Property Market 2015

ezra_pound

alias no.9 wrote: »

It wasn't a buyers market though, the Mexican stand off was still very much still on in 2012, one house we were interested in in late 2012 was being sold by the original developer 10 years after the rest of the development all the while the banks were putting the squeeze on. We exited stage left with no other bidders involved when the vendor refused our final offer, which was higher than the previous sale figure recorded on the PPR but reflected the slightly larger floor area and corner site.

When financially distressed sellers can turn down reasonable bids, compared to contemporary transactions, with no other interested parties, a buyers market it ain't. We weren't maxed on budget, just not prepared to bid against ourselves.

That's one vendor. It's also in late 2012 after demand and prices both increased. I also came across a few vendors who didn't entertain my offers and I moved on to the next. That's how to play a buyers market.

Bob24

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well that was really smart of you to be searching in a part of the market with no supply in 2010/2011.

Comment only valid for an investor.

Someone buying to live in the property is not going to move to a different location or buy a smaller/larger property than what they need because this is where the supply/value is (of course everyone needs to make some compromises ... But to a point).

makeorbrake

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well that was really smart of you to be searching in a part of the market with no supply in 2010/2011.

What on earth are you on about? So if I wanted (for my own purposes and needs) to buy in a certain region, I should have bought in the other end of the country where - allegedly - you found there to be greater supply - even though doing so would have made no sense for me personally?

You're getting into troll territory now.

Bob24 wrote:

Comment only valid for an investor.

His comment not valid at all - unless someone is suggesting an investor should buy a property 3-4 hours drive away and manage it from that distance? I guess some would - but doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

MouseTail wrote:

You are both arguing the same point surely? There was ample supply over demand

No, we're not. Buyers market - sure - but 'ample supply', definitely not!

alias no.9 wrote:

It wasn't a buyers market though, the Mexican stand off was still very much still on in 2012

What can I say to you...it was IF you could find a property that was genuinely on the market - that suited your needs. otherwise, I agree with everything that you said - it really feeds in to the point I'm trying to make.

ezra_pound

Bob24 wrote: »

Comment only valid for an investor.

Someone buying to live in the property is not going to move to a different location or buy a smaller/larger property because this is where the supply/value is (of course everyone needs to make some compromises ... But to a point).

Im sorry but that is ridiculous. You have a budget and you have your needs, be they schools, gyms, transport etc. Size of house etc. In a period when vendors were desperate and average time in the market was well over six months (with price decreasing) it is obvious that you seek somewhere that meets your needs and your price. This will inevitably move your search towards areas with supply.

In that point in time on account of the role of executors sales/ retirees wanting to go down the country these invariably tended to be more established areas - pre 90s at least.

ezra_pound

makeorbrake wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? So if I wanted (for my own purposes and needs) to buy in a certain region, I should have bought in the other end of the country where - allegedly - you found there to be greater supply - even though doing so would have made no sense for me personally?

You're getting into troll territory now.


His comment not valid at all - unless someone is suggesting an investor should buy a property 3-4 hours drive away and manage it from that distance? I guess some would - but doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
No, we're not. Buyers market - sure - but 'ample supply', definitely not!

What can I say to you...it was IF you could find a property that was genuinely on the market - that suited your needs. otherwise, I agree with everything that you said - it really feeds in to the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not talking about other parts of the country. I'm only talking about Dublin. There were pockets of supply in all areas of the City. These, in my experience, tended to be in areas that had decent numbers of older people who were either passing away or moving down country/ downsizing etc. I.e. not so much in the more modern stock. Either way all you needed was one serous vendor which were to be found everywhere.

makeorbrake

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm not talking about other parts of the country. I'm only talking about Dublin.

You're on a national forum. If you want to create a thread about the "Dublin Property Market 2015", then by all means fill yer boots.

ezra_pound

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're on a national forum. If you want to create a thread about the "Dublin Property Market 2015", then by all means fill yer boots.

I didn't mean Dublin specific I meant broaden your search, not look in a different county.

I'm sorry but anyone who claims that there wasn't considerable supply over demand in 2011 is not being real. This is all the more so outside of Dublin.

makeorbrake

ezra_pound wrote: »

I didn't mean Dublin specific I meant broaden your search, not look in a different county.

I'm sorry but anyone who claims that there wasn't considerable supply over demand in 2011 is not being real. This is all the more so outside of Dublin.

Now you're talking about something that you had (or have) no first hand knowledge of. You're also casting the opinions of several other posters aside in your claim.

ezra_pound

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now you're talking about something that you had (or have) no first hand knowledge of. You're also casting the opinions of several other posters aside in your claim.

I did actually view several houses in the Midlands.

makeorbrake

ezra_pound wrote: »

I did actually view several houses in the Midlands.

So what!?

I had one offer in on something in the Midlands - and even then, I wasn't comfortable with it - as it was too far away geographically (in my opinion). So you now claim expertise in Dublin and Midlands during that period. That doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

ElizKenny

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now you're talking about something that you had (or have) no first hand knowledge of. You're also casting the opinions of several other posters aside in your claim.

Just out of curiosity. What area were you looking in that hadnt any supply?

ezra_pound

makeorbrake wrote: »

He's saying that people won't sell in a trough unless their circumstances force them to - and he's dead right.



I certainly believed that things would stagnate for a long time - yes. Notwithstanding that, I'm unsure what point you're making? You think that sellers felt they would lose more?

Of course people chose to sell when there's a trough. Particularly if they're trading up.

If you actually want to sell, but believe prices will be stagnant for a long time, why would you sit around waiting for the market to increase. You'd sell then and purchase in that market rather than live in a property you don't want. Your new property should make proportionate gains relative to your present house.

makeorbrake

ezra_pound wrote: »

Of course people chose to sell when there's a trough. Particularly if they're trading up.

If you actually want to sell, but believe prices will be stagnant for a long time, why would you sit around waiting for the market to increase. You'd sell then and purchase in that market rather than live in a property you don't want. Your new property should make proportionate gains relative to your present house.

dude, we're done here. I'm not going to persuade you (and evidently, neither are the opinions of others who have expressed the same view). We'll leave it at that.

ezra_pound wrote:

Just out of curiosity. What area were you looking in that hadnt any supply?

What does it matter? You have no experience of that market.

MouseTail

ezra_pound wrote: »

Of course people chose to sell when there's a trough. Particularly if they're trading up.

If you actually want to sell, but believe prices will be stagnant for a long time, why would you sit around waiting for the market to increase. You'd sell then and purchase in that market rather than live in a property you don't want. Your new property should make proportionate gains relative to your present house.

But most people don't think or act rationally either at the top or bottom of a cycle. Just look back at threads here from 2011. The general zeitgeist was anyone was absolutely crazy to buy.

ezra_pound

makeorbrake wrote: »

dude, we're done here. I'm not going to persuade you (and evidently, neither are the opinions of others who have expressed the same view). We'll leave it at that.

What does it matter? You have no experience of that market.

OK. Look it's not a big deal. In my personal experience there was plenty of supply over demand in the property market, particularly Dublin between 2010 and early 2012, certainly relative to the last two and a half years.

yankinlk

Glad I walked away when you posted two pages ago that my post made no sense, and thx makeorbrake for getting it.

The last three years I lowered and lowered and lowered the price, to meet the demand. And still... the buyers had no bank, no loan in place, nothing but a dream and on offer that they couldn't even act on.

Those buyers are gonna get a shock when i sell in the next year or two at the original price i wanted. They might even come on here and quote 60% higher this, or crazy valuation that... but it will be meaningless.

ezra_pound

Bob24 wrote: »

Undercover Indo journalist? ;-)

30 years is a very long time in economic terms.

In the 1970s, who would have predicted that 30 years later Ireland would have one of the highest GDPs in Europe and that a house in a Dublin suburb would be worth way more that its equivalent in Paris?

We just went through the greatest financial crisis the state has ever been in. We were also among the worst hit countries of the worst global crisis since 1932. It's reasonable enough to think that we won't hit such a low over the next 30. Of course it's possible, but unlikely.

ezra_pound

yankinlk wrote: »

Glad I walked away when you posted two pages ago that my post made no sense, and thx makeorbrake for getting it.

The last three years I lowered and lowered and lowered the price, to meet the demand. And still... the buyers had no bank, no loan in place, nothing but a dream and on offer that they couldn't even act on.

Those buyers are gonna get a shock when i sell in the next year or two at the original price i wanted. They might even come on here and quote 60% higher this, or crazy valuation that... but it will be meaningless.

You're describing a buyers market surely?

yankinlk

ezra_pound wrote: »

You're describing a buyers market surely?

lol. If it was a buyers market, than why do i still have the house?

ezra_pound

yankinlk wrote: »

lol. If it was a buyers market, than why do i still have the house?

Because you were trying to sell it.

ezra_pound

yankinlk wrote: »

The last three years I lowered and lowered and lowered the price, to meet the demand. And still... the buyers had no bank, no loan in place, nothing but a dream and on offer that they couldn't even act on.

How was the supply here not greater than the demand?

yankinlk

ezra_pound wrote: »

Because you were trying to sell it.

SO you call a buyers market, a market where a seller cant sell to even the lowest bidders (at least 50% below original asking price) because the buyers cannot get money from any bank, or because they are in a chain, and cant sell their own house.

I call that a non-functioning market. I plan to sell my house in the next functioning market - be it buyers or sellers, i really dont care.

ezra_pound

yankinlk wrote: »

SO you call a buyers market, a market where a seller cant sell to even the lowest bidders (at least 50% below original asking price) because the buyers cannot get money from any bank, or because they are in a chain, and cant sell their own house.

I call that a non-functioning market. I plan to sell my house in the next functioning market - be it buyers or sellers, i really dont care.

Yes. It's a dysfunctional buyers market.

makeorbrake

ezra_pound wrote: »

Because you were trying to sell it.

Gordon Bennett! Do you read what you write?

ezra_pound wrote:

How was the supply here not greater than the demand?
How was the supply here not greater than the demand?

Because it simply - and ultimately - wasn't! - not when it came down to 'sale agreed'.

ezra_pound wrote:

We just went through the greatest financial crisis the state has ever been in. We were also among the worst hit countries of the worst global crisis since 1932. It's reasonable enough to think that we won't hit such a low over the next 30. Of course it's possible, but unlikely.

I'm sorry - but you're a fool to believe that!

ezra_pound

makeorbrake wrote: »

Gordon Bennett! Do you read what you write?


Because it simply - and ultimately - wasn't! - not when it came down to 'sale agreed'.

It was. There was never ANY DEMAND. Because there was never any money. The supply was on the market for three years and was reduced by 50%. If a buyer with money came along offering 60% original asking price with funding in place it would have sold without any competition.

How is that not a buyers market?

ezra_pound

Do you not understand supply and demand?This is getting embarrassing.

ezra_pound

makeorbrake wrote: »

Gordon Bennett! Do you read what you write?


Because it simply - and ultimately - wasn't! - not when it came down to 'sale agreed'.



I'm sorry - but you're a fool to believe that!

It never got to sale agreed because there was no money.

makeorbrake

ezra_pound wrote: »

It was. There was never ANY DEMAND. Because there was never any money. The supply was on the market for three years and was reduced by 50%. If a buyer with money came along offering 60% original asking price with funding in place it would have sold without any competition.

How is that not a buyers market?

Because I experienced it! I'm happy for you - that you sourced what you were looking for - well done on that. However, don't believe for a second that it worked out that way for all buyers that were active at that time - as it didn't. It didn't because there was a LIMITED supply of such properties (this seems to be the part you can't understand).

ezra_pound wrote:

This is getting embarrassing.

No kidding! It was embarrassing a couple of pages ago....but the only way it is embarrassing for me is that I participated in it (not for the view(s) I expressed).

The_Morrigan

Folks can you please take the petty arguments to pm and get back on topic.

makeorbrake

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Folks can you please take the petty arguments to pm and get back on topic.

Thank you for opening an exit to this nonsense!