Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

Slightly higher than the national rate. Probably about €24 an hour giving an average wage of around €48,000. Much higher disposable income than the rest of the country and substantially lower unemployment. Why do you ask? The figures are easily available.

Haven't found those earning figures for Dublin yet. Somewhere hidden on the CSO site perhaps?

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

Haven't found those earning figures for Dublin yet. Somewhere hidden on the CSO site perhaps?

http://www.cso.ie/en/studentscorner/statisticalfactsaboutyourcounty/dublin/

Disposable income in Dublin 12.2% higher than rest of country.
Do you really think wages in Dublin are not higher than the rest of the country? Quite a preposterous suggestion really.

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/studentscorner/statisticalfactsaboutyourcounty/dublin/

Disposable income in Dublin 12.2% higher than rest of country.
Do you really think wages in Dublin are not higher than the rest of the country? Quite a preposterous suggestion really.

I never said such a thing.

Your link does not show said statistic presently, it shows it from 2009. We've had a recession since then. Any chance of an up to date stat?

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

I never said such a thing.

Your link does not show said statistic presently, it shows it from 2009. We've had a recession since then. Any chance of an up to date stat?

What are you actually arguing? I said wages in Dublin are higher than the rest of Ireland by a small amount. I said 7% and gave you evidence that 4 years ago they were 12%. Do you disagree that wages in Dublin are higher than outside Dublin? If not then I don't see what you are on about. It sounds like you are disagreeing purely to disagree.

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

What are you actually arguing? I said wages in Dublin are higher than the rest of Ireland by a small amount. I said 7% and gave you evidence that 4 years ago they were 12%. Do you disagree that wages in Dublin are higher than outside Dublin? If not then I don't see what you are on about. It sounds like you are disagreeing purely to disagree.

Nope. I agree they are higher in Dublin, I like you in 2013 do not know by how much. All i'm asking is to provide up to date figures for Dublin.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

Nope. I agree they are higher in Dublin, I like you in 2013 do not know by how much. All i'm asking is to provide up to date figures for Dublin.

Why?

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

Why?

As you know, we've had a bad recession since 2007 with it continuing right up to recently. Do we even know the release date for the 2009 figures?

It helps contribute to the debate with recent figures, perhaps even 2012?

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

As you know, we've had a bad recession since 2007 with it continuing right up to recently. Do we even know the release date for the 2009 figures?

It helps contribute to the debate with recent figures, perhaps even 2012?

What debate are you on about. We all agree Dublin wages are higher than elsewhere. No one is debating this point. Is it really relevant whether they are 7% 10% or 12% higher. The previous figures were from 2010. These were released this year but from 2010on. http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2013pressreleases/pressreleaseregionalqualityoflifeinireland2013/

By the way hourly wage Nationally has not changed from 2009 to 2013. I wonder why you are so concerned that Dublin wages may have. Is there some reason they may have or are you just arguing to argue?

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

What debate are you on about. We all agree Dublin wages are higher than elsewhere. No one is debating this point. Is it really relevant whether they are 7% 10% or 12% higher. The previous figures were from 2010. These were released this year but from 2010on. http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2013pressreleases/pressreleaseregionalqualityoflifeinireland2013/

By the way hourly wage Nationally has not changed from 2009 to 2013. I wonder why you are so concerned that Dublin wages may have. Is there some reason they may have or are you just arguing to argue?

We're 1 year better, 2010. It does matter if they are 7% 10% or 12% higher, we need to know exactly by how much or else we are speculating.

In any debate, up to date stats are vital to know whats really going on, otherwise its speculation.

