Are we really back to this sh*t again?

mansize

Into trying to create demand for a property supplement???

Grayson

Glenster wrote: »

Fair enough, I just cant see world class talent being attracted to Bray, Drogheda or Maynooth.

Id go to Cork/Galway/Kilkenny before there.

Maynooth is 40 minutes from the city centre with regular trains. If you move to one of the suburbs like Blanch you're talking about just as long on a bus into town. I lived in Blanch and moved to Maynooth because it's nicer, has more character and is an easier commute.

Glenster

Grayson wrote: »

Maynooth is 40 minutes from the city centre with regular trains. If you move to one of the suburbs like Blanch you're talking about just as long on a bus into town. I lived in Blanch and moved to Maynooth because it's nicer, has more character and is an easier commute.

Thats just it though isnt it, you moved to maynooth so you could get into dublin in 40 mins, i moved to deansgrange so i could get into town in 20 mins. If they moved my job to maynooth and yours to bray we'd be looking for new jobs or a substantial bribe to stay on.

Grayson

Glenster wrote: »

Thats just it though isnt it, you moved to maynooth so you could get into dublin in 40 mins, i moved to deansgrange so i could get into town in 20 mins. If they moved my job to maynooth and yours to bray we'd be looking for new jobs or a substantial bribe to stay on.

I applied for a job in citywest. The commute by public transport would have been 90+ minutes. That's the biggest problem with Ireland. Our public transport system is fecked. Unless you have a car your commute time can be stupidly long.

johnnyskeleton

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm surprised houses like that go to first time buyers. Is the starter home completely gone now?

At 450k, and assuming that they arent all lotto winners or have inherited substantial wealth, they would need a deposit of 70k, 4.5k stamp duty, 2k legal and other fees and say 5k furniture plus a mortgage of 380k so a household income of c. 100k to service a c. 2k a month mortgage.

Then they get the 2% cashback type offer from the bank and the 20k tax rebate so thats 27.2k back. I dont know if lenders will fudge the numbers to allow this to reduce the mortgage deposit i.e. they accept a lower deposit of 10% on condition that the rebate and cashback go into the lump sum.

If they allow it, someone with 55k saved and a household income of 100k could buy these houses. Are they really the kind of house that attracts that level of buyer? One would hope that youd get a bit more from a six figure salary and substantial savings, but on the other hand it doesnt seem like an impossibly high figure for a first time buyer couple with good incomes who have been saving well over the last few years.

Glenster

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

At 450k, and assuming that they arent all lotto winners or have inherited substantial wealth, they would need a deposit of 70k, 4.5k stamp duty, 2k legal and other fees and say 5k furniture plus a mortgage of 380k so a household income of c. 100k to service a c. 2k a month mortgage.

Then they get the 2% cashback type offer from the bank and the 20k tax rebate so thats 27.2k back. I dont know if lenders will fudge the numbers to allow this to reduce the mortgage deposit i.e. they accept a lower deposit of 10% on condition that the rebate and cashback go into the lump sum.

If they allow it, someone with 55k saved and a household income of 100k could buy these houses. Are they really the kind of house that attracts that level of buyer? One would hope that youd get a bit more from a six figure salary and substantial savings, but on the other hand it doesnt seem like an impossibly high figure for a first time buyer couple with good incomes who have been saving well over the last few years.

Wrong.

Assuming they pay tax they'd need a deposit of 25K.

Salaries of 38K each would put them over the top, they could drawdown a mortgage of 440K which should cover all their incidentals.

for reference, thats a level 7 garda and a level 8 teacher.

could easily both be thirty.

Joe Hill

Glenster wrote: »

Wrong.

Assuming they pay tax they'd need a deposit of 25K.

Salaries of 38K each would put them over the top, they could drawdown a mortgage of 440K which should cover all their incidentals.

for reference, thats a level 7 garda and a level 8 teacher.

could easily both be thirty.

And how will the mortgage be serviced when kids come along

Glenster

Grayson wrote: »

I applied for a job in citywest. The commute by public transport would have been 90+ minutes. That's the biggest problem with Ireland. Our public transport system is fecked. Unless you have a car your commute time can be stupidly long.

Try getting to blanch from bray. That was 4 months of my life. on two buses.

BlinkingLights

Problem is where else can they live?
There's no suitable rental really, mostly aimed at singletons - if you have kids - forget it!
Even if you are single, rental market is diabolical.

So: poor supply, high demand = queues for houses or emigration really as most people can't just find jobs anywhere - concentration of businesses in Dublin and Cork but also Limerick and Galway is always going to drive up demand.

Commuting from Leitrim isn't viable.

NIMAN

I wonder how those people felt to hear David McWilliams slag them off on the Ray D'Arcy Show on Saturday night?

"sleeping in a car for 2 nights to buy a property in a housing estate".

Glenster

Joe Hill wrote: »

And how will the mortgage be serviced when kids come along

4500 pm net salary.

1500-1700 mortgage.

I guess the poor lambs would have to live on 2800pm.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Glenster wrote: »

Not true. it took Coillte 20 years to move down to wicklow because of the unions agitating on behalf of the admin staff in Dublin. And that was within commuting distance.

Thats the unions for you though.

They'd start an argument over nothing.

If they had no choice and were told office are moving simple as that (like in any normal job), they'd have to move house or face a commute or change jobs.

The reason so many people live in Dublin or any city is because there is employment there.

elefant

The situation is the same in Amsterdam. People are frothing at the mouths to buy property, the mortgages wouldn't cost much more per month than their current rent, but apartments are sold before they're even advertised publicly. It's almost impossible to find somewhere without using a real estate agent. I know people who have been trying to pull the trigger for over a year now.

I'm too young to remember exactly what it was like at the height of the boom in Ireland, but the obsession with getting on the property ladder here sounds too much like the horror stories from Ireland in the last decade to sit well with me. I'll stay well away from it for now.

PhoenixParker

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Thats the unions for you though.

They'd start an argument over nothing.

If they had no choice and were told office are moving simple as that (like in any normal job), they'd have to move house or face a commute or change jobs.

The reason so many people live in Dublin or any city is because there is employment there.

Many of them would change jobs because they have kids in schools, family nearby, partners in jobs and the sale of a house/exit of a rental contract to contend with in order to move.

If they do move and want a new job or to escape an idiot boss then they have to face the expense and upheaval of moving the whole kit and kaboodle again.

They live in Dublin not so much because their own job is there but because there are other jobs there too.

sbsquarepants

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Starter home was the biggest cod of all, should be a 1 time purchase unless your a speculator.

Don't be fúcking ridiculous - people move for all sorts of reasons.
1 time purchase my arse.

youcancallmeal

Have been looking around at new estates the last few weeks and have been told there is indeed people queueing for houses but usually quite small numbers just looking for the best houses in a new estate. New phases still taking a few weeks to sell out fully. I don't see problem with queuing when you can afford a house, have your eye on a particular one that will be in high demand and want to spend the rest of your life living there. There's a lot of people just reading the headline and assuming we are back to the nonsense going on during the boom

Fr_Dougal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

Haven't you heard of gazumping ?

Also non-refundable deposits are a handy little earner too.

I had a booking deposit on a house end of last year, was gazumped twice. First €10k and then they tried another €20k. Ended up walking away from it. I can see that the same property is 'Sale Agreed' again, feel sorry for the people who think they're going to buy it.

Property is starting to go crazy again, identical house to the one I bought is going for an extra €40k now; all in the space of 3 months. Madness.

Fleawuss

gifted wrote: »

Let them off....not costing me anything...










Until we have to bail them out again.....

You're mistaken. We didn't bail out the mortgage holders, we bailed out the banks and the fcuking builders. And here we are again with banks and builders dictating the housing market.

Yourself isit

Glenster wrote: »

4500 pm net salary.

1500-1700 mortgage.

I guess the poor lambs would have to live on 2800pm.

You are underestimating the mortgage repayments I'm sure. Closer to 2k. Particularly since you are assuming the lower deposit. And larger capital.

(See how government interference had caused this madness again?).

Edit.

I tried the boi calculator. If you want 440k on a 500k house (they still insist on 10%) then repayments are 1,850 at 3.5% for 35 years. Until you retire.

3.5% isn't their variable rate though, its close to 4.2%. Probably 2,100.

Yourself isit

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I had a booking deposit on a house end of last year, was gazumped twice. First €10k and then they tried another €20k. Ended up walking away from it. I can see that the same property is 'Sale Agreed' again, feel sorry for the people who think they're going to buy it.

Property is starting to go crazy again, identical house to the one I bought is going for an extra €40k now; all in the space of 3 months. Madness.

Absolutely all down to the government "help" for first time buyers

Cina

It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.

and who knows, they could all be fire traps too!! but hey, sold as seen and all that.

Bambi985

Cina wrote: »

It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.

i pay £800 (€941 according to latest rates) for a room in a very ordinary house in London and that's considered cheap by some standards.

Arcade_Tryer

Cina wrote: »

It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.

Surely there are cheaper rents available in Dublin? You do have a choice if you wanted to save or spend your income on other pursuits. The dysfunctional rental market in Dublin isn't going anywhere soon.

whisky_galore

CaptainR wrote: »

There's more than just living in the city or living "out in the bog." Our house is a detached cottage with a big garden and all that but I can walk to a medium sized town in 15 mins or two minutes in the car.

It doesn't have those columns or any of that, it was built in the 50's. I agree though that some of the houses around the country are gaudy to say the least.

In the 80s it was Bungalow Blitz and more recently the McMansion...a sort of an Anglo-Irish 'great house' in concrete and pvc, but with zero class.

Why the fcuk can't we build 'nice houses' or make use of existing buildings? We're either unable, unwilling or lack the imagination to renovate older houses or convert industrial buildings to residential use.

kieran.

Glenster wrote: »

4500 pm net salary.

1500-1700 mortgage.

I guess the poor lambs would have to live on 2800pm.

2 Kids Creche approx €1500-1800 per month not so rosie then ? € Approx 1000 / month for food bills & Life

Glenster

kieran. wrote: »

2 Kids Creche approx €1500-1800 per month not so rosie then ? € Approx 1000 / month for food bills & Life

DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.

Bambi985

Glenster wrote: »

DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.

Never gonna happen though. People do it all day every day, if the only other option is to remain childless and forego having a family for the sake of finances.

Yourself isit

Glenster wrote: »

DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.

So the middle classes can't have kids now?

Arcade_Tryer

Yourself isit wrote: »

So the middle classes can't have kids now?

If you can't afford kids, you're no longer middle class I'm afraid.

Glenster

Cina wrote: »

It's crazy, but my rent in Dublin is now €900 a month, which is much crazier. When you can't control the rental market, how can you control the purchasing market? When rent is costing as much as a mortgage would, people will resort to doing everything they can to purchase again.

It's a disgrace that the government let the rental market get to this level in Dublin in the last five to six years.

If you're sharing and don't want to pay that, pay less. There's nowhere in Ireland that you couldn't find a room for €650.

If your renting, stop moaning there's nothing unreasonable about 900 a month.

If your issue is that you cant afford to live somewhere that you think you deserve to live in then you need to adjust your expectations to your circumstances.

I live in the nicest place I can afford to live in, if its not good enough for me then the problem isn't with the government or society or the market, its with either my expectations or the amount of money I make.

Yourself isit

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

If you can't afford kids, you're no longer middle class I'm afraid.

Then we don't have much of a middle class left. Apparently. Maybe we should, you know, lower costs. Like housing.

Yourself isit

Glenster wrote: »

If you're sharing and don't want to pay that, pay less. There's nowhere in Ireland that you couldn't find a room for €650.

If your renting, stop moaning there's nothing unreasonable about 900 a month.

If your issue is that you cant afford to live somewhere that you think you deserve to live in then you need to adjust your expectations to your circumstances.

I live in the nicest place I can afford to live in, if its not good enough for me then the problem isn't with the government or society or the market, its with either my expectations or the amount of money I make.

Or the government is responsible for over heating the market, not facilitating building and using nama to soak up excess properties during the bust.

But let's blame you.

PMBC

NIMAN wrote: »

Plenty of other nations have kids, pets, real lives, but don't share the Irish and British obsession with owning property.

If it was organised properly, we could create a proper rental system like many European countries have, where you have the security that you won't be turfed out to get in someone paying more rent.

We used to have a Swedish visitor come here, and he was renting the same place for 20+ years. He never had any inclination to buy a house. He didn't need to.

Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!

Yourself isit

PMBC wrote: »

Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!

It's just not true. Total myth that we have high ownership rates comparatively.

sbsquarepants

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

"What are you willing to pay?" I said 'Y' he said right well then 'Y' is the market value because you're prepared to pay it.

He was right.

PMBC wrote: »

Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!

It makes no difference whether people rent long term or buy. Somebody has to own the house - if there are not enough houses, prices go up, if there are too many prices go down. Whoever actually owns that house doesn't make any real difference.

Yourself isit

sbsquarepants wrote: »

He was right.

Its that form of valuation (value!= price) that led to the boom ideology. The banks were valuing houses at whatever price they fetched.

youcancallmeal

PMBC wrote: »

Is there anyone 'on' here or 'out there' who can tell us how the system works in, say, Sweden and Germany? And how Ireland can get to that position? If there is a better model Ireland should be pursuing that!

The problem is that here in Ireland most landlords are 'one off' or maybe 2-3 properties whereas in central Europe and Scandinavia landlords are proper companies that would rent large numbers of properties. The way Ireland is going the government seems to be trying to move us to this model by making it increasingly difficult for the average joe soap to buy and maintain more than one property. It is perceived that there is a lot more security renting from a company whose sole business is to rent and maintain multiple properties.

Theboinkmaster

CaptainR wrote: »

How can people pay 650,000 for a house? If you were to pay back 500 a week that's 26 years, and that's before you include interest.

How much do these people earn?!

A lot more than you obviously.

sbsquarepants

Yourself isit wrote: »

Its that form of valuation (value!= price) that led to the boom ideology. The banks were valuing houses at whatever price they fetched.

Why would you value it at anything else?

Yourself isit

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why would you value it at anything else?

That's boom time talk. I mean if price is value why the fcuk does that job even exist?

As I said value isn't price.

See here.
.
https://www.thebalance.com/the-difference-between-a-stock-s-value-and-price-3140860

The valuers job is to ensure that the bank is protected and the buyer is not spending crazy money. So if a bidding war pushed a house to 100k more than the neighbouring house the valuer should say no. Or if the house is in disrepair. Lots of reasons.

sbsquarepants

It's not boom time or bust time talk.

The house doesn't have any sort of intrinsic value - it's worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it at any given time. Tomorrow that may be higher or lower than it is today.
If a bidding war means the owner can get 100k more than the house next door - then it's now worth a 100 grand more than the house next door, that's plainly obvious.

lawred2

Glenster wrote: »

DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD.

that's the spirit... sure who needs pensions anyway

Galway_Old_Man

I really wish I'd picked up a few of the bargains going back in 2010/2011. Foolish me, I thought the Gov would use NAMA, and some sort of national building fund (a stimulus package of sorts), to provide a decent national housing supply.

I don't know what I was smoking.

xckjoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not boom time or bust time talk.

The house doesn't have any sort of intrinsic value - it's worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it at any given time. Tomorrow that may be higher or lower than it is today.
If a bidding war means the owner can get 100k more than the house next door - then it's now worth a 100 grand more than the house next door, that's plainly obvious.

You can apply that logic to anything. It's circular reasoning.

sbsquarepants

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

I really wish I'd picked up a few of the bargains going back in 2010/2011. Foolish me, I thought the Gov would use NAMA, and some sort of national building fund (a stimulus package of sorts), to provide a decent national housing supply.

I don't know what I was smoking.

The government being the canny old investors that the are, own 99% of a bank which they would like to sell but no one wants to buy. No amount of valuers pixie dust it appears makes much difference!

House prices going up has the effect of making that bank a more attractive proposition. People are borrowing more, and therefore paying back more and the toxic ones that aren't paying are getting more and more feasible, profitable even to reposses.

As to what you were smoking - sounds like meth to me:D

Yourself isit

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not boom time or bust time talk.

The house doesn't have any sort of intrinsic value - it's worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it at any given time. Tomorrow that may be higher or lower than it is today.
If a bidding war means the owner can get 100k more than the house next door - then it's now worth a 100 grand more than the house next door, that's plainly obvious.

That's total rubbish. It really is. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain value vs price to you but if the valuer is going to agree that the banks should give a mortgage for any property then he has no reason to have a job in the first place

sbsquarepants

xckjoo wrote: »

You can apply that logic to anything. It's circular reasoning.

It's not circular reasoning at all. The only true measure of a things value is what it sells for - everything else is just opinion. Some opinions are more realistic than others, some are bat shít crazy - but there's no arguing with a sale price.

I remember looking for a house a few years back and coming across 2 houses 3 or 4 doors apart with one asking for double what the other was. Somebodies valuation was wildly wrong, I don't know whose, but I can guarantee you the sale price could settle that argument without any need for interpretation.

Yourself isit

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not circular reasoning at all. The only true measure of a things value is what it sells for - everything else is just opinion. Some opinions are more realistic than others, some are bat shít crazy - but there's no arguing with a sale price.

Your logic is circular because you assume value is price and therefore are is effect arguing that price is price.

But value isn't price. Thats why there are analysts who will call a stock over valued or under valued rather than say "that's the price". There are entire industries working this out.

I remember looking for a house a few years back and coming across 2 houses 3 or 4 doors apart with one asking for double what the other was. Somebodies valuation was wildly wrong, I don't know whose, but I can guarantee you the sale price could settle that argument without any need for interpretation.

Probably priced not to sell or a residual of the boom. But the valuer should not accept that price - he's supposed to protect the bank (and buyer) from that kind of thing. Otherwise the house is in negative equity immediately.

sbsquarepants

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's total rubbish. It really is. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain value vs price to you but if the valuer is going to agree that the banks should give a mortgage for any property then he has no reason to have a job in the first place

So why is it house prices go up and down, if they have some sort of intrinsic value?
What decides this value?

When the valuer says "this house is worth X amount" what he means is "the average house buyer would be both willing & able to pay X amount"
It has nothing to do with actual physical "value"