House prices yet to fall in Galway county + city.

?Cee?view

skelliser wrote: »

Its time to get real. TBH i knows it sounds harsh but i have little sympathy for people who bought at the height. No one forced them to buy.If you have a problem take it up with the above.

To be honest, seeing that opinion saddens me. Forget the anti-everyone media led hype. The fact is that decent people are struggling now who just wanted to put a roof over their families heads, and for others to "shine", they've to suffer.

That kind of shine will tarnish very soon.

Sickening.

skelliser

churchview wrote: »

To be honest, seeing that opinion saddens me. Forget the anti-everyone media led hype. The fact is that decent people are struggling now who just wanted to put a roof over their families heads, and for others to "shine", they've to suffer.

That kind of shine will tarnish very soon.

Sickening.

How is it sickening! The market, without interference should decide value. This is true of the boom times but evidently not true in the bad times.

What about the thousands of people on social authority housing lists who never got a look in and now that there is a massive amount of empty houses, whats the plan? knock and demolish them, why? to re-inflate the values. Now thats sickening!

My point is, you cant have it both ways. Ultimately its not fair and totally skewed to the more wealthy in society.

?Cee?view

skelliser wrote: »

How is it sickening! The market, without interference should decide value. This is true of the boom times but evidently not true in the bad times.

Rubbish. Where did I or anyone here say that the market shouldn't apply in the bad times. But, it's you who've said that you've no sympathy for people who bought at the height. These are people who could lose their homes and you couldn't care less about them.

skelliser wrote: »

what about the thousands of people on social authority housing lists who never got a look in and now that there is a massive amount of empty houses, whats the plan? knock and demolish them, why? to re-inflate the values. Now thats sickening!

Totally different issue and one that I agree with you completely on, but would differ as to its effect. A use should be found for those houses rather than demolishing them. Any argument that putting people from local authority lists into them would depress values further seems fatuous, as these people were never in a position to participate in the market anyway. Furthermore, there are empty office blocks throughout Ireland which with a bit of imagination and a little bit of will, could house all the homeless (in the sense of living on the street) of Ireland. Daily I see people sleeping in the doorways of these white elephants.

Listen, you're clearly and maybe justifiably aggrieved that you are not in a position to buy where you want to buy. However, wishing misfortune on others or lacking sympathy for others plight just because they could, or chose to buy, isn't justified because of a situation such as yours. Sorry if that seems harsh.

PopeBuckfastXVI

churchview wrote: »

Rubbish. Where did I or anyone here say that the market shouldn't apply in the bad times. But, it's you who've said that you've no sympathy for people who bought at the height. These are people who could lose their homes and you couldn't care less about them.

Nor should they be allowed to keep what they can't afford. If someone borrowed more than they could realistically pay back, or lied about their incomes, or overestimated their ability and future earnings, they should not be rewarded for outbidding someone who did not.

I'm personally for reforming the bankruptcy laws to make them less punitive, to allow someone to hand the keys back, without the debt following them around for life. But if you say to me someone should keep a house without paying back what they borrowed for it, then I'll point out that you create a society that rewards chancers, and punishes the prudent.

?Cee?view

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Nor should they be allowed to keep what they can't afford. If someone borrowed more than they could realistically pay back, or lied about their incomes, or overestimated their ability and future earnings, they should not be rewarded for outbidding someone who did not.

I'm personally for reforming the bankruptcy laws to make them less punitive, to allow someone to hand the keys back, without the debt following them around for life. But if you say to me someone should keep a house without paying back what they borrowed for it, then I'll point out that you create a society that rewards chancers, and punishes the prudent.

Agree completely with all you've said. But, there are plenty of families in difficulties who didn't lie and cheat their way into their homes. Of course the chancers shouldn't be rewarded.

Bankruptcy laws in Ireland are archaic and drastically need reform.

skelliser

Its not rubbish. Its a fact. NAMA will only break even until houses prices return to 2007 prices. Basically the government and their friends are trying to re-inflate the bubble. That is blatent interference in the market.
Explain to me how in a supposedly capitalist system billions of other peoples debt is literallty halved and the rest is dumped on the taxpaper. If anything its robbery.

PopeBuckfastXVI

churchview wrote: »

Agree completely with all you've said. But, there are plenty of families in difficulties who didn't lie and cheat their way into their homes.

I guess where we possibly disagree is that I wouldn't accept taking my taxes to help them hang on to a house that I could otherwise buy, and they can't afford.

?Cee?view

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I guess where we possibly disagree is that I wouldn't accept taking my taxes to help them hang on to a house that I could otherwise buy, and they can't afford.

I hear you, but I'm not sure how your taxes are impacted? They could afford the house when they bought it (unless they lied) and keeping them in the house will likely be cheaper than providing an alternative if they're made homeless. But again, I don't see how your taxes are impacted by them staying where they are?

?Cee?view

skelliser wrote: »

Its not rubbish.

I was responding to your assertion that people in this post had said that the market shouldn't apply in bad times.

skelliser wrote: »

NAMA will only break even until houses prices return to 2007 prices. Basically the government and their friends are trying to re-inflate the bubble. That is blatent interference in the market.
Explain to me how in a supposedly capitalist system billions of other peoples debt is literallty halved and the rest is dumped on the taxpaper. If anything its robbery.

With respect, you're going way off topic bringing NAMA into it. I'm unclear as to how your ire with regard to NAMA justifies an opinion that Galway people are not deserving of any sympathy if they bought at a high price.

If NAMA is literally halving debt (the banks), does this justify the same banks putting homeowners out of their homes?

skelliser

Ur taxes will be impacted when they introduce a Nama for mortgage holders. Iv heard many calls for this already. The taxpayer will foot the bill. Another kick in the teeth for people who saved and spent frugally.
its the moral hazard of our times, that's why I have little sympathy because if this happens I will be saddled with their debt thru increased taxes.

Bobeagleburger

I feel sorry for those who bought at the height tbh.

It was a media/government driven thing to push everyone into thinking that they must be on the property ladder. I was seriously thinking about buying at the time myself but luckily for me I didn't. Others were not as fortunate and may be saddled with crippling debts and no job now

The prices seen at the height at the boom possibly wont be seen for 20 years.

PopeBuckfastXVI

churchview wrote: »

I hear you, but I'm not sure how your taxes are impacted? They could afford the house when they bought it (unless they lied) and keeping them in the house will likely be cheaper than providing an alternative if they're made homeless. But again, I don't see how your taxes are impacted by them staying where they are?

They can pay rent on somewhere they can afford, like I do, if they have to move.

My taxes will be used to either bail out the bank they are not paying back, or directly given to them in the form of a 'keep your home' grant.

I'm talking about this scenario:

A and B are bidding on a house c2007, A is prepared to borrow and offer 500,000 and B is prepared to borrow and offer 360,000.

Naturally A wins the auction and B keeps renting and saving.

Fast forward to 2011, A is struggling with repayments due to a combination of underestimating the cost of running the home, along with a stagnant, or reduced wage.

A asks 'where's my nama?', i.e. I can't afford to pay this, but I want to keep the house. Under advice that it's only fair that people keep their homes, and not be 'put out on the street' (as opposed to renting!?), the government comes up with a scheme to knock 30% off the debt by repaying the bank the money, or granting it to the homeowner, this is still less than the current negative equity in the house, so it's not seen as generous.

Now A has in actuality borrowed and paid 350000 for the house, which leaves him actually paying less than B's offer of 360000, and the difference is made up by appropriating the taxes of everyone, including B. Therefore A is rewarded for the risk, and B is punished for the caution.

Now if there is no bailout, but instead a less harsh bankruptcy regime, A can hand the keys back, the house can be sold to B for market value of approx 300000, and the Bank and A can swallow the loss between them, seeing as they colluded to inflate the price in the first place.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rarnes1 wrote: »

I feel sorry for those who bought at the height tbh.

It was a media/government driven thing to push everyone some into thinking that they must be on the property ladder. I was seriously thinking about buying at the time myself but luckily for me I didn't. Others were not as fortunate and may be saddled with crippling debts and no job now

The prices seen at the height at the boom possibly wont be seen for 20 years.

FYP...

?Cee?view

skelliser wrote: »

Ur taxes will be impacted when [?] they introduce a Nama for mortgage holders. Iv heard many calls for this already. The taxpayer will foot the bill. Another kick in the teeth for people who saved and spent frugally.
its the moral hazard of our times, that's why I have little sympathy because if this happens I will be saddled with their debt thru increased taxes.

And in that case you'd be right to feel aggrieved. But, it's pure speculation at this stage. And again, it'll be the legislature that'll introduce such a measure (if they do, which logically seems unlikely), not the general public. Reserve your anger for banks and the government, rather than homeowners.

Now, I just want to see if I understand your point of view. You're unwilling to see howeowners supported, but, you're willing to profit (by buying their house cheaply), given the chance. You buy and you then become a homeowner - what if a crisis occurs?; say you have an accident resulting in a long term disability. Would you feel you deserved to receive some disability payments based on tax payments that you've made in the past? Why should my taxes as a healthy individual support you?

Some of the southern U.S. states have been particularly hit. Plenty of people there living in tent villages who've been turfed out of their homes, destroying their credit ratings so they can't even rent. Is this an appalling vista or one that we should be comfortable with?

?Cee?view

I have to run for now, but will come back to this later.

All I'll say for now is this.

I hate to see the whole them and us attitude which is emerging and which this thread seems to demonstrate. It's driven by media, politicians...all the usual suspects...nothing sells like bad news. I believe that we all need to resist this because if we don't an economic crisis will cause an existing social crisis to become much worse.

PopeBuckfastXVI

churchview wrote: »

I have to run for now, but will come back to this later.

All I'll say for now is this.

I hate to see the whole them and us attitude which is emerging and which this thread seems to demonstrate. It's driven by media, politicians...all the usual suspects...nothing sells like bad news. I believe that we all need to resist this because if we don't an economic crisis will cause an existing social crisis to become much worse.

It's an unfortunate side effect of capitalism... it was 'them and us' when we were bidding on houses, it'll be 'them and us' when we're losing them.

skelliser

churchview wrote: »

Now, I just want to see if I understand your point of view. You're unwilling to see howeowners supported, but, you're willing to profit (by buying their house cheaply), given the chance. You buy and you then become a homeowner - what if a crisis occurs?; say you have an accident resulting in a long term disability. Would you feel you deserved to receive some disability payments based on tax payments that you've made in the past? Why should my taxes as a healthy individual support you?

How am i profiting?! The fair market price applies! Im still borrowing a massive amount of money. And trust me i will be making sure i dont get into a situation of being in trouble, like saving up as large a deposit as possible, getting an appropriate mortgage in line with my earnings.
Basically making sure i have every eventuality covered as best i can. I wont be buying an investment, il be buying my home.


Your second point just proves my point about a possible NAMA for mortgage holders, why should i be saddled with other peoples debt thru increased taxes because they cant repay their debts. Your point about disability is mute because insurance by and large will cover that.

And as Popebuckfast said these people who will lose there houses will still be able to rent! Like so many who didnt buy and saved during the boom!

funnyname

churchview wrote: »

That site is linked to HM Land Registry and HM Land Registry record house prices in such a way that when checking the title (legal ownership details) of properties online, you can see what they last sold for.

The Irish Land Registry doesn't make the same information available. I'm not sure if they even collate the information, even though the documents that are sent into them to register title certainly give this information.

Why am I not surprised by that.

musharra

RE: Pricing based on nothing.

churchview wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up!

Its the same as what ur asking price is based on...but your afraid to admit it.

Must be awful to be wrong and have such negative feedback on everything you posted.:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's an unfortunate side effect of capitalism... it was 'them and us' when we were bidding on houses, it'll be 'them and us' when we're losing them.

no wrong there is nothing capitalist about "socializing" the losses (NAMA, bailouts, NAMA2 for eejits :P)

biko

musharra wrote: »

Its the same as what ur asking price is based on...but your afraid to admit it.
Must be awful to be wrong and have such negative feedback on everything you posted.:rolleyes:

Play nice.

