Houses in danger from NAMA!

Oliver1985

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here, but with Nama if they take over a builders propertys Nama will have to sell these houses more thank likely at a lot cheaper than what there on the market today? Why are builders keeping there prices high e.g a 2 bed appartment for 220k ! Why not just knock them down to 150k and sell them off and clear the money they owe?

D3PO

Oliver1985 wrote: »

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here, but with Nama if they take over a builders propertys Nama will have to sell these houses more thank likely at a lot cheaper than what there on the market today? Why are builders keeping there prices high e.g a 2 bed appartment for 220k ! Why not just knock them down to 150k and sell them off and clear the money they owe?

Firslty lets be clear NAMA will not take over any property. They will take over loans. A lot of developers have details contracts with banks indicating they dont have to repay their loans until they sell their property.

So if they dont have to sell why would they drop their prices ? They will hold tight until the get what they want

jmayo

D3PO wrote: »

Firslty lets be clear NAMA will not take over any property. They will take over loans. A lot of developers have details contracts with banks indicating they dont have to repay their loans until they sell their property.

So if they dont have to sell why would they drop their prices ? They will hold tight until the get what they want

All the more reason for ACC to succeed.

D3PO

jmayo wrote: »

All the more reason for ACC to succeed.

heres hoping.

On that subject did you hear Anglo are willing to loan the Zoe Group 70 million.

That mug lenihan said he wouldnt bail out insolvent developers. Guess what your doing here Brian you tool.

Go back to the law profession because you havent a clue about finance !!!

jmayo

D3PO wrote: »

heres hoping.

On that subject did you hear Anglo are willing to loan the Zoe Group 70 million.

That mug lenihan said he wouldnt bail out insolvent developers. Guess what your doing here Brian you tool.

Go back to the law profession because you havent a clue about finance !!!

Yeah spotted it on front page of Daily Mail I think ?
Of course it is a rag :rolleyes:

Funny I thought that Anglo was bust, had to nationalised by us the taxpayers ?
Nice to know our bank is willing to loan further money to a possible insolvent bankrupt (oops I shouldn't sday that since his comapnies are not technically bankrupt and will never be thanks to us the taxpayers).

It is a great little country we live in isn't it. :mad:
It is even greater if you are connected :rolleyes:

D3PO

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah spotted it on front page of Daily Mail I think ?
Of course it is a rag :rolleyes:

Heard it on newstalk myself.

I really hope the judge doesnt provide examinership to this group of companies. The snippets you hear about their examinership plan are laughable at best

gurramok

The judge gave better credence to Morgan Kelly than the other 'economists' put forward by Carroll so here's hoping his judgement is not taken in by the vested interests.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0902/1224253666112.html?via=mr

mrgaa1

regardless of the ruling we all know that for a long time house prices will be stagnant due to oversupply. The issue that faces everybody - be they developers, property investors, those looking to sell to move - is that the "bottom" has not been media declared and that the banks are not lending. So even if we were at the bottom there is no money to lend and even if the banks were lending the bottom has not been declared.
There are no doubt bargains out there to be had as well as still ridiculous prices. But the crux is that there is no media hyped lending from the banks.
I still don't know why there hasn't been a stop placed on all planning for new houses in all towns until the remaining stockpile has been substantially cleared. This will create movement in the market thus making more money move around our beleagured economy and perhaps giving us some hope for the future. However until our own economy shows signs of stabilising and improving we're stuck in this quagmire for sometime.

bangersandmash

mrgaa1 wrote: »

The issue that faces everybody - be they developers, property investors, those looking to sell to move - is that the "bottom" has not been media declared and that the banks are not lending.

Really? It seems that there are reports in the media from various interests declaring the bottom every few weeks. This one is a prime example.

Gunth

I still don't know why there hasn't been a stop placed on all planning for new houses in all towns until the remaining stockpile has been substantially cleared. This will create movement in the market thus making more money move around our beleagured economy and perhaps giving us some hope for the future. However until our own economy shows signs of stabilising and improving we're stuck in this quagmire for sometime

So we have to buy up all of the poorly built, in many cases tiny houses and once the backlog of rubbish is cleared it is only then that new builds can be commenced?

Oliver1985

I know its wrong but something has to be done with the current stockpile! I live in a new development and the rumour is now that whats left might be used for social housing! When people paid top dollar for our places then they will let all junkies have appartments! Dont get me wrong I know there is decent people waiting on social housing but it happened me before when I was renting in a small block with 7 units , 5 of them where giving to social houses all to junkies one of them set the place of fire with a chip pan grrrrrrrrrr:mad:

Victor

mrgaa1 wrote: »

I still don't know why there hasn't been a stop placed on all planning for new houses in all towns until the remaining stockpile has been substantially cleared.

But many of those properties are in the worng place. If there is demand in town A, why would you force people to live in a housing estate 4km outside town B where there are no services?

This will create movement in the market thus making more money move around our beleagured economy and perhaps giving us some hope for the future. However until our own economy shows signs of stabilising and improving we're stuck in this quagmire for sometime.

I think this logic is rather suspect. Forcing people to buy bad properties isn't the solution.

Senna

Gunth wrote: »

So we have to buy up all of the poorly built, in many cases tiny houses and once the backlog of rubbish is cleared it is only then that new builds can be commenced?

I think there is still a valid arguement to this, my local planning office are giving planning to anything at the moment. They just granted planning for 600 dwellings in a town with a huge over supply. I know the developer has no plan to build and only applied so it would raise the price of the land before NAMA takes over. But the planning office should not have allowed it, there is no need for it, and the land should only have an agricultural price before we NAMA values it. The planning office could have been smarter.

I'd also like to see stricter one-off houses planning, it got out of control and now with so many of those empty, there is little justification for more. I think the planning offices should be looking at the current stock before granting more. An all out ban isn't needed, but a bit more sense would be nice.


This may all apply to rural areas more than cities.

Gunth

That is ridiculous that they granted planning in your town for all of those houses. I believe that if estastes in quiet areas remaining half finished then the builder should be forced to return the site to it's original state. I know this will not be possible everywhere but if the estate is only half finished they should level the partially built houses. I don't think that there should be a complete ban on one-off houses in rural areas.

Senna

Yeah it is ridiculous, there's an excellent graph over on the pin (cant find it now), showing the amount of planning granted by county per month. In april it was steady at 50, may 800, june 50:rolleyes:

But its happening everywhere, planning is being sough for every site on every developers books, all so the valuation will be higher. I cant see how the planning office thinks the applications are actually for housing and if they know they are not, why are they granting them?

Gunth

I didn't realise that the builders are applying for planning to increase the value before NAMA kicks in. I am not surprised though.:mad: They should not be allowed to inflate the price of land this way. What a mess. This country gets more depressing with each passing day. In order to survive, corruption is the way to go. The country needs to be governed by some group that is not affiliated with builders and dodgy politicians. Sorry for going off-thread.

Patrickof

During the boom period, having planning on zoned land certainly did increase its value.

That's no longer true, planning or no planning, if there's no demand for housing in an area then the land is worth agri (if suitable) and maybe a little extra for selling some "one off" house sites instead of estate homes.

Duckjob

Patrickof wrote: »

During the boom period, having planning on zoned land certainly did increase its value.

That's no longer true, planning or no planning, if there's no demand for housing in an area then the land is worth agri (if suitable) and maybe a little extra for selling some "one off" house sites instead of estate homes.

Ah, but thats silly "real world" talk .

You clearly havn't heard about the wonderful new concept of "long term economic value" of property that our wonderful government has been educating us about and which NAMA is going to pay. :pac:

beeno67

Duckjob wrote: »

Ah, but thats silly "real world" talk .

You clearly havn't heard about the wonderful new concept of "long term economic value" of property that our wonderful government has been educating us about and which NAMA is going to pay. :pac:

In fairness planning permission or not will not affect the "long term value". Unless it is built on, planning will have lapsed.

Kipperhell

beeno67 wrote: »

In fairness planning permission or not will not affect the "long term value". Unless it is built on, planning will have lapsed.

While planning will lapse been given permission will mean there will be little problem getting permission again unless something radical changes on the property. Planning permission does increase value even in a slow market.

There seems to be the suggestion that property is worthless now which is not the case in any shape or form. If somebody increase the value of their land prior to NAMA they are correct as all they were ever going to do was increase the value of land and materials through work.

Senna

If NAMA goes ahead and i hope it does not, i will bet my life that land with planning gets a higher valuation than land without.
Of course it shouldn't, but when has common sense ever got in the way of a FF deal?

Kipperhell

Senna wrote: »

If NAMA goes ahead and i hope it does not, i will bet my life that land with planning gets a higher valuation than land without.
Of course it shouldn't, but when has common sense ever got in the way of a FF deal?

What is the argument for it not increasing the value of the land? Land you can build on is worth more than land you can't. To me it would make sense to use normal valuation terms so I don't see how it is common sense to value property by other means. Time and effort are involved in getting planning and you don't instantly get it.

beeno67

Kipperhell wrote: »

There seems to be the suggestion that property is worthless now which is not the case in any shape or form. If somebody increase the value of their land prior to NAMA they are correct as all they were ever going to do was increase the value of land and materials through work.

The land is not worthless but it may only have an agricultural land value. My understanding is that valuations will be on the long term worth of the land which will not be affected by having planning or not. The question is not "how many houses can you build on this land?" but rather "if this land had houses on it would anybody buy them".

So 10 acres of land with 50 houses on it may actually be worth less than agricultural land as the properties may be unsaleable and there would be considerable cost in returning the land to agriculture. I should add that that property advertised last week (in Kilkenny I think), with a mansion, 14 houses and 25 acres of land was only valued at 1-2 million by the sellers. There are many properties in worse locations than that

jdivision

D3PO wrote: »

heres hoping.

On that subject did you hear Anglo are willing to loan the Zoe Group 70 million.

That mug lenihan said he wouldnt bail out insolvent developers. Guess what your doing here Brian you tool.

Go back to the law profession because you havent a clue about finance !!!

The bank gave him a facilities letter, which is usually legally binding and therefore they have to provide the money. AFAIK the letter was signed before the nationalisation of Anglo.

D3PO

jdivision wrote: »

The bank gave him a facilities letter, which is usually legally binding and therefore they have to provide the money. AFAIK the letter was signed before the nationalisation of Anglo.

If this is correct and this isn't as I understand the situation, a facilities letter is only legally binding subject to the borrower complying with particular conditions or mandates.

The default one generally being that there is no adverse change in the business or financial condition of the group.

So either Anglo didnt ask for a conditions to be added in which case I think the public should be looking for fraud investigations to take place

or

they did add this in and are still willing to loan the cash despite having no legal obligation which I would then put down to the government.

Either of which should invoke public outcry this is an absolute disgrace no matter what way you want to sugar coat it.

Lets hope the judge pulls the plug on this.

Patrickof

Kipperhell wrote: »

... Land you can build on is worth more than land you can't. ....

Why?

You're making the assumption that there is a demand for the types of homes to be built in any given specific area. Yes, it may be true for certain areas but it most certainly is not in others.

There are currently about 400 finished unsold 3 Bed Semis in Carlow town - why would land with planning for more have any value above agri?

Oliver1985

It really is a crazy situation I live in Donaghmede and id say there is at leaast 1000 appartments in the surrounding area builders still looking for crazy prices they will never get !!!

Kipperhell

Patrickof wrote: »

Why?

You're making the assumption that there is a demand for the types of homes to be built in any given specific area. Yes, it may be true for certain areas but it most certainly is not in others.

There are currently about 400 finished unsold 3 Bed Semis in Carlow town - why would land with planning for more have any value above agri?

It is really simple once you get planning you will be more likely to get further planning. You don't have to build what the planning was for originally. The same way a house in a good rental area is worth more even though you plan to live in it not rent it.

If two pieces of land were in every way the same except one had planning more people would be willing to buy the one with planning hence it is worth more. It doesn't matter if there is currently a demand or not there is higher demand for the one with planning. People seem to think planning is very easy to get. There maybe exceptions but they are few and far between.

I doubt there is a single piece of land in this country where a piece of property would be worth more left as a field if you removed the housing built on it and that includes the ones with empty property.

Patrickof

Kipperhell wrote: »

If two pieces of land were in every way the same except one had planning more people would be willing to buy the one with planning hence it is worth more.

And I am saying that this is no longer the case. The demand for land with planning is pretty much zero. However, there is a small demand for agri land. So there's currently no premium for having planning.

It doesn't matter if there is currently a demand or not there is higher demand for the one with planning.

Isn't that a contradiction?

I doubt there is a single piece of land in this country where a piece of property would be worth more left as a field if you removed the housing built on it and that includes the ones with empty property.

I'm not claiming it'll be worth more as a field, only that it won't be worth any more with planning.

Kipperhell

Patrickof wrote: »

And I am saying that this is no longer the case. The demand for land with planning is pretty much zero. However, there is a small demand for agri land. So there's currently no premium for having planning.

I am saying it never changes and there is always a premium. Demand is no where near zero prices have dropped and that is it. It is just about price. Any farmer knows if they buy land with planning permission at the same price they will have more options later on. You are entitled to your opinion but somethings are not a matter of opinion but straight forward realities

Patrickof wrote: »

Isn't that a contradiction?

No. Given the option between two pieces of property the one with planning will be sold first. If nothing is selling you can still see the property with planning has a higher demand. Value has been added



I'm not claiming it'll be worth more as a field, only that it won't be worth any more with planning.[/QUOTE]

beeno67

Kipperhell wrote: »

I am saying it never changes and there is always a premium. Demand is no where near zero prices have dropped and that is it. It is just about price. Any farmer knows if they buy land with planning permission at the same price they will have more options later on. You are entitled to your opinion but somethings are not a matter of opinion but straight forward realities

I think you are getting confused here. We are not talking about a farmer selling a few bits of land off for sites. If a developer has say 100 million worth of sites. The question is what is the potential to develop the sites. This does not mean can they be built on but what property on the sites can be sold for. They may not even be zoned never mind have planning permission at the present