The Property market has reached the bottom!

couerdelion

I think a lot of people are solely relying on market forces to carry on driving prices down and not taking into account the human factor.

yes there will be deaths, divorces and defaults which will force people to sell, but these will be exceptions. There are a lot of owners out there who are not in a position to sell. They are looking at the market and thinking the same as the buyers; a house is only worth what someone is willing to sell it for. If the price isn't right for them they won't sell.

I still think that prices will drop, but not by much more than another 10%. If they drop much more then more owners will be trapped in negative equity and the maret will be in a stalemate. Thsoe that want to sell and move up can't afford to and those that want to buy have a smaller amount of properties available which then presures prices back up.

quozl

I agree that's why prices are dropping slowly, couerdelion.

Things cannot stay like that forever though.

Unfortunately with 10.5% jobless and growing, an increasing number of people will be forced to sell, unless things pick up very soon. I don't expect them to.

I don't want to see people end up losing their homes, but I don't see this recession ending in the immediate future. So, I also don't want to see more people buying in now.

I feel that all that is likely to be achieved by trying to prop houses prices currently is to delay the inevitable, and hence transfer some of the large developers out-standing debt to unlucky individual irish citizens who purchase right now.

It's in the governments interest, and the banks as well, for as much of the debt owed by the developers to be assumed by irish citizens taking out mortgages at current property prices imo. As these irish citizens will mostly pay the debt over the next 35 years. There is no chance of the developers managing to pay the debt.

I don't know if it's incompetance or a willingness to use irish citizens to serve their own interests, but that's how I believe things are currently playing out.

Whatever the reason behind things, I would not advise buying into a falling property market. Each to their own though.

[edit]
Oh, you also forgot about the huge number of empty properties out there, couerdelion. Those are going to really add to the downward pressure soon. I've seen figures varying from 100K to 300K empties. I don't see how I can pick any of those figures as trusthworthy, but even taking the low end of 100K, what do you think 100K of empty properties can do to such a small market?

At the moment a lot of them are held empty by developers, while they try to sell them, or rent them, and try to hold off the banks. However in yesterdays sunday business post there were two more applications to wind up (admittedly smaller) developers for outstanding debts. If the big developers go down then suddenly there'll be a lot of empty properties with nothing but a firesale solution to them.

That will make one hell of a difference. Even looking at the ghost developments in the docklands (a number of them should be completed this year), sandyford, HSQ, etc should give you an idea of the glut that's coming. That's apartments, but when they plummet houses will be dragged down to an extent too, you won't be X for a 3bed house when you can get a nice 3bed apartment for 1/3X.

All in my opinion of course, we're very much leaving the realms of provable fact here.

[/edit]

couerdelion

I agree Quozl.

I unfortunately bought at the peak of the market in December 06, but the last thing I want to see is any intervention to artificially stabilise the market, this will only prolong the inevitable agony.

professore

buynow wrote: »

Your figures don't add up here Loxosceles. Paying 30% of your income for a house that costs 125% means you are paying off a 100% mortgage in less than 5 years. This cannot be the maximum sustainable figure.
Whatever about the ridiculous 5 or 6 times a salary that people were getting this is going in the other direction. Where do you get your metric of "sustainable"?

And you are being disingenuous with regard to the US market, you wouldn't buy much for $85K where I am.

I think he means 30% of NET income ?

A better indicator is the P/E ratio. Housing should have a P/E around 20.

* The price-to-earnings ratio or P/E ratio is the common metric used to assess the relative valuation of equities. To compute the P/E ratio for the case of a rented house, divide the price of the house by its potential earnings or net income, which is the market annual rent of the house minus expenses, which include maintenance and property taxes. This formula is:

House P/E ratio = House price / (Annual Rent - Expenses)

The house price-to-earnings ratio provides a direct comparison to P/E ratios used to analyze other uses of the money tied up in a home.

So http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?search=1&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id]=ga3&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=1200&s[bd_no]=&s[search_type]=rental&s[furn]=&s[refreshmap]=1&limit=10&search_type=rental&id=684654

Rent is 1200 monthly.


http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?search=Search+%BB&s[cc_id]=ct1&s[a_id][0]=ga3&s[address]=Rathfarnham&s[txt]=&s[mnb]=&s[mxb]=&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=&s[pt_id]=&s[house_type]=&s[sqmn]=&s[sqmx]=&s[mna]=&s[mxa]=&s[npt_id]=&s[days_old]=&s[new]=&s[agreed]=&s[search_type]=sale&s[transport]=&s[advanced]=true&s[price_per_room]=&s[furn]=&s[refreshmap]=1&limit=10&id=256579

To buy this is 535K for roughly the same house. So P/E is :

535000 / (14400 - 2500) = a P/E of 45. So its true price should be closer to 250 K.

Seems quite accurate to me.

20goto10

quozl wrote: »

Oh, you also forgot about the huge number of empty properties out there, couerdelion. Those are going to really add to the downward pressure soon. I've seen figures varying from 100K to 300K empties. I don't see how I can pick any of those figures as trusthworthy, but even taking the low end of 100K, what do you think 100K of empty properties can do to such a small market?

It will do nothing to the real market. Because a 2 bed apt in a field in the arse end of nowhere is not going to affect the price of a 2 bed apt near shops, public transport etc etc. And this is what people fail to realise. You could say we have 2 different markets in Ireland at the moment. There are the admitidly rare houses that have it all. Shops, public transport, 3 bed rooms, garden etc etc and there are plenty that have not got it all but are very nice nonetheless. And then there are the peak of the boom, stuck in a field in the middle of nowhere, wouldn't let my dog live in it, shoe boxes that are never going to sell for more than the cost of the land - ever.

quozl

20goto10 wrote: »

It will do nothing to the real market. Because a 2 bed apt in a field in the arse end of nowhere is not going to affect the price of a 2 bed apt near shops, public transport etc etc.

Reading comprehension fail, 20goto10.

That's why I listed ghost apartment complexes in areas considered good. The Docklands, Sandyford, HSQ.

The ones in the middle of Longford won't affect anything, I agree.
There's a hell of a lot of them in decent areas around Dublin though, and plenty of not so decent ones, but those will also depress the market.

I imagine Cork is the same. Developers haven't been purely building in the middle of no-where, they're broke, they're not retarded.

20goto10

quozl wrote: »

Developers haven't been purely building in the middle of no-where, they're broke, they're not retarded.

stevedublin

quozl wrote: »

That's why I listed ghost apartment complexes in areas considered good. The Docklands, Sandyford, HSQ..

where is HSQ?

quozl

Heuston South Quarter, out by heuston station. There's a big thread about it in the forum as it's one of the ones gong rent2buy. Based on that thread, people do like the location.

TBH, go most places in dublin and there's a big apartment complex with plenty of empties. Sandyford and the Docklands may be the worst for it though.

20goto10

quozl wrote: »

Heuston South Quarter, out by heuston station. There's a big thread about it in the forum as it's one of the ones gong rent2buy. Based on that thread, people do like the location.

TBH, go most places in dublin and there's a big apartment complex with plenty of empties. Sandyford and the Docklands may be the worst for it though.

Right well clearly not in a field in the middle of nowhere but the flaws are gapingly obvious. Small, overpriced, lack of market interest (beacon south quarter "luxury" style living :rolleyes:). So am I right in saying that because a property like this has an obviously long way to fall before anyone will think of buying it (I would say they need to fall low enough for a good rental yield and even then there's going to be trouble shifing them because there's too many of them, in which case they need to fall further in order to shift), that a 3 bedroom semi-detached house with a garden in a quiet estate needs to drop its prices too? Please explain this logic.

herya

20goto10 wrote: »

So am I right in saying that because a property like this has an obviously long way to fall before anyone will think of buying it (I would say they need to fall low enough for a good rental yield and even then there's going to be trouble shifing them because there's too many of them, in which case they need to fall further in order to shift), that a 3 bedroom semi-detached house with a garden in a quiet estate needs to drop its prices too? Please explain this logic.

It depends. Sandyford apartments are literally across the road from Kilmacud/Stillorgan/Dundrum/Leopardstown "quiet estates". If you had a choice of a house and the same size apartment - half price - across the road what would you choose? With the amenities being pretty much the same?

quozl

I agree 20goto10 about that development, I was surprised by the interest in it in these times.

However, the interest seems to be there, based on the other large thread in this forum.

But you could also look at the number of empties in Bloomfield Park beside the Royal Hospital in Donnybrook Village. Or the number in the Gasworks in Ringsend.


The logic is simple:

If there are a certain number of people interested in buying a semi-d in Lucan (or wherever, Lucan for this example), and some of them then decide instead that they will buy a 2 or 3bed apartment in HSQ, then there will be less demand for the semi-Ds in Lucan, and hence lower sale prices.

People could well make that decision, as HSQ is a lot nearer to town and would avoid the horrible commute.

Ok, so that means that semi-Ds in Lucan are cheaper. So what's the next step up from that? A semi-D in an area slightly nearer to town perhaps.

So, now as the semi-D in lucan has dropped in price, there is a bigger price differential between the one in the 'nicer' area and the one in Lucan. So some of the potential buyers may decide that they'd rather live in Lucan, accept the bigger commute have a smaller mortgage.

So the price in the slightly more desirable area also drops.

And so on to the next area, and so on, and so on.

The key thing is, the property market is not made up of seperate strata. They are all interlinked. If the lower end drops, it will drag down those just above it, and this will rippled upwards.

Admittedly the effects get smaller as they go up, but I think the affects of all those empty apartments are going to be pretty major on the lower end.

And there are plenty of not so low end apartments sitting empty. These will be competing directly with 3bed semi-ds in nice areas. Some people will make the wild leap to raising families in a nice 3bed apartment.

Other countries do it, and I'd be happy to raise my kids in a good 3bed apartment over a 3bed semi-d that is a 50 minute rush-hour commute from the city centre.

20goto10

quozl wrote: »

If there are a certain number of people interested in buying a semi-d in Lucan (or wherever, Lucan for this example), and some of them then decide instead that they will buy a 2 or 3bed apartment in HSQ, then there will be less demand for the semi-Ds in Lucan, and hence lower sale prices.

People could well make that decision, as HSQ is a lot nearer to town and would avoid the horrible commute.

I think you have your logic backwards. The price of an apartment does not dictate the price of the ideallic 3 bedroom semi-d with a garden. Nor are they in the same backet. You cannot walk into a house viewing and haggle the price based on an apartment down the road. Its akin to haggling with a BMW dealer based on the price of a Ford. If you can get a BMW for the same price as a Ford then you have something to haggle with but not vice versa.

I'd go so far as to say this was the fatal mistake of developers over the past 10 years. To think that apartment living could take on and overtake old fashioned house living. With the exception of Dublin city centre, a 3 bedroom house with a garden should always be more expensive than an apartment with the same square footage in the same area. Based on that I am saying the overpriced apartments you have mentioned will fall in price because they are still overpriced and cannot compete with a 3 bedroom house. There are a few who prefer apartment living, but not in the suburbs. It was bad planning and the prices need to fall to reflect that. Until then, there is simply no competition and if/when apartments fall to what they should be it will be geared towards a different market. More than liklely they will become social and affordable housing.

The proper order of things is that houses with gardens are more expensive than apartments. I don't have a link or statistical facts, its simply my opinion and based on common sense.

The argument that there are less people to buy the houses if they are all busy buying apartments is a good one though.

herya

20goto10 wrote: »

I'd go so far as to say this was the fatal mistake of developers over the past 10 years. To think that apartment living could take on and overtake old fashioned house living. With the exception of Dublin city centre, a 3 bedroom house with a garden should always be more expensive than an apartment with the same square footage in the same area. Based on that I am saying the overpriced apartments you have mentioned will fall in price because they are still overpriced and cannot compete with a 3 bedroom house. There are a few who prefer apartment living, but not in the suburbs. It was bad planning and the prices need to fall to reflect that. Until then, there is simply no competition and if/when apartments fall to what they should be it will be geared towards a different market. More than liklely they will become social and affordable housing.

You also forget about the multinational factor. Apartment living is very popular across mainland Europe and most Europeans who want to settle down will have no qualms choosing an apartment over a house if the price is good (speaking from experience) as this is what is commonly done in Germany, France, Spain, Poland etc. In fact a compact apartment complex has a better chance of being close to amenities than a sprawling semi-d estate (which would be closer to American car culture) and from what I've seen new apartments are finished better than new houses. I agree with the comments above that a significant customer base may be influenced by this therefore reducing interest in houses.

quozl

20goto10 wrote: »

The proper order of things is that houses with gardens are more expensive than apartments. I don't have a link or statistical facts, its simply my opinion and based on common sense.

The argument that there are less people to buy the houses if they are all busy buying apartments is a good one though.

Aye, I agree. It's not my argument that houses and apartments will be the same price, I believe I didn't suggest that, I certainly didn't intend to anyway

Just that if some people do buy apartments then house prices will also drop, simply because there will be fewer people competing for them.

SkepticOne

20goto10 wrote: »

I think you have your logic backwards. The price of an apartment does not dictate the price of the ideallic 3 bedroom semi-d with a garden. Nor are they in the same backet. You cannot walk into a house viewing and haggle the price based on an apartment down the road.

You wouldn't haggle on that basis, but that does not mean the markets are not interlinked. Generally speaking, everything else being equal, a 3 bedroom house will be more expensive than a 3 bedroom flat, however should the price of the flat drop sufficiently then that will draw a number of people away from houses. Less demand for houses will bring down the prices of houses. There won't necessarily be haggling as such and there doesn't need to be for prices to come down. The markets for different types of housing overlap as do the markets for housing in different locations.

jmayo

20goto10 wrote: »

Blah blah blah I want a 3 bed semi d for nuttin' and anybody who disagrees with me is an estate agent.

People can afford nice houses. I know 2 couples who have bought nicer houses than mine for cheaper than what I paid in 2002. If you can't afford one, then tough luck for not having a decent paid job. Fact is, most people on here will never be able to buy a house no matter what prices are because banks would not touch you with a barge pole. Talk down the economy as much as you like, those of us who actually have an input will get on with living our lives thank you very much.

I think you are getting a little mixed up here.
Just because people aren't idiots who want to run out an pay over the odds for something that is decreasing daily and saddle themselves with higher debts than necessary for the next 30 odd years, doesn't mean they haven't got a decent job, don't have money and can't afford property.
It just means they are sensible, something a lot of buyers over the last 8 odd years weren't.

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm sorry but how exactly do you talk about the property market without generalising? You can buy a 3 bed semi d in most areas, so like I say people can afford nice houses....

I don't for one second believe we have hit bottom just yet. Simply because there are still chancers out there over pricing their homes and I speak in particualr of FF backed property developers. But I do believe it all depends on the particular property. There are some which are a bargain now and will not get any cheaper, thats for sure.

So anyone that doesn't feed into the hype, anyone that is actually cautious about getting vlaue for money and that cautions other people that what they are doing is wreckless is "talking down the market".
You know who you sound like. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you would recommend anyone talking down the market goes off and commits sucide ?
BTW where are these houses that will not get any cheaper ?
Where are all these bargains ?
Saying that semids, detached houses in Kilmacud Road will not in any way be affected by hundreds of apartments lying empty or at much cheaper prices in Sandyford is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Remember the rising tide lifting all boats, the converse applies to the exiting tide.
Of course the drops will vary but there will still be drops as the property market is all intertwined in it's own magical way.
Ever heard of trader uppers ?

20goto10 wrote: »

The type of person I was referring to was made clear in my opening statement "Blah blah blah I want a 3 bed semi d for nuttin' and anybody who disagrees with me is an estate agent." You know, the type you see on boards spouting any old sh!te they can google together to fuel their mission of driving down prices to fall in line with their below par salaries.

The more I read these posts the more I see someone very bitter about the fact that others aren't willing to jump into the property market in order to sustain the over inflated prices.
That would lead me to the conclusion that you are an investor, speculator or are involved in the property industry in some way ?

I don't think anyone on here has stated they want a semid for nothing, most cautious posters would state they want to see realistic prices and some price that is not 10/15 times the average industrial wage.
It is actually you that seems to want to see the unrealistic prices.

bangersandmash

couerdelion wrote: »

I still think that prices will drop, but not by much more than another 10%. If they drop much more then more owners will be trapped in negative equity and the maret will be in a stalemate. Thsoe that want to sell and move up can't afford to and those that want to buy have a smaller amount of properties available which then presures prices back up.

You're only talking about one small section of potential sellers. The negative equity issue mainly applies to those bought at the peak. We're being told that prices are currently back to 2005 levels in many areas. That leaves an awful lot of property owners who are nowhere near negative equity. So for an average Ballinteer semi-d bought in 2001 for £150-200k that is currently still asking €500k, the potential for further reduction is far greater than 10%.

Duckjob

bangersandmash wrote: »

You're only talking about one small section of potential sellers. The negative equity issue mainly applies to those bought at the peak. We're being told that prices are currently back to 2005 levels in many areas. That leaves an awful lot of property owners who are nowhere near negative equity. So for an average Ballinteer semi-d bought in 2001 for £150-200k that is currently still asking €500k, the potential for further reduction is far greater than 10%.

Asking prices look to be on a par with 2005 levels (apart from the jokers still asking silly 2006 peak prices).

Having said that, I bid on a number of properties in 2005. and my experience then was you could reasonably expect to pay asking price + 50K (at least) to actually purchase. I'd say now in many cases the buyer can reasonably expect to pay asking - 50K (at least).

On that basis I would estimate actual selling prices are gone back well past 2005 levels.

The_Conductor

Duckjob wrote: »

Asking prices look to be on a par with 2005 levels (apart from the jokers still asking silly 2006 peak prices).

Having said that, I bid on a number of properties in 2005. and my experience then was you could reasonably expect to pay asking price + 50K (at least) to actually purchase. I'd say now in many cases the buyer can reasonably expect to pay asking - 50K (at least).

On that basis I would estimate actual selling prices are gone back well past 2005 levels.

Just out of curiosity- why 2005 prices?
In 2001 an OECD study showed average Irish accommodation prices to be 23% above what they considered to be sustainable levels. By this reckoning- and allowing for inflation- 2001 prices could be said to be fair value prices?

Lets look at some figures- the average industrial wage (which had lost a lot of its relevance but is becoming increasingly more relevant in Ireland again) has fallen to 34,600. This results in a net aftertax monthly income of 2,085 for a single person availing of the PAYE allowance etc.

The OECD considers it normal to pay a maximum of 35% of net after tax income towards accommodation rental, or 32% towards mortgage repayments.

This is EUR730 a month rent, or EUR665 towards mortgage repayments (these are maximum figures- not targets......) Its normal for mortgage payments to be slightly less than rental payments- in recognition of the fact that the average mortgage in the OECD is for between 70 and 80% of the cost price of the property.

Looking at a monthly rental income of say EUR700, it is normal to infer an 7.5-8% ROI for an investor (which factors in a 3% transaction cost into the equation to cover expenses related to the ongoing transaction). This infers a cost price for single residential unit of ~55k (give or take). As this is a single person- we will assume its a 1 bed urban apartment. Compare this to an urban 1 bed apartment today- link for EUR195k in Adamstown Lucan (though its rumoured that they are accepting any offers in region of 150- 160k ). By this measure- there is still carnage yet to occur in the market.......

Another spin on their statistics-
Average mortgage granted on a family unit (which in their statistics tends to be a 3 bed apartment c.1000-1100 square feet- but in an Irish context would be more accurately reflected in a 2-3 bed semi-d is a 75% mortgage to a max of 3 times primary salary and 1.5 times secondary salary.

This is 4.5 * 34,600 / .75 = ~210k

While these are maximum figures- rather than a target- its a lot more in the realms of achievable than the prices for 1 bed apartments...... 3 bed duplexes in Adamstown are now quoted at 275k. Another 25% off the price doesn't seem inconceivable? (Well its far more likely than the falls necessary to make the economics of 1 bed apartments work......)

Looking at today's prices in this manner- there is no justification of being 1-2 bed apartments unless there are further massive falls in prices. 3 bed and upwards are beginning to look interesting- but for a longterm sustainable price- you'd be seeking an additional discount of 20-25% on the current asking prices.

So- expect further falls- but a lot of the froth at the higher end of the market has already dissipated, its the lower end of the market that is still massively over priced.......

Hmmmm- maybe I should have done this exercise a while ago.


S.

couerdelion

bangersandmash wrote: »

You're only talking about one small section of potential sellers. The negative equity issue mainly applies to those bought at the peak. We're being told that prices are currently back to 2005 levels in many areas. That leaves an awful lot of property owners who are nowhere near negative equity. So for an average Ballinteer semi-d bought in 2001 for £150-200k that is currently still asking €500k, the potential for further reduction is far greater than 10%.

The independent reckons it could easily be 1 in 3 mortgage holders who are in negative equity.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/140000-homeowners-have-fallen-into-negative-equity-1518399.html

They are basing there prices on the ESRI figures which I think we would all agree are very optimistic. I find those figures exceptionally scary.:eek:

Ok that is just mortgage holders and excludes people who own their houses outright, but realistically what percentage of them are selling?

MyHat.ie

Just to say that the article in today's Indo about "signs of recovery" in the market based on our data needs some "clarification" ... and we've provided that on the blog for now: www.myhat.ie/blog

The headline says on thing and yet the article and our press release said the exact opposite: that it's the weather that's causing agents to be more firm on prices for now.

gurramok

That reminds me of a famous headline they had before when stamp duty was abolished for first time buyers
'Big surge in first time buyers' which never happened, it sunk further.

Alot of BS in todays news!

Freddie59

smccarrick wrote: »

Just out of curiosity- why 2005 prices?

A work colleague brought a property section from a Waterford free paper into work from 2005 today.

Having looked at it we are only now arriving at 2005 prices in Waterford NOW.

There's a long way to go yet. 2001 is a distinct possibility now.

Duckjob

smccarrick wrote: »

Just out of curiosity- why 2005 prices?

Based purely on my personal experience- I remember asking prices of properties I viewed and put bids on in 2005 and they seem to corelate pretty closely with asking prices now for similar properties in the same areas.

MyHat.ie wrote: »

Just to say that the article in today's Indo about "signs of recovery" in the market based on our data needs some "clarification" ... and we've provided that on the blog for now: www.myhat.ie/blog

The headline says on thing and yet the article and our press release said the exact opposite: that it's the weather that's causing agents to be more firm on prices for now.

I think saying it needed clarification is being overly kind. Seems to me they made a conscious decision to spin it into a "recovery" story...

MyHat.ie

The average price of a 2-bed apartment in Dublin in the first half of 2005 was 344k; the average in the second half of 2008 was 366K, and it's dropped by about 5% since then according to our figures. So we're back in 2005 or even 2004 I'd say. (It peaked in the second half of 2006 at 413K.) See page 7 of our Dublin report: http://myhat.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/the-dublin-property-market-2005-to-2008-from-myhat.pdf

Is there a book open somewhere on which year's prices we'll reach before the bottom is hit? I'd put my money on 2003 (when, very roughly speaking, the average asking price for a 2-bed in Dublin was 320K).

whizzbang

MyHat.ie wrote: »

The average price of a 2-bed apartment in Dublin in the first half of 2005 was 344k; the average in the second half of 2008 was 366K, and it's dropped by about 5% since then according to our figures. So we're back in 2005 or even 2004 I'd say. (It peaked in the second half of 2006 at 413K.) See page 7 of our Dublin report: http://myhat.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/the-dublin-property-market-2005-to-2008-from-myhat.pdf

Is there a book open somewhere on which year's prices we'll reach before the bottom is hit? I'd put my money on 2003 (when, very roughly speaking, the average asking price for a 2-bed in Dublin was 320K).

Those are asking prices, so still a huge amount of fudge room as what the properties actually made, given that people were bidding over asking in 2005 and under asking in 2008.

I'd say 2001 prices is the bottom. 320 for a 2 bed is way way above what average people can sustainably afford in the current and future (5 year) economy.

~Trixiebelle~

Hi all,

Im new on this so forgive me if i ask stupid questions (very likely i will!!) or go through things that have already been discussed!! But i could really do with some advise and i very much welcome your opinions!!!:)

but i'm seriously confused!!

Myself, partner and 2 kids are currently living in a council house in north wicklow and have been looking to buy for the last year.. we have viewed several houses particulary in the last six months. We liked a couple of them but thought best to not put in any offers to buy, so we have sat back and just watched the market. In the last couple of weeks now houses have come on the market and have gone sale agreed within 3 weeks!!!

My logic tells me that these houses are overvalued (most of them only dropping in value from 395k to 345k!) for 3 bed semi's... but people are still buying!!

I hate living in the house we are in now and we are eager to purchase our own home but surely we haven't come anywhere near the bottom yet?? It would be all well and good to buy now and have a mortgage we could afford but if any paycuts are on the cards?! Everything in this country just seems so unstable..

We have got a decent bit of savings, (60k earning no interest in our current account) we just really haven't a clue about any of it anymore!!

so question is... do i stay put in council house where rent is €575 pm and spend a few quid making it more comfortable for the next 2-3years or just buy a 3bed semi and have a mortgage for 900pm ??

Thanks guys!!


signed:

truly bewildered!!:o

EKRIUQ

House prices in an average Kilkenny estate built in the 90's.

2008 Asking price €315,000
2007 Similar property €298,000 SOLD

Current property for sale €260,000 REDUCED FROM €320,000

2001 price €152,400

Still a bit away from going back to 2001 prices but will all depend on how desperate people are to sell.

EDIT:

Just after looking at a database of properties that were for sale in 2005 and some properties would be the same price and some would be less than 05 values

Freddie59

EKRIUQ wrote: »

House prices in an average Kilkenny estate built in the 90's.

2008 Asking price €315,000
2007 Similar property €298,000 SOLD

Current property for sale €260,000 REDUCED FROM €320,000

2001 price €152,400

Still a bit away from going back to 2001 prices but will all depend on how desperate people are to sell.

EDIT:

Just after looking at a database of properties that were for sale in 2005 and some properties would be the same price and some would be less than 05 values

Are you an auctioneer? If not, how have you access to such a database?

FYI, the FR is talking about capping mortgages to 3 x annual salary. That should settle things fairly fast.;):cool: