ESRI report - we are not overcooked, but house prices will rise 20% by 2020

Ronaldinho

server down wrote: »

Anyone understand why the ratio of house prices to disposable income would have fallen from 1.2 to 0.7? Prices are almost where they were. While inflation has been low taxes are higher. Doesn’t compute.

If you look at the CSO's residential property index it's about 30 points off the highs at the beginning of 2007.

Rough numbers would be 130.5 / 103.1 for end Q3 2017 and 94.3 / 117.1 at end Q2 2017. The divisors being the disposable income index.

waxon-waxoff

I get the impression that many with an interest in property believe a slow down will happen within a decade. For this reason they want to sell now prices are strong, or maximise rent to cushion the fall that will inevitably come.

With the demand that is there at the moment, i wouldnt imagine that it would go as severe as the last property crash. But, Brexit could yet be a disaster and cause a recession here again.

server down

Ronaldinho wrote: »

If you look at the CSO's residential property index it's about 30 points off the highs at the beginning of 2007.

Rough numbers would be 130.5 / 103.1 for end Q3 2017 and 94.3 / 117.1 at end Q2 2017. The divisors being the disposable income index.

I assume the first Q3 is 2006.

Hmm. This wouldn’t apply to Dublin property. And you know I’m not so sure about disposable income increasing by that much. I know wages have increased in recent years but not by a lot after a fall and taxes are still higher.

The_Conductor

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

I get the impression that many with an interest in property believe a slow down will happen within a decade. For this reason they want to sell now prices are strong, or maximise rent to cushion the fall that will inevitably come.

With the demand that is there at the moment, i wouldnt imagine that it would go as severe as the last property crash. But, Brexit could yet be a disaster and cause a recession here again.

Doubt it- most commentators are still predicting full employment in Ireland despite Brexit (this is an unemployment rate of 4.5%- which is a level at which no matter how many jobs there are out there- unemployment just doesn't fall below).

As for will property slow down in the next few years- the writing is on the wall. Fairly conservative commentators are acknowleging the ESRI's suggestion of a 20% increase over the next 3 years- is plausible (and some are suggesting that at an average increase of between 6-7% per annum its 'sustainable')- yet, the simple fact of the matter is- who among us is going to get a 20% payrise over the next 3 years- never mind the next decade?

Within the next decade- the number of retired or invalided in our population will double from 2014 levels- thats simply following the demographic trends. So- if the number of dependents in the population doubles, and wages don't keep pace with inflation (which is currently the case)- the pointer are all towards a crash- whether its sudden and stark- or gentle in nature- who knows- I know I'm not going to offer an opinion.

We can defer some of this hurt a little- by constantly pushing out the retirement age- however, there is a point at which this is just no longer plausible (wholly aside from the fact that you have large numbers of people paying PRSI into what they consider to be a contributory pension- who are going to expect to able to retire at some stage).

We have a world of hurt coming down the line- when it'll hit- is debateable- however, it is like a train coming down the tracks at us.

server down

The_Conductor wrote: »

Doubt it- most commentators are still predicting full employment in Ireland despite Brexit (this is an unemployment rate of 4.5%- which is a level at which no matter how many jobs there are out there- unemployment just doesn't fall below).

As for will property slow down in the next few years- the writing is on the wall. Fairly conservative commentators are acknowleging the ESRI's suggestion of a 20% increase over the next 3 years- is plausible (and some are suggesting that at an average increase of between 6-7% per annum its 'sustainable')- yet, the simple fact of the matter is- who among us is going to get a 20% payrise over the next 3 years- never mind the next decade?

Within the next decade- the number of retired or invalided in our population will double from 2014 levels- thats simply following the demographic trends. So- if the number of dependents in the population doubles, and wages don't keep pace with inflation (which is currently the case)- the pointer are all towards a crash- whether its sudden and stark- or gentle in nature- who knows- I know I'm not going to offer an opinion.

We can defer some of this hurt a little- by constantly pushing out the retirement age- however, there is a point at which this is just no longer plausible (wholly aside from the fact that you have large numbers of people paying PRSI into what they consider to be a contributory pension- who are going to expect to able to retire at some stage).

We have a world of hurt coming down the line- when it'll hit- is debateable- however, it is like a train coming down the tracks at us.

Doubling in 10 years? That would mean there’s as many people between 55+65 as there are 65+.

The Student

The_Conductor wrote: »

Doubt it- most commentators are still predicting full employment in Ireland despite Brexit (this is an unemployment rate of 4.5%- which is a level at which no matter how many jobs there are out there- unemployment just doesn't fall below).

As for will property slow down in the next few years- the writing is on the wall. Fairly conservative commentators are acknowleging the ESRI's suggestion of a 20% increase over the next 3 years- is plausible (and some are suggesting that at an average increase of between 6-7% per annum its 'sustainable')- yet, the simple fact of the matter is- who among us is going to get a 20% payrise over the next 3 years- never mind the next decade?

Within the next decade- the number of retired or invalided in our population will double from 2014 levels- thats simply following the demographic trends. So- if the number of dependents in the population doubles, and wages don't keep pace with inflation (which is currently the case)- the pointer are all towards a crash- whether its sudden and stark- or gentle in nature- who knows- I know I'm not going to offer an opinion.

We can defer some of this hurt a little- by constantly pushing out the retirement age- however, there is a point at which this is just no longer plausible (wholly aside from the fact that you have large numbers of people paying PRSI into what they consider to be a contributory pension- who are going to expect to able to retire at some stage).

We have a world of hurt coming down the line- when it'll hit- is debateable- however, it is like a train coming down the tracks at us.

I am not sure of a crash personally. We still have a relatively young workforce who are well educated and we still dont know how Brexit will pan out. I suspect we will see the prices in Dublin etc remaining high not rising dramatically and only those who can afford to buy in dublin will. With the pent up demand the urban sprawl is set to continue. I suspect Dublin prices will only show modest increase whereas outside Dublin (commuter areas) will see price increase.

Those who in the past would have bought in Dublin and are priced out of the market so are forced out.

Unless we change our repossession laws prices will not drop as banks need to ensure prices remain high enough to cover the outstanding mortgage. We still have very few repossessions for a normal functioning market and with our unique relationship with property banks wont be able to repossess to recover outstanding mortgages.

Cyrus

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

I think that some people responded to your post along the notion of want rather than need.

Well, you are a professional, worked your way up to be where you are. Is what you "need" really applicable here??! Really?!!

People who are working hard and smart can reasonably expect to have what they "want" not only what they "need".

Where do we draw your imaginary line ? Should all professionals who work hard and smart reasonably expect a nice family house in Ballsbridge ?

kippy

The Student wrote: »

My comments would not cover every person but they would account for the majority. There will always be extremes unique situations which yours would appear to be one.

I note that another poster has questioned need v want. I would have to agree with them. You need a roof over your head, you want that roof to be in Dublin and you want it to be a two bedroom property.

With a properly functioning market you would be allowed use your resources to compete for you want but because of State interference you are been denied the opportunity to compete for the two bed property on a level footing because the State is pricing you out of the market because of its subsidies it is giving to house others.

Show me one country in the first world where the market determines the baselines without state interference.
You are outlining one policy of the state but the state have multiple policies and methods of directly and indirectly effecting property and associated costs. This is the same in every country in the world.

ArnieSilvia

Cyrus wrote:

Where do we draw your imaginary line ? Should all professionals who work hard and smart reasonably expect a nice family house in Ballsbridge ?

My line is that I expect to live in a house that is better than the council house that are given out for free. Nothing wrong with the idea of council house (I even had one) but there must be reward for getting up in the morning.

The policies and planning should support both council houses and nicer houses otherwise we would live in the world of 5-10% owning mansions and the rest living 3 generations in one 80sqm house. Wasn't it like that in Ireland before WW2?

Unfortunately, the way I see the things going in Ireland is that middle is getting squeezed more and more making no real difference between being a professional and someone milking the system. For example, I see lots of professionals from my estate every day leaving 7am and back 7-9pm only to live a very modest life, with kids in creche (both parents working obviously), old car, no house upgrades, no fancy holidays.

These professionals live in houses bought for 220k 3 years ago and these should cost LESS today, not more (due to less real disposable income as they report themselves including myself). Prices of property going up in these circumstances is a proof of what Keynes discovered ages ago - people don't make reasonable decisions.

On the contrary, I could have still lived happily in my council house in the countryside, cashing 370 weekly, back to school allowance etc and having a nice social circle. I'm exploring this idea as we speak. This time I would be rent free though so even better.

keane2097

Cyrus wrote: »

Where do we draw your imaginary line ? Should all professionals who work hard and smart reasonably expect a nice family house in Ballsbridge ?

The fact that drawing a line somewhere takes a bit of thought does not mean we can't or shouldn't agree that something more than a roof and four walls is a reasonable thing for a hard working person to expect in an advanced, prosperous nation in the 21st century.

Cyrus

keane2097 wrote: »

The fact that drawing a line somewhere takes a bit of thought does not mean we can't or shouldn't agree that something more than a roof and four walls is a reasonable thing for a hard working person to expect in an advanced, prosperous nation in the 21st century.

But it's perfectly achievable

Just maybe not in the exact location people want

The Student

kippy wrote: »

Show me one country in the first world where the market determines the baselines without state interference.
You are outlining one policy of the state but the state have multiple policies and methods of directly and indirectly effecting property and associated costs. This is the same in every country in the world.

The State has a responsibility for enforcing health and safety etc. It should not interfere with pricing or subsidizing rents.

Demand exists for property. We have people who can afford to buy but cant afford to rent. They cant afford to rent simply because of the subsidies the State give some parts of society. With a functioning market supply would increase to meet demand. This is a basic concept of a functioning market. Why aren't more properties being built so.

The UK have a similar housing issue to Ireland. They are now adopting a policy of housing benefit being capped at a given level. So you are given a set level if you want to live somewhere that the rent is higher you need to make up the difference.

The UK also have a faster eviction process something which the Irish State refuses to embrace.

The Student

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

My line is that I expect to live in a house that is better than the council house that are given out for free. Nothing wrong with the idea of council house (I even had one) but there must be reward for getting up in the morning.

The policies and planning should support both council houses and nicer houses otherwise we would live in the world of 5-10% owning mansions and the rest living 3 generations in one 80sqm house. Wasn't it like that in Ireland before WW2?

Unfortunately, the way I see the things going in Ireland is that middle is getting squeezed more and more making no real difference between being a professional and someone milking the system. For example, I see lots of professionals from my estate every day leaving 7am and back 7-9pm only to live a very modest life, with kids in creche (both parents working obviously), old car, no house upgrades, no fancy holidays.

These professionals live in houses bought for 220k 3 years ago and these should cost LESS today, not more (due to less real disposable income as they report themselves including myself). Prices of property going up in these circumstances is a proof of what Keynes discovered ages ago - people don't make reasonable decisions.

On the contrary, I could have still lived happily in my council house in the countryside, cashing 370 weekly, back to school allowance etc and having a nice social circle. I'm exploring this idea as we speak. This time I would be rent free though so even better.

Completely agree. I see it myself every morning. People don't make reasonable decisions they make selfish ones!

Wanderer78

The Student wrote:

Demand exists for property. We have people who can afford to buy but cant afford to rent. They cant afford to rent simply because of the subsidies the State give some parts of society. With a functioning market supply would increase to meet demand. This is a basic concept of a functioning market. Why aren't more properties being built so.

...and again, neoclassical theory is a bust, supply and demand curves are a myth, particularly in relation to housing. We really need to move on from this notion of 'market equilibrium', it doesn't exist, it never has.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and again, neoclassical theory is a bust, supply and demand curves are a myth, particularly in relation to housing. We really need to move on from this notion of 'market equilibrium', it doesn't exist, it never has.

What then do you suggest?

Wanderer78

The Student wrote: »

What then do you suggest?

this is a great question, the simply answer is, i dont know. i dont know where we go from here, but i do think we firstly have to admit, theres something fundamentally going wrong with our thinking regarding housing, and we re not alone. housing seems to be one of the most common problems in countries that have adapted the free market system. i do think theres now sufficient evidence that shows the standard model fails, and very badly at times to address our housing issues. its a very complex problem but as ive tried to explain, and probably badly, our current approach is harming many including landlords and tenents.

i actually do find myself agreeing with some of what you have been saying throughout the thread, but i do think, we dont actually really know what to do next, that the issues that have been created from the standard model are now so complex, we re quickly running out of options in what to do next, but there are interesting ideas out there such as cooperative building, changing planning laws so that we start to build higher in urban areas, reducing building standards in order to help reduce building costs. i do think we need to change our thinking regarding housing, and the language we now use to describe it must change to, language such as 'the property ladder'. this is nonsense, people need homes not investments, but i will agree with you, investors such as landlords need to be protected as well as they take on massive risk. its a very complicated one, with no clear solutions, but it is disturbing to watch our housing/homeless situation develop.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this is a great question, the simply answer is, i dont know. i dont know where we go from here, but i do think we firstly have to admit, theres something fundamentally going wrong with our thinking regarding housing, and we re not alone. housing seems to be one of the most common problems in countries that have adapted the free market system. i do think theres now sufficient evidence that shows the standard model fails, and very badly at times to address our housing issues. its a very complex problem but as ive tried to explain, and probably badly, our current approach is harming many including landlords and tenents.

i actually do find myself agreeing with some of what you have been saying throughout the thread, but i do think, we dont actually really know what to do next, that the issues that have been created from the standard model are now so complex, we re quickly running out of options in what to do next, but there are interesting ideas out there such as cooperative building, changing planning laws so that we start to build higher in urban areas, reducing building standards in order to help reduce building costs. i do think we need to change our thinking regarding housing, and the language we now use to describe it must change to, language such as 'the property ladder'. this is nonsense, people need homes not investments, but i will agree with you, investors such as landlords need to be protected as well as they take on massive risk. its a very complicated one, with no clear solutions, but it is disturbing to watch our housing/homeless situation develop.

The housing issue is a consequence of deeper societal issues.People have to take some responsibility for themselves. I don't agree with people turning 18 and going on the housing list. Try to support yourself and if you reach your mid 30s and can't then go on the list at that point.

Property can be seen as an investment that could give steady returns for the Landlord as well as security of long tenure for tenants. But with our particular relationship with property going back to the tenements of the early 20th century the simple mention of the word landlord brings about scorn and contempt. Remember the State is a landlord as well. The rental market works in other EU countries much better than it does here.

You only have to look at the REITS, they in the main are pension funds looking for steady returns.

The market does not fail when properly regulated for all concerned. People are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. Council estates have bad reputations because of a handful of individuals who ruin areas for the majority of decent hardworking people. But yet the State has a responsibility to house everybody no matter what they do. People should be held accountable.

A recent post (which I agreed with) highlights how the middle classed are being squeezed and the poster is considering giving up work specifically because those who don't work have a better standard of living. So rather than encouraging people to contribute to society the system is encouraging people not too so they can be better off.

If we all adopted that approach then where would we be.

My personal reason for becoming a landlord was so I would have an income when I retired so I would not be a burden on the State but yet I get punished for it.

The Student

homerjay2005 wrote: »

this is shocking, these people are cheating the system and inflating "homeless" figures and in turn then, this propaganda is being pushed onto us as if we have 1 million living on the streets when the reality is, its about 200, of which most are in Dublin due to no other reason apart from addiction issues.

The councilor who made the comment was Jimmy Guerin

scouserstation

The Student wrote: »

The housing issue is a consequence of deeper societal issues.People have to take some responsibility for themselves. I don't agree with people turning 18 and going on the housing list. Try to support yourself and if you reach your mid 30s and can't then go on the list at that point.

Property can be seen as an investment that could give steady returns for the Landlord as well as security of long tenure for tenants. But with our particular relationship with property going back to the tenements of the early 20th century the simple mention of the word landlord brings about scorn and contempt. Remember the State is a landlord as well. The rental market works in other EU countries much better than it does here.

You only have to look at the REITS, they in the main are pension funds looking for steady returns.

The market does not fail when properly regulated for all concerned. People are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. Council estates have bad reputations because of a handful of individuals who ruin areas for the majority of decent hardworking people. But yet the State has a responsibility to house everybody no matter what they do. People should be held accountable.

A recent post (which I agreed with) highlights how the middle classed are being squeezed and the poster is considering giving up work specifically because those who don't work have a better standard of living. So rather than encouraging people to contribute to society the system is encouraging people not too so they can be better off.

If we all adopted that approach then where would we be.

My personal reason for becoming a landlord was so I would have an income when I retired so I would not be a burden on the State but yet I get punished for it.

Completely agree with this, if those families who constantly engage in anti social and criminal behaviour were threatened with homelessness this could change their attitude, i would imagine getting your house taken from you would be a bigger deterrent than prison for some of these people.

We currently have a system where you can live for free off the state in a nice house of your choosing and never work a day in your life, yet people who are getting up early in the morning and working hard for a living have to struggle to pay rent or to save for a deposit to buy a basic sized house. Is it any wonder people are considering the option of just not bothering to get a job.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this is a great question, the simply answer is, i dont know. i dont know where we go from here, but i do think we firstly have to admit, theres something fundamentally going wrong with our thinking regarding housing, and we re not alone. housing seems to be one of the most common problems in countries that have adapted the free market system. i do think theres now sufficient evidence that shows the standard model fails, and very badly at times to address our housing issues. its a very complex problem but as ive tried to explain, and probably badly, our current approach is harming many including landlords and tenents.

i actually do find myself agreeing with some of what you have been saying throughout the thread, but i do think, we dont actually really know what to do next, that the issues that have been created from the standard model are now so complex, we re quickly running out of options in what to do next, but there are interesting ideas out there such as cooperative building, changing planning laws so that we start to build higher in urban areas, reducing building standards in order to help reduce building costs. i do think we need to change our thinking regarding housing, and the language we now use to describe it must change to, language such as 'the property ladder'. this is nonsense, people need homes not investments, but i will agree with you, investors such as landlords need to be protected as well as they take on massive risk. its a very complicated one, with no clear solutions, but it is disturbing to watch our housing/homeless situation develop.

I seen this from another tread and had to share it

https://m.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/the-right-moves-has-the-government-learned-nothing-from-the-disastrous-crash-36344429.html