Boycott Of The Housing Market

JimmySmith

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

But why is that you can assume that 2002 was a fair price for property? I dont think you can.

Why choose 5% as opposed to 1% or 20%. Just take a public sector workers salary for example. How much has the average public sector workers wage risen since 2002? Also they pay less tax now than they did then. Take home pay is much higher than it used to be on the same salary even. And the election year giveaway budget hasnt even happened yet. I think affordability is not as gloomy as people seem to think.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

GreeBo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think before we get anywhere close to a 50% drop people will have started investing again

FillSpectre

Afuera wrote:

No it's not. It's more like spotting a number of dark clouds in the air and then suspecting that it might rain in the near future.

You seem to be misunderstanding the past tense nature of the term "bubble". It is like looking at rain clouds today and saying it rained yesterday if you want to bring clouds in. The very name suggests it needs the burst element to be understood as a bubble otherwise it is just a price rise.

What year did the bubble form? If so many people are in agreement it is a bubble they should be able to clearly agree when it formed. Strange how people insist it is a bubble yet avoid the difficult question in their belief.

JimmySmith

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

And yet the economy is still motoring along. Also, Private sector salaries did increase since 2002. I myself am now earning over 50% more than i was in 2002. As are most other private sector employees i know of.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm not saying 5% is right or wrong, but why do you pick the 5% figure from the 'zealots' as a valid figure, yet nothing else from their arguments. Remeber the 'Soft-landing Zealots' know no more or less thanany of us do either.

FillSpectre

GreeBo wrote:

I think before we get anywhere close to a 50% drop people will have started investing again

I would agree with this.

I don't know anybody who doesn't own who doesn't want to own. Demand doesn't seem to have fallen just ability to afford. That could causea crash I guess but it sounds more logical to assume it will casue things to stagnate. Some investors beleive it will cause more demand for rental and reduce the building of property.
I don't think the investors are half as exposed as people suggest and I think they are more likey to bed in tough times.

Bubbles bursts are casued by events is my understanding anybody know of a bubble burst caused purely by reaching an affordability level?

miju

fillspectra , stop getting so hung up on the definition of a bubble as the main backbone of your argument but how and ever answer this for me:

if you blow up a bubble using soapy water is it a bubble while it floats through the air or is it only a bubble when it pops at which point it stops existing????

while i think it's true that most "savvy" and experienced investors will hold onto their properties there's one major problem , the majority of "property investors" are average joes who try to get on the gravy train even though it's long left the station

these type of investors are the type who've traded up but kept their old property so are paying bigger mortgages or are people who don't actually need a second house but buy it hoping on capital appreciation , when the prices stagnate / prospect of further rises vastly diminishes or indeed starts to fall ESPECIALLY if they are already subsidising the mortage on the property they will all mostly bail out as quick as possible, with the only problem being everyone else will be looknig for the exits at the same time

SkepticOne

FillSpectre wrote:

The difference between those pointing out it is not a bubble and pedant is we are not talking about technical correct and symantics it is a statement of fact. Claiming a bubble is the same as saying it rained yesterday when it didn't. You can speculate that house prices will be proved to be a bubble. It is simply a false calim to say it is a bubble. It doesn't matter if you are proved to have guessed right it is still a false statement.

Hi FillSpectre,

Your definition of bubble seems a bit odd. I think you are choosing an unusual meaning of the word in order to make the possibility of a crash go away. In your head.

Have a read of some of the definitions available on the web. Most of them talk about a divergence between prices and underlying value based on fundamentals.

Take this one from Wikipedia. I don't treat that site as gospel but the definition is fairly standard:

An economic bubble (sometimes referred to as a "speculative bubble") refers to a mawrket condition, where the prices of commodities or asset classes increase to absurd levels (that no longer reflect utility of usage and purchasing power). It occurs when speculation in the underlying good causes the price to increase, thus producing more speculation. The bubble is usually followed by a sudden drop in prices, known as a crash or a bubble burst.

Note that it mentions the crash following the bubble, i.e., the bubble starts before the crash.

