Has property gone mad again

myshirt

trobbin wrote: »

So can banks give 4/4.5 in January, but only 3/3.5 rest of year? I've never heard of this. Would make sense with prices having sharply in creased over the last few months.

A certain portion of their lending can be above the 3.5 times limit.

koheim

limnam wrote: »

Maybe I'm struggling to read the report.

It shows average earnings of 36k

which leaves you 18k short combined to buy 400k+

in fact even a combined income of 100k only gives 350k on lti

You must be, look further down. Here is a copy and paste "
Average annual earnings for full-time employees in 2015 were €45,075"

limnam

koheim wrote: »

You must be, look further down. Here is a copy and paste "
Average annual earnings for full-time employees in 2015 were €45,075"

Which on LTI will give you 315k. Still a long way way from 400-450k

limnam

ThisRegard wrote: »

That'll probably down to your age being in your 20s. I don't know any FTB'ers in my age group, they're all trading up.

In my age group they're all straddled with debt and in negative equity.

or bankrupt.

:pac:

NinjaTruncs

limnam wrote: »

Which on LTI will give you 315k. Still a long way way from 400-450k

But the 20% deposit will bring you to 400k

limnam

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

But the 20% deposit will bring you to 400k

Get you to about 375.

Saving 62k while assuming you're renting in Dublin is no easy task.

On average you'll have 1.5k going out the door a month on rent alone.

This is if you're lucky enough to have.

two people on the average, no kids. Don't smoke / drink

So yeah. If you got two hermits living at home childless.

it's doable.

I just don't see how there's enough to make it "average"

NinjaTruncs

limnam wrote: »

Get you to about 375.

Saving 62k while assuming you're renting in Dublin is no easy task.

On average you'll have 1.5k going out the door a month on rent alone.

This is if you're lucky enough to have.

two people on the average, no kids. Don't smoke / drink

So yeah. If you got two hermits living at home childless.

it's doable.

I just don't see how there's enough to make it "average"

The 20% is of the house price not the mortgage amount.

limnam

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

The 20% is of the house price not the mortgage amount.

Which makes it even higher..

e.g. harder to reach.

NinjaTruncs

limnam wrote: »

Which makes it even higher..

What? I was pointing out that someone who could get a mortgage of 315 pretty much could afford a 400k house as their 20% deposit would make up the rest of the amount.

Saving ability is something else, but if you are saving for a house and have a combined income of 90k, you should be able to save 10 - 15k a year imo. Even when paying rent.

limnam

looking at dafts report for q4 2016

Which seems have dublin between 290-350 which sounds a bit more "reasonable"

Yourself isit

ThisRegard wrote: »

People trading up, with reasonably good jobs could manage it handily enough.

Trading up from what? On general we are taking about first time buyers here are even some second time buyers are on negative equity.

400k isnt average. (And remember people used to be able to buy on below average salaries).

limnam

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

What? I was pointing out that someone who could get a mortgage of 315 pretty much could afford a 400k house as their 20% deposit would make up the rest of the amount.

Saving ability is something else, but if you are saving for a house and have a combined income of 90k, you should be able to save 10 - 15k a year imo. Even when paying rent.

Right and I'm pointing out it been higher means it's even harder to save it.

if you're saving 10k a year it's going to take ugh 6+ years

If you have kids, child care, car payments any sort of life it's going to take longer.

Samuel T. Cogley

It's not mental until it hit's one bed apartments. Come on you lads!!! I've a one bed I want to dump for 250K.

limnam

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's not mental until it hit's one bed apartments. Come on you lads!!! I've a one bed I want to dump for 250K.

I'll buy it if you threaten to increase it by 10k every month you can't sell it

cnocbui

No; 'mental' is when you sell your house, and on the day of settlement, the buyer flips it for a profit of €52 K on the same day (Auckland NZ).

Samuel T. Cogley

Joking aside 3 bed houses are sub 350K in D5,D7,D9 and D13 and Sub 275K in D10, D11, D12 and D15 according to the DAFT report for Q4 2016. I think those figures might be a little conservative. However working class people are going to have to get used to buying in working class areas. It's not unreasonable to assume a 60K household income yielding a mortgage of 210K. That puts the second range there within reach with people in upper end working class jobs able to broaden their reach into D5 and D7 if they wish.

It's starting to get out of hand, but I don't think it's there yet. If we want Dublin to be a successful capital, we'd better get used to capital city prices.

limnam

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Joking aside 3 bed houses are sub 350K in D5,D7,D9 and D13 and Sub 275K in D10, D11, D12 and D15 according to the DAFT report for Q4 2016. I think those figures might be a little conservative. However working class people are going to have to get used to buying in working class areas. It's not unreasonable to assume a 60K household income yielding a mortgage of 210K. That puts the second range there within reach with people in upper end working class jobs able to broaden their reach into D5 and D7 if they wish.

It's starting to get out of hand, but I don't think it's there yet. If we want Dublin to be a successful capital, we'd better get used to capital city prices.

Lets all just bail into longford :pac:

Samuel T. Cogley

limnam wrote: »

Lets all just bail into longford :pac:

I don't think areas connected by only road and the answer really but Balbriggan still has two bed apartments within reach of a couple on minimum wage.

Yourself isit

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Joking aside 3 bed houses are sub 350K in D5,D7,D9 and D13 and Sub 275K in D10, D11, D12 and D15 according to the DAFT report for Q4 2016. I think those figures might be a little conservative. However working class people are going to have to get used to buying in working class areas. It's not unreasonable to assume a 60K household income yielding a mortgage of 210K. That puts the second range there within reach with people in upper end working class jobs able to broaden their reach into D5 and D7 if they wish.

It's starting to get out of hand, but I don't think it's there yet. If we want Dublin to be a successful capital, we'd better get used to capital city prices.

The term "capital" is meaningless with regards to house prices. In some countries the capital has the highest house prices, in other countries it doesnt.

Why should we get used to high house prices and rent and how do high prices help the economy in general anyway? Why do Google employees benefit from paying more in rent? Why would that attract more FDI?

We can attract people and have cheap houses by building more houses.

Yourself isit

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I don't think areas connected by only road and the answer really but Balbriggan still has two bed apartments within reach of a couple on minimum wage.

Shunt the minimum wage workers (but the workers not the unemployed) out of the city?

Samuel T. Cogley

Yourself isit wrote: »

The term "capital" is meaningless with regards to house prices. In some countries the capital has the highest house prices, in other countries it doesnt.

Why should we get used to high house prices and rent and how do high prices help the economy in general anyway? Why do Google employees benefit from paying more in rent? Why would that attract more FDI?

We can attract people and have cheap houses by building more houses.

Simply because we're in the top ten countries GDP per capita and therefore thing are going to cost more. It's the type of industries and services we want to attract. Tech, Finance etc. This is centred around small areas, mainly in Dublin and while I'm all for building on a large scale it's not going to bring down house prices much inside the M50 as space is finite.

I also think people have a skewed view of how much property costs in major cities in the UK for example. Dublin hasn't gone mad when compared to some major cities in the UK.

Samuel T. Cogley

Yourself isit wrote: »

Shunt the minimum wage workers (but the workers not the unemployed) out of the city?

If you can find a way to deal with the massive social issues in Dublin City Centre which have been there since before Ireland was an independent nation you've my vote for Taoiseach.

Ghettoising people in Ballymun was a huge failure and no area of Dublin is going to want the services that would need to be distributed throughout the suburbs to deal with the people moved on. If you can find someway of moving people to Longford, Leitrim and Kerry that was going not going to cause riots, again please run!

Yourself isit

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Simply because we're in the top ten countries GDP per capita and therefore thing are going to cost more. It's the type of industries and services we want to attract. Tech, Finance etc. This is centred around small areas, mainly in Dublin and while I'm all for building on a large scale it's not going to bring down house prices much inside the M50 as space is finite.

I also think people have a skewed view of how much property costs in major cities in the UK for example. Dublin hasn't gone mad when compared to some major cities in the UK.

Except for London it has. And the UK is just one country. Property in Germany has historically been stable.

And at a time when house prices are historically out of kilter relative to wages in some countries and cities (and causing several problems in all of them) we shouldn't really be copying them, AGAIN.

We've alreasy seen the human misery caused by high house prices already, it's pretty annoying when the same arguments that were common on 2006 are being produced now.

Yourself isit

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If you can find a way to deal with the massive social issues in Dublin City Centre which have been there since before Ireland was an independent nation you've my vote for Taoiseach.

Ghettoising people in Ballymun was a huge failure and no area of Dublin is going to want the services that would need to be distributed throughout the suburbs to deal with the people moved on. If you can find someway of moving people to Longford, Leitrim and Kerry that was going not going to cause riots, again please run!

I'm suggesting we build housing in the centre of Dublin, there's plenty of brown fields and dereliction. No idea why you think I'm on favour of moving people to Longford - you're the one suggesting ballbriggan .

Samuel T. Cogley

Yourself isit wrote: »

Except for London it has. And the UK is just one country. Property in Germany has historically been stable.

And at a time when house prices are historically out of kilter relative to wages in some countries and cities (and causing several problems in all of them) we shouldn't really be copying them, AGAIN.

We've alreasy seen the human misery caused by high house prices already, it's pretty annoying when the same arguments that were common on 2006 are being produced now.

The boom around 2006 was caused by ridiculous credit availability. If we're seeing prices return to those levels (we're not there yet around c30% to go IIRC) then it's down to the market finding a rate for property in the centre and close to centre suburbs. Frankly 350K is not unreasonable for a 3 bed house, given relative incomes.

Yes it would be fantastic if we could have high incomes and low living costs. It doesn't happen like that in the majority of cases. Germany is 18th in GDP per capita and is almost $20K behind Ireland. Now my understanding of Berlin districts is limited to good pints and certain other establishments but prices seem to range between 4K per sq.m and above*. That would be roughly equivalent to Dublin pricing.

* The median asking price in Fried richs hainKreuzberg, €3,926 per square metre

Turning to the UK the taking Manchester 3 bed semi-D £193,278 or roughly €220K. That's obviously cheaper than Dublin, but that's a Northern UK city that typically would be a different Economy to Dublin. It's very difficult to price the SE of England as London commuting can be upwards of 75 miles but taking Oxfordshire £366,811 is the average for a semi detached according to google. Dublin falling somewhere in between the two would seem to indicate 'madness' has not been reached.

Yourself isit wrote: »

I'm suggesting we build housing in the centre of Dublin, there's plenty of brown fields and dereliction. No idea why you think I'm on favour of moving people to Longford - you're the one suggesting ballbriggan .

By all means build in Dublin, supply is a massive issue. However don't expect it to result in massive price reductions. At best it will stabilise Dublin prices that's after areas in D5 and D12 and a likes see sharp gains in the next 2 - 3 years as people are forced out of other areas and realise there's value to be had by looking at other areas.

It's not unreasonable for people in minimum wage jobs to be a 30-40 minute easy commute from the centre of a major metropolitan area.

ThisRegard

Yourself isit wrote: »

Trading up from what? On general we are taking about first time buyers here are even some second time buyers are on negative equity.

400k isnt average. (And remember people used to be able to buy on below average salaries).

Not everyone is in negative equity. If you bought in the early, or mid at the latest, 2000's, at worse your house is worth what you paid but you'll be around half way into the mortgage giving you​ a reasonable amount of equity.

Samuel T. Cogley

ThisRegard wrote: »

Not everyone is in negative equity. If you bought in the early, or mid at the latest, 2000's, at worse your house is worth what you paid but you'll be around half way into the mortgage giving you​ a reasonable amount of equity.

Huge pent up demand for trading up - we'd waiting 3 or 4 years longer than we expected too. In the end we didn't trade up, we just bought a house and kept the apartment on but as you've pointed out above other's would have been in a position to trade up.

cnocbui

ThisRegard wrote: »

Not everyone is in negative equity. If you bought in the early, or mid at the latest, 2000's, at worse your house is worth what you paid but you'll be around half way into the mortgage giving you​ a reasonable amount of equity.

That's great, only lost 37.2% of the capital to CPI increase then.

Hollister11

My folks bought a house for 650K, and it's not worth 500K. In 2012 it was worth 375K, so yea there's that,

ThisRegard

cnocbui wrote: »

That's great, only lost 37.2% of the capital to CPI increase then.

I don't know what your point is.