Property Market 2017

big syke

pilly wrote: »

I know Tallaght myself and don't think it's expensive at all. Nothing wrong with Marlfield.

I find it hard to believe that a house was priced at 180 and the council bought it for 280. Obviously it was priced at a lot more?

I understand you may be struggling but I think you're exaggerating the effect the council is having. The market is the market. Council don't just jump in at 100k more than the price.

Have you lived there? I have - awful area and getting worse.

Went to Market at 189.

The state of the market aside I don't understand the SDCC logic. Spend 500+k or whatever on two houses.

How many vacants could that fix up provide homes?

LirW

pilly wrote: »

I know Tallaght myself and don't think it's expensive at all. Nothing wrong with Marlfield.

I find it hard to believe that a house was priced at 180 and the council bought it for 280. Obviously it was priced at a lot more?

I understand you may be struggling but I think you're exaggerating the effect the council is having. The market is the market. Council don't just jump in at 100k more than the price.

I have to disagree with you, same thing happens on the northside and Fingal too. Especially in not very desirable areas where people on a sub-250k budget would look, it's not unheard of that the council counters the bid by 5 - 20k steps.
This appears especially in areas where stock is cheap and sits on the market for a while, the council tends to snap this up and bid over the competition for very inflated prices.

big syke

LirW wrote: »

it's not unheard of that the council counters the bid by 5 - 20k steps.
.

I have seen this first hand once and heard of it three times in total!

It is a joke :mad:

pilly

LirW wrote:

I have to disagree with you, same thing happens on the northside and Fingal too. Especially in not very desirable areas where people on a sub-250k budget would look, it's not unheard of that the council counters the bid by 5 - 20k steps. This appears especially in areas where stock is cheap and sits on the market for a while, the council tends to snap this up and bid over the competition for very inflated prices.

But you're contradicting yourself there. Surely if something is sitting there a while then there is no competition?

dubrov

It doesn't make any sense to me that the council would bid 100k over the market value of a house.
If it is true, then you could always get in touch with a newspaper to report it.
They would love this kind of story.

LirW

pilly wrote: »

But you're contradicting yourself there. Surely if something is sitting there a while then there is no competition?

It doesn't really make sense, but I went to view houses like that and they'd usually have troubles attached to it like complicated tenants that might not leave on the eviction date (that was the case in one of the houses). The council has a standing bid early on and at some point, when it gains interest they're still around.

Also if it's in an area where property is cheap because of social housing around, they're having the finger out fast, because investors are around. That goes especially for apartments.
Especially sub 200k it'll be very likely that the council might have an interest in it because these houses can still be cheaper than building new stock or paying the houses builders provide in new estates, which is usually drip-feeding anyway.

100k might be a bit excessive but it happens here that the council just overbids the second-highest by 20 - 50k.

spaceHopper

dubrov wrote: »

Surely they bought it at the price of the second highest bidder plus one increment. So this is pretty much market price.

Otherwise, you are suggesting something corrupt went on

They should not be allowed to do this, they should be building homes themselves.

Bidding against the public is only driving up prices. Socially its madness in the long term.

Bob24

spaceHopper wrote: »

They should not be allowed to do this, they should be building homes themselves.

Bidding against the public is only driving up prices. Socially its madness in the long term.

I have to agree here. When there is a housing shortage the only allowed course of action for a local authority should be to build.

None only what they are doing is exacerbating the problem, but when people see their own tax money being used directly to bid against them in the best case exhausting their life savings and in the worst case preventing them to buy whatsoever, their is also a moral aspect to it and it could cause serious resentment within taxpayers.

big syke

spaceHopper wrote: »

They should not be allowed to do this, they should be building homes themselves.

Bidding against the public is only driving up prices. Socially its madness in the long term.

!00% agree.

The state have €70m to help fund this. €70 million to further reduce supply while doing nothing to increase it

The below link mentions distressed and bulk but as I said earlier I have seen various examples of ordinary purchases.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-to-acquire-private-homes-for-social-housing-1.2756208

dubrov

When the government builds houses it ends up costing a multiple of what is would cost for a private builder.

big syke

dubrov wrote: »

When the government builds houses it ends up costing a multiple of what is would cost for a private builder.

But what about vacant council houses.

Surely renovating these cost less than buying or building?

some interesting real life examples here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057707076&fuid=102645116

Bob24

dubrov wrote: »

When the government builds houses it ends up costing a multiple of what is would cost for a private builder.

They can commission projects and let private builders handle them. Or transparently specify at the planning phase that a percentage of a new estate/development will be reserved for social housing.

But bidding against the public in a depleted second hand market or when new units have already reached the open market is madness in my opinion.

mel123

+1 on the councils buying up everything (they are also doing 5/10 year deals for that matter) for over market value. Someone quite close to me is involved in property management and they have told me a few stories.
My take on it is the government made a 'promise' to have the homeless issue sorted by, was it this month? In order to avoid public backlash they had to dive in deep and this is the way they did it. I dont agree with it, as other posters have said, they are driving up prices and pushing people out of the market. It shouldnt be allowed, but as ive said before, we'd be giving out as well if they did nothing.

mloc123

mloc123 wrote: »

Payments are being stress tested to +2% at the moment? Which would leave rates at around 6%?

What was the highest that interest rates hitbin the last 10 years?

I think they hit (well BOI variable rate did anyway) over 6% in 2008 ish. 2001 was previous peak.

dubrov

big syke wrote:

Surely renovating these cost less than buying or building?

Much cheaper to leave it to the private rental market. Maintenance costs are effectively zero

theboringfox

Government should not be using tax payer funds to buy up stock in competition with people who are often paying very high taxes.

People need to recognise all housing will be built by prvate sector. Council would just tender out to build.

They need to invest in increasing supply by reviewing regulations with view to lowering costs and incentivising people to invest in sector.

For anyone out there being outbid by council you should be very very angry. Im glad Im out of this.

Cyrus

theboringfox wrote: »

Government should not be using tax payer funds to buy up stock in competition with people who are often paying very high taxes.

People need to recognise all housing will be built by prvate sector. Council would just tender out to build.

They need to invest in increasing supply by reviewing regulations with view to lowering costs and incentivising people to invest in sector.

For anyone out there being outbid by council you should be very very angry. Im glad Im out of this.

to be fair people on mid level incomes here pay low levels of income tax and thats who the council are competing against at these price levels

myshirt

You get 10k towards your Mortgage of you leave a council house, or up to 50% discount on the council house if you stay and buy that one. But there is clawback if you leave.

mel123

Cyrus wrote: »

to be fair people on mid level incomes here pay low levels of income tax and thats who the council are competing against at these price levels

That still doesnt make any of it fair

Cyrus

mel123 wrote: »

That still doesnt make any of it fair

didnt say it was, i was just refuting a point made

Samuel T. Cogley

Personally I think we should stop shilly-shallying about on all of this, let the private sector deal with building, the council can buy stock of new builds at cost to a max of 15% of the development, every single person should be on a market rate mortgage - most from banks, and the genuine cases from the council. The ones that prove they can't look after themselves and their property should have an intervention mechanism activated where they are put in accommodation that is appropriate to them and their family circumstances and should be able to be moved at a month's notice should the need arise. The latter group (any anyone who wants it) should have liberal access to, and frequent visits from a social worker.

frefrefre

Bob24 wrote: »

Henbabani wrote: »

they are higher than they were in the boom.

For reference, I would add that they are significantly higher. I areas I know very well for having lived their extensively (Dublin 6 and Grand Canal Docks) the prices I see advertised on Daft in 2017 are roughtly 50% higher that what I remember from 2007.

For exemple a 2 beds in this nice Milltown development could be had for around 1500-1600 at the time and they are now advertised for 2200-2400.

Or I remember seeing a 2 beds in this good development at Grand Canal Docks at the end of 2006 which was going for 1600 per month, and as you can see from my link the price is now 2400-2600 for the same block.

I haven't seen an significant reduction in price either for these places in the past few months. And 50% is a massive increase compared to the previous boom - salaries certainly haven't increase in the same proportion since then, so there is undoubtedly a serious housing issue.

Note as well that there is a gap between rents as prices to buy (probably due to various regulations). While rents are significantly higher than they were back then, prices to purchase the same property still are lower.

Excellent post, I'll add that I don't think we're far off peak in Dublin for sales prices either. Properties are going up to 20% over asking around Dublin 14/16/18. Couple this with finance being much more expensive than the trackers being offered in 2005/06 and it's proper boom time! 
I think we're nowhere near normality in terms of transactions but with FTB's being locked out of Dublin, ecpect the commuter belt to have rapid acceleration next.

The_Conductor

frefrefre wrote: »

Excellent post, I'll add that I don't think we're far off peak in Dublin for sales prices either.

CSO figures lend credence to this.
However- looking at 2007 as a yardstick- is dangerous, then there was an effervescent market- because money cost nothing (if you factored inflation into the equation- you were being paid handsomely to borrow money). Developers built remarkable numbers of properties in increasingly poor locations- to soak up this never-ending supply of money.

Now- we have a wholly different issue- a chronic undersupply of units in the market- and of those we are building- we singularly are not building ye 2-3-4 bed semi with a garden in Dublin suburbs- that most people aspire to (with a few exceptions- and even then in incredibly low volumes).

frefrefre wrote: »

Properties are going up to 20% over asking around Dublin 14/16/18.

Its not limited to Dublin 14/16/18 - however, asking prices and achieved prices are two different kettles of fish. Propertypriceregister.ie tells a very contrasting story- achieved prices have moderated significantly in a Dublin context- largely because they are unaffordable, that is, people quite simply can't access the funds to buy them at their current prices.

frefrefre wrote: »

Couple this with finance being much more expensive than the trackers being offered in 2005/06 and it's proper boom time! 

Finance is more expensive- however, 100% (or even higher) mortgages have been consigned to history- a 10% deposit is mandatory for FTBs, 20% deposit for subsequent buyers- and 30% for investors. In addition- anyone buying a 1 bed apartment- is commonly asked for a 40% deposit for a 1 bed apartment- as they are seen as the weak link in the chain.

frefrefre wrote: »

I think we're nowhere near normality in terms of transactions but with FTB's being locked out of Dublin, ecpect the commuter belt to have rapid acceleration next.

The figures don't actually support this hypothesis.
First time buyers, as a percentage of the market, have never had as high a proportion of the overall market in Dublin, as they currently have.
However- the market has never been as small- or dysfunctional, as it now is.
I.e. First time buyers have an incredibly large slice- of a very small pie.

As for rapid acceleration in the commuter belt- its already been and is on the way out. Price increases in the commuter towns surrounding Dublin- soared in the last 24 months- and are now moderating. The boom- is ironically- in rural and other locations- who are wholly divorced from the greater Dublin area- these are now soaring- i.e. they are up to 2 years behind the Dublin market.

We've a large number of multinational jobs with question marks over them- and then we have the public sector- who have a pay agreement below the rate of inflation- we have the government acknowledging the First Time Buyer scheme was a key inflationery factor in the prices of new builds- and we have an autumn assessment of how deposit requirements are functioning currently in information gathering mode at the Central Bank. Then we have external factors- such as Brexit- but, and with some irony- major fillips being given to the farming sector- particularly the beef and pigmeat sectors- who are having wholly new markets opened to them (the agreement signed with Japan last week- is massive).

The next 3-4 years- are going to be pivotal for Ireland- and will define the direction the country proceeds in for the next generation.

Glen_Quagmire

myshirt wrote:

You get 10k towards your Mortgage of you leave a council house, or up to 50% discount on the council house if you stay and buy that one. But there is clawback if you leave.

Where did you see this?

myshirt

Glen_Quagmire wrote: »

Where did you see this?

It's called the Mortgage Allowance Scheme. You have to be a Council Tenant moving out and buying a Private house. It's to take the sting off the mortgage. 10k off the mortgage for the first five years.

The other one is called the Tenant Purchase Scheme. It is only reopened in the last 18 months or so. You can a get 30-50% discount. Personally I don't think we should we selling off our housing stock, but hey, that's another forum.

Glen_Quagmire

myshirt wrote:

It's called the Mortgage Allowance Scheme. You have to be a Council Tenant moving out and buying a Private house. It's to take the sting off the mortgage. 10k off the mortgage for the first five years.

myshirt wrote:

You could use it against a Council House itself before, but not now. Not widespread but you'd have a person who moved into a private estate under Part V, paid a differential rent for a while, but then bought the property using the council purchase scheme (50% discount), and got the 10k. Much better scenario than the person next door who bought at 100% of the price.

I wasn't aware such a scheme existed

myshirt

Glen_Quagmire wrote: »

I wasn't aware such a scheme existed

Is it applicable to you or anyone you know?

Glen_Quagmire

myshirt wrote:

Is it applicable to you or anyone you know?

Yes someone I know who is looking to buy their own house and leave the council house

myshirt

Glen_Quagmire wrote: »

Yes someone I know who is looking to buy their own house and leave the council house

Well then, excellent. Perfect fit. Glad to have highlighted it.

Glen_Quagmire

The clawback about leaving, any idea how long this applies for?

Edit: Found it, it's 20 to 30 years depending on level of discount applied.

Scheme only applies to houses though apartments aren't included in the scheme.