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

JimmyVik

Donald Trump wrote: »

There might also be another reason why they jump. They might be expecting a market correction in the slightly longer term and don't want to be left with impaired assets on their book.


Short term bubble and medium term bust perhaps.

I rememebr AIB did a lot of maneuvering before the last crash too.

Yurt2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its actually very disturbing, yet again!

White collar crime is woefully underprosecuted in this country. Gardai aren't resourced and they don't have enough experts in the force. I'd argue for special commissions into the force for forensic accountants and those with expertise to build a formidable unit.

Villa05

JimmyVik wrote: »

I rememebr AIB did a lot of maneuvering before the last crash too.

Which bank did a sale and leaseback on their HQ just prior to the crash

Hubertj

Yurt! wrote: »

White collar crime is woefully underprosecuted in this country. Gardai aren't resourced and they don't have enough experts in the force. I'd argue for special commissions into the force for forensic accountants and those with expertise to build a formidable unit.

Totally agree - forensic accounting team within Gardai required but also much more robust legislation supported by tougher sentencing. Think about the number of commercial transactions, many in property, which would have come under scrutiny over the last 20 years - planning breaches, bribes, etc

Villa05

Mad_maxx wrote:

Hall is a pure charlatan , his company have negotiated deals effectively where banks sold houses to the company , the defaulters remained in situ but the state guarenteed the rent to Halls company , Hall also gets to portray himself as a defender of a family facing eviction

Hubertj wrote:

It’s very easy to blame the Hubble rent for everything when someone has such a blinkered view of what the problems are. Swallowing the populism hook line and sinker when the really problems are a lot bigger than the gubberment.

Provision of housing was so much easier and responsive when we were broke and the sector was dominated by blue collar workers

Complicated indeed

combat14

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and if this was done, there would be rapid rise in homelessness, this is currently unresolvable, unless radical changes are implemented, i personally would go with a public banking system, but that to would be problematic

country cant afford it and we are part of eu not ussr

PropQueries

Villa05 wrote: »

Provision of housing was so much easier and responsive when we were broke and the sector was dominated by blue collar workers

Complicated indeed

Spot on. House building since the Stone Age has changed very little. Still four walls and a roof no matter how some people dress it up IMO

We have the land, we have the skill base. Every single action in relation to the provision of housing over the past 40 years appears to be to drive up not the actual build cost above the site but to drive up the site cost.

The proposed affordable housing bill backs this up IMO

The price cap in Dublin City is €450k while in Co. Tipperary it’s €225k according to The Times recently.

Where’s the €225k difference going? Mostly “site” costs from what I can gather. Who gives any site it’s value above agri level? The local council or an bord pleanala. I have no idea how after granting this gift, they still allow such sites to stay vacant for years. It’s a gift from the state/taxpayer and should be taken back swiftly if not used and given to someone who would use it.

Anyone commuting into the city from the suburbs each day can see there’s absolutely no shortage of land to build on closer to the city even at old style three-bed, large garden density levels to justify sites in Dublin being much more expensive than sites in Co. Tipperary IMO

enricoh

Worst case scenario a 6 billion hit to our corporation tax take, sod biden anyway- bring back donald!!

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/john-fitzgerald-corporation-tax-changes-may-pack-more-punch-than-covid-1.4538632?mode=amp

Wanderer78

combat14 wrote: »

country cant afford it and we are part of eu not ussr

of course we can, whatever is required to set them up can be easily borrowed for, and ive no idea where you re going with the ussr comment, public banks are common enough across the world, including in other eu countries such as france and germany

PropQueries

enricoh wrote: »

Worst case scenario a 6 billion hit to our corporation tax take, sod biden anyway- bring back donald!!

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/john-fitzgerald-corporation-tax-changes-may-pack-more-punch-than-covid-1.4538632?mode=amp

At least that €6 billion figure makes way way more sense than the €2 billion nonsense figure they being spouting for the past few years. Where they got that €2 billion figure from is beyond me given the percentage of our corporation tax receipts that come from these multinationals.

Cyrus

Villa05 wrote: »

It is amazing that no criminal investigation was initiated following the Davy Scandal

what particular crime did you expect to be investigated.

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

what particular crime did you expect to be investigated.

its clearly obvious that its 'insider trading'!

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its clearly obvious that its 'insider trading'!

one would imagine if an actual law was broken that there would be a criminal investigation.

yagan

Cyrus wrote: »

one would imagine if an actual law was broken that there would be a criminal investigation.

Laughing in Sean Fitzpatrick.

SmokyMo

Cyrus wrote: »

one would imagine if an actual law was broken that there would be a criminal investigation.

No law was broken as Ireland has very poor laws in relation white collar crime and specifically for fin sector. That's why its poster child in Western Europe for grey accounting.

MacronvFrugals

SmokyMo wrote: »

No law was broken as Ireland has very poor laws in relation white collar crime and specifically for fin sector. That's why its poster child in Western Europe for grey accounting.

That’s why we’re called “Treasure Ireland” come for the tax and stay for the nonexistent regulation/enforcement.

Donald Trump

Villa05 wrote: »

Which bank did a sale and leaseback on their HQ just prior to the crash

BofI did at least. Right around the peak


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/over-237m-for-bank-s-36-branch-portfolio-1.999111


One here that lost a few million for investors
https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/bank-of-ireland-branch-sold-at-height-of-boom-on-market-for-36m-35049924.html

Cyrus

SmokyMo wrote: »

No law was broken as Ireland has very poor laws in relation white collar crime and specifically for fin sector. That's why its poster child in Western Europe for grey accounting.

so why is the poster amazed there wasnt a criminal investigation?

timmyntc

Cyrus wrote: »

so why is the poster amazed there wasnt a criminal investigation?

In any sane country it would be against the law.

Cyrus

timmyntc wrote: »

In any sane country it would be against the law.

perhaps but expecting a criminal investigation when no law has actually been broken is a bit pointless.

mcsean2163

timmyntc wrote: »

What would the state then do with its newly acquired property?

It would still run into the same eviction issues if they tried vacate the property.
If they leave them in situ then the state has basically just paid your mortgage.

The only solution is to allow easy evictions of non-paying mortgage holders. Like they do all over the world.

Ownership reverts to the state. Beats paying 150% to house the same people. We're spending billions, paying 25% would be better. They lose the asset but retain occupancy, cannot be sold for profit etc.

timmyntc

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Ownership reverts to the state. Beats paying 150% to house the same people. We're spending billions, paying 25% would be better. They lose the asset but retain occupancy, cannot be sold for profit etc.

So the state is taking the loss on the mortgage. Collecting no rent.
And its not means tested - the occupants could more than likely afford market rents but instead pay nothing.

The state has basically just bailed out the bank by taking liabilities off their books for no gain.

Unless you think the state bailing out banks with the sole purpose of keeping wealthy people in their homes mortgage free is the signs of a healthy functioning market?

hometruths

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Ownership reverts to the state. Beats paying 150% to house the same people. We're spending billions, paying 25% would be better. They lose the asset but retain occupancy, cannot be sold for profit etc.

So the state owns yet more houses. No wonder prices are rising and home ownership is declining in this country if this is the answer to all problems.

L1011

schmittel wrote: »

So the state owns yet more houses. No wonder prices are rising and home ownership is declining in this country if this is the answer to all problems.

Considering we're absolutely never going to go full libertarian on this, what is your workable suggestion for provision of housing for those who cannot afford open market prices for it?

timmyntc

L1011 wrote: »

Considering we're absolutely never going to go full libertarian on this, what is your workable suggestion for provision of housing for those who cannot afford open market prices for it?

People who default on their mortgages are often people who have the means, but not the will to pay a mortgage.
Or else people who are living beyond their means.

The solution is for them to live within their means - to downsize or rent.

The solution is not for the state to bail out the banks and enable these people to have a free ride living beyond their means.

mcsean2163

timmyntc wrote: »

So the state is taking the loss on the mortgage. Collecting no rent.
And its not means tested - the occupants could more than likely afford market rents but instead pay nothing.

The state has basically just bailed out the bank by taking liabilities off their books for no gain.

Unless you think the state bailing out banks with the sole purpose of keeping wealthy people in their homes mortgage free is the signs of a healthy functioning market?

People have laid out all the issues here. Buying the subprime would increase the social housing stock massively for 25% of the cost as demonstrated by the Goldman sale and be more politically acceptable as vulture funds are not liked and the state would be blocking them. The state taking ownership of the asset would then remove unintended consequences as everyone will know that although the people have a council house they've lost their asset.

If you can't work out the figures yourself, I suggest going back to school for a maths primer.

awec

timmyntc wrote: »

People who default on their mortgages are often people who have the means, but not the will to pay a mortgage.
Or else people who are living beyond their means.

The solution is for them to live within their means - to downsize or rent.

The solution is not for the state to bail out the banks and enable these people to have a free ride living beyond their means.

I'm not sure this is accurate. This undoubtedly happens but I would say it's the exception rather than the rule.

Someone in mortgage arrears, who gets repossessed, is never going to get another mortgage again. Downsizing is not an option.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

Considering we're absolutely never going to go full libertarian on this, what is your workable suggestion for provision of housing for those who cannot afford open market prices for it?

10% vacant property tax would solve all current housing issues at no cost to the state IMO.

Aim it at companies where they are the beneficial owners of at least 3 residential properties. That way at least I’ll finally get to know how many of the vacant homes in Ireland the funds really own

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

Considering we're absolutely never going to go full libertarian on this, what is your workable suggestion for provision of housing for those who cannot afford open market prices for it?

I think the state should provide housing or subsidized housing for those who cannot afford open market prices.

But I think the state should also focus on policies that do not inflate open market prices by their actions in the market. It’s a vicious circle.

Eg the idea of prohibiting repossessions and instead expecting the state to take ownership of the house and convert it to social housing is a prime example of a mechanism that just pushes up “open market” prices and increases the number of people who cannot afford the “open market” prices, thereby increasing both the number and cost of the states obligation to provide housing.

If you want open market prices, repossess the houses and sell them on the open market. It’s not rocket science.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

Considering we're absolutely never going to go full libertarian on this, what is your workable suggestion for provision of housing for those who cannot afford open market prices for it?

10% vacant property tax would solve all current housing issues at no cost to the state IMO.

Aim it at companies where they are the beneficial owners of at least 3 residential properties. That way at least I’ll finally get to know how many of the vacant homes in Ireland the funds really own