House Price Register

Glenbhoy

Figures will be comparable until at least the end of March or mid April to be fairly certain.

The PPR is dependent on data being received from solicitors re contract sales prices and afaik they have 30 days from completion before filing this (and the accompanying stamp duty payment). The bulk of February returns will be filed by the end of March, but there are always a few outliers.

From what I can see on the ground, there's definitely a huge increase in activity, whether that translates into sales remains to be seen.
Jan 2013 looks to be pretty similar to Jan 2012 in terms of raw numbers of sales, but Feb may well be a different story (anyone check the value of sales across these periods?).

davet82

Updated: 07/03/2013 11:35:25

flintash

can anyone confirm "discrepancies" with PPR? I'm hearing too many examples where the price doesn't match PPR, or is it just unreliable sources and/or lying seller/buyer? Most cases "actual" price lower than PPR listed price. Would solicitors "adjust" the price so buyer able to draw more money from bank than needed?

Scortho

flintash wrote: »

can anyone confirm "discrepancies" with PPR? I'm hearing too many examples where the price doesn't match PPR, or is it just unreliable sources and/or lying seller/buyer? Most cases "actual" price lower than PPR listed price. Would solicitors "adjust" the price so buyer able to draw more money from bank than needed?

Why would the buyer say to revenue that they paid a higher price than they did, just so they coukd borrow more?
This would lead to higher than necessary mortgage repayments and increased stamp duty being paid.
Also the bank would know what the house is worth, and wouldn't loan more than that.

flintash

Scortho wrote: »

Why would the buyer say to revenue that they paid a higher price than they did, just so they coukd borrow more?

Yes

This would lead to higher than necessary mortgage repayments and increased stamp duty being paid.

Mortgage interest payment lower than home improvement or car loan.

Also the bank would know what the house is worth, and wouldn't loan more than that

How many parties need to be involved in a conspiracy? Is a buyer and his solicitor enough?
Actually I would do that if possible for the reason above- lower loan interest. (who doesnt take a loan after purchasing his first house- to decorate or buy new leather couch an big plasma, sorry LED these days? )

The_Conductor

Ok guys- lets leave the conspiracy theories elsewhere please.

flintash

no, seriously. Just rephrase the question then- How bank would know agreed sale price? Is it from the contract that both parties sign and then send it to the bank?

38 redwood

The Price 0f new properties are shown on PP register exclusive of VAT. Would that not explain discrepancy?

flintash

I know that. No it doesnt explain. I've read few time here people saying price doesnt match. Just wanted more confirmation.

Bullseye1

There seems to be alot of detail missing from the registering size of property, number of bedrooms and whether its detached, semi etc??

Tragedy

Cool Rider wrote: »

Just noticed that for the 1st 2 months sales are way down in 2013. I know we are missing 2 days data but these figures are from Dublin only and you can clearly see what a 27% drop in sales mean. With MIR gone no one is killing each other for houses plus EAs have put up prices to keep up the momentum gained in 2nd half of last year which is further discouraging buyers to move in. Interesting setup- my prediction we will see same affect like we saw in 2nd half of 2011-prices tumbling /\

Year Sales YOY diff.
2013 627 -27.4%
2012 864 30.5%
2011 662 -24.6%
2010 878 N.A.

_________

It's up to 742 Jan-Feb in Dublin and I wouldn't be surprised to see it break 800 soon enough.

So I would disagree with absolutely everything in your post as it was predicated on the faulty assumption that properties arrive on the PPR promptly and fully.

gurramok

Tragedy wrote: »

It's up to 742 Jan-Feb in Dublin and I wouldn't be surprised to see it break 800 soon enough.

So I would disagree with absolutely everything in your post as it was predicated on the faulty assumption that properties arrive on the PPR promptly and fully.

I've just had a quick look. There was mass buying of 35 properties at Cruise Park in Dublin on Jan 15th, a NAMA style buying spree. I'd subtract that 35 plus about 5 other duplicates to get a truer picture of the buying public.

To add, I also notice alot of double stars for 2nd hand property. I just wonder how many of these are deals between the banks and mortgage holders who are in trouble whereby the house was not put on the market at all.(like my neighbours house)

PPR wrote:

In a small number of transactions included in the Register the price shown does not represent the full market price of the property concerned for a variety of reasons. For example, the price declared may reflect the retention of an interest in the property by the previous owner, or the fact that a part or fraction only of the property is being purchased; alternatively, the property may have been purchased at a reduced price under the Affordable Homes Scheme. In addition, in a very small number of cases, properties may be declared as purchased in exchange for other property, stocks and shares, etc. All such properties are marked **.

davet82

updated: 14/03/2013 09:22:36

seems to be getting updated every thursday morning

Tragedy

gurramok wrote: »

I've just had a quick look. There was mass buying of 35 properties at Cruise Park in Dublin on Jan 15th, a NAMA style buying spree. I'd subtract that 35 plus about 5 other duplicates to get a truer picture of the buying public.

Cherry picking what for you constitutes a "truer picture of the buying public" does not make a "truer picture of the buying public".

gurramok

Tragedy wrote: »

Cherry picking what for you constitutes a "truer picture of the buying public" does not make a "truer picture of the buying public".

What? When you post stats about a particular month, its not all black and white. Look in detail at the stats to make sure to get that truer picture, thats all

Tragedy

gurramok wrote: »

What? When you post stats about a particular month, its not all black and white. Look in detail at the stats to make sure to get that truer picture, thats all

That's not really how statistics works. If one believes a certain datapoint is skewing the statistics, you have to broaden the datapool - you can't just remove data.

(Source: 2 years of Statistics and 1 year of Econometrics)

gurramok

Tragedy wrote: »

That's not really how statistics works. If one believes a certain datapoint is skewing the statistics, you have to broaden the datapool - you can't just remove data.

(Source: 2 years of Statistics and 1 year of Econometrics)

Eh, read the data itself. In this case we have a NAMA type buying spree and deals between the banks and mortgage holders(those double stars), those properties were never on the market for the buying public.

Tragedy

gurramok wrote: »

Eh, read the data itself. In this case we have a NAMA type buying spree and deals between the banks and mortgage holders(those double stars), those properties were never on the market for the buying public.

Again, it just shows your ignorance of statistics.

gurramok

Tragedy wrote: »

Again, it just shows your ignorance of statistics.

No. You're dealing with numbers without looking at the numbers themselves.

One does not need so called 2 years of Statistics and 1 year of Econometrics to read the Price Register, the info is quite easy for any Joe and Jane to decipher.

Tragedy

gurramok wrote: »

No. You're dealing with numbers without looking at the numbers themselves.

That isn't statistics.

One does not need so called 2 years of Statistics and 1 year of Econometrics to read the Price Register, the info is quite easy for any Joe and Jane to decipher.

If it's so easy, why are so many people (including yourself) getting it so badly wrong?

If you believe a data set is skewed in some way, you should broaden it. You don't remove data because you personally believe it doesn't fit.

And you're right, you don't need to three so called (so called what?) years of studying statistics to know the above, it's common sense. Otherwise statistics would be utterly pointless because anyone could just remove 'statistics' they don't like until it fits the answer that they want.

gurramok

Tragedy wrote: »

That isn't statistics.

If it's so easy, why are so many people (including yourself) getting it so badly wrong?

If you believe a data set is skewed in some way, you should broaden it. You don't remove data because you personally believe it doesn't fit.

And you're right, you don't need to three so called (so called what?) years of studying statistics to know the above, it's common sense. Otherwise statistics would be utterly pointless because anyone could just remove 'statistics' they don't like until it fits the answer that they want.

What are we getting wrong?

Its quite startling that you take a set of stats from the PPR without querying the criteria how those stats were reached while the PPR tells you. Thats what I did and yet you have a problem with it, one wonders.

Reminder of criteria for 2nd hand property statistics:

PPR wrote:

In a small number of transactions included in the Register the price shown does not represent the full market price of the property concerned for a variety of reasons. For example, the price declared may reflect the retention of an interest in the property by the previous owner, or the fact that a part or fraction only of the property is being purchased; alternatively, the property may have been purchased at a reduced price under the Affordable Homes Scheme. In addition, in a very small number of cases, properties may be declared as purchased in exchange for other property, stocks and shares, etc. All such properties are marked **.

Tragedy

gurramok wrote: »

What are we getting wrong?

I've already explained what you're getting wrong several times. Instead of accepting it(or at least being open to the possibility), you decided to go on the offensive and dig in.

Its quite startling that you take a set of stats from the PPR without querying the criteria how those stats were reached while the PPR tells you.

Nothing to do with anything I have posted. Try your straw man argument somewhere else.

(Also, and not to belabour the point, you again show you don't have even the slightest clue when it comes to analysing statistics. It doesn't matter how the PPR compiles its statistics if the only analysis we are performing is comparing it to prior PPR statistics compiled in the same way).

Thats what I did and yet you have a problem with it, one wonders.

No it isn't, you attempted to redefine the field of statistics by making it acceptable to remove data from a particular data set because you dislike it.

Reminder of criteria for 2nd hand property statistics:

Again, nothing to do with anything that I have posted.


I'm still curious what "so-called statistics" means. You are aware that statistics is a very well researched scientific field, right? Because from your posts you seem to think it's akin to being a psychic or something :rolleyes:

gurramok

Tragedy wrote: »

I've already explained what you're getting wrong several times. Instead of accepting it(or at least being open to the possibility), you decided to go on the offensive and dig in.

Nothing to do with anything I have posted. Try your straw man argument somewhere else.

(Also, and not to belabour the point, you again show you don't have even the slightest clue when it comes to analysing statistics. It doesn't matter how the PPR compiles its statistics if the only analysis we are performing is comparing it to prior PPR statistics compiled in the same way).

No it isn't, you attempted to redefine the field of statistics by making it acceptable to remove data from a particular data set because you dislike it.

Again, nothing to do with anything that I have posted.

I'm still curious what "so-called statistics" means. You are aware that statistics is a very well researched scientific field, right? Because from your posts you seem to think it's akin to being a psychic or something :rolleyes:

Out of all this, you have not explained once to back up your earlier challenging statement.

Tragedy wrote:

Cherry picking what for you constitutes a "truer picture of the buying public" does not make a "truer picture of the buying public"

Nor have you explained how "we are getting it wrong".

I have explained plenty of times as to why there is skewing in the register when it comes to properties available to the buying public(hint: those 2 stars for example). You have taken the stats blindly as evidence without even querying the originality of the stats(and previous stats) to try to back your assertions, that's bad statistic analysis by yourself.

looksee

I have checked the PPR and there are no properties on my estate. The Revenue website says we are in band 2 and the revenue booklet/estimate says band 3. I am not aware of any sales recently and I reckon we would be very borderline between the two bands, though I have no idea which way it would go.

Revenue say 'this could be wrong' so the ball is in my court, but the fines are in theirs. How do you decide which way to go?

roro2

Update 21/03/2013 11:24:27

looksee

roro2 wrote: »

Update 21/03/2013 11:24:27

Yes?

Balmed Out

looksee wrote: »

Yes?

He wasn't replying to you just to the fact the register has had more entries added

jondo12

looksee wrote: »

I have checked the PPR and there are no properties on my estate. The Revenue website says we are in band 2 and the revenue booklet/estimate says band 3. I am not aware of any sales recently and I reckon we would be very borderline between the two bands, though I have no idea which way it would go.

Revenue say 'this could be wrong' so the ball is in my court, but the fines are in theirs. How do you decide which way to go?

Well said. Its obvious that there is a certain amount of guess work involved. There is a continuing downward trend in prices in my area whether you include the ** or not. I am between two bands. Do I go for the higher or the lower? Its in my interests to go lower so think thats what Ill do. Thats €310 euro lower than revenues estimate.

Ritchi

jondo12 wrote: »

Well said. Its obvious that there is a certain amount of guess work involved. There is a continuing downward trend in prices in my area whether you include the ** or not. I am between two bands. Do I go for the higher or the lower? Its in my interests to go lower so think thats what Ill do. Thats €310 euro lower than revenues estimate.

It's in your interest to value it correctly, whether that ends up meaning you pay more or less property tax. If you were to put your house on the market tomorrow, how much would you expect to get? Then that's your valuation.

Tragedy

gurramok wrote: »

Out of all this, you have not explained once to back up your earlier challenging statement.

I quite clearly have.

Nor have you explained how "we are getting it wrong".

We? I specified what you are doing wrong, I don't know why you're inventing a "we" now.

I have explained plenty of times as to why there is skewing in the register when it comes to properties available to the buying public(hint: those 2 stars for example).

And yet again, you completely miss the point and display your complete ignorance on statistics.

You have taken the stats blindly as evidence without even querying the originality of the stats(and previous stats)

This nonsense is unrelated to anything I have posted. You seem to have a trend of posting replies largely unrelated to anything I've posted, instead of addressing where I clearly and thoroughly point out your misunderstandings and mistakes.

to try to back your assertions

See top of post.

that's bad statistic analysis by yourself.

One should listen to the ignorant poster who says wonderful things like "so called Statistics" as if the study of statistics isn't even a thing?

To explain for the Nth time what you're doing wrong (not that you'll listen, I'll no doubt log on to the thread in a few days to see you stating that I haven't explained or backed up anything), skewed data is not removed when analysing statistics. There are many tools available to deal with skew in a population and you're more than welcome to google "remove skew" or "dealing with skewed data" to satisfy yourself that you are indeed wrong.

Hell, let's not even involve 'so-called statistics'.

You believe we should edit the jan-feb 2013 numbers to remove 'skewed' sales, yet you make no mention of going back through all the previous numbers to remove similarly 'skewed' sales.
Further, you've decided because of one personal anecdote that all sales denoted with a ** are now suspect, 'skewed' and should be removed - even though you have no actual idea what the ** denotes in each individual case, whether the property came to market or..well..anything about it.

Yet still you blather on about my not explaining anything and you being perfectly correct in everything you say.

PS: It's up to 868 in Dublin for Jan - Feb

Cool Rider wrote:

I know we are missing 2 days data but these figures are from Dublin only and you can clearly see what a 27% drop in sales mean. With MIR gone no one is killing each other for houses plus EAs have put up prices to keep up the momentum gained in 2nd half of last year which is further discouraging buyers to move in. Interesting setup- my prediction we will see same affect like we saw in 2nd half of 2011-prices tumbling

Which makes this whole post entirely laughable now.