Anyone regret buying property?

kippy

Calina wrote: »

The lax lending rules fed into the property bubble. The issue has not been the average salary buying the average house. It is that the average house has commanded a premium price. Given that the invention of shoebox apartments has caused the average property profile to change, the impact is greater again. Ultimately there are people who paid 500KE for two bedroomed apartments. They weren't on average salaries, they were on hig salaries. And what they could buy for that money was disproportionately less.

Everybody has the right to aspire to buying property. People have different opportunities. However, the property market in Ireland screwed courtesy of the lending practices. The vision you sell here isn't accurate either.



Prices will have stabilised when they start to track inflation. It is very difficult to call on where that might be because Ireland has absolutely insane supply conditions at the moment.



Unlike you, I don't see this as fixed in stone. I believe everyone should be able to buy, particularly in a culture where tenancy is as badly regulated as it is here. It is something you can force to change. What people don't understand is that people who were willing to borrow the sums they did contributed to the problems faced by a generation now.



I disagree. If we maintain a reasonable bank lending policy, then we'll avoid the abyss. As a returning emigrant, one of the features of Irish society that shocked me was that people saw property as a cash cow. Easy money. It doesn't work like that. All that attitude has to go; there is no such thing as a free lunch ultimately.

______________________

I feel the OP's question is badly framed. Very few people will ever admit to regret overtly. If you want a true answer to that question, you need to frame it in a way that they can answer honestly without feelign that they may have lost face.

I would ask

"With the benefit of hindsight, would you do it again?"

for some people, who traded at the right time, it worked out. For others it did not and the key reason for that is that property was basically a casino for 8-10 years.

A lot of people didn't have the liberty of trading at the right time. They will almost certainly struggle on as far as possible, with thin months but many of them in my view will never admit to regrets. But I know a few who given a second chance wouldn't do it again.

With the benefit of hindsight?
Are you serious?
With the benefit of hindsight there are a lot of things I would do/not do again.
Buy Apple/Microsoft shares - pick the winning lotto numbers etc.....

The_Morrigan

All things considered, I'd still buy my apt. I have no regrets (a concept a lot seem to have a problem with), except for maybe some of my interior design options...:D

oceanclub

So no-one who bought during the late years of the boom and is in negative equity regrets it?

I think that's great, and hopefully it puts an end to the ridiculous wish for a property bailout.

P.

MRBEAVER

I shouldn't have gone with the black floor tiles.

The_Morrigan

MRBEAVER wrote: »

I shouldn't have gone with the black floor tiles.

Thats one of my regrets....the tenant I got in made sh*t of them with her fecking heels, and I can't quite afford to replace them just yet as it would require the walls to be re-done too!!!

kippy

oceanclub wrote: »

So no-one who bought during the late years of the boom and is in negative equity regrets it?

I think that's great, and hopefully it puts an end to the ridiculous wish for a property bailout.

P.

No one who posted on this thread anyway.

AARRRRGH

kippy wrote: »

No one who posted on this thread anyway.

Im sure a lot of them do. But honestly, out of all the people I know who have bought their houses, I only know 2 in negative equity.
Now others may join them over the next while, but most home owners didnt actually buy during the bubble years. And a lot who did, sold a house they had bought many years before to enable them to buy the new one, so they wouldnt have equity issues either.

Thinking about it now though I know another guy, who I thought was loaded, who kept remortgaging, who is now broke and acting like he might commit suicide. But thats another story. Remortgaging is certainly for idiots.

gurramok

AARRRRGH wrote: »

Im sure a lot of them do. But honestly, out of all the people I know who have bought their houses, I only know 2 in negative equity.
Now others may join them over the next while, but most home owners didnt actually buy during the bubble years. And a lot who did, sold a house they had bought many years before to enable them to buy the new one, so they wouldnt have equity issues either.

I know at least 8 first time buyers(all under 40) who are in negative equity, maybe another 3 who bought pre 2003 who are not. Oh, and another who re-mortgaged to release equity, a regrettable decision for that person.

I think the most regrettable bunch are the first time buyers who bought that starter home or an apt with a view to selling it on in a few years on the mystical ladder where such homes do not meet their needs at all. These are the younger generation.

At least the bunch of 2nd time buyers are most likely to have better homes to suit their needs despite the equity problem.

OMD

oceanclub wrote: »

So no-one who bought during the late years of the boom and is in negative equity regrets it?

I think that's great, and hopefully it puts an end to the ridiculous wish for a property bailout.

P.

It all depends on timing.