Yet you say that it is factually incorrect to say that a bubble exists before the crash. This would mean that there was no bubble in tech stocks one month before the crash in 2000. Anybody claiming there was at the time would be "factually incorrect".

You say "you can speculate that house prices will be proved to be a bubbtle". But to any reasonable person this is just a long way of saying that you believe there is a bubble now.

I'm more and more inclined to believe it is a bubble (or speculate that that it will be proved to be a bubble in the future - in FillSpectre language) than I was before due to the increased levels of irationality I'm seen among those with lots of money tied up in property e.g insisting on a strange use of language so that it appears to be logically impossible for there to be a bubble.

JimmySmith

miju wrote:

fillspectra , stop getting so hung up on the definition of a bubble as the main backbone of your argument but how and ever answer this for me:

if you blow up a bubble using soapy water is it a bubble while it floats through the air or is it only a bubble when it pops at which point it stops existing????

But how could that not be a bubble, that is a real bubble made of soap? Not a notional one

miju wrote:

these type of investors are the type who've traded up but kept their old property so are paying bigger mortgages or are people who don't actually need a second house but buy it hoping on capital appreciation , when the prices stagnate / prospect of further rises vastly diminishes or indeed starts to fall ESPECIALLY if they are already subsidising the mortage on the property they will all mostly bail out as quick as possible, with the only problem being everyone else will be looknig for the exits at the same time

But if they can afford to pay for them now, they can afford to hold onto it for a more beneficial time to sell can they not?

In order to scare these people (the ones holding out for capital appreciation) into bailing out, property prices would need to fall drastically. But , in order for the prices to fall, they would need to be scared first into bailing out en-mass.

I think the scare can only be caused by high interest rates or a major shock to the economy (in which case we're all screwed).

SkepticOne

JimmySmith wrote:

But how could that not be a bubble, that is a real bubble made of soap? Not a notional one

Followed by a notional crash? Or is that logically impossible?

Gurgle

JimmySmith wrote:

In order to scare these people (the ones holding out for capital appreciation) into bailing out, property prices would need to fall drastically. But , in order for the prices to fall, they would need to be scared first into bailing out en-mass.

Even then it will only apply to investors who's plans depended on capital appreciation.

tbh thats a stupid basis for making any investment.

Many people are ignorant and/or stupid but the mortgage lender is a professional and will not give a loan with any significant risk of negative equity.

That would be burning money and no bank is in that business.

miju

JimmySmith wrote:

But how could that not be a bubble, that is a real bubble made of soap? Not a notional one

it's the same thing in that a bubble exists now in the property market and when it pops it will cease to exist , it's not the other way around of it's not a bubble until it's pop's

JimmySmith wrote:

But if they can afford to pay for them now, they can afford to hold onto it for a more beneficial time to sell can they not?

In order to scare these people (the ones holding out for capital appreciation) into bailing out, property prices would need to fall drastically. But , in order for the prices to fall, they would need to be scared first into bailing out en-mass.

I think the scare can only be caused by high interest rates or a major shock to the economy (in which case we're all screwed).

not really , if prices dropped by even 20k which is alot of money to your average joe that will be enough IMO to put the major frighteners on them , now if they're paying a heavy mortgage and subsidising a falling asset (even if it drops by -5k , 10k , -15k sequentially) then they'll bail as why hold onto an asset that is now losing money ,

then again they may chase the market down for a while hoping all is well but in the end i think most if not all of the "amateur" investors will bail

on a slight side note i always piss myself laughing when someone says oh i've made a profit of 50k off my house in the last year , when in reality they've made a paper profit that doesn't equate to the amount they're paying in interest on their mortage. so in real terms for someone to buy a house for say 400k the house will then need to increase in price to some 650k before they "break even" so to speak

Gurgle wrote:

Even then it will only apply to investors who's plans depended on capital appreciation.

tbh thats a stupid basis for making any investment.

.......................

