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

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, I provided two links. One to Barry Cowen and one to Lisney Auctioneers.

Where's your links? To be fair, I don't even require links to take someone's opposing view on board. Just a coherent argument on why both Barry Cowen and Lisney are wrong and that you're right.

Nobody has issues with the links, it's your conclusions that are being debated.

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

In what context do you think those Geodirectory figures have any relevance here? My post was specifically on obsolescence figures.

Because there isn't one. They're not in any way connected.

There is a lot of number-flinging in this thread without any comprehension of what is relevant.

That is kind of ironic!!!

It is so blindingly obvious, that if you don't see instantly how obsolescence is relevant to the annual net gain in housing stock I am not sure it's worth trying to explain it. I assumed you'd understood it given that lined an article saying:


The difference between the headline figure of nearly 51,000 houses being built in Ireland annually and the actual net gain of just short of 19,000 is due to obsolescence.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

You are still wildly missing the point to the level that I think its completely deliberate.

Both figures can be right and still do nothing to support your 15,000 claim.

Working out how many people who died owned a house does not mean that many houses will go on sale

Providing a figure from one estate agent for their sales does not give a figure for the full market.

Providing links is not the be all and end all, as shown here - your links do not give the information required to verify your figure


The data you have given here does not provide any method to come to the answer you claim it does.

I picked the 15,000 figure because it's c. half Barry Cowen's 26,000 figure.

I can't go much lower IMO

L1011

schmittel wrote: »

That is kind of ironic!!!

It is so blindingly obvious, that if you don't see instantly how obsolescence is relevant to the annual net gain in housing stock I am not sure it's worth trying to explain it. I assumed you'd understood it given that lined an article saying:

Erm. No.

Geodirectory having a different figure for new housing than another source has nothing to do with obsolesce. Nothing at all.

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

I picked the 15,000 figure because it's c. half Barry Cowen's 26,000 figure.

I can't go much lower IMO

And yet you still don't understand - or are pretending not to understand - how Barry Cowens figure is not actually a figure of any use here.

It is not, never was and never will be an actual figure of how many houses are returned to the market annually via probate.

26000 house owners dying does not mean 26000 houses will be returned to the market as it does not take in to account how many of those houses are already occupied by co-owners or those that will inherit them. That number will be significant.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

And yet you still don't understand - or are pretending not to understand - how Barry Cowens figure is not actually a figure of any use here.

It is not, never was and never will be an actual figure of how many houses are returned to the market annually via probate.

26000 house owners dying does not mean 26000 houses will be returned to the market as it does not take in to account how many of those houses are already occupied by co-owners or those that will inherit them. That number will be significant.

And, that's why I used 15,000. So, of the number of potential annual 26,000 probate sales (excl. backlogs), how many will eventually enter the sales market, once the backlog is cleared?

My best guess is c. 50%, but I would assume much more. But, I'll stick with 50%.

What's your best guess? 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% etc.?

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

And, that's why I used 15,000. So, of the number of potential 26,000 probate sales (excl. backlogs), how many will eventually enter the sales market, once the backlog is cleared?

I best guess is c. 50%, but I would assume much more. But.s I'll stick with 50%.

What's your best guess? 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% etc.?

Point missed again

You can guess at 15k, but absolutely cannot use Cowen - or Lisneys - figures to back it up as they do not provider anywhere near enough info to do so

Therefore the 15k is an unsupported guess.

This is the problem with your number-flinging - you make up numbers, grab links that cannot support them and reference them anyway to try and make it look like the numbers are anything other than made up.

Slapping "IMO" on the end of something does not elevate it above being made up either.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

Point missed again

You can guess at 15k, but absolutely cannot use Cowen - or Lisneys - figures to back it up as they do not provider anywhere near enough info to do so

Therefore the 15k is an unsupported guess.

This is the problem with your number-flinging - you make up numbers, grab links that cannot support them and reference them anyway to try and make it look like the numbers are anything other than made up.

And, what's your best guess figure? And, the numbers aren't "made up". They're from Barry Cowen.

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

Erm. No.

Geodirectory having a different figure for new housing than another source has nothing to do with obsolesce. Nothing at all.

What is the other source with a different figure?

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

And, what's your best guess figure?

I don't need one. I'm not the one basing a complex argument around made up figures.

Indeed my main point here is to get you to stop making up figures, stop falsely referencing articles, stop positing conspiracy theories of your own construction and generally deal with debate in an appropriate manner.

PropQueries wrote: »

And, the numbers aren't "made up". They're from Barry Cowen.

The 15k is made up, by you.

Cowens figures cannot be used to derive 15k for many reasons already explained to you, which you are ignoring; and it appears you made up 15k before you ever found Cowens figures to begin with.

L1011

schmittel wrote: »

What is the other source with a different figure?

Wherever you got the 21,000 figure you're contrasting 28,000 with. Your figures, not mine.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

I don't need one. I'm not the one basing a complex argument around made up figures.

Indeed my main point here is to get you to stop making up figures, stop falsely referencing articles, stop positing conspiracy theories of your own construction and generally deal with debate in an appropriate manner.

My figures were taken directly from Barry Cowen and Lisney. I'm sorry, but I really can't do much better unfortunately

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

My figures were taken directly from Barry Cowen and Lisney. I'm sorry, but I really can't do much better unfortunately

They weren't. You made them up and found some stuff that a casual observer might thing supported them unless they actually looked and found that they didn't.

Stop doing this.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

They weren't. You made them up and found some stuff that a casual observer might thing supported them unless they actually looked and found that they didn't.

Stop doing this.

Are you telling me that I made up those figures, taken directly from the article on Barry Cowen and from Lisney's Auctioneers own research paper?

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

Wherever you got the 21,000 figure you're contrasting 28,000 with. Your figures, not mine.

They are actually the same source. They are both GeoDirectory's figures, not mine.

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

Are you telling me that I made up those figures, taken directly from the article on Barry Cowen and from Lisney's Auctioneers own research paper?

Yes, because the 15000 is not actually from either of those sources and cannot be derived from either or both of them either.

L1011

schmittel wrote: »

They are actually the same source. They are both GeoDirectory's figures, not mine.

Go ask Geodirectory why the discrepancy exists then.

It still has absolutely zero relevance to what was under discussion.

Browney7

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/eye-watering-rents-extracted-from-younger-generation-in-city-centres-are-not-sustainable-1.4549215?mode=amp

Interesting article from McDowell. Making a play for the young professionals in Dublin Bay South for a return to the Dáil perhaps....

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

Go ask Geodirectory why the discrepancy exists then.

It still has absolutely zero relevance to what was under discussion.

There is no need to ask GeoDirectory what the discrepancy is. It is blindingly obvious:

If 21,000 new builds are completed and the housing stock increases by 28,000 then there is a net gain of 7k houses due to obsolete houses being renovated and brought back into use.

it is entirely relevant to what was under discussion as I was replying to your post where you correctly pointed out:

L1011 wrote: »

The housing obsolescence rate - houses permanently removed from the supply - in Ireland has been calculated as a tad under 7k a year, and much of that is going to be houses that are not in liveable condition when someone dies

https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/the-challenge-of-housing-obsolescence/

Regardless of where they come from, they need to be netted off the number of new builds / probate sales that do occur / renovations from empty to get an accurate figure of the change to supply.

The net difference here is a 7k gain. i.e we don't have an obsolescence problem because more houses are being renovated than are becoming obsolete. Exactly what you would expect to happen in a booming market with tight supply.

Hubertj

Browney7 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/eye-watering-rents-extracted-from-younger-generation-in-city-centres-are-not-sustainable-1.4549215?mode=amp

Interesting article from McDowell. Making a play for the young professionals in Dublin Bay South for a return to the Dáil perhaps....

Ah something relevant to discuss. Thank you. It is an interesting article and he makes some good points, which are also common sense. Knit it does look like he is canvassing a bit. He would make an interesting addition to the Dail.

L1011

schmittel wrote: »

There is no need to ask GeoDirectory what the discrepancy is. It is blindingly obvious:

If 21,000 new builds are completed and the housing stock increases by 28,000 then there is a net gain of 7k houses due to obsolete houses being renovated and brought back into use.

it is entirely relevant to what was under discussion as I was replying to your post where you correctly pointed out:



The net difference here is a 7k gain. i.e we don't have an obsolescence problem because more houses are being renovated than are becoming obsolete. Exactly what you would expect to happen in a booming market with tight supply.

There's a giant hole in this logic - most obsolete, under restoration properties will already have a geodirectory data point. They will have received and likely still be receiving post. Geodirectory figures are not a reliable metric, as has been done to death on this thread.

It was an irrelevant number-fling and I'm not going to interact with you on it again.

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

There's a giant hole in this logic - most obsolete, under restoration properties will already have a geodirectory data point. They will have received and likely still be receiving post.

It was an irrelevant number-fling and I'm not going to interact with you on it again.

With the greatest of respect, there's a giant hole in your understanding here.

It's c 21,000 increase in "new residential address points" - geodirectory data points - vs c 28,000 increase in "total stock of residential dwellings"

It's exactly because these 7k properties already have a geodirectory point that it is obvious they come from stock previously classified as obsolete/derelict.

Browney7

Hubertj wrote: »

Ah something relevant to discuss. Thank you. It is an interesting article and he makes some good points, which are also common sense. Knit it does look like he is canvassing a bit. He would make an interesting addition to the Dail.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/time-has-come-for-institutional-investment-to-address-the-affordable-housing-crisis-1.4547814?mode=amp

Interesting timing for Savills putting this out today after the currency's piece yesterday.

The author's view that the state can't fund housing construction itself despite the fact the state could raise 3.5bn of 20 year debt at a yield just a touch under 0.6% 2 weeks ago makes her conclusion a little tenuous in my view. Fair play to institutional investment taking the Irish state for a ride with a nice yield enhancement

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

There is no need to ask GeoDirectory what the discrepancy is. It is blindingly obvious:

If 21,000 new builds are completed and the housing stock increases by 28,000 then there is a net gain of 7k houses due to obsolete houses being renovated and brought back into use.

it is entirely relevant to what was under discussion as I was replying to your post where you correctly pointed out:



The net difference here is a 7k gain. i.e we don't have an obsolescence problem because more houses are being renovated than are becoming obsolete. Exactly what you would expect to happen in a booming market with tight supply.

You’re happy to rely on a postman for reliable data? Madness. In my opinion.
Most of the “debate” this morning has been pointless. In my opinion.

Villa05

schmittel wrote: »

The 7k figure you mention from the source you linked is based on numbers from 2011 - 2016. it is probably helpful to use more up to date figures.

Geodirectory reports total housing stock of 2,014,357 in Dec 2019 vs 2,042,426 in Dec 20

This is an increase in housing stock of just over 28,000.

If we got 21,000 new builds in 2020, where are the other 7k houses coming from?

I think the question is answered in this Irish Times podcast podcat 8 minutes in. The contributer questions if there is a supply crisis



Covid 19 impact on the housing market



Student accomodation

Restoration of previously vacant property

Ghost estates from the last bubble finding buyers

(Figures provided in the podcast)



Shame some critical points/and posters are getting shut down

PropQueries

Browney7 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/time-has-come-for-institutional-investment-to-address-the-affordable-housing-crisis-1.4547814?mode=amp

Interesting timing for Savills putting this out today after the currency's piece yesterday.

The author's view that the state can't fund housing construction itself despite the fact the state could raise 3.5bn of 20 year debt at a yield just a touch under 0.6% 2 weeks ago makes her conclusion a little tenuous in my view. Fair play to institutional investment taking the Irish state for a ride with a nice yield enhancement

Whether this is stopped or not all comes down to if Paschal wants to be this generations Brian Cowen IMO

Anyone in their late 40's should be very concerned by this as when these 25 leases come up for renewal in 25 years time, it will be around the same time they will be looking for that state pension they've been forced to pay into all their lives that was actually treated as current revenue for Government spending purposes

Villa05

in relation to building material inflation Grafton group who run many retail and business builders providers are raising profit forecasts by 15/20%

Cyrus

Villa05 wrote: »

Shame some critical points/and posters are getting shut down

if that poster is being shut down, whoever is doing it is doing a terrible job because the posts are coming thick and fast.

whats wrong with healthy debate and challenge and holding people accountable when they are drawing conclusions from data that doesnt support them?

or is it just because that posters views align with your own?

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

I think the question is answered in this Irish Times podcast podcat 8 minutes in. The contributer questions if there is a supply crisis



Covid 19 impact on the housing market



Student accomodation

Restoration of previously vacant property

Ghost estates from the last bubble finding buyers

(Figures provided in the podcast)



Shame some critical points/and posters are getting shut down

It’s a shame that some “contributors” are making up “facts”

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

You’re happy to rely on a postman for reliable data? Madness. In my opinion.
Most of the “debate” this morning has been pointless. In my opinion.

It is amazing how much of the data relating to our housing market apparently cannot be trusted.

We've heard on here that the CSO cannot be trusted to measure vacancies, but apparently GeoDirectory can.

And we're told whilst GeoDirectory can be considered competent to measure vacant properties they cannot be trusted to measure occupied ones!

The best available data can be either be trusted or it cannot, we cannot pick and choose what data is reliable depending on our confirmation bias.

If the data can be trusted, most of it points to the fact that our housing shortage/crisis is nothing like as bad as we are led to believe.

If it cannot be trusted, then how can we be sure that our housing shortage/crisis is as bad as we are led to believe?