A bloke I know moved here from UK in 2001. He was killed telling everyone at the time how overpriced houses were in Ireland. He rented and is still renting. Now he is killed telling people how much he is saving by not buying. He keeps saying prices have dropped 40% from peak so he has saved that much. The reality is house prices are still above 2001 levels. Taking into account the loss of tracker mortgages, the increase in mortgage margins and the high costs of rents between 2001 and 2008 almost certainly not buying in 2001 was the wrong decision for him even assuming a further major fall in house prices.

A similar mindset applies to many people on this site. Yes if you bought at the very peak of the market your property has devalued by 40% and if you decided at the peak of the market to start renting instead of buying then yes, now your decision has so far saved you 40% on the purchase price. The reality is this scenario only applies to a few people. The further from peak price you go the less the loss/savings. Add to this the dramatic increase in mortgage rates and the loss of trackers.

MRBEAVER

I know people in the same situation. Other than maybe those who bought at the very peak and are in serious negative equity most people who bought property are probably better in the long run both financially and otherwise (they can paint their walls) than the long term renters.

This is provided

1 They bought a place they liked and intended to live in long term. i.e. not those who bought into the hype about indefinitely rising prices and bought an unsuitable place to get on the first rung of the mythical ladder.

Would you prefer at 60 to own your own house and have no more payments or to be still renting waiting for prices to fall to where you think they should be

femur61

Why is the Irish mind set to won property and elsewhere they are happy renting?

astrofool

femur61 wrote: »

Why is the Irish mind set to won property and elsewhere they are happy renting?

Ireland is not different. Other countries can also have high rates of ownership.

MRBEAVER

femur61 wrote: »

Why is the Irish mind set to won property and elsewhere they are happy renting?

This is a myth that seems to be repeated here continuously. Most western Europeans buy their own places. Although much stronger rental protections and higher building standards mean it us chosen by some, lifelong renting is not something most western Europeans choose.

OMD

MRBEAVER wrote: »

This is a myth that seems to be repeated here continuously. Most western Europeans buy their own places. Although much stronger rental protections and higher building standards mean it us chosen by some, lifelong renting is not something most western Europeans choose.

And not just Europe, USA has a similar home ownership rate to us yet is constantly used as an example of how people rent long term.

SamG

This is a myth that seems to be repeated here continuously. Most western Europeans buy their own places. Although much stronger rental protections and higher building standards mean it us chosen by some, lifelong renting is not something most western Europeans choose

What utter nonsense! On continental Europe it is the norm for people to rent their entire lives. In Germany rent is fixed by city district and landlords cannot raise rent above certain levels. You ask any continental European what the interest rate is and they wouldn't have a clue. Building Societies are non-existent as there is not enough demand for mortgages. The prevailing attitude is that buying does not make sense re finance, mobility, peace of mind, etc.

If by Western Europe you mean Irl and UK then, yes. We are uniquely obsessed with buying/borrowing for property. Edit - maybe "obsessed" is the wrong word. "Brainwashed" would be more appropriate. It's an enormous cash cow for banks and there are too many vested interests who need to keep the population indebted. Look at the amount of Fianna Fail TDs in Dail Eireann with massive property portfolios - including Brian Cowen who is a landlord leasing apts to students in Leeds. Can you imagine Angela Merkel leasing apts in Glasgow. Yup, Ireland is different.

quozl

There is a large discrepancy between Irish home-ownership rates and some european ones.

People disagreeing with this need to post some actual figures and not just waffle please.

We have 183% the home-ownership rate of germany, and 151% that of denmark. The figures are a few years old, so it may be even crazier here now!

Germany 42%
Denmark 51%
Austria 56%
Belgium 71%
Ireland 77%
Spain 85%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owner-occupier

Oh and Switzerland, 28%!
http://www.economy.com/dismal/blog/blog.asp?cid=113236

That article discusses the links between high homer-owneship and resulting immobility and unemployment.

Pittens

Am I the only person reading this thread who thinks that the real sh*t will hit the fan in ireland when interest rates rise, as they will over the lifetime of the mortgage of most people? Most housing recessions in the past were caused by increases in interest rates - for instance the increase in interest rates in 1992 which brought down the British housing market. It is very rare for housing to fall as interest rates fall.

The other thing that strikes is just how much NAMA is a subsidy for the people who bought houses as well as the banks. The ECB + 0.75% was a ridiculous arrangement if a cheaper house is now going for 5% apr and 30% deposit. And if you wouldn't get a mortgage now you shouldnt then. We are all paying for that via NAMA....

