Interesting article in Irish Times - ‘fizz’ may be going out of Dublin market

gaius c

makeorbrake wrote: »

Presumably, that's what Noonan had in mind when coming up with this risk sharing guarantee - to make it more attractive for banks to take on FTB's...

They can make it attractive all they like but it won't work because the banks need to shrink their balance sheets/reduce risk and the way to do that is to stop new lending.

jay0109

Barely Hedged wrote: »

In any property market cash buyers make up around 30% of all sales. I dont get this notion that theyre all going to disappear. Could it be that cash buyers are a good gauge of where the market should be?

Taken in context, prices have fallen between 50% - 60%. If prices went up 33% last year theyre still around 30% - 40% cheaper than 07/08.

House prices in the areas you mention of Sth Dub (+ others) fell about 50% by my records, and have been increasing since late 2011.
So I reckon over half of the losses from the peak have been paired back and that we're now 20-25% down.
And at the current rate of increases, we will be able to celebrate a return to the top of the peak shortly after the 1916 'celebrations'. Now that would be worth a parade all of it's own!!!

As for cash buyers, have'nt the CSO said they're reports are only covering 50% of property sales as the other 50% are cash based? And that it was close to 60% cash in late 2012, early 2013

gaius c

jay0109 wrote: »

House prices in the areas you mention of Sth Dub (+ others) fell about 50% by my records, and have been increasing since late 2011.
So I reckon over half of the losses from the peak have been paired back and that we're now 20-25% down.
And at the current rate of increases, we will be able to celebrate a return to the top of the peak shortly after the 1916 'celebrations'. Now that would be worth a parade all of it's own!!!

As for cash buyers, have'nt the CSO said they're reports are only covering 50% of property sales as the other 50% are cash based? And that it was close to 60% cash in late 2012, early 2013

Interesting attitude.

jay0109

gaius c wrote: »

Interesting attitude.

I was being sarcastic:o

gaius c

Oh fair enough. My bad. Hard to tell with some posters these days!

Dredd_J

We've decided to sit back for a while and hopefully more people will leave the market in the meantime.
It slowed down a bit around this time last year too though and then picked up again. So hopefully it slows down a lot more this time so we can go in and have less competition.

gaius c

It's taken a while and it might be another year before it really hits but while the wheels of heaven grind slow, they grind exceedingly small.

She also expressed alarm at the growing number of repossession applications that were lodged in the first quarter of the year — 3,093 new applications compared to 525 made in the first six months of last year.

Nearly a six fold increase in the number of applications and once it starts...

lolosaur

gaius c wrote: »

It's taken a while and it might be another year before it really hits but while the wheels of heaven grind slow, they grind exceedingly small.


Nearly a six fold increase in the number of applications and once it starts...

If you take the breakdown of 3000 homes accross the country, its a drop in the water compared to what should be going on the market weekly.

If all 3000 houses were in longford, the price of houses there would drop no doubt. again, these house would be drip fed, they would be staggered and most certainly, all 3000 will not all be 3 bed semis in foxrock and glasnevin.
They will be 2 bed apartments in ballybrophy. 3 beds in portlaoise, summer homes in wexford. all this type of crap. ever go to an auction thinking you could pick up a bargain and realise there is nothing but tat there? thats what will happen predominantly.

Also, just because the bank reposses, doesnt mean they will sell straight away. as someone already mentioned, banks are keeping houses for ages because they can afford to do so.

gaius c

lolosaur wrote: »

If you take the breakdown of 3000 homes accross the country, its a drop in the water compared to what should be going on the market weekly.

If all 3000 houses were in longford, the price of houses there would drop no doubt. again, these house would be drip fed, they would be staggered and most certainly, all 3000 will not all be 3 bed semis in foxrock and glasnevin.
They will be 2 bed apartments in ballybrophy. 3 beds in portlaoise, summer homes in wexford. all this type of crap. ever go to an auction thinking you could pick up a bargain and realise there is nothing but tat there? thats what will happen predominantly.

Also, just because the bank reposses, doesnt mean they will sell straight away. as someone already mentioned, banks are keeping houses for ages because they can afford to do so.

If?

Very speculative post there. Got anything to back up your hunches?

gaius c

Also, the "all the arrears are in Longford" mantra is probably incorrect.

lolosaur

gaius c wrote: »

If?

Very speculative post there. Got anything to back up your hunches?

It is not speculative. The law of probablility of having 3000 houses being repossesed and every one of them being in Dublin would be 90000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000/1

jmayo

woodseb wrote: »

What is the net effect to the taxpayer of this action by AIB? show your workings.

Are you seriously asking that ?
In lieu of payment they are offering us ordinary shares.

The taxpayers already own circa 99% of the bank.
Do you think that less than 1% of AIB is worth 3 billion ?
That would then lead one to beleive that the bank is worth 300 odd billion or will be worth 300 billion in the near future. :eek:

If AIB was worth even a quarter of that then the government would have been mad to not put it up for sale and get rid.

Hell is less than 1% worth 280 million at this stage.

gaius c

lolosaur wrote: »

It is not speculative. The law of probablility of having 3000 houses being repossesed and every one of them being in Dublin would be 90000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000/1

Firstly, nobody made that claim so you're arguing against thin air. You are however implying the exact opposite so you're making the same logical error that you're accusing others of.

Secondly, if even a quarter of those 3000 applications (P.S. You're assuming that each application = 1 property which may not be correct) were in Dublin, it would add over 20% supply to what is currently up for sale on myhome.ie for Dublin.
That's a pretty significant jump in supply.

Thirdly, if it was true that all the arrears were in Ballygobackward and that the urban areas were "uncontaminated", our minister for property price rises would have been screeching this from the rooftops to get us all to "buy now before it's too late".

lolosaur

My point at the end of the day was that you wont suddenly see 3000 homes available in dundrum and the price of a 3/4 bed semi decrase by 100,000 (this figure is pulled out of my ar*e, dont be focussing on it) because of it.

woodseb

jmayo wrote: »

Are you seriously asking that ?
In lieu of payment they are offering us ordinary shares.

The taxpayers already own circa 99% of the bank.
Do you think that less than 1% of AIB is worth 3 billion ?
That would then lead one to beleive that the bank is worth 300 odd billion or will be worth 300 billion in the near future. :eek:

If AIB was worth even a quarter of that then the government would have been mad to not put it up for sale and get rid.

Hell is less than 1% worth 280 million at this stage.

well done, you attempted to answer the question with hyperbole - try using actual numbers this time

I don't think AIB is worth anything like the stock market value

....very few people do. So try to answer the actual question regarding the actual impact on taxpayers

here's a few starting points....If you take 280mln out of a company you own 100% of, how much less is it worth? If you are talking about a bank where liquidity and capital reserves are massively important, what is the impact of its value if you remove that capital?

GavMan

lolosaur wrote: »

My point at the end of the day was that you wont suddenly see 3000 homes available in dundrum and the price of a 3/4 bed semi decrase by 100,000 (this figure is pulled out of my ar*e, dont be focussing on it) because of it.

Nobody suggested that the effect of this jump in repo applications would be solely felt in Dublin. So stop saying that's what 'Gauis C' said. He didn't.

However, with the majority of houses being in Dublin and its hinterlands, one would expect, statistically as you say, for a lot of those repo's to take place in Dublin.

Especially since it has been highlighted on this board that the majority of arrears are for Dublin properties...

jmayo

woodseb wrote: »

well done, you attempted to answer the question with hyperbole - try using actual numbers this time

I don't think AIB is worth anything like the stock market value

....very few people do. So try to answer the actual question regarding the actual impact on taxpayers

here's a few starting points....If you take 280mln out of a company you own 100% of, how much less is it worth? If you are talking about a bank where liquidity and capital reserves are massively important, what is the impact of its value if you remove that capital?

Tell you what, why don't you tell us all how good a deal this is for the taxpayer ?
I am dying to know how letting AIB keep 280 million they owe us at the moment, nevermind probably 3 odd billion, is going to benefit us right now and in the future.
Why am I reminded of the old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

Why not use some numbers to debunk my so called hyperbole.
All I know is that 280 million is a lot of money to me and probably looking at our situation to the exchequer as well, but obviously you have a different idea.

lolosaur

jmayo wrote: »

Tell you what, why don't you tell us all how good a deal this is for the taxpayer ?
I am dying to know how letting AIB keep 280 million they owe us at the moment, nevermind probably 3 odd billion, is going to benefit us right now and in the future.
Why am I reminded of the old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

Why not use some numbers to debunk my so called hyperbole.
All I know is that 280 million is a lot of money to me and probably looking at our situation to the exchequer as well, but obviously you have a different idea.

I love the way you think the 280 million is your money, as if it came out of your own pocket!!!!!

Thargor

lolosaur wrote: »

I love the way you think the 280 million is your money, as if it came out of your own pocket!!!!!

How did you come to that conclusion from what he wrote?

woodseb

jmayo wrote: »

Tell you what, why don't you tell us all how good a deal this is for the taxpayer ?
I am dying to know how letting AIB keep 280 million they owe us at the moment, nevermind probably 3 odd billion, is going to benefit us right now and in the future.
Why am I reminded of the old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

Why not use some numbers to debunk my so called hyperbole.
All I know is that 280 million is a lot of money to me and probably looking at our situation to the exchequer as well, but obviously you have a different idea.

AIB will never be a 'good deal' for the country so don't try to twist that into my argument, I was never suggesting that.

I knew I was being ambitious in asking you to explain it sensibly, you brought this topic up, so I asked you to explain the 'net effect to the taxpayer of this'

so how about you explain it with numbers this first if you think its such a terrible idea, rather than waffling on about something and then putting the onus on others to disprove your rantings when you are questioned?

you won't be able to though unless less you get your head around this....

how letting AIB keep 280 million they owe us at the moment

We now own AIB, moaning about what they owe us now shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. We owe ourselves the best opportunity to get a return from AIB

They are 'writing off' 3.5bln, but you must be the only person in Ireland that expected them to repay all of the 21bln we pumped in?

jmayo wrote: »

Secondly they are not repaying the state for the 20 billion odd loans they got to keep them afloat.

and complaining of them not paying the 280mln dividend when the bank made a pretax loss of EUR1.7bln last year is frankly idiotic. The government's job is to make the bank investable again so we can get back out as much capital as possible but you want to strip it of its cash now because of the old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". :eek::rolleyes: It's robbing peter to pay paul and you'd be the first one back on here moaning if we needed to put more capital in or if AIB couldn't raise funding in the market in the next years

Bateman

More importantly, can anyone hazard a guess as to when the incompetent management at that bank might get to the bottom of the extent of their write-down requirements? Does anyone in there have even the most basic understanding of their own loan book?

lolosaur

Thargor wrote: »

How did you come to that conclusion from what he wrote?

AIB keep 280 million they owe us at the moment

Just this line ticlled me.

As if AIB were going around with a big cheque door to door.

The_Morrigan

lolosaur will you stop trying to wind people up!

househero

I dont think there will be any kind of significant price movement from these levels for quite some time, maybe +/-10%

The US property market isnt performing as well as expected, quite like our own market, with big urban areas (New York, La and San Fran) seeing a +30 uptick, but stagnation in the rest of the country.

A rather dangerous situation is the Asian regions HUGELY over inflated real estate market. Have you seen the prices of crappy apartments in Mumbai, Beijing, Bangkok? Some markets have already seen a 20% correction and volume trades are down across the WHOLE of India and most of China for the last year. I'm not sure if people realise, but Chinese/Indian real estate is REALLY EXPENSIVE compared to comparable European properties. Some of the prices make Dub look cheap... Dub is competing on a global scale and is cheap by comparison (wages vs prices). Most working Dubliner's couldn't afford to buy a 3 bed house in any of Indias Metropolitan cities (going for well over half a million!!!) In a country that pays a Nurse or a Teacher €4000 a year, if you are lucky (IT people get 12k+).

Barely Hedged

jay0109 wrote: »

House prices in the areas you mention of Sth Dub (+ others) fell about 50% by my records, and have been increasing since late 2011.
So I reckon over half of the losses from the peak have been paired back and that we're now 20-25% down.
And at the current rate of increases, we will be able to celebrate a return to the top of the peak shortly after the 1916 'celebrations'. Now that would be worth a parade all of it's own!!!

As for cash buyers, have'nt the CSO said they're reports are only covering 50% of property sales as the other 50% are cash based? And that it was close to 60% cash in late 2012, early 2013

They could be correct, I was just trying to provide some context to the blinkered arguement that cash buyers will disappear from.the market

rasgav

househero wrote: »

A rather dangerous situation is the Asian regions HUGELY over inflated real estate market. Have you seen the prices of crappy apartments in Mumbai, Beijing, Bangkok? Some markets have already seen a 20% correction and volume trades are down across the WHOLE of India and most of China for the last year. I'm not sure if people realise, but Chinese/Indian real estate is REALLY EXPENSIVE compared to comparable European properties. Some of the prices make Dub look cheap... Dub is competing on a global scale and is cheap by comparison (wages vs prices). Most working Dubliner's couldn't afford to buy a 3 bed house in any of Indias Metropolitan cities (going for well over half a million!!!) In a country that pays a Nurse or a Teacher €4000 a year, if you are lucky (IT people get 12k+).

Mumbai is not India. Very scarce land and huge population pressures have conspired to create that anomaly. Elsewhere in India, even in massive, booming cities such as Bangalore, property is much, much cheaper.

(Unfortunately Boards won't allow me to post URLs [Thanks, Boards!] so I can't post a source to prove I'm not talking out my hole. If you google "numbeo mumbai bangalore" you'll get there).

Bateman

Speaking of China, they don’t have ghost estates, they have ghost cities. A few mini-Manhattans here, a mini Paris there.

Pop!

The_Morrigan

lolosaur don't post in this thread again.

sarkozy

This article is terrible. It doesn't have a byline - who even wrote it? And it reads like a press release - Lisney probably wrote it. This is what passes for 'news' these days, you know.

To my mind, there are two scenarios: within 12 months, prices stabilise or go down slightly in Dublin, or they continue rising due to the 'halo effect' of the dot coms (suggesting, to some extent, a San Francisco bubble in Dublin). The second is more unlikely; a large portion of their workforce in Ireland is mobile labour who rent and their dwellings are in particular parts of Dublin.

The key variables are: cash buyers thinning out and banks beginning to lend again.

Once people see things flattening out, rising or falling slightly, more properties might start shifting, increasing supply and reducing prices. McWilliams' analysis is right, I think.

Piriz

just want to include this here before i head to work:

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/tracker-mortgages-how-much-equity/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Tracker+Mortgages&utm_content=Tracker+Mortgages+CID_1acf5c9d9996836e1e849648678f6638&utm_source=Email%20Marketing%20Send&utm_term=Read%20more