Property prices are on the way back up!

Agent J

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i recall Nigel Lawson doing something similar and the UK property market took off like a rocket. the same will happen here albeit with less severe acceleration.

take it from me once the banks begin lending again (and if the noises coming from Brussels are to be believed, that will be quite soon), the market here will take off.

there is huge pent up demand, many of those who have put off buying are desperate to get their own place, starting a family whilst living with mammy is never a good idea, they know rent is dead money, they realize there is excellent value out there.

when things change, they will change with frightening speed. you heard it here first folks!

Hi Tom Parlon

How is the CIF treating you these days?

Or Perhaps you are Donnie Cassidy?

Ray Palmer

robd wrote: »

I profited from property. I exited prior to the crash. The crash was blindingly obviously to those with an understanding of markets who didn't think they were some kind of finance god, ala most property developers and speculators.

You gambled and won. Nothing amazing about that. Our property bubble didn't die naturally. The world economy fell apart. I doubt you predicted that. That caused the property crash here. It would have happened at some point but maybe a year later.
Don't kid your self that you are any different from somebody studying the form of the hourses.

Theboinkmaster

jsd1004 wrote: »

We are back in 2005 again..just the opposite. The market is a market like any other. The price of a commoditity is what someone else is willing to pay for it irrespective of yield or any other factor. Prices might go up, they might go down, they might stagnate. It depends on lots of factors micro and macro. Yes employment might go down it also might boom. Interest rates are now historically low and look like going lower but if employment and inflation (including house inflation) pick up (unlikely at present in EZ) they are going to stay low. Anyone who says they know or ridicules someone elses opionion are the one who are wrong.

House prices are only going one way and if you think otherwise you are wrong and anyone coming on here spouting EA/vested interest bullsh!t or with an uninformed herd mentality deserves ridicule.

Ray Palmer

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

House prices are only going one way and if you think otherwise you are wrong and anyone coming on here spouting EA/vested interest bullsh!t or with an uninformed herd mentality deserves ridicule.

anybody saying they are only going one way and it is down is part of the herd. Nobody can be so sure to say the other side is "wrong"

gurramok

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You gambled and won. Nothing amazing about that. Our property bubble didn't die naturally. The world economy fell apart. I doubt you predicted that. That caused the property crash here. It would have happened at some point but maybe a year later.
Don't kid your self that you are any different from somebody studying the form of the hourses.

Our bubble started to die a year before the big Lehmans crash in 2007. The world crisis made it worse.

true wrote:

In the case of a garda aged 50 retiring this is enough to buy two apartments in parts of the country. This gives them rental income to supplement their Garda pension.

Considering the cheapest apartments are in the back end of nowhere, where are those renters to support the Garda pension?

robd

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You gambled and won. Nothing amazing about that. Our property bubble didn't die naturally. The world economy fell apart. I doubt you predicted that. That caused the property crash here. It would have happened at some point but maybe a year later.
Don't kid your self that you are any different from somebody studying the form of the hourses.

As an other posted replied, it did die naturally. It was dead over 12 months before world economy collapsed. I predicted the crash, albeit I was early out, which is they way you want it. You got to leave something for the next guy. I did not predict the extent of the crash, or the Euro problems.

They shear scale of the price rises and the cost versus wages was unreal at the top of the bubble. It was a seriously dangerous position. To think anything else is to not understand cheap credit and binging. The worst thing is the modern finance system encourages this to the benefit of few elite. The average man has ended up with no job, debt up to their eyes, depression and even suicide. The human side to the disgusting system we created.

I'm not a gambler. I'm cautious. Big difference.

StillWaters

true wrote: »

djk1000 wrote: »

Dead cat bounce.

Lots of civil servants taking early retirement are cash buying properties with their lump sums as an investment.

If Angela Merkal sneezes, prices will drop again.

Correct, most estate agents will privately tell you that. The lump sum cash payments retiring public servants get on retirement is 18 months finishing salary. In the case of a garda aged 50 retiring this is enough to buy two apartments in parts of the country. This gives them rental income to supplement their Garda pension.

But this report excluded cash sales.

Theboinkmaster

Ray Palmer wrote: »

anybody saying they are only going one way and it is down is part of the herd. Nobody can be so sure to say the other side is "wrong"

No no no - anyone who is informed and has done their research, reviewed the economic data etc knows prices (overall) are only going to continue going down. Yes i am sure.

Just do the research online and it's the only conclusion any intelligent person could reach.

TwoShedsJackson

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No no no - anyone who is informed and has done their research, reviewed the economic data etc knows prices (overall) are only going to continue going down. Yes i am sure.

Just do the research online and it's the only conclusion any intelligent person could reach.

You're almost certainly right, but how is this any different from the 'property prices can only go up for ever' attitude during the 'boom'?

strandroad

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

You're almost certainly right, but how is this any different from the 'property prices can only go up for ever' attitude during the 'boom'?

The difference is there is no research supporting the 'property prices can only go up for ever' belief! I don't count relying on the Indo and Bertie Aherne as research, of course...

Theboinkmaster

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

You're almost certainly right, but how is this any different from the 'property prices can only go up for ever' attitude during the 'boom'?

Because it was speculative and that mentality lacked really any economic basis, other than low interest rates and easy access to capital. The current reality of declining prices is based on about 20 reasons (do a search of my posts I've put them up here a few times) all of which are sound economic realities - increasing unemployment, increasing taxes, increasing property tax, lack of bank lending, NAMA releasing stock, uncertain euro crises, eventual increasing of base interest rates....

And most importantly in a normal operating economy 2005 bubble house prices were overvalued (when compared to historical data & trends internationally, based on Irish earnings etc). Current prices in 2012 are still way over-valued by the same metrics.

jmayo

chin_grin wrote: »

67% of statistics are made up on the spot.

It is the 23% that someone put thought into making up that worries me.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

the problem with waiting for the actual bottom of the market is that by the time you have real 'proof' the bottom has been reached, then it's already too late because prices will have already gone up.

What the fook ?
Do you seriously think that prices are going to reach bottom and start increasing again towards the glory days of the bubble ?
Can you please give us some economic indicator that would lead you to this belief.
Goats entrails, the mutterings of brendan o'connor or another indo hack don't count. :rolleyes:

goodie2shoes wrote: »

if i were in the market to buy (which i'm not) i would buy now because i honestly don't believe you're likely to get better value, and there's a real risk you end up paying a lot more once real upward movement starts to take place.

Oh FFS.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

my nephew has just bought a 3 bed in D6 last month, and i think in years to come he'll be very happy with his decision and the price he paid.
(he's already enjoyed €134.20 appreciation!)

BTW is your nephew in a secure job, did he figure in property taxes, water rates, household charges, increased interest rates, etc, etc

goodie2shoes wrote: »

basic common sense that applies to all markets? really? like we experienced during the boom you mean? or like England enjoyed during the late '80s? how do you know prices will not jump up? how do you know people will not miss out?

But you do know ?

goodie2shoes wrote: »

it never fails to amaze me how we as a nation of such property experts as you good self ever suffered such a property calamity in the first place. perhaps someone like yourself with such undoubted expertise can shed some light on this?:D

The reason we suffered such a calamity is due to people like you believing in "property will always rise", "rent is dead money" shi*e.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i recall Nigel Lawson doing something similar and the UK property market took off like a rocket. the same will happen here albeit with less severe acceleration.

You just keep on giving.
Most of us only recall Nigella Lawson.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

take it from me once the banks begin lending again (and if the noises coming from Brussels are to be believed, that will be quite soon), the market here will take off.

You do know that yet another country has this week had to turn to Brussels, Frankfurt for a bailout of their banks ?

goodie2shoes wrote: »

there is huge pent up demand, many of those who have put off buying are desperate to get their own place, starting a family whilst living with mammy is never a good idea, they know rent is dead money, they realize there is excellent value out there.

when things change, they will change with frightening speed. you heard it here first folks!

ok you have to be a p***-take.
If not then you are either frank fahey or tom parlon ?

BFDCH.

whippet wrote: »

all this generalization is nonsense.

The right properties in the right locations will always have demand, now that there are some willing buyers about these prime properties will see slight increases.

However, the vast majority of properties up for sale in ireland would not be classified as prime properties.

There are far too many Celtic Tiger McMansions and Generic Bubble time semi-d's for sale which if they can be sold will only be achieving minuscule prices.

Ignore asking prices on daft and myhome.ie .. they are meaningless, anyone who has either bought or sold in the recent past will say that Asking prices do not reflect anything like the actual selling prices.

are they typically going for more or less than advertised on daft? are they being overstated on there?

The Master.

i bought a house last year for €120,000 with inheritance that i got and my next door neighbour had bought his 2 years before that for €280,000.
the best bit is my house came with a hundred foot long garden and his belongs to someone else lol. its all overgrown to bits! they have good jobs though so can probably just about afford it ;-)

The Master.

by the way, the asking price for my one was €250,000 i offered €99,000 first then eventually agreed.he was an old man and just wated rid but yeah dont mind the asking price. they have to put something down.

StillWaters

I think that's something some people are not clear on.

This report is based on selling prices, which are often much much lower than asking prices, particularly outside prime Dublin spots. Looking on daft and saying, ha, that house is asking €200k therefore property is overvalued and will fall another 50% is nonsense.

Catweasel

StillWaters wrote: »

But this report excluded cash sales.

Yes but you would expect a surge in cash buyers to put upward pressure on all sales prices. If, as speculated here, this is a temporary cash sale surge fed by the public service retirements, then it may result in a temporary recovery in the CSO measured index.

Ray Palmer

The herd mentality is alive and well. Any thing that suggests any recovery is shot down. It isn't some logical debate.
People are saying price drops will continue indefefinitly. Seeing what happened in the UK would suggest it won't and the capital will recover first and some areas may never really recover. It is just a matter of time. Get your timing right and you win.

goodie2shoes

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

You're almost certainly right, but how is this any different from the 'property prices can only go up for ever' attitude during the 'boom'?

you are spot on two sheds.

no body can say with certainty what is going to happen into the future. (and the minute they do it's time to ignore them imo).

these same people probably were the ones to pooh pooh those that warned we were in a property bubble. you know the ones that kept saying the fundamentals in Ireland were unique, and that bubbles that occurred in other countries were different & would not be replicated here.

goodie2shoes

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The herd mentality is alive and well. Any thing that suggests any recovery is shot down. It isn't some logical debate.
People are saying price drops will continue indefefinitly. Seeing what happened in the UK would suggest it won't and the capital will recover first and some areas may never really recover. It is just a matter of time. Get your timing right and you win.

you are right Ray.

these people are once again ignoring what has happened in other property markets such as the UK.
perhaps because this is our first real property crash or maybe as you suggest it's 'cos the same herd mentality that caused the crash is at work again, and anyone that says anything that doesn't conform to the herd's "opinion" is dismissed out of hand.

as a nation we do tend to lurch from one daft extreme to the other.:o

Gurgle

Catweasel wrote: »

If, as speculated here, this is a temporary cash sale surge fed by the public service retirements

Possibly the stupidest speculation on the thread. Anyone (alright, the vast majority) retiring from the public sector has been there for the best part of 40 years. Their mortgages are long paid off.

snubbleste

Gurgle wrote: »

Possibly the stupidest speculation on the thread. Anyone (alright, the vast majority) retiring from the public sector has been there for the best part of 40 years. Their mortgages are long paid off.

Stupid
Have you heard of people buying property to let out particularly in locations of high demand? This actually still goes on plus there are wealthy enough people out there assisting their offspring with purchases.

goodie2shoes

snubbleste wrote: »

Stupid
Have you heard of people buying property to let out particularly in locations of high demand? This actually still goes on plus there are wealthy enough people out there assisting their offspring with purchases.

absolutely. my friend's dad who has recently retired from the Gardaí just purchased an apartment in D6 as his son will be starting UCD in Autumn. (i doubt he needed a mortgage).

he figures the amount he would have to pay in rent made it worthwhile. and he can rent it out when the academic year is over, and/or when the son is finished college thereby generating an income.

it's not stupid at all.:D

Gurgle

snubbleste wrote: »

Stupid
Have you heard of people buying property to let out particularly in locations of high demand? This actually still goes on plus there are wealthy enough people out there assisting their offspring with purchases.

Not that part, that's just good sense.

I was referring to the notion that there are going to be enough PS retirees doing it to make even the slightest blip of a difference to the market.

If anything, the (alleged?) rush of PS people retiring will be trading down and / or moving out of towns and cities.

Catweasel

Gurgle wrote: »

Possibly the stupidest speculation on the thread. Anyone (alright, the vast majority) retiring from the public sector has been there for the best part of 40 years. Their mortgages are long paid off.

Just to clarify, this is (A) not my speculation but something that someone else mentioned here and (B) not stupid. It may not explain the increase in prices but it may - we don't have the data to do anything other than speculate. Not sure what the relevance of your last two sentances is to the point being made.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

They can't be all in Dublin?:rolleyes: 2630 mortgages issued in Q1 2012 nationwide.

Mortgage lending continues its downward slide in Q1 2102, the raise(if its true) must be from cash sales? Total drawdowns still decreasing. And definitely from a tiny number of transactions which are down 90%+ from 2007.

http://www.ibf.ie/Libraries/Research_Statistics/IBFPwC_Mortgage_Market_Profile_Q1_2012.sflb.ashx

You are selectively looking at the figures. If you exclude top up mortgages and people remortgaging (as they have no effect on prices) you can see that the average mortgage has increased from Q4 2011 and Q1 2012. Average buy to let mortgage is at its highest since Q1 2010 so that is most likely to be the driver in increasing prices. It has increased 17.2% between Q4 2011 and Q1 2012. But also average FTB mortgages have increased in value by 2.67% and Mover Purchasers have increased in value by 1.2%.

The average loan size rose to [FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace][FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace]€[/FONT][/FONT]171,244 (up 3.4%) in Q1 2012.
[FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]• The average size of loans drawn down increased on a quarterly basis in each of the segments except the re-mortgage segment, where the average loan size fell by 4.4% to the lowest level since the series began in 2005.
• The average RIL loan drawn down increased for the third successive quarter, rising by 17.2% to [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace][FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace]€[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]197,262, the highest average value since Q1 2010.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Catweasel

Gurgle wrote: »

I was referring to the notion that there are going to be enough PS retirees doing it to make even the slightest blip of a difference to the market.

A quick google suggests that there were 8000 retirees from public service in Q1 2012. Mortgage drawdowns are running at an annualised figuren of about 11,000 apprantely. (http://www.ncbresearch.com/fixed_income/Irishresidentialproperty.pdf)

If even a small % of retirees were to use the lump sum to buy property then it could easily drive demand up by a few percent. Potentially enough to increase print by a marginal amount that is coming through on the CSO figures.

Not stupid speculation - again not necessarily right but a potential reason.

goodie2shoes

Gurgle wrote: »

Not that part, that's just good sense.

I was referring to the notion that there are going to be enough PS retirees doing it to make even the slightest blip of a difference to the market.

If anything, the (alleged?) rush of PS people retiring will be trading down and / or moving out of towns and cities.

wrong again.
the volume of property sales is so low it would take very little to skew these figures one way or the other.

christmas2012

whatever you do dont go out and panic buy unless you want to encourage them shooting up again,only economists with second homes to flog will bluff and say the prop market is on the up,and IN A RECESSION??I smell bullshit..

who_ru

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The herd mentality is alive and well. Any thing that suggests any recovery is shot down. It isn't some logical debate.
People are saying price drops will continue indefefinitly. Seeing what happened in the UK would suggest it won't and the capital will recover first and some areas may never really recover. It is just a matter of time. Get your timing right and you win.

the herd mentality exists everywhere. how many times have i read in newsprint, heard on the radio/tv etc that rents are increasing. hey presto, many LLs increase their rents on spec. the price of oil goes up because of a conflict in the middle east, petrol retailers increase their prices instantly, but are slow to adjust prices downwards when the price of oil drops.

the same mentality existed when the property market was inflating. every mortgage broker told an applicant that prices were only going up. the press was on board with lavish property supplements, hell even RTE were on board...remember shows like 'i'm an adult get me out of here!' - the irony for the title for that programme still makes me laugh really, 'an adult!'...yeah right.

but we still have the diehard property pimps like the Independent pushing the story that prices are going up as if the market 'recovery' is just around the corner. 'Recovery' being bubble prices in 2000-2006 which in many ways has got us to where we are and 15% of mortgages in arrears.

we need a stable property market, that operates in a free and transparent manner. we don't have that yet, and may never have it.

goodie2shoes

the problem with the herd (and its' mentality) is it lurches first one way and then the other. (like sheep do).

remember those folk telling you property could only go up?
well they're at it again, except this time they're telling you it can only go down!

don't believe them unless you want to be part of that herd. AGAIN!:D

OMD

Catweasel wrote: »

A quick google suggests that there were 8000 retirees from public service in Q1 2012. Mortgage drawdowns are running at an annualised figuren of about 11,000 apprantely. (http://www.ncbresearch.com/fixed_income/Irishresidentialproperty.pdf)

If even a small % of retirees were to use the lump sum to buy property then it could easily drive demand up by a few percent. Potentially enough to increase print by a marginal amount that is coming through on the CSO figures.

Not stupid speculation - again not necessarily right but a potential reason.

Except the evidence suggests that cash buyers actually reduced the prices rather than increased them. It is pretty much what you would expect to happen as well

desertcircus

Do we even know if this rise is statistically significant? A rise this small in a segment this small of a market this small could be the result of a single big transaction.

Catweasel

OMD wrote: »

Except the evidence suggests that cash buyers actually reduced the prices rather than increased them. It is pretty much what you would expect to happen as well

Is there evidence that cash buyers reduce prices? Surely they just pay market prices. They have only a marginal advantage over mortgage approved buyers outside a chain. The real issue is how few buyers there are, cash buyers just happen to be a position to move the market at the moment because they are a larger proportion than in a properly functioning market - either by being market makers or in this theory by suddenly spiking demand.

By the way, I wouldn't even initially have thought of public service retirements as a possible reason for price stabilisation/increase but there is sufficient evidence to consider it as a possibility.

In answer to another question on statistical significance, I'd be surprised given the sample size if the monthly movement is statistically significant.

daltonmd

Re: Cash buyers - they aren't taken into account in the report - it's based on mortgage drawdowns.

One third of buyers were cash buyers. Unless we have that data and then a report then this is meaningless.

Catweasel

daltonmd wrote: »

Re: Cash buyers - they aren't taken into account in the report - it's based on mortgage drawdowns.

One third of buyers were cash buyers. Unless we have that data and then a report then this is meaningless.

Cash sales are probably selling at more or less the same as non cash buyers except in certain circumstances. Without the cash sales the index is less meaningful but that is not the reason it is meaningless.

If the monthly index is meaningless it is because the sample size is too small, not specifically because cash sales are excluded. The main advantage of including them is to increase the sample size, not because they are buying at significantly different prices.

green123

StillWaters wrote: »

This report is based on selling prices, which are often much much lower than asking prices, particularly outside prime Dublin spots.

Property register due by end of June

A PROPERTY register giving all details of residential sales in 2010 and 2011 should be available before the end of June next year, according to Tom Lynch, the head of the Property Services Regulatory Authority

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1124/1224308056980.html?via=rel

no talk about this property price register, they just keep delaying it.

supposed to be here by the end of june ?

doesnt look likely ?

Northern Monkey

Originally Posted by chin_grin
67% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Originally Posted by jmayo
It is the 23% that someone put thought into making up that worries me.

The other 10% worries me:D

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

You are selectively looking at the figures. If you exclude top up mortgages and people remortgaging (as they have no effect on prices) you can see that the average mortgage has increased from Q4 2011 and Q1 2012. Average buy to let mortgage is at its highest since Q1 2010 so that is most likely to be the driver in increasing prices. It has increased 17.2% between Q4 2011 and Q1 2012. But also average FTB mortgages have increased in value by 2.67% and Mover Purchasers have increased in value by 1.2%.

The average loan size rose to [FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace][FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace]€[/FONT][/FONT]171,244 (up 3.4%) in Q1 2012.
[FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]• The average size of loans drawn down increased on a quarterly basis in each of the segments except the re-mortgage segment, where the average loan size fell by 4.4% to the lowest level since the series began in 2005.
• The average RIL loan drawn down increased for the third successive quarter, rising by 17.2% to [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace][FONT=Euro Monospace,Euro Monospace]€[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger 45 Light,Frutiger 45 Light]197,262, the highest average value since Q1 2010.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Huh? Only RIL went up in value from Q4 2011 to Q1 2012, the others including FTB and Mover Purchasers went down. RIL is a tiny part of the market at the moment, only 25m worth of those mortgages were taken out in Q1 2012.

And the volumes are down in each segment, less people taking out all types of mortgages. What does that say? It says that fewer people are taking out slightly larger mortgages, agree?

It ain't a herd in numbers jumping in yet to prop up the market. We'll see what Q2 springs up when those figures are released though a March rise was recorded in prices which is part of the downward momentum in Q1 banking figures.

The number of mortgage loans issued in each segment decreased on both a year-on-year and a quarter-on-quarter basis.

2012 Q1 1,211 46.0% 873 33.2% 129 4.9% 123 4.7% 294 11.2% 2,630
2011 Q4 1,887 48.9% 1,206 31.3% 131 3.4% 204 5.3% 428 11.1% 3,856

The value of mortgage loans issued to the RIL segment increased on both a quarter-on-quarter and a year-on-year basis. All other segments contracted compared with Q1 2011 and Q4 2011

2012 Q1 198 44.0% 182 40.4% 25 5.6% 18 4.0% 27 6.0% 450
2011 Q4 301 47.1% 248 38.8% 22 3.5% 32 5.0% 36 5.6% 639

Ideo

green123 wrote: »

Property register due by end of June

A PROPERTY register giving all details of residential sales in 2010 and 2011 should be available before the end of June next year, according to Tom Lynch, the head of the Property Services Regulatory Authority

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1124/1224308056980.html?via=rel

no talk about this property price register, they just keep delaying it.

supposed to be here by the end of june ?

doesnt look likely ?

That article was from Thursday, November 24, 2011

I believe the register is due out this autumn

Ideo

And in fact, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the register pushed out to Jan next year, after the interest TRS running out

Degsy

goodie2shoes wrote: »

absolutely. my friend's dad who has recently retired from the Gardaí just purchased an apartment in D6 as his son will be starting UCD in Autumn. (i doubt he needed a mortgage).

he figures the amount he would have to pay in rent made it worthwhile. and he can rent it out when the academic year is over, and/or when the son is finished college thereby generating an income.

it's not stupid at all.:D

So this man,who's at least 60 years of age and has lived through at least two recessions has bought an apartment in one of the most overpriced areas of Dublin for cash,with his retirement money for his kid because its cheaper than renting a bedsit for the kid to live?

Thats actually your story,yeah? :rolleyes:

Its quite insulting to the intelligence really.

goodie2shoes

Degsy wrote: »

So this man,who's at least 60 years of age and has lived through at least two recessions has bought an apartment in one of the most overpriced areas of Dublin for cash,with his retirement money for his kid because its cheaper than renting a bedsit for the kid to live?

Thats actually your story,yeah? :rolleyes:

Its quite insulting to the intelligence really.

No he's just turned 50 actually, having availed of the Govt's very generous early retirement package. FYI he was "retired" all of 3 days as he had a good paying job lined-up even before he quit the Gardaí.

He bought the apt. at a very good price, as the landlord owner was desperate to sell and needed a quick sale.

Believe what you want. I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I dont think I could.;)

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

Huh? Only RIL went up in value from Q4 2011 to Q1 2012, the others including FTB and Mover Purchasers went down. RIL is a tiny part of the market at the moment, only 25m worth of those mortgages were taken out in Q1 2012.

And the volumes are down in each segment, less people taking out all types of mortgages. What does that say? It says that fewer people are taking out slightly larger mortgages, agree?

It ain't a herd in numbers jumping in yet to prop up the market. We'll see what Q2 springs up when those figures are released though a March rise was recorded in prices which is part of the downward momentum in Q1 banking figures.

The number of mortgage loans issued in each segment decreased on both a year-on-year and a quarter-on-quarter basis.

2012 Q1 1,211 46.0% 873 33.2% 129 4.9% 123 4.7% 294 11.2% 2,630
2011 Q4 1,887 48.9% 1,206 31.3% 131 3.4% 204 5.3% 428 11.1% 3,856

The value of mortgage loans issued to the RIL segment increased on both a quarter-on-quarter and a year-on-year basis. All other segments contracted compared with Q1 2011 and Q4 2011

2012 Q1 198 44.0% 182 40.4% 25 5.6% 18 4.0% 27 6.0% 450
2011 Q4 301 47.1% 248 38.8% 22 3.5% 32 5.0% 36 5.6% 639

You quoted the report. At least read the bloody thing before you comment. FFS

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

Cash sales are probably selling at more or less the same as non cash buyers except in certain circumstances. Without the cash sales the index is less meaningful but that is not the reason it is meaningless.

If the monthly index is meaningless it is because the sample size is too small, not specifically because cash sales are excluded. The main advantage of including them is to increase the sample size, not because they are buying at significantly different prices.

Any report that is issued with the conclusion - "house prices are rising", that has left out a significant portion of actual sales - is meaningless.


The size of the "sample" is not in question because the report found that "house prices are rising".

Catweasel

daltonmd wrote: »

Any report that is issued with the conclusion - "house prices are rising", that has left out a significant portion of actual sales - is meaningless.


The size of the "sample" is not in question because the report found that "house prices are rising".

But there is no conclusion that house prices are rising in the report. The report is factual and does not draw conclusions. The report merely reports the numbers based on its methodology, which it acknowledges poses a challenge and it freely acknowledges that cash transactions are out of scope.

The report is not meaningless, its meaning just has to understood within its limitations.

I think you'll find that in any statistical analysis, sample size is very much relevant.

I'm intrigued as to why people think that cash sales should sell at different prices to other houses.

Theboinkmaster

Catweasel wrote: »

But there is no conclusion that house prices are rising in the report. The report is factual and does not draw conclusions. The report merely reports the numbers based on its methodology, which it acknowledges poses a challenge and it freely acknowledges that cash transactions are out of scope.

The report is not meaningless, its meaning just has to understood within its limitations.

I think you'll find that in any statistical analysis, sample size is very much relevant.

I'm intrigued as to why people think that cash sales should sell at different prices to other houses.

In the context of concluding on house market recovery or finding the "bottom" the report is indeed meaningless.

We have a few years of sustained price drops to go yet IMO.

Catweasel

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

In the context of concluding on house market recovery or finding the "bottom" the report is indeed meaningless.

We have a few years of sustained price drops to go yet IMO.

Agreed. The point being argued by others is that the report is meaningless because cash sales are excluded.

My point is that the report is not meaningless due to the exclusion of cash sales, though it may be less meaningful. If the report is meaningless it is because of sample size and lack of data, not because of a skew introduced by the omission of cash transactions.

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

But there is no conclusion that house prices are rising in the report. The report is factual and does not draw conclusions. The report merely reports the numbers based on its methodology, which it acknowledges poses a challenge and it freely acknowledges that cash transactions are out of scope.

The report is not meaningless, its meaning just has to understood within its limitations.

I think you'll find that in any statistical analysis, sample size is very much relevant.

I'm intrigued as to why people think that cash sales should sell at different prices to other houses.

Sorry, but the conclusion is when the CSO states:

House price increase.

It's methodolgy excludes 30% cash transactions. We don't know how much these properties sold for and that is the issue.

Leaving out cash transactions and concluding from the part information included that house prices have risen, when in actual fact that cannot be verified is wrong.

LLU

goodie2shoes wrote: »

HOUSE prices increased by 0.2pc in May with Dublin up for a third month in a row although year-on-year there was a drop.

According to the latest figures from the Central Statistics Office, the 0.2pc increase in May compares with a drop of 1.1pc in April and 1.2pc in May of last year.

National prices fell by 15.3pc in the year ended May.

And in Dublin, prices were 17.5pc lower than a year ago.

The price of properties excluding Dublin rose by 0.1pc in May compared with a decline of 2.1pc in May last year.

Dublin house prices are 55pc lower than at their highest level in 2007.

Dublin apartment prices are 61pc lower than in February of the same year.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/house-prices-up-02pc-in-may-but-dublin-climbs-for-third-month-in-row-3149448.html

Yes it looks like we're seeing an irreversible trend - but this could change.