Is there any point?

Peregrinus

CruelCoin wrote: »

Which is fair for assuming 25/30 years worth of risk/maintenance/paperwork etc.

The owner-occupier assumes 25/30 years worth of risk/maintenance/paperwork etc, but doesn't get a free house out of it.

CruelCoin

Peregrinus wrote: »

The owner-occupier assumes 25/30 years worth of risk/maintenance/paperwork etc, but doesn't get a free house out of it.

And this is going in circles.
One side arguing that there should be a market determined profit, the other arguing that there shouldn't be a profit, which is essentially communism.

Excuse me, i must go gather more wheat for the motherland.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

The owner-occupier assumes 25/30 years worth of risk/maintenance/paperwork etc, but doesn't get a free house out of it.

Occupier also gets to live in the house.

martineatworld

CruelCoin wrote: »

And this is going in circles.
One side arguing that there should be a market determined profit, the other arguing that there shouldn't be a profit, which is essentially communism.

Excuse me, i must go gather more wheat for the motherland.

He's not saying that they don't deserve a profit, he's saying that the rent shouldn't cover all the mortgage. You've completely misconstrued.

His argument is that rent after tax shouldn't cover the full mortgage, so that the owner will have to contribute towards the mortgage.
But then the owner has an asset at the end that will be worth something that they can realise a profit with.

Rifter

Abu94 wrote: »

House for sale for 160 000, literally someone bid to 210 000 in 2 days and I can guarantee that it is still increasing. Absolutely pathetic that someone is willing to bid such amounts for a ****ty 2 bedroom house that needs a complete renovation. I don't even see the point in trying anymore, literally some smooth operator will come and offer insane amounts over the asking price almost immediately. Are any houses even sold anymore at the asking price? When looking for a house I can immediately add an absolute minimum of 25% over the asking price. If nobody made such stupid offers then the prices would go down.

Anecdotal but myself and my OH have been viewing/bidding on houses since February. I've lost count of how many we've viewed. We were sale agreed on 1 house but we let it go after the engineers report, we weren't prpared to carry the costs(if we had more cash we probably woukd have but we didn't)

On the last house we bid on it was advertised at 200k, low for our area, so we had an idea we'd probably be bidding up close to our max.
After 3 weeks we were the highest bid at 230k, 2 weeks later I had to ring the EA and the gist of the conversation was this

Myself: "Hi, Im just enquiring about our bid?"
EA: "You're still the highest!"
Myself: "Oh, is it not enough?"
EA: "Tbh, no the vendor thought they'd get more!"
Myself: "Well if we're the highest bidder, how much more to seal it then?"
(at this point i'd figured maybe another 5k, we could afford it, would seal it)
EA: "The vendor won't sell below 250k"
Myself: "Oh right, well we were prepared to offer a little more, but it doesn't matter if they want that much more than our offer....."

Bottom line is while we have been outbid on a few houses, those are the breaks, some people are unwilling to accept their home isn't "worth" what they think or are being told it is!!

And that situation has occured on 3 other properties!!

All 4 are still on daft because the vendor wouldnt accept the highest offer!!!

jamesthepeach

Rifter wrote: »

Anecdotal but myself and my OH have been viewing/bidding on houses since February. I've lost count of how many we've viewed. We were sale agreed on 1 house but we let it go after the engineers report, we weren't prpared to carry the costs(if we had more cash we probably woukd have but we didn't)

On the last house we bid on it was advertised at 200k, low for our area, so we had an idea we'd probably be bidding up close to our max.
After 3 weeks we were the highest bid at 230k, 2 weeks later I had to ring the EA and the gist of the conversation was this

Myself: "Hi, Im just enquiring about our bid?"
EA: "You're still the highest!"
Myself: "Oh, is it not enough?"
EA: "Tbh, no the vendor thought they'd get more!"
Myself: "Well if we're the highest bidder, how much more to seal it then?"
(at this point i'd figured maybe another 5k, we could afford it, would seal it)
EA: "The vendor won't sell below 250k"
Myself: "Oh right, well we were prepared to offer a little more, but it doesn't matter if they want that much more than our offer....."

Bottom line is while we have been outbid on a few houses, those are the breaks, some people are unwilling to accept their home isn't "worth" what they think or are being told it is!!

And that situation has occured on 3 other properties!!

All 4 are still on daft because the vendor wouldnt accept the highest offer!!!

If the vendors aren't rushed then they have the luxury of waiting. However if prices fall they will lose, so it really depends which way they think prices are going for the next few years.

If they thought they might fall they would be back to you like a shot at your original offer.

Rifter

jamesthepeach wrote: »

If the vendors aren't rushed then they have the luxury of waiting. However if prices fall they will lose, so it really depends which way they think prices are going for the next few years.

If they thought they might fall they would be back to you like a shot at your original offer.

Well if the last 12 months is anything to go by they can expect to get well north of 250k after xmas, not because the house is "worth" that but because thats been the trend so far and there are no new builds in the area!!

jamesthepeach

Rifter wrote: »

Well if the last 12 months is anything to go by they can expect to get well north of 250k after xmas, not because the house is "worth" that but because thats been the trend so far and there are no new builds in the area!!

Are you talking about market value?
We all know what any property is worth at any point in time. That would be the price it sells at.
What value we feel it's worth has absolutely nothing to do with the real value. That would be the sale price that marks that value.
If nobody is interested at a price e point it won't sell. It's not worth that price then. If it does sell at that price then obviously it was worth that price.

Rifter

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Are you talking about market value?
We all know what any property is worth at any point in time. That would be the price it sells at.
What value we feel it's worth has absolutely nothing to do with the real value. That would be the sale price that marks that value.
If nobody is interested at a price e point it won't sell. It's not worth that price then. If it does sell at that price then obviously it was worth that price.

No just the seemingly unending upward trend in prices

gaius c

jamesthepeach wrote: »

If the vendors aren't rushed then they have the luxury of waiting. However if prices fall they will lose, so it really depends which way they think prices are going for the next few years.

If they thought they might fall they would be back to you like a shot at your original offer.

They might have an outstanding mortgage to pay off. It's happening a lot and it's effectively holding the market to ransom.

jamesthepeach

gaius c wrote: »

They might have an outstanding mortgage to pay off. It's happening a lot and it's effectively holding the market to ransom.

I believe it's more people seeing prices keep rising so have the expectation of it running away again. Also the money the govt is throwing at the market needs to be removed too.

qrx

jamesthepeach wrote: »

If the vendors aren't rushed then they have the luxury of waiting. However if prices fall they will lose, so it really depends which way they think prices are going for the next few years.

If they thought they might fall they would be back to you like a shot at your original offer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at some point the EA has to realise the price has gone high enough. Ultimately the purchasers bank will have the final say on what it's worth. They also risk the purchasers moving on or with the extra cooling off period realising what madness they have got themselves involved in.

LirW

The EA works for the vendor. If the vendor is stubborn and wants to leave the house on the market or stay put, then the EA has to play along. My former neighbor had his house sitting on the market for almost 15 months, because we wanted a certain amount, was in no rush to sell, had some unrealistic expectation but eventually got almost what he was asking for, the market played in his favour. And that in a quite desirable part of Dublin.
In many cases it's elderly people that want or have to move on but aren't rushed until the price is right or couples that split and can't find an agreement. These two groups tend drag that process foreeeever.

BarryD2

Peregrinus wrote: »

I repeat; there's no reason why tenants should be willing to bear the full cost of buying houses, given that they're not buying houses and are (ideally) in the rental market because they have no wish to buy houses. What they want is a much more limited interest in a house. Their rent will of course contribute to the cost of buying the house but, in an efficient market, it shouldn't cover the full cost.

I couldn't agree more. It seems to me that the Irish property market has too many part time landlords with this attitude. They expect to acquire a substantial asset but have someone else fund the purchase entirely. I don't know how it can be tackled, maybe it requires a rethink of our constitution and legislation.

Alternatively a considerable increase in supply of rentable accommodation would drive rents down and stymy this greed. I also think the state and financial institutions need to be merciless when dealing with buy to lets who run into repayment problems.

Sad Professor

BarryD2 wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. It seems to me that the Irish property market has too many part time landlords with this attitude. They expect to acquire a substantial asset but have someone else fund the purchase entirely. I don't know how it can be tackled, maybe it requires a rethink of our constitution and legislation.

Alternatively a considerable increase in supply of rentable accommodation would drive rents down and stymy this greed. I also think the state and financial institutions need to be merciless when dealing with buy to lets who run into repayment problems.

I think increases in rent regulation and security of tenure (both of which are necessary to pacify wannabe homeowners and prevent the homelessness problem spiralling out of control) will gradually drive out a lot of these landlords to be replaced by bigger, cash-rich investors.

Increasing supply to meet demand and lower rents won't happen IMO, at least not under the current govt. The are depending on Kennedy Wilson, Irish REIT, etc to build rental accommodation. This pretty much guarantees that rents won't be allowed to fall.

CruelCoin

Rifter wrote: »

All 4 are still on daft because the vendor wouldnt accept the highest offer!!!

Won't be long for them mind you.

House prices growing at what, 10% annually?

They'll bridge the 230-250k gap inside the year.

Peregrinus

CruelCoin wrote: »

And this is going in circles.
One side arguing that there should be a market determined profit, the other arguing that there shouldn't be a profit, which is essentially communism.

Excuse me, i must go gather more wheat for the motherland.

There's not much point in having a conversation with somebody whose posts you are not prepared to read, Cruelcoin. I never said there shouldn't be a profit; on the contrary, I said there should. But you're trying to insist that there should be a profit even if you treat the cost of acquiring the asset as an expense of the enterprise, while refusing to include the residual value of the asset as part of the return from the enterprise. That may not be communism, but it certainly shares the approach to economics - a flat refusal to think clearly - which made communism such a roaring success.

Good luck with the wheat gathering!

martingriff

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think increases in rent regulation and security of tenure (both of which are necessary to pacify wannabe homeowners and prevent the homelessness problem spiralling out of control) will gradually drive out a lot of these landlords to be replaced by bigger, cash-rich investors.

Increasing supply to meet demand and lower rents won't happen IMO, at least not under the current govt. The are depending on Kennedy Wilson, Irish REIT, etc to build rental accommodation. This pretty much guarantees that rents won't be allowed to fall.

It may be unpalatable for people to accept but what we need for supply to increase is builders and developers and yes some if not all may be the old names we hate but who else. Also stock need to be released by Nama unfortunately at the moment some can not be as it is either substandard or there is no jobs where those properties are. Before anyone mentions the Government who builds the houses for them. The 1 think the government can do is better infrastructure and make other place other then Dublin attractive for jobs to go to

sbsquarepants

Talking on the radio this morning about Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown Co Council refusing plans to build 470 apartments (3 blocks, each 12 storeys tall I think) in Sandyford, because apparently it's not in keeping with the area - yes I did say Sandyford!

While gobshíte County Councillors can still do this kind of thing, don't expect this problem to be solved anytime soon!

qrx

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Talking on the radio this morning about Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown Co Council refusing plans to build 470 apartments (3 blocks, each 12 storeys tall I think) in Sandyford, because apparently it's not in keeping with the area - yes I did say Sandyford!

While gobshíte County Councillors can still do this kind of thing, don't expect this problem to be solved anytime soon!

Was it not down to the layout and the substandard living standards it would bring?

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote:

While gobshíte County Councillors can still do this kind of thing, don't expect this problem to be solved anytime soon!

With our current approach, our homeless problem won't be solved, in fact it's just gonna keep getting worse

sbsquarepants

qrx wrote: »

Was it not down to the layout and the substandard living standards it would bring?

"Visually unacceptable" they said on the radio.

You'd swear Sandyford was some Unesco world heritage site!