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

fliball123

Wanderer78 wrote: »

bertie had a whole ideology behind him, hes not that good yea know

Whatever he had you cant say he was powerless with regards to the economy same can be said about our current government to say they are powerless is a lie

Wanderer78

fliball123 wrote: »

Whatever he had you cant say he was powerless with regards to the economy same can be said about our current government to say they are powerless is a lie

again, power lies within these ideologies, if you believe in them and agree with them, you will have a lot more power, compared to others that dont, its clearly obvious that more plutocratic elements in society ultimate dictate these processes and systems

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

The Rent is the one that does not sit right with me but then again when you look at the average rent published by the CSO it is significantly lower than market rates for a variety of reasons.... If they are using this data it might explain it

Re rents the only logical explanation I can think of is we have an extremely wide income gap.

If 60% of private renters at market rates have a housing burden of in excess of 25% of income, the remaining 40% must be earning so much that they are well under 10%.

Maybe that's the MNC effect again.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Re rents the only logical explanation I can think of is we have an extremely wide income gap.

If 60% of private renters at market rates have a housing burden of in excess of 25% of income, the remaining 40% must be earning so much that they are well under 10%.

Maybe that's the MNC effect again.

It might also be impacted by social housing as it is defined as the percentage of the population living in a household where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than x% of the total disposable household income (net of housing allowances)

e.g with Hap paying say 90% of the rent that would mean 10% housing cost

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

It might also be impacted by social housing as it is defined as the percentage of the population living in a household where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than x% of the total disposable household income (net of housing allowances)

e.g with Hap paying say 90% of the rent that would mean 10% housing cost

I'm assuming that social housing comes under the category - tenant at reduced rate/free

Granolite

Timing belt wrote: »

It might also be impacted by social housing as it is defined as the percentage of the population living in a household where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than x% of the total disposable household income (net of housing allowances)

e.g with Hap paying say 90% of the rent that would mean 10% housing cost

But is that cohort not already excluded from the rental cohort represented in column 3 in the tables you posted - Tenant, rent at market price?

Wouldn't HAP / free housing instances not be included in the next column (column 4) next under the "tenant, rent at reduced price / free. heading

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I'm assuming that social housing comes under the category - tenant at reduced rate/free

HAP is at market rate isn't it?

here is the Percentage of Working HAP Tenants by income from cso

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

HAP is at market rate isn't it?

here is the Percentage of Working HAP Tenants by income from cso

Just seems more logical to include them in the reduced rental crowd. Seems counter intuitive to present such stats in a way that knowingly misrepresents the reality.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Just seems more logical to include them in the reduced rental crowd. Seems counter intuitive to present such stats in a way that knowingly misrepresents the reality.

I don't know where they are reported HAP but if they are paying market rate to LL then its not social housing and would be classified as housing assistance.

tenant at reduced rate/free I would see as social housing.

timmyntc

If the tenant burden figures are based on individual tenants rather than households, it doesn't take the effect of houseshares into account does it?

5 people each renting a room in a house will pay a much lower % of their income in rent than a family of 5 (2 parents 3 children) - even if the house rent is the same.

Typically people will opt for the cheaper option and house share to save money, so it might look as though things are better here than they actually are.

Timing belt

timmyntc wrote: »

If the tenant burden figures are based on individual tenants rather than households, it doesn't take the effect of houseshares into account does it?

5 people each renting a room in a house will pay a much lower % of their income in rent than a family of 5 (2 parents 3 children) - even if the house rent is the same.

Typically people will opt for the cheaper option and house share to save money, so it might look as though things are better here than they actually are.

Good point - here is the data that breaks it down by no of people

Housing cost overburden rate by household type - EU-SILC survey
%

This indicator is defined as the percentage of the population living in a household where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than 40% of the total disposable household income (net of housing allowances) presented by household type

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I don't know where they are reported HAP but if they are paying market rate to LL then its not social housing and would be classified as housing assistance.

tenant at reduced rate/free I would see as social housing.

Ok, if you’re right then given the volume of some sort government assistance over and above social housing then I guess it would explain the overall average of 15%.

But that means that our housing market is even more screwed up than even I thought it was!

Thargor

Is there any way to tell how long a property has been up for sale on Daft and Myhome? Was that a feature they removed?

Browney7

Timing belt wrote: »

That is what the data is telling us but we are trying to understand why...

The data comes from a annual survey and is published on the Eurostat website.

I have a feeling that the strict lending rules by the CBI is driving the mortgage data because you can't get a mortgage if you can afford it..... in other EU countries lending standards are more relaxed... But this is only a guess.

The Rent is the one that does not sit right with me but then again when you look at the average rent published by the CSO it is significantly lower than market rates for a variety of reasons.... If they are using this data it might explain it

Thinking out loud, since it's just interest costs, is it potentially due to our "boom" in prices in the late 90s and 00s where people who may be happy to pay the mortgage they took on in the early 90s even though they probably have the resources to repay (ie a large cohort of the owner with a mortgage category could be put in the outright owner category.

Other factors potentially being the proliferation of tracker mortgages with low interest rates. Net disposable income being the denominator may factor into it also (part-time work with a low tax burden and child benefit payments etc being included).

Just thinking out loud but the components of the statistic may vary greatly by jurisdiction.

JimmyVik

Timing belt wrote: »

Good point - here is the data that breaks it down by no of people

Housing cost overburden rate by household type - EU-SILC survey
%

This indicator is defined as the percentage of the population living in a household where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than 40% of the total disposable household income (net of housing allowances) presented by household type

Household income can be a big number. It varys wildly depending on the size of the household and how many worker bees are in it.

My brothers household income is about €450k. All of them are working in that house.
Then if you were to count my parents household income, where some of us live and add up the household income you would get about €300k including 2 pensioners.
Then you have my sister with her husband who get paid more than any of the rest of us. Only 2 of them in the house but they have a lower household income.

AlmightyCushion

timmyntc wrote: »

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but why in the EU28 figures do the categories total more than 100% of the population? Is there significant overlap in these categories or are they supposed to be mutually exclusive?

All the people in the over 75% category are also in the over 60% category and over 50% category etc.

Timing belt

Between 2003 - 2019 The year with the largest % of young adults living with their parents was 2004.

This surprised me as I would have thought with the housing shortage it would have been 2017/18/19.

Taylor365

Timing belt wrote: »

Between 2003 - 2019 The year with the largest % of young adults living with their parents was 2004.

This surprised me as I would have thought with the housing shortage it would have been 2017/18/19.

What about the amount of people alive between 18-34 at each point?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Between 2003 - 2019 The year with the largest % of young adults living with their parents was 2004.

This surprised me as I would have thought with the housing shortage it would have been 2017/18/19.

Add it to the list of surprising facts about our "housing shortage".

hometruths

One of the non surprising facts about the housing shortage is that it is very good business for housebuilders.

Glenveagh, one of the State’s best known housebuilders, expects to charge Dublin City Council €33.44 million for 71 social housing units at a major development on Sheriff Street.

In a letter to the city council about how it might meet its Part V social housing obligations under the plan, Glenveagh estimated that the units might cost the council up to €791,531 each.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642

Celtic tiger prices were out of control, but I don't think apartments on SHeriff St were knocking on the door of 800k even then?!

Is there any sort of price discovery in Part V? How does it actually work? Surely a builder cannot just say we are building a load of units here, price will be X and government pay it?

TheSheriff

schmittel wrote: »

One of the non surprising facts about the housing shortage is that it is very good business for housebuilders.



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642

Celtic tiger prices were out of control, but I don't think apartments on SHeriff St were knocking on the door of 800k even then?!

Is there any sort of price discovery in Part V? How does it actually work? Surely a builder cannot just say we are building a load of units here, price will be X and government pay it?

My god, this is depressing/enraging.

Timing belt

Taylor365 wrote: »

What about the amount of people alive between 18-34 at each point?

I was unable to get the population from 18-20 with the way the CSO had the data grouped so just used 20-34 for the population.

Then used the % from my previous post (18-34) to work out the estimated no of Young Adults living with their parents

But should still give a pretty accurate picture

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

One of the non surprising facts about the housing shortage is that it is very good business for housebuilders.



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642

Celtic tiger prices were out of control, but I don't think apartments on SHeriff St were knocking on the door of 800k even then?!

Is there any sort of price discovery in Part V? How does it actually work? Surely a builder cannot just say we are building a load of units here, price will be X and government pay it?

I don't even want to think about the rent the government will probably for the housing units they don't buy.

And people still think its a good use of tax payers money when they could buy twice the amount of property elsewhere.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

One of the non surprising facts about the housing shortage is that it is very good business for housebuilders.



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642

Celtic tiger prices were out of control, but I don't think apartments on SHeriff St were knocking on the door of 800k even then?!

Is there any sort of price discovery in Part V? How does it actually work? Surely a builder cannot just say we are building a load of units here, price will be X and government pay it?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/glenveagh-acquires-four-new-sites-for-2-780-homes-1.3547980%3fmode=amp

The may have only paid €60m for site? That would be a site cost of €85k ish per unit?

€700k+ for a 3 bed apartment in that part of town?

Dav010

Does anyone really think the Government should take on the responsibility for building sufficient units to ease the housing/rental crises?

Timing belt

Dav010 wrote: »

Does anyone really think the Government should take on the responsibility for building sufficient units to ease the housing/rental crises?

I think they should sub-contract out builds for a fixed cost with completion bonus for delivering early..... like they did with the motorways.

I think it is crazy that they buy at open market price from a developer considering all the land they are sitting on.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I don't even want to think about the rent the government will probably for the housing units they don't buy.

And people still think its a good use of tax payers money when they could buy twice the amount of property elsewhere.

In fairness to the government if people want high property prices then they will have to expect exorbitant amounts of tax payers money going on overpriced property whether its bought or rented.

hometruths

Dav010 wrote: »

Does anyone really think the Government should take on the responsibility for building sufficient units to ease the housing/rental crises?

I think the government should take on the responsibility to ease the housing/rental crisis. I really don't think they should be buying/building overpriced units in bulk.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

I think the government should take on the responsibility to ease the housing/rental crisis. I really don't think they should be buying/building overpriced units in bulk.

And around we go the government have got neither the skillset or cop on to do this and have proven that when they build it is a disaster when it comes to the price. Having the public sector step into build housing straight away adds a layer of bureaucracy and expense and a lack of expertise in building

hometruths

fliball123 wrote: »

And around we go the government have got neither the skillset or cop on to do this and have proven that when they build it is a disaster when it comes to the price. Having the public sector step into build housing straight away adds a layer of bureaucracy and expense and a lack of expertise in building

Maybe read what I posted and what you quoted. And around we go indeed.