The Property market has reached the bottom!

Freddie59

Zamboni wrote: »

You just described me.
A lot of my friends are in negative equity and some have also lost jobs.
I am ready to buy and mortgage approved but quite simply I am in absolutely no rush and will play the long game if I have to.
Earlier in the thread that was called stingy. I just think it's common sense that I want to get the best bargain possible, the lowest mortgage that I need to cover it and therefore the earlier I own my house outright the better.

Fair play to you - and the best of luck. Stingy? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Intelligent? Definitely.

There is a whole picture painted that it doesn't really matter what you pay as long as you're happy with the house.:rolleyes: Utter baloney. Why should you borrow even a Euro more than you have to? More power to you.

I visited three new developments in Waterford City today, with large chunks varying from €40k to €90k knocked off. And they're still too dear.

And the EAs were STILL spinning the whole 'you should be thankful we're selling at this price' line.

krugerrand

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not to be overly pedantic, but I don't like the term vested interest used in this context. A vested interest is one which is not just speculative or potential, but is legally recognised and asserted. E.g. if you acquire property, once title has lawfully transferred to you, your interest in that property becomes vested.

Might I suggest that you might indeed be guilty of being overly pedantic. It's my understanding that, in the universe of the Accomodation and Property Forum, the term "Vested Interest" (or VI in its acronym format) does not have the meaning of legal term of art which you refer to. Might I refer to a wikipedia entry on the topic:
"Vested interest is a communication theory that seeks to explain how influences impact behaviors. Coined by William Crano, vested interest refers to the amount that an attitude object is deemed hedonically relevant by the attitude holder (Crano, 1995). Not to be confused with the pre-existing legal term vested interest, which is related to the concept of vesting. In other words, if an attitude object is deemed to have important perceived personal consequences, then that object is of high vested interest. For example, a 30 year old individual is told that the legal driving age is being raised from 16 to 17 in his state. While he may not agree with this law, it does not affect him as much as the 15 year old prospective vehicle operator. This example illustrates the point that highly vested attitudes concerning issues are related to an individual’s point of view of the situation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_interest

krugerrand

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In addition, do you really think that an internet forum is capable of talking up or down property??

Absolutely I do. Quite a few people (particularly first-time-buyers) when thinking though house purchase decisions go to internet forums to see what other people are saying.

blast05

There was a review of a book in the 'Weekend' section of the Irisn indo yesterday. The book was by some guy who has consisntently wrote over the last years that the market was unsustainable, was hated by EA and the like and generally has been a doomsday merchant (and largely justified of course)over the last good few years
Can' remember the book name or the name of the guy but it was surprising to see one comment quoted from his book that was bordering on the optimistic .... he reckond house prices would be at 2004 levels by 2016 ..... which from my estimation would mean he thinks we will follow the Finnish experience.

n0fX

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In addition, do you really think that an internet forum is capable of talking up or down property?

I think it is one of the most powerful media in doing so at the moment because it's a good source for independent information. This forum, combined with askaboutmoney, propertypin, daftwatch, etc are very valuable sources and have hugely affected my decision to rent rather than buy.

Freddie59

blast05 wrote: »

There was a review of a book in the 'Weekend' section of the Irisn indo yesterday. The book was by some guy who has consisntently wrote over the last years that the market was unsustainable, was hated by EA and the like and generally has been a doomsday merchant (and largely justified of course)over the last good few years
Can' remember the book name or the name of the guy but it was surprising to see one comment quoted from his book that was bordering on the optimistic .... he reckond house prices would be at 2004 levels by 2016 ..... which from my estimation would mean he thinks we will follow the Finnish experience.

It'll be way sooner than that if recent drops are anything to go by. A new 1200 sq ft 3-bed semi-d was reduced from €335k to €245k in Waterford over the weekend. Other developments experienced similar drops. There wil be an equivalent knock-on effect on 2nd-hand prices.

n0fX

Firetrap wrote: »

I don't think anyone makes up their opinions solely based on websites.

I never said they did, or they should

blast05

Freddie59 wrote: »

It'll be way sooner than that if recent drops are anything to go by. A new 1200 sq ft 3-bed semi-d was reduced from €335k to €245k in Waterford over the weekend. Other developments experienced similar drops. There wil be an equivalent knock-on effect on 2nd-hand prices.

Woops, you picked me up wrong. He was suggesting we will have recovered to 2004 levels by 2016 !!

gurramok

I agree with the Finnish scenario. They were devasated by their bubble with sky high unemployment and busted banks. And to add, similar demographics to us.

