House prices have much further to fall: Morgan Kelly

Joseph Kuhr

gurramok wrote: »

24 per cent of first-time buyers
35% of FTB mortgages

Exactly what I am saying. The majority of FTBs did not take out 100% mortgages. And the overall majority of buyers did not take out 100% mortgages.

People who cannot afford a deposit are out of the market. Pure and simple. The market is not going to move down for them. It will move down, no doubt about it but not to accomodate people who cannot afford deposits....thats a ridiculous notion.

gurramok wrote: »

Ah yes, your contradicting yourself while 'not denying'.
Why wait when that house will be cheaper in a few months, yeh that makes sense all right!

There's no contradiction there at all:
1. The home you want has now become affordable
2. You need to move
3. The value of your own home is also declining
4. Its possible to haggle yourself even more of a bargain than what is originally on offer while limiting the decrease in your own property - the lower prices go the less room for haggling. Wait for a sellers market and you have zero haggling power.
5. Because profits, figures, statistics are not what motivates people to buy a home - people want quality and affordability- that is all.
6. A quality, affordable home will not still be on the market in a years time - you're not going to get the same house for cheaper in a years time and if you can you should be asking yourself why. There is clearly something wrong with the property (a shoe box hours from the city with no local amenities or public transport more than likely the case for most of them).
7. If you wait too long you may not qualify for mortgage approval if banks tighten criteria further.

Go ahead and wait a year or two and get yourself a dud at bargain basement prices....good luck to you when you need to upgrade, no matter what state the market is in.

SimpleSam06

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

And I'm sure your advice was based on sound information. So tell us why interest rates won't drop next year. Or is that an inside secret?

That was already answered, he can't be blamed for your reading deficiencies.

Ootermus wrote: »

fixed mortgage rates are falling because banks ultimately expect the ECB to cut rates and bring short term/variable rates lower.

Yap yap yap, they are taking a hit in the place they can best afford to take a hit (highest margin lowest volume) because they are trying to drum up business. End of.

Ootermus wrote: »

Most of the other people on this forum looking for hikes are (a) admittedly not experts and (b) going with a 'gut feeling' that inflation is going to stay high despite a fairly evident economic slowdown in the world. Given that one of those people has already complained about many property speculators being nothing more than wannabe Gordon Gekko's and "ham-handed weekend economists", it seems a bit hypocritical to suddenly assume themselves to be smarter than professional economists!!

Listen if you are going to address my comments, please do so directly and not in a backhanded fashion as you have done. Given that these "professional economists" have consistently failed to predict economic conditions over the last eight years, and that the advice given around these parts has been consistently correct, one must ultimately draw the conclusions that either the economists should be taking their advice from us, or that we couldn't pay them sufficient compensation to tell the truth.

Ootermus wrote: »

and it'll be a long time before rental yield get anywehre close to the 10-12% some people pulled out of their asses earlier.

Again with the backhanded comments. Just because the successful investors I know wouldn't touch Irish property with someone elses, doesn't mean that returns of 10% to 12% isn't what professional investors should aim for. The sweaty palmed polo neck wearing Irish specuvestor generally hasn't a clue how to invest wisely in the short, mid or long term, and anyone babbling about using rental returns of 2-3% to help offset a mortgage on a depreciating asset is squarely among their number.

Ootermus wrote: »

Ok, once more i'm going to say it - asset price collapses, like the one that you're suggesting in the US as a result of the Alt-A issue, do not cause inflation, even if the Fed decided to cut rates from 2%

The ECB has one mandate, to cut inflation. They do this by raising interest rates, among other things. So if the Fed cuts interest rates, inflation will rise. Simple enough for you, or do I need to break out the crayons.

Ootermus wrote: »

(though they can't exactly bring rateasall that much lower can they?). Asset price collapses, like that seen in Japan in the 90's, are massively deflationary. The housing market in the US is worth around 30 trillion dollars - if house prices drop 10% then 3 trillion dollars in household wealth is destroyed. If the Fed cuts rates it'll be because of just such a fear of deflation.

Wealth isn't destroyed when prices fall, except in someone's head. Its when loans which are very much on real paper start to default, thats when you see financial crises. Its quite possible for inflation to rise in other areas, due to rate cuts, and prices to collapse at the same time - the US is a gigantic economy with a lot of fingers in a lot of pies, unlike for example Ireland.

Ootermus wrote: »

If the Alt-A bubble pops like ur suggesting, do you think that people are going to be spending money with wild abandon just because rates are a 1% or so lower? Seriously, linking to articles about the economy doesn't mean you actually understand it.

Thats a bit rich coming from someone who patently never even heard of an Alt-A until I mentioned it.

Ootermus wrote: »

You can sigh all you like, make strange and unbelievably irrelevant points about me speaking text speak, or use quirky little phrases like bass ackwards (im sure everyone chuckled at you being so smart and funny with that one...) all you want, but it won't change the fact that you're completely wrong on this one.

Actually many forums on boards have specific rules in their charters about using txt spk. Its a bannable offence in some places. So just take a moment and ponder why that might be the case.

Ootermus wrote: »

And of course immigration has an effect on rents and house prices, as they fill a huge portion of the demand side of the equation.

...

wages and immigration are part of the demand, property moving from the for sale market to the rental market boost supply. You seem to be fixated on the supply side without ever considering the demand side.

Wages have nothing to do with rental supply. Immigration does. Once again your wide experience and financial savvy have helped you to completely miss the point. Immigrants go to the lowest cost rentals and then put ten people in a house. Not in all cases, but it adequately describes the attitude. In a situation like Ireland's, with a gigantic rental overhang, they aren't even making a dent.

Ootermus wrote: »

And i'd really like to know how your taxes are helping out speculators (you can do a McWilliams and invent your own new words if you want, im sure it makes you feel great, but i'll pass thanks) given that the amount of tax they've paid over the years has probably been subsidising many parts of the economy.

I don't care what taxes they paid, and as it turns out the taxes were paid into the public sector, an extremely bad idea. I pay income tax, corporate tax, VAT and rates as well as customs duties as part of my daily business(es). The local authorities are using up 30% to 50% of their annual budget to buy up overpriced houses at market rates for social and affordable housing, giving developers a dig out. That you don't know this is yet again more wide-load ignorance.

Seriously, haven't you flaunted it enough for one week? Oho and by the way, I'll just copy out that article in full, thanks climate expert:

A report from property website Daft.ie says the supply of available rental accommodation has more than doubled over the last 12 months to an all-time high.

It says the increase in supply has pushed rents downwards - with a fall of 2.2% in the past three months.

The report is based on an analysis of rental properties advertised on the site (read it here).

It says the increase in supply is having its biggest impact on rents outside the big cities.

Rents in Munster, Connacht and Ulster are between 3% and 6% below their 2007 levels.

Daft.ie says rents in the bigger cities are largely at the same level as this time last year, having risen in the second half of 2007 and fallen over the past number of months.

Daft.ie economist Ronan Lyons says that although demand is holding up well, rents look set to fall for the rest of the year and possibly into 2009 as the number of rental properties coming on to the market is increasing every month.

In the student market, the Daft.ie report says that while overall the cost of accommodation for students is falling this year, there are significant differences in rents across the country.

It finds that a student at DCU staying near the college will pay an average of €525 per month for a double room, while UCC students in Cork will pay less than €400.

In Limerick UL students will pay on average €309 for a double room while students at Trinity College will pay €649 for a double room in Dublin city centre.

Thanks for playing!

SimpleSam06

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

1. The home you want has now become affordable

Affordable does not mean good value.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

2. You need to move

That was never true for most even in the height of the boom.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

3. The value of your own home is also declining

FTBs don't care about that.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

4. Its possible to haggle yourself even more of a bargain than what is originally on offer while limiting the decrease in your own property - the lower prices go the less room for haggling. Wait for a sellers market and you have zero haggling power.

