Property Market 2020

Villa05

schmittel wrote:

Oversupply coming to a suburb near you, no need to listen to me, listen to Ronan Lyons instead:

That's the problem with the solely market driven property market. The market is building what the top 20/30% of income earners can afford/want.

What the market needs is 1 and 2 bed units plus an ability to upgrade and downgrade easily

awec

Villa05 wrote: »

That's the problem with the solely market driven property market. The market is building what the top 20/30% of income earners can afford/want.

What the market needs is 1 and 2 bed units plus an ability to upgrade and downgrade easily

We have come full circle!

Post 2008: "we need to stop with the starter homes, people should just buy property they want to live in and stop speculating on value increases to fund bigger purchases down the line".

2020: "we need to stop with the forever homes, people should buy starter homes and trade up instead".

cnocbui

Villa05 wrote: »

That's the problem with the solely market driven property market. The market is building what the top 20/30% of income earners can afford/want.

What the market needs is 1 and 2 bed units plus an ability to upgrade and downgrade easily

What would be your idealised pricing of these units?

GreeBo

cnocbui wrote: »

He's changed his tune:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/realestate/real-estate-in-dublin-ireland.html

ooof...awkward!

So did we build more than the 50K house a year he was asking for and so we no longer need them? Maybe we did and I just missed it.

JimmyVik

awec wrote: »

It actually is inaccurate if it's the same metholodogy. I'm not trying to rubbish you and hope you don't give up, as you post some good stuff on here.

But as posted before, the recent census showed thousands of vacant properties in a particular Dublin council. The council took it upon itself to verify the figures and found that the overwhelming majority of properties that the census/CSO data deemed vacant were in fact occupied. It was something like 80-90% of them. Basically it turns out that the census is a terrible way to gauge occupancy of property since there are many people who appear to just not bother filling out the census.

If the 2011 one was the same then the data is unreliable.

I found out recently that I live in a vacant property.

GreeBo

Villa05 wrote: »

That's the problem with the solely market driven property market. The market is building what the top 20/30% of income earners can afford/want.

What the market needs is 1 and 2 bed units plus an ability to upgrade and downgrade easily

Whats the current cost to build a 1 bed apartment in Dublin, built to current regulations?
Who are the market for these 1 beds?

What do you see as the barrier to upgrade/downgrade today?

EagerBeaverton

cnocbui wrote: »

REITs bought something like 95% of all apartments built in Dublin last year, so do we need more apartments or perhaps the government to stop this sort of monopolisation of residential stock by corporations?

Genuine questions - is that figure accurate and is there any legal precedence to allow a government to block REITs buying so much?

I've read posts here of what I think are anecdotal reports of REITs buying blocks of apartments and slowly releasing them to the market to keep supply low and keep rents high, but is there data to show this is actually happening? Again genuine questions.

hometruths

awec wrote: »

It actually is inaccurate if it's the same metholodogy. I'm not trying to rubbish you and hope you don't give up, as you post some good stuff on here.

But as posted before, the recent census showed thousands of vacant properties in a particular Dublin council. The council took it upon itself to verify the figures and found that the overwhelming majority of properties that the census/CSO data deemed vacant were in fact occupied. It was something like 80-90% of them. Basically it turns out that the census is a terrible way to gauge occupancy of property since there are many people who appear to just not bother filling out the census.

If the 2011 one was the same then the data is unreliable.

Ok lets assume that the vacancy data was so flawed it should be completely ignored. So we can forget about the 110,000 oversupply figure and subsequent calculation

But presumably the CSO can count the number of housing units correctly whether they are vacant or not and that their figures of the total population are reliable?

If so we know that the dwellings per 1000 people in 2011 was 435.

We know that there was massive oversupply in 2011 as prices were falling off a cliff.

History tells us that a figure of 435 houses per 1000 people can lead to property market conditions of massive oversupply.

My argument is that current policies are leading us back into a situation of oversupply.

Central Banks says we need 34,000 new homes a year for the next decade.

So thats 340,000 new homes by end of 2030. Making a total of 2,393,500 housing units for a projected population of 5,248,041

Or to put it another way 456 houses per 1000 population.

So at some stage over the next 10-15 years we are going to go way past the 2011, 435 massive oversupply figure and it is going to happen at the same time that a number of rapidly evolving demographic and social changes are converging with immoveable economic theories.

As far as I am aware I have no flawed CSO data in the above. If I do, let me know what it is.

If I don't, can you let me know the flaw in my logic?

Villa05

awec wrote:

We have come full circle!

Not really, Ftb are in their 30's now, you would imagine the majority would need to buy a house with the future in mind and they are probably at or close to peak earnings

There seems to be sufficient housing stock, the isuue is that the 1 or 2 people currently living in a 3/4 bed house don't have an option of a 1/2 bed that they can downsize to thus releasing equity and reducing running costs as their incomes dwindle going into retirement

JimmyVik

EagerBeaverton wrote: »

Genuine questions - is that figure accurate and is there any legal precedence to allow a government to block REITs buying so much?

I've read posts here of what I think are anecdotal reports of REITs buying blocks of apartments and slowly releasing them to the market to keep supply low and keep rents high, but is there data to show this is actually happening? Again genuine questions.

I know of one development where the REIT keeps two apartments as show apartments and never lets them.

cnocbui

EagerBeaverton wrote: »

Genuine questions - is that figure accurate and is there any legal precedence to allow a government to block REITs buying so much?

I've read posts here of what I think are anecdotal reports of REITs buying blocks of apartments and slowly releasing them to the market to keep supply low and keep rents high, but is there data to show this is actually happening? Again genuine questions.

Only about 8,000 of the 21,000 new homes built in the Republic last year were offered for sale on the open market, according to the Construction Industry Federation.

The federation, which represents most builders, says that the State acquired at least 4,400 new homes for social housing, while investment funds bought 95 per cent of the 3,644 apartments completed here last year.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/just-8-000-houses-built-last-year-offered-for-sale-on-open-market-says-cif-1.4177876

While Dublin apartment rents are in the top 4-5 most expensive in Europe, while the apartments themselves are fairly cheap, I doubt the REITs have any intention of selling any. Would you? They will rent them and reap the massive profits.

The government can give itself any powers it likes.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Ok lets assume that the vacancy data was so flawed it should be completely ignored. So we can forget about the 110,000 oversupply figure and subsequent calculation

But presumably the CSO can count the number of housing units correctly whether they are vacant or not and that their figures of the total population are reliable?

If so we know that the dwellings per 1000 people in 2011 was 435.

We know that there was massive oversupply in 2011 as prices were falling off a cliff.

History tells us that a figure of 435 houses per 1000 people can lead to property market conditions of massive oversupply.

My argument is that current policies are leading us back into a situation of oversupply.

Central Banks says we need 34,000 new homes a year for the next decade.

So thats 340,000 new homes by end of 2030. Making a total of 2,393,500 housing units for a projected population of 5,248,041

Or to put it another way 456 houses per 1000 population.

So at some stage over the next 10-15 years we are going to go way past the 2011, 435 massive oversupply figure and it is going to happen at the same time that a number of rapidly evolving demographic and social changes are converging with immoveable economic theories.

As far as I am aware I have no flawed CSO data in the above. If I do, let me know what it is.

If I don't, can you let me know the flaw in my logic?

how many of current housing stock will be "obsolete" over the coming years? So for every X built each year, Y comes out of available stock for whatever reason?

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

how many of current housing stock will be "obsolete" over the coming years? So for every X built each year, Y comes out of available stock for whatever reason?

I suspect you've read the same stats or similiar on obsolescence that I have. Do the maths and let me know if this is the flaw in my reasoning or not.

bigslick

JimmyVik wrote: »

I found out recently that I live in a vacant property.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

I suspect you've read the same stats or similiar on obsolescence that I have. Do the maths and let me know if this is the flaw in my reasoning or not.

this is boards, facts and stats aren't relevant

hometruths

cnocbui wrote: »

He's changed his tune:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/realestate/real-estate-in-dublin-ireland.html

GreeBo wrote: »

ooof...awkward!

So did we build more than the 50K house a year he was asking for and so we no longer need them? Maybe we did and I just missed it.

You guys should really to need to learn to read a bit more thoroughly on the subject matter in hand before posting. It might actually stop your posts being so thoroughly witless.

From the report referenced in the NYT where he talks about needing between 40-50k new housing units.

In total, Ireland needs at least 40,000 new dwellings a year and probably closer to 50,000. These will be concentrated in and near the urban centres and will be disproportionately homes for one- and two-person households, such as apartments, downsizer homes and student accommodation. As the latest figures show, without this kind of supply, we will all have to spend more and more of our income just to have a home.

So he hasn't changed his tune at all. In 2016 he was saying we need to build more 1/2 person households, in 2019 he is saying that we are building too many 3 bed semis.

Do you get it?

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

this is boards, facts and stats aren't relevant

True. Buy now.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok lets assume that the vacancy data was so flawed it should be completely ignored. So we can forget about the 110,000 oversupply figure and subsequent calculation

But presumably the CSO can count the number of housing units correctly whether they are vacant or not and that their figures of the total population are reliable?

If so we know that the dwellings per 1000 people in 2011 was 435.

We know that there was massive oversupply in 2011 as prices were falling off a cliff.

History tells us that a figure of 435 houses per 1000 people can lead to property market conditions of massive oversupply.

My argument is that current policies are leading us back into a situation of oversupply.

Central Banks says we need 34,000 new homes a year for the next decade.

So thats 340,000 new homes by end of 2030. Making a total of 2,393,500 housing units for a projected population of 5,248,041

Or to put it another way 456 houses per 1000 population.

So at some stage over the next 10-15 years we are going to go way past the 2011, 435 massive oversupply figure and it is going to happen at the same time that a number of rapidly evolving demographic and social changes are converging with immoveable economic theories.

As far as I am aware I have no flawed CSO data in the above. If I do, let me know what it is.

If I don't, can you let me know the flaw in my logic?

You base all this figures on 2011 "oversupplied" stocks. Which is not right to begin with. One thing of having oversupplied New builds on the market for sale, another of total property stocks, which was not oversupplied .You need to remember that there was Credit crisis, with huge number of new builds, that could not be absorbed. You can see this even from Rents, Property sales collapsed, where rental market was still active, with much lower decrease.

EagerBeaverton

cnocbui wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/just-8-000-houses-built-last-year-offered-for-sale-on-open-market-says-cif-1.4177876

While Dublin apartment rents are in the top 4-5 most expensive in Europe, while the apartments themselves are fairly cheap, I doubt the REITs have any intention of selling any. Would you? They will rent them and reap the massive profits.

The government can give itself any powers it likes.

Thanks for link and info - so that figure is accurate.

I was thinking along the lines of whether an EU government is restricted in bringing in laws preventing or limiting the purchase of property because of some EU rule - seems like the German REITs like that they can purchase foreign property.

Seems like this carry-on should light a fire under the population since we seem so invested in the idea of owning our own homes but I rarely hear it ever mentioned outside of forums - perhaps I'm just not listening properly.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

True. Buy now.

Not until prices drop 185%

SozBbz

Marius34 wrote: »

You base all this figures on 2011 "oversupplied" stocks. Which is not right to begin with. One thing of having oversupplied New builds on the market for sale, another of total property stocks, which was not oversupplied .You need to remember that there was Credit crisis, with huge number of new builds, that could not be absorbed. You can see this even from Rents, Property sales collapsed, where rental market was still active, with much lower decrease.

Possibly another reason why 2011 perhaps felt over supplied was emmigration of a key demographic who otherwise might have been buying homes in Ireland.

Also while there were a lot of units built before the crash, a lot of them were ill thought out, in the wrong locations and were really only desirable in a climate where people were obsessed with buying property thinking everything would rise in value.

So is it really a question of absolute number of units, or better matching the unit types availabe with our demographics and having policies in place that make moving easier such as encouraging downsizing.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

You base all this figures on 2011 "oversupplied" stocks. Which is not right to begin with. One thing of having oversupplied New builds on the market for sale, another of total property stocks, which was not oversupplied .You need to remember that there was Credit crisis, with huge number of new builds, that could not be absorbed. You can see this even from Rents, Property sales collapsed, where rental market was still active, with much lower decrease.

Economics 101 again.

What is Oversupply?

Oversupply is an excessive amount of a product. Oversupply results when demand is lower than supply, resulting in a surplus. Simply put, an oversupply is when there is more product for sale than people are prepared to buy. There are many reasons why oversupply may occur. There can be an oversupply of a current product due to people waiting for an improved model in a series, such as smartphones from a particular maker. Oversupply can also occur in situations where the price of the good or service is too high and people are simply not prepared to buy it at that price. An oversupply may also simply be a case of a producer completely misreading the market demand for a product.

I am not talking about an apocalyptic future where we're bulldozing 3 bed semis in Carrickmines.

The price will simply have to drop far enough that people are prepared to buy them again.

At which point the market will no longer be in a state of oversupply.

The point is if you are buying now at 2020 January prices thinking the price does not matter I think you are likely to be in for a very nasty shock within 10-15 years.

hometruths

SozBbz wrote: »

Possibly another reason why 2011 perhaps felt over supplied was emmigration of a key demographic who otherwise might have been buying homes in Ireland.

Also while there were a lot of units built before the crash, a lot of them were ill thought out, in the wrong locations and were really only desirable in a climate where people were obsessed with buying property thinking everything would rise in value.

So is it really a question of absolute number of units, or better matching the unit types availabe with our demographics and having policies in place that make moving easier such as encouraging downsizing.

Exactly, those policies are not in place currently, nor are they showing any signs of coming into place.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Economics 101 again.


What is Oversupply?

"Oversupply is an excessive amount of a product. Oversupply results when demand is lower than supply, resulting in a surplus. Simply put, an oversupply is when there is more product for sale than people are prepared to buy. There are many reasons why oversupply may occur. There can be an oversupply of a current product due to people waiting for an improved model in a series, such as smartphones from a particular maker. Oversupply can also occur in situations where the price of the good or service is too high and people are simply not prepared to buy it at that price. An oversupply may also simply be a case of a producer completely misreading the market demand for a product."

I am not talking about an apocalyptic future where we're bulldozing 3 bed semis in Carrickmines.

The price will simply have to drop far enough that people are prepared to buy them again.

At which point the market will no longer be in a state of oversupply.

The point is if you are buying now at 2020 January prices thinking the price does not matter I think you are likely to be in for a very nasty shock within 10-15 years.

You mixing Supply for Sale, with Total Residential stock. Those 2.000.000 houses are not in the market for Sale. Oversupply of properties for sale, and oversupply in Residential property housing stocks are not same thing.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

You mixing Supply for Sale, with Total Residential stock. Those 2.000.000 houses are not in the market for Sale. Oversupply of properties for sale, and oversupply in Residential property housing stocks are not same thing.

Good point. Buy now.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Good point. Buy now.

Why? I'm not advising, and I'm not sure if its good or bad time to buy, since It's not clear the Covid impact, and especially how Banks will proceed with Mortgages, it's a big factor for the price in short/medium term, thus there is big chance that property prices will go down, although not in the level of last crisis due to the same Supply reason.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Why? I'm not advising, and I'm not sure if its good or bad time to buy, since It's not clear the Covid impact, and especially how Banks will proceed with Mortgages, it's a big factor for the price in short/medium term, thus there is big chance that property prices will go down, although not in the level of last crisis due to the same Supply reason.

Short hand for saying I don’t think either of us understands the others thinking well enough to have a productive debate, so let’s agree to disagree, and leave it there.

Just seemed more agreeable than the “seems legit” I used the last time one our back and forths ran out of steam.

cnocbui

Hubertj wrote: »

Not until prices drop 185%

No, owners of quality properties in Dublin should pay you to take them off their hands.

Hubertj

cnocbui wrote: »

No, owners of quality properties in Dublin should pay you to take them off their hands.

That’s what I’m waiting for

Mic 1972

schmittel wrote: »

Good point. Buy now.

are you going to repeat this line on every page now?