Housing Bubble Bursting

ei.sdraob

FAE 2008 wrote: »

aaargggh... I had a look at the website and the latest post relating to Lisheen Fields was March 2008. Im looking for some up to date information in relation to the houses there.

Again......

A What the houses are Selling for?

B What is the area like?

these homes are asking for 365K and are about 1700sq feet

thats 214 euro a square foot

what a ****ing rip off!
considering that a home that size can be build, done and furnished to a high standard for 100-120 a square foot ...
crazy crazy **** :eek: i tell ya

Deleted User wrote: »

What houses are selling for is a closely guarded secret between the buyer, estate agent, seller and government. unlike elsewher sold prices are opaque.

if you compare the selling prices quoted by IAVI reports and asking prices on daft, theres about 20% difference
20% off 375K for the above home is STILL WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY OVERPRICED!
anyone who offers more than 200K for these is mad

ei.sdraob

I just looked on daft and seems land with planning in Ovens, Co. Cork is very expensive about 150-200K for an acre :eek: with PP

that could explain these crazy prices in above post somewhat up to about 320K but still what so special about this area, scratches head

FAE 2008

I think when you build in the site cost they might be ok value wise?

Does anyone else have a recommendation? Lisheen Fields seems to be fairly decent. I dont know what Ballincollig is like though. Weve had very mixed reports on the place.

ei.sdraob

i know nothing of area (havent been in Cork in many years :P), or have any vested interests

but looking at it from quick info i could find, quick back of envelope calculation


lets say 150K for half acre these are on (im sure developer paid much less, but lets entertain the idea) which is a MAD price but lets entertain the idea that this is prime location close to cork city
+
1700foot * 90 = 153K build+furnish cost

that's still scraping just above 300K

rest is profit for developer and auctioneer :pac:


take my calculations with pinch of salt but i find it hard to see value, since i know nothing of the area or location (thats big variable) i could be way off

ei.sdraob

using the yield calculation based on larger house in same area

of 1500 a month

thats 1500 * 12 * 15 = 270K

i dunno oh and for the laugh

FAE 2008

Thanks for that.
It preety much impossible to value something these days. I know the yields theory seems sound in practce but its a bit like the book the car dealer pulls out to value your second hand car.

Thanks for the help though.

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i dunno oh and for the laugh

20goto10

AARRRGH wrote: »

What unbelievable bull****.

I'll take both sentences seperately:



There are over 90,000 houses for sale in Ireland on Daft alone.



If anyone took that advice anytime over the past 7 years they would be in negative equity by now.

It is absolutely 100% retarded advice.

Are you looking to buy at the moment? Do you know my situation? What kind of house I'm looking for and why? Have you been to view any of these thousands of houses? I'm sorry you don't like my answer but it is a fact and not open for debate that I cannot find a home that suits my needs.

You might want to use the preview post button before accusing someone of giving retarded advice.

It's a fair comment to say that the vast majority of these properties for sale are the "wrong type of property in the wrong place!"

The right houses are "not to be sold for less than they're worth", so are either not on the market or are overpriced.

AARRRGH

20goto10 wrote: »

Are you looking to buy at the moment? Do you know my situation? What kind of house I'm looking for and why? Have you been to view any of these thousands of houses? I'm sorry you don't like my answer but it is a fact and not open for debate that I cannot find a home that suits my needs.

You might want to use the preview post button before accusing someone of giving retarded advice.

Let's looks at your advice again, shall we?

20goto10 wrote:

The reality is there are feck all houses out there to buy. If you want that house on the hill you need to buy it while you can.

We are not mind readers. If you write something you don't really mean how are we to know? Seriously, learn to communicate your thoughts properly or else stop complaining when people read what you write.

Btw, your advice to buy in a falling market is still retarded.

20goto10

You don't need to read my mind, just my posts. I have to say you're doing a very good job at making retarded posts. Maybe when you turn 18 you might understand how this house buying lark works.

Seeing as you dont have the attention span to read previous posts I'll do a recap. You're telling someone who has sold a house for the asking price and has been looking for that upgrade for the past 4 months to no avail. And you're telling me to wait even longer until prices are increasing again and every Tom, dick and spotty faced Harry is out doing the same. Cause that's when I'll have a better chance? Retarded?

robd

20goto10 wrote: »

You don't need to read my mind, just my posts. I have to say you're doing a very good job at making retarded posts. Maybe when you turn 18 you might understand how this house buying lark works.

Seeing as you dont have the attention span to read previous posts I'll do a recap. You're telling someone who has sold a house for the asking price and has been looking for that upgrade for the past 4 months to no avail. And you're telling me to wait even longer until prices are increasing again and every Tom, dick and spotty faced Harry is out doing the same. Cause that's when I'll have a better chance? Retarded?

The retarded part, is that you think house prices are going to start increasing again any time soon, at anything that could be considered a significant pace, and that every Tom Dick and Harry is going to eagerly bail back in to the market. This view contradicts your own argument viz-a-viz the banks not having the capital to lend in the future. How can prices increase if no one can get their hands on a mortgage? Again you're displaying any amazing ineptitude re Supply & Demand Economics. You appear to still be believing all the hype from the bubble days. Look up "Cognitive Dissonance" which describes exactly what you are incorrectly bringing to your decision making process. The financial ratios etc. don't lie, your subjective emotional thoughts do.

20goto10

robd wrote: »

The retarded part, is that you think house prices are going to start increasing again any time soon, at anything that could be considered a significant pace, and that every Tom Dick and Harry is going to eagerly bail back in to the market. This view contradicts your own argument viz-a-viz the banks not having the capital to lend in the future. How can prices increase if no one can get their hands on a mortgage? Again you're displaying any amazing ineptitude re Supply & Demand Economics. You appear to still be believing all the hype from the bubble days. Look up "Cognitive Dissonance" which describes exactly what you are incorrectly bringing to your decision making process. The financial ratios etc. don't lie, your subjective emotional thoughts do.

No it's really a lot simpler than that. I don't give a flying monkey about the investment aspect of buying a home. I want a nice home at a nice price that I can comfortably afford. I want it now. I font care when prices start rising again because I'm not waiting for that. And I stand by my statement that supply is very poor. In reality, on the ground. I do agree on paper it looks bad and I do agree there's an awful lot of houses that are below my standards and therefore do not count in my particular equation. And that's another point. It's all down to the individuals particular situation. You cannot geraluze and call someone a retard because they don't fit in your hypothetical pigeon hole.

Calina

Tell me is it that there are no houses or no houses at a nice price? Because a key contributor to the large stock of houses is that they are on sale but not at prices that too many purchasers are willing to entertain? I mean I want the same thing but currently as far as I'm concerned another 80KE can come off the 6 houses available in the estate where I live and then I might start entertaining the notion of talking to their vendors.

UNtil then I've other options, thanks.

norrie rugger

Calina wrote: »

Tell me is it that there are no houses or no houses at a nice price? Because a key contributor to the large stock of houses is that they are on sale but not at prices that too many purchasers are willing to entertain? I mean I want the same thing but currently as far as I'm concerned another 80KE can come off the 6 houses available in the estate where I live and then I might start entertaining the notion of talking to their vendors.

UNtil then I've other options, thanks.

Or that the majority of supply are badly built shoe boxes, crammed into estates with no gardens or parking facilities.

That is what I am seeing generally available and are the kind of properties that I would not purchase, regardless of price

The key fact is, why pay a mortgage of €€€€ a month for 40 years when you can pay the same or less for 25 years.

20goto10

Deleted User wrote: »

The key fact is, why pay a mortgage of €€€€ a month for 40 years when you can pay the same or less for 25 years.

personally, from what I can see affordability has been addressed on the market. The problem I'm now seeing is supply. That is quality supply when you take out the shoe boxes etc and the non habitable ghost towns.

What used to be an acceptable standard is no longer acceptable.

I find it quite worrying that the same attitude still exists that caused the boom, only now it's turned upside down. People still think of a home as an investment. Being smart with your money is always good advice, that's why it's so hard to get the point across.

I'm sure you'll all get your shoe box in a commuter belt miles away from local amenities at a very nice price. I just hope you're happy to live in it.

20goto10

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm sure you'll all get your shoe box in a commuter belt miles away from local amenities at a very nice price. I just hope you're happy to live in it.

I was actually thinking about people who want a decently priced house in a decent area, near their work and local amenities etc for a mortgage that costs less than 1/3 of their income for 25 years assuming interest rates of 6-8%.

gurramok

20goto10 wrote: »

personally, from what I can see affordability has been addressed on the market.

You can have all the low interest rates you want but the prices are still too high to be affordable.

norrie rugger

gurramok wrote: »

You can have all the low interest rates you want but the prices are still too high to be affordable.

It is still only not affordable to those who can not afford it (obviously)

I can actually see where the guys is coming from, even if I do not agree with some of what he says.

If you see the house that ticks all the boxes and you can afford it, why not buy?

Victor

Can people express themselves with even a modicum of decorum and stop using expressions like "retarded"?

20goto10

gurramok wrote: »

You can have all the low interest rates you want but the prices are still too high to be affordable.

afforability is a personal thing. You won't get a mortgage today without taking interest rate hikes into account so again I don't think that is an issue any longer.

gurramok

20goto10 wrote: »

afforability is a personal thing. You won't get a mortgage today without taking interest rate hikes into account so again I don't think that is an issue any longer.

Which leaves prices of course.

20goto10

gurramok wrote: »

Which leaves prices of course.

ok I'm retarded. Fine. I give up.

AARRRGH

robd wrote: »

Look up "Cognitive Dissonance" which describes exactly what you are incorrectly bringing to your decision making process. The financial ratios etc. don't lie, your subjective emotional thoughts do.

Spot on.

There should be a rule on boards.ie which says people must familiarise themselves with the concept of cognitive biases before they can post.

It would make the place a lot more reasonable.

ei.sdraob

20goto10 wrote: »

ok I'm retarded. Fine. I give up.

i guessed you missed this moderator warning

Victor wrote: »

Can people express themselves with even a modicum of decorum and stop using expressions like "retarded"?

Fighting Irish

norrie rugger wrote: »

It is still only not affordable to those who can not afford it (obviously)

I can actually see where the guys is coming from, even if I do not agree with some of what he says.

If you see the house that ticks all the boxes and you can afford it, why not buy?

And you have a safe job, it's grand. But prices are still falling, so why buy?

pawnacide

Kinda brave of me to come on and admit to being an auctioneer, only since 2006 though, good timing dont ya think. You're right, well in part anyway, prices are still falling but not on all property. A lot of the developments I deal with are in limbo .. receivers have moved in but haven't made a decision on prices yet. It's a frustratingly slow process like most things in this country. Some developments are ahead of the game and are being sold at a loss. The trick is to find one you like. Just as the bubble couldn't last so too below cost selling wont last forever.

pawnacide

I could give examples but I don't want to get kicked off the site.

johnnyskeleton

pawnacide wrote: »

Kinda brave of me to come on and admit to being an auctioneer, only since 2006 though, good timing dont ya think. You're right, well in part anyway, prices are still falling but not on all property. A lot of the developments I deal with are in limbo .. receivers have moved in but haven't made a decision on prices yet. It's a frustratingly slow process like most things in this country. Some developments are ahead of the game and are being sold at a loss. The trick is to find one you like. Just as the bubble couldn't last so too below cost selling wont last forever.

Realistically at this stage, I would be surprized if any development sells for a profit. The cost of land has dropped by as much as 95% (sometimes more) in the last few years, and as that was the major cost of any development, it follows that the potential profits have probably been wiped out in most cases, and in many cases they will sell for significantly less than the outstanding borrowings on the development. Hence the idea of NAMA making a profit is nonsense.