Many people are ignorant and/or stupid

exactly my point , the average joe see's the gravy train and says "oohhh, gotta get me some of that no matter what dont wanna be left behind"

Gurgle wrote:

That would be burning money and no bank is in that business.

true they are in the business of making money and to be honest negative equity isn't the banks problem it's the mortgage holder's , if prices drop by 100k for example the bank wont say to the mortgage holder "oh you poor thing being in negative equity" to quote jimmy from goodfella's it'll more along the lines of "fuck you PAY ME"

JimmySmith

SkepticOne wrote:

Followed by a notional crash? Or is that logically impossible?

No, its a real bubble made of soap and water, followed by real pop. It cannot be compared to an 'economic bubble' by any means. Someone said not to get hung up on the definition of a bubble and they were right. everyone knows what people are talking about when they say 'bubble' relating to the property market, we really dont have to define it.

Where people differ is if we are in one or not. Good questions for this debate though would be 'If we are in one, how long have we been in it?' Or 'If we arent in a bubble, will we enter one and when?'


There has just been so much talk about bubbles for the better part of a decade now that people look up in the sky and see soap floating around it anyway

miju

JimmySmith wrote:

'If we are in one, how long have we been in it?'

IMHO i think the foundations of the bubble was aroundabouts 2000 but it didn't acutally really inflate till about 2002 and since then it's been more and more bloated as each day goes by

JimmySmith wrote:

'If we arent in a bubble, will we enter one and when?'

see above but personally after this one i don't ireland will see a property bubble for a long time again

FillSpectre

miju wrote:

fillspectra , stop getting so hung up on the definition of a bubble as the main backbone of your argument but how and ever answer this for me:

People keep asking about an giviing it new meaning.

Skepticone:
I have seen that definition before, it is incorrect from a source where the general public fill in the information. There are a few reference web sites that are quite inaccurate.

If you want to take it that people correcting use of an economic term as a pointer to what will happen feel free.:rolleyes: Even using your term it is not a bubble as nobody has establish utility of usage is not correct and that the market is all speculitive. A house has a purpose and unless you are saying the majority of purcashes are speculation your definition fails again to be true.

I gladdly see your explanation of a bubble proved even if it is incorrect

miju wrote:

while i think it's true that most "savvy" and experienced investors will hold onto their properties there's one major problem , the majority of "property investors" are average joes who try to get on the gravy train even though it's long left the station

Can you tell us what makes you know who is the majority of investors in the market? How about how you know their intent.

miju wrote:

these type of investors are the type who've traded up but kept their old property so are paying bigger mortgages or are people who don't actually need a second house but buy it hoping on capital appreciation , when the prices stagnate / prospect of further rises vastly diminishes or indeed starts to fall ESPECIALLY if they are already subsidising the mortage on the property they will all mostly bail out as quick as possible, with the only problem being everyone else will be looknig for the exits at the same time

Again this ability to know what these investors are doing and what they will do. All highly speculitive. What you seem to miss is that somebody might buy a property and be subsidising the mortgage to have a property to use:
1) Income as retirment money
2) To down size in that area in the furture
3) To provide accomadation to their child for college
4) To provide a house for their child in the future
5) A long term investment to retire on

I don't assume

1) Investors are stupid
2) Capital appreciation is the driving force
3) They will panic
4) To know how they get their finances

Gurgle

miju wrote:

negative equity isn't the banks problem it's the mortgage holder's , if prices drop by 100k for example the bank wont say to the mortgage holder "oh you poor thing being in negative equity" to quote jimmy from goodfella's it'll more along the lines of "fuck you PAY ME"

Actually, it is the bank's problem.

Your house is the security on your loan. If you stop making payments, they can re-possess the house. That is their full and complete means of getting the money back from you. Once they do so, the debt is gone - they have no legal entitlement to claim any more money from you in any way.

(Unless of course you have a guarantor for your mortgage, then their home can be re-possesed too.)

JimmySmith

I would say that most investors are not as stupid as people here seem to think.

Those can afford second properties now, have built up equity and could lose that equity. I'm sure they know this.

What seperates them from the average joe is that they have lots of money on paper (lets not forget that they probably have lots of debt too - which is not on paper - its real) and this going up or down does not phase them as much as those without it think it will.

What we seem to be basing the crash scenario on here is a spooking of investors (but we're agreed that professional investors are immune to ups and downs of investments over the short term?).

I dont see anyone spooked or about to be spooked out there at all. And the vast majority of people i know who own property and indeed a second property bought it more than 3-4 years ago. these people will be somewhat insulated from moves downwards in prices.

I still think it will take a major shock to the economy (there may or may not ever be one) to produce a crash. Its job losses that will have the most bearing on any potential crash. Even more than interest rate hikes. I also think if this happens there will be a major recession and Ireland, whether you own property or not will be a miserable place to live for anyone that chooses to stay.

Wasnt it only a year ago that economists were predicting interest rate rises and that after a 0.5% rise that the property market would start to dive?
They are predicting the same thing for next year now.

Sounds like the PDs to me. We'll drop the tax rate to 40% if you vote us in.
4 years later they are saying 'We'll drop the tax rate to 40% if you vote us in.'

Property is tied to the state of the economy. And last time i looked the economy is not even close to wobbling.

miju

FillSpectre wrote:

Can you tell us what makes you know who is the majority of investors in the market? How about how you know their intent.

dont be so naive , the dogs on the street know most of the investors intent and that they make up 40% odd of the market with another 36% percent being FTB's (if you read the report i posted you'd see that)

FillSpectre wrote:

1) Income as retirment money
2) To down size in that area in the furture
3) To provide accomadation to their child for college
4) To provide a house for their child in the future
5) A long term investment to retire on

1: would be a fifth of the property market at most (see my previous links)
2: would be a fifth of the property market at most (see my previous links)
3: would be a fifth of the property market at most (see my previous links)
4: you asked the same question twice just reworded it
5: you asked the same question twice just reworded it

buy by doing some basic maths (based on the report i posted earlier in the thread) i'd imagine the people that come into your three questions would be around 20%

FillSpectre wrote:

I don't assume

1) Investors are stupid
2) Capital appreciation is the driving force
3) They will panic
4) To know how they get their finances

1: investors aren't stupid they're quite the opposite , it's the "amateur" investor who see's what going on and just wants a slice of the pie that is stupid
2: again man the dogs on the street know it's the driving force , i mean FFS what other reason is driving just under 40% of the property market (again based on report i posted) this 40% is investors , they dont invest for fun the invest for MONEY

with another 36% of the market made up of FTB's who are mainly buying on the basis of buy now or never get on the "ladder" due to capital appreciation spiralling , i think you can say the market is pretty much driven by capital appreciation
3:if the investors / people who want to trade up see prices fall they're not going to hold onto them for long especially if it's costing them money and you can be sure as hell very few FTB's will buy when prices start to fall , you'll find greed operating in reverse being the motivating factor "i'll see how much i can save / how far prices will fall then i'll buy"
4: it's obvious the vast majority is anything from 80%-100% mortgages i'd imagine , some releasing "equity" in their homes , basically borrowing

now since 2002 interest rates have stayed in line with inflation so in reality no increases in borrowing / paying back loans has materialised, but now that interest rates are heading above the inflation rate real money is going to be added to mortgage repayments / reduce borrowing power

maybe read the links i've provided so you dont have to ask questions that have already has answers provided for

miju

JimmySmith wrote:

Property is tied to the state of the economy. And last time i looked the economy is not even close to wobbling.

because alot of the ugliness of the state of the irish economy is being hidden by the property market , i'll dig out the links for you to show you what i mean , but basically imports are WAY up exports are fallling year on year

Gurgle wrote:

Actually, it is the bank's problem.

Your house is the security on your loan. If you stop making payments, they can re-possess the house. That is their full and complete means of getting the money back from you. Once they do so, the debt is gone - they have no legal entitlement to claim any more money from you in any way.

