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

PropQueries

Graham wrote: »

I understand a very significant chunk were not to be purchased at all, they are council owned sites earmarked for social/affordable housing.

If the pre-covid regularly media reported figures of c. 5,000 AirBnB homes in Dublin was correct and the Minister for Housing said back in July that:

“The Airbnb properties that are now not being used – is there an opportunity for the state to buy more of them? It’s something that I’m looking at, absolutely. It is something that I want to do frankly,” said O’Brien. If there are opportunities for the state to buy, at reasonable prices, so we can house people and then they can rent them on a secure basis from the state, then we should.”

Wouldn't that number of former AirBnB houses and apartments fit in nicely with the c. 4,000 homes figure DCC stated they had currently earmarked for purchase or rental? It is 8 months later at this stage.

Link to Minister for Housing interview in July 2020 here: https://www.thejournal.ie/darragh-o-brien-housing-minister-5146915-Jul2020/

JimmyVik

PropQueries wrote: »

If the pre-covid regularly media reported figures of c. 5,000 AirBnB homes in Dublin was correct and the Minister for Housing said back in July that:

“The Airbnb properties that are now not being used – is there an opportunity for the state to buy more of them? It’s something that I’m looking at, absolutely. It is something that I want to do frankly,” said O’Brien. If there are opportunities for the state to buy, at reasonable prices, so we can house people and then they can rent them on a secure basis from the state, then we should.”

Wouldn't that number of former AirBnB houses and apartments fit in nicely with the c. 4,000 homes figure DCC stated they had currently earmarked for purchase or rental? It is 8 months later at this stage.

Link to Minister for Housing interview in July 2020 here: https://www.thejournal.ie/darragh-o-brien-housing-minister-5146915-Jul2020/

I always thought there was something amiss here.
State passes legislation and stamps the foot down to make it extremely difficult and unprofitable for the people who own rentals or airbnbs to continue to operate their business.
Make the environment unbearable so owners are pressure to sell. All so that the state can swoop in and buy them up.
Something definitely wrong with that picture. Major bullying going on there.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

I wonder why.

Well thats just how its gone and its not just Ireland that is unique in this , all first world countries property is set for sale for a couple as apposed to a singleton.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

BPFI have published their latest housing market monitor, confirming the fall in individual BTL investors:



Also confirming the state as a major buyer as indicated by many posters on here.

Knowing the wasteful attitude of the councils, what worries me is that I suspect Graham might be correct - there was no such thing as active negotiations, they were just earmarked for purchase and paid whatever price the vendor asked.

I'll agree that it's entirely possible that I'm giving DCC too much credit

But given that it's so hard to get actual up to date real data in this country, in most cases, we have to read between the lines whenever someone involved in such issues releases a statement or makes an off the cuff comment in order to see what's really going on at the present time IMO

JimmyVik

I'll see if i can find that "Socially satisfied" list and post up a snippet.

Edit, Here is a screenshot of part of it.
Donabate and Lusk arent in that shot, but is choc full..

Pretty sure under FOI you could probably get the full updated list off each council.

Villa05

Timing belt wrote:

If the REIT was to pay the tax then the investor would be paying tax twice by using a company or corporate vehicle.

You do regularly post about the attractive returns for these Reits. These returns are partly a product of not having to pay for inputs provided by the state. It is only fair and proper that they make a contribution to cover that cost.

Private landlords are taxed quiet heavily

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

I understand a very significant chunk were not to be purchased at all, they are council owned sites earmarked for social/affordable housing.

I have no doubt its true that a big chunk of the 4000 referenced in the article Props linked are council owned, but I am equally sure that a chunk are earmarked to be bought from a third party. The BFPI figures indicate this.

It is undeniable that the state is an elephant in the market place either by direct purchase, or by agreeing to lease the properties that charities and private companies purchase.

Reading the exchange between you and Props about active negotiations vs earmarking made me think that a big part of the problem is that the state is unlikely to be negotiating actively enough.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

I have no doubt its true that a big chunk of the 4000 referenced in the article Props linked are council owned, but I am equally sure that a chunk are earmarked to be bought from a third party. The BFPI figures indicate this.

It is undeniable that the state is an elephant in the market place either by direct purchase, or by agreeing to lease the properties that charities and private companies purchase.

Reading the exchange between you and Props about active negotiations vs earmarking made me think that a big part of the problem is that the state is unlikely to be negotiating actively enough.

And given that there are less than c. 3,000 homes for sale in all of Co. Dublin (on MyHome.ie) and DCC is just one of 4 councils in Co. Dublin, it doesn't take much activity on the part of the 4 Dublin councils to move the market price significantly in either direction.

As they're buying, it drives prices up, as they exit, it drives prices down.

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

Wouldn't that number of former AirBnB houses and apartments fit in nicely with the c. 4,000 homes figure DCC stated they had currently earmarked for purchase or rental? It is 8 months later at this stage.

DCC Target for 'acquisitions' this year is 295.

That's not my guess. That's not my interpretation. That's not a number I've contrived by smushing together 37 random facts and sentences from assorted news sources.

That's the number from DCC.

295 Acquisitions

PropQueries

Graham wrote: »

DCC Target for 'acquisitions' this year is 295.

That's not my guess. That's not my interpretation. That's not a number I've contrived by smushing together 37 random facts and sentences from assorted news sources.

That's the number from DCC.

295 Acquisitions

As I'm regularly asked. Do you have a source/link for that? I'm sure you have or you wouldn't have mentioned it

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

As I'm regularly asked. Do you have a source/link for that? I'm sure you have or you wouldn't have mentioned it

DCC housing report Jan 2021.

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

DCC housing report Jan 2021.

A link would be helpful?

awec

schmittel wrote: »

A link would be helpful?

https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=30657

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

You do regularly post about the attractive returns for these Reits. These returns are partly a product of not having to pay for inputs provided by the state. It is only fair and proper that they make a contribution to cover that cost.

Private landlords are taxed quiet heavily

Which inputs don’t they pay for?

hometruths

awec wrote: »

https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=30657

Interestingly they exceeded their target for 2019 acquisitions by over 100%. I wonder will they have exceeded again given that the Minister told them to ramp up their buying - Minister tells councils to buy up properties as social housing target 'will not be achieved'

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

Interestingly they exceeded their target for 2019 acquisitions by over 100%. I wonder will they have exceeded again given that the Minister told them to ramp up their buying - Minister tells councils to buy up properties as social housing target 'will not be achieved'

Acquisitions do look like they're exceeding targets by about 250 units per year for a total of 500 - 600 units p.a.

Looks like there are currently 335 acquisitions in the pipeline.

JimmyVik

Graham wrote: »

Acquisitions do look like they're exceeding targets by about 250 units per year for a total of 500 - 600 units p.a.

Looks like there are currently 335 acquisitions in the pipeline.

I wonder what that will do for the average person looking to buy a home.

The_Conductor

JimmyVik wrote: »

I wonder what that will do for the average person looking to buy a home.

You will be competing against the state- who have no financial limitations, and will outbid you, regardless of what you bid, if it is a property they are interested in.

Thats what it will do.

Aka- they are an inflationary effect on the market- along with being a monster who will bludgeon all other prospective buyers for any properties they might be interested in.........

Villa05

awec wrote:

This way gave them political cover, while also giving those on the scheme a tangible benefit, especially for the "squeezed middle" who very rarely see much direct benefit for their taxes. People bought a house 1/2/3 years ahead of schedule, at a price likely higher than they would have paid, but offset against 1/2/3 years worth of rent.

The squeezed middle are squeezed directly as a result of poor policies like this. It drives up house prices. It would be foolish and mis leading to deduct that there is a benefit

The lower to middle income (and ABOVE) young workers are crushed with rents far higher than a mortgage with the beneficiaries of those rents increasingly contributing nothing to this state. The renters have been economically neutralised so scope for rasing taxes from this group has been wiped out.

As 50% and growing of total rents including corpo let's are state subsidised, those getting grants will have to pay more or forego potential income tax cuts as the grant they received pushed up prices and rents further

In addition the high cost of property and services that require property (childcare) means workers on lower incomes are less likely to have children or have less children meaning less people to cover the ballooning pensions crisis

Then we get this right left divide with scapegoats being blamed for all society's ills and as a result we get the worst policies from the right/left rather than policies that are best for the country be they right or left leaning (they do exist you know)


Yes there may be some initial benefit from ftb grants, but deep down they even know that they will pay for it many times over.

The only true beneficiary are the speculators land hoarders and developers. The casino has been rigged for their benefit

....................

In other news our debt per head of population is 75% above the EU average

Source Irish Times

awec

Villa05 wrote: »

The squeezed middle are squeezed directly as a result of poor policies like this. It drives up house prices. It would be foolish and mis leading to deduct that there is a benefit

The lower to middle income (and ABOVE) young workers are crushed with rents far higher than a mortgage with the beneficiaries of those rents increasingly contributing nothing to this state. The renters have been economically neutralised so scope for rasing taxes from this group has been wiped out.

As 50% and growing of total rents including corpo let's are state subsidised, those getting grants will have to pay more or forego potential income tax cuts as the grant they received pushed up prices and rents further

In addition the high cost of property and services that require property (childcare) means workers on lower incomes are less likely to have children or have less children meaning less people to cover the ballooning pensions crisis

Then we get this right left divide with scapegoats being blamed for all society's ills and as a result we get the worst policies from the right/left rather than policies that are best for the country be they right or left leaning (they do exist you know)


Yes there may be some initial benefit from ftb grants, but deep down they even know that they will pay for it many times over.

The only true beneficiary are the speculators land hoarders and developers. The casino has been rigged for their benefit

....................

In other news our debt per head of population is 75% above the EU average

Source Irish Times

You are overthinking it. Most people who want a house don't give a crap about any of this.

They want to buy their house and move on with their lives. They don't spend their time looking at the taxes REITs pay, or the profits of land owners or developers or whatever else.

The HTB suited them perfectly. They bought a house sooner than they otherwise would have, and they have likely never looked back. The biggest complaint was the difficulty in getting a deposit together while paying rent. HTB addressed it.

PropQueries

Villa05 wrote: »

The squeezed middle are squeezed directly as a result of poor policies like this. It drives up house prices. It would be foolish and mis leading to deduct that there is a benefit

The lower to middle income (and ABOVE) young workers are crushed with rents far higher than a mortgage with the beneficiaries of those rents increasingly contributing nothing to this state. The renters have been economically neutralised so scope for rasing taxes from this group has been wiped out.

As 50% and growing of total rents including corpo let's are state subsidised, those getting grants will have to pay more or forego potential income tax cuts as the grant they received pushed up prices and rents further

In addition the high cost of property and services that require property (childcare) means workers on lower incomes are less likely to have children or have less children meaning less people to cover the ballooning pensions crisis

Then we get this right left divide with scapegoats being blamed for all society's ills and as a result we get the worst policies from the right/left rather than policies that are best for the country be they right or left leaning (they do exist you know)


Yes there may be some initial benefit from ftb grants, but deep down they even know that they will pay for it many times over.

The only true beneficiary are the speculators land hoarders and developers. The casino has been rigged for their benefit

....................

In other news our debt per head of population is 75% above the EU average

Source Irish Times

Also in other news. According to the Irish Times today:

"EU poised to affirm tax on tech giants if global agreement fails. Leaders are working towards consensus, but EU ready to take unilateral action if needed.

European Union leaders are poised to affirm their commitment to a unilateral tax on tech giants if they fail to agree on a global framework with partners, including Joe Biden’s US administration, by the middle of this year."

There's so many fires we have to fight this year, it will take a significant luck of the Irish to come out the other side with a quick return to an economy that looks anything like 2019 IMO

There may also be a quick reversal of any approved or soon to be approved housing measures (which appear to be primarily on the demand side of the equation) if the government finances do take an abrupt turn IMO

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-poised-to-affirm-tax-on-tech-giants-if-global-agreement-fails-1.4505268

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

Also in other news. According to the Irish Times today:

"EU poised to affirm tax on tech giants if global agreement fails. Leaders are working towards consensus, but EU ready to take unilateral action if needed.

European Union leaders are poised to affirm their commitment to a unilateral tax on tech giants if they fail to agree on a global framework with partners, including Joe Biden’s US administration, by the middle of this year."

There's so many fires we have to fight this year, it will take a significant luck of the Irish to come out the other side with a quick return to an economy that looks anything like 2019 IMO

There may also be a quick reversal of any approved or soon to be approved housing measures (which appear to be primarily on the demand side of the equation) if the government finances do take an abrupt turn IMO

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-poised-to-affirm-tax-on-tech-giants-if-global-agreement-fails-1.4505268

This is interesting, you were absolutely convinced this time last week that OECD was guaranteed to completely screw us.

All not going so rosy on the tax change front it seems. Who would have thought it?

PropQueries

awec wrote: »

This is interesting, you were absolutely convinced this time last week that OECD was guaranteed to completely screw us.

All not going so rosy on the tax change front it seems. Who would have thought it?

Well, that's the EU on board On Sunday, the Sunday Times reported that:

"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."

So, that's the UK also on board. Let's see if the USA gets on board?

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

Subutai

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, that's the EU on board On Sunday, the Sunday Times reported that:

"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."

So, that's the UK also on board. Let's see if the USA gets on board?

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

You would be foolish to assume that the Commission’s pronouncements equal the EU being on board. Any real change in tax regulation will require unanimous approval at Council.

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, that's the EU on board On Sunday, the Sunday Times reported that:

"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."

So, that's the UK also on board. Let's see if the USA gets on board?

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

It's the EU Commission affirming commitment to tax change. They can affirm commitment all the want, it would be odd if they did anything else given their messaging in recent years.

There's a chasm between talking the talk and walking the walk as it seems they are finding out.

fliball123

awec wrote: »

It's the EU Commission affirming commitment to tax change. They can affirm commitment all the want, it would be odd if they did anything else given their messaging in recent years.

There's a chasm between talking the talk and walking the walk as it seems they are finding out.

This talk has been going on for the guts of a decade and this is the third American president that this kind of talk has been bandied about and yet nothing has happened. I will believe it when it is enforced.

PropQueries

Subutai wrote: »

You would be foolish to assume that the Commission’s pronouncements equal the EU being on board. Any real change in tax regulation will require unanimous approval at Council.

What's more foolish? The state spending money we may not have in 12 months on demand side housing policies or the state pulling back until the cloud clears and seeing if there's a cheaper way of resolving the housing "crisis"?

I think the housing "crisis" has already been resolved and the state is fighting the war from three years ago. They're introducing very expensive demand side housing policies at a time when we may not either need them or be able to afford them IMO

Subutai

PropQueries wrote: »

What's more foolish? The state spending money we may not have in 12 months on demand side housing policies or the state pulling back until the cloud clears and seeing if there's a cheaper way of resolving the housing "crisis"?

I think the housing "crisis" has already been resolved and the state is fighting the war from three years ago. They're introducing very expensive demand side housing policies at a time when we may not either need them or be able to afford them IMO

I don’t see how this relates to what I said at all.

Timing belt

Villa05 wrote: »

You do regularly post about the attractive returns for these Reits. These returns are partly a product of not having to pay for inputs provided by the state. It is only fair and proper that they make a contribution to cover that cost.

Private landlords are taxed quiet heavily

You are missing the point..the investors in Reits will end up paying the same tax as a landlord at present.

P.s. just to be clear I post that property has an attractive yield at present (for any investor whether it is private landlords or funds/reits) and have never posted about returns from any fund or REIT.

Hubertj

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

Good news for commercial property but also the jobs front in the cork region. Further demonstrates apples commitment to Irish operations. Also strange they would continue to invest and expand Irish operations when a tax apocalypse is due to hit Ireland. Could it be they have already factored tax changes into their plans? Would large MNCs with dedicated tax teams have the forethought to factor this into their future plans? Amazing thought. I fear they haven’t checked board.ie and are making a terrible terrible mistake.