Rents to Rocket?

Monty Burnz

BostonB wrote: »

Apologies if this was posted before
http://www.thejournal.ie/fewer-houses-for-sale-in-dublin-that-at-any-other-time-in-last-five-years-482742-Jun2012/

Fewer houses for sale, and yet nearly 15% of mortgages are in arrears, and 30% of BTLs are in arrears. There's little supply because there are almost no repossessions. And because there are almost no repossessions (or bankruptcies), why would you bother paying your mortgage?

Ray Palmer

gurramok wrote: »

Have a read
http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/demographic-contraction-in-irelands-house-buying-

I wish I hadn't it is terribly written. It comes from an agenda driven site.
There will be more students as they will stay in education longer. Dublin places have increased and have the highest demand so more students in Dublin.
Weekday workers have increased dramatically in Dublin. it still remains the highest area for employers. People move here for work. More so now as there less work in home areas.
More families have broken up requiring additional property.
What that article ignored is the point is on Dublin where emegration is less and internal migration in bad times tends to be the capital.
The longer people don't buy property the tighter the rental market will get
I think they will go up and the arguments in that article are poorly stated with an agenda. You can gloat in a year if they go down.

Monty Burnz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I wish I hadn't it is terribly written. It comes from an agenda driven site.
There will be more students as they will stay in education longer.

Students can stay at home, stay in digs, or pile 8 into a house like they always did - if student numbers do actually increase.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Weekday workers have increased dramatically in Dublin. it still remains the highest area for employers. People move here for work. More so now as there less work in home areas.

Can you please back up your claim that there are more jobs in Dublin than there were during the bubble? Because it sounds like horsesh!t.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

More families have broken up requiring additional property.

More people have died and emigrated too, freeing up property.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What that article ignored is the point is on Dublin where emegration is less and internal migration in bad times tends to be the capital.
The longer people don't buy property the tighter the rental market will get
I think they will go up and the arguments in that article are poorly stated with an agenda. You can gloat in a year if they go down.

And you have no agenda? Haven't you always been a property bull?

BostonB

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sure everyone won't think the same!

But they could rent or sell them if they really wanted to - the point is that they don't want to, they are waiting for a miracle that will double Irish property prices to allow them to make their money back.

They being the Nama, the banks or the original owners? Because the banks may not let private owners simply sell out. Nama has a different agenda. Thats really an argument about how fast to deflate the market.

Monty Burnz

BostonB wrote: »

They being the Nama, the banks or the original owners? Because the banks may not let private owners simply sell out. Nama has a different agenda. Thats really an argument about how fast to deflate the market.

You could argue all three, but I'm thinking specifically of NAMA: they have thousands of properties that they are keeping off both the rental and sales markets. In the last two years alone, these properties will have lost about a third of their value.

Solair

LOL - someone copied & pasted several of my posts straight into the comments on that story!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79143571&postcount=107

http://www.thejournal.ie/fewer-houses-for-sale-in-dublin-that-at-any-other-time-in-last-five-years-482742-Jun2012/#comments

I should be flattered I suppose

Ray Palmer

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Students can stay at home, stay in digs, or pile 8 into a house like they always did - if student numbers do actually increase.

Possible not probable. It still would increase rental demand. Everybody could share rather than get their own place but they don't

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you please back up your claim that there are more jobs in Dublin than there were during the bubble? Because it sounds like horsesh!t.

I never said that there were more jobs now compared to the boom. There are less jobs elsewhere in the country. More people coming to Dublin is a reality

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And you have no agenda? Haven't you always been a property bull?

I have an opinion a site dedicated to complaining about NAMA has agenda. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

So far people saying why rents won't rise in Dublin is Nama has a 6000 apartments.
Dublin city council has something similar in properties.
RA will drop.
There will be less people renting
People can't afford more rent.



I doubt Nama is going to do a sudden release either will the council. RA drops haven't actually had an effect yet. I think Dublin population will grow. I don't think everybody is broke

Monty Burnz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Possible not probable. It still would increase rental demand. Everybody could share rather than get their own place but they don't

Everyone I knew in college did - those who didn't stay at home, that is.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I never said that there were more jobs now compared to the boom. There are less jobs elsewhere in the country. More people coming to Dublin is a reality

So people are flocking to Dublin for jobs that you admit don't even exist?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I have an opinion a site dedicated to complaining about NAMA has agenda. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

You appear to have an agenda too - you've been talking up the market for a year. In that time, prices have collapsed nationally by a further 16-20%.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I doubt Nama is going to do a sudden release either will the council. RA drops haven't actually had an effect yet. I think Dublin population will grow. I don't think everybody is broke

'I think, I think, I think...' Ah, ok then. Let's discard what we know and go with what you think...

BostonB

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You could argue all three, but I'm thinking specifically of NAMA: they have thousands of properties that they are keeping off both the rental and sales markets. In the last two years alone, these properties will have lost about a third of their value.

I seriously doubt they'd have been able to get more than that no matter when they sold them. It also assumes people would be able to get the loans to buy them, which they wouldn't. Nama was never going to able to recoup any more than a fraction of whats on its books.

Monty Burnz

BostonB wrote: »

I seriously doubt they'd have been able to get more than that no matter when they sold them. It also assumes people would be able to get the loans to buy them, which they wouldn't.

Meanwhile, the Allsop/Space auctions are mopping up hundreds of cash buyers that NAMA would have had first dibs on if they got their asses in gear a few years back...

StillWaters

There will be no wholesale reposessions in this county, those waiting for this to happen will be disappointed. Arguing that it is what *should* happen is immaterial. There is simply no political appetite for it. As long as the interest only portion of a loan is being serviced, the house will not find itself on the market.

Similarily with NAMA, there will be no dumping of blocks of flats. NAMA is served with making us, the taxpayers money - remember? It is in their interest to drip feed housing onto the market so as not to depress it. We are talking a 10 year strategy here. I for one would be very angry if NAMA put all it had on the market in some Friedman type experiment.

The loan books of the exiting banks are almost clear of non performing loans at this stage, wait for the house price database to see the truth of what happened in Q4 last year.

They still have impaired loans of course, but no-one is in any hurry to call them in. Whats the point? Why reposess a house when some attempt is being made to repay the €300k loan when you can only sell it for 120k? Far more sensible to sit it out.

Monty Burnz

StillWaters wrote: »

There will be no wholesale reposessions in this county, those waiting for this to happen will be disappointed. Arguing that it is what *should* happen is immaterial. There is simply no political appetite for it. As long as the interest only portion of a loan is being serviced, the house will not find itself on the market.

Of course, the upside of this is that someone will be paying for all these delinquent loans and arrears through increased taxes: guess who?

StillWaters

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Of course, the upside of this is that someone will be paying for all these delinquent loans and arrears through increased taxes: guess who?

I don't get that logic. That would only happen if a further recapitalisation of the banks is required. Personally I think we will see euro debt mutualisation first.

Monty Burnz

StillWaters wrote: »

I don't get that logic. That would only happen if a further recapitalisation of the banks is required. Personally I think we will see euro debt mutualisation first.

That's possible I guess, but if we surrender our sovereignty to that extent, I think we will be seeing Croke Park torn up and a razor taken to our extremely generous state pension and social welfare systems. Net result: smaller incomes again.

BostonB

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Meanwhile, the Allsop/Space auctions are mopping up hundreds of cash buyers that NAMA would have had first dibs on if they got their asses in gear a few years back...

I bet the cash buyers didn't pay 3 times the current price.

Monty Burnz

BostonB wrote: »

I bet the cash buyers didn't pay 3 times the current price.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

BostonB

That Nama could have sold all these at 3 times their current value.

christmas2012

dont talk up another property boom lads you never know.. bad luck outta pocket .. no no

BostonB

Man you in early with that name lol.

Fundamentally it was a credit boom that fuelled the property last time. How likely is that now.

Ray Palmer

Monty Burnz wrote: »

'I think, I think, I think...' Ah, ok then. Let's discard what ..

You have an extremely simple view of a complex situation. Unaware of the meaning of 'agenda'. You constantly posting about being confused about other comments. Maybe spend some time considering what is being said than taking it as a personal challenge.
I have said I don't think rents will rocket. Reasons for a fall require some massive changes to several large systems. That is unlikely to happen with any speed.
I am losing no money won't make a massive difference to me if they go one way or the other.
I suspect that many comments here are from people who want certain things to happen. The reality is not everybody bought in the boom and can't afford their outgoings. Not every industry has been destroyed. There actually still a big demand for IT and financial services.
Running with what ever the current flavour is doesn't mean you are right or wrong just that you aren't going to look at anything objectively.
Wait and see and it will happen one way or the other whatever it is.

Monty Burnz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You have an extremely simple view of a complex situation. Unaware of the meaning of 'agenda'. You constantly posting about being confused about other comments.

Ok, now you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, I think we can all see that your argument is pretty bankrupt. Well played sir.

gurramok

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Everybody could share rather than get their own place but they don't

I went to college for a number of years like some posters here. I never met a single student who rented an apt\house on their own, other than a tiny number having a flimsy bedsit. The vast majority who moved out of home all shared accommodation as they couldn't afford to rent a place on their own.

Ray Palmer

gurramok wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Everybody could share rather than get their own place but they don't

I went to college for a number of years like some posters here. I never met a single student who rented an apt\house on their own, other than a tiny number having a flimsy bedsit. The vast majority who moved out of home all shared accommodation as they couldn't afford to rent a place on their own.

I meant everybody could share not just students. By the use of the word EVERYBODY.
@Monty
Don't act all high and mighty after personally attacking me.Try not to assume everybody agrees with you

Monty Burnz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

@Monty
Don't act all high and mighty after personally attacking me.Try not to assume everybody agrees with you

You might remind us of this personal attack because I don't think anyone else saw it...

Milk & Honey

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Milk & Honey: Who are you? Estate agent, landlord...?

I am an observer. Rents in Dublin have been knocked about for 30 years by various interventions. The situation now is that there will be very few interventions in the next few years and the market will try to find its level.
In the 1980s rents fell because of recession and emigration, the ending of rent restriction throwing large numbers of previously rent controlled flats on the market and computerisation bringing an end to many clerical and secretarial jobs.
At the end of the 1980s rents rose because of a sharp rise in house prices and many frustrated landlords sold out to private home owners. Section 23 dwellings kept rents stable until the Bacon report in the late 90s. Rent relief for landlords was abolished and rents rose sharply. Bacon was later reversed in the early 2000's and rents began to subside. After the housing crash of 2006 rents began to fall again. Rents have begun to stabilise again after a few years of falling. Similar to the 1980s many frustrated and broke landlords are getting out. There is no building. A rise in rents is in prospect and this time there will be nothing done to rein in rents.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is no building.

Thank Christ for that. Did you see the ESRI report out today? Guess what percentage of apartments are vacant in Dublin at present?

17.9% in South Dublin and 19% in Dublin City

gurramok

Milk & Honey wrote: »

After the housing crash of 2006 rents began to fall again. Rents have begun to stabilise again after a few years of falling. Similar to the 1980s many frustrated and broke landlords are getting out. There is no building. A rise in rents is in prospect and this time there will be nothing done to rein in rents.

Have you seen the recent drop in RS as a result of the deficit? And the emigration of the young plus the continuous drop in employment numbers? Also NAMA is retaining many apts from the Dublin rental market.

But the big question is, where is the money coming from to support rising rents?

Milk & Honey

gurramok wrote: »

Have you seen the recent drop in RS as a result of the deficit? And the emigration of the young plus the continuous drop in employment numbers? Also NAMA is retaining many apts from the Dublin rental market.

But the big question is, where is the money coming from to support rising rents?

The RS drop caused a blip, no more. The ESRI report allows for increasing numbers of households even allowing for migration and unemployment.

The money will come from higher density rentals. More tenants in smaller spaces.

desertcircus

Milk & Honey wrote: »

gurramok wrote: »

Have you seen the recent drop in RS as a result of the deficit? And the emigration of the young plus the continuous drop in employment numbers? Also NAMA is retaining many apts from the Dublin rental market.

But the big question is, where is the money coming from to support rising rents?

The RS drop caused a blip, no more. The ESRI report allows for increasing numbers of households even allowing for migration and unemployment.

The money will come from higher density rentals. More tenants in smaller spaces.

If landlords are going to get out, who's going to buy their properties, and at what price? If it's other landlords, then the lower price could well mean they can reduce rent; if it's current renters, then the number of renters decreases in line with the number of rental properties.

Kosseegan

desertcircus wrote: »

If landlords are going to get out, who's going to buy their properties, and at what price? If it's other landlords, then the lower price could well mean they can reduce rent; if it's current renters, then the number of renters decreases in line with the number of rental properties.

There wont be very many people buying residential property as an investment for some time. The banks are not advancing the funds. Most ex rental property that comes on the market is being bought by owner occupiers and that will to continue to be the case for years to come. Most buyers tend to buy something bigger than they have been renting. A couple renting a 1 bed apartment may buy a three or four bed house. The result is fewer bed spaces on the rental market.