Sponge Bob

I warned everybody ( particularly from 2003 onward) that house prices in Galway bore no relationship whatsoever to economic reality. Even now, at lower levels than the mid decade, they still don't.

I am sorry for those that were sucked in at the top but my conscience is very clear. Avoid getting caught in the wreckage if you have not bought.

Webbs

skelliser wrote: »

How am i profiting?! The fair market price applies! Im still borrowing a massive amount of money. And trust me i will be making sure i dont get into a situation of being in trouble, like saving up as large a deposit as possible, getting an appropriate mortgage in line with my earnings.
Basically making sure i have every eventuality covered as best i can. I wont be buying an investment, il be buying my home.

And what happens if you lose your job and have no earnings? I find your attitude
to this whole issue very bitter - there are a whole host of issues associated with what has happened and in general it is normal people who are affected now whether they bought or not. This is getting way off topic for Galway dont you think?

alb

churchview wrote: »

I wouldn't cross the road to buy a pair of Jimmy Choos shoes for €400. I consider that price to be rediculous ridiculous. However, I'm sure that Mr. Choo incurs costs in making his shoes and has some corporate debt tied up in his shoes.....so let's say he needs to sell each pair for €200 to break even (i.e. clear the debt on each paid of shoes). I think €400 or even €200 is a crazy price for Jimmy Choos, so I'm only willing to pay €100.

Therefore, by your logic, the shoes are worth only €100, even though that's only my own personal opinion.

They are only worth 100 if that's the highest *anyone* is willing to pay for them

- Something is not worth what it cost to make.
- Something is not worth what has been paid for it in the past.
- Something is not worth what someone decides to ask for it.
- Something is not worth what the owner needs because they are in debt/negative eq
- Something *is* only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. This is a fact, and rather basic stuff.

And what someone is willing to pay for a commodity is usually based on scarcity and how much spare cash/credit the person has, though other factors such as sentimentality may influence.

It scares me that many posts here and on threads in other forums show that many people don't grasp this basic concept of markets. Another scary realisation is that many people don't realise how much interest they pay over the lifetime of a mortgage. They pay 100,000's of 'dead money' without ever factoring it into the overall cost of buying vs renting.

I guess these two factors played a large part in this ridiculous bubble.

I still think asking prices in Galway are very high, it seems Dublin (with reason) and Galway (with not much reason) are way higher than the rest of the nation.

Xiney

I can't help but wonder if ignorance of the market and economics is in any way orchestrated - if this kind of thing were taught in school (along with the basics of credit/credit cards, savings and budgeting) as standard... would our economy be more stable? (ie, no massive booms, but no massive busts either)


With that said, it wasn't just people who were ignorant of economics who got burnt this time around.

billybigunz

If you are big enough to have somebody lend you 100ks of money then you are big enough to deal with the consequences even if that means destitution or suicide.

No bailouts, no mercy.

TristanPeter

billybigunz wrote: »

... even if that means destitution or suicide.

Calm down a little.

?Cee?view

musharra wrote: »

RE: Pricing based on nothing.



Its the same as what ur your asking price is based on...but your you're afraid to admit it.

Must be awful to be wrong and have such negative feedback on everything you posted.:rolleyes:

No, I haven't offered an opinion of the value of actual value of the properties, whereas you have. Property is generally valued on such factors as yields, comparables etc. not the idle ramblings of internet postings.

?Cee?view

Xiney wrote: »

I can't help but wonder if ignorance of the market and economics is in any way orchestrated - if this kind of thing were taught in school (along with the basics of credit/credit cards, savings and budgeting) as standard... would our economy be more stable? (ie, no massive booms, but no massive busts either)


With that said, it wasn't just people who were ignorant of economics who got burnt this time around.

Completely agree. Kids are the victims of marketing in schools, but they're never told the dangers of marketing. Salesmen have taken over in the banks, where the only impetus is to "sell" money rather than lend responsibly.

?Cee?view

alb wrote: »

They are only worth 100 if that's the highest *anyone* is willing to pay for them

Exactly, and although you probably you won't believe this, I agree with you.

The problem with the OP is that he believes that the value of something is not what *anyone* is willing to pay, but rather what he alone is willing to pay.