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

hometruths

DataDude wrote: »

I wouldn’t rule it out completely but probably not. I also think it’s an ugly house which you can’t really change. Doesn’t seem like any of the houses along the road have done anything eye catching with regards to extensions etc. Not sure if that means you can’t do it, or more likely that it’s an old ‘cash poor’ demographic in there with lots of beat down houses like that one.

Would love to live in that area but coming to the realisation we can’t afford it. Greystones bound!

My point exactly. You're a perfect example of how I see the market playing out over the next few years.

You are the target buyer for that house. You can afford the house and it is in your ideal area, but it sounds like you don't see value in it. Your c. 1m budget will buy you a better house somewhere else eg Greystones.

I'd say in the current market there is a greater fool out there who will be the marginal buyer at that price (or higher), but it seems to me that the supply of greater fools is diminishing, and more and more of those buyers are thinking along your lines. i.e Are we really going to spend 1m+ on a small and ugly house?

If people in the top 1% of earners with a budget of over 1m are turning their back on them, who is going to buy these houses at these prices over the next few years? And there are thousands of them.

I am not saying I think that house is suddenly going be worth sub 400k, just that I think it is currently very close to the highest price the market will bear (barring significant inflation which I think is a possibility).

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

My point exactly. You're a perfect example of how I see the market playing out over the next few years.

You are the target buyer for that house. You can afford the house and it is in your ideal area, but it sounds like you don't see value in it. Your c. 1m budget will buy you a better house somewhere else eg Greystones.

I'd say in the current market there is a greater fool out there who will be the marginal buyer at that price (or higher), but it seems to me that the supply of greater fools is diminishing, and more and more of those buyers are thinking along your lines. i.e Are we really going to spend 1m+ on a small and ugly house?

If people in the top 1% of earners with a budget of over 1m are turning their back on them, who is going to buy these houses at these prices over the next few years? And there are thousands of them.

I am not saying I think that house is suddenly going be worth sub 400k, just that I think it is currently very close to the highest price the market will bear (barring significant inflation which I think is a possibility).

I think that’s been happening in parts of Dublin for a couple of years. Someone said prices in parts of south Dublin peaked in q4 2018? I think that is down to perceived value as well as affordability. Throw in the silly prices apartments in dock lands and ballsbridge and it’s easy to see the value in looking further afield.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Often wondered if there is something wrong with it (other than the price), been for sale for a very long time. I agree it looks like a fabulous house.

Compared to the McMansions in eagle valley it certainly appears fairly priced !

JimmyVik

[QUOTE=Hubertj;116599317]I think that’s been happening in parts of Dublin for a couple of years. Someone said prices in parts of south Dublin peaked in q4 2018? I think that is down to perceived value as well as affordability. Throw in the silly prices apartments in dock lands and ballsbridge and it’s easy to see the value in looking further afield.[/QUOTE]


That is happening all over the world since buying a house became a thing

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Wow. That surprises me, but I don't follow that market. I think that is insane. 1m for what is in my opinion a house that is small and ugly!

That is in a prime location, while I agree with you that 850k seems expensive, it is detached and it’s a big garden.

I have no doubt that renovated and extended it will be worth the sales prices plus the cost of renovation plus a premium .

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

My point exactly. You're a perfect example of how I see the market playing out over the next few years.

You are the target buyer for that house. You can afford the house and it is in your ideal area, but it sounds like you don't see value in it. Your c. 1m budget will buy you a better house somewhere else eg Greystones.

I'd say in the current market there is a greater fool out there who will be the marginal buyer at that price (or higher), but it seems to me that the supply of greater fools is diminishing, and more and more of those buyers are thinking along your lines. i.e Are we really going to spend 1m+ on a small and ugly house?

If people in the top 1% of earners with a budget of over 1m are turning their back on them, who is going to buy these houses at these prices over the next few years? And there are thousands of them.

I am not saying I think that house is suddenly going be worth sub 400k, just that I think it is currently very close to the highest price the market will bear (barring significant inflation which I think is a possibility).

