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

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

Would be surprised if there were 7k of those around the country.

Whatever the reason, an increase of 28,000 in the housing stock seems to be a pretty healthy chunk of additional housing in any circumstances never mind the fact that country was in lockdown for most of 2020.

Seems like those who were nervous we'd run out of houses to buy even quicker because of covid had no need to panic.

Who do you think bought up and now owns all that excess supply from the boom years? How do you think we went from too many houses in 2011 to no houses in 2014?

All the excess supply from the boom years is about to re-enter the market and the data is not going to catch any of it IMO

Summer2020

Idbatterim wrote: »

Lads, put yourself down on the social housing list and this 960,000 euro apartment could be yours. One of 101 luxury homes irelands most industrious will be living it up in!

Living in luxury and they are so wealthy, they can live there and not even have to work a day in their lives, thanks to you ...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ronan-plans-to-sell-960-000-apartment-to-council-for-social-housing-1.4476385?mode=amp

Jesus f*cking Christ this country is so messed up. I thought the Dun Laoghaire rathfown deal for Herbert Hill was bad.

Marius34

Timing belt wrote: »

The Geodirectory report for 2020 states 21k additions not 28k

Regarding