Property Market 2015

One_Of_Shanks

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

House sale prices have actually dropped last couple of months.

So why the sudden focus on "asking prices"?

Reality has a negative bias - newspapers are just trying to counterbalance that...

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Reality has a negative bias - newspapers are just trying to counterbalance that...

Seriously though it is mental that official monthly CSO figures get the same airtime as myhome, daft and surveys of REA estate agents. Cso data gets diluted by lower quality info

johnp001

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously though it is mental that official monthly CSO figures get the same airtime as myhome, daft and surveys of REA estate agents. Cso data gets diluted by lower quality info

Irish Times owns myhome, I think. REA estate agents certainly take out a lot more advertisements than the CSO.

johnp001

johnp001 wrote: »

Irish Times owns myhome, I think. REA estate agents certainly take out a lot more advertisements than the CSO.

True re myhome and IT. Plus the Journsl & daft are stable mates

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously though it is mental that official monthly CSO figures get the same airtime as myhome, daft and surveys of REA estate agents. Cso data gets diluted by lower quality info

Yes it is mental ... the numbers gaius c is publishing here based on the PPR are a much better indicator of what is really happening than anything you can read in the press. One guy at home is producing more reliable data than all the newspapers in the country! (while I think he is doing a great job it is not rocket science, he is just using publicly available information and is dedicated to updating his data and producing meaningful insights with Excel ... it is a bit mad that no journalist is able to do the same thing).

jay0109

I'm sure the Journo's could if they wanted, but it wouldn't suit the Editorial line!

Wait, whats that you say - the Editors were in at the Banking enquiry last week and categorically denied that property advertising revenue had any impact on their analysis of the property market. Well in that case, I withdraw my opening comment above :P

Glenbhoy

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes it is mental ... the numbers gaius c is publishing here based on the PPR are a much better indicator of what is really happening than anything you can read in the press. One guy at home is producing more reliable data than all the newspapers in the country! (while I think he is doing a great job it is not rocket science, he is just using publicly available information and is dedicated to updating his data and producing meaningful insights with Excel ... it is a bit mad that no journalist is able to do the same thing).

The real question is why the CSO have not yet incorporated ppr figures into their numbers, that would then make all other numbers fairly insignificant (granted there will be a slight lag, meaning asking prices would provide useful indicators for current trends).

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote: »

The real question is why the CSO have not yet incorporated ppr figures into their numbers, that would then make all other numbers fairly insignificant (granted there will be a slight lag, meaning asking prices would provide useful indicators for current trends).

They are working on it I think

Bob24

Glenbhoy wrote: »

The real question is why the CSO have not yet incorporated ppr figures into their numbers, that would then make all other numbers fairly insignificant (granted there will be a slight lag, meaning asking prices would provide useful indicators for current trends).

I don't have the answer, but could it be that they have more granular and accurate data for mortgage purchases? (for example there is no automated way of knowing if a line in the PPR is for an apartment, a house, or even a whole block of apartments).

And sadly even if they had uber accurate prices, as said by others above I think we can be pretty sure it would get more media exposure than what a Daft study on asking prices.

Bob24

jay0109 wrote: »

I'm sure the Journo's could if they wanted, but it wouldn't suit the Editorial line!

Wait, whats that you say - the Editors were in at the Banking enquiry last week and categorically denied that property advertising revenue had any impact on their analysis of the property market. Well in that case, I withdraw my opening comment above :P

I think it is a combination of what you said and laziness/incompetency (they already have several sources telling the same story and who they feel are better than us at crunching numbers, so they don't bother looking at the details or trying to understand which source is more reliable - especially if a few studies are telling them what they want to hear).

gaius c

Deleted User wrote: »

They are working on it I think

Any day now...

gaius c

Exemptions to the new mortgage rules are either/or btw.
http://www.mortgages.ie/go/first_time_buyers/how_much_can_i_borrow

Exemptions are available to exceed the income limit or reduce the borrowing requirement.
You can only get an exemption in one category (either on the income side or the deposit side - not both)
Examples of exemptions allowing higher multiples on the income side might be where the full deposit is available and income prospects are very strong (sector prospects, pay scales etc) . In these circumstances it may be possible to achieve an income multiple of 4.25 times gross income.
Examples on the deposit side might be where the deposit saving is insufficient but high income levels result in applicants income multiple being at or below the 3.5 multiple.

Cuddlesworth

Glenbhoy wrote: »

The real question is why the CSO have not yet incorporated ppr figures into their numbers, that would then make all other numbers fairly insignificant (granted there will be a slight lag, meaning asking prices would provide useful indicators for current trends).

At a guess, I would say they have a problem with the PPR figures. The PPR is slow to update, has plenty of data entry mistakes and lists multiple unit sales as a single figure. When your a statistics office and the volume of total sales is so low, you can't reliably use data that is inherently unreliable. Because unlike gaius c when they publish figures they can't go back and edit them.

gaius c

gaius c wrote: »

Any day now...

If they do come up with a new formula, I wonder if they will apply it retrospectively rather than just suddenly start using the new method. I mean, how are they going to compare October to September if they start counting different things from one month to another?

First time I've seen the either/or thing. Is that just how the banks/brokers are choosing to apply it or is it specifically set out that way in the rules? I thought the rules were quite broad i.e. 'not more than 15% of entire loan book' rather than specifying that you can't make exceptions twice for one case.

Makes sense, mind you. Seems fair to give a junior doctor a bigger loan if they've no savings, or to be a bit a more lenient on the 3.5 LTI for a couple with a 50% deposit. But doing both for one person is a bit risky.

Michael D Not Higgins

gaius c wrote: »

Exemptions to the new mortgage rules are either/or btw.
http://www.mortgages.ie/go/first_time_buyers/how_much_can_i_borrow

That's interesting. First I've heard of it but it did occur to me at the time that it would make sense to only apply one exemption or the other.

Caliden

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Here's the thing. I'm mid 30's. I used to read newspapers for what I thought were facts. Now I know it's all an agenda. All hail the Internet.

The irish times and the independent sell to house owners and look back to the property boom with fondness, the property supplements paid their wages and offset any internet related declines. There's a sense now in those quarters that those times were the natural order of things and the last few years were an aberration. RTE's frontline staff are up to their necks in debt for the ballsbridge gaff bought in 2006. Politicans are politicians. More homes owners than buyers. The "opinion formers" opinions are biased.

Not that I trust everybody here, agendas are legion, but there's more than one side and not just one agenda.

Whenever I hear any news outlet say 'prices are still 20% below peak', it starts alarm bells.

The boom should be looked upon as the aberration but some news outlets look at it through rose tinted glasses and have already forgotten the years of heartache some people have had to endure.

handlemaster

theres very little dublin properties on this months allsop list compared with previous ones. lots of country property

Glenbhoy

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

At a guess, I would say they have a problem with the PPR figures. The PPR is slow to update, has plenty of data entry mistakes and lists multiple unit sales as a single figure. When your a statistics office and the volume of total sales is so low, you can't reliably use data that is inherently unreliable. Because unlike gaius c when they publish figures they can't go back and edit them.

It's supposed to be updated as stamp duty returns are filed, ie 29 days after actual closing and in my experience, it is generally reasonably quick.

The issue is as pointed out, the granularity, do stamp duty returns include such information?

The_Conductor

Glenbhoy wrote: »

The issue is as pointed out, the granularity, do stamp duty returns include such information?

Yes...... however........
There is that 'however' caveat.........
In many cases deeds may be messy- for example groups of apartments in developments can often be on the one deed. Apparently there are multiple cases held up currently- where several units which were sold are apparently on a single deed (for no good reason). When its a sale of multiple units from one party to another- you'd imagine its not necessarily a problem- but many solicitors are insisting on unravelling these weird monstrosities.

In addition- the PPR is patently inaccurate concerning the size of properties, often it even has address variants- so adjacent properties might not turn up on the same search. This is said by them to be human error- rather than an attempt to hide the data.

Apparently- a lot of their issues are because they don't do a lot of sanity checking on the data- because they are so short staffed. So inaccurate information is put up- and it is corrected after the fact (when someone draws attention to inaccuracies)- rather than checked first.

I can see errors relating to 6 sales within 50m of where I'm typing this- 3 of which are serious in nature.

Sala

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's interesting. First I've heard of it but it did occur to me at the time that it would make sense to only apply one exemption or the other.

I got approval in principal on both exemptions.... hmmm, I wonder will it stand.

gmisk

Sala wrote: »

I got approval in principal on both exemptions.... hmmm, I wonder will it stand.

Can I ask when you were approved? i.e. was it before or after new rules.

seamus

We too got approved on both exemptions before the new rules, with full credit approval it must be said. When it came time to actually get full approval on a specific property, BOI told us that they would now be applying the LTI rules and duly revised our approval down.

Thanks for that BOI, sound. Didn't affect us too badly though, we'd won the bid 5% under our approved amount anyway.

Sala

gmisk wrote: »

Can I ask when you were approved? i.e. was it before or after new rules.

After. They told me I got an exception

Just scanning the Regulation, don't see it being too specific about who gets exemptions. Just says 20% of total loans for principal primary residences can be exempt from LTI; 15% can be be exempt from LTV.

Doesn't say there can't be overlap between the too groups. You can see why banks might prefer not to make exceptions twice but if it's an 82% loan and 3.7 x LTI for someone they see as a good bet, maybe they'd be happy to use their leeway.

johnp001

Deleted User wrote: »

Just scanning the Regulation, don't see it being too specific about who gets exemptions. Just says 20% of total loans for principal primary residences can be exempt from LTI; 15% can be be exempt from LTV.

Doesn't say there can't be overlap between the too groups. You can see why banks might prefer not to make exceptions twice but if it's an 82% loan and 3.7 x LTI for someone they see as a good bet, maybe they'd be happy to use their leeway.

Odd that it is not in the regulations but it is in the CBI FAQ document here:
https://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Documents/FAQ%20%E2%80%93%20New%20regulations%20on%20residential%20mortgage%20lending.pdf

The Spider

MysticalRain wrote: »

Er, no you didn't. You also said there would be mass debt write offs as well now that I think of it (also wrong).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84270219&postcount=84

Just on this, seems the government are now going to step in on any reposessions, if they let 31,000 go ahead say good luck to any chance of being reelected.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-battles-for-solution-to-mortgage-arrears-crisis-as-election-looms-1.2170310

Zamboni

If Fine Gael had the balls to allow the repossessions take place, as is normal, then they would get a first ever vote from me in the GE.

But, as usual the "perceived" populist decision will trump the prudential and patriotic decision.

The Spider

Zamboni wrote: »

If Fine Gael had the balls to allow the repossessions take place, as is normal, then they would get a first ever vote from me in the GE.

But, as usual the populist decision will trump the prudential and patriotic decision.

But they wouldn't from 31,000 people being reposessed, fail to see how it's patriotic making people homeless, if they can't afford to pay their mortgage then they certainly can't afford to pay high rents, so either the government subsidises their mortgage or pays their rent, either way the taxpayer pays for it.

The_Conductor

The Spider wrote: »

Just on this, seems the government are now going to step in on any reposessions, if they let 31,000 go ahead say good luck to any chance of being reelected.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-battles-for-solution-to-mortgage-arrears-crisis-as-election-looms-1.2170310

And if they give 31,000 people a special deal- they'll have everyone else clamoring for their blood. Why bother paying your mortgage- if your neighbour is getting a debt write-off/write-down.......

Its a damned if you/damned if you don't situation. By rights the government should bow out, and allow market economics take their toll. This can has been kicked down the road as far as possible- unfortunately the day when it will have to be dealt with, is fast approaching.

The current situation- where new borrowers are going to be paying for the profligacy of an older generation- is only going to foster resentment on a massive scale. If someone managed to get younger people out to vote- there would be a bloodbath.......

Bob24

Zamboni wrote: »

If Fine Gael had the balls to allow the repossessions take place, as is normal, then they would get a first ever vote from me in the GE.

Same here - and while I find them to be the lesser evil in the Irish political landscape, they might lose my vote if they are (even more) using my tax money to subside other people's mortgages (especially BTL) while I am struggling a bit to buy the property I want and paying a rent.