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

Villa05

fliball123 wrote:

I am like a pig in sh1t here bought a bigger place bit of land and I can tell you the lockdown experience compared this time to last year is completely different (much better) I dont feel like a sardine stuck in the tin.

How noble of you to remind renters stuck in poky overpriced sardine tins with no chance of affording their own place of your good fortune

A good dose of fear, grreed, money printing and government subsidies helps to fatten pigs

fliball123

Villa05 wrote: »

How noble of you to remind renters stuck in poky overpriced sardine tins with no chance of affording their own place of your good fortune

A good dose of fear, grreed, money printing and government subsidies helps to fatten pigs

Sorry if it came across like that I was just explaining my personal situation and how by not actually listening to the conspiracy theories on this thread and looking at the hard facts which lead me to making an informed choice which has bettered my life. I dont live in Dublin so thats a choice I took, there are still around 4.5k properties available for sale on myhome for up and under 200k. If people want to be in a bigger place maybe they will have to sacrifice on location. At least I am not making up facts and telling people to buy or to sell unlike some posters on here

jr1942

One thing that surely doesn't make sense is building social housing in the city centre, ie. D8 for people who can't be bothered working, while people who do work and want to work then have to travel to the same D8 from 50km away. I can swallow everything else, the lack of availability the what not, but cant swallow that. Makes no sense.

PropQueries

fliball123 wrote: »

Have you a list of people who cant afford to buy in Dublin and that with the scheme they can? There has been a lot of whinging about affordability in Dublin and about how people have to compete with REITS and the council for property does this not give an advantage to the FTB who are buying.

But would FTBs really have to compete with the funds, REITS etc. if the local councils weren't agreeing to pay up to €3,000 per month per apartment over the next 25 years for the completed units e.g. Herbert Hill in Dundrum.


I don't think the funds, REITS etc., would be willing to pay the amount they are currently willing to pay without this guaranteed or implicit Government back-stop on the amount of rent they can be guaranteed to collect over the next 25 years.


FTBs aren't competing against funds, REITS etc. They're competing against the state at every level i.e. renting, buying etc.

PropQueries

jr1942 wrote: »

One thing that surely doesn't make sense is building social housing in the city centre, ie. D8 for people who can't be bothered working, while people who do work and want to work then have to travel to the same D8 from 50km away. I can swallow everything else, the lack of availability the what not, but cant swallow that. Makes no sense.

By that logic, Dublin would be a big empty field today as many of the residential areas in Dublin include a significant amount of social housing built from the 1950s through the 1980s.

Villa05

fliball123 wrote:

Sorry if it came across like that I was just explaining my personal situation
........
At least I am not making up facts and telling people to buy or to sell unlike some posters on here

Understood
..............

You can't make up facts

The property market is a mess, largely driven by Government policy being advised by the industry to the detriment of the country and especially the countries young workers

fliball123

PropQueries wrote: »

But would FTBs really have to compete with the funds, REITS etc. if the local councils weren't agreeing to pay up to €3,000 per month per apartment over the next 25 years for the completed units e.g. Herbert Hill in Dundrum.


I don't think the funds, REITS etc., would be willing to pay the amount they are currently willing to pay without this guaranteed or implicit Government back-stop on the amount of rent they can be guaranteed to collect over the next 25 years.


FTBs aren't competing against funds, REITS etc. They're competing against the state at every level i.e. renting, buying etc.

Well at least if the landlord or REIT get locked in for the 10 to 25 at least it means that someone can be renting for the 10 to 25 without any rent increases or without any of the landlord/tenant crap thats going on currently with smaller landlords. Also the arrangement is at 80/85% of current market rent. I do agree it is a kick in the balls for a taxpayer to paying out these sums but a lot of the pressure being applied is coming from the left for the government to come up with solutions. I can only imagine the absolute clusterphuck that would explode if the government turned around and said we are no longer giving anyone money for renting look after yourself.

PropQueries

I could be wrong on this point. But I'm 99% certain that Cairn Homes was initially intending to sell their apartments at Six Hanover Quay in the docklands for between c. €500k and c. €600k to owner-occupiers before they eventually sold them to a fund for c. €800k each in 2018. If anyone can find an article on that it would be great as I can't seem to find it.

Also, the Herbert Hill apartments were to be made available to owner-occupiers prior to making that agreement with the council to rent them for up to €3,000 per month and only then did they sell them to a fund.

The same with that other apartment development in Dundrum/Churchtown i.e. Fernbank. I believe Fernbank had many buyers lined up before they pulled the sales to individual buyers and sold them all to Irish Life.

It appears to me that the whole argument that developers can't build and sell at a certain price to owner-occupiers and that without the funds, REITS etc., these developments wouldn't be built only came about once the other developers saw what Cairn Homes sold their apartments at Six Hanover Quay for and said me too.

fliball123

PropQueries wrote: »

But would FTBs really have to compete with the funds, REITS etc. if the local councils weren't agreeing to pay up to €3,000 per month per apartment over the next 25 years for the completed units e.g. Herbert Hill in Dundrum.


I don't think the funds, REITS etc., would be willing to pay the amount they are currently willing to pay without this guaranteed or implicit Government back-stop on the amount of rent they can be guaranteed to collect over the next 25 years.


FTBs aren't competing against funds, REITS etc. They're competing against the state at every level i.e. renting, buying etc.

Read you last line here ..does your most recent post not contradict this?

PropQueries

fliball123 wrote: »

Read you last line here ..does your most recent post not contradict this?

Not at all. Herbert Hill is fully leased to the council. Fernbank, I would assume are at least partly reliant on HAP payments or other Government "initiatives" etc. and is Six Hanover Quay fully rented out (maybe it is)? i.e. no real demand if the state isn't involved.

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

i.e. no real demand if the state isn't involved.

whats real demand? people who need somewhere to live, the state wont be leaving them empty.

PropQueries

Cyrus wrote: »

whats real demand? people who need somewhere to live, the state wont be leaving them empty.

Given the reported number of vacant units in these luxury new built apartment developments (I'm referring to at least two articles stating same in the SBP over the past year), it would appear that, at current asking prices/rents, that the only real demand for these units is from the state.

Thargor

Supply in Limerick is absolutely shocking, 3 months of no change.

MacronvFrugals

<SNIP>

TobyHolmes

PropQueries wrote: »

Given the reported number of vacant units in these luxury new built apartment developments (I'm referring to at least two articles stating same in the SBP over the past year), it would appear that, at current asking prices/rents, that the only real demand for these units is from the state.

True. Renters/Buyers don't need to live in the city anymore because of the pandemic - Demand is falling. Meanwhile - the supply is rising. and what does supply and demand theory tell us? That the price will fall.

Graham

TobyHolmes wrote: »

True. Renters/Buyers don't need to live in the city anymore because of the pandemic - Demand is falling. Meanwhile - the supply is rising. and what does supply and demand theory tell us? That the price will fall.

You're assuming supply increases to the point where it is greater than demand.

Far from a foregone conclusion.

TobyHolmes

Graham wrote: »

You're assuming supply increases to the point where it is greater than demand.

Far from a foregone conclusion.

its all assumption though at this stage.

Graham

It's not though. We have some facts.

Supply has fallen, that's not an assumption.

TobyHolmes

Graham wrote: »

It's not though. We have some facts.

Supply has fallen, that's not an assumption.

empty apartments though are part of the supply - are they not?

Graham

TobyHolmes wrote: »

empty apartments though are part of the supply - are they not?

If there are empty apartments coming to the market, I'd say they were supply.

There's certainly a few arriving into the rental market. I don't see any significant supply of apartments outside of that.

Bass Reeves

Thargor wrote: »

Supply in Limerick is absolutely shocking, 3 months of no change.

Builders concentrated on completion's in second half of 2020. Not a lot of new starts in last 2 months pre Christmas. New supply will be very slow for first half of the year.

Subutai

PropQueries wrote: »

Given the reported number of vacant units in these luxury new built apartment developments (I'm referring to at least two articles stating same in the SBP over the past year), it would appear that, at current asking prices/rents, that the only real demand for these units is from the state.

Those reports should be taken with a grain of salt. They are based entirely on looking at the RTB register of tenancies. Anyone who has been a landlord knows how inaccurate that can be.

I would also wonder how many of those apartments are in long term contractual relationships with corporate clients for short term lets for their employees. Those are probably "empty" right now, but they'd still be turning a profit. I know at least one person who is occupying an apartment in the docklands on the basis of such an arrangement, which would not appear in the RTB database.

TobyHolmes

Subutai wrote: »

Those reports should be taken with a grain of salt. They are based entirely on looking at the RTB register of tenancies. Anyone who has been a landlord knows how inaccurate that can be.

I would also wonder how many of those apartments are in long term contractual relationships with corporate clients for short term lets for their employees. Those are probably "empty" right now, but they'd still be turning a profit. I know at least one person who is occupying an apartment in the docklands on the basis of such an arrangement, which would not appear in the RTB database.

surely they would have force majeure clauses in their leases in order to break the lease rather than paying $$ for corporate apartments that will likely remain empty for at least another year

Subutai

TobyHolmes wrote: »

surely they would have force majeure clauses in their leases in order to break the lease rather than paying $$ for corporate apartments that will likely remain empty for at least another year

Drop in the ocean, particularly for the firms I know have at least a couple of these apartments. The idea is to have the flexibility, and unfortunately a surprising amount of business travel is still going on.

Of course they may well have ended such arrangements, but whether they have or not those apartments will always appear as vacant if you base your article on the RTB database. The business post were doing that before covid also.

The person I know is there as he and his wife had to return from one of the foreign offices when covid got too bad there.

TobyHolmes

Subutai wrote: »

Drop in the ocean, particularly for the firms I know have at least a couple of these apartments. The idea is to have the flexibility, and unfortunately a surprising amount of business travel is still going on.

Of course they may well have ended such arrangements, but whether they have or not those apartments will always appear as vacant if you base your article on the RTB database. The business post were doing that before covid also.

The person I know is there as he and his wife had to return from one of the foreign offices when covid got too bad there.

interesting!

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

If there are empty apartments coming to the market, I'd say they were supply.

There's certainly a few arriving into the rental market. I don't see any significant supply of apartments outside of that.

I think the problem is they are not coming to the market.

Idbatterim

I have several mates who broke their balls to get a house over the last year or two and will vote sf, as just be cause they ate now over the line, doesn't make what is happening acceptable for them or their family, friends etc. Its a total disgrace

TobyHolmes

Idbatterim wrote: »

I have several mates who broke their balls to get a house over the last year or two and will vote sf, as just be cause they ate now over the line, doesn't make what is happening acceptable for them or their family, friends etc. Its a total disgrace

do you mean the lack of supply in affordable housing in Dublin?

TobyHolmes

schmittel wrote: »

I think the problem is they are not coming to the market.

its a funny one though - and I am no expert and dont pretend to be - if people are leaving Dublin for elsewhere due to remote working etc- what is happening to the housing they leave?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I think the problem is they are not coming to the market.

I think some of them are on the market but are to expensive.

Kenny Wilson have a occupancy rate of 93% at Q3 2020 which meant 145 units vacant and I would wager that the main driver of this being vacant is the price.

The also have 456 units in lease up in Clancy Quay - Phase 3 & Capital Dock. I suspect that these may have been completed and are still being classified as lease up while the drip feed them to the market.

And then they have 991 units in development at the moment in 3 different builds.

All the above apartments seem to be advertised on Daft
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116073242&postcount=2768

TobyHolmes

Timing belt wrote: »

I think some of them are on the market but are to expensive.

Kenny Wilson have a occupancy rate of 93% at Q3 2020 which meant 145 units vacant and I would wager that the main driver of this being vacant is the price.

The also have 456 units in lease up in Clancy Quay - Phase 3 & Capital Dock. I suspect that these may have been completed and are still being classified as lease up while the drip feed them to the market.

And then they have 991 units in development at the moment in 3 different builds.

All the above apartments seem to be advertised on Daft
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116073242&postcount=2768

so how is it financially viable then? Deep corporate pockets?

Timing belt

TobyHolmes wrote: »

so how is it financially viable then? Deep corporate pockets?

The occupancy rate on there Multi family portfolio in USA has a 94% occupancy rate so I don't see 93% as being abnormal. 145 units available out of a stock of 2000.... I am sure they would like it to be higher but that is probably more to do with the price they are pitched at.

The 456 units in lease up are being drip feed to the market over 1 or 2 years as is normal for a large apartment block. From looking at the Q3 2020 data it looks like capital dock has 90 units vacant and 100 occupied so this is probably coming to the end of it lease up period. Clancy Quay - Phase 3 had 53 leased and 213 units vacant. The income on both of these properties will have been budget so that only a % on income will be expected during the lease up period.

Coopers Cross, Grange, Multiplex are due to be completed 2023 and have a stabilisation date of 2024 (i.e. when lease up period ends)

PropQueries

TobyHolmes wrote: »

so how is it financially viable then? Deep corporate pockets?

My guess would be they’re the equivalent of the zombie companies in the United States (I think I read somewhere it’s near c. 30%) and EU who are only still trading due to being able to borrow at low interest rates.

If they sell the apartments, where can they park the proceeds?

So, if the majority are wrong about interest rates remaining at current levels for the next few years and they do rise, it’s Armageddon.

If they’re right and they remain at current levels, then they can keep them vacant at no real opportunity cost as long as there’s no real vacant property tax in the near future.

I’ll refer to Timing Belt on that one to see if my viewpoint is in the ball park?

Or to add, they’re just hoping to eventually sell/lease them to the state?

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

My guess would be they’re the equivalent of the zombie companies in the United States (I think I read somewhere it’s near c. 30%) and EU who are only still trading due to being able to borrow at low interest rates.

If they sell the apartments, where can they park the proceeds?

So, if the majority are wrong about interest rates remaining at current levels for the next few years and they do rise, it’s Armageddon.

If they’re right and they remain at current levels, then they can keep them vacant at no real opportunity cost as long as there’s no real vacant property tax in the near future.

I’ll refer to Timing Belt on that one to see if my viewpoint is in the ball park?

No not at all this is how the properties would have been planned to be delivered when the plans for the project were drawn up. It is common practise that they drip feed the properties to the market. Whether there is someone willing to pay the price for them is another story.

Yes if rates do rise without economic growth then there will be Armageddon but there is no sign of inflation yet... In fact Europe is still fighting deflation.

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

No not at all this is how the properties would have been planned to be delivered when the plans for the project were drawn up. It is common practise that they drip feed the properties to the market. Whether there is someone willing to pay the price for them is another story.

Yes if rates do rise without economic growth then there will be Armageddon but there is no sign of inflation yet... In fact Europe is still fighting deflation.

I’m not sure. If we take glenveagh’s marina development in greystones as an example. They were built and had no buyers. Then they dropped their prices by c. €100k. Still no buyers. Now, they’ve just sold them in bulk to a fund. The same fund that bought the Herbert Hill development in dundrum to lease to the local council at up to c. €3,000 per month over 25 years.

If there was no state back-stop (buying or leasing them), a lot of these developments may have gone under IMO.

So, I don’t buy the story that they’re somehow being smart and playing a drip feeding game at the moment.

My experience is that developers don’t wait as they know and have experience of the market tanking unexpectedly and at very short notice and generally take what they can get for their units as soon as possible.

Well, that was the old way.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

I’m not sure. If we take glenveagh’s marina development in greystones as an example. They were built and had no buyers. Then they dropped their prices by c. €100k. Still no buyers. Now, they’ve just sold them in bulk to a fund. The same fund that bought the Herbert Hill development in dundrum to lease to the local council at up to c. €3,000 per month over 25 years.

If there was no state back-stop (buying or leasing them), a lot of these developments may have gone under IMO.

So, I don’t buy the story that they’re somehow being smart and playing a drip feeding game at the moment.

My experience is that developers don’t wait as they know and have experience of the market tanking unexpectedly and at very short notice and generally take what they can get for their units as soon as possible.

Well, that was the old way.

If they did that they would not maximise profit....

"Lease up schedules assist real estate developers by providing a basis for forecasting when a property will generate income. Lease up schedules for multifamily properties generally last around 12-15 months from initial lease to stabilization. By the end of the lease up schedule, the property is determined to be “stabilized”, or operating at a regular vacancy level."

p.s. This is industry standard when it comes to renting out a big apartment block.... Its not a story I am trying to sell you :P

TobyHolmes

Timing belt wrote: »

If they did that they would not maximise profit....

"Lease up schedules assist real estate developers by providing a basis for forecasting when a property will generate income. Lease up schedules for multifamily properties generally last around 12-15 months from initial lease to stabilization. By the end of the lease up schedule, the property is determined to be “stabilized”, or operating at a regular vacancy level."

p.s. This is industry standard when it comes to renting out a big apartment block.... Its not a story I am trying to sell you :P

those apartments are fab and the nicest I have seen to be honest and one of the only developments that I have seen that are worth the price tag IMO

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

If they did that they would not maximise profit....

"Lease up schedules assist real estate developers by providing a basis for forecasting when a property will generate income. Lease up schedules for multifamily properties generally last around 12-15 months from initial lease to stabilization. By the end of the lease up schedule, the property is determined to be “stabilized”, or operating at a regular vacancy level."

p.s. This is industry standard when it comes to renting out a big apartment block.... Its not a story I am trying to sell you :P

Thanks for the definition. Actually interesting.

But I assume these lease up schedules projections are based on the last development in the area that achieved a certain occupancy and at a certain price.

My belief is that developers saw the initial success of Cairn Homes Marianella development (selling) and said me too.

Too many entered this segment of the market and there wasn’t enough buyers for these type of apartments. Basically, Marianella soaked up whatever limited buyer demand was there for these type of developments.

Then, when there were no buyers for their completed apartments, they switched their completed units to build-to-rent.

Maybe the first ones off the block managed to rent them to e.g. Google employees etc. but the ones following them didn’t given the limited demand.

Then, hey presto, the state enters the fray using the funds as middle men to make it look like it’s not a back door bailout of these developers.

The funds are only interested in buying more of these built-to-rent units as long as the state is there soaking up all the significant excess supply in the background IMO

The state will stop eventually (I believe sooner than many expect) and then whoever’s left is gone belly up IMO.

That’s how I would sum up the past 5 years.

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

I’m not sure. If we take glenveagh’s marina development in greystones as an example. They were built and had no buyers. Then they dropped their prices by c. €100k. Still no buyers. Now, they’ve just sold them in bulk to a fund. The same fund that bought the Herbert Hill development in dundrum to lease to the local council at up to c. €3,000 per month over 25 years.

If there was no state back-stop (buying or leasing them), a lot of these developments may have gone under IMO.

So, I don’t buy the story that they’re somehow being smart and playing a drip feeding game at the moment.

My experience is that developers don’t wait as they know and have experience of the market tanking unexpectedly and at very short notice and generally take what they can get for their units as soon as possible.

Well, that was the old way.

Explain how marina village would have ‘gone under’?

Gone under what exactly

PropQueries

Cyrus wrote: »

Explain how marina village would have ‘gone under’?

Gone under what exactly

Never said marina. Similar developments “may”.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

Thanks for the definition. Actually interesting.

But I assume these lease up schedules projections are based on the last development in the area that achieved a certain occupancy and at a certain price.

No it will be based on a marketing plan and what they they think they can charge rent wise.... Sometimes it pays off other times not and they have to reduce rent or play the waiting game a bit longer.

My belief is that developers saw the initial success of Cairn Homes Marianella development (selling) and said me too.

Too many entered this segment of the market and there wasn’t enough buyers for these type of apartments. Basically, Marianella soaked up whatever limited buyer demand was there for these type of developments.

Then, when there were no buyers for their completed apartments, they switched their completed units to build-to-rent.

Maybe the first ones off the block managed to rent them to e.g. Google employees etc. but the ones following them didn’t given the limited demand.

Then, hey presto, the state enters the fray using the funds as middle men to make it look like it’s not a back door bailout of these developers.

you keep using this as an example when it is different as these were not built to rent initially

The funds are only interested in buying more of these built-to-rent units as long as the state is there soaking up all the significant excess supply in the background IMO

The state will stop eventually (I believe sooner than many expect) and then whoever’s left is gone belly up IMO.

That’s how I would sum up the past 5 years.

The funds don't give a monkey's who is paying the rent as long as they have established a rental price for the block of flights and occupancy is 90%+.

The state are not going to stop paying unless they have an alternative.... i.e. social housing to put people in which doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon. With the exception of docklands most of these apartments will be occupied as people have no where else to live.

As I said previously I would expect more and more funds to flood the market and buy more blocks of apartments or build them from scratch. I don't see them going belly up as the funds have generous margins that they could take a lower rent and still have a good return in this low rate environment. They won't choose to as there aim is to maximise profit.

The other thing worth mentioning is that a vacancy tax if introduced would probably only be applicable to the 145 units in the established properties.... I can't see them applying a vacancy tax for properties in a lease up period... Maybe I am wrong but that would not encourage them to build to rent which is one of they key deliverables that the government is using to address the housing issues.

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

No it will be based on a marketing plan and what they they think they can charge rent wise.... Sometimes it pays off other times not and they have to reduce rent or play the waiting game a bit longer.

you keep using this as an example when it is different as these were not built to rent initially



The funds don't give a monkey's who is paying the rent as long as they have established a rental price for the block of flights and occupancy is 90%+.

The state are not going to stop paying unless they have an alternative.... i.e. social housing to put people in which doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon. With the exception of docklands most of these apartments will be occupied as people have no where else to live.

As I said previously I would expect more and more funds to flood the market and buy more blocks of apartments or build them from scratch. I don't see them going belly up as the funds have generous margins that they could take a lower rent and still have a good return in this low rate environment. They won't choose to as there aim is to maximise profit.

But occupancy is most likely only at 90% because of the state through HAP or other long term lease agreements.

For example, according to RTÉ, Ires Reit back in 2018:

“The company, which last week announced profits of €19 million for the first half of this year, confirmed to RTÉ's Morning Ireland that it has 303 tenants receiving a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP).

It equates to 11% of I-RES's total portfolio of rental properties of 2,678.

In 2017, just 4% of the company's properties were rented to State-funded tenants.”

After RTÉ did a documentary on the rents they were charging the state, Ires REIT don’t seem to break down this data anymore, but one can assume the percentage is much higher today.

If someone can find the data, please link it as I’m genuinely interested.

Without the state back-stop, the majority of build-to-rent developments wouldn’t pull in any real money and wouldn’t achieve anywhere near 90% occupancy IMO.

If the state pulls back and one small rise in interest rates and they don’t make any sense.

My reason for thinking the state will pull back much sooner than many believe. I think they’re currently soaking up all that ex AirBnB and ex student rental supply in Dublin (outright purchases or long term lease agreements) and are much further along reaching their housing targets than many people believe.

Link to RTÉ article here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0809/983942-housing-social-tenancies/

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

But occupancy is most likely only at 90% because of the state through HAP or other long term lease agreements.

For example, according to RTÉ, Ires Reit back in 2018:

“The company, which last week announced profits of €19 million for the first half of this year, confirmed to RTÉ's Morning Ireland that it has 303 tenants receiving a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP).

It equates to 11% of I-RES's total portfolio of rental properties of 2,678.

In 2017, just 4% of the company's properties were rented to State-funded tenants.”

After RTÉ did a documentary on the rents they were charging the state, Ires REIT don’t seem to break down this data anymore, but one can assume the percentage is much higher today.

If someone can find the data, please link it as I’m genuinely interested.

Without the state back-stop, the majority of build-to-rent developments wouldn’t pull in any real money and wouldn’t achieve anywhere near 90% occupancy IMO.

If the state pulls back and one small rise in interest rates and they don’t make any sense.

My reason for thinking the state will pull back much sooner than many believe. I think they’re currently soaking up all that ex AirBnB and ex student rental supply in Dublin (outright purchases or long term lease agreements) and are much further along reaching their housing targets than many people believe.

Link to RTÉ article here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0809/983942-housing-social-tenancies/

These built to Rent apartments will be occupied even if there was no HAP payments... The funds may need to settle for a lower rent but it is would still be very profitable for them.

The difference if there was no HAP is that there would be more homelessness as there are no alternatives out there at present. yes the government are buying, leasing, renting everything they can get there hands on as homelessness does not make good news.

Yes HAP has grown from something like 5m in 2014 to just under 1bn today.

That is not a surprise when rents were rising by double digits every year and wages were not.

Rent will continue to rise in the short term 2-3 years but then as more supply comes on line rents will gradually fall... This is what has been the experience of countries that have had institutional investors enter the market after 2008 and has been well documented in research papers.

The funds are here to stay for 20+ years unless the likes of SF get in power and deliver shed loads of social housing by the truck load.

PropQueries

“Yes HAP has grown from something like 5m in 2014 to just under 1bn today.

That is not a surprise when rents were rising by double digits every year and wages were not.”

Would you not see a correlation between both the above i.e. HAP going from €5m to €1bn and rents doubling?

The rent rises were artificial and if the state makes any significant headway in reaching their targets and decides to pull back, rents could reverse by as much and much more quickly IMO

We’re still building residential units, we’re still building student accommodation units, homes are continuing to enter probate, we’re still refurbishing.

It’s my viewpoint and I could be wrong but I believe this supply/demand imbalance has already been corrected and the patient sellers holding out in the background are in for a very unpleasant surprise in the very near term IMO

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

“Yes HAP has grown from something like 5m in 2014 to just under 1bn today.

That is not a surprise when rents were rising by double digits every year and wages were not.”

Would you not see a correlation between both the above i.e. HAP going from €5m to €1bn and rents doubling?

Of course there is a correlation and there is also a price correlation with the lack of rental properties on the market at a time when people had no option but to rent as owning a property was not in their reach with the LTV and LTI restrictions.

The rent rises were artificial and if the state makes any significant headway in reaching their targets and decides to pull back, rents could reverse by as much and much more quickly IMO

The rent rises were not artificial... you seem to think that everyone renting is on HAP which is not the case.... rents rose as there was a shortage of supply as BTL investors could not get loans the way the used to before 2008. Houses that should have been repossessed never came back onto the market as they were never repossessed. Institutional investors stepped in to fill the void and charged top rate for doing so.

We’re still building residential units, we’re still building student accommodation units, homes are continuing to enter probate, we’re still refurbishing.

It’s my viewpoint and I could be wrong but I believe this supply/demand imbalance has already been corrected and the patient sellers holding out in the background are in for a very unpleasant surprise in the very near term IMO

We disagree on what supply is required.... I have read the reports for ESRI, central bank etc and I agree with them when they say we need 20k+ of new housing stock every year. I have my view on this you have yours.... time will tell which one of us was correct.

If I am wrong then there will be an oversupply and rent and prices will be flat or drop... If you are wrong and there is not enough supply then we will be in a similar position to pre-covid and will probably need more intervention by the government which will probably make the housing situation worse... as every time they try and fix something they tend to generate 2 new issues.

mcsean2163

schmittel wrote: »

I think the problem is they are not coming to the market.

Go down to islandbridge and marvel at the empty luxury apartments. Go to daft and observe there are maybe 4 types of apartments listed for rent. They don't list all the empty apartments in a development...

TobyHolmes

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Go down to islandbridge and marvel at the empty luxury apartments. Go to daft and observe there are maybe 4 typese of apartments listed for rent. They don't list all the empty apartments in a development...

this is what I'm seeing in real life- empty apartments- but im being told on here - its not empty #confused

Timing belt

TobyHolmes wrote: »

this is what I'm seeing in real life- empty apartments- but im being told on here - its not empty #confused

Luxury apartments are empty they are trying to normalize a high rent so will release the units over a 12-15 month period. If there is demand at the price it will be quicker but we all know that those rents are top end.

TobyHolmes

Timing belt wrote: »

Luxury apartments are empty they are trying to normalize a high rent so will release the units over a 12-15 month period. If there is demand at the price it will be quicker but we all know that those rents are top end.

i see - trying to manipulate the market- interesting

Idbatterim

TobyHolmes wrote: »

do you mean the lack of supply in affordable housing in Dublin?

The outrageous prices that the government create...