Pushed out of the market

moxin

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of what would be considered rougher areas of Dublin 15/Clonee/Lucan/Clondalking/Tallaght- have shot up in price.

Clonee/Lucan are rough?!! That is news!

Jaybor

moxin wrote: »

Clonee/Lucan are rough?!! That is news!

Would you say they are posh? Since you say only posh areas have risen.

And a lot more than just those areas have shot up too.

moxin

Jaybor wrote: »

Would you say they are posh? Since you say only posh areas have risen.

And a lot more than just those areas have shot up too.

No they are not posh. You have misunderstood, i'd call them average areas, they are desirable as the posh areas for families to settle in.

delthedriver

It is a very difficult one for young couples and young families.


They either decide to buy in areas they can afford or follow the European model and rent in areas they can afford.


The obsession with owning property has not changed, hence this is driving the market once again.


It is not unusual for people in other European Capitals to rent on a long term basis, 10, 15 , 20 years perhaps longer.


Why should Dublin be different?


Buy or rent what you can afford , get on with your life and be happy!


Situations change with time. If things don't change they stay the same.!

MouseTail

moxin wrote: »

No they are not posh. You have misunderstood, i'd call them average areas, they are desirable as the posh areas for families to settle in.

OK, so now you are saying average areas have seen rises too. So where do you assert the price drops are?

hfallada

If Irish people realised that not everyone can have a house we wouldnt have such a housing issue. Irish people wouldnt consider living in an apartment. There is this need to have a 3 bed with a garden no matter how small it is. People are willing to spend hours everyday, driving from the middle of no where so they can have a garden

Jaybor

People talk about the Irish obsession with owning property.

I think what they would like is to have their own obsession with it, but for nobody else to have an obsession with it so drive prices down for them to pander to their own lust to own a property.

moxin

MouseTail wrote: »

OK, so now you are saying average areas have seen rises too. So where do you assert the price drops are?

Where did I say that?

riclad

IF you want to live in a certain area, look at buying an apartment,
Some area,s have a small amount of houses for sale.
Which tends to push up prices, and encourage bidding wars.

MouseTail

moxin wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Apologies if I misunderstood you. Are you saying then that only 'posh' areas are seeing rises. If we assume posh = affluent, then anywhere not blue on the map below is stagnant or dropping?

http://trutzhaase.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/All-Island-Deprivation-Index-01.jpg

moxin

MouseTail wrote: »

Apologies if I misunderstood you. Are you saying then that only 'posh' areas are seeing rises. If we assume posh = affluent, then anywhere not blue on the map below is stagnant or dropping?

http://trutzhaase.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/All-Island-Deprivation-Index-01.jpg

Small map. It appears that most of Dublin is not blue there. The blue part appears to be SCD which has been made famous here for price rises.

Jaybor

moxin wrote: »

Small map. It appears that most of Dublin is not blue there. The blue part appears to be SCD which has been made famous here for price rises.

Im confused here.
Are you saying only SCD has seen price rises?
Or only the posh parts of Dublin are having price rises?

Would you agree that there is significantly more of Dublin experiencing price rises than not then?

HeidiHeidi

delthedriver wrote: »

It is a very difficult one for young couples and young families.


They either decide to buy in areas they can afford or follow the European model and rent in areas they can afford.


The obsession with owning property has not changed, hence this is driving the market once again.


It is not unusual for people in other European Capitals to rent on a long term basis, 10, 15 , 20 years perhaps longer.


Why should Dublin be different?


Buy or rent what you can afford , get on with your life and be happy!


Situations change with time. If things don't change they stay the same.!

Because the conditions for renters are not the same as in continental Europe. Security of tenure for starters, and most apartments here are not designed for long-term living of any sort, never mind family living. And I don't think there's anything like the stock of suitable family homes available to rent if half the country suddenly decided that buying was a fool's game.

Until there's a wholesale change in those factors, plus others, buying will remain the only viable option here.

delthedriver

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Because the conditions for renters are not the same as in continental Europe. Security of tenure for starters, and most apartments here are not designed for long-term living of any sort, never mind family living. And I don't think there's anything like the stock of suitable family homes available to rent if half the country suddenly decided that buying was a fool's game.

Until there's a wholesale change in those factors, plus others, buying will remain the only viable option here.

Fair comments indeed.


Is the situation for renters something that the Government can address, ie security of tenure ?


When the PRTB was formed, was tenure not addressed?


We have an ageing population, perhaps with time older people may wish to trade down to or rent apartments in their own areas, therefore freeing up properties for sale or indeed rent ?

HeidiHeidi

delthedriver wrote: »

Fair comments indeed.


Is the situation for renters something that the Government can address, ie security of tenure ?


When the PRTB was formed, was tenure not addressed?


We have an ageing population, perhaps with time older people may wish to trade down to or rent apartments in their own areas, therefore freeing up properties for sale or indeed rent ?

Your last paragraph depends on people having bought the properties in the first place that they now wish to trade down from

I'm no expert in the area, but I have lived in Germany (a long time ago) and I never came across private landlords of the kind we have here. The apartments I and others lived in were owned by pension funds (or some such, not private individuals), once you were in you were in, they came unfurnished (without a kitchen in the case of the one I sublet :eek: the primary renter had had to have one fitted and would either take it with him if/when he moved, or sell it to the new tenants in a private arrangement), all had basement storage areas, and were of a decent size and layout that made them suitable for long-term family life. The whole mindset, not to mind the stock of apartments (the main problem) is just not set up here for lifelong renting.

That's my tuppenceworth anyway - the compulsion to buy is well ingrained in us here, for very good reason, and a lot would have to change to alter that mindset.

delthedriver

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Your last paragraph depends on people having bought the properties in the first place that they now wish to trade down from

I'm no expert in the area, but I have lived in Germany (a long time ago) and I never came across private landlords of the kind we have here. The apartments I and others lived in were owned by pension funds (or some such, not private individuals), once you were in you were in, they came unfurnished (without a kitchen in the case of the one I sublet :eek: the primary renter had had to have one fitted and would either take it with him if/when he moved, or sell it to the new tenants in a private arrangement), all had basement storage areas, and were of a decent size and layout that made them suitable for long-term family life. The whole mindset, not to mind the stock of apartments (the main problem) is just not set up here for lifelong renting.

That's my tuppenceworth anyway - the compulsion to buy is well ingrained in us here, for very good reason, and a lot would have to change to alter that mindset.

The type of landlord may be changing, there are a number large investors, Fund Managers, investing in property at present, I guess along the lines of your pension funds in Germany.


This may also be driving prices and rents higher.


As regards the private landlords you have come across here, I cannot comment , other than however many bad landlords there are I am sure there is an equal amount of bad tenants.


As for the older generation who own houses in good or desirable areas, I say good lock to them. Should they decide to trade down , I hope they achieve the very best price possible.

delthedriver

There is no real solution to this property issue in Dublin.


It is simple economics at work, Supply V Demand determines the price.


A lot of people sat on their hands over the last few years hoping for the market to fall further. Now they have missed the boat, the tide turned very quickly.


Of course they may feel excluded from buying in Dublin, perhaps it is time to face facts, they can only buy or rent in areas they can afford.


Already commuter towns in surrounding Counties are seeing healthy movement in property sales.


It is not the fault of the Silver Haired Brigade who are living in valuable houses in the more desirable areas.


Perhaps it is time to wake up and smell the coffee ?????

spockety

A lot of facing facts and coffee smelling required, sounds like a perfectly functioning market..

riclad

PRICES levelled out ,i haven,t seen price drops in dublin for 2 years.
House prices still alot cheaper than boom time prices .
Theres still a wide range of prices in dublin .
IF you look around different area,s .
Some area,s small amount of houses on the market=rising price,
thats how market forces work.
its not a perfect market,
IN that most builders are bankrupt,
not enough houses are being built in dublin,
under new rules , self build houses are illegal.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/crisis-as-number-of-homes-for-sale-plummets-50pc-new-data-30070895.html

IN a normal market builders will start building houses to meet demand.

Potatoeman

delthedriver wrote: »

There is no real solution to this property issue in Dublin.


It is simple economics at work, Supply V Demand determines the price.


A lot of people sat on their hands over the last few years hoping for the market to fall further. Now they have missed the boat, the tide turned very quickly.


Of course they may feel excluded from buying in Dublin, perhaps it is time to face facts, they can only buy or rent in areas they can afford.


Already commuter towns in surrounding Counties are seeing healthy movement in property sales.


It is not the fault of the Silver Haired Brigade who are living in valuable houses in the more desirable areas.


Perhaps it is time to wake up and smell the coffee ?????

We dont have a functional market with NAMA and very few repossesions. The government plan is to fight price drops and protect the pyramid scheme that has been created which is effectivley making people entering the market overpay because the people before them did.

Heisenberg1

Potatoeman wrote: »

We dont have a functional market with NAMA and very few repossesions. The government plan is to fight price drops and protect the pyramid scheme that has been created which is effectivley making people entering the market overpay because the people before them did.

But how many houses do you think are going to be repossessed in the desirable areas?? IMO very very little but it will be a lot higher in the commuter areas.

BookBook

riclad wrote: »

PRICES levelled out ,i haven,t seen price drops in dublin for 2 years.
....

Lots of recent asking price reductions (and increases) can be found here
http://www.myhome.ie/pricechanges?RegionID=1265&LocalityIDs=

Zamboni

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

But how many houses do you think are going to be repossessed in the desirable areas?? IMO very very little but it will be a lot higher in the commuter areas.

What makes you think that?

Ray Palmer

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

But how many houses do you think are going to be repossessed in the desirable areas?? IMO very very little but it will be a lot higher in the commuter areas.

This is the bit most people miss. High demand areas are high demand due to proximity to employment. Negative equity will disappear in these areas first and the people living there are likely to be able to get employment. Even if that is a reduced wage it would allow them to retain their home.

I hate when people go on about Germany as the ideal model too. It require absence of knowing how and why Germany has those rules and has large organisations owning property. If you want the same here destroy the country the way Germany was destroyed in WWII.

We have high demand to own our property due to our history and most people in this country their parents owned their home when they grew up. It will take at least a generation to change this trend. I believe it is inevitable homeownership was going to reduce in this country. Legislation changes will lag behind this. Germany never had a choice and has 2 generations to legislate and tease these things out.

Potatoeman

Ray Palmer wrote: »

This is the bit most people miss. High demand areas are high demand due to proximity to employment. Negative equity will disappear in these areas first and the people living there are likely to be able to get employment. Even if that is a reduced wage it would allow them to retain their home.

I hate when people go on about Germany as the ideal model too. It require absence of knowing how and why Germany has those rules and has large organisations owning property. If you want the same here destroy the country the way Germany was destroyed in WWII.

We have high demand to own our property due to our history and most people in this country their parents owned their home when they grew up. It will take at least a generation to change this trend. I believe it is inevitable homeownership was going to reduce in this country. Legislation changes will lag behind this. Germany never had a choice and has 2 generations to legislate and tease these things out.

For many people its far more simple. Its the stability ownership provides. Renting on one year leases is uncertain and in many cases just as expensive as buying.
Over your mortgage term your repayments reduce as capital is payed off whereas rent generally only increases.

Ray Palmer

Potatoeman wrote: »

For many people its far more simple. Its the stability ownership provides. Renting on one year leases is uncertain and in many cases just as expensive as buying.
Over your mortgage term your repayments reduce as capital is payed off whereas rent generally only increases.

You do understand after 6 months you have much more rights and can only be asked to leave under set circumstances?

The point really was if there was better protection people wouldn't need to buy and you could rent with the security such as they do in Germany.

I know how a mortgage

gaius c

Ray Palmer wrote: »

This is the bit most people miss. High demand areas are high demand due to proximity to employment. Negative equity will disappear in these areas first and the people living there are likely to be able to get employment. Even if that is a reduced wage it would allow them to retain their home.

Really?
You do realise that you need 200% increases to cancel out 50% drops?

delthedriver

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

But how many houses do you think are going to be repossessed in the desirable areas?? IMO very very little but it will be a lot higher in the commuter areas.

Why? Perhaps you could elaborate please? Thanks

Marchbride

Wow this thread took off full steam ahead after my original post. Just bringing it back to that same post. There is non doubt in my mind that I and a lot of others are being priced out of market. I have 285k to spend and I am looking in Dub 5,9,11,13 & swords.. But nothing.. Those houses priced at 250-260 are going for 30k over asking. It's incredible and depressing. I approached a woman close by to where I rent on Friday to ask if I could buy her home. She was lovely about me asking and said that there was a private viewing Saturday that she 'd leave go. If no higher offer than asking price which is what we offered then we could have it. Turns out someone offered a FIRST bid 15k over asking! If it 5k or less she was giving us the house as it would avoid EA fees as she didn't sign any papers for him. Want to hang up the house hunting hat at this rate but there's many variables against us ie husbands age, my return to work shortly resulting in child care costs that I don't think the banks will renew approval. If they did, probably not for same figure!

who_ru

if people are stupid enough to offer 15k above asking for a first bid let them at it. that is total desperation at work there.

Jaybor

i would love to let long term more than anything.
But at the moment a lease means sfa to a tenant.
And when they decide to break it, there is nothing I can do that is worthwhile.
When a 5 year lease means 5 years for both sides and is enforceable on both sides, then by all means make 5 year leases standard.
But at the moment the tenant can back out of a lease whenever they feel like it. Whereas the LL cant.

Jaybor

who_ru wrote: »

if people are stupid enough to offer 15k above asking for a first bid let them at it. that is total desperation at work there.

So what would you say that house is worth, not having seen it or anything to enable you to make an informed decision.

Marchbride

Jaybor wrote: »

So what would you say that house is worth, not having seen it or anything to enable you to make an informed decision.

The house couldn't shift for 30k less last August.. Houses around the area sold very recently for 30-40k less and some were bigger houses!! I honestly don't know what to make of this madness. I would have thought last November when I started looking for a house that 285k would get us a fine sized house in a 'decent' area..... Not looking likely now!!

Jaybor

Marchbride wrote: »

The house couldn't shift for 30k less last August.. Houses around the area sold very recently for 30-40k less and some were bigger houses!! I honestly don't know what to make of this madness. I would have thought last November when I started looking for a house that 285k would get us a fine sized house in a 'decent' area..... Not looking likely now!!

As in every cycle there is a very bad time to buy and a very good time to buy. Everything else falls in the range in between.
The very bad time was about 7 or 8 years ago. I think we will find that the very good time was a couple of years ago. I think we might be slightly past that stage now, but you never know.

A lot of people are betting that property prices will fall again. If they lose that bet they probably will be renting for the rest of their lives - unless they are in their 20s or early 30s now and will be ready to strike when the next low point comes in the next decade. Any older and they probably wont be getting a mortgage at that point. Another low point will come, but when is anybodies guess. Im betting its a long way away now.

gaius c

Jaybor wrote: »

As in every cycle there is a very bad time to buy and a very good time to buy. Everything else falls in the range in between.
The very bad time was about 7 or 8 years ago. I think we will find that the very good time was a couple of years ago. I think we might be slightly past that stage now, but you never know.

A lot of people are betting that property prices will fall again. If they lose that bet they probably will be renting for the rest of their lives - unless they are in their 20s or early 30s now and will be ready to strike when the next low point comes in the next decade. Any older and they probably wont be getting a mortgage at that point. Another low point will come, but when is anybodies guess. Im betting its a long way away now.

You might be too young to remember it but there was a time when house prices didn't swing as wildly as Irish oil exploration shares.

delthedriver

Jaybor wrote: »

i would love to let long term more than anything.
But at the moment a lease means sfa to a tenant.
And when they decide to break it, there is nothing I can do that is worthwhile.
When a 5 year lease means 5 years for both sides and is enforceable on both sides, then by all means make 5 year leases standard.
But at the moment the tenant can back out of a lease whenever they feel like it. Whereas the LL cant.

Very True! The odds are stacked against the landlord ironically. A tenant can potentially leave the premises, having already trashed the place, leave rents unpaid . Yes there is the PRTB to settle disputes, however recovering fro the tenant is easier said than done.


One cannot sue a man of straw

MouseTail

gaius c wrote: »

You might be too young to remember it but there was a time when house prices didn't swing as wildly as Irish oil exploration shares.

I'm not, but I also recall that as being a closed low skilled economy, low wages, women absent from the workforce, poor progression to third level education. I dont think you can compare our socio economy, and therefore house price drivers, now to anytime pre mid 90s. Its a different country.

johnnyskeleton

who_ru wrote: »

if people are stupid enough to offer 15k above asking for a first bid let them at it. that is total desperation at work there.

Or a bold move to secure the property. For example:

Asking price €200k
My Budget €210-230k but would ideally like to keep it below the asking or as low as possible.
Your Budget €215k and also wouldn't mind keeping it low but expect it to sell for that price.

You bid €185k and I bid up in increments of €5k until you bid €215k, I bid €220k and I get the house because you can't afford to go any higher.

On the other hand, you bid €215k and I believe that you have massive reserves behind you and will go up far beyond my budget so I don't bid again.

Classic bluff / all-in strategy I suppose, but it seems to work in house bidding.

delthedriver

Jaybor wrote: »

As in every cycle there is a very bad time to buy and a very good time to buy. Everything else falls in the range in between.
The very bad time was about 7 or 8 years ago. I think we will find that the very good time was a couple of years ago. I think we might be slightly past that stage now, but you never know.

A lot of people are betting that property prices will fall again. If they lose that bet they probably will be renting for the rest of their lives - unless they are in their 20s or early 30s now and will be ready to strike when the next low point comes in the next decade. Any older and they probably wont be getting a mortgage at that point. Another low point will come, but when is anybodies guess. Im betting its a long way away now.

I do not see prices falling again in Dublin. We already see the pent up demand for properties and the increases in prices and rents.


This will spread to other large urban areas , already it has spread to Commuter Counties like Wicklow, Kildare etc.


Further afield, property in Limerick is moving, demand for rental property is on the increase. Indeed an acquaintance advertised her apartment to let on Daft. A couple of hundred hits and 24hrs later the apartment was let at a higher rent than originally anticipated.


People need to get off the fence, if they are ready to buy get on with it.

Villa05

MouseTail wrote: »

I'm not, but I also recall that as being a closed low skilled economy, low wages, women absent from the workforce, poor progression to third level education. I dont think you can compare our socio economy, and therefore house price drivers, now to anytime pre mid 90s. Its a different country.

So high skilled economy
Higher wages and more family members at work
Better education

yet we are the most indebted society in the world. What could possibly be wrong?

yankinlk

Jaybor wrote: »

As in every cycle there is a very bad time to buy and a very good time to buy. Everything else falls in the range in between.
The very bad time was about 7 or 8 years ago. I think we will find that the very good time was a couple of years ago. I think we might be slightly past that stage now, but you never know.

my dad sold houses in the states. he always said, seven years up, seven years down (or sideways).

ezra_pound

gaius c wrote: »

Really?
You do realise that you need 200% increases to cancel out 50% drops?

No you don't.

HeidiHeidi

ezra_pound wrote: »

No you don't.

Why do people do this? It's like provocation into a tit for tat row - I know the answer but you don't. Why not just give/explain the answer if you know it?

You need 100% increase to cancel out a 50% drop. Unless you keep working from the initial valuation which would make no sense.

100K becomes 50K - a 50% drop.

In order to become 100K again 50K needs to double - a 100% increase (I suspect this is where the initial poster got confused, calling a doubling 200%).

That's my take on it anyway, the poster was making the point that when the value is down you need to climb back more RELATIVELY to get to where you started from.

If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate someone actually explaining it properly .

Fkall

gaius c wrote: »

You might be too young to remember it but there was a time when house prices didn't swing as wildly as Irish oil exploration shares.

Yes, prior to 2006 house prices only ever went up

Potatoeman

Jaybor wrote: »

i would love to let long term more than anything.
But at the moment a lease means sfa to a tenant.
And when they decide to break it, there is nothing I can do that is worthwhile.
When a 5 year lease means 5 years for both sides and is enforceable on both sides, then by all means make 5 year leases standard.
But at the moment the tenant can back out of a lease whenever they feel like it. Whereas the LL cant.

Youre looking at it from a contract on equal terms but its not. Its a business for the ll but a home for the tenant. Think of an employment contract. The employer will find it harder to get out of.

As a business you need to be stable but as an individual there are many factors that can change your circumstances.

Ray Palmer

gaius c wrote: »

Really?
You do realise that you need 200% increases to cancel out 50% drops?

Yes but I also know not everybody bought at the peak of the market and that is the majority.

I was in negative equity for 2 years and if I sold now I would make a nice profit. Friends spent similar amounts on their property further out from employment. They went into negative equity before me and are still in it.

A drop from the peak means very little to you unless that is when you bought. When you bought is the important thing and you may have noticed prices were going up by large amounts. 50% of your house price that was 200% more than you paid for it allows you to exit negative equity really quickly. Every increase after that is still more value on your home.

ezra_pound

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Why do people do this? It's like provocation into a tit for tat row - I know the answer but you don't. Why not just give/explain the answer if you know it?

You need 100% increase to cancel out a 50% drop. Unless you keep working from the initial valuation which would make no sense.

100K becomes 50K - a 50% drop.

In order to become 100K again 50K needs to double - a 100% increase (I suspect this is where the initial poster got confused, calling a doubling 200%).

That's my take on it anyway, the poster was making the point that when the value is down you need to climb back more RELATIVELY to get to where you started from.

If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate someone actually explaining it properly .

Yes. You're right. And so am i . the required increase is 100%. Therefore the figure of 200% is incorrect.

ionapaul

MouseTail wrote: »

I'm not, but I also recall that as being a closed low skilled economy, low wages, women absent from the workforce, poor progression to third level education. I dont think you can compare our socio economy, and therefore house price drivers, now to anytime pre mid 90s. Its a different country.

This. Time. It's. Different.

MouseTail

ionapaul wrote: »

This. Time. It's. Different.

Which of the factors I named do you think has not changed since the 1980s?

Jaybor

gaius c wrote: »

You might be too young to remember it but there was a time when house prices didn't swing as wildly as Irish oil exploration shares.

You mean having to emigrate to London to work on building sites in the lates 80s when nobody had a
job here and 90% of my class emigrated.
Lining up on the the street in crickewood hoping to get picked to work on a site each day. Then seeing the uk property crash. And when there were no more jobs even in the UK having to spend 6 months at a time in Germany and Saudi Arabia.
Then retraining eventually in IT only to see the .com bust and then another property crash.

Yep im old enough.

But I saw other things. Things always seem like they are the worst ever to people who havent experienced previous economic hardship.
There is always a recovery, and the swings get bigger each cycle.

Valuable life lessons is what I treat them as. When we have a boom, im preparing for the crash. And when we have a crash Im preparing for the boom. Now is no different to before, regarding boom/bust. People always think their current experience is somehow special.

But for sure life is far, far better in Ireland now than it was then. People are much better off.

Society moves on and grows into something different, but at the end of the day there will be boom and bust cycles all the time. This will never change.