Except in the home you are apparently selling. You should try to get your story straight.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

5. Because profits, figures, statistics are not what motivates people to buy a home - people want quality and affordability- that is all.

Bahahaha, weren't you paying attention the last eight years?

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

6. A quality, affordable home will not still be on the market in a years time - you're not going to get the same house for cheaper in a years time

Oh yes you will.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

7. If you wait too long you may not qualify for mortgage approval if banks tighten criteria further.

Neither will anyone else in your position, so prices for houses will drop to accommodate you, as they have been doing and will continue to do.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

Go ahead and wait a year or two and get yourself a dud at bargain basement prices....good luck to you when you need to upgrade, no matter what state the market is in.

Ye gods, this is like the halcyon days of the boom. BUY NOW R ULL BE LIVIN IN A CARRIVAN WITH TEH KANCKERS!11! Bloody parasites.

Joseph Kuhr

2.2% decrease in rents....stop the press we have the great depression on our hands!! Just ignore the fact that rents had sky rocketed last year. I can only speak for my own area but I saw an increase of 14.3%.

2.2% LOL

IronMan

Unemployment up to 5.1% in the latest CSO figures: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0820/breaking211.htm

Net migration into the state has fallen by 42% in the last year:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0820/breaking210.htm

SkepticOne

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

2.2% decrease in rents....stop the press we have the great depression on our hands!! Just ignore the fact that rents had sky rocketed last year. I can only speak for my own area but I saw an increase of 14.3%.

2.2% LOL

Brings rents to below 2002 levels according to that report in nominal terms. In real terms, a significant overall fall. On thing to bear in mind however is that it simply tracks asking rents. It does not tell you whether that asking rent is ever achieved. As someone pointed out a while back, unrealistic asking rents are going to stay on the books and be overrepresented in the index compared to ones that quickly find tenants.

Another source of information is Irish Property Watch. Here you can see the sorts of reductions that are happening. There's also some increases.

There was a lot of talk a while back that rents would shoot up if house prices fell. While there was a sudden increase, this has been temporary and the long term trend is down.

SimpleSam06

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

2.2% decrease in rents....stop the press we have the great depression on our hands!! Just ignore the fact that rents had sky rocketed last year. I can only speak for my own area but I saw an increase of 14.3%.

2.2% LOL

Once again, reading is patently not your strong suit...

"Daft.ie says rents in the bigger cities are largely at the same level as this time last year, having risen in the second half of 2007 and fallen over the past number of months."

bangersandmash

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

2.2% decrease in rents....stop the press we have the great depression on our hands!! Just ignore the fact that rents had sky rocketed last year. I can only speak for my own area but I saw an increase of 14.3%.

You're being more than a little disingenuous there. You say that rents increased 14.3% in your area last year, and compare that figure to a recent decrease of 2.2% on average for the entire country over 3 months.

Reading the Daft report give a more accurate picture...

Daft.ie says rents in the bigger cities are largely at the same level as this time last year, having risen in the second half of 2007 and fallen over the past number of months.

Similarly I can only speak for my own area, but rents in D6 and D4 appeared to increase about 10% from May onwards last year, but then began to decrease from December. Rental figures now seem to be no higher, and in some cases below, what they were early last summer.

So let us say rents in Dublin are approximately what they were this time last year. What has changed in that time is the rental supply in Co Dublin:

http://daftwatch.atspace.com/daftcounty_1.html

These properties are not a "shoe box hours from the city". The comments on this thread about the possibility of rent increases seem to be based on nothing but false optimism.

Joseph Kuhr

SkepticOne wrote: »

Brings rents to below 2002 levels according to that report in nominal terms. In real terms, a significant overall fall. On thing to bear in mind however is that it simply tracks asking rents.