The problem with a house like that (and I suffer from this too ) is that it can be hard to imagine what it will be like when completely renovated .

When it’s bought and done I’m sure plenty will look at it and think I should have bought that .

But you need the stomach for a renovation and deep pockets.

Be under no doubt it will sell and probably at over asking.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

No need to nationalise. Just implement a similar derelict property tax like the socialist paradise that is Washington D.C. has of 10%. That would be incentive enough to bring many of them back into use IMO

A similar tax for under-utilised commercial properties in our towns and cities and the market will take care of the rest IMO

So lets say you are the owner of an old building with your shop on the ground floor and three empty floors above, but you use one of them for storage. You bought all this with a bank loan. The shop just makes enough to pay the loan with something left for you to live on. Then along come the marxists with their tax to tell you what to do with the banks property. You approach the bank for the €70,000 estimated necessary to rennovate the floors above to a habitable standard.

The bank says no.

The tax has put you below the poverty line. Now what?

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

So lets say you are the owner of an old building with your shop on the ground floor and three empty floors above, but you use one of them for storage. You bought all this with a bank loan. The shop just makes enough to pay the loan with something left for you to live on. Then along come the marxists with their tax to tell you what to do with the banks property. You approach the bank for the €70,000 estimated necessary to rennovate the floors above to a habitable standard.

The bank says no.

The tax has put you below the poverty line. Now what?

You have extra property that is not being used - either you rent it or sell it.
Whats the problem?

woejus

timmyntc wrote: »

You have extra property that is not being used - either you rent it or sell it.
Whats the problem?

"The shop just makes enough to pay the loan with something left for you to live on."

That's one problem.

The second would be the Ben Shapiro-esque "sell the houses to who, Ben?" issue.

timmyntc

woejus wrote: »

"The shop just makes enough to pay the loan with something left for you to live on."

That's one problem.

The second would be the Ben Shapiro-esque "sell the houses to who, Ben?" issue.

Why couldnt they sell their extra property? If its not in great condition, then lower the price.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

You have extra property that is not being used - either you rent it or sell it.
Whats the problem?

How do you rent it if it is not habitable? Is the bank going to let you sell part of their building? And the building might not be configured, access wise, in a way that would let you sell a bit of it.

What's isn't the problem would be more like it. Your solution is the owner go out of business and loses their income and livelihood to satisfy the ill considered reasoning of a bunch of socialists.

MacronvFrugals

Who knew Part V could be soo profitable! At this rate the developers who lobbied FF for a reduction to 10% from 20% in the early 2000s will be wanting a return to 20%


'Social housing at up to €2,500 a month at Ballymore’s new Dublin scheme'

Irish property developer Ballymore, which has been the subject of criticism from residents at its London developments, is hoping to fulfil its social housing obligations at its new Connolly Quarter scheme by leasing units to Dublin City Council. The units would be let at market rates, which could mean rents for the council of more than €2,500 for a two-bedroom unit.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/social-housing-at-up-to-2-500-a-month-at-ballymore-s-new-dublin-scheme-1.4511304

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

How do you rent it if it is not habitable? Is the bank going to let you sell part of their building? And the building might not be configured, access wise, in a way that would let you sell a bit of it.

What's isn't the problem would be more like it. Your solution is the owner go out of business and loses their income and livelihood to satisfy the ill considered reasoning of a bunch of socialists.

If it cant be sold as a separate building then it would come under the building that is already part occupied as a shop - and there would be no vacant unit tax, as that unit is not vacant.
That situation you've described is equivalent to somebody having an empty room in their house. A total non-runner.

Why do you have to invent bizarre scenarios to justify your hatred of socialists?

Hubertj

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Who knew Part V could be soo profitable! At this rate the developers who lobbied FF for a reduction to 10% from 20% in the early 2000s will be wanting a return to 20%


'Social housing at up to €2,500 a month at Ballymore’s new Dublin scheme'





https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/social-housing-at-up-to-2-500-a-month-at-ballymore-s-new-dublin-scheme-1.4511304

I presume all the developer has to do is offer but the council is not required to accept?

Villa05

cnocbui wrote:

How do you rent it if it is not habitable? Is the bank going to let you sell part of their building? And the building might not be configured, access wise, in a way that would let you sell a bit of it.

Does the corporation have schemes to bring empty property back to habitable status

timmyntc

Villa05 wrote: »

Does the corporation have schemes to bring empty property back to habitable status

If you lease it to the council they will bring it up to standard before subletting to a tenant.

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

Does the corporation have schemes to bring empty property back to habitable status

Not unless you let the property to them for the housing list........

PropQueries

timmyntc wrote: »

If it cant be sold as a separate building then it would come under the building that is already part occupied as a shop - and there would be no vacant unit tax, as that unit is not vacant.
That situation you've described is equivalent to somebody having an empty room in their house. A total non-runner.

Why do you have to invent bizarre scenarios to justify your hatred of socialists?

Don’t fall for the spiel that the owners of these million euro city centre properties are poor.

If there’s debt attached to the property, it’s most likely linked to Celtic tiger property speculation debt and that’s not the next generations problem IMO

If he goes bankrupt, so be it. It’s about time IMO.

That’s capitalism. Creative destruction and all. The owners of such properties have got way too much government help over the past 10 years and way more help than people on social welfare IMO

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

If it cant be sold as a separate building then it would come under the building that is already part occupied as a shop - and there would be no vacant unit tax, as that unit is not vacant.
That situation you've described is equivalent to somebody having an empty room in their house. A total non-runner.

Why do you have to invent bizarre scenarios to justify your hatred of socialists?

We'll have to disagree on everything as I don't believe there is anything bizzare about that scenario.

Why do you and props have to propose stupid proposals before considering all the possible consequences? I am up sh​it creek without a paddle because of some stupid and lazy public servants who didn't think of all the possible scenarios before telling a minister they had everything sorted and proposed legislation should be enacted.

timmyntc

PropQueries wrote: »

Don’t fall for the spiel that the owners of these million euro city centre properties are poor.

If there’s debt attached to the property, it’s most likely linked to Celtic tiger property speculation debt and that’s not the next generations problem IMO

If he goes bankrupt, so be it. It’s about time IMO.

That’s capitalism. Creative destruction and all. The owners of such properties have got way too much government help over the past 10 years and way more help than people on social welfare IMO

If they're "struggling" to get by, they can always sell up.
If they have vacant units above, they can sell those separate or rent them.
If they dont have the funds to renovate vacant units, the council will usually renovate if a long-term lease is agreed with them.

There is no case where someone would be forced into bankruptcy, by being made fully use their asset. A vacant unit gives them no income, so forcing them to use that vacant asset is just forcing them to generate an income from it.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

We'll have to disagree on everything as I don't believe there is anything bizzare about that scenario.

Why do you and props have to propose stupid proposals before considering all the possible consequences? I am up sh​it creek without a paddle because of some stupid and lazy public servants who didn't think of all the possible scenarios before telling a minister they had everything sorted and proposed legislation should be enacted.

Why do you disagree? Genuine question - in what scenario would a property owner be worse off for having to rent or sell their vacant asset.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

Why do you disagree? Genuine question - in what scenario would a property owner be worse off for having to rent or sell their vacant asset.

We have already been over this, so it doesn't seem like a genuine question.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

We have already been over this, so it doesn't seem like a genuine question.

Yes and your rebuttal was simply that you don't agree.
You don't agree how - what did I say that was wrong?

If you have a reason as to how this wont work, then let it be known. You can start by addressing the below:

If they're "struggling" to get by, they can always sell up.
If they have vacant units above, they can sell those separate or rent them.
If they dont have the funds to renovate vacant units, the council will usually renovate if a long-term lease is agreed with them.

There is no case where someone would be forced into bankruptcy, by being made fully use their asset. A vacant unit gives them no income, so forcing them to use that vacant asset is just forcing them to generate an income from it.

Ush1

schmittel wrote: »

My point exactly. You're a perfect example of how I see the market playing out over the next few years.

You are the target buyer for that house. You can afford the house and it is in your ideal area, but it sounds like you don't see value in it. Your c. 1m budget will buy you a better house somewhere else eg Greystones.

I'd say in the current market there is a greater fool out there who will be the marginal buyer at that price (or higher), but it seems to me that the supply of greater fools is diminishing, and more and more of those buyers are thinking along your lines. i.e Are we really going to spend 1m+ on a small and ugly house?

If people in the top 1% of earners with a budget of over 1m are turning their back on them, who is going to buy these houses at these prices over the next few years? And there are thousands of them.

I am not saying I think that house is suddenly going be worth sub 400k, just that I think it is currently very close to the highest price the market will bear (barring significant inflation which I think is a possibility).

That's always been the way it's been. Greystones isn't as desirable as Sandycove so you will get a better house but in a less desirable location.

hometruths

Ush1 wrote: »

That's always been the way it's been. Greystones isn't as desirable as Sandycove so you will get a better house but in a less desirable location.

Sure, but the point is if the market had legs for further increases the top 1% would be buying in Sandycove, and those earning less would be headed for Greystones. When even the top 1% are going for Greystones it suggests this segment of the market can bear no more.

DataDude

Ush1 wrote: »

That's always been the way it's been. Greystones isn't as desirable as Sandycove so you will get a better house but in a less desirable location.

I think the point more generally is, collectively between all of the South Dublin areas and elsewhere, there are just so so many houses for €1m+. I suspect if you knock on the doors of the people living in them. A huge percentage are older and absolutely do not, and never had, have income profiles to justify a houses of such value.

How many households of in the 25-40 age bracket have incomes in excess of €200k to afford such houses? I would contend there isn't enough of them. Very rough analysis of income distributions and house price distributions show that there are far more €1m houses in Ireland than there are €200k household incomes. I'd be hugely interested in any data driven analysis which concluded differently to the above statement.

So how does the equilibrium sustain itself over the next 20 years? Trade-up equity for those who bought at lower prices are likely to be a support, but again not sustainable forever and ownership rates have fallen drastically in those under the age of 40 versus the past.

The only other support I can think of is inheritances/family gifts. (And I know of several 30 somethings in million euro houses with modest incomes courtesy of mum and dad)

To me, the fundamentals don't quite stack up but it could be many years before that comes home to roost. Personally I'm not willing to wait, but I certainly wouldn't be long prime Irish property over a 10 year horizon from an investment standpoint.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

Yes and your rebuttal was simply that you don't agree.
You don't agree how - what did I say that was wrong?

If you have a reason as to how this wont work, then let it be known. You can start by addressing the below:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116600209&postcount=5892

Villa05

MacronvFrugals wrote:

Who knew Part V could be soo profitable! At this rate the developers who lobbied FF for a reduction to 10% from 20% in the early 2000s will be wanting a return to 20%

The_Conductor wrote:

Not unless you let the property to them for the housing list........

Are they not paying top dollar for rentals right now. It may well be uninhabitable now and when you get it back but in between its generating close to maximum income.

Does the owner not gain in this scenario should there not be an accompanyinging stick to go with this particular carrot.

Maybe housing is a bugs bunny heaven full of carrots only

MacronvFrugals

I see Mary-Lou is now bookies favorite to be the next Taoiseach, will the market sustain ever increasing prices with that type of uncertainty.

If I was any of the guys on here buying at the upper end of the market not a chance would I pull the trigger now

Ush1

schmittel wrote: »

Sure, but the point is if the market had legs for further increases the top 1% would be buying in Sandycove, and those earning less would be headed for Greystones. When even the top 1% are going for Greystones it suggests this segment of the market can bear no more.

The top 1% don't only live in Sandycove. There is multimillion houses all across the country. Someone will buy the house or the price will drop.