Dublin (and everywhere) house prices FALL in January 2014

noodler

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Yes i think around 40% last year due to the immediate liquidation of IBRC. A one off charge that should be unwound with time

The ending of the promissory notes did not change the level of Ireland's debt - they simply were replaced with a corresponding amount of Government bonds.

MysticalRain

The Spider wrote: »

Oh those vested interests, they regularly meet in a castle in the mountains and discuss their sinister plot to ramp up property, whilst swirling brandy and laughing as lightening crackles outside the window, if only we coud somehow stop them maybe McCarthy's our man, he can halt this nefarious plot using his powers of economics!!


Newsflash, you're a vested interest, I'm a vested interest as far as property is concerned everyone is a vested interest, time to retire this term, as it's the market at work not a secret cabal of shadowy businessmen.

I would define a "vested interest" as a minority within a society who enrich themselves at the expense of the wider society e.g. developers, bankers, politicians and various other such gombeens. So accusing the average citizen of this country of not wanting to be fleeced by such vested interests (any more so than they have been already) is a bit rich. It's sort of like an oil sheik from OPEC accusing a car owner of being a "vested interest" as if there is some kind of moral equivalence between the two sides.

As for your secret-cabal-behind-closed-doors analogy...well lets just wonder for a second why we are still waiting for a banking enquiry or why NAMA still operates in secret without any public accountability. If there is nothing to hide, then why is the political establishment so averse to even the mildest form of transparency and accountability.

gaius c

drumswan wrote: »

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-debt-to-gdp

All we need to to is to get GDP back up again. Is there anything to be said for building more houses and then buying & selling them to each other?

MouseTail

gaius c wrote: »

All we need to to is to get GDP back up again. Is there anything to be said for building more houses and then buying & selling them to each other?

Of course there is something to be said for increasing the levels of construction. It really is not a case of all house building/construction = bad, although I understand there may be people who think like this due to legacy issues from the bubble. Our construction % of GDP is about half what is considered normal. A priority under the Action Plan for jobs is the development of a Construction sector Strategy.

gaius c

MouseTail wrote: »

Of course there is something to be said for increasing the levels of construction. It really is not a case of all house building/construction = bad, although I understand there may be people who think like this due to legacy issues from the bubble. Our construction % of GDP is about half what is considered normal. A priority under the Action Plan for jobs is the development of a Construction sector Strategy.

Any chance you could loan me a few bob for it?
Banks are after getting all picky re lending.

MouseTail

gaius c wrote: »

Any chance you could loan me a few bob for it?
Banks are after getting all picky re lending.

Fraid not, you will have to save or meet the Banks lending criteria. If you do neither, perhaps it is better that you continue to rent?

gaius c

MouseTail wrote: »

Fraid not, you will have to save or meet the Banks lending criteria. If you do neither, perhaps it is better that you continue to rent?

Hey. It's the good of the economy we're talking about here. I'll build shoebox apartments in the Wicklow mountains that nobody wants and builders get jobs!

The Spider

MysticalRain wrote: »

I would define a "vested interest" as a minority within a society who enrich themselves at the expense of the wider society e.g. developers, bankers, politicians and various other such gombeens. So accusing the average citizen of this country of not wanting to be fleeced by such vested interests (any more so than they have been already) is a bit rich. It's sort of like an oil sheik from OPEC accusing a car owner of being a "vested interest" as if there is some kind of moral equivalence between the two sides.

Oh, of course, why would the average citizen want to make a profit selling the biggest investment of their lives? No much better to sell at a loss and live in debt so that those who can't afford but want their investment can have it.

I doesn't matter what you define a vested interest as, the fact is everyone's a vested interest, let me explain it to you:

You want to buy a house for as little as possible, and have little debt, nothing wrong with that!

A seller wants to sell a house for as much as possible, and make a profit, nothing wrong with that!

That's it!

moxin

The Spider wrote: »

Oh, of course, why would the average citizen want to make a profit selling the biggest investment of their lives? No much better to sell at a loss and live in debt so that those who can't afford but want their investment can have it.

I doesn't matter what you define a vested interest as, the fact is everyone's a vested interest, let me explain it to you:

You want to buy a house for as little as possible, and have little debt, nothing wrong with that!

A seller wants to sell a house for as much as possible, and make a profit, nothing wrong with that!

That's it!

That only applies to cash buyers.

Banks loan the money for non-cash buyers at an interest rate, the more profit from an applicant the merrier it is for the bank. Most mortgage applicants do not have the serious financial knowledge hence are vulnerable, we have a regulator to help there. This is rather basic stuff that you don't understand, very strange.

The Spider

moxin wrote: »

That only applies to cash buyers.

Banks loan the money for non-cash buyers at an interest rate, the more profit from an applicant the merrier it is for the bank. Most mortgage applicants do not have the serious financial knowledge hence are vulnerable, we have a regulator to help there. This is rather basic stuff that you don't understand, very strange.

Eh....ok, the applicant still wants as small a loan as possible, or as little debt, I think you'll find most people understand the difference between paying 700 euro a month versus 1400 euro.

I don't see how this only applies to cash buyers???

This really is rather basic stuff do I need to explain again?

Villa05

The Spider wrote: »

Oh, of course, why would the average citizen want to make a profit selling the biggest investment of their lives? No much better to sell at a loss and live in debt so that those who can't afford but want their investment can have it.

I doesn't matter what you define a vested interest as, the fact is everyone's a vested interest, let me explain it to you:

You want to buy a house for as little as possible, and have little debt, nothing wrong with that!

A seller wants to sell a house for as much as possible, and make a profit, nothing wrong with that!

That's it!

We have not had a proper functioning property market for nearly 20 years. This is a situation caused by vested interests pumping the bubble from early 96 to 06 and in the collapse openly admitting using taxpayers money to put a floor on prices on the way down. This includes Bankers, Media, Government, Estate Agents etc The whole process bankrupt the country, placed a massive growing bill on future generations

Do you think that 1 person on the street is an equal vested interest to the above?

moxin

The Spider wrote: »

Eh....ok, the applicant still wants as small a loan as possible, or as little debt, I think you'll find most people understand the difference between paying 700 euro a month versus 1400 euro.

No they do not. Paying 700 a mth over 35 yrs is alot more expensive than paying over 20 yrs for example. Alot of bubble buyers were sucked into that trap.

The Spider wrote: »

I don't see how this only applies to cash buyers???

This really is rather basic stuff do I need to explain again?

Cash buyers have the cash already, what debts do they occur when buying a house? They don't borrow a penny off anyone for the purchase.

The Spider

moxin wrote: »

No they do not. Paying 700 a mth over 35 yrs is alot more expensive than paying over 20 yrs for example. Alot of bubble buyers were sucked into that trap.
.

Obviously, now can You go back and point out where I said differently, far as I'm aware I never mentioned length of loan!!!

You're adding your own stuff in there!

The Spider

Villa05 wrote: »

We have not had a proper functioning property market for nearly 20 years. This is a situation caused by vested interests pumping the bubble from early 96 to 06 and in the collapse openly admitting using taxpayers money to put a floor on prices on the way down. This includes Bankers, Media, Government, Estate Agents etc The whole process bankrupt the country, placed a massive growing bill on future generations

Do you think that 1 person on the street is an equal vested interest to the above?

Fair enough, but the only people that are pushing up prices at the moment are people bidding against each other, they song have to pay those prices, they want to.

moxin

The Spider wrote: »

Obviously, now can You go back and point out where I said differently, far as I'm aware I never mentioned length of loan!!!

You're adding your own stuff in there!

You equated lenders and borrowers as having an equal vested interest which is hilarious. The length of a loan is valid for a mortgage, basic stuff yes.

MysticalRain

The Spider wrote: »

Oh, of course, why would the average citizen want to make a profit selling the biggest investment of their lives? No much better to sell at a loss and live in debt so that those who can't afford but want their investment can have it.

I doesn't matter what you define a vested interest as, the fact is everyone's a vested interest, let me explain it to you:

You want to buy a house for as little as possible, and have little debt, nothing wrong with that!

A seller wants to sell a house for as much as possible, and make a profit, nothing wrong with that!

That's it!

I think you are completely missing the point. The "average citizen" as you put it is more likely home buyer, not a seller/developer/investor who sells houses as assets to the highest bidder.

Back to the Oil Sheik analogy: most people are consumers of fuel, not sellers. So only a small minority benefit from inflated prices.

ezra_pound

The Spider wrote: »

Fair enough, but the only people that are pushing up prices at the moment are people bidding against each other, they song have to pay those prices, they want to.

I think that you have difficulty grasping what the term open market means.

Edit: apologies. I misread your post.

ezra_pound

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think you are completely missing the point. The "average citizen" as you put it is more likely home buyer, not a seller/developer/investor who sells houses as assets to the highest bidder.

Back to the Oil Sheik analogy: most people are consumers of fuel, not sellers. So only a small minority benefit from inflated prices.

I think that you may be very wrong.

The Spider

moxin wrote: »

You equated lenders and borrowers as having an equal vested interest which is hilarious. The length of a loan is valid for a mortgage, basic stuff yes.

Really? you must be reading different posts, nowhere did I mention lenders, I mentioned buyers and sellers.

It's off the point of everyone being a vested interest, you've run away and made up your own little narrative there.

I didnt mention length of loans, sales prices etc, I broke it down into two simple points.

Sellers want high prices.

Buyers want low prices.

Now based on the above two points that makes everybody a vested interest.

Basic stuff yes?

The Spider

ezra_pound wrote: »

I think that you have difficulty grasping what the term open market means.

Edit: apologies. I misread your post.

Auto correct in the phone I meant don't not song.

Villa05

The Spider wrote: »

Fair enough, but the only people that are pushing up prices at the moment are people bidding against each other, they song have to pay those prices, they want to.

People are foolishly dancing to the tune of the vested interests. Than tune has ruined many, it will again. Is it becoming clearer to you now

Edit smart phone, it must recognise the tune

The Spider

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think you are completely missing the point. The "average citizen" as you put it is more likely home buyer, not a seller/developer/investor who sells houses as assets to the highest bidder.

Back to the Oil Sheik analogy: most people are consumers of fuel, not sellers. So only a small minority benefit from inflated prices.

So who is the average citizen buying the house from????

Seriously reread your post, someone selling a house in terenure is an average citizen, someone buying a house in terenure is an average citizen, or any other area for that matter.

Good god!!

The Spider

Villa05 wrote: »

People are foolishly dancing to the tune of the vested interests. Than tune has ruined many, it will again. Is it becoming clearer to you now

Edit smart phone, it must recognise the tune

Supply and demand I think you'll find, no property built for nearly six years, no land available to build substantial amounts of semi d's inside the m50.

No builders left, tradesmen decimated, either left Ireland or doing something else, supply is years behind demand.

So there you go, no pied piper just no property available in the places people want to live.

MysticalRain

The Spider wrote: »

So who is the average citizen buying the house from????

Seriously reread your post, someone selling a house in terenure is an average citizen, someone buying a house in terenure is an average citizen, or any other area for that matter.

Good god!!

Typically it's a developer if it's a new house. Granted an "average Joe" in an old part of the city may sell his house to purchase another house elsewhere to live it. But he's not gaining much if he's selling one (over priced) house to cover the cost of a second (over priced) house. He would still be in a financially neutral position in a deflated property market. Of course if he's flipping houses for investment purposes, he's obviously not an "average Joe".

Again, you keep banging on and on as if we are a bunch of Paddies intent on buying and selling houses to each other and pretending we're rich. For the vast majority of people in this country, a home is a place to live in. Not something to be flipped and traded as a commodity.

I have to ask the question: are you actually hoping for another property bubble, and if so, then why the fcuk do you believe this wouldn't end up ruining the economy for the second time?

MouseTail

MysticalRain wrote: »

Typically it's a developer if it's a new house. Granted an "average Joe" in an old part of the city may sell his house to purchase another house elsewhere to live it. But he's not gaining much if he's selling one (over priced) house to cover the cost of a second (over priced) house. He would still be in a financially neutral position in a deflated property market. Of course if he's flipping houses for investment purposes, he's obviously not an "average Joe".

I think you have totally gone off on a tangent from Spiders point, that everyone in the market is a vested interest. Even those who own with no intention of selling, have an interest in their house value. Renters want choice and supply at affordable prices. The only people who are not are those content to live at home with parents.

you have a narrow view of vested interest, ie who has most to gain or lose, but that is not the true definition of vested interest, and is not what Spider meant (apologies to him if I have misconstrued his posts)

MysticalRain

MouseTail wrote: »

I think you have totally gone off on a tangent from Spiders point, that everyone in the market is a vested interest. Even those who own with no intention of selling, have an interest in their house value. Renters want choice and supply at affordable prices. The only people who are not are those content to live at home with parents.

you have a narrow view of vested interest, ie who has most to gain or lose, but that is not the true definition of vested interest, and is not what Spider meant (apologies to him if I have misconstrued his posts)

Most home owners will never sell their houses, so I'm not sure why the value of their house would be relevant - even if it rises in value, so does every other house. So the value gets cancelled out.

Not sure why I am the one being accused of "going off on a tangent" seeing as I was merely backing up the definition of Vested Interest as it was originally used in this thread. Spider naturally disagrees, hence why he tried to muddy the waters by implying some kind of moral equivalence between a developer/banker/politician and the average citizen not wanting to be taken advantage of by those groups.

To further the point, "Special interest group" would be the American equivalent of what we're talking about here.

Special interest group
noun
1.
a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying.

The Spider

MouseTail wrote: »

I think you have totally gone off on a tangent from Spiders point, that everyone in the market is a vested interest. Even those who own with no intention of selling, have an interest in their house value. Renters want choice and supply at affordable prices. The only people who are not are those content to live at home with parents.

you have a narrow view of vested interest, ie who has most to gain or lose, but that is not the true definition of vested interest, and is not what Spider meant (apologies to him if I have misconstrued his posts)

Nope that's pretty much bang on, I don't know why others have such difficulty understanding it.

MysticalRain

Spider, we understand you just fine (and know exactly what you are trying to do by muddying the waters here).

It suits your side of the argument to ignore the commonly accepted version of what "vested interest" means.

The Spider

MysticalRain wrote: »

Spider, we understand you just fine (and know exactly what you are trying to do by muddying the waters here).

It suits your side of the argument to ignore the commonly accepted version of what "vested interest" means.

You mean commonly accepted by the vested interests who want the housing Market to crash, of course.

MysticalRain

The Spider wrote: »

You mean commonly accepted by the vested interests who want the housing Market to crash, of course.

I see what you did there. There you go yet again trying to distort the argument from the other side.

I meant the average citizen of this country who doesn't want to end up paying the price for another property bubble. I think most people here would be happy enough with a genuinely free market where prices were maintained at their natural level and not artificially inflated to suit the needs of a few at the expense of the rest of society.