The PRTB have the exact rental figures. Not the asking figures but the real figures, signed by both tenant and landlord. I'm guessing these statistics are based on the real facts and not "asking prices", otherwise its not worth the paper its written on.

stooge

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

The PRTB have the exact rental figures. Not the asking figures but the real figures, signed by both tenant and landlord. I'm guessing these statistics are based on the real facts and not "asking prices", otherwise its not worth the paper its written on.

Am I missing something here???

The report was by DAFT on DAFT asking prices, not PRTB data. As we all know (myself from personal experience over the last couple of months), asking prices mean very little in the rental sector. Exactly all 4 of the rental properties I viewed in the last month were willing to accept less money.

2.2% drop in asking prices (across the country) could mean a 5-10% drop in actual rents. One thing we know for certain, the drop is more than 2.2 in dublin. Take sandyford as an example. 2beds asking price 1800pm last year, and now there are numerous properties up for rent for around 1500pm (probably would take 1350-1400pm)

bangersandmash

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

The PRTB have the exact rental figures. Not the asking figures but the real figures, signed by both tenant and landlord. I'm guessing these statistics are based on the real facts and not "asking prices", otherwise its not worth the paper its written on.

Did you just quote the Daft report above as an example of how rents aren't falling significantly, and then in your next post rubbish the veracity of the report?

Interesting that, when it comes to house prices, "asking prices" are frequently used as a basis for arguing that prices in certain areas are holding up well, even when actual sale prices are well below the asking price.

Gareth37

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

6. A quality, affordable home will not still be on the market in a years time - you're not going to get the same house for cheaper in a years time and if you can you should be asking yourself why.

Thats funny.

You MUST be an estate agent?


The glass is certainly half full there

punchestown

Gareth37 wrote: »

Thats funny.

You MUST be an estate agent?


The glass is certainly half full there

The glass is positively over flowing.

Joseph, please confirm your vested interest.

Joseph Kuhr

stooge wrote: »

Am I missing something here???

The report was by DAFT on DAFT asking prices, not PRTB data.

Yes, so again I say its not based on facts. I'm questioning the integrity of their database and I'm also saying who cares, I certainly don't. The only facts are those which the PRTB hold and they're the only facts that matter when it comes to negotiating rent. If a tenant say the apt down the road is on Daft for €100 less, so what. My rent stays put until the PRTB say I must do otherwise. You people need to listen to the people who are on the ground, stop spouting off reports you found on goolgley woogley.

Joseph Kuhr

Gareth37 wrote: »

The glass is certainly full there

See I can edit your posts and take them out of context too.

Ootermus

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yap yap yap, they are taking a hit in the place they can best afford to take a hit (highest margin lowest volume) because they are trying to drum up business. End of.

Forgot to answer this point - fixed term rates have come lower because fixed term borrowing costs have also come lower between banks. NIB's fixed term LTV rate specifically tracks the interbank swap rate with a pre-declared margin, its hard coded into the documentation. There's no 'hits' taking place, the margin is the exact same. Yap yap yap all u want. Check out the data below if you dont believe me - this is the 5 yr semi annual EURO swap rate as at each of those dates - they directly affect where fixed rate mortgages are and the profits therefore earned on them.

gurramok

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

Exactly what I am saying. The majority of FTBs did not take out 100% mortgages. And the overall majority of buyers did not take out 100% mortgages.

And the majority took 100% + 92% mortgages since 2006, they are in negative equity now and cannot move hence that rung of FTB's is removed from the ladder.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

People who cannot afford a deposit are out of the market. Pure and simple. The market is not going to move down for them. It will move down, no doubt about it but not to accomodate people who cannot afford deposits....thats a ridiculous notion.

