Central Bank to limit amount banks lend for home purchase

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

It's funny! but I heard someone on the radio last week (think it was Frank McDonald of the IT) saying the level of planning applications etc in Q4 was at it's highest for some time....but we all pick the reports/sats that best suit our own points of view :rolleyes:

We sure will,:rolleyes: It's obvious in the article that building has increased in the past year, it's also obvious that it's slowed down in the past month, just as the new rules come into play, and if Dublin requires 35,000 by 2018 and only gets a third of that, well I don't see how prices can drop.

I could be wrong but the laws of supply and demand and all that.

The Spider

RecordStraight wrote: »

It's rather odd that building is now only 'profitable' at prices that threaten the peak of the property bubble - especially when you consider you can throw up a house in the middle of Longford and in the middle of Dublin for more or less the same price, excluding the cost of the site.

Yes and you could do it in Manhattan too, excluding the cost of the site, what's the point?

RecordStraight

The Spider wrote: »

Yes and you could do it in Manhattan too, excluding the cost of the site, what's the point?

The point is that land in Dublin seems to be at peak-of-the-bubble levels. 300k for a small site in a moderate area like Terenure or Dun Laoghaire seems a tad...pricey.

Maybe it makes sense to you, but we know you like high prices for property.

The Spider

RecordStraight wrote: »

The point is that land in Dublin seems to be at peak-of-the-bubble levels. 300k for a small site in a moderate area like Terenure or Dun Laoghaire seems a tad...pricey.

Maybe it makes sense to you, but we know you like high prices for property.

Ha, supply and demand again, if there was lots of land available within the M50 it'd be cheaper, there isn't so it's expensive, just as there were no Frozen dolls at christmas available so they were changing hands for 500 euro's each.

Terenure or Dun Laogaihre are not moderate areas, not these days, desirable in fact to a lot of people, again pushing up the price.

Greyian

The Spider wrote: »

We sure will,:rolleyes: It's obvious in the article that building has increased in the past year, it's also obvious that it's slowed down in the past month, just as the new rules come into play, and if Dublin requires 35,000 by 2018 and only gets a third of that, well I don't see how prices can drop.

I could be wrong but the laws of supply and demand and all that.

The article seems to suggest that the rate of building growth has slowed down, not the rate of building (if the rate of building slowed down, it would be negative growth/decline).

Vastly different meanings.

RecordStraight

The Spider wrote: »

Ha, supply and demand again, if there was lots of land available within the M50 it'd be cheaper, there isn't so it's expensive, just as there were no Frozen dolls at christmas available so they were changing hands for 500 euro's each.

You are right - supply and demand are at the root of this. NAMA and land bankers are sitting on land, but hopefully the coming taxes on land banks will see some movement.

The Spider wrote: »

Terenure or Dun Laogaihre are not moderate areas, not these days, desirable in fact to a lot of people, again pushing up the price.

If you think those areas are anything special...my god, what can I say. There is a very small number of pleasant areas in the southside (Ranelagh - to visit, maybe not to live), Dalkey, one or two others. The rest of it, from Rathmines to Tallaght to Lucan to Loughlinstown is frankly somewhere between 'ok' and downright unpleasant tedious urban sprawl. I'd rather keep my 300k site value and emigrate.

The Spider

Greyian wrote: »

The article seems to suggest that the rate of building growth has slowed down, not the rate of building (if the rate of building slowed down, it would be negative growth/decline).

Vastly different meanings.

Fair enough, either way I find it funny that it's happened just as the new lending rules were announced i the back of god knows how many warnings about this happening, too early to tell if it's significant but still worth noting.

RecordStraight

The Spider wrote: »

Fair enough, either way I find it funny that it's happened just as the new lending rules were announced i the back of god knows how many warnings about this happening, too early to tell if it's significant but still worth noting.

Warnings from who?

From the usual vested interests and their mouthpieces. The same people who told us we weren't in a bubble, and the same people who told us there would be a soft landing.

The Spider

RecordStraight wrote: »

Warnings from who?

From the usual vested interests and their mouthpieces. The same people who told us we weren't in a bubble, and the same people who told us there would be a soft landing.

Ah the vested interest spin, between them and the illuminati . Newsflash everyone's a vested interest it just depends what side of the fence you're on.

Now there's no great conspiracy here, and common sense should tell you what to look for, at the height of the last bubble I was screaming bubble and crash from the rooftops (I hadn't bought then).

Never bought the soft landing theory still don't, it's either up or down no inbetween. I do buy stagnation though and think that's possible before either another uplift or a downward spiral.

Common sense should tell you that builders wont build with too much risk and little profit.

Common sense should tell you there's limited availability of land in Dublin to build on.

Extrapolate from that, what you think is likely and not what you hope.

RecordStraight

The Spider wrote: »

Ah the vested interest spin, between them and the illuminati . Newsflash everyone's a vested interest it just depends what side of the fence you're on.

Indeed, everyone is a vested interest - but you don't hear dozens of mouthpieces for LOWER property prices being interviewed, do you?

Instead we hear from the banks, the estate agents, the builders' confederation and so on.

Can you list 10 figures you have heard in the national media agitating for lower property prices? If not, I will accept that you concede that only one side of the argument is being made in the national media.

The Spider

RecordStraight wrote: »

Indeed, everyone is a vested interest - but you don't hear dozens of mouthpieces for LOWER property prices being interviewed, do you?

Instead we hear from the banks, the estate agents, the builders' confederation and so on.

Can you list 10 figures you have heard in the national media agitating for lower property prices? If not, I will accept that you concede that only one side of the argument is being made in the national media.

The only people who will argue for lower prices are those who don't yet own property, the onus is on you to provide those people.

Anyone in negative equity wants prices to rise to wipe out that negative equity.

Anyone who has purchased a property doesn't want prices to fall as it's the biggest purchase/investment they'll ever make and they obviously want to gain equity.

The only people who want lower prices are those who have yet to buy and as soon as they buy they then want prices to increase, even if they don't say so, if someone buys a house for 300 thousand and then finds it's worth 350 thousand, well then like it or not they'll feel good about themselves.

Rising property prices means people feel more secure and will spend more in the economy even if they have no intention of selling.

If someone has to move to another location then they can, without incurring huge debts.

When prices are dropping economic confidence is low, you can't have a rising economy and lowering of house prices.

RecordStraight

The Spider wrote: »

The only people who will argue for lower prices are those who don't yet own property, the onus id on you to provide those people.

...or those with an interest in economic competitiveness. You know, like, everyone.

So you can't name a handful of commentators calling for lower property prices in the national media? How odd.

I think my 'conspiracy theory' is proven.

The Spider

RecordStraight wrote: »

...or those with an interest in economic competitiveness. You know, like, everyone.

So you can't name a handful of commentators calling for lower property prices in the national media? How odd.

I think my 'conspiracy theory' is proven.

Yes proven :rolleyes:

David McWilliams anyone?

Bob24

The Spider wrote: »

Rising property prices means people feel more secure and will spend more in the economy even if they have no intention of selling.

That is only valid if they rise at a fairly moderate and stable rate.

The kind of rapid increase we have seen in the 10 years before the crash and last year are pumping peoples resources into their mortgages and preventing them to spend elsewhere and support the economy. And they inevitably lead to a crash and a lot of people finding themselves in debt they cannot possibly face.

The Spider

Bob24 wrote: »

That is only valid if they rise at a fairly moderate and stable rate.

The kind of rapid increase we have seen in the 10 years before the crash and last year are pumping peoples resources into their mortgages and preventing them to spend elsewhere and support the economy. And they inevitably lead to a crash and a lot of people finding themselves in debt they cannot possibly face.

Rises outside Dublin are more modest, anywhere within the m50 is subject to extreme lack of supply and by definition is a premium product, so those prices are going to be higher, if people can look outside of the m50 they'll find plenty of affordable property.

RecordStraight

The Spider wrote: »

Yes proven :rolleyes:

David McWilliams anyone?

Well done! You got the obvious one. Another nine or so an you'll have met the challenge.

To be honest, it's not a fair challenge as I couldn't name ten. Why? Because there have not been ten people arguing the logic of lower property prices in the national media.

Bob24

The Spider wrote: »

Rises outside Dublin are more modest, anywhere within the m50 is subject to extreme lack of supply and by definition is a premium product, so those prices are going to be higher, if people can look outside of the m50 they'll find plenty of affordable property.

10% in 12 months isn't exactly a modest increase.

Dubh Geannain

The Spider wrote: »

The only people who will argue for lower prices are those who don't yet own property, the onus is on you to provide those people.

I'm sorry but that is patently false. I couldn't take anything you said after that seriously.

The Spider

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is patently false. I couldn't take anything you said after that seriously.

Really? How is it false? People want to be in Negative Equity is that your argument?

Someone buys a house and hopes prices drop? All the discussion here about the fear of buying at the top, come on.

Bob24

The Spider wrote: »

Really? How is it false? People want to be in Negative Equity is that your argument?

Someone buys a house and hopes prices drop? All the discussion here about the fear of buying at the top, come on.

You need to separate individuals looking at their own situation and groups of interest.

Sure if the price of my property is increasing, at a micro level I am happy as the specific owner of that property.

But if I have another hat as a small business owner and I would like people to have more disposable income to spend in the economy; I might not like these prices increases at a macro level, because they are having a negative effect on the growth of my business.

Dubh Geannain

I decided to ignore your silly first remark and examine your post further.

The Spider wrote: »

Anyone in negative equity wants prices to rise to wipe out that negative equity.

This is only relevant if they are intending on selling it on in their lifetime. Most people (read non-investors) buy a house as a home and shouldn't care less what it is worth at any given instance. Unless of course you're referring to the smugness factor that people love to know how wealthy they are on paper".

Anyone who has purchased a property doesn't want prices to fall as it's the biggest purchase/investment they'll ever make and they obviously want to gain equity.

If you count me as anyone. I couldn't give a fiddlers what the house is worth further down the road. Once I have affordable shelter and I can afford a decent standard of living to boot after mortgage repayments. Why should I? Unless I'm trying to climb up the fabled property ladder.

The only people who want lower prices are those who have yet to buy and as soon as they buy they then want prices to increase, even if they don't say so, if someone buys a house for 300 thousand and then finds it's worth 350 thousand, well then like it or not they'll feel good about themselves.

You mean smug surely? House do you do sir?

Rising property prices means people feel more secure and will spend more in the economy even if they have no intention of selling.

Higher prices => Less disposable income. Unless wage inflation outstrips house price inflation.

If someone has to move to another location then they can, without incurring huge debts.

People need to man up if they make bad decisions that could affect their future financial security. This is the exact reason why I haven't bought anything.

When prices are dropping economic confidence is low, you can't have a rising economy and lowering of house prices.

Assuming your talking about GDP then yes you can unless the construction industry contributes a disproportionate amount to the GDP figures. Case Study: Ireland. If you reference this link you will see GDP was positive for much of 2010 and 2011 when house prices were still falling. It has been an average 0% since the dead cat bounce started. (2014 not included yet)
https://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:IRL:ISL:ITA&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRL&ifdim=region&tstart=1202515200000&tend=1360368000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

The Spider

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

I decided ignore the silly remark and examine your post further.


This is only relevant if they are intending on selling it on in their lifetime. Most people (read non-investors) buy a house as a home and shouldn't care less what it is worth at any given instance. Unless of course you're referring to the smugness factor that people love to know how wealthy they are on paper".


If you count me as anyone. I couldn't give a fiddlers what the house is worth further down the road. Once I have affordable shelter and I can afford a decent standard of living to boot after mortgage repayments. Why should I? Unless I'm trying to climb up the fabled property ladder.


You mean smug surely? House do you do sir?


Higher prices => Less disposable income. Unless wage inflation outstrips house price inflation.


People need to man up if they make bad decisions that could affect their future financial security. This is the exact reason why I haven't bought anything.

Assuming your talking about GDP then yes you can unless the construction industry contributes a disproportionate amount to the GDP figures. Case Study: Ireland. If you reference this link you will see GDP was positive for much of 2010 and 2011 when house prices were still falling. It has been an average 0% since the dead cat bounce started. (2014 not included yet)
https://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:IRL:ISL:ITA&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRL&ifdim=region&tstart=1202515200000&tend=1360368000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Sigh, Nothing to do with smugness more to do with not throwing their money away. It's also to do with mobility, if someone loses their job they can sell up with no consequences.

You wouldn't give a fiddlers when you didn't have to move, however no one knows what life will throw at them and moving may be necessary.

Also inheritance people want to leave something to their kids after they die, the usual thing that most people leave is the house.

I'd really like to hear from someone who has property and is happy for it to devalue and leave them in negative equity.

I don't rate the arguments from people who haven't bought and are giving all sorts of reasons why they should get it cheaper. The simple fact is as soon as you buy and you have 'skin in the game' your attitude will change.

Dubh Geannain

The Spider wrote: »

Sigh, Nothing to do with smugness more to do with not throwing their money away. It's also to do with mobility, if someone loses their job they can sell up with no consequences.

You wouldn't give a fiddlers when you didn't have to move, however no one knows what life will throw at them and moving may be necessary.

Also inheritance people want to leave something to their kids after they die, the usual thing that most people leave is the house.

I'd really like to hear from someone who has property and is happy for it to devalue and leave them in negative equity.

I don't rate the arguments from people who haven't bought and are giving all sorts of reasons why they should get it cheaper. The simple fact is as soon as you buy and you have 'skin in the game' your attitude will change.

You're repeating the same flawed argument. Take a break.

Might I suggest you visit www.thepropertypin.com. If I recall correctly approximately 50% of respondents to a recent poll on the site own a house . Yet the predominant rhetoric of the site is that prices are unaffordable/too high. Those views are shared with owners and non-owners alike.

Also you "don't rate argumentd from people who haven't bought". Is that because I blew over your strawman argument with some actual factual information about the link between GDP and house price inflation. Sounds like sour grapes if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Dr Turk Turkelton

The point being missed by the people complaining about the price rises of 10%in 2014 is that these rises were on to houses which were no way proceed properly due to the bust.
Houses were seeking for less than their build cost let alone the price of the site.
Down the country they are still like that but in Dublin they seem to have rocketed.
Developers will only develop when they will make a profit so the build cost plus land cost plus all the other ancillary costs (architects, planning permission, solicitors etc) will have to be less than the selling price of the house.
Last year new regulations came in which have pushed the cost of building up once again. So I can't see them building houses to sell at 2012 prices just to make people happy.
If prices rise moderately they will build and hopefully keep up with the demand side of things and try to keep his price inclusion down.
Until they start building prices are only going to keep increasing due to lack of supply.

The Spider

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

You're repeating the same flawed argument. Take a break.

Might I suggest you visit www.thepropertypin.com. If I recall correctly approximately 50% of respondents to a recent poll on the site own a house . Yet the predominant rhetoric of the site is that prices are unaffordable/too high. Those views are shared with owners and non-owners alike.

Also you "don't rate argumentd from people who haven't bought". Is that because I blew over your strawman argument with some actual factual information about the link between GDP and house price inflation. Sounds like sour grapes if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Ha ha, same old nonsense, I've been on the property pin and a lot of the old posters have left after they've bought property, also I've noticed a lot more of a bullish attitude towards property in general on that site, especially after some users have bought.

Sorry but I really don't think you've blown any argument over.:rolleyes:

Dubh Geannain

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

The point being missed by the people complaining about the price rises of 10%in 2014 is that these rises were on to houses which were no way proceed properly due to the bust.
Houses were seeking for less than their build cost let alone the price of the site.
Down the country they are still like that but in Dublin they seem to have rocketed.
Developers will only develop when they will make a profit so the build cost plus land cost plus all the other ancillary costs (architects, planning permission, solicitors etc) will have to be less than the selling price of the house.
Last year new regulations came in which have pushed the cost of building up once again. So I can't see them building houses to sell at 2012 prices just to make people happy.
If prices rise moderately they will build and hopefully keep up with the demand side of things and try to keep his price inclusion down.
Until they start building prices are only going to keep increasing due to lack of supply.

What they should and will do are two different things. They should come down. But I don't think they will.

Your point about build costs is valid. The government and by extension local authorities can play a big role in reducing the overhead costs of development of course if they so wished. I've run the numbers myself and could build on a site a hell of a lot cheaper (I mean >100k) than many lesser spec'd houses in the East Meath area (there are a couple of exceptions to this but they are few like hens teeth and a little further west). My problem is I don't have local needs.

Dubh Geannain

The Spider wrote: »

Sorry but I really don't think you've blown any argument over.:rolleyes:

Well if you can't admit to that then I won't bother you with any more facts :pac:

Edit: In any case. It's in post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94215489&postcount=2572 if anyone needs to see who's telling porkies.

The Spider

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

Well if you can't admit to that then I won't bother you with any more facts :pac:

Edit: In any case. It's in post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94215489&postcount=2572 if anyone needs to see who's telling porkies.

It's a silly argument, because house prices pretty much caught up with the increased confidence, it's now a given that 2011/2012 was the bottom, so you'd expect some lag in between the increased economic performance and people's confidence to invest in property, the time frame you've used is too short.

Either way, the facts are the facts, prices in 2010 were cheap as chips and no one was buying, now they're expensive and everyone wants to buy.

Dubh Geannain

The Spider wrote: »

It's a silly argument, because house prices pretty much caught up with the increased confidence, it's now a given that 2011/2012 was the bottom, so you'd expect some lag in between the increased economic performance and people's confidence to invest in property, the time frame you've used is too short.

Either way, the facts are the facts, prices in 2010 were cheap as chips and no one was buying, now they're expensive and everyone wants to buy.

Everyone? :rolleyes:

The Spider

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

Everyone? :rolleyes:

Ok, not getting involved in this because it's going to either get the thread closed or drag it into the gutter.

There is a huge demand for property today versus 2010 anyone can see that.

Must remember not to feed those trolls.:pac: