Property Market 2019

Cyrus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I completely agree with you on the second hand home of 20% is way too high. 10% for everyone would be more logical. It makes it much harder for the second house.

only if its in negative equity.

mcbert

Day after no deal kicks in, papers full of doom and gloom, what are the chances the more expensive many-months-for-sale houses will accept a very low-ball offer? Worth a try I'm thinking...

Kamili

mcbert wrote: »

Day after no deal kicks in, papers full of doom and gloom, what are the chances the more expensive many-months-for-sale houses will accept a very low-ball offer? Worth a try I'm thinking...

I'm wondering if that scenario will happen, or if once brexit has passed and the uncertainty is gone so its business as usual and everything starts its upward climb again within a few months?

Basically - who knows!

fago

mcbert wrote: »

Day after no deal kicks in, papers full of doom and gloom, what are the chances the more expensive many-months-for-sale houses will accept a very low-ball offer? Worth a try I'm thinking...

We're in the situation where we've sold and are renting, and looking for a larger property.
What I've seen the last 3 months:
- places which need work sell and come back on the market sometimes twice
- places in good locations, well priced will sell and have multiple bidders willing to bid well beyond a fair market value.

We put in an offer approx 15% below asking on a place which after 2 months of no other bids has been accepted. I don't even know if that really qualifies as low ball, but it reflects a realistic valuation based on other properties in the area.
For low ball, you need a realistic seller and no one else competing. Which means a fixer upper or an unpopular location. And once you go beyond 400->450K there's alot less competing bidders.
A low ball bid is no harm, interest is registered and unless someone else comes along or withdrawn you are in the game.

Cyrus

mcbert wrote: »

Day after no deal kicks in, papers full of doom and gloom, what are the chances the more expensive many-months-for-sale houses will accept a very low-ball offer? Worth a try I'm thinking...

what are the chances the sellers of those houses are so personally impacted by brexit that they would knee jerk react in that way

Cyrus

fago wrote: »

- places in good locations, well priced will sell and have multiple bidders willing to bid well beyond a fair market value.

whats fair market value?

lleti

BrownFinger wrote: »

It means you cant buy now.
we needed 30k deposit (10%) but couldn't borrow 270K .
So we saved 60K for a deposit + a wedge for fees and taxes.

Someone on 40k can get 140k.

Some deposit you would need if you wanted a 2 bed apartment that wasn't a ****hole. If I wanted an apartment for 200k (which in fairness does not get much) I'd need a deposit of 60k.

You know what's going to happen if this continues? People in their 20's will team up with friends and get mortgages and then in 10 years time **** will hit the fan and the people have to suffer. But sure as long as the banks are protected...

lleti

BrownFinger wrote: »

It means you cant buy now.
we needed 30k deposit (10%) but couldn't borrow 270K .
So we saved 60K for a deposit + a wedge for fees and taxes.

"we" = a couple?

What about single people?

mcbert

Cyrus wrote: »

what are the chances the sellers of those houses are so personally impacted by brexit that they would knee jerk react in that way

Unlikely, but no harm trying.

I see places for sale since january or last year, maybe they've been holding out for Brexit to be solved with some deal, but then they are faced with talk of recession, food shortages and job losses. I'm no disaster capitalism, and think Brexit is madness but if it lets me afford something, its worth a try I think.

beauf

mcbert wrote: »

Unlikely, but no harm trying.

I see places for sale since january or last year, maybe they've been holding out for Brexit to be solved with some deal, but then they are faced with talk of recession, food shortages and job losses. I'm no disaster capitalism, and think Brexit is madness but if it lets me afford something, its worth a try I think.

..or more likely they see the market has peaked.

... and it's been obvious for about a year or more.

terrydel

JDD wrote: »

I was in the midst of it. Bought a house with family in the boom, plunged into negative equity for a long time. While waiting for the first property to emerge from negative equity I rented with my husband and children and as time went on, and childcare and rent payments went up, it became virtually impossible to save for a deposit to buy a house of our own. Luckily, we secured a deposit exemption and even still we needed a hefty contribution from our parents in order to buy. If we did not get the exemption or the gift from our parents we'd still be renting, paying €500 more than our mortgage payment.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a deposit ratio. I'm saying that I absolutely do not see the point of a higher one for second time buyers in circumstances where they do not still own their first home. 10% is a sensible cushion for everyone.

Holding people in a never ending state of renting does not stabilize property prices either. It just keeps the rental market artificially inflated and more attractive as an investment for institutional landlords.

In addition, you have to look at the bigger picture here. The longer we keep this situation going, the older the long-term renters get, and the less and less likely they will ever be able to get mortgage approval. Fast forward 20/30 years when these people retire, we're going to have an almighty problem on our hands when their pension payments (if they have one) won't cover market rent. House owners will not have the same exposure.

I'm very much in favour of the Central Bank rules. We'd be in an awful state right now without them. But I think it's a sensible plan to make an exemption for second time buyers who are long term renters. That's all.

Why would this be the case, you owned a home you could always have moved into at some stage? Renting by choice.

JJJackal

10% deposit makes sense if you only own one home at a time

I agree with 20% deposit if your buying a second home (and will have 2 mortgage) and the first one is for renting (and still has a mortgage). The risk is far greater

terrydel

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I completely agree with you on the second hand home of 20% is way too high. 10% for everyone would be more logical. It makes it much harder for the second house.

In a society where many people are struggling to get a home of any description, why should any consideration at all be given to helping people get their second home?

LiamoSail

terrydel wrote: »

In a society where many people are struggling to get a home of any description, why should any consideration at all be given to helping people get their second home?

Agree entirely. I saw a Dublin City Council worker earlier emptying a bin, and Firefighters rushing to an emergency. Why weren’t they out focusing their efforts on sorting the housing crisis?? Don’t these people realize that it’s apparently impossible to deal with two separate issues simultaneously??

The cheek of people to question the large deposits requirements for moving home. They should realize just how lucky they are as a family of four in cosy 1 bed apartment.

terrydel

LiamoSail wrote: »

Agree entirely. I saw a Dublin City Council worker earlier emptying a bin, and Firefighters rushing to an emergency. Why weren’t they out focusing their efforts on sorting the housing crisis?? Don’t these people realize that it’s apparently impossible to deal with two separate issues simultaneously??

The cheek of people to question the large deposits requirements for moving home. They should realize just how lucky they are as a family of four in cosy 1 bed apartment.

I was referring to people wanting to own a second home smartarse.

sweetie

terrydel wrote: »

In a society where many people are struggling to get a home of any description, why should any consideration at all be given to helping people get their second home?

I think there was sarcasm intended in that post

JDD

terrydel wrote: »

Why would this be the case, you owned a home you could always have moved into at some stage? Renting by choice.

Hard to fit a husband and three children into a two bed house that my two brothers were already living in.

In a society where many people are struggling to get a home of any description,
why should any consideration at all be given to helping people get their second
home?

I'm not looking to buy a second house to supplement my primary residence. This isn't a little investment property or a holiday home in Marbella. This was a mortgage for the house I intend to live in for the rest of my life and raise my family in. The fact that I happened to have bought a property in my twenties that I only owned a portion of, lost any of the money I put into it, and no longer own, shouldn't mean that I get treated any differently to a first time buyer.

LiamoSail

terrydel wrote: »

I was referring to people wanting to own a second home smartarse.

The discussion, and the point being made, was about movers, people intending on trading up. Non-first time buyers. People in these situations are having real difficulty, and are often left as accidental landlords with no way out

jam_mac_jam

terrydel wrote: »

I was referring to people wanting to own a second home smartarse.

I wasn't. I was talking about the second home you buy. So you are no longer a first time buyer. You need 20%. That is quite high. I am not talking about owning two houses.

beauf

It should be based on affordability and means. Not the number of times, you've been involved in property.

All these tweaks to rules distort the market so that its no longer a level playing field.

jam_mac_jam

JJJackal wrote: »

10% deposit makes sense if you only own one home at a time

I agree with 20% deposit if your buying a second home (and will have 2 mortgage) and the first one is for renting (and still has a mortgage). The risk is far greater

The 20% also applies if you only have one house.

Padre_Pio

lleti wrote: »

"we" = a couple?

What about single people?

What about single people? The rules don't differenciate between single and couple?

The discussion, and the point being made, was about movers, people intending on trading up. Non-first time buyers. People in these situations are having real difficulty, and are often left as accidental landlords with no way out

Surely if you are selling a house, a 20% deposit rule doesn't bother you, unless your current house is worth less than 20% of the new house?

terrydel

JDD wrote: »

Hard to fit a husband and three children into a two bed house that my two brothers were already living in.



I'm not looking to buy a second house to supplement my primary residence. This isn't a little investment property or a holiday home in Marbella. This was a mortgage for the house I intend to live in for the rest of my life and raise my family in. The fact that I happened to have bought a property in my twenties that I only owned a portion of, lost any of the money I put into it, and no longer own, shouldn't mean that I get treated any differently to a first time buyer.

Fair enough, that wasnt clear from your initial post.
My issue is with people wanting to buy a second property to become multiple property owners, they should be at the bottom of the list of people getting assistance.

duffman13

terrydel wrote: »

Fair enough, that wasnt clear from your initial post.
My issue is with people wanting to buy a second property to become multiple property owners, they should be at the bottom of the list of people getting assistance.

You need more than a 20% deposit to get an investment property. Investments don't get or warrant any assistance as is

JDD

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What about single people? The rules don't differenciate between single and couple?



Surely if you are selling a house, a 20% deposit rule doesn't bother you, unless your current house is worth less than 20% of the new house?

That would always be the case if you are trading up from an apartment, and certainly would be the case recently for any one selling a property bought between 2004 and 2008, as breaking even and clearing your mortgage would be lucky. It also assumes that the sellers of the first property are exactly the same as the buyers of a second property. For instance, my first property was owned three ways between myself and my brothers, my second property is owned by myself and my husband. So even if we had 20% equity in the first property, my portion of it would never have matched what we would needed to have put down for the second property.

terrydel

duffman13 wrote: »

You need more than a 20% deposit to get an investment property. Investments don't get or warrant any assistance as is

How much exactly?

duffman13

terrydel wrote: »

How much exactly?

30% is central bank guidelines, some lenders request more unless your very very financially sound.

lleti

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What about single people? The rules don't differenciate between single and couple?



Surely if you are selling a house, a 20% deposit rule doesn't bother you, unless your current house is worth less than 20% of the new house?

A single person has one income.

A couple has 2 incomes.

voluntary

jay0109 wrote: »

Soc Dems want the Mortgage rules relaxed

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/mortgage-rules-time-for-common-sense-1.4037927


Luckily they are a small fringe party and nonsense like this will be ignored

TBH, the 3.5x income rule must be the strictest in all the developed world.

Would a German style not be better suited?

"German residents can borrow up to 80% of the assessed value of the property, but non-residents can be limited to approximately 55–60% of the assessed value. Borrowers must also have an annual income in excess of €20,000. What's more, your monthly mortgage payments can never exceed 35% of your monthly income."


They're talking about monthly repayments limits as oppose to annual gross salary linked limits.
The German way is much more young people friendly. Young can buy houses before jumping on huge salaries.

voluntary

JDD wrote: »

In fairness to them, they're only asking for an exemption to the rules (and there are already exemptions) for long term renters who can prove that they can pay a stress tested mortgage payment.

While the multiple on salary is eminently sensible, I've never understood the 20% rule for all second time buyers. I think it is to prevent second time buyers from using equity in their first home to put a deposit down on an investment property. Renters fall completely out of this category. It's not the worst suggestion in the world.

20% rule for all second time buyers is imposed based on statistics and not on any form of justice. It's based on an assumption that a second time buyer is either:
a) buying a second (buy to let) property
b) has cash from a previous home sale

and ignores thousands who have neither property or cash.