(Unless of course you have a guarantor for your mortgage, then their home can be re-possesed too.)

as said most people need a roof over there heads / need or desire a good credit rating so therefore will keep making payments as who wants to have a home reposessed? particularly if your parents have gone gaurantor and they risk losing their home as well

obviously ultimately it's the banks problem but in real terms i don't think it is

Gurgle

miju wrote:

as said most people need a roof over there heads / need or desire a good credit rating so therefore will keep making payments as who wants to have a home reposessed? particularly if your parents have gone gaurantor and they risk losing their home as well

obviously ultimately it's the banks problem but in real terms i don't think it is

OK, to rephrase:
Investors / 2nd home owners who find themselves with negative equity can bail out without paying for it as the bank will repossess the house and the bank will take the hit. The lender, being a professional and knowing this when giving the loan will have considered the worst case scenario.

Homeowners - when it all comes down to it, the property market makes no difference to them. If they're planning to trade up, changes in the market will affect their current residence as much as their new house.

The exception is people who go back every couple of years and 'release the equity'. Thats not an investment, its the opposite. Really thats not even buying a house.

GreeBo

Its not a freaking bubble its a trend.
It can move up and move down.
It is unlikely (in my opinion) to move down as quikcly as it has moved up since it moved up due to demand.
Demand will not vanish over night.
There are many people who want a house but cannot afford one.
If there is a levelling off or indeed a decline in house prices these people will still want a house.
In the same way that some people are waiting to buy until prices come down a bit they will not wait too long for fear of missing the "bottom".

Bottom line is that the majority of people will buy a property that they can afford in an area they like if they think its worth it and that its something they want.
Sure some are panicing and buying anything anywhere but I believe most are not.

FillSpectre

miju wrote:

dont be so naive , the dogs on the street know most of the investors intent and that they make up 40% odd of the market with another 36% percent being FTB's (if you read the report i posted you'd see that)

I seem to have a better understading of maths than you. 40% is not the majority of the market.

miju wrote:

1: would be a fifth of the property market at most (see my previous links)
2: would be a fifth of the property market at most (see my previous links)
3: would be a fifth of the property market at most (see my previous links)
4: you asked the same question twice just reworded it
5: you asked the same question twice just reworded it

buy by doing some basic maths (based on the report i posted earlier in the thread) i'd imagine the people that come into your three questions would be around 20%

First off you obviously don't understand the differnce between some of the options I mentioned. The only link I found was a sherry fitz report. If you want to directly say something using a report I suggest you actually reference where exactley. From the report I don't see how they know or you gather to know what investors are doing. A combination of reason is a lot more likely than one reason. Dogs know nothing the react instantly to what they think is going on.;)

miju wrote:

1: investors aren't stupid they're quite the opposite , it's the "amateur" investor who see's what going on and just wants a slice of the pie that is stupid

I think it is the amateur "hopers" that don't know what are facts and what are speculation that is the problem here.

miju wrote:

2: again man the dogs on the street know it's the driving force , i mean FFS what other reason is driving just under 40% of the property market (again based on report i posted) this 40% is investors , they dont invest for fun the invest for MONEY

Again a dog knows nothing. You keep using a study on one year to decide how many investors are in the entire market? THe report only states 40% of their (sherry fitz) sales were to investors. AS Ireland has such a high home ownship rate and a low rental population this maybe what changes to match up before prices do anything. Germany for example has 100 year mortgages that are sold with the porperty and they have a high renatl population.

miju wrote:

with another 36% of the market made up of FTB's who are mainly buying on the basis of buy now or never get on the "ladder" due to capital appreciation spiralling , i think you can say the market is pretty much driven by capital appreciation

Again your ability to read minds comes in useful when deciding what must happen in the future. :rolleyes: You aren't thinking you are deciding what people are doing and speculating how this won't work out for them.

miju wrote:

3:if the investors / people who want to trade up see prices fall they're not going to hold onto them for long especially if it's costing them money and you can be sure as hell very few FTB's will buy when prices start to fall , you'll find greed operating in reverse being the motivating factor "i'll see how much i can save / how far prices will fall then i'll buy"

That is using your assumption they are buying purely for appreciation which is speculation while you dismiss/diminish any other reason. I have yet to meet soembody who bases large financial risk on one point and has no back up plan. Two neighbours can have the same mortgage amounts but one can own two houses on it what is there to panic about even if it is costing you money as you could easily have equity in both. A very black and white view without any concept of reality

miju wrote:

4: it's obvious the vast majority is anything from 80%-100% mortgages i'd imagine , some releasing "equity" in their homes , basically borrowing

So when you don't have any facts you just make a "obvious" statement? Any idea of teh age of these "amatuer" investors are? Lots of people beyond the age of 40 have spare cash and savings.

miju wrote:

now since 2002 interest rates have stayed in line with inflation so in reality no increases in borrowing / paying back loans has materialised, but now that interest rates are heading above the inflation rate real money is going to be added to mortgage repayments / reduce borrowing power

maybe read the links i've provided so you dont have to ask questions that have already has answers provided for

Maybe you could be direct about your points and actually back them up. Your reading of the report is flawed. If you are stating something is in a report a direct reference is required as I am sure your understanding is quite flawed as obvious by your constant use of 40% sales in one year to "prove" most points. Maybe I'll misread it but at least it can be discussed instead of making a wild statemnet and state the proof is in some report. Any report is reasoning over facts to reason from that reasoning and misquoting facts is not much use, not saying you are doing that but it does appear that way.

miju

GreeBo wrote:

It is unlikely (in my opinion) to move down as quikcly as it has moved up since it moved up due to demand.
Demand will not vanish over night.

if prices at least platteua then investors won't get anything on capital appreciation -there's 40% potentially gone

prices as they are now are pricing out more and more FTB's and indeed the share of FTB's in the market has been falling from some 45% to 36% over the last few years , as prices go up thats more of your demand taking away

have a look at the poll going on in my siggie there , anecdotal and only 1 day old it's had 82 odd votes and 68% of people (both home owners and non owners) are not holding out much hope for the future

GreeBo wrote:

In the same way that some people are waiting to buy until prices come down a bit they will not wait too long for fear of missing the "bottom".

in theory , but in reality what will more than likely happen is herd mentality in reverse , people will not try and precipitate a bottoming of the market they'll simply wait for it to bottom and when prices show signs of being static / rising they'll buy again IMHO

GreeBo wrote:

Bottom line is that the majority of people will buy a property that they can afford in an area they like if they think its worth it and that its something they want.
Sure some are panicing and buying anything anywhere but I believe most are not.

anecdotal evidence / public opinion seems to suggest otherwise , people are moving further and further away from the original area they wish to live in the hopes of trading of up to move back closer to home in the future

@fillspectre , i'll dig out the links for the reports for you just to shut up your jibberish when i get the chance in an hour or so

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

SouperComputer

/puts on flame suit

Currently I'm looking at renting a new place, 3 bedroom semi - 1000 per month

But rent is dead money

Gurgle

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Couldn't agree more.
You'd be stupid to buy now, while rents are so much lower than mortgage repayments.

When rents rise or prices fall it will be time for you to look at it again.

You're in Dublin, right?
I don't know anywhere else where a 3-bed semi can get €450k. Dublin is not the entirety of the Irish property market.

I'd even go so far as to say Dublin is overpriced and just as price rises in Dublin have outstripped the rest of the country, the soft landing (when it comes) is likely to be a bit less soft in Dublin.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

FillSpectre

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

State how you know this figure and what it means

Empty houses mean nothing unless compared as a percentage and compared to the markets norms as such. Please don't post up the vasgue report from the indo using the CSO collectors as proof.

When rent is cheap let me know as I don't know anybody who thiks it is cheap some say it is cheaper than before but others don't think it is.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It isn't a no brainer, it only is if you decide the reason for purcahse is capital appreciation soley. If in 20 years you can own a house without paying a full mortgage it isn't bad as the rent is all income. That is not speculation but investment. As I said you could own two houses and be paying less in mortgage payments than your neighbour. 20 years into a propety and it may give you 60 years return and be passed on to your children.

