Property prices are on the way back up!

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

The vast majority of estate egents are very unprofessional. I've probably dealt with only one recently who was partly realistic and I've met with most of them in my area. They are generally clueless about valuation techniques and are guided by the vendor.

The funny thing is, they would be better off trying to get the market lower to stimulate transactions. I've never really understood why EA's try to fight over 10k. To them on 2% or so it's only worth 200 euro.

They'd be better off having an honest up front chat with the vendors so that they are realistic about price.

They can't if the seller is in NE. As you rightfully point out why else would "they" (or the seller as it is in many cases) fight over 10k?

Millem

TheDriver wrote: »

i have found EAs terrible over the last few months. They don't ring back, don't try to interest me in similar properties, run me through properties, tell me offers are on the table and don't really care to be honest. The old excuse about "i sold mine through an EA" because they have all the connections........yeah right.....

I heard the best laugh last week from an EA about a 2 bed house for sale for €295,000
in SCD, supposedly there have been 20 bids on it, the highest bid being €410,000 however he is still holding opening viewings evey weekend! I think I smell a few porkies! Lol

StillWaters

daltonmd wrote: »

They can't if the seller is in NE. As you rightfully point out why else would "they" (or the seller as it is in many cases) fight over 10k?

But houses in NE make up a tiny proportion of houses for sale.

Edit to add rationale:
10% of homeowners are in NE (based on 170,000 being so).
That cohort are less likely to sell than anyone else because
A) they have valuable trackers
they simply can't, lender wont allow them, and they don't have the cash to make up the shortfall.

Total guess, but I'd say less than 5% of houses for sale are in NE.

daltonmd

StillWaters wrote: »

But houses in NE make up a tiny proportion of houses for sale.

Edit to add rationale:
10% of homeowners are in NE (based on 170,000 being so).
That cohort are less likely to sell than anyone else because
A) they have valuable trackers
they simply can't, lender wont allow them, and they don't have the cash to make up the shortfall.

Total guess, but I'd say less than 5% of houses for sale are in NE.

Try 40%.

"Deputy Governor Matthew Elderfield said negative equity was likely to remain an "unpleasant reality" for many borrowers for years to come, but that he supported moves to help those who were in a position to avail of it.
While 40pc of homeowners are in negative equity, Mr Elderfield said 93pc of such borrowers were not in arrears."


I would question your "guesstimate" because the reality is if people could sell and repay their mortgage then they would. The EA can say what he wants, but if the seller won't sell below a certain price, for whatever the reason then what can they do?

christmas2012

People need to stop giving property sellers power,there is a property stand off right now and long may it last.Dont give in like the last time,dont give them the upperhand..Were in a recession there is hardly any money,people are getting laid off/fired,the moneys just not there to buy,buy,buy,and loans are harder to get..This recession could last up to 20 + years according to some public figures..

Gurgle

christmas2012 wrote: »

This recession could last up to 20 + years according to some public figures..

I wouldn't get too excited about that particular warning.

Scruff

I've seen 2 empty houses at builders finish stages that have been on the market for the last couple of years change Estate Agents in the last month and now the asking price has got up by 10% on each under the new EA.
interesting tactics....they havent sold at reduced prices over the years so lets increase prices! :rolleyes:

Snakeblood

Scruff wrote: »

I've seen 2 empty houses at builders finish stages that have been on the market for the last couple of years change Estate Agents in the last month and now the asking price has got up by 10% on each under the new EA.
interesting tactics....they havent sold at reduced prices over the years so lets increase prices! :rolleyes:

If you look at daftdrop.com, castle estate agents yoyo the prices constantly. It's like in tesco, where it looks like a bargain because it's going for a fiver, and it was ten last week, but a month ago it was 2.50.

StillWaters

daltonmd wrote: »

StillWaters wrote: »

But houses in NE make up a tiny proportion of houses for sale.

Edit to add rationale:
10% of homeowners are in NE (based on 170,000 being so).
That cohort are less likely to sell than anyone else because
A) they have valuable trackers
they simply can't, lender wont allow them, and they don't have the cash to make up the shortfall.

Total guess, but I'd say less than 5% of houses for sale are in NE.

Try 40%.

"Deputy Governor Matthew Elderfield said negative equity was likely to remain an "unpleasant reality" for many borrowers for years to come, but that he supported moves to help those who were in a position to avail of it.
While 40pc of homeowners are in negative equity, Mr Elderfield said 93pc of such borrowers were not in arrears."

Did you quote that verbatim? He might mean 40% of mortgage holders. Most homeowners do not have a mortgage.

Duggys Housemate

StillWaters wrote: »

Did you quote that verbatim? He might mean 40% of mortgage holders. Most homeowners do not have a mortgage.

Wheres the figure for "most".

seamus

StillWaters wrote: »

Did you quote that verbatim? He might mean 40% of mortgage holders. Most homeowners do not have a mortgage.

While I can't back up your "most" statement, here's the actual speech from Elderfield, relevant piece is near the top of page 2.
http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/speeches/Documents/120302%20-%20Speech%20by%20Deputy%20Governor%20Central%20Bank%20of%20Ireland%20%20to%20Harvard%20Business%20School%20Alumni%20Club%20of%20Ireland.pdf

Homeowners without a mortgage can't be in negative equity, so the term by implication refers to someone with a mortgage

Catweasel

daltonmd wrote: »

They can't if the seller is in NE. As you rightfully point out why else would "they" (or the seller as it is in many cases) fight over 10k?

In most of the houses I have looked at, I doubt the seller was in NE (based on year of build, background etc). Mostly I believe the lack of flexibility on price was based on the vendors view of the price - usually a personal thing where they believe their labours on the house have increased value and their house is somehow different from the market because it is special for some reason - like decor, location, sliderobes etc. In reality, most buyers don't care. In only one example, do I believe that the EA challenged the valuation of the vendor.


If someone is in NE and pricing the house way over market rates, then I think the EA has a duty to explain the nature of their strategy (i.e. hope over logic) but I don't believe they do. Also, even if they were in NE, a seller should consider whether 10k is a dealbreaker. It's so difficult to find a buyer these days, if they hold out for better house prices may have fallen by that 10k and more.

I still think 90% of estate agents are incompetent and unprofessional- you won't comvince me otherwise

germack3

I image it would be a good time to get on the property ladder but don't do like my friends, get the property surveyed so you know what you are buying, there is a lot of rubbish out there. Know what you are getting into…

StillWaters

seamus wrote: »

Homeowners without a mortgage can't be in negative equity, so the term by implication refers to someone with a mortgage

Well exactly, but lots of people would infer from that, that he was talking about homeowners in general ie 40% of homeowners are in trouble.
See how dalton read it?

It's the sort of twisting of facts and words that's not helpful to anyone.

There are between 1.6-1.7m owned habitable homes exc council and ghost stock, and c 700,000 mortgages.

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

In most of the houses I have looked at, I doubt the seller was in NE (based on year of build, background etc). Mostly I believe the lack of flexibility on price was based on the vendors view of the price - usually a personal thing where they believe their labours on the house have increased value and their house is somehow different from the market because it is special for some reason - like decor, location, sliderobes etc. In reality, most buyers don't care. In only one example, do I believe that the EA challenged the valuation of the vendor.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that. With respect, your opinion suits your argument.

I now plenty of of examples where the vendor disagreed with the EA - except their "valuation" was higher.

Catweasel wrote: »

If someone is in NE and pricing the house way over market rates, then I think the EA has a duty to explain the nature of their strategy (i.e. hope over logic) but I don't believe they do. Also, even if they were in NE, a seller should consider whether 10k is a dealbreaker. It's so difficult to find a buyer these days, if they hold out for better house prices may have fallen by that 10k and more.

Of course he has a duty - but they don't have to accept his valuation - not if they can't. I have said before that in some cases it's not so much a house for sale, it's a debt.

Catweasel wrote: »

I still think 90% of estate agents are incompetent and unprofessional- you won't comvince me otherwise

Never tried to convince you other wise. You seem to believe that the vendor has no input - I believe you are incorrect.

goodie2shoes

smccarrick wrote: »

goodie2shoes, Monty Burnz etc- play nice.......

no problemo.

just observing the herd/flock.:cool:

RATM

Millem wrote: »

I heard the best laugh last week from an EA about a 2 bed house for sale for €295,000
in SCD, supposedly there have been 20 bids on it, the highest bid being €410,000 however he is still holding opening viewings evey weekend! I think I smell a few porkies! Lol

Its crap like this that shows we really need the property price register, now delayed until September, but hopefully only 8-12 weeks away. At least then buyers can show up knowing that a house with on the same street and with a virtually identical square footage sold for X price within the last two months.

Then every buyer will arrive armed with that knowledge. As they say knowledge is power and for too long estate agents have had all the cards. But soon we'll have transparancy and if a house next door sold for €300k the buyers are going to baulk if estate agents even so much as suggest that there is a bidding war past €330k going on for the house they're selling, even though the market is falling. People just won't buy their lies and they can make up all the fake bidders they want but if people know the current worth of a house then they'll just get laughed at.

RATM

goodie2shoes wrote: »

no problemo.

just observing the herd/flock.:cool:

While you're observing the herd you might give us some logical and rational economic arguments as to why you believe prices are going to go up. You've been asked several times now by a few posters but have selectively ignored the posters points.

I remain to be convinced of your argument because, to be honest, you haven't really made one

NakedNNettles

goodie2shoes wrote: »

no problemo.

just observing the herd/flock.:cool:

Likewise.:cool:

goodie2shoes

RATM wrote: »

While you're observing the herd you might give us some logical and rational economic arguments as to why you believe prices are going to go up. You've been asked several times now by a few posters but have selectively ignored the posters points.

I remain to be convinced of your argument because, to be honest, you haven't really made one

Why should I? Folk like you speak so much wisdom for all of us.

Heck what do I know. I'm barely 45 and completely debt/mortgage free. I own half a dozen properties, and soon intend to move to a largish 7 bedroom house which will be kindly paid for by my hardworking tenants.

I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.:D

Monty Burnz

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Why should I? Folk like you speak so much wisdom for all of us.

Heck what do I know. I'm barely 45 and completely debt/mortgage free. I own half a dozen properties, and soon intend to move to a largish 7 bedroom house which will be kindly paid for by my hardworking tenants.

I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.:D

It seems pretty clear that - if this stuff is true at all - then you have quite a good reason to go around claiming that property prices are 'on the way back up', don't you?

relax carry on

goodie2shoes wrote: »

RATM wrote: »

While you're observing the herd you might give us some logical and rational economic arguments as to why you believe prices are going to go up. You've been asked several times now by a few posters but have selectively ignored the posters points.

I remain to be convinced of your argument because, to be honest, you haven't really made one

Why should I? Folk like you speak so much wisdom for all of us.

Heck what do I know. I'm barely 45 and completely debt/mortgage free. I own half a dozen properties, and soon intend to move to a largish 7 bedroom house which will be kindly paid for by my hardworking tenants.

I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.:D

With no mortgage interest to claim on those properties as an expense, your tax liability on the rental income must be pretty high.
Can I ask when people on this and other threads talk about percentage rental yield, is that before or after tax? Just curious as I never see it mentioned.

christmas2012

people need to stop believing the hype

dont give them the upperhand by going out and panic buying

remember the last time,people up to their eyes in debt..

this is a ruse to try and lure people out to buy..

remember there is a property stand off..long may it last,it will keep the prices low!

wake up people!

StillWaters

relax carry on wrote: »

With no mortgage interest to claim on those properties as an expense, your tax liability on the rental income must be pretty high.
Can I ask when people on this and other threads talk about percentage rental yield, is that before or after tax? Just curious as I never see it mentioned.

rental yield is almost always quoted gross, same as yield on all investments, bonds, deposit etc. It would make no sense to quote net as everyone's tax liability is different dependent on a wide variety of factors such as marginal rate, expenses etc.

Duggys Housemate

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Why should I? Folk like you speak so much wisdom for all of us.

Heck what do I know. I'm barely 45 and completely debt/mortgage free. I own half a dozen properties, and soon intend to move to a largish 7 bedroom house which will be kindly paid for by my hardworking tenants.

I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.:D

you'd be more believable as a prophet if you had sold in 2006

WhatNowForUs?

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Why should I? Folk like you speak so much wisdom for all of us.

Heck what do I know. I'm barely 45 and completely debt/mortgage free. I own half a dozen properties, and soon intend to move to a largish 7 bedroom house which will be kindly paid for by my hardworking tenants.

I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.:D

You are telling people to 'Go Follow The Herd (:rolleyes:)' however you are the only one without an argument and the 'Go Follow The Herd' crew are the ones who are putting forward evidence for their arguement. Now if I am correct would it not be Herd Like to follow the one who is not putting forward evidence for their arguement.

StillWaters

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Now if I am correct would it not be Herd Like to follow the one who is not putting forward evidence for their arguement.

Can you explain what you mean, there are too many negatives in there? Do you mean the 'herd' will follow the most convincing evidence/argument.

In which case, of course! But Economics is far from an exact science. It takes a huge amount of critical thinking to cut though evidence/statistics/forecast to figure out your own path. I don't care if people agree with me, but I have huge respect for people who have those critical thinking skills, no matter which side of the fence they end up on.

Caseywhale

StillWaters wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean, there are too many negatives in there? Do you mean the 'herd' will follow the most convincing evidence/argument.

In which case, of course! But Economics is far from an exact science. It takes a huge amount of critical thinking to cut though evidence/statistics/forecast to figure out your own path. I don't care if people agree with me, but I have huge respect for people who have those critical thinking skills, no matter which side of the fence they end up on.

Yeah, too many examples here of people posting links and taking them as gospel because they suit their own opinion and then attacking anyone elses opinion when they post another article.

Its not abnout articles and economists. Its about ability to make money from a market. If you can make money from the market then go ahead and do so. If you cant then dont. Very simple.
People dont have to agree with your position, but they also dont have to jump down someones throat who is actually taking a position in a market.

Nobody needs to follow you in, and nobody neewds to give their permission for you to enter a market.

Snakeblood

Caseywhale wrote: »

Yeah, too many examples here of people posting links and taking them as gospel because they suit their own opinion and then attacking anyone elses opinion when they post another article.

Its not abnout articles and economists. Its about ability to make money from a market. If you can make money from the market then go ahead and do so. If you cant then dont. Very simple.
People dont have to agree with your position, but they also dont have to jump down someones throat who is actually taking a position in a market.

Nobody needs to follow you in, and nobody neewds to give their permission for you to enter a market.

I think the issue is people saying things are turning around, or things are getting worse, and then whenever people challenge them on it, evading the issue or cherrypicking which bit they want to answer as though it discredits the whole thing, when it doesn't. It comes off as being disingenuous and certainly makes their arguments seem evasive, facile, ill thought out, and self interested.

Edit: Not to say that everyone does it, but there's a bunch of it in the thread where people when challenged refuse to answer the questions\issues that other people see in what they are saying.

WhatNowForUs?

StillWaters wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean, there are too many negatives in there? Do you mean the 'herd' will follow the most convincing evidence/argument.

In which case, of course! But Economics is far from an exact science. It takes a huge amount of critical thinking to cut though evidence/statistics/forecast to figure out your own path. I don't care if people agree with me, but I have huge respect for people who have those critical thinking skills, no matter which side of the fence they end up on.

Yep sorry about that, My head was doing a bit of a rolley polley at the time.

Now, I'd rather have some links and evidence to digest and if the evidence makes sense I will go with that view point. I'd prefer to do that then follow somebody who says he owns so and so with nothing to back it up.

If he does own so and so fair play to him but I'll not be following him as I don't know how he got there, he hasn't provided any info.