions will be gone, so people will be limited to 3.5x their salary.

    So it all depends on salaries and whether your job survives or not etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Ray Palmer wrote:
    They aren't buying houses but entire apartments blocks and also funding their construction in the first place. The property simply wouldn't exist without foreign funding. They aren't pushing up the prices as a result if anything they are lowering it by increasing supply.

    You sure about that, as a person who was buying at that time and was in the loop with others in the same position. There were a load of one off properties that were pulled from the market as banks were putting them in portfolios for sale to investors

    Ray Palmer wrote:
    NGOs buying entire housing estates and renting them as social housing cause more issues in housing on Dublin. Apartments make up a small portion of housing in the country.
    Nobody is proposing that, Many people working are having there rent subsidised by the state. Why sell to private landlords and then supplement the income through subsidies. Why not let a housing association manage it let it generate income

    Yes but apartments make up a signicant portion of stock in high demand areas.
    Ray Palmer wrote:
    Again this is pretty misleading. I dislike how REIT have been allowed tax breaks but their effect is limited.

    Many land banks were sold, and sat on. if you were handing out tax breaks, why not stipulate that something productive be done with those lands


  • #98
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    TheSheriff wrote: »
    I tend to agree with this.

    I think we'll see large price drops at the higher end of the market.

    I tend to think the average joe will be protected from huge 50% swings in prices (still expect some swings; just don't think Ill be getting my house in Killiney for 300k) I think any exceptions will be gone, so people will be limited to 3.5x their salary.

    So it all depends on salaries and whether your job survives or not etc.

    definitely agree, the >750k houses are where we'll see the double digit percentage drops, Id be shocked if the <350k properties in Ireland budged by anything more than 7-8% , the gap in the middle there will be very regional in its swing, in Dublin moving by a few percent, rurally moving 10-15%.


  • #99
    TheSheriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭TheSheriff


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    definitely agree, the >750k houses are where we'll see the double digit percentage drops, Id be shocked if the <350k properties in Ireland budged by anything more than 7-8% , the gap in the middle there will be very regional in its swing, in Dublin moving by a few percent, rurally moving 10-15%.

    Again, I tend to agree.

    We are very lucky as a couple; neither are affected by this.

    My GF works in tech and business is BOOMING. Sales are up, targets have been hit, bonuses are bigger than any month this year.

    It'll be interesting to see when things open up fully; what segments of the market will be affected. Obviously if the bottom rung goes it will all be dragged down somewhat, but i think theres a large middle section there who haven't lost their job who are now all waiting for their bargain to somewhat keep prices up. Interesting (and scary) times ahead.


  • #100
    addaword
    Registered Users Posts: 671 ✭✭✭addaword


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    definitely agree, the >750k houses are where we'll see the double digit percentage drops, Id be shocked if the <350k properties in Ireland budged by anything more than 7-8% , the gap in the middle there will be very regional in its swing, in Dublin moving by a few percent, rurally moving 10-15%.

    Some said that in 07 too. Yet within a few years it fell 50%


  • #101
    TheSheriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭TheSheriff


    addaword wrote: »
    Some said that in 07 too. Yet within a few years it fell 50%

    Hard to call. All speculation at this point. There will definitely be drops. 50%, I am not so sure......

    I wasn't exactly following things in 07; did we have a large cohort of people who did not lose their jobs? And were in fact seeing increases in the money in their pockets due to the crash?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement