Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Thinking of buying an investment property
Options
Comments
-
OP I'd agree with others that this is not a good idea.
Irish people really need to move on from the old 'brick and mortar' being a good investment because 'over time property will always rise'. That is not true, here we are in 2013 and I can easily find places that are currently sitting at 1997 prices.
Far better to look at the stock markets IMO. For one it is a liquid investment, you can enter and exit a hell of a lot easier than you can the property markets. And any investor who doesn't have a quick exit strategy is really fooling themselves.
But just take a look at the historical averages of, for example, the Dow Jones. The 100 year average of an investment in the Dow Jones over the course of any 25 years since its existence is 9%. That is a handy average 9% per year every year for 25 years. So lets say you invested €100,000 in year one and left it sit there for 25 years and didn't add anything whatsoever to the initial investment then your sum at the end of 25 years would be €862,000. Now that is what I call an asset- not some sh1tty 2 bedroom apartment in Cork. If you added €10,000 per year every year to that initial €100,000 sum then your 25 year investment would be worth on average €1,785,000.
Compound Interest Calculator here
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
The thing is it could be even higher than €1.75m. Because that 9% average includes two world wars and the Great Depression. If you look at average Dow Jones yields since the Great Depression then the average isn't 9% but an even higher 11%. That is an 11% yield and you don't have the hassle of property maintenence, property taxes, water charges, PRSI payments. The only tax you'll have on shares is CGT (but you have that on property too).
When compared to something as simple and as understandable as the Dow Jones property investment (in Ireland at least) is a mugs game. I haven't even got into other indexes such as the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ which in many case cover companies who are in explosive growth phases (think Google et al) and often out perform the Dow Jones. The Dow is a conservative index full of older more mature companies but companies who typically deliver year on year growth as they're big brand names that people buy from their cradle to their grave. The Dow has crashed several times over since the Great Depression yet it has still always recovered to produce amazing (and almost certain) returns.
Just look at these simple observations from the Dow, over a 20-25 year time frame the returns obliterate anything the Irish property market has ever done or is likely to do.
http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.ie/2010/03/stock-market-10-year-forecast.html
Think shares, not property. Less hassle, more profit.
Your forgeting one important thing thou thats coming around the corner. IMO we are coming upto the greatest crash than weve seen in 1000s of years. Mankind is f***** when tis oil runs out and when this does, the money system will collapse like a game of cards once this happens. It'll be like the irish property market, everyone was thinking this will never happen bla bla bla but once it did, the all got the shock of their lives, well wait untill this crash happens to see mankind crumble.0 -
if you look at the number of rentals verus the number of PRTB disputes on a yearly basis you would have to say the bad landlord thing is complely overplayed.
You have a far too symplistic idea of what would make for a better rental market IMO.
If the barometer of the quality of the rental market, and the security it offers, is judged by the number of rentals versus the number of PRTB disputes on an annual basis, I would suggest it is perhaps you who may have a simplistic view of the private rental sector.
The concept of one year leases, the concept that a landlord can sell a property at any time, subject of course to statutory notice, is flawed and offers no security of tenure or alternative to home ownership to the citizen. Not to mention having to run every single decision regarding every single aspect of ones tenancy, from the colours of the walls to whether one is allowed smoke in their own 'home', past an individual who views you as merely the caretaker of their pension. It also encourages the middle classes to be indebted to financial institutions, through buy-to-let mortgages, in order to fill the huge gap in housing provision in the state.
It's important to note that it is not a question of private versus social housing. The private rental market is here to stay. It's a question of who is better suited in the provision of housing in the private sector. Who is better capable of delivering the kind of secure housing which would provide a sustainable alternative to ownership. Is it John and Jane Smith with their buy-to-let? No offence to John & Jane, but I would rather deal with a reputable company whose properties are designated as being exclusively for residential lettings and regulated to such an effect, and held accountable to such an effect. One look at the banking system that exists in this country will testify to the fact that leaving the provision of housing to individuals, with no qualifications to be in such an important sector, has catastrophic consequences.
So, maybe you do see the private rented sector in a different light. You seem to be an advocate of the status quo in any case. Personally I believe the private rented sector, in its present state, offers absolutely no alternative to home ownership and will continue in its failure to provide a credible alternative as long as it is private individuals that dominate the provision of housing in this sector.0 -
If the barometer of the quality of the rental market, and the security it offers, is judged by the number of rentals versus the number of PRTB disputes on an annual basis, I would suggest it is perhaps you who may have a simplistic view of the private rental sector.
Im not saying its the barometer, but what do you want me to use as a baseline ? hearsay ? anecodotal stories ? what exactly ?
The concept of one year leases, the concept that a landlord can sell a property at any time, subject of course to statutory notice, is flawed and offers no security of tenure or alternative to home ownership to the citizen.
There is no concept of one year leases. If somebody wanted to for example sign a 5 year lease there would be few landlords that would be unwilling to accept. As for no security due to statutory notice thats incorrect you cannot just be given notice under part 4 unless specific criteria are met. A concept that is not specifically Irish but is used in many rental markets including the much heralded German rental market.
Not to mention having to run every single decision regarding every single aspect of ones tenancy, from the colours of the walls to whether one is allowed smoke in their own 'home',
You are paying for a service that service is accomadation, you are not paying for a home. You have no more rights to smoke if not allowed than if you were staying in a hotel another accomadation service you pay for.
past an individual who views you as merely the caretaker of their pension. It also encourages the middle classes to be indebted to financial institutions, through buy-to-let mortgages, in order to fill the huge gap in housing provision in the state.
We are a capitalist society, landlords run a business so yes you are contributing financially towards that and are part of their pension provision. What do you want them to do rent to you for a pittance so they can fill a social need ?
It's important to note that it is not a question of private versus social housing. The private rental market is here to stay. It's a question of who is better suited in the provision of housing in the private sector. Who is better capable of delivering the kind of secure housing which would provide a sustainable alternative to ownership. Is it John and Jane Smith with their buy-to-let? No offence to John & Jane, but I would rather deal with a reputable company whose properties are designated as being exclusively for residential lettings and regulated to such an effect, and held accountable to such an effect.
Your thought process is completely flawed. Weather it is John and Jane Smith or a "reputable company" both are regulated under the same legal system with the same legal obligations. If John and Jane Smith fail to adhere to these legal obligations you have the same recourse as a renter as if Stenna were in charge.
One look at the banking system that exists in this country will testify to the fact that leaving the provision of housing to individuals, with no qualifications to be in such an important sector, has catastrophic consequences.
Individuals with no qualifications really what claptrap. You want landlords to do a course really ....
So, maybe you do see the private rented sector in a different light. You seem to be an advocate of the status quo in any case. Personally I believe the private rented sector, in its present state, offers absolutely no alternative to home ownership and will continue in its failure to provide a credible alternative as long as it is private individuals that dominate the provision of housing in this sector.
There is nothing wrong with the rental sector as it stands in terms of a basic framework, there are however problems with poor accomadation being rented, badly educated landlords and badly educated tennants for that matter.
Any tenant with the right level of knowledge and a decent level of cop on can be more than happy in a secure tennancy in a place they like living with a relatively good level of freedom to treat their rental as a home.
The problem and you see it almost daily on here is tenants who just lack in their cerebral cortex and its no wonder these people have crappy tennancies as a result.
The number of tenants that dont know who the PRTB or Threshold are for example is shocking, likewise the number of tenants that arent aware of a landlords obligations or what thier own obligations are either is unreal.
Ignorance isnt an excuse, if somebody is well equipped and knowledgable as a tenant they can be more than adequatly provided for in the current rental system in this country. If your not then you run the risk of an unscrupulous landlord taking advantage. Its morally reprehensible but happens in all businesses and not just in the accomadation sector.
As well as the above how exactly do your think your utopian landlord system would work. A raft of new obligations for landlords means additional costs which will only be pushed onto tenants, by all means there are things done differently in other countries but the grass isnt always greener.
Would you for example be willing for tennants to pay property tax (coucil tax) as renters are obligated to in the UK for one
Or would you be an advocate of tenants having to repaint all walls as they must do in Germany before leaving a tenancy regardless of the condition of the walls ?
etc etc.
Its easy to shoot down the Irish rental sector, but every country has stories of slumlords, and tenants being taken advantage of. Im not saying things are perfect far from it, but if you think corporate entities and pension funds running 100% of the rental market will fix things your having a laugh.
You clearly have forgotten how the commercial rental market in this country is in a turd heap because of this very system of corporate entities runing things by demanding high rents to hit their yield targets, yet this is what you want to take over the private rental market instead of John and Jane Smith....0 -
newbie2013 wrote: »Your forgeting one important thing thou thats coming around the corner. IMO we are coming upto the greatest crash than weve seen in 1000s of years. Mankind is f***** when tis oil runs out and when this does, the money system will collapse like a game of cards once this happens. It'll be like the irish property market, everyone was thinking this will never happen bla bla bla but once it did, the all got the shock of their lives, well wait untill this crash happens to see mankind crumble.
wtf ? Who said oil is running out ? Some enviromentalists :rolleyes: Mankind is finding more oil now than ever before, Kurdistan has barrels in the billions and is only now truly opening up to exploitation. Oil fields in the Arctic are opening up, as are plenty of others that weren't previously financially viable to explore and drill but now are due to new technologies like IPDS and 3D seismic.
And even if we did run out of oil there is enough uranium in the world to use nuclear power for hundreds of years yet. And that is not even thinking about coming developments in nuclear fission technology and hydrogen fuel cells. Or the wad of helium 3 that is sitting right there on the moon and could power earth for a few thousand years in its own right. So no, sorry, your impending doom isn't going to come to pass.
You really ought to head to the conspiracy theories forum where your crazy ideas and incorrect assumptions will be much better received.0 -
wtf ? Who said oil is running out ? Some enviromentalists :rolleyes: Mankind is finding more oil now than ever before, Kurdistan has barrels in the billions and is only now truly opening up to exploitation. Oil fields in the Arctic are opening up, as are plenty of others that weren't previously financially viable to explore and drill but now are due to new technologies like IPDS and 3D seismic.
And even if we did run out of oil there is enough uranium in the world to use nuclear power for hundreds of years yet. And that is not even thinking about coming developments in nuclear fission technology and hydrogen fuel cells. Or the wad of helium 3 that is sitting right there on the moon and could power earth for a few thousand years in its own right. So no, sorry, your impending doom isn't going to come to pass.
You really ought to head to the conspiracy theories forum where your crazy ideas and incorrect assumptions will be much better received.
But the Mayans said were doomed
:pac: 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I read they have found large potential oil fields in australia and other
countrys in the last 2 years.
http://rt.com/business/australia-shale-oil-revolution-648/0 -
The Browser wrote: »Hi,
I am currently in a situation where I can afford to save a lot of money for the next few years. I have no personal debts, but also no assets.
I would like to have an asset, and that is why I am now considering buying an apartment with a view to renting it out.
Basically, I live in Dubai and would like to buy in either Cork or Heidelberg.- If I buy in Cork, the purchase would be purely to rent out to people. The tenants would service the mortgage through their rent and hopefully the mortgage would be clear within 10 years.
- If I buy in Heidelberg, again, tenants would pay off the mortgage while I might move in myself when I move back to Europe in the future.
Any view or opinions? Not having any assets, and having very few savings at present, I feel very exposed...
However, I can save 20,000 per year between now and 2015 or 2016, so the savings situation will soon be put right.
Long term goal would be to have two or three properties each generating a monthly income to make my retirement more comfortable.
I'm 30 and soon-to-be married. No kids planned until 2015.
Thanks for the advice
My advice would be to invest your money elsewhere. If you want returns from property invest in a specialist fund and manage your risk.
The only Irish properties I would potentially invest in would be corporate/professional 1-beds in Dublin.0 -
I read they have found large potential oil fields in australia and other
countrys in the last 2 years.
http://rt.com/business/australia-shale-oil-revolution-648/
There's loads of oil everywhere. It's the cost of extraction and transport that is the key.0 -
As well as the above how exactly do your think your utopian landlord system would work. A raft of new obligations for landlords means additional costs which will only be pushed onto tenants, by all means there are things done differently in other countries but the grass isnt always greener.
Would you for example be willing for tennants to pay property tax (coucil tax) as renters are obligated to in the UK for one
Or would you be an advocate of tenants having to repaint all walls as they must do in Germany before leaving a tenancy regardless of the condition of the walls ?
etc etc.
Its easy to shoot down the Irish rental sector, but every country has stories of slumlords, and tenants being taken advantage of. Im not saying things are perfect far from it, but if you think corporate entities and pension funds running 100% of the rental market will fix things your having a laugh.
You clearly have forgotten how the commercial rental market in this country is in a turd heap because of this very system of corporate entities runing things by demanding high rents to hit their yield targets, yet this is what you want to take over the private rental market instead of John and Jane Smith....
100% of the market? I don't believe I suggested that. I am absolutely certain however that if planning laws facilitated the zoning of areas, or apartment complexes, for example for the specific usage of residential lettings and encouraged tenders from companies to run such on long term yields that it would be, on the face of it, a better way of delivering secure housing into the private rental sector as opposed to encouraging individuals to fill the gap. If private individual landlords are so assured of the superior quality, and security of tenure they could offer what on earth would they have to fear about the consideration of such proposals?
What is most insightful I believe is your assertion that... "You are paying for a service that service is accomadation, you are not paying for a home. You have no more rights to smoke if not allowed than if you were staying in a hotel another accomadation service you pay for".
May I just say, this is precisely the attitude which crystalises the reason why allowing individuals, who on the face of it are assuming greater constitutional protections are afforded to home-owners than home-renters, to dominate the private rented sector will never lead to an alternative market to ownership, and in turn indebtedness to the banks, being created. As someone who deals with law on a daily basis I can tell you that the courts don't delve into property deeds when it comes to inviolability of the dwelling. A landlord has absolutely no legal basis for restricting a tenant from smoking in what the courts would construe as their own home. In fact, it would be a violation of at least two fundamental constitutional rights. They may, I am sure they do, enquire when a prospective tenant is viewing the property whether anyone in the household smokes and then, at their own discretion offer it to someone who didn't. But to suggest that a tenant, in a dwelling the courts would consider their own home, "have no more rights to smoke than if they were staying in a hotel or any other accomadation[sic] service they pay for is testament to how uneducated some of those who are responsible for the provision of housing in the private rented sector actually are.
There really are too many of your points to answer individually. I'm not by any means suggesting there is a panacea to the severe issues in the private rental sector, but to leave the status quo as is will, in my opinion, lead to a perpetuation of the inherent inadequacies and inequalities that exist within the sector. The sector should be approached by the authorities as a sector which can offer an alternative to ownership for the tenant. That is a difficult ambition to achieve within the present culture of the private rental sector and will remain so whilst it is dominated by, dare I say it, individual amateur landlords. And besides, surely there's of a lack of ingenuity involved if the best way one can think of making money is in telling people what colour the walls of their dwelling should be and whether or not they should smoke within the confines of them.0 -
Advertisement
-
100% of the market? I don't believe I suggested that. I am absolutely certain however that if planning laws facilitated the zoning of areas, or apartment complexes, for example for the specific usage of residential lettings and encouraged tenders from companies to run such on long term yields that it would be, on the face of it, a better way of delivering secure housing into the private rental sector as opposed to encouraging individuals to fill the gap.
If such a scenario was profitible private companies would have bought full apartment blocks for this very reason, it wouldnt require specific zoning or tendering. The fact they havent speaks more than anything I could type.
If private individual landlords are so assured of the superior quality, and security of tenure they could offer what on earth would they have to fear about the consideration of such proposals?
I dont believe they would. Im an advocate of capitalism, if a better product or service is on offer so be it, but I believe the gap in your argument is that this better product or service will not be made available by plugging in corportate entities. The legalities remain the same, therefore the product remains the same or the price of the service goes up to suppliment the higher level of quality.
What is most insightful I believe is your assertion that... "You are paying for a service that service is accomadation, you are not paying for a home. You have no more rights to smoke if not allowed than if you were staying in a hotel another accomadation service you pay for".
May I just say, this is precisely the attitude which crystalises the reason why allowing individuals, who on the face of it are assuming greater constitutional protections are afforded to home-owners than home-renters, to dominate the private rented sector will never lead to an alternative market to ownership, and in turn indebtedness to the banks, being created. As someone who deals with law on a daily basis I can tell you that the courts don't delve into property deeds when it comes to inviolability of the dwelling. A landlord has absolutely no legal basis for restricting a tenant from smoking in what the courts would construe as their own home. In fact, it would be a violation of at least two fundamental constitutional rights. They may, I am sure they do, enquire when a prospective tenant is viewing the property whether anyone in the household smokes and then, at their own discretion offer it to someone who didn't. But to suggest that a tenant, in a dwelling the courts would consider their own home, "have no more rights to smoke than if they were staying in a hotel or any other accomadation[sic] service they pay for is testament to how uneducated some of those who are responsible for the provision of housing in the private rented sector actually are.
Thats your opinion and reading of constitutional law, the problem is unless somebody took a constitutional challenge (which will never happen) on this point it remains purely your reading of the constitution.
There really are too many of your points to answer individually. I'm not by any means suggesting there is a panacea to the severe issues in the private rental sector, but to leave the status quo as is will, in my opinion, lead to a perpetuation of the inherent inadequacies and inequalities that exist within the sector. The sector should be approached by the authorities as a sector which can offer an alternative to ownership for the tenant. That is a difficult ambition to achieve within the present culture of the private rental sector and will remain so whilst it is dominated by, dare I say it, individual amateur landlords. And besides, surely there's of a lack of ingenuity involved if the best way one can think of making money is in telling people what colour the walls of their dwelling should be and whether or not they should smoke within the confines of them.
I see you ignored my comment regarding the commerical property sector in this country that is run in the majority my corporate entities. A sector that is blighted with issues. Again I ask why do you think the same sector would do a better job in the private rental sector if the yields existed for them to do so0 -
I see you ignored my comment regarding the commerical property sector in this country that is run in the majority my corporate entities. A sector that is blighted with issues. Again I ask why do you think the same sector would do a better job in the private rental sector if the yields existed for them to do so
Stena Fastigheter is one of Sweden’s largest privately owned property companies, owning and managing properties worth around SEK 30 billion.
In the interview here with their Chief Executive Officer Christel Armstrong Darvik, see how we are working with them in helping them to achieve their aim of being Sweden’s leading property company
http://www.joneslanglasalle.eu/EMEA/EN-GB/Pages/real-value-stena-fastigheter-sweden.aspx
I'm not sure whether John & Jane Smith have a CEO who works with them in the ownership and management of their buy-to-let pension. I'm not sure if they have dedicated teams to deal with maintenance issues either, or operate on the basis of decades involvement with the provision of housing, it would certainly make me, as a tenant of theirs feel a lot more secure in my tenure if they did.
The issues you speak about blighting the commercial property sector add nothing to the argument of whether industry can provide better standards, and more importantly security, than individuals can. I can assure you from personal experience that it is, if properly regulated, possible to achieve and much more beneficial for communities and society as a whole. Given the opportunity don't you believe that citizens would much rather opt to go with a company with a proper housing department to source private rented accommodation from, than to John & Jane with their buy-to-let tracker mortgage at the end of the road, and their misguided perceptions that they can tell their tenants whether they can light a cigarette in their own home or not. It offers the tenant no certainty, and encourages the unqualified and unprepared to become "landlords" on the basis of their ability and their willingness to access credit.0 -
Op property investment is risky. However if you sit down and work out the sums and theyre in your favour then it can be a pretty good investment. One of its advantages is you own something physical. property prices may have fallen by 60% however it is worth more than paper shares in a bust bank!
Ive been following the market here for the last 8 years since i was 13. Have yields increased? yes they have.
however not to the extent that itd pay the mortgage over 10 years. In order to do so you'd be looking at a massive gross yield to get a 10% net yield. Maybe 16-18% gross would achieve this as you'd be looking at tax of 42% on the rental income.
There is a way around this by owning it through a company (only pay tax on profit. No tax on rental income.) however this also poses disadvantages, mainly getting the money out of the company through dividends.
Having looked at the market the only area where property investment makes any sense is commercial property. However the times when yields were great for commercial property was 2 years ago when there was no movement in the market.
Stick to the savings. And do as jmayo said. Invest in condoms!:)0 -
Don't, is the simple answer.0
-
.Stena Fastigheter is one of Sweden’s largest privately owned property companies, owning and managing properties worth around SEK 30 billion.
In the interview here with their Chief Executive Officer Christel Armstrong Darvik, see how we are working with them in helping them to achieve their aim of being Sweden’s leading property company
http://www.joneslanglasalle.eu/EMEA/EN-GB/Pages/real-value-stena-fastigheter-sweden.aspx
Canada Life are also large players in property management and in my opinion are crap at it. They also have a CEO. Just like John and Jane smith might be crap or be every bit as if not more efficent as Stenna Fastigheter. You keep banging this drum, im sure if i looked hard enough i could find plenty if negative instances that tenants have had with Stenna aswell.
I'm not sure whether John & Jane Smith have a CEO who works with them in the ownership and management of their buy-to-let pension. I'm not sure if they have dedicated teams to deal with maintenance issues either, or operate on the basis of decades involvement with the provision of housing, it would certainly make me, as a tenant of theirs feel a lot more secure in my tenure if they did.
The issues you speak about blighting the commercial property sector add nothing to the argument of whether industry can provide better standards, and more importantly security, than individuals can.
companies dont add security to tenants legislation does.
I can assure you from personal experience that it is, if properly regulated, possible to achieve and much more beneficial for communities and society as a whole. Given the opportunity don't you believe that citizens would much rather opt to go with a company with a proper housing department to source private rented accommodation from, than to John & Jane with their buy-to-let tracker mortgage at the end of the road, and their misguided perceptions that they can tell their tenants whether they can light a cigarette in their own home or not. It offers the tenant no certainty, and encourages the unqualified and unprepared to become "landlords" on the basis of their ability and their willingness to access credit.
your going around in pointless circles. Im delighted you like how this company operates, but not all landlords are unqualified or unprepared. Like I said earlier if tenants were prepared they would not put themselves in negative rental situations0 -
Thats your opinion and reading of constitutional law, the problem is unless somebody took a constitutional challenge (which will never happen) on this point it remains purely your reading of the constitution.
Not merely my interpretation or my reading of constitutional law either by the way, quite simply pointing out that no such legislation exists, or could possibly exist, which would give a landlord such rights over anothers dwelling. No legislation could exist which would be incompatible with the constitution. What you're appearing to suggest is that the constitution of the state affords greater rights and protections to home-owners than to home-renters. That, by any application of common sense, is a fairly ludicrous thing to suggest. You will be hard pressed finding any legislation which affords landlords such rights (because no such provision in any legislation exists, nor could exist) and you would be even harder pressed arguing the fact before any court or tribunal that you felt legally entitled to do something which is not contained within any legislation, and an infringement of another citizens constitutional rights.0 -
Not merely my interpretation or my reading of constitutional law either by the way, quite simply pointing out that no such legislation exists, or could possibly exist, which would give a landlord such rights over anothers dwelling. No legislation could exist which would be incompatible with the constitution. What you're appearing to suggest is that the constitution of the state affords greater rights and protections to home-owners than to home-renters. That, by any application of common sense, is a fairly ludicrous thing to suggest. You will be hard pressed finding any legislation which affords landlords such rights (because no such provision in any legislation exists, nor could exist) and you would be even harder pressed arguing the fact before any court or tribunal that you felt legally entitled to do something which is not contained within any legislation, and an infringement of another citizens constitutional rights.
yes it is you interpretation it is also a ludacris point to try and argue. If it were unconstitutional it would be moot anyway as retention of a deposit to compensate for smoke damage is perfectly legitimate. So a tenant flouting that provision in a rental agreement on the basis its unconstitutional is beyond stupid anyway.
id be interested in seeing the exact constitutional text your argument is based on by the way0 -
im sure irish tenants would be delighted to have Stena do this to them by the way
http://www.goteborgdaily.se/tenants-protest-against-60-per-cent-rent-increase0 -
im sure irish tenants would be delighted to have Stena do this to them by the way
http://www.goteborgdaily.se/tenants-protest-against-60-per-cent-rent-increase
If Irish tenants biggest worry was the cost of a four room apartment (excluding the kitchen) being raised to just under a €1000 euro PM, they would still be substantially better off than they are today. I don't doubt you're a staunch advocate of the status quo and, living in the democracy we live in, I totally respect your right to hold such views. Besides, I'm sure the present system has benefited you well. To suggest though, as you are, that the provision of housing in the private rental sector is best left exclusively to private individuals is, in my opinion, misguided in terms of its sustainability and in its potential ability to offer an alternative to ownership. It will be interesting to see how it develops over the next 20-30 years. I personally believe more and more will demand better standards and securities within the sector, and we will see a shift away from the present model which is wholly unfit for 21st century purposes and expectations.
As I said, you have your ethos on how these issues should be addressed and I have my own. The most important thing should always remain what benefits society as a whole. In the end, it won't be a property portfolio you bequeath to your children & grandchildren, it will be the state society is in as a whole which will be the measure of what you leave behind, and should you believe your own outlook is more equitable well then I applaud you for that, and wish you every success.;)0 -
If Irish tenants biggest worry was the cost of a four room apartment (excluding the kitchen) being raised to just under a €1000 euro PM, they would still be substantially better off than they are today. I don't doubt you're a staunch advocate of the status quo and, living in the democracy we live in, I totally respect your right to hold such views. Besides, I'm sure the present system has benefited you well. To suggest though, as you are, that the provision of housing in the private rental sector is best left exclusively to private individuals is, in my opinion, misguided in terms of its sustainability and in its potential ability to offer an alternative to ownership. It will be interesting to see how it develops over the next 20-30 years. I personally believe more and more will demand better standards and securities within the sector, and we will see a shift away from the present model which is wholly unfit for 21st century purposes and expectations.
As I said, you have your ethos on how these issues should be addressed and I have my own. The most important thing should always remain what benefits society as a whole. In the end, it won't be a property portfolio you bequeath to your children & grandchildren, it will be the state society is in as a whole which will be the measure of what you leave behind, and should you believe your own outlook is more equitable well then I applaud you for that, and wish you every success.;)
Im sorry but if your going to be obtuse about this there is no point in having this debate. The price of the rent in the article i posted is irrelevent. The point is that this large corporation are pushing through 60% rental increases on these tenants over a 5 year period. 12.5% a year give or take. Under the excuse that it will still only be market rate rent. Something that if under the control generally of larger corporates could be easily manipulared due to the amount of houseing stock they would be managing in any given area.
As for the current system I dont rent nor am I a landlord so no the current system has not benefitted me in any way.
I am however able to see beyond the rose tinted glasses your wearing. The system you are proposing changes nothing, the tennancy laws remain the same so the landlords obligations remain the same. If your nieve enough to think that some large corporate will act any more in the tenants responsibility than a private landlord you need to think again.
Ethical and social responsibility doesnt trump the bottom line as much as you would like to think it does, as the article i linked to shows. As for managed apartments, the services and facilities of such blocks doesnt come free and guess who pays for it ? Yes the tennant. So you end up paying more rent with the same protections as a private landlord.
as for all this nonsense about whats best for society. Newsflash PRIVATE rental has not one iota of a link to sociatal needs, thats what social housing is for. PRIVATE rental is a fully blown service market, where people or companies will look to yield as much profit as the market will bear.
Welcome to capitalist Europe. Whats next you will be advocating we go down the route of Cuba :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
OP I'd agree with others that this is not a good idea.
Irish people really need to move on from the old 'brick and mortar' being a good investment because 'over time property will always rise'. That is not true, here we are in 2013 and I can easily find places that are currently sitting at 1997 prices.
Far better to look at the stock markets IMO. For one it is a liquid investment, you can enter and exit a hell of a lot easier than you can the property markets. And any investor who doesn't have a quick exit strategy is really fooling themselves.
But just take a look at the historical averages of, for example, the Dow Jones. The 100 year average of an investment in the Dow Jones over the course of any 25 years since its existence is 9%. That is a handy average 9% per year every year for 25 years. So lets say you invested €100,000 in year one and left it sit there for 25 years and didn't add anything whatsoever to the initial investment then your sum at the end of 25 years would be €862,000. Now that is what I call an asset- not some sh1tty 2 bedroom apartment in Cork. If you added €10,000 per year every year to that initial €100,000 sum then your 25 year investment would be worth on average €1,785,000.
Compound Interest Calculator here
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
The thing is it could be even higher than €1.75m. Because that 9% average includes two world wars and the Great Depression. If you look at average Dow Jones yields since the Great Depression then the average isn't 9% but an even higher 11%. That is an 11% yield and you don't have the hassle of property maintenence, property taxes, water charges, PRSI payments. The only tax you'll have on shares is CGT (but you have that on property too).
When compared to something as simple and as understandable as the Dow Jones property investment (in Ireland at least) is a mugs game. I haven't even got into other indexes such as the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ which in many case cover companies who are in explosive growth phases (think Google et al) and often out perform the Dow Jones. The Dow is a conservative index full of older more mature companies but companies who typically deliver year on year growth as they're big brand names that people buy from their cradle to their grave. The Dow has crashed several times over since the Great Depression yet it has still always recovered to produce amazing (and almost certain) returns.
Just look at these simple observations from the Dow, over a 20-25 year time frame the returns obliterate anything the Irish property market has ever done or is likely to do.
http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.ie/2010/03/stock-market-10-year-forecast.html
Think shares, not property. Less hassle, more profit.
How does one go about investing the dow and is there much of a fee eerytime you invest. Just about curious about it all really0 -
To get back on track - here's a bargain and a shrewd investment: not to exceed 15k AND it already comes with tenants!
http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=7051220 -
If they refuse to pay their rent and refuse to move? Is it easy to have them removed? Anyone have experience?0
-
It's difficult to remove tenants, but it must be done legally. Otherwise, the landlord is in for a world of pain, not to mention the possibility of very large fines for illegal evictions by the PRTB. There is no guarantee you'll get the back rent either.0
-
dare2dream wrote: »If they refuse to pay their rent and refuse to move? Is it easy to have them removed? Anyone have experience?
If they dig their heals in then you could be looking at a year or maybe more of no rent that you probably wouldnt stand a chance of ever seeing, regardless of what the courts might say.0 -
why not buy in dublin? rents are going up, demand is huge n apartments are still selling cheap. if i'd a few quid i'd buy now.0
-
If I were you I would do something else with my money, I have a couple of rented properties and touch wood I have very good tenants and when there is a problem I live locally so I can fix it quickly, if your living outside the country your depending on a lot of luck and things to go your way like that you will get good tenants and a good letting agency to look after it for you. I just don't think there is the kind of return your looking for to justify the risk involved .0
-
newbie2013 wrote: »How does one go about investing the dow and is there much of a fee eerytime you invest. Just about curious about it all really
This thread is a good place to begin.
http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=531110
Before investing in any shares make sure you read a few books so you get your head around the key concepts behind it, otherwise you are just investing blind and taking a punt. For long term investing I'd recommend reading The Intelligent Investor and Trend Following. Get your head around the concept of Value Investing, the biggest proponent of it is Warren Buffet, who is generally considered the worlds most consistently successful investor, averaging returns of 15% per year, every year for the last 50 odd years. Even the experts get it wrong sometimes though- Buffet got burnt on a few fronts during the 2008 crash. Nonetheless there is a lot to learn from guys like him and Benjamin Graham.
As for fees well the Irish brokers like Goodbody and Davy are known to be a rip off. And their investment advice is among the worst around- they were advising people to buy bank shares as they crashed all the way from €18 to 18c- i.e vested interests were at play. Never trust brokers advice 100%, they have an interest in getting you to buy and sell as much as possible so they make their commissons. On fees you are better to go with online brokers like TD Waterhouse who typically have much cheaper costs for entering and exiting an investment. Shop around though is my advice.0 -
You could, but so far you havn't. I could write a Hollywood blockbuster etc etc. It's called a track record for a reason, it's the track you've left so far. Also Cork or Heidelberg, bit of a spread there. Why not Lisbon or Quala lumpur?The Browser wrote: »I can save between 20 and 30k per year effortlessly. My idea would be to build up some savings first and then go for an investment property. I would not intend to do it in the next 15 months; but I am at the research phase at the moment, and everyone has to start somewhere.
By all means tell me that I haven't a clue. It's true; I don't have a clue. That's why I'm here asking questions.
But it seems I might have come to the wrong place given the hostility from some responders.0 -
Advertisement
-
[QUOTE=Mix_Tape;83405472]
Pure and unadulterated greed. When are Irish people going to realise that housing is a right, not a privilege. I absolutely abhor those who believe it is morally acceptable to profiteer on providing someone with a human right as basic as their home. Why don't you just start making money off the sick while your at it. The only 'qualification' you possess to provide this fundamental human right is the fact that you have access to credit. I sincerely hope that one day the landlords of Ireland will realise how their anti-society, anti-human & pro greed approach to other citizens in this country is quite simply the most unpatriotic, self motivated and damaging act they can be participating in. The buy-to-let market has brought this country to its' knees and yet people out there such as the OP still live in the belief that it's ok to have their pensions funded off the backs of people who have no other choice than to need a roof above their head or a 'home', not an 'investment'. I pray that you sir, and the rest of the buy to let greedy rapists, die painful deaths and realise the damage your self centred greed inflicts upon society as a whole.
[/QUOTE]
Usually landlords worked hard to affort to buy a property. Some worked hard for 10 or more years living in a mobile house. If an Irish person don't have a house, it makes me think that this person is a waster, all money on beer or something like this.0
Advertisement