Anyway there is a second whamy due for the Irish housing market when the rest of Europe recovers.

mathie

kippy wrote: »

With the benefit of hindsight?
Are you serious?
With the benefit of hindsight there are a lot of things I would do/not do again.
Buy Apple/Microsoft shares - pick the winning lotto numbers etc.....

kippy wrote: »

No one who posted on this thread anyway.

This makes zero sense.

On the one hand you point out how having a time machine would make you buy things that turned a profit and then you say that all those who have bought something that turned a loss did the right thing?

quozl

Pittens wrote: »

Am I the only person reading this thread who thinks that the real sh*t will hit the fan in ireland when interest rates rise,

No, it's not a unique position to hold.

It's how long it has taken to happen that is the surprising bit imo. We've been very lucky that germany and france are taking so long to recover, if they had bounced back a year ago we'd already be having interest rates set to prevent inflation, not stimulate recovery.

OMD

quozl wrote: »

There is a large discrepancy between Irish home-ownership rates and some european ones.

People disagreeing with this need to post some actual figures and not just waffle please.

We have 183% the home-ownership rate of germany, and 151% that of denmark. The figures are a few years old, so it may be even crazier here now!

Germany 42%
Denmark 51%
Austria 56%
Belgium 71%
Ireland 77%
Spain 85%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owner-occupier

A fuller list is here
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Highest_home_ownership_rate

As can be seen most Western democracies have greater than 50% home ownership.

Pittens

I know people in the same situation. Other than maybe those who bought at the very peak and are in serious negative equity most people who bought property are probably better in the long run both financially and otherwise (they can paint their walls) than the long term renters.

Naw. The tracker issue is true - the banks giving tracker mortgages were suicidal ( and indeed died, propped up by NAMA). But the idea that buying a house and getting locked into a place for life is better ( because you can paint the walls) is rubbish, and partly responsible for the boom itself. I am out of contract now, but hope to start a new contract next week. When in contract I pay about 1 days pay in rent. No need to do much else.

The cost of a house is the cost of the principal and the interest. Most of the people who got mortgages during the boom got 35+ mortgages. The vast majority of this group will pay more for their house than they will ever sell it for.

oceanclub

We're the top 5 country for home ownership in the world, albeit these statistics are from different years, I wouldn't imagine the rate changes that much (and has, if anything, increased since then);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

(Singapore doesn't really belong at the top since home ownership rates are artificially high due to the way the government has a mandatory scheme into which you must save money to buy a home.)

Would be interesting to see more up to date statistics.

P.

quozl

OMD wrote: »

A fuller list is here
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Highest_home_ownership_rate

As can be seen most Western democracies have greater than 50% home ownership.

That is a list of the HIGHEST home-ownership rates. We're talking about comparing Ireland to continental europe, not to the highest home-ownership countries in the world. Which we still come 5th on.

I think you're making my point for me

Here's a few more http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_hom_own-people-home-ownership&int=-1&id=OECD&b_map=1
Switzerland 28%
Germany 42, Netherlands 49, Denmark 51, France 55, UK 69, Ireland 77, Spain 85 (wtf!)

I think it's indisputable that there are large differences (183 % germany, 275% switzerland) between Irish home-ownership rates and plenty of our continental neighbours.

Not all of them of course, if I didn't understand the difference between correlation and causation looking at those statistics I could think that high ownership rates cause economic collapse!

Note, high ownership rates do make a country more vulnerable to property shocks, so perhaps there really is a correlation. Too tenuos for me to argue it though, just a thought.

Note2: If I had to pick the high ownership countries (the PIIGS/UK) or the lower ownership countries (switzerland, germany, denmark), I know which I'd rather be like. That's an aside from the point of this thread though.

OMD

quozl wrote: »

That is a list of the HIGHEST home-ownership rates. We're talking about comparing Ireland to continental europe, not to the highest home-ownership countries in the world. Which we still come 5th on.

I think you're making my point for me

Here's a few more http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_hom_own-people-home-ownership&int=-1&id=OECD&b_map=1
Switzerland 28%
Germany 42, Netherlands 49, Denmark 51, France 55, UK 69, Ireland 77, Spain 85 (wtf!)

I think it's indisputable that there are large differences (183 % germany, 275% switzerland) between Irish home-ownership rates and plenty of our continental neighbours.

Not all of them of course, if I didn't understand the difference between correlation and causation looking at those statistics I could think that high ownership rates cause economic collapse!

Note, high ownership rates do make a country more vulnerable to property shocks, so perhaps there really is a correlation. Too tenuos for me to argue it though, just a thought.

The point that was made previously that in western europe the norm is to buy property rather than to rent. ie more than 50% of people own their own homes. In the OECD every country except Germany has greater than 50% home ownership.


http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1996/Owning_up.html
"Home ownership, rather than rented accommodation, has become the norm in most OECD countries over the last 20 years. In fact, Germany is the only OECD country where the owner occupation rate is well below 50% of the total.

Indeed, its rate has remained broadly unchanged (around 41%) since 1980. Elsewhere, owner occupancy rates have increased quite markedly in countries such as France, Italy and the Netherlands, with strong upsurges in recent years reflecting booms in property markets. Particularly sharp rises were recorded in Spain, which had the highest owner occupation rate at 83% in 2004, just above Italy at 80%. Portugal’s owner occupation rate leapt from 64% in 2002 to 75% in 2004. If there is a pattern, the highest owner occupancy rates are in Anglo-Saxon and Mediterranean countries, though Norway’s rate at 77% in 2002 was also among the highest."

oceanclub

OMD wrote: »

The point that was made previously that in western europe the norm is to buy property rather than to rent. ie more than 50% of people own their own homes. In the OECD every country except Germany has greater than 50% home ownership. [/I]

This point does not negate the point that Ireland is still one of the highest.

P>

OMD

oceanclub wrote: »

This point does not negate the point that Ireland is still one of the highest.

P>

But that was not the point people were making. It started with femur 61 asking why people in the rest of Europe were happy renting but in Ireland we are not. Astrofool, MrBeaver and I all said other countries also had high ownership rates. SamG said this was utter nonsense. I have simply used the facts to show that it is not nonsensense and that the norm is western Europe is to buy rather than rent.

dan_d

What does it matter whether we rent or buy as a nation???

The fact of the matter is that the entire social structure of many European countries is completely different to ours - in many cases, way ahead of ours. Therefore the laws are set up to allow people to rent and still have many rights. The industry is controlled and regulated, and it works.

Here, renting means that you are paying somebody else's mortgage on a second house, which they can sell to make a quick buck, or else overcharge you to make a profit. It's an investment, easy money for them (though less so now). Your rights are limited, you are pretty much at the mercy of the landlord, and the standard of properties varies wildly.

It doesn't matter a damn what other countries do. The likelihood of this changing around here anytime soon is slim to none. Rent if you like, but whether or not we as a nation rent or buy, is not really relevant to the original thread question. You can argue that renting is better than buying for many reasons, and it suits some people, but it's actually neither right nor wrong for a nation to either rent or buy, regardless of where you are and no matter how many statistics are thrown around. There is no black and white on this one.

iguana

quozl wrote: »

I think it's indisputable that there are large differences (183 % germany, 275% switzerland) between Irish home-ownership rates and plenty of our continental neighbours.

Yes well clearly if you compare us to the two countries that have the lowest home ownership rates on the continent ours look huge.:rolleyes: I'm 5'1" but if I stand next to a bunch of women below 4'9" I look really tall. Talk about twisting statistics to make your point.

Ireland is about on the upper end of middling when it comes to home ownership rates. Bulgaria and Romania are at the top with well over 90%. Then Slovakia, Hungary, Spain, Greece, Norway, Portugal and Poland. As of 2007 we were higher than Italy but we are often below them. The UK, Sweden and Belgium all have rates in the upper 60s. The only thing special about Ireland's rates of home ownership is that they are subject to such constant myth.



http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/construction/current/constructhousing.pdf

kippy

mathie wrote: »

This makes zero sense.

On the one hand you point out how having a time machine would make you buy things that turned a profit and then you say that all those who have bought something that turned a loss did the right thing?

I didnt say they did the "right thing". I said they didnt regret buying property. There is a difference.

quozl

iguana wrote: »

Yes well clearly if you compare us to the two countries that have the lowest home ownership rates on the continent ours look huge. Talk about twisting statistics to make your point.

The point I made is that there ARE large differences in home ownership rates between us and SOME of our continental neighbours.

There is a large discrepancy between Irish home-ownership rates and some european ones.

Note, I try to write precisely what I mean. Please take my point to be what I said, not what you read it to be. If I am unclear I'll clarify as needed, but I was very clear in this.

I twisted nothing, I deliberately included the highest (Spain 80%), and lowest ownership figures I had.

I then pointed out the percentile difference between us and the lowest two as these illustrate my point. Posting the others would not contradict my point as writing that we have only 96% of Spains ownership level does not negate my point that there are large discrepancies between us and some of our european neighbours. So in order to be concise I didn't put it in.

Understand?