Property Market 2015

noniej

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

The agent keeps telling me it's worth more but the market obviously doesn't think so or there would have been some other interest.

It's only worth what someone is willing to pay. I can't get over these properties that have asking prices and then you're told that the vendor won't accept that. WTF? Why put an asking price on a property that won't be accepted? Negotiation around that figure I can understand but an asking price should be the price acceptable to the vendor.

johnp001

noniej wrote: »

It's only worth what someone is willing to pay. I can't get over these properties that have asking prices and then you're told that the vendor won't accept that. WTF? Why put an asking price on a property that won't be accepted? Negotiation around that figure I can understand but an asking price should be the price acceptable to the vendor.

Vendor is naturally going to want to get the maximum they can for their property. Very likely they will think they underpriced the house if they quickly get an offer of asking price. Why would they not wait to see if they can get more?
In a falling market though, this can be a dangerous strategy.

noniej

johnp001 wrote: »

Vendor is naturally going to want to get the maximum they can for their property. Very likely they will think they underpriced the house if they quickly get an offer of asking price. Why would they not wait to see if they can get more?
In a falling market though, this can be a dangerous strategy.

I live in a country where you can exchange within days of making your offer and once you negotiate the price that's what you pay. It's a transparent honest (for the most part) system and it works for all concerned. You can't legislate for greed though.

gogreen81

noniej wrote: »

It's only worth what someone is willing to pay. I can't get over these properties that have asking prices and then you're told that the vendor won't accept that. WTF? Why put an asking price on a property that won't be accepted? Negotiation around that figure I can understand but an asking price should be the price acceptable to the vendor.

So confused as all agents have different strategies putting the asking price.
Looked at a house where the EA already had an offer of asking. That was 1.5 months back and hardly he has got 5k more. House is empty so someone's losing money I think.

Another house ( my original dream house) went for 5k less than asking price. I was ready to match the offer or a bit higher but the sale was agreed, was not even considered. Tracking it on property register since then... voila.. i found it relisted on daft/myhome after exactly 3 months.
Its not my dream house anymore so nothing to regret.


Waiting for 90% mortgages to run out before making the BIG decision.
plenty New houses in Market now or upcoming.

noniej

I was thinking about this last night. A buyer has a budget (or should have) and so they look for properties within that budget. If they find a house and engage with the agent/vendor and then discover that the asking price won't be accepted their time and energy has been wasted, the agent is working for fresh air and the vendor has had their hopes raised for nothing. There is absolutely no benefit in this business model whatsoever, for anyone.

gogreen81 wrote: »

So confused as all agents have different strategies putting the asking price.
Looked at a house where the EA already had an offer of asking. That was 1.5 months back and hardly he has got 5k more. House is empty so someone's losing money I think.

Another house ( my original dream house) went for 5k less than asking price. I was ready to match the offer or a bit higher but the sale was agreed, was not even considered. Tracking it on property register since then... voila.. i found it relisted on daft/myhome after exactly 3 months.
Its not my dream house anymore so nothing to regret.


Waiting for 90% mortgages to run out before making the BIG decision.
plenty New houses in Market now or upcoming.

Bob24

noniej wrote: »

I was thinking about this last night. A buyer has a budget (or should have) and so they look for properties within that budget. If they find a house and engage with the agent/vendor and then discover that the asking price won't be accepted their time and energy has been wasted, the agent is working for fresh air and the vendor has had their hopes raised for nothing. There is absolutely no benefit in this business model whatsoever, for anyone.

This is valid if you assume most buyers are rational and reasonable. They clearly weren't during the bubble ... Do we think they have learnt anything? :-)

And seriously, even with more reasonable buyers - the low asking prices will have them looking at properties they think they can afford, and get into their head this is what they want. Once they realise they always miss them because they are selling above asking, at least some of them will be tempted to go higher (granted the reason able choice would be to look at lower asking prices ... But psychologically they will find it difficult to scale back).

Give first-time buyers state grants
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/statefunded-grants-for-firsttime-buyers-under-labour-plans-31149577.html

First-time buyers will receive state-funded grants to help them meet strict Central Bank deposit limits, under plans being considered by Environment Minister Alan Kelly

That's the spirit. Use taxpayers' money to get around the Central Bank's effort to put a lid on a second property bubble.

Meanwhile: Irish house prices growing at 15 times EU average

Although, hilariously, they imply that the lending restrictions are fueling price rises.

Figures from Eurostat show the continued upward march on prices as new mortgage lending rules and a lack of property coming onto the market fuels increases

GoodBridge

Some appropriate background music for when you are reading above post and indo articles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D5Sa2Yq-2g

RedPandaDan

Deleted User wrote: »

Give first-time buyers state grants
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/statefunded-grants-for-firsttime-buyers-under-labour-plans-31149577.html



That's the spirit. Use taxpayers' money to get around the Central Bank's effort to put a lid on a second property bubble.

If this goes ahead, the Central bank should just increase the deposit requirements/reduce mortgage limits for first time buyers by a corresponding amount.

El_Dangeroso

Deleted User wrote: »

Give first-time buyers state grants
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/statefunded-grants-for-firsttime-buyers-under-labour-plans-31149577.html



That's the spirit. Use taxpayers' money to get around the Central Bank's effort to put a lid on a second property bubble.

It seems they are considering putting it into the labour manifesto for the election, it's just trying to win votes, will never actually happen. We're gonna hear a load of things over the coming months but it's silly season right now. I suggest everyone just stop reading the indo, they haven't called one right thing on the property market ever.

johnp001

RedPandaDan wrote: »

If this goes ahead, the Central bank should just increase the deposit requirements for first time buyers by a corresponding amount.

I can't see it going ahead or even getting much serious consideration.
By the time it was implemented the headwind that the property market is facing and the turnabout in sentiment that appears to be well underway will have too much momentum for a subsidy to developers/owners in the low 4 figures to make much impact.
If the intention is to support house prices then it is counter-productive to be airing this as a possible proposal. The market is currently only treading water to the extent that it is due to the Central Bank rule introduction creating a small cohort of panic buyers which will necessarily dwindle away towards the middle of the year.
Creating any incentive to hold off buying (e.g. until the grant is introduced) would only amplify the huge shift in the supply vs demand ratio that we have seen in the last 6 months or so.

Good point about this kind of promise (even if it turns out to be an empty one) making some people defer a purchase.

I'm going to be AK hasn't fully though this one through.

baldbear

Why not just scrap stamp duty for 1st time buyers up to a max amount?

Labour you are pathetic.

gaius c

baldbear wrote: »

Why not just scrap stamp duty for 1st time buyers up to a max amount?

Labour you are pathetic.

Or do something about all the levies that developers claim make houses expensive to build.

Did AK miss the part where FTBs were given a much softer rub of the lending restrictions?

Whether it's the promise of a grant, a stamp duty exemption or some other brainwave (mortgage interest relief?) it may well do as johnP001 suggests: Make people postpone purchasing under the free money arrives.

Isn't this what happened when Michael McDowell floated the idea of scrapping stamp duty when he was Tainaiste? The market froze because people said "I'll wait and see what they do in the budget".

gaius c

gaius c wrote: »

Or do something about all the levies that developers claim make houses expensive to build.

+1

All this guff about 'hard-pressed first-time buyers', yet they seem incapable of recognising that supply is the problem. Giving everyone more money or more credit doesn't make it much easier to buy a house.

El_Dangeroso

Deleted User wrote: »

+1

All this guff about 'hard-pressed first-time buyers', yet they seem incapable of recognising that supply is the problem. Giving everyone more money or more credit doesn't make it much easier to buy a house.

Exactly, FTBers for the most part are competing with each other.

gaius c

Time for an update.

PPR only has figures till 10th April. Some crazy fluctuation for the month but I've decided against leaving it off the trends.
Click on pics for a bigger image.

National monthly averages



National annual averages



National quarterly averages

gaius c

Transaction data

Monthly



Quarterly



Annual

gaius c

National trend



Dublin trend



GDA trend



Cork trend



Galway trend



Limerick trend

NinjaTruncs

Any idea what caused the spike in Dublin values? Was there a large volume of high priced sales?

Bob24

I assume the drop in Galway and the increase in Limerick are cause by unusual transactions? Doubling prices or cutting them in half over a month is just not possible ...

Glenbhoy

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Any idea what caused the spike in Dublin values? Was there a large volume of high priced sales?

Is it not that there have been very few transactions (29 v 700 odd in March and 1100 odd in Feb) registered thusfar for April, so really, April figures are relatively meaningless at this point. For example Galway has seen a 60% drop in average values (on the back of one transaction).

NinjaTruncs

That makes sense, I was viewing on my phone and thought the Mar was the bottom month.

Bob24

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

That makes sense, I was viewing on my phone and thought the Mar was the bottom month.

Same here :-)

gaius c

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Any idea what caused the spike in Dublin values? Was there a large volume of high priced sales?

It's there in the first of the three posts.

PPR only has figures till 10th April. Some crazy fluctuation for the month but I've decided against leaving it off the trends.

And in fact, we can't really get a clear picture on March until the end of this month.

gaius c

Allsops
149 lots. Over 70 unsold or withdrawn.

No more CGT exemption, no more investor cash?

gaius c

Deleted User wrote: »

No more CGT exemption, no more investor cash?

It's probably more to do with unrealistic pricing and the appalling state of legal documentation behind some of the lots.

by the seaside

Deleted User wrote: »

+1

All this guff about 'hard-pressed first-time buyers', yet they seem incapable of recognising that supply is the problem. Giving everyone more money or more credit doesn't make it much easier to buy a house.

The point is to make it much easier to sell a house.