It took them the best part of a decade to get their economy back on track, basically they just reinvented themselves away from property into industry/services, can we as led by FF do the same?

Firetrap

n0fX wrote: »

I never said they did, or they should

Hmm. Now that I look back at what I posted, it looks like I'm misquoting you whilst cack-handedly making a point of my own. I've deleted it now.

pisslips

So here comes the bottom.

With the government buying bad assets and putting them on the market, does anyone else think that we're going to meet the bottom in the coming months?

I wonder how low it'll go.

ionapaul

pisslips wrote: »

So here comes the bottom.

With the government buying bad assets and putting them on the market, does anyone else think that we're going to meet the bottom in the coming months?

I wonder how low it'll go.

No.

I do think we'll see the bottom within the next 5 years though - some claim we'll see decades of price declines like Japan but I hope that this is not the case and we can see the bottom by 2011/12

blast05

I do think we'll see the bottom within the next 5 years though - some claim we'll see decades of price declines like Japan but I hope that this is not the case and we can see the bottom by 2011/12

I disagree - i actually think we'll see bottom within the next few months.
People know there are more income tax riases on the way plus property taxes on the way. They know that in the long term, if not medium, that interest rates will rise. The banks already have tightened the reigns in terms of what they will loan.
Surely anybody that purchases a house will factor in all of these.

ionapaul

blast05 wrote: »

I disagree - i actually think we'll see bottom within the next few months.
People know there are more income tax riases on the way plus property taxes on the way. They know that in the long term, if not medium, that interest rates will rise. The banks already have tightened the reigns in terms of what they will loan.
Surely anybody that purchases a house will factor in all of these.

That sounds like a bad situation for anyone selling their house to be in! What % do you think they will slash prices to over the next few months to reach the bottom?

blast05

Haven't a clue but i would hazard a guess that what is actually being sold at the moment - with no figures being release - is ~50% of the peek of mid 2006. Not too much further to go i'd say.
Of course other people on here will say it has another 110% to go :eek:

worded

mrgaa1 wrote: »

interesting article - obviously previous posters didn't bother to read it as it highlights the well known issues with credit, job security etc... There has been a marked interest renewal in houses although I can see further price drops in areas that are still over priced. But there are areas where house prices will not drop any further - they will not increase either for quite some time. There are a lot of people fed up with dead rent money - the rent-to-buy schemes offer hope for those who wish to buy and live long-term in a home. Lets hope we are near there as our very fragile recovery relies heavily on the housing market moving in a postive way. Perhaps those who love to see our country on its knees would take a look and say to themselves perhaps our country needs support and encouragement - not faceless attacks.

Getting an over priced house is a life long subscription to the slavery magazine and Im not buying.

A starter home should be circa 200 - 250K. No more.

"Lets hope we are near there as our very fragile recovery relies heavily on the housing market" Housing is not an economy, thats where we went wrong, we got tired selling each other houses.

Im not taking it up the what it for any country / bank / political part for 25 years so the economy can recover. It will have to recover without everyone being shafted by bankers and the government. Let the housing market collapse, its got a long long way to go. Not everyone is involved with property portfolios, some of us earn a living.

Japan lost 90% of its housing value.

A reasonably priced house for everyone in the country and for those renting, rent control like a lot of other countries have.
We rented for 800 years and when we got the freedom to be land owners up to say 2007, we squeeze every possible cent from tenants with huge rent
hikes despite they being in the same place for 5 years +.

This country got so greedy, its time to get a grip on reality and let people put a roof over their head.
Enough of the greed.

Fiana Fail. A govenrment of the people, for some people.

gurramok

Don't forget the three and half thousand odd 'affordable' apts due to be dumped on themarket by the councils to add further downward pressure to prices!

blast05 wrote:

Haven't a clue but i would hazard a guess that what is actually being sold at the moment - with no figures being release - is ~50% of the peek of mid 2006. Not too much further to go i'd say.
Of course other people on here will say it has another 110% to go

I have hardly seen any reduction in asking prices of those 50% you say. Of course if it does happen in the next few months, the better we get this pain over with.

pisslips

Well if a combination of the banks developers and the government are going to forcfully dump 90 billion of property on the market.......you can't get more bottom than that.

Admittedly it'll be done over a period of time with an attempt to get value for money and it's valued well above it's market value and that 90 billion isn't all Irish property or housing but some of it's got to be.

That and noones building at all.

Though with 54,000 on the council housing list you'd think the government could do something creative with the mixture of bad assets and unemployment, rent free allowance.......I mean it doesn't take a genius.

Idle property.....paying for peoples rent??????????????

Send them all to Mayo and Longford.
bring back the famine walls.....

Freddie59

blast05 wrote: »

Haven't a clue but i would hazard a guess that what is actually being sold at the moment - with no figures being release - is ~50% of the peek of mid 2006. Not too much further to go i'd say.
Of course other people on here will say it has another 110% to go :eek:

SOME houses are 50% off peak (which is actually early 2007). The majority are down by 20% off peak. So another 30% to go. At least.:)

The_Conductor

The current book value of the loans to be 'taken over' by the NTMA is just over 80billion (about 82 billion) and they haven't decided yet how they are going to discount these. On Prime Time last night, it was suggested that ~50% of book value would be paid- and Dan Boyle of the Green party suggested that ultimately the government fully expected these loans to be profitable for the tax payer.

Large chunks of this are landbanks- and as pointed out by the Labour Party spokesperson- include developments in Bulgaria, Hungary, the UAE, Turkey, Portugal and elsewhere. Nice way for the NTMA to diversify its asset base I guess......

This is all to be funded by new NTMA bonds. On the announcement of this- the split on Irish sovereign debt rose an additional .25% (i.e. even knowledge of the scheme will cost the exchequer an additional 180 million in 2009- and if the bonds have to be priced to sell- it could be significantly higher- especially when it comes to refinancing existing debt.

oceanclub

smccarrick wrote: »

The current book value of the loans to be 'taken over' by the NTMA is just over 80billion (about 82 billion) and they haven't decided yet how they are going to discount these. On Prime Time last night, it was suggested that ~50% of book value would be paid- and Dan Boyle of the Green party suggested that ultimately the government fully expected these loans to be profitable for the tax payer.

Was he drunk when he said this?

To make a profit on these loans, they will have to be paid off in full. If there were going to be paid off in full, why would the banks want to get rid of them in the first place? They know that most of these loans are for assets such as land which are now worth a fraction of what the buyer originally paid (hello, Sean Dunne). This appears to be just based on wishful thinking.

P.

Freddie59

oceanclub wrote: »

Was he drunk when he said this?
They know that most of these loans are for assets such as land which are now worth a fraction of what the buyer originally paid (hello, Sean Dunne).

And it now that 33% of the land is OUTSIDE the state (in the UK).:eek:

cls

I don't understand how the Irish government can own land in a foreign country?? For example, if some of this land were to be right on the border with the North, then the border changes surely? That land would be owned by the Republic of Ireland.

techdiver

cls wrote: »

I don't understand how the Irish government can own land in a foreign country?? For example, if some of this land were to be right on the border with the North, then the border changes surely? That land would be owned by the Republic of Ireland.

There is a difference between national sovereign nations and private property ownership. The land and property that the Irish government will own will be no different than me or you owning such land.

cls

techdiver wrote: »

There is a difference between national sovereign nations and private property ownership. The land and property that the Irish government will own will be no different than me or you owning such land.

That's just a technicality. Take the Jewish settlements in Palestine for example

The_Conductor

cls wrote: »

That's just a technicality. Take the Jewish settlements in Palestine for example

Very bad example. That land is ceased without agreed recompense being made to the owners. Here the Irish government will own a lien on overseas property- rather than owning the property outright, and the new SI on seizures will not apply.

techdiver

cls wrote: »

That's just a technicality. Take the Jewish settlements in Palestine for example

Eh, I think not. The Jewish settlement happened as the Jewish state was established, they didn't just sneak in buying up all the land.

A further example is that if I buy a few acres in the UK or USA, I cannot declare that it is part of my own state.

Himselfe

techdiver wrote: »

Eh, I think not. The Jewish settlement happened as the Jewish state was established, they didn't just sneak in buying up all the land.

Yeah thats right, they didn't pay for it, they just took it.

Anyway, whats this got to do with the property market reaching the bottom?

cls

But if a country owns foreign land they can do what they please, within the law. If you're comparing it to an individual owning land, then an individual can build houses, retail units etc etc. Bascially meaning the Irish government could, if they wanted to, effectively set up shop in all these different pockets of land around the world and cipher money out of their economies, just life an individual could. Is it common for governments to own land in foreign countries? I've never heard of it.

techdiver

cls wrote: »

Is it common for governments to own land in foreign countries? I've never heard of it.

Yes.

It's called an Embassy. Although an Embassy may be a bad example.

But in essence a government investing money in either assets or commodities is no different than you or I doing it.

Think of the National Pension Reserve Fund.