Agreed

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

There's no contradiction there at all:
1. The home you want has now become affordable

Show us and prove it.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

2. You need to move
3. The value of your own home is also declining
4. Its possible to haggle yourself even more of a bargain than what is originally on offer while limiting the decrease in your own property - the lower prices go the less room for haggling. Wait for a sellers market and you have zero haggling power.
5. Because profits, figures, statistics are not what motivates people to buy a home - people want quality and affordability- that is all.

Mostly agree amd of course price comes in.

Now the following is outrageous and based on nothing.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

6. A quality, affordable home will not still be on the market in a years time - you're not going to get the same house for cheaper in a years time and if you can you should be asking yourself why. There is clearly something wrong with the property (a shoe box hours from the city with no local amenities or public transport more than likely the case for most of them).

Yes a buyer will get it cheaper in a years time guaranteed. A mover's target gaff will alos fall in price and that means lower stamp duty, so obvious to wait.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

7. If you wait too long you may not qualify for mortgage approval if banks tighten criteria further.

Yes and prices will fall(have fallen already) to reflect the new affordability pattern of the buyers. All buyers are in the same boat.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

Go ahead and wait a year or two and get yourself a dud at bargain basement prices....good luck to you when you need to upgrade, no matter what state the market is in.

Don't need luck, excellent time to buy by waiting.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

The PRTB have the exact rental figures. Not the asking figures but the real figures, signed by both tenant and landlord. I'm guessing these statistics are based on the real facts and not "asking prices", otherwise its not worth the paper its written on.

Show us these 'facts'

It sounds as if your in denial about declining rents

SimpleSam06

Ootermus wrote: »

At the moment the inflation rate is 4% which is obviously well in excess of their target rate, hence the interest rate increase last month.

And just when I thought we were making progress...

Ootermus wrote: »

Lets take the example of Japan, which is

Not the EU or the US, but a unique economy in an environment about as far away from Western European or American as you could want.

Ootermus wrote: »

Please please please explain to me how an ALT-A crisis (which are the mortgages below Prime but above Sub-Prime - oh look, i do and have always known what they are...retard...)

Yes, mad propz on your googling skillz there. I already explained it to you. I see you are hard of comprehension, however, so I'll spell it out. The entire foundation of the US economy is not, unlike Ireland, residential property mortgages. So while rates reductions ease the strain on mortgagees and reduce defaults to banks, it likewise floods their economy with cheap money for the other sectors to indulge in. Its not just lowered rates for mortgages, its lowered rates for everything.

Ootermus wrote: »

but when you combine rising unemployment, falling corporate profits, a lack of any real government fiscal stimulus and oil prices well off their highs, then it would be highly highly unlikely for inflation to rise amidst another collapse in the housing market.

The main corporations that are looking at lowered profits are the ones associated with the property mess. I don't know where you are getting your information about a lack of goverment stimulus, but the Fed has put vast sums of money at the disposal of major banks in the US to cover defaulters. If thats not government financial stimulus I don't know what is. As for oil prices falling, well you can say what you like about monthly fluctuations, but the longer term view is fairly clear.

Ootermus wrote: »

Finally, does this forum have a charter or any rules? If not, then once again i ask why you have mentioned txt-spk???? U don't like it, i sometime do. Live with it.

Yes, this forum has both charter and rules, and you have violated several of them in your post, never mind the infantile txt spk. I'm not complaining though, I like a good bullfight.

Joseph Kuhr

stooge wrote: »

2.2% drop in asking prices (across the country) could mean a 5-10% drop in actual rents.

No it doesn't and I'll outline a few of examples why:

1. Not all properties are in rentable condition - People will often go to the cheaper property only to come back and settle for the nicer property happy that the higher price is for a reason.
2. Some properties have no rental potential at all (with regards to location, amenities etc) - they can drop all they like it won't affect the properties with real potential.
3. New comers to the rental market invariably set off on a greedy foot - they soon realise this and drop their prices accordingly. Again, this does not affect the market as a whole but when you add it into the equation it certainly does affect the statistics.

So supply has doubled and lo and behold asking prices are dropping - see point 3.

