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

yagan

Marius34 wrote: »

Their main business and income is from actual Rental, they made much money even in the last 3 years, when property prices were stable, while they have plenty of expenses.

Their "declared" income on the many vacant properties we know exist.

The easiest way to rob a bank is to run one, and the same applies to pension funds.

I've elderly relatives whose weekly household expenses are less than the state pension but they obsess about their savings earning small interest and they're the kind of suckers that people like Smethurst ponzi scheme targets.

Davy's were running a very dodgy ad specifically aimed at catching pensioners on LyricFM until they got rumbled.

awec

JimmyVik wrote: »

I just caught the end of a show on the radio there. Not sure if it was him, but did I just hear Darragh O'Brien suggesting that they increase stamp duty for everyone but FTBs to curb REITs?
I knew it wouldnt take them long to figure out how to gouge more money off ordinary workers, thinly veiled as helping them.
What about second time buyers? I hope he isnt intending on upping stamp duty for them too.
That guy is worse even than the housing ministers who came before.

I thought the suggestion was to hike stamp duty when multiple properties were being bought?

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

Home is where the city is
Mick Clifford Irish Examiner podcast

A study of dereliction focused on Cork City finds 340 derelict buildings within a 2 km radius in Cork


Worth a listen on your evening walk

I could see that when I lived in cork from 2007-2012. So many derelict building in the city centre. Couldn’t get my head around it. Yards from Patrick st down cormarket past the bodega.

Marius34

yagan wrote: »

Their "declared" income on the many vacant properties we know exist.

The easiest way to rob a bank is to run one, and the same applies to pension funds.

I've elderly relatives whose weekly household expenses are less than the state pension but they obsess about their savings earning small interest and they're the kind of suckers that people like Smethurst ponzi scheme targets.

Davy's were running a very dodgy ad specifically aimed at catching pensioners on LyricFM until they got rumbled.

You are welcome to share, where did you find this information.
If they declare income on vacant properties, their expenses/tax would go up. And if they manipulate their reports, there are massive fines for manipulating financial reports.

Villa05

Marius34 wrote:

Their main business and income is from actual Rental, they made much money even in the last 3 years, when property prices were stable, while they have plenty of expenses.

Hubertj wrote:

I could see that when I lived in cork from 2007-2012. So many derelict building in the city centre. Couldn’t get my head around it. Yards from Patrick st down cormarket past the bodega.

Interestingly they compare how it has deteriorated over time and becomes viral from Google Street View data. The first street view was done in the early noughties
The bedsit ban may have been a significant factor in accelerating it

yagan

Marius34 wrote: »

You are welcome to share, where did you find this information.
If they declare income on vacant properties, their expenses/tax would go up. And if they manipulate their reports, there are massive fines for manipulating financial reports.

Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed.

Did that broker primetime exposed that rang his mate in the bank to find out how much the applicant could be squeezed for go to jail or get fined?

It's impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good.

PropQueries

Villa05 wrote: »

Home is where the city is
Mick Clifford Irish Examiner podcast

A study of dereliction focused on Cork City finds 340 derelict buildings within a 2 km radius in Cork


Worth a listen on your evening walk

And, as David McWilliams said last year:

"People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use."

Marius34

yagan wrote: »

Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed.

Did that broker primetime exposed that rang his mate in the bank to find out how much the applicant could be squeezed for go to jail or get fined?

It's impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good.

this doesn't tell anything about REITs profits.

Cyrus

yagan wrote: »

Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed.

to get audits passed?

they would have 'passed' their audit anyway, it was to understate directors loans which are required to be disclosed but it would have no impact on the entities ability to continue as a going concern.

even if he had been found guilty, im not sure it was an offence that would require jail time.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

And, as David McWilliams said last year:

"People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use."

You and McWilliams are wrong. You are assuming you can generate a viable return given the cost involved. You are also assuming being able to get the finance in the first place.

I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.

timmyntc

PropQueries wrote: »

And, as David McWilliams said last year:

"People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use."

Agreed - there are few if any "poor" people with a disused building in prime central locations in cities and towns of this country.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

You and McWilliams are wrong. You are assuming you can generate a viable return given the cost involved. You are also assuming being able to get the finance in the first place.

I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.

If you can't afford to renovate your extra home, then sell it!

yagan

Marius34 wrote: »

this doesn't tell anything about REITs profits.

Profits?

Asset appreciation isn't profit.

MacronvFrugals

cnocbui wrote: »

You and McWilliams are wrong. You are assuming you can generate a viable return given the cost involved. You are also assuming being able to get the finance in the first place.

I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.

Its anti-social

If you cant afford to renovate then sell it!

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

If you can't afford to renovate your extra home, then sell it!

I couldn't sell it due to the provisioning of a will and a subsequent probate issue which I have just managed to overcome - a process that took more than two years and wasn't cheap.

cnocbui

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Its anti-social

If you cant afford to renovate then sell it!

What is anti-social about owning a holiday home? It's over an hours drive from any city.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

I couldn't sell it due to the provisioning of a will and a subsequent probate issue which I have just managed to overcome - a process that took more than two years and wasn't cheap.

Those extenuating circumstances aside -
if its not cost-effective to renovate a vacant property - then you sell. You shouldn't be let leave an in-demand unit vacant indefinitely simply because you dont see any profit in doing it up. You sell, and someone else will renovate it either to rent or live.

cnocbui wrote:

What is anti-social about owning a holiday home? It's over an hours drive from any city.

We were and are all talking in general terms - in references to McWilliams article about how people leaving city properties vacant & derelict are too rich not too poor.

SmokyMo

cnocbui wrote: »

Go ahead, increase the Revenue head count by 25%. More taxes and more civil servants - go for it - just what this country needs.

REITS are a huge problem but the discussion here has turned to inaccessible spaces above shops, and the like. Crazy. Deal with the elephant in the room, before worrying about the mice.

How many property owners have the funds necessary to do the renovations? if they all are forced to do it, assuming a magic amount of money, what would that do to the rental values? If they all had to borrow money to fund this nonsense, the rental yield could be insufficient to service borrowings. Not to mention the net effect of all this on Irelands currently minuscule level of debt.

Where are the workers coming from to do these soon to be white elephant property conversions? Where is the money coming from?

I have a property currently for sale, the prospective buyer has applied for a mortgage. So far it's been 5 months without it being granted yet.

You own a shop, which makes ends meet, but isn't a spectacular earner. The government drops a 10% tax on you for the inaccessible, uninsulated, unplumbed, old wiring, spaces above. You apply for a loan to do the conversion and the banks say no. Then what? Yeah, great if such small business owners go under, fire their one employee, and are forced to put their property on the market, along with the 12,000 others doing likewise at the same time, for the same reason. What a win for FTBers - the prices of uninhabitable commercial buildings falling through the floor.

The sheer impracticality and negative consequences of what people are proposing here at the moment just spin my head.

what are you on about? You own derelict property(s) in demand zone but have no money to renovate? Sell it then. Use it or lose it.
cant find people to do work? Dont care, shouldnt let the building rot. Sell it then.
Enough pampering.

Villa05

cnocbui wrote:

I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.

You'd generate some income here alone if you stated declare interest by pm, no need to renovate just clean
Holiday homes will be goldust this and next summer

Marius34

yagan wrote: »

Profits?

Asset appreciation isn't profit.

Is it still income? Let it be income as you wish. Still this doesn't change much, your source of information doesn't tell anything about REITS source of Income.

Villa05

cnocbui wrote:

What is anti-social about owning a holiday home? It's over an hours drive from any city.

WFH appeal, have u decent broadband

cnocbui

Villa05 wrote: »

You'd generate some income here alone if you stated declare interest by pm, no need to renovate just clean
Holiday homes will be goldust this and next summer

What?

cnocbui

Villa05 wrote: »

WFH appeal, have u decent broadband

No prospect of broadband other than via Musk's starlink satellite system. Basically no mobile phone reception either.

yagan

Marius34 wrote: »

Is it still income? Let it be income as you wish. Still this doesn't change much, your source of information doesn't tell anything about REITS source of Income.

My source of information?

It was always speculation but your defensiveness has me intrigued.

PropQueries

The Government's current policy of relying on pension funds etc. to keep buying build-to-rent apartments may be hitting a brick wall sooner than they think.

As reported today, the consumer price index in the states rose to 4.2% in April from a year earlier. I've noticed my local barbers haircut prices have increased from €20 to €30 so it's already here or on the way here IMO

And, according to the financial press today, many investors in the markets aren't believing the feds narrative that it's "transitory".

So, if those funds are currently seeking a yield of 3.5%, how's that going to work out for financing all these apartments should interest rates rise to e.g. 3% on this side of the atlantic assuming that this inflation isn't "transitory" and becomes a worldwide phenomenon?

Will they start demanding 6% - 7% which may then result in existing build-to-rent apartments falling in value by up to c. 50% or more even if current "market" rents etc. all remain the same?

How will all these apartments that the Government is relying on be built given what they have said they currently cost to build?

Bass Reeves

PropQueries wrote: »

The Government's current policy of relying on pension funds etc. to keep buying build-to-rent apartments may be hitting a brick wall sooner than they think.

As reported today, the consumer price index in the states rose to 4.2% in April from a year earlier. I've noticed my local barbers haircut prices have increased from €20 to €30 so it's already here or on the way here IMO

And, according to the financial press today, many investors in the markets aren't believing the feds narrative that it's "transitory".

So, if those funds are currently seeking a yield of 3.5%, how's that going to work out for financing all these apartments should interest rates rise to e.g. 3% on this side of the atlantic assuming that this inflation isn't "transitory" and becomes a worldwide phenomenon?

Will they start demanding 6% - 7% which may then result in existing build-to-rent apartments falling in value by up to c. 50% or more even if current "market" rents etc. all remain the same?

How will all these apartments that the Government is relying on be built given what they have said they currently cost to build?

I think there are things called rent reviews build in maybe even upwards only

PropQueries

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I think there are things called rent reviews build in maybe even upwards only

So, those apartments that the Government has agreed to let over 25 years at c. €2,000 a month will be increasing to c. €4,000 per month? Maybe, if they're tied into it.

Can the Government justify or more importantly afford such increases?

But the apartments that aren't yet built or tied in, they could easily fall in value by c. 50% or more IMO

I think the Government is going to have to come up with a Plan B and fast IMO

yagan

Fascinating WSJ piece about the institutional rent farming bubble.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-sell-a-house-these-days-the-buyer-might-be-a-pension-fund-11617544801

“You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house,” said John Burns, whose eponymous real estate consulting firm estimates that in many of the nation’s top markets, roughly one in every five houses sold is bought by someone who never moves in. “That’s going to make U.S. housing permanently more expensive,” he said.

“Limited housing supply, low rates, a global reach for yield, and what we’re calling the institutionalization of real-estate investors has set the stage for another speculative investor-driven home price bubble,” the firm concluded.

It is entirely possible that we may end up a rental surplus but paying 15-10 rental bonds written by Fianna Fail to reduce the housing list. Even as silent partner they could have made building social housing where it was in short supply a priority.

Bass Reeves

PropQueries wrote: »

So, those apartments that the Government has agreed to let over 25 years at c. €2,000 a month will be increasing to c. €4,000 per month? Maybe, if they're tied into it.

Can the Government justify or more importantly afford such increases?

But the apartments that aren't yet built or tied in, they could easily fall in value by c. 50% or more IMO

I think the Government is going to have to come up with a Plan B and fast IMO

Again you are flip flopping all.over the place. Previous post you stated it was older apartments that fall in value as yield would be too low not you are saying apartments being build will fall in value.

If we have inflation and wage inflation then building costs will not reduce. If that happen supply is reduced and we are back to square one

Hubertj

yagan wrote: »

Fascinating WSJ piece about the institutional rent farming bubble.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-sell-a-house-these-days-the-buyer-might-be-a-pension-fund-11617544801


It is entirely possible that we may end up a rental surplus but paying 15-10 rental bonds written by Fianna Fail to reduce the housing list. Even as silent partner they could have made building social housing where it was in short supply a priority.

I’d be interested to see your numbers on a surplus of units considering the difference between units being delivered and the forecasts of 30k + being published by the ESRI. didn’t the central bank say it could be even higher a couple of years back?