2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Props was wrong here. He was the one on opposite side over half year ago, saying the Government won't be able to push prices this time. And now it appears they are, and will be a competitors on the demand side.

So he is right now then?

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Props was wrong here. He was the one on opposite side over half year ago, saying the Government won't be able to push prices this time. And now it appears they are, and will be a competitors on the demand side.

I believe my point was that when the funds (who I believe own a significant percentage of the vacant property in the state) decide to exit, there’s not much the state can do to stop them.

The current situation where the state is actively outbidding private buyers for second-hand properties (with borrowed funds) is a completely different kettle of fish IMO

And when the state is forced to pull back from this current, temporary buying spree (due to budget constraints), there will be significantly fewer buyers than many people believe to make up for their exit and prices will drop significantly IMO

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

But it does take quite a certain level of incompetence for the current people in charge of housing to make everyone angry, quite literally, everyone from the billionaires living on Ailesbury Road right down to the people living on the street IMO

Yes they could take out the old rule book and build standard homes on a large scale relatively cheaply but society have decided that they don't want more council estates and want all social classes integrated... The cost of that is DCC paying top dollar for rent/property in high in demand locations.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

So he is right now then?

Yes, in the sense that Government competes with buyers. I think this is obvious to almost everyone here. I'll say finally everyone is right on that part, even the ones who thought about the crash finally got it.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, in the sense that Government competes with buyers. I think this is obvious to almost everyone here. I'll say finally everyone is right on that part, even the ones who thought about the crash finally got it.

Hold on! Are we finally at the “acceptance” stage?

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

Hold on! Are we finally at the “acceptance” stage?

On the part that there are and will be demands from Government, REIT's and other organizations.. Always was, since joined this group, as I see lack of properties from many different sectors.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

On the part that there are and will be demands from Government, REIT's and other organizations.. Always was, since joined this group, as I see lack of properties from many different sectors.

Well, once the government starts pulling in the purse strings, it will be interesting to see how long the funds remain interested when the state isn’t the renter of first and last resort IMO

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, once the government starts pulling in the purse strings, it will be interesting to see how long the funds remain interested when the state isn’t the renter of first and last resort IMO

I somehow think that funds will have their leases water tight so should be guaranteed income for a long time to come and will probably maintain headline rents because of it ensuring that rent will remain high and off the back of it property valuations.....

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

While I don’t know the full reasons for their objections, I think any objections may have being at least partially to do with DCC agreeing to buy 61 of those c. 600+ apartments. Those 61 apartments are also all to be located in one block in the scheme from my understanding.

It wouldn’t have taken the residents of Ailesbury Road and other nearby areas (IMO) long to then realise that the other 500+ apartments would also be most likely social housing in all but name (long-term leasing, HAP etc.), as nobody (with the means to buy them at the proposed asking prices) would then buy any of the remaining apartments due to this plan.

People buy in such areas to live near their own class (in general) so it will definitely end up being primarily social housing, which is also apparently against current government policy of grouping social housing all in one area IMO

DCC agreeing to buy ? The developer was required by law to sell a certain percentage to the council the same as any other new development.

Is marianella in rathgar primarily social housing ? Because it’s the same thing there , is honey park / cualanor in dun laoghaire primarily social housing ?

Hubertj

There are at least 1 million vacant properties around the country. The state should CPO them. Problem solved. They could also Airbnb the spares to raise revenue as I believe many local authorities have serious issues with rent arrears so they could net Airbnb revenue against rent arrears. I’m onto something here

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

So he is right now then?

Well if you take two sides of an argument you have to be right

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

There are at least 1 million vacant properties around the country. The state should CPO them. Problem solved. They could also Airbnb the spares to raise revenue as I believe many local authorities have serious issues with rent arrears so they could net Airbnb revenue against rent arrears. I’m onto something here

We are going to heaven lads hooray!!!

PropQueries

Cyrus wrote: »

DCC agreeing to buy ? The developer was required by law to sell a certain percentage to the council the same as any other new development.

Is marianella in rathgar primarily social housing ? Because it’s the same thing there , is honey park / cualanor in dun laoghaire primarily social housing ?

Those apartments schemes will be 100% social housing within 20 years IMO.

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

I somehow think that funds will have their leases water tight so should be guaranteed income for a long time to come and will probably maintain headline rents because of it ensuring that rent will remain high and off the back of it property valuations.....

The only reason they’re currently getting the rents they are is because of long-term lease agreements with the council or HAP.

Once the state pulls in the purse strings, rents collapse.

The lease agreements the current funds have signed up for are most likely watertight but any developer who doesn’t sign up within the next 6 months will be extremely disappointed IMO

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

The only reason they’re currently getting the rents they are is because of long-term lease agreements with the council or HAP.

Once the state pulls in the purse strings, rents collapse.

The lease agreements the current funds have signed up for are most likely watertight but any developer who doesn’t sign up within the next 6 months will be extremely disappointed IMO

how can rents collapse if long term lease agreements are in place? What you are saying is that they are guaranteed rent from the state for up to 25 years but yet you are saying rent will collapse :eek:

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

how can rents collapse if long term lease agreements are in place? What you are saying is that they are guaranteed rent from the state for up to 25 years but yet you are saying rent will collapse :eek:

Market rents will collapse. The long-term lease agreements already entered into will be paid by the taxpayer through higher taxes and less local services for many years e.g. citizens shouldn’t be expecting that ambulance to arrive on time etc.

But, after c. 6 months, Paschal will pull in the purse strings and there will (should) be no more such ridiculous agreements signed.

Once the state exits the market, landlords will be left fighting over the very few tenants actually seeking rental accommodation IMO

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

Those apartments schemes will be 100% social housing within 20 years IMO.

They won’t

IMO

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

Tell that to the residents of Marianella. When did they move in again? Almost 50% there already IMO

Link to article in Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/residents-of-rathgar-development-engage-planner-to-fight-cairn-homes-plan-1.3737304

How do you make that out ?

PropQueries

Cyrus wrote: »

How do you make that out ?

Who else, outside the council, is going to lease those BTR apartments. And they’ll get them cheap (relatively) if my thinking is right.

As the existing owner occupiers realise where it’s heading, they’ll sell up one by one until eventually it’s 100% social housing.

Kind of like how the north side of the city used to be the prime spot until that Earl moved to the southside some years ago IMO

PropQueries

According to The Times, the big economies potential grab on the profits of the multinationals is heating up:

“Rishi Sunak has enlisted America’s support to launch an international campaign to raise taxes on online companies such as Amazon that have cashed in on the coronavirus pandemic.

The chancellor plans to use the G7 summit, which Britain is hosting in June, to push for changes to global laws so he can increase taxes on internet firms. Sunak revealed he had already had talks with Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary.”

He also said:

“One of my priorities in the G7 this year, which I’ve already started work on, is to try and get international agreement on a new way to tax these companies,” the chancellor said. “I spend a lot of time talking to my finance minister colleagues around the world about this issue.”

When are those OECD global tax rules to be finalised? June I think.

I honestly hope it goes our way, but we should have been way better prepared for any adverse impact as it has been well flagged for the past 5 years IMO

Link to article in The Times here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-recruits-us-to-raise-taxes-on-internet-giants-z9qtstdln

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, in the sense that Government competes with buyers. I think this is obvious to almost everyone here. I'll say finally everyone is right on that part, even the ones who thought about the crash finally got it.

This time last year we were waiting for a change a government. My thoughts on a crash, were largely based on a new Government taking a different approach, policies that were not designed to push up prices, combined with covid.

But it is clear the new Government has made more of the same mistakes and I was naive to expect otherwise. I have finally got that!

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

This time last year we were waiting for a change a government. My thoughts on a crash, were largely based on a new Government taking a different approach, policies that were not designed to push up prices, combined with covid.

But it is clear the new Government has made more of the same mistakes and I was naive to expect otherwise. I have finally got that!

The problem is see is the state needs housing immediately. They state is unable to build housing short term to meet that need (irrespective of any current restrictions). The state needs years to build the amount of affordable and social housing it requires.
What alternative options does it have short term? Do nothing? So the state has to purchase or lease propoerty in the market. Where else can it purchase? They could CPO the 1 million + vacant units across the country.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

The problem is see is the state needs housing immediately. They state is unable to build housing short term to meet that need (irrespective of any current restrictions). The state needs years to build the amount of affordable and social housing it requires.
What alternative options does it have short term? Do nothing? So the state has to purchase or lease propoerty in the market. Where else can it purchase? They could CPO the 1 million + vacant units across the country.

To be honest, not a lot of point in trying to discuss your points seriously, if you can't take the vacancy issue seriously!

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

To be honest, not a lot of point in trying to discuss your points seriously, if you can't take the vacancy issue seriously!

Sorry, I should have added “in my opinion”. My opinion is as valid as any other on this thread.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Sorry, I should have added “in my opinion”. My opinion is as valid as any other on this thread.

Fair enough, my bad, I assumed you were being facetious and trolling, something you've been banned for before.

It's the second time you have referenced the 1m vacants:

Hubertj wrote: »

There are at least 1 million vacant properties around the country. The state should CPO them. Problem solved. They could also Airbnb the spares to raise revenue as I believe many local authorities have serious issues with rent arrears so they could net Airbnb revenue against rent arrears. I’m onto something here

Now I know you 're being serious, of course your opinion is as valid as any other, and I'd be very interested to discuss it sensibly?

So how are you arriving at the figure of 1m vacant properties?

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Fair enough, my bad, I assumed you were being facetious and trolling, something you've been banned for before.

It's the second time you have referenced the 1m vacants:



Now I know you 're being serious, of course your opinion is as valid as any other, and I'd be very interested to discuss it sensibly?

So how are you arriving at the figure of 1m vacant properties?

I’m rounding up and making plenty of assumptions. For example, given that geodirectory relies on anpost to gather data it must be under reported. The post man servicing my area doesn’t seem capable / willing / inclined to carry out his primary task. Are we expected to rely on the same person to collect dat point s for geodirectory? In my opinion.

Zenify

Article in the FT about convertible debt. I don't fully 100% get it. But from my basic understanding its a way companies can lock in the current low interest rates with investors. Something about it I did find interesting though is the correlation between the years of when this was previously high. Just before a crash, 2001 and 2007. Here is the pic.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I’m rounding up and making plenty of assumptions. For example, given that geodirectory relies on anpost to gather data it must be under reported. The post man servicing my area doesn’t seem capable / willing / inclined to carry out his primary task. Are we expected to rely on the same person to collect dat point s for geodirectory? In my opinion.

Still a bit of a leap to get to 1m. I think where we differ is I’m inclined to trust their findings as the best measures available, and assume it is broadly correct.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Still a bit of a leap to get to 1m. I think where we differ is I’m inclined to trust their findings as the best measures available, and assume it is broadly correct.

There’s loads, we can agree on that, I’m just rounding up. So what about my initial comment. What can state do short term apart from what they are doing?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

This time last year we were waiting for a change a government. My thoughts on a crash, were largely based on a new Government taking a different approach, policies that were not designed to push up prices, combined with covid.

But it is clear the new Government has made more of the same mistakes and I was naive to expect otherwise. I have finally got that!

Hopefully lessons learned, don't expect much of change from Government.
I would rather look at Construction, Supply/Demand & other related economic factors to forecast Property Market.