People are keeping the terms to appreciation only and ignoring everything else.

GreeBo

miju wrote:

if prices at least platteua then investors won't get anything on capital appreciation -there's 40% potentially gone

I think its a bit simplistic to think that investors will bail out at the first sign of a plateau...

miju wrote:

prices as they are now are pricing out more and more FTB's and indeed the share of FTB's in the market has been falling from some 45% to 36% over the last few years , as prices go up thats more of your demand taking away

so conversely as prices come down thats more FTB's who will come back?

miju wrote:

but in reality what will more than likely happen is herd mentality in reverse , people will not try and precipitate a bottoming of the market they'll simply wait for it to bottom and when prices show signs of being static / rising they'll buy again IMHO

but thats not a bubble bursting, if the demand comes back as soon as the prices stabilise...

chump

chump wrote:

http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/irelandhouseprices.htm
"The average price paid for a house in Dublin and outside Dublin in May 2006 was €394,795 and €256,418 respectively. "


http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/OurRegion/LondonStats/234719/
"The average house price in London in December 2005 was £268,517 (387,920.08 EUR); the UK average for the same period was £185,788.(268,360.67 EUR)"


Interesting stats regarding weekly London salaries, 4th March 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4319239.stm

It is clear that like-for-like salaries in London are significantly higher than in Dublin. Anyone who has been through the grad milkroands can attest to this.

Also London is a biggest city in Western Europe, it is a money making machine that drives the english economy.

If demand for property in Dublin was so significant, why is that rents are so weak? If there was a demand problem surely rents would be higher? And rising significantly?

Rents are significantly higher in London. Imagine the cost of renting a 2-bed apart. in the London equiv. of the IFSC. 1500euro wouldn't get a betsit never mind
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=3648&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=&s[bd_no]=&limit=8&search_type=rental&id=401928
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=3648&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=&s[bd_no]=&limit=8&search_type=rental&id=404130
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=3648&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=&s[bd_no]=&offset=8&limit=8&search_type=rental&id=403578
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=3648&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=&s[bd_no]=&offset=16&limit=8&search_type=rental&id=406395

Find a comparison in London walking distance to a 'city' job.

Rents are low due to demand (amount of properties supplied by 'investors' is high) and average wages (dublin jobs don't pay in the same realm as NY, Paris, London).

In fact with so many people buying places, at any cost, the rental demand may actually decline (particularly amoung indigenous irish workers) - this will be offset by the lower-skilled minimum and close to minimum wage workers, mostly foreigners.
How many landlords advertise their properties so as to eliminate the possibility of low-skilled non-nationals getting into them? Let's not be PC. So they end up on the outskirts with 5/6 to a house.

All said I don't doubt that there isn't enough homes available to FTB's within Dublin and the close suburbs, but I certainly don't believe it's putting off people buying - they're just buying further out. Probably with the hope one day of upgrading.

Where is the demand?
Why is rent so low?
Is it right that homes in Dublin cost more than London?
Is London itself overpriced?
Is the average salary in ireland 30-35k per annum?
Have popular/common mortgage periods risen from 20/25 -> 35/40 years within the last 10 years?
Are interest rates climbing significantly?
Has the baby-boom generation already arrived in the market?
Are immigrants primarily low-skilled low-paid workers?
Does commuting 3 hours a day take its toll?
Are fuel prices rising rapidly?
Is our economy on a solid footing and not over reliant on any 1 sector?
Is our mortgage debt out of control?
At what rate are wages increasing?
Can anyone afford for house prices to climb?
How many IO mortgages have been taken out in the last 5 years?
If there isn't a decline in the market will there be a levelling off?
If the market is flat for 5/10 years why buy now?
If there's no expectation of capital appreciation what will investors do?
Are FF fukked in the next election?

Yes to the last 1... :eek: :eek: