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
Anyone else depressed with house hunting?
Options
Comments
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »If your tracker is +1% (and some were as low as +0.5%) then you are currently paying interest at 1.25%, around a third of the lowest variable at the moment (KBCs LTV of as low as 3.8%).
So a person with a €900k tracker is paying the same interest as someone on a €300k variable. Then there is TRS and other boom time goodies. Even in the most extreme house price drops, I've yet to see a 900k boom time house now selling for 300k.
Essentially, someone buying with a mortgage now is paying about the same as someone 8 years ago, but for a lesser quality house.
I have done the calculations for a similar thread on the property pin, it is essentially my own case:
Why do these comparisons always assume that the tracker will be on 1.51% for the 30 years. I find that extremely unlikely.
During the boom the difference between SVR and tracker was not as great as it is today, I don't have the exact figures to hand. I would imagine that trackers will have a period of about 7 years of extremely low rates (2008-2015) and then move to more normal rates.
Also, if we assume that a buyer after the bubble could buy at 50% of the bubble price, then consider the case of a house costing 450000 today (or last year, whenever it was possible to buy at 50%). This house would have cost 900000 in 2006, lets say. Say we are looking for a 90% mortgage over 30 years in both cases, todays buyer is looking at a rate of 4.7% SVR, the buyer in Dec 2006 is looking at a 1% over ECB tracker (in Dec 2006 the rate was 3.5%). So, the initial repayments on the tracker in 2006 would be €4104 per month. Todays buyer would be looking at €2100 per month initial repayments.
Here is the amortization of the loan from the person who borrowed 810k in Dec 2006 @ 1% over ECB tracker:Start Date Dec 2006 Month Principal Repayment Capital Interest, Interest Rate 0 810000 4104.15100958967 1066.65100958967 3037.5 4.5 1 808933.34899041 4104.15100958967 1070.65095087564 3033.50005871404 4.5 2 807862.698039535 4104.15100958967 1074.66589194142 3029.48511764826 4.5 ECB Rate Change Mar 2007 new rate = 3.75 3 806788.032147593 4224.59688480083 1031.06092421661 3193.53596058422 4.75 4 805756.971223377 4224.59688480083 1035.14220704163 3189.4546777592 4.75 5 804721.829016335 4224.59688480083 1039.2396449445 3185.35723985633 4.75 6 803682.589371391 4224.59688480083 1043.35330187241 3181.24358292842 4.75 ECB Rate Change Jul 2007 new rate = 4 7 802639.236069518 4345.75251260507 1001.42236231541 3344.33015028966 5 8 801637.813707203 4345.75251260507 1005.59495549173 3340.15755711334 5 9 800632.218751711 4345.75251260507 1009.78493447294 3335.96757813213 5 10 799622.433817238 4345.75251260507 1013.99237169991 3331.76014090516 5 11 798608.441445538 4345.75251260507 1018.21733991533 3327.53517268974 5 12 797590.224105623 4345.75251260507 1022.45991216498 3323.29260044009 5 13 796567.764193458 4345.75251260507 1026.720161799 3319.03235080607 5 14 795541.044031659 4345.75251260507 1030.99816247316 3314.75435013191 5 15 794510.045869186 4345.75251260507 1035.29398815013 3310.45852445494 5 16 793474.751881036 4345.75251260507 1039.60771310076 3306.14479950431 5 17 792435.144167935 4345.75251260507 1043.93941190534 3301.81310069973 5 18 791391.204756029 4345.75251260507 1048.28915945495 3297.46335315012 5 ECB Rate Change Jul 2008 new rate = 4.25 19 790342.915596574 4465.5524634665 1007.80220773149 3457.75025573501 5.25 20 789335.113388843 4465.5524634665 1012.21134239031 3453.34112107619 5.25 21 788322.902046453 4465.5524634665 1016.63976701327 3448.91269645323 5.25 ECB Rate Change Oct 2008 new rate = 3.75 22 787306.262279439 4229.01328756175 1112.59266603897 3116.42062152278 4.75 ECB Rate Change Nov 2008 new rate = 3.25 23 786193.6696134 3999.3943306587 1214.95841744458 2784.43591321413 4.25 ECB Rate Change Dec 2008 new rate = 2.5 24 784978.711195956 3668.2040925883 1378.68285160009 2289.5212409882 3.5 ECB Rate Change Jan 2009 new rate = 2 25 783600.028344356 3456.51227632268 1497.51220546179 1959.00007086089 3 26 782102.516138894 3456.51227632268 1501.25598597544 1955.25629034723 3 ECB Rate Change Mar 2009 new rate = 1.5 27 780601.260152918 3252.8918299865 1626.63920466792 1626.25262531858 2.5 ECB Rate Change Apr 2009 new rate = 1.25 28 778974.620948251 3154.00977903533 1693.43236475736 1460.57741427797 2.25 ECB Rate Change May 2009 new rate = 1 29 777281.188583493 3057.17905172866 1761.7104040895 1295.46864763916 2 30 775519.478179404 3057.17905172866 1764.64658809632 1292.53246363234 2 31 773754.831591307 3057.17905172866 1767.58766574315 1289.59138598551 2 32 771987.243925564 3057.17905172866 1770.53364518605 1286.64540654261 2 33 770216.710280378 3057.17905172866 1773.4845345947 1283.69451713396 2 34 768443.225745783 3057.17905172866 1776.44034215235 1280.73870957631 2 35 766666.785403631 3057.17905172866 1779.40107605594 1277.77797567272 2 36 764887.384327575 3057.17905172866 1782.36674451603 1274.81230721263 2 37 763105.017583059 3057.17905172866 1785.33735575689 1271.84169597176 2 38 761319.680227302 3057.17905172866 1788.31291801649 1268.86613371217 2 39 759531.367309286 3057.17905172866 1791.29343954652 1265.88561218214 2 40 757740.073869739 3057.17905172866 1794.27892861243 1262.90012311623 2 41 755945.794941127 3057.17905172866 1797.26939349345 1259.90965823521 2 42 754148.525547633 3057.17905172866 1800.2648424826 1256.91420924606 2 43 752348.260705151 3057.17905172866 1803.26528388674 1253.91376784192 2 44 750544.995421264 3057.17905172866 1806.27072602655 1250.90832570211 2 45 748738.724695237 3057.17905172866 1809.2811772366 1247.89787449206 2 46 746929.443518001 3057.17905172866 1812.29664586533 1244.88240586333 2 47 745117.146872135 3057.17905172866 1815.3171402751 1241.86191145356 2 48 743301.82973186 3057.17905172866 1818.34266884223 1238.83638288643 2 49 741483.487063018 3057.17905172866 1821.37323995697 1235.8058117717 2 ECB Rate Change Apr 2011 new rate = 1.25 50 739662.113823061 3148.41548283764 1761.5490194194 1386.86646341824 2.25 51 737900.564803642 3148.41548283764 1764.85192383081 1383.56355900683 2.25 52 736135.712879811 3148.41548283764 1768.16102118799 1380.25446164965 2.25 ECB Rate Change Jul 2011 new rate = 1.5 53 734367.551858623 3240.44336834787 1710.51096864241 1529.93239970546 2.5 54 732657.040889981 3240.44336834788 1714.07453316042 1526.36883518746 2.5 55 730942.96635682 3240.44336834788 1717.64552177117 1522.79784657671 2.5 56 729225.320835049 3240.44336834788 1721.22394994152 1519.21941840635 2.5 ECB Rate Change Nov 2011 new rate = 1.25 57 727504.096885107 3149.46488447442 1785.39470281485 1364.07018165958 2.25 ECB Rate Change Dec 2011 new rate = 1 58 725718.702182293 3060.28810423732 1850.7569339335 1209.53117030382 2 59 723867.945248359 3060.28810423732 1853.84152882339 1206.44657541393 2 60 722014.103719536 3060.28810423732 1856.93126470476 1203.35683953256 2 61 720157.172454831 3060.28810423732 1860.02615014593 1200.26195409138 2 62 718297.146304685 3060.28810423732 1863.12619372951 1197.16191050781 2 63 716434.020110956 3060.28810423732 1866.23140405239 1194.05670018493 2 64 714567.788706903 3060.28810423732 1869.34178972581 1190.94631451151 2 ECB Rate Change Jul 2012 new rate = 0.75 65 712698.446917177 2974.48423367146 1935.13233191724 1039.35190175422 1.75 66 710763.31458526 2974.48423367146 1937.95439990129 1036.52983377017 1.75 67 708825.360185359 2974.48423367146 1940.78058340114 1033.70365027031 1.75 68 706884.579601958 2974.48423367146 1943.61088841861 1030.87334525285 1.75 69 704940.968713539 2974.48423367146 1946.44532096422 1028.03891270724 1.75 70 702994.523392575 2974.48423367146 1949.28388705729 1025.20034661417 1.75 71 701045.239505518 2974.48423367146 1952.12659272591 1022.35764094555 1.75 72 699093.112912792 2974.48423367146 1954.97344400697 1019.51078966449 1.75 73 697138.139468785 2974.48423367146 1957.82444694615 1016.65978672531 1.75 74 695180.315021839 2974.48423367146 1960.67960759795 1013.80462607351 1.75 ECB Rate Change May 2013 new rate = 0.5 75 693219.635414241 2892.78650574639 2026.26196147859 866.524544267801 1.5 76 691193.373452762 2892.78650574639 2028.79478893044 863.991716815952 1.5 77 689164.578663831 2892.78650574639 2031.33078241661 861.455723329789 1.5 78 687133.247881415 2892.78650574639 2033.86994589463 858.916559851769 1.5 79 685099.37793552 2892.78650574639 2036.41228332699 856.3742224194 1.5 80 683062.965652193 2892.78650574639 2038.95779868115 853.828707065242 1.5
The column on the right shows the percent interest paid. They currently have an outstanding principal of €683062. Interest rate was as high as 5.25%, giving a repayment of €4465 per month. They have only had sub 3k per month payments since Jul 2012.
From the example above, lets say that the person in 2006 with the 90k deposit decided to not buy. Also, lets say they had rental costs of €1600 per month.
What if they saved the difference between what their mortgage payments would have been and their rent? For example in month 0 when the €4104 they saved 4104-1600 = 2504 and in the last month when the repayment was €2892 they saved €1292.
In this case they would have saved 90000+148653=€238,653. The house now costs €450,000, leaving a mortgage of €211,347.
I chose saving the difference between the mortgage and rental costs as it allows both people to have the same lifestyle after accommodation costs.
The person who waited now has a mortgage of €211,347 for the same house, whereas the person who didnt has a mortgage of €683062 (line 80 from the amortization table above). Now lets say that the rate remains at 1.5% for the boom buyer for the remainder of the term, approximately 23.333 years, they will be paying €2892 per month. Now lets say that the person who waited decides to pay the same amount per month, €2892 and lets say they have to pay 6% interest. They will have their mortgage paid off in 7.6 years which is a full 16 years before the boom buyer. I ignore stamp duty here which would further favour todays buyer. It also assumes that the rate remains 1.5% for the boom buyer (extremely optimistic) and that todays buyer is paying 6% (unlikely to be paying this for the whole 7 year mortgage). I also ignore the fact that overpaying on todays mortgage will reduce the term more quickly (for example paying a yearly bonus off the mortgage).
I think its clear that todays buyers have a much better situation.0 -
Is that not a very extreme example where someone paid 3 times the value of a house!0
-
In my example the person (me) paid half the price of the house 450k vs 900k. In fact I know my neighbour (same house) paid more than 1m.0
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »If your tracker is +1% (and some were as low as +0.5%) then you are currently paying interest at 1.25%, around a third of the lowest variable at the moment (KBCs LTV of as low as 3.8%).
So a person with a €900k tracker is paying the same interest as someone on a €300k variable. Then there is TRS and other boom time goodies. Even in the most extreme house price drops, I've yet to see a 900k boom time house now selling for 300k.
Essentially, someone buying with a mortgage now is paying about the same as someone 8 years ago, but for a lesser quality house.
The same interest is not the same as mortgage payments. What about the capital repayments. Your claim was they would be paying the same mortgage. That obviously isn't true in your example. Not sure if you don't get it or you are just purposely making an invalid argument.0 -
2008 was when Donie Cassidy made the following statement in the Seanad:
It's easy to laugh now but there was some serious "this is the bottom" propaganda on the airwaves at the time.
So what? You are claiming there was a large % of houses sold in 2008. What has that got to do with anything anybody said then? Cold hard figures looking back saying that sales were huge in 2008 is required.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13662
ezra_pound wrote: »In order for a mortgagor to pay the same on a 300k loan as another mortgagor on a 900k loan at 1.25%, the rate would have to be over 13%.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
I never said that they would have to pay the same amount in a mortgage repayment, but the interest charged at tracker rates is roughly 1/3rd of variable rates.
Here are the figures from Jeacle.com, assuming 25 year term and assuming interest rates won't change (yes, I know they probably will change, but this is an illustrative example, not a prediction or anything):
300k at 3.8:
YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPLE BALANCE
2014 $11,273.15 $7,333.69 $292,666.31
2015 $10,989.56 $7,617.28 $285,049.04
2016 $10,695.01 $7,911.83 $277,137.21
2017 $10,389.07 $8,217.77 $268,919.44
2018 $10,071.30 $8,535.54 $260,383.90
2019 $9,741.24 $8,865.60 $251,518.30
2020 $9,398.41 $9,208.42 $242,309.88
2021 $9,042.33 $9,564.50 $232,745.38
2022 $8,672.49 $9,934.35 $222,811.03
2023 $8,288.34 $10,318.50 $212,492.53
2024 $7,889.33 $10,717.50 $201,775.02
2025 $7,474.90 $11,131.94 $190,643.08
2026 $7,044.44 $11,562.40 $179,080.69
2027 $6,597.33 $12,009.50 $167,071.18
2028 $6,132.94 $12,473.90 $154,597.29
2029 $5,650.59 $12,956.25 $141,641.04
2030 $5,149.58 $13,457.25 $128,183.79
2031 $4,629.21 $13,977.63 $114,206.16
2032 $4,088.71 $14,518.13 $99,688.03
2033 $3,527.31 $15,079.53 $84,608.50
2034 $2,944.20 $15,662.64 $68,945.87
2035 $2,338.54 $16,268.29 $52,677.58
2036 $1,709.47 $16,897.37 $35,780.21
2037 $1,056.07 $17,550.77 $18,229.44
2038 $377.40 $18,229.44 $0.00
TOTAL INTEREST $165,170.91
900k at 1.25%:
YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPLE BALANCE
2014 $11,073.58 $30,862.51 $869,137.49
2015 $10,685.58 $31,250.50 $837,886.99
2016 $10,292.71 $31,643.38 $806,243.61
2017 $9,894.89 $32,041.20 $774,202.41
2018 $9,492.07 $32,444.02 $741,758.39
2019 $9,084.19 $32,851.90 $708,906.50
2020 $8,671.18 $33,264.91 $675,641.59
2021 $8,252.98 $33,683.11 $641,958.48
2022 $7,829.52 $34,106.57 $607,851.91
2023 $7,400.74 $34,535.35 $573,316.56
2024 $6,966.56 $34,969.53 $538,347.03
2025 $6,526.93 $35,409.16 $502,937.88
2026 $6,081.77 $35,854.32 $467,083.56
2027 $5,631.02 $36,305.07 $430,778.49
2028 $5,174.59 $36,761.49 $394,016.99
2029 $4,712.43 $37,223.66 $356,793.34
2030 $4,244.46 $37,691.63 $319,101.71
2031 $3,770.61 $38,165.48 $280,936.23
2032 $3,290.80 $38,645.29 $242,290.94
2033 $2,804.95 $39,131.13 $203,159.81
2034 $2,313.00 $39,623.09 $163,536.72
2035 $1,814.87 $40,121.22 $123,415.50
2036 $1,310.47 $40,625.62 $82,789.88
2037 $799.73 $41,136.36 $41,653.52
2038 $282.57 $41,653.52 $0.00
TOTAL INTEREST $148,402.20
In fact, in this scenario, the person with the 900k loan at 1.25% pays less interest than the person with the 300k 3.8% loan, and that's before the TRS and the security of having a tracker.
So while yes, to the casual observer the direct debit for the 900k loan will be larger each month, in terms of the actual cost of finance, the tracker is astoundingly low. Which is my point.
TLDR; yes, I'm quite sure that I know what I'm talking about.I have done the calculations for a similar thread on the property pin, it is essentially my own case:
...
I think its clear that todays buyers have a much better situation.
That's not what is being discussed though. No one is disputing that a house purchased for a lesser sum is better than one purchased for a greater sum (unless of course you are the vendor).
The point being made by Ray Palmer was that the difference between a tracker and a current mortgage is marginal. He is basing this on captial repayments.
However, the correct measure is the cost of finance i.e. interest plus other costs. Trackers are massively cheaper than current variable mortgages. The only difference is that we are assuming (possibly correctly) that a person on a tracker has overpaid more than someone who takes out a mortgage now, so has to pay more by way of capital repayments. But they were always aware of the capital repayments that they had to make and were happy with them when they signed up to it.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »So what? You are claiming there was a large % of houses sold in 2008. What has that got to do with anything anybody said then? Cold hard figures looking back saying that sales were huge in 2008 is required.
No I wasn't. Talk to that Bob fella instead please.0 -
You should pay attention to what you jump into. You came in to a discussion where somebody claimed that a mortgage for a higher amount would be the same or less than a new mortgage on a reduced price. So that is why people are confused.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I never said that they would have to pay the same amount in a mortgage repayment, but the interest charged at tracker rates is roughly 1/3rd of variable rates.
.
I never said there was a marginal difference but that their would be marginal cases where that could be true.
I don't see why you be pointing out interest costs would be the same on much higher rates for a lower amount. Whoever doesn't know that has no ability to discuss financial matters.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »You should pay attention to what you jump into. You came in to a discussion where somebody claimed that a mortgage for a higher amount would be the same or less than a new mortgage on a reduced price. So that is why people are confused.
I never said there was a marginal difference but that their would be marginal cases where that could be true.
I don't see why you be pointing out interest costs would be the same on much higher rates for a lower amount. Whoever doesn't know that has no ability to discuss financial matters.
This is all off topic. However nothing can be assumed by this scenario other than people that bought in boom time and on trackers are "currently" not suffering the full affects of their purchases due to interests rates being at an all time low. And from the speculation going around about ECB rates ,they are not likely to for quite some time. And fundamentally most of these won't sell up (if content with their house and able to service the debt) even if their house was to rise in value.
I repeat what I said, they have a get out of jail for free card!0 -
I'm depressed... perfect house we we're going to view for the second time tomorrow has been pulled from the market.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
probably because they suddenly realised they had to make a decision on an offer............
I expect also if the seller is planning to move on or rent while in transition to the next house that it could be an issue for them given the state of the supply in terms of rental or buying.0 -
i also notice that a number of vendors think that theres a grand slow period between sale and them finding a new house to buy. I didn't think anyone was in a chain anymore!0
-
NO explanation, just it might be on the market next year. I might write to them directly as we we're willing to pay over asking for the property. It initially came on at 255 and was reduced over a period to 195K, probably no willing to sell at that price.
That said seen a couple more that we're interested in just at 50K more asking price.
Gotta love city house hunting!0 -
2008 was when Donie Cassidy made the following statement in the Seanad:
It's easy to laugh now but there was some serious "this is the bottom" propaganda on the airwaves at the time.
Id imagine people might attach more weight when forming an opinion on the bottom of the market to improved economic indicators between 2008 and 2014 instead of on comments from a property laden senator from Mullingar in 2008. (No offence intended to people from Mullingar)0 -
It's all messed up, I bought a lovely 3 bed 2 years before the crash, would be a perfect family home, great location.
In neg equity to the tune of 80k... would love to sell, but how can I?
Will need to wait, 10 - 15 years.0 -
-
handlemaster wrote: »What changed except the potential selling price ?
It's in neg equity, will need to sit on it til it's out of the woods.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Barely Hedged wrote: »Id imagine people might attach more weight when forming an opinion on the bottom of the market to improved economic indicators between 2008 and 2014 instead of on comments from a property laden senator from Mullingar in 2008. (No offence intended to people from Mullingar)
we all waiting...... go on!0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »Id imagine people might attach more weight when forming an opinion on the bottom of the market to improved economic indicators between 2008 and 2014 instead of on comments from a property laden senator from Mullingar in 2008. (No offence intended to people from Mullingar)
He was one of many but by far the most amusing.0 -
we all waiting...... go on!
Unemployment percentage figures doubled from just above 4% to above 8% in 2008. Now decreasing every quarter to half year since 2012.
PMI's and Construction PMI's increasing considerably over the past year to year and a half and the difference between Ireland and other European countries PMI's widening favourably.
Nominal GDP and GNP stabilised at around 2004 figures.
Government yields down since around 14%-15%.
The list above is not exhaustive but that doesnt detract from what are all considerably impressive stats0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »Unemployment percentage figures doubled from just above 4% to above 8% in 2008. Now decreasing every quarter to half year since 2012.
PMI's and Construction PMI's increasing considerably over the past year to year and a half and the difference between Ireland and other European countries PMI's widening favourably.
Nominal GDP and GNP stabilised at around 2004 figures.
Government yields down since around 14%-15%.
The list above is not exhaustive but that doesnt detract from what are all considerably impressive stats
Read more between the lines. Have a look here http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/bond-chart-ireland-borrowing-1275026-Jan2014/Ireland is borrowing for less than the UK and the US not because it’s deemed to be a better credit risk — it’s not — but because the economy is expected to be weak and inflation is expected to be non-existent.
By the way, I suspect much of the construction optimism in the PMI's is from the state's stimulus of finishing half built buildings(NAMA) and from the likes of building and renovating schools. Building new houses\apts is still at an all time low.
And there are about 85,000 on activation schemes, that helps keep down the official unemployment figures.0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »Unemployment percentage figures doubled from just above 4% to above 8% in 2008. Now decreasing every quarter to half year since 2012.
Off the top of my head, our disability figures tripled after the crash. Jobbridge and other similar schemes also moved a significant number of people off the live register. The number of new jobs created have shifted to low income part time hours. All of which leads to a significant reduction in Tax and increase in Tax spend.
Simply put, we are barely keeping our head above water.0 -
Read more between the lines. Have a look here http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/bond-chart-ireland-borrowing-1275026-Jan2014/
By the way, I suspect much of the construction optimism in the PMI's is from the state's stimulus of finishing half built buildings(NAMA) and from the likes of building and renovating schools. Building new houses\apts is still at an all time low.
And there are about 85,000 on activation schemes, that helps keep down the official unemployment figures.
By that reasoning the Bund which has maintained low yields and even had negitive rates about two years ago is due to the weak German economy?
The increasing demand that is causing the "depressing house prices" in Dublin might not make projects economically viable to build by the private sector which is leading to the high PMI?
85k people in any employment is good for job prospects in the immediate and long term for those 85k and for the country. The alternative is to have those 85k people sitting around doing nothing and obtaining no skills or work experience?0 -
Cuddlesworth wrote: »Off the top of my head, our disability figures tripled after the crash. Jobbridge and other similar schemes also moved a significant number of people off the live register. The number of new jobs created have shifted to low income part time hours. All of which leads to a significant reduction in Tax and increase in Tax spend.
Simply put, we are barely keeping our head above water.
So in essence you're saying the numbers have stabilised i.e. "bottomed out"0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »So in essence you're saying the numbers have stabilised i.e. "bottomed out"
Closer to this tbh.0 -
Barely Hedged wrote: »By that reasoning the Bund which has maintained low yields and even had negitive rates about two years ago is due to the weak German economy?
The increasing demand that is causing the "depressing house prices" in Dublin might not make projects economically viable to build by the private sector which is leading to the high PMI?
85k people in any employment is good for job prospects in the immediate and long term for those 85k and for the country. The alternative is to have those 85k people sitting around doing nothing and obtaining no skills or work experience?
Just look what what you said, there is no way the Irish economy is in better shape than the US or Germany.
Its more like decreasing supply due to artificial restrictions than increasing demand. Mortgage drawdowns are still down yr on yr so far, the rest have been cash buyers.
85k is indeed better enhancing skills than doing nothing, its being used for spin that "unemployment is down" when its actually not in reality, better those 85k and more in actual jobs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just look what what you said, there is no way the Irish economy is in better shape than the US or Germany.
Its more like decreasing supply due to artificial restrictions than increasing demand. Mortgage drawdowns are still down yr on yr so far, the rest have been cash buyers.
85k is indeed better enhancing skills than doing nothing, its being used for spin that "unemployment is down" when its actually not in reality, better those 85k and more in actual jobs.
You've discounted the fact that a large proportion of bond sales are from institutional investors that are interested in long term gains. They invest on prospective improvements as well not just how the economy compares with others on the 23 Jan 2014 at 11:50.
My contention on prices is that theyre not going to fall anymore than the level achieved in late 2011 - early 2012. The economic statistics are improving and people see the potential to invest for the medium to long term. Thats what property investing is all about.
Mortgage approval is up. People are willing to bid on properties but get out muscled by cash buyers. This causes short spikes that maybe the original poster is seeing. They were willing to pay x amount for a house as they wouldnt have applied for a mortgage if not. The construction industry sees that mortgage holders are willing to pay this and not 20% or 30% less than the asking. They start to build homes because they see they can now get an economic return from house building. Supply returns and less spikes occur. This will probably be two years down the line. Dont expect property prices to fall below the asking prices now. The construction industry wont build if it does. Thats my opinion.
How do you expect to get an "actual" job if you dont have any experience or have displayed a good work ethic. The internship scheme was setup to do this.0
Advertisement