Joseph Kuhr

gurramok wrote: »

It sounds as if your in denial about declining rents

I'll believe it when my bank balance starts declining.

Calina

Ootermus wrote: »

Finally, does this forum have a charter or any rules? If not, then once again i ask why you have mentioned txt-spk???? U don't like it, i sometime do. Live with it.

As far as I am aware, there is a site wide ban on text speak. It is not widely welcomed here. But that is just for your information. I would never use it if I wished to be taken seriously.

Also, front paged and stickied, there is a charter. Did you forget to read it? It doesn't mention text speak but I would have assumed that before you started posting you would at least have looked at the front page and noticed the bit that said "Charter and Links and Resources".

Back on topic: you're not convincing me at all.

From what I can see the prevailing wisdom on the side of the property is okay argument is that people shouldn't care that they are paying thousands more now than they might 12 months down the line.

That is no justification, however, for trying to persuade people to do it.

Joseph Kuhr

Calina wrote: »

From what I can see the prevailing wisdom on the side of the property is okay argument is that people shouldn't care that they are paying thousands more now than they might 12 months down the line.

Very badly paraphrased Calina.

Calina

You can try to dress it up all you like Joseph but that is, in fact, what you are saying. You're also trying to say they mightn't be pay thousands more now than in 12 months' time but I've been following this debate for a long time. I've heard it every year for the last 5. There is a top to the property market and once you reach it, things start going down. Even if nominal prices stay the same, we have comparatively high inflation in this country which means falls in real terms.

People paid thousands more in 2006 across the board for property than people were able to command for said property in 2007 and 2008.

punchestown

Calina wrote: »

You can try to dress it up all you like Joseph but that is, in fact, what you are saying. You're also trying to say they mightn't be pay thousands more now than in 12 months' time but I've been following this debate for a long time. I've heard it every year for the last 5. There is a top to the property market and once you reach it, things start going down. Even if nominal prices stay the same, we have comparatively high inflation in this country which means falls in real terms.

People paid thousands more in 2006 across the board for property than people were able to command for said property in 2007 and 2008.

Very well paraphrased Calina!

Joseph Kuhr

Calina wrote: »

You can try to dress it up all you like Joseph but that is, in fact, what you are saying. You're also trying to say they mightn't be pay thousands more now than in 12 months' time but I've been following this debate for a long time.

Well you clearly haven't been following my debate for very long because at no point am I saying prices will not drop. I've stated that a number of times. My argument is clear for people to read for themselves without you putting words in my mouth paraphrasing what I haven't even said.

SimpleSam06

Calina wrote: »

As far as I am aware, there is a site wide ban on text speak. It is not widely welcomed here. But that is just for your information. I would never use it if I wished to be taken seriously.

Also, front paged and stickied, there is a charter. Did you forget to read it? It doesn't mention text speak but I would have assumed that before you started posting you would at least have looked at the front page and noticed the bit that said "Charter and Links and Resources".

Or to put it another way...

Ootermus

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Not the EU or the US, but a unique economy in an environment about as far away from Western European or American as you could want.


Yes, mad propz on your googling skillz there. I already explained it to you. I see you are hard of comprehension, however, so I'll spell it out. The entire foundation of the US economy is not, unlike Ireland, residential property mortgages. So while rates reductions ease the strain on mortgagees and reduce defaults to banks, it likewise floods their economy with cheap money for the other sectors to indulge in. Its not just lowered rates for mortgages, its lowered rates for everything.


The main corporations that are looking at lowered profits are the ones associated with the property mess. I don't know where you are getting your information about a lack of goverment stimulus, but the Fed has put vast sums of money at the disposal of major banks in the US to cover defaulters. If thats not government financial stimulus I don't know what is. As for oil prices falling, well you can say what you like about monthly fluctuations, but the longer term view is fairly clear.

quote]

Chief, you can call me a liar if you want, but i haven't googled Alt-A. I work for a bank (non-lending side befor u tag me as a vested interest) and knowing about Alt-A is a fairly standard part of my job. I knew about them before i knew about boards.ie. We were discussing subprime and Alt-A around a year and a half ago before all the shizzle hit the fan.

Which brings me around to this "the Fed has put vast sums of money at the disposal of the major banks to cover defaulters". This is without a doubt the most outrageously false piece of information put forth on this entire forum. The Fed, or the US Treasury who would actually be the ones doing it, have done no such thing. What the Fed has done is said that they will lend cash to the banks, for varying periods out to 6mths, in return for collateral in the form of mortgage bonds. It's called the TAF and is similar, though much longer in duration, to the ECB repo facility. This isn't to cover mortgage holders defaulting, it's simply to free up liquidity in the mortgage market as they can't securitize and sell off their mortgages under the current market conditions. In fact, the Fed has specifically said that they won't bail out failing mortgages. The TAF is controversial in itself, as the danger would be that the bank they have lent the money to goes tits up over the period that the Fed has lent to them, and the value of the mortgage bonds the Fed holds (the collateral) goes below the amount that was lent out, but this doesn't consitute a bailout or any type of finanical stimulus. It could be regarded as a monetary policy stimulus, but thats a completely different subject. Even in terms of the Bear Stearns fiasco, the Fed only ever issued a loan to JP Morgan, and again in return for the mortgage assets held by Bear Stearns. But in no way shape or form is the money lent by the Fed there to cover defaulters - the capital being raised through rights issues or from Asian/Mid East SWF's is the money being used to cover up defaults on mortgages and so the write downs in assets.

The only financial/fiscal stimulus has been via Bush/Congress which gave a tax rebate to taxpayers back in April/May. This was almost completely spent by the start of June and has had a small effect on Q2 GDP and nothing else.

As for corporate profits, well here's a spattering of companys with falling profits - Michelin Tyres, Woolworths, Daimler Benz, Renault, Ford, Alcoa Steel, AIG Insurance, AMD, Time Warner, Kodak, Black and Decker, Starbucks, Office Depot, American Express, Southwest Airlines, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, Sprint Nextel - the list goes on and on. Overall Q2 earnings in the US were 21% lower than a year previously. And these are Q2 numbers which benefitted from the government tax rebate, there's a good chance Q3 will be a bloodbath on an even broader level.

And btw, Morgan Kelly, whose article this entire debate is based on, suggested a comparison of Japan vs Ireland well before i did.

SkepticOne

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

The PRTB have the exact rental figures. Not the asking figures but the real figures, signed by both tenant and landlord. I'm guessing these statistics are based on the real facts and not "asking prices", otherwise its not worth the paper its written on.

You brought up the Daft report, not me. I pointed out the problem of the fact it is asking prices in my response which you are now repeating.

stooge

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

You people need to listen to the people who are on the ground, stop spouting off reports you found on goolgley woogley.

If you had read my post you'd see I was talking both about the report and of my own 'ON THE GROUND' experience. The properties I mentioned were willing to accept less money. One of which had been rented last year for over 150E more than the asking.

Now thats just my experience, but sites like irishpropertywatch and thepropertypin show the overall trend. You seem willing to dismiss the overall data, my personal expereince and others, but base your view on your own income from rent.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

I'll believe it when my bank balance starts declining.

The above quote is the crux of the matter. Too many people in this country see property as a way to make money rather than a place to live in. If more of these people stopped trying to make a 'quick buck' and spent their time working hard and actually being productive it's fair to say the country would be better off both financially and morally.

Joseph Kuhr

stooge wrote: »

The above quote is the crux of the matter. Too many people in this country see property as a way to make money rather than a place to live in. If more of these people stopped trying to make a 'quick buck' and spent their time working hard and actually being productive it's fair to say the country would be better off both financially and morally.

Are you suggesting the country is better off without landlords?