Central Bank to limit amount banks lend for home purchase

Barely Hedged

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I can see you're really upset, I'm sorry that was not my intention.

In regards to out of context you are saying thing like 'would solve the rental crisis' where what I have said it there is a rental crisis and measures like this might help in limited circumstances. As for the extra expense argument that was dealt with in a post to another person discussing - this is what I mean by missing posts, sorry for not being clearer.

This is why I feel that we should not engage any further the only interest seems to be a tit-for-tat back and forth and not an all encompassing discussion. Again I'm really sorry that this has resulted in upset for you that was not my intention.

I hope everything works out for you.

Answer the questions i have put in bold in my previous post and stop deflecting with personal slights such as im upset and im middle class, which im neither.

Im calling you out as you are not backing up your points - plain and simple.

MarkAnthony

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Answer the questions i have put in bold in my previous post and stop deflecting with personal slights such as im upset and im middle class, which im neither.

Im calling you out as you are not backing up your points - plain and simple.

Again sorry that was not meant to be a personal slight. I'll leave it there until the mods have reviewed the situation.

Barely Hedged

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Again sorry that was not meant to be a personal slight. I'll leave it there until the mods have reviewed the situation.

In the meantime, while theyre deciding on the personal slights, answer my points in bold

The_Conductor

Mark- and Barely Hedged- this tit-for-tat scrapping- will not be tolerated. This is your one and only warning- behave- or take it elsewhere- if you continue here- you will have a little holiday.........

Regards,

The_Conductor

MarkAnthony

The_Conductor wrote: »

Mark- and Barely Hedged- this tit-for-tat scrapping- will not be tolerated. This is your one and only warning- behave- or take it elsewhere- if you continue here- you will have a little holiday.........

Regards,

The_Conductor

Apologies to you and Barely and for disrupting the thread.

ionapaul

Deleted User wrote: »

Mine was very short and was sent early in the process

Seriously, if the DoF and the banks hadn't waited until the last minute to deliver their relatively lengthy submissions it would have helped things along - although that is obviously not the goal of the DoF or the banks!

Likewise, sent mine in a good few weeks ago - I'd imagine that at least 20 of those 157 submissions are from folk inspired to do so by ThePropertyPin!

ciaranlong

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Well you suggested it was driven by second homes so I'll let you field that one. It's clear there are more principal homes than second homes so it stands to reason the principal home had more of an effect on the market.

You still haven't grasped the reasoning of the regulations. You still think the central bank are trying to control the housing market. They're not, they're regulating the lending industry.

I think somewhere along the line we had a misunderstanding here. I never put any emphasis on the phrase "second homes", but probably referred to "property purchases in addition to the family home" or something like that, i.e. those purchases which are an investment and require rent from tenants to pay the mortgage. That type of property-purchasing certainly drove the bubble based on anecdotal accounts (which I admit are not hard evidence).

makeorbrake

ciaranlong wrote: »

I think somewhere along the line we had a misunderstanding here. I never put any emphasis on the phrase "second homes", but probably referred to "property purchases in addition to the family home" or something like that, i.e. those purchases which are an investment and require rent from tenants to pay the mortgage. That type of property-purchasing certainly drove the bubble based on anecdotal accounts (which I admit are not hard evidence).

That doesn't stand up. Yes, people got into BTL's in a big way - but both BTL's and first time home purchases were driven on the back of the very same thing - i.e. HIGHLY available cheap credit.

ciaranlong

makeorbrake wrote: »

That doesn't stand up. Yes, people got into BTL's in a big way - but both BTL's and first time home purchases were driven on the back of the very same thing - i.e. HIGHLY available cheap credit.

@makeorbrake: You've hit the nail on the head there. The common and fundamental problem was the highly available cheap credit. But lending regulation that allowed 100% mortgages was a big problem too.

ciaranlong

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You still haven't grasped the reasoning of the regulations. You still think the central bank are trying to control the housing market. They're not, they're regulating the lending industry.

I appreciate that the Central Bank regulate the lending industry, I meant to say earlier. But as the ESRI pointed out yesterday (and their comments have been covered in today's papers), the Central Bank's new regime could affect the supply of housing as well as the lending industry.

From the Indo: "In hard-hitting comments, the influential think tank's Kieran McQuinn said it is not clear the planned lending rules are justified and warned that the proposals could lead to lower levels of construction activity, just when new homes are desperately needed."

From the Times: "The Economic and Social Research Institute has questioned moves by the Central Bank to damp down the housing market, saying immediate measures to restrict mortgage lending could curtail the supply of new homes."

P.S. Another issue was raised by Donal O'Donovan in yesterday's Indo: "The dominance of cash in the property market means the Central Bank's own plan to keep a lid on the mortgage market with caps on the amount banks can lend to customers will likely have a limited impact."

Michael D Not Higgins

ciaranlong wrote: »

I think somewhere along the line we had a misunderstanding here. I never put any emphasis on the phrase "second homes", but probably referred to "property purchases in addition to the family home" or something like that, i.e. those purchases which are an investment and require rent from tenants to pay the mortgage. That type of property-purchasing certainly drove the bubble based on anecdotal accounts (which I admit are not hard evidence).

Fine but I still contend the second properties were not the drivers of the boom. Certainly part of it but if you want to debate anecdotes then anecdotally, I'd say that from my parent's generation (friends and relatives), the only non principal private residence owners were inheritors, those with small holiday homes in the west of Ireland, or one of my friend's parents who are professional landlords and only bought in the 80s and 90s. None of the above contributed to the bubble.

Michael D Not Higgins

ciaranlong wrote: »

I appreciate that the Central Bank regulate the lending industry, I meant to say earlier. But as the ESRI pointed out yesterday (and their comments have been covered in today's papers), the Central Bank's new regime could affect the supply of housing as well as the lending industry.

From the Indo: "In hard-hitting comments, the influential think tank's Kieran McQuinn said it is not clear the planned lending rules are justified and warned that the proposals could lead to lower levels of construction activity, just when new homes are desperately needed."

From the Times: "The Economic and Social Research Institute has questioned moves by the Central Bank to damp down the housing market, saying immediate measures to restrict mortgage lending could curtail the supply of new homes."

P.S. Another issue was raised by Donal O'Donovan in yesterday's Indo: "The dominance of cash in the property market means the Central Bank's own plan to keep a lid on the mortgage market with caps on the amount banks can lend to customers will likely have a limited impact."

Whether the regulations influence supply or not is inconsequential and should not affect the decision to do what is only right and proper to address the lack of regulation thus far.

Does Donal O'Donovan account for the swell of the cash buyer this year due the CGT exemption running out this year? Many have predicted the cash buyers will be less prevalent next year when the full CGT comes back in force.

Deco99

ciaranlong wrote: »

I appreciate that the Central Bank regulate the lending industry, I meant to say earlier. But as the ESRI pointed out yesterday (and their comments have been covered in today's papers), the Central Bank's new regime could affect the supply of housing as well as the lending industry.

From the Indo: "In hard-hitting comments, the influential think tank's Kieran McQuinn said it is not clear the planned lending rules are justified and warned that the proposals could lead to lower levels of construction activity, just when new homes are desperately needed."

From the Times: "The Economic and Social Research Institute has questioned moves by the Central Bank to damp down the housing market, saying immediate measures to restrict mortgage lending could curtail the supply of new homes."

P.S. Another issue was raised by Donal O'Donovan in yesterday's Indo: "The dominance of cash in the property market means the Central Bank's own plan to keep a lid on the mortgage market with caps on the amount banks can lend to customers will likely have a limited impact."

You're quoting the Indo, might as well quote the Beano or Dandy, incredibly biased and I didnt realise it for a while but serious agenda with that paper on this issue. Everyday they are publishing spin. I'll bet they wont have anything from the Finnish Banker in front of the Banking inquiry today. Not impressed with the Dept of Finance lack of Regulation during boom, a step they are repeating now.

makeorbrake

Deco99 wrote: »

You're quoting the Indo, might as well quote the Beano or Dandy, incredibly biased and I didnt realise it for a while but serious agenda with that paper on this issue. Everyday they are publishing spin.

At this stage, I wouldn't even wrap my fish n' chips with that rag!

ciaranlong

Deco99 wrote: »

You're quoting the Indo, might as well quote the Beano or Dandy, incredibly biased and I didnt realise it for a while but serious agenda with that paper on this issue. Everyday they are publishing spin. I'll bet they wont have anything from the Finnish Banker in front of the Banking inquiry today. Not impressed with the Dept of Finance lack of Regulation during boom, a step they are repeating now.

There wasn't much difference between the Indo and the Times on this as far as I could see. I quoted both, and both were a fairly straight account of what the ESRI said.

mr_seer

ciaranlong wrote: »

There wasn't much difference between the Indo and the Times on this as far as I could see. I quoted both, and both were a fairly straight account of what the ESRI said.

Did either mention that Mr. McQuinn also admitted that Dublin house prices are currently overvalued? This was directly in contradiction to a report he compiled for NAMA and the Banks recently where he said that they were undervalued. This guy worked on the Financial Stability team in the CB during the bubble so pardon me if I take everything he says about systemic risk and house prices with a barrel of salt.

Suggesting that the IT is impartial is hardly backing up the Indo's credibility. They did not have a single article on the CB's publication a couple of days ago where the CB issued a warning about the pace of house price growth. That should have been front page stuff. They own myhome.ie and both papers make a large potion of their revenues in property advertising - incidentally the only portion of their revenues that is currently increasing.... No vested interests at all so

BarneyThomas

mr_seer wrote: »

Did either mention that Mr. McQuinn also admitted that Dublin house prices are currently overvalued? This was directly in contradiction to a report he compiled for NAMA and the Banks recently where he said that they were undervalued. This guy worked on the Financial Stability team in the CB during the bubble so pardon me if I take everything he says about systemic risk and house prices with a barrel of salt.

Suggesting that the IT is impartial is hardly backing up the Indo's credibility. They did not have a single article on the CB's publication a couple of days ago where the CB issued a warning about the pace of house price growth. That should have been front page stuff. They own myhome.ie and both papers make a large potion of their revenues in property advertising - incidentally the only portion of their revenues that is currently increasing.... No vested interests at all so

You cant "admit" that house prices are over valued. Unless you are from the future and actually have come back with the actual future prices of property.

ciaranlong

mr_seer wrote: »

Did either mention that Mr. McQuinn also admitted that Dublin house prices are currently overvalued? This was directly in contradiction to a report he compiled for NAMA and the Banks recently where he said that they were undervalued. This guy worked on the Financial Stability team in the CB during the bubble so pardon me if I take everything he says about systemic risk and house prices with a barrel of salt.

Suggesting that the IT is impartial is hardly backing up the Indo's credibility. They did not have a single article on the CB's publication a couple of days ago where the CB issued a warning about the pace of house price growth. That should have been front page stuff. They own myhome.ie and both papers make a large potion of their revenues in property advertising - incidentally the only portion of their revenues that is currently increasing.... No vested interests at all so

That's quite enlightening. Thanks for taking the time to point it out. I'll be taking McQuinn's comments with a pinch of salt now too!

Also a good point about the two papers' vested interests. The Times is the only one that I follow on Facebook, but on Thursdays they promote their property stories to an embarrassing degree.

ciaranlong

BarneyThomas wrote: »

You cant "admit" that house prices are over valued. Unless you are from the future and actually have come back with the actual future prices of property.

Maybe he admitted that that is his honest view?

Vain

I was bidding on a house in the Kildare area, was in a bidding war with a few people but ended up on top with the highest offer, estate agent rang to say congrats we are highest bidders etc and he will get on to owner. Owner came back to estate agent and wanted another 10k for the house, we refused and said we wont be paying a extra penny. So anyway a few weeks has passed now and I see the house is removed from daft. Im guessing it will be back on daft in the near year with a higher asking price!!

MarkAnthony

Vain wrote: »

I was bidding on a house in the Kildare area, was in a bidding war with a few people but ended up on top with the highest offer, estate agent rang to say congrats we are highest bidders etc and he will get on to owner. Owner came back to estate agent and wanted another 10k for the house, we refused and said we wont be paying a extra penny. So anyway a few weeks has passed now and I see the house is removed from daft. Im guessing it will be back on daft in the near year with a higher asking price!!

I doubt it. If prices do take a bit of a tumble in the new year (which I suspect they will do for Q1 and maybe Q2) I expect the commuter towns will be hit hardest. I don't think for one minute we'll see an overall decline on the year (not in Dublin anyway) but if they were under the gun to sell, I expect you'll see it again.

TheDriver

What a time waster, the EA should have had a bottom line from owner so any bidding should have ended up above this. Maybe vendor got greedy but sounds like a bit of a fool

MarkAnthony

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I doubt it. If prices do take a bit of a tumble in the new year (which I suspect they will do for Q1 and maybe Q2) I expect the commuter towns will be hit hardest. I don't think for one minute we'll see an overall decline on the year (not in Dublin anyway) but if they were under the gun to sell, I expect you'll see it again.

Why do you think the commuter towns will be hardest hit? It would suit me if you were right(!) - I'm just wondering what makes you think it will pan out that way.

MarkAnthony

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you think the commuter towns will be hardest hit? It would suit me if you were right(!) - I'm just wondering what makes you think it will pan out that way.

I just think they are areas many end up in as they are forced out of Dublin. If prices fall in Dublin then the demand in the commuter towns drops off. I could be wrong of course.

MarkAnthony

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I just think they are areas many end up in as they are forced out of Dublin. If prices fall in Dublin then the demand in the commuter towns drops off. I could be wrong of course.

Hope you're right. I have spoken to people buying in north Kildare who started out looking in south county Dublin, then shifted to D3/D9, then looked in Lucan before finding a place in commuterville - purely because they were priced out of Dublin.

gene_slackman

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you think the commuter towns will be hardest hit? It would suit me if you were right(!) - I'm just wondering what makes you think it will pan out that way.

because their is no shortage of space outside dublin

relatively speaking , outside dublin was in an even bigger bubble than the capital during the boom as demand was always lower

gene_slackman

gene_slackman wrote: »

because their is no shortage of space outside dublin

relatively speaking , outside dublin was in an even bigger bubble than the capital during the boom as demand was always lower

It took about a year of Dublin price rises before commuter towns caught up. Question is whether a slow down in Dublin would precede falls in commutertowns (I.e commuter towns trailing Dublin trends) or would the tide go out first in Kildare and Meath?

If the economy is still going up and there's not much supply in Dublin why would commuter towns crash?

Just playing devil's advocate. I want price drops in Kildare ASAP 😊

leinsterdude

Bring on increased prices in Kildare, maybe I can sell in the next year or two !

There have definitely been price increases over the past 24 months, at least in areas like Maynooth. See this thread on the propertypin about a house that went for 363k in 2012; a similar one went for 400k earlier this year; then another one came to market last week asking 469k.

There's an epic boards thread on a new estate in Maynooth where large detached houses had been asking 380k in 2011, then went to 450k in early 2014 and recently the last phase went for around 500k.

Sell now
(I'm completely biased, of course)

The Spider

Deleted User wrote: »

There have definitely been price increases over the past 24 months, at least in areas like Maynooth. See this thread on the propertypin about a house that went for 363k in 2012; a similar one went for 400k earlier this year; then another one came to market last week asking 469k.

There's an epic boards thread on a new estate in Maynooth where large detached houses had been asking 380k in 2011, then went to 450k in early 2014 and recently the last phase went for around 500k.

Sell now
(I'm completely biased, of course)

Not all commuter towns are created equally, if you can get in and out of a dublin relatively quickly they won't drop.

That said, if Dublin falls then everywhere else will too, Dublin is the engine of the country, as happened last time the collapse in Dublin lead to the collapse everywhere else.

However a collapse in Dublin is looking increasingly unlikely, and as I said on that mega thread over a year ago, substitution effect will happen as people can no longer afford one area they replace it with another all the way out to all commuter towns.

The economy is going to grow like a rocket in the next year or so according to the ESRI, complete lack of supply in Dublin means prices continue to increase, and rents with them.

You might say that someone should be looking at the best they can get in commutervilke now as opposed to a year down the road, because unless there's a huge outside economic event prices won't be cheaper!