CSO wrote:

Economy: Disposable income per person in the Dublin region, at €21,515, was 11% above the national average in 2010. All other regions were below the national average with the Midland region 11% below, at just €17,133. At county level, disposable income per person was lowest in Donegal at 83% of the national average, or €16,106, followed by Offaly (€16,168) and Monaghan (€16,303). Over three-quarters of workers were employed in the Services sector in 2012 while the Dublin region had the highest rate at 89%. The Midlands and South-East (23%) had the highest percentages of workers in the Industry sector. The employment rate in 2012 was highest in Dublin at 62% and lowest in the Border region at 52%. The South-East, at 19%, recorded the highest unemployment rate while the lowest was in Dublin, at 12%. (Tables 7.1, 7.4 and 7.5).

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

We're 1 year better, 2010. It does matter if they are 7% 10% or 12% higher, we need to know exactly by how much or else we are speculating.

In any debate, up to date stats are vital to know whats really going on, otherwise its speculation.

You are being totally ridiculous.

The_Conductor

Lets be constructive folks.
If you want to nit-pick with one another- take it elsewhere.

Regards,

The_Conductor

The Spider

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/property-investors-given-50pc-mortgage-writeoffs-29505899.html

Write downs on the way, a lottery at the moment, but sooner or later this will be spread to all borrowers. Anyone hoping for that cheap repo, keep dreaming, bottom was last year.

Cuddlesworth

The Spider wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/property-investors-given-50pc-mortgage-writeoffs-29505899.html

Write downs on the way, a lottery at the moment, but sooner or later this will be spread to all borrowers. Anyone hoping for that cheap repo, keep dreaming, bottom was last year.

I'd love to know how you managed to equate the huge mortgage crisis in Irish banks to other external institutions who had already sold their debt at a fraction of its worth.

What a bank chooses to do with its money is their decision and plays little impact on our society, what a Irish state owned bank chooses to do with their loan books is a entirely different story.

who_ru

The Spider wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/property-investors-given-50pc-mortgage-writeoffs-29505899.html

Write downs on the way, a lottery at the moment, but sooner or later this will be spread to all borrowers. Anyone hoping for that cheap repo, keep dreaming, bottom was last year.

cash buyers will continue to grow out of the ground too in the absence of credit.

but irish banks will mysteriously self re-capitalise over night and flood the starved credit market with cash.

gaius c

who_ru wrote: »

cash buyers will continue to grow out of the ground too in the absence of credit.

but irish banks will mysteriously self re-capitalise over night and flood the starved credit market with cash.

Aye and banks won't be at all shy shoveling out the money, knowing full well that if anything goes wrong, the borrowers will simply stop paying & wait for their write-off. Err no...they'll continue to restrict credit and look for significant deposits.

The crash is about to take an interesting turn with this landlord bailout. It's simply a transfer of wealth to those who proved least proficient at managing their money.

The_Conductor

If BTL landlords are getting bailed out in this manner- surely it makes sense to remove mortgage interest as an allowable expense in its entirety- so all rental income, aside from allowable deductions, is taxable income? The 75% allowance on mortgage interest is a severe market distortion.

camphor

The_Conductor wrote: »

If BTL landlords are getting bailed out in this manner- surely it makes sense to remove mortgage interest as an allowable expense in its entirety- so all rental income, aside from allowable deductions, is taxable income? The 75% allowance on mortgage interest is a severe market distortion.

Mortgage interest relief was removed before in 1998. Rents doubled in 2 years. In all other business interest is allowed as a business expense. It is more likely that keeping the level of relief at 75% is making rents artificially higher and contributing to arrears. Many landlords whose rent is at or near the repayments on their property are forced to pay taxes on money the haven't received thus turning a break/even situation into a loss maker.

The_Conductor

camphor wrote: »

Mortgage interest relief was removed before in 1998. Rents doubled in 2 years. In all other business interest is allowed as a business expense. It is more likely that keeping the level of relief at 75% is making rents artificially higher and contributing to arrears. Many landlords whose rent is at or near the repayments on their property are forced to pay taxes on money the haven't received thus turning a break/even situation into a loss maker.

Surely that means there is an incentive to keep properties mortgaged- as there is little financial incentive to make capital repayments on the mortgage- which is at least partially what got us into this mess in the first instance?

camphor

The_Conductor wrote: »

Surely that means there is an incentive to keep properties mortgaged- as there is little financial incentive to make capital repayments on the mortgage- which is at least partially what got us into this mess in the first instance?

What caused the mess was banks not insisting that BTl borrowers had sufficient income cover above the repayment levels, had sufficient experience and had sufficient equity cover. Banks used to keep BTLs at 60% borrowing to capital values and only then if there was a history of successful management. Between 2002 and 2006 the banks were giving BTL investors 100% loans with income barely sufficient to repay interest and many of the same investors having little experience of managing rental property.
The Financial Regulator allowed this messing to go on because otherwise the developers would have gotten into trouble much sooner. The developers had to build and sell to pay the interest on the borrowing on their sites.
As was shown before, removing interest relief drives rents up. Little good would come of it. Many people resent landlords and property investors, however like any business if a decent return cannot be got, they will not stay in it. The result is that supply shrinks and prices rise. On this forum couples are already saying they can't afford a place of their own and are looking for sharing arrangements. Driving rents up further would increase this phenomenon resulting in a poorer standard of living for many people.
A plentiful supply of rental property is a necessity in any society. Until some other provider appears resort must be had to small investors.

therightangle

The_Conductor wrote: »

If BTL landlords are getting bailed out in this manner- surely it makes sense to remove mortgage interest as an allowable expense in its entirety- so all rental income, aside from allowable deductions, is taxable income? The 75% allowance on mortgage interest is a severe market distortion.

If removing mortgage interest, would it not be unfair to the many landlords that are managing to just about pay their mortgage currently and have no intentions of defaulting?

cookie1977

The_Conductor wrote: »

If BTL landlords are getting bailed out in this manner- surely it makes sense to remove mortgage interest as an allowable expense in its entirety- so all rental income, aside from allowable deductions, is taxable income? The 75% allowance on mortgage interest is a severe market distortion.

As a landlord I think this would be terribly unfair. We're a business as such and businesses get a lot of tax relief's which landlords dont get. Perhaps if you removed the entitlement to tax relief to landlords not currently paying their debts (or if you could identify those who can pay but wont then target these landlords) then that might be a good idea but not to us all.

As a landlord I already have to pay this year the household charge (full year) and the property tax (6 months) which is very unfair in my mind (it should be one or the other or 6 months household and 6 months LPT but not 18 months of tax for a 12 month period). Plus I really do believe that the property tax should be charged to the tenants as the idea of the property tax is to help locally. I'm not benefiting from living in my rented property but my tenants are benefiting from me paying the LPT.

But as I said I am biased.

The Spider

cookie1977 wrote: »

As a landlord I think this would be terribly unfair. We're a business as such and businesses get a lot of tax relief's which landlords dont get. Perhaps if you removed the entitlement to tax relief to landlords not currently paying their debts (or if you could identify those who can pay but wont then target these landlords) then that might be a good idea but not to us all.

As a landlord I already have to pay this year the household charge (full year) and the property tax (6 months) which is very unfair in my mind (it should be one or the other or 6 months household and 6 months LPT but not 18 months of tax for a 12 month period). Plus I really do believe that the property tax should be charged to the tenants as the idea of the property tax is to help locally. I'm not benefiting from living in my rented property but my tenants are benefiting from me paying the LPT.

But as I said I am biased.

If they remove it rents will rocket, simple as, there's restricted supply as is, so an increase in the cost of providing a service, will have to be paid for by the customer of that service.

If taxes on alcohol go up, so does the price of a pint, landlords are service providers, and are entitled to increase or decrease the price of the service they provide.

Government would be very foolish to do anything like that in a market (Dublin) where supply is already restricted, people will have to get used to sharing if they can't afford the increased rents.

I've said it before, it's not up to any private individual to provide social housing using their own personal investment, it's up to them to get the maximum return on their asset. It's the same as a hotel, b&b whatever, a renter doesn't own the property, the are paying to use it as a place to live.

The Spider

Daft report is out, rents up and prices up, bottom looking like last year.

http://www.daft.ie/report/ronan-lyons-2013q2-rental?utm_source=daft.ie&utm_medium=strap_line&utm_campaign=strap_66_

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

bottom looking like last year.

Lol, that is becoming your mantra you say it so often, who are your trying to convince, us, or yourself perhaps?

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Lol, that is becoming your mantra you say it so often, who are your trying to convince, us, or yourself perhaps?

Ha, nope I'm fine and dandy pally, Looks like I called it, people with their heads stuck in the sand that prices are going to go off a cliff, they're the ones who are going to be looking at prices gone beyond their reach, safe to say (like I said) SCD is now beyond the reach of most, now the rest of Dublin is rising, threasdsa on Dublin 15 prices rising.

I'll steal this link from another thread (thanks handlemaster)

http://www.myhome.ie/barometer/2013-q2

So there ya go, markets rising and isn't going to stop suddenly.

the keen edge

This may be viewed as a biased view from a faceless internet user; but regardless, I have a house for sale at the minute and there does seem to be a marked change in the housing market.

The number of viewings I've had in recent weeks has increased dramatically so.
I think that people who are thinking, wanting or hoping to buy a house are much more confident that house prices aren't falling, have stopped falling or maybe are on the rise.

Now make want you want of that statement, I certainly wont be arguing with your opinion; but that's how I am seeing it on the ground.

El_Dangeroso

Of course prices are rising, the supply is being throttled. Now I don't have a crystal ball or anything, so maybe we are truly heading back into another boom. But when the houses for sale are a fraction in number than usual, when we still have a huge mortgage arrears crisis, when an unprecedented proportion of the buyers are cash. How can anyone draw a trend at all from such a dysfunctional market?

If I were a betting lady, I'd expect the most bullish of the housing market are in for a short, sharp reality check.

OMD

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Of course prices are rising, the supply is being throttled. Now I don't have a crystal ball or anything, so maybe we are truly heading back into another boom. But when the houses for sale are a fraction in number than usual, .

On Daft today there are over 50,000 properties for sale with over 3,000 for sale in Dublin. If supply wasn't "being throttled" how many properties would you expect to be for sale?

strandroad

the keen edge wrote: »

This may be viewed as a biased view from a faceless internet user; but regardless, I have a house for sale at the minute and there does seem to be a marked change in the housing market.

The number of viewings I've had in recent weeks has increased dramatically so.
I think that people who are thinking, wanting or hoping to buy a house are much more confident that house prices aren't falling, have stopped falling or maybe are on the rise.

Now make want you want of that statement, I certainly wont be arguing with your opinion; but that's how I am seeing it on the ground.

We're on the other side as prospective buyers and we almost stopped attending viewings (modest SCD areas). There are so few half-decent houses available that the ones that are not falling apart are indeed attracting large groups and whoever is desperate for buying right now (prospective parents, investors) will engage in bidding wars. The remainder of the market consists of executioner sales where you need to basically rebuild the thing. The main factor is how few half-decent houses are coming in as compared to 2012, my myhome RSS feed is dead quiet. We'll wait it out as we have other options to consider and all of them are better than engaging in bidding for such supply.

Another thing we seem to notice that quite a lot of houses we viewed in 2013 are not coming to the register at all or they go sale unagreed, sometimes more than once... problems with drawing mortgages? And a lot of houses listed on myhome are in fact sale agreed and have been for weeks/months. Not sure what's the strategy here - when I phone to ask they don't try to get me interested in their other houses.

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

On Daft today there are over 50,000 properties for sale with over 3,000 for sale in Dublin. If supply wasn't "being throttled" how many properties would you expect to be for sale?

3,163 properties for sale in Dublin today. I'd have sworn that was about 3,300-3,400 just a few weeks ago. A pity the Daftwatch site has been down for a long while, we have to rely on Daft themselves or our own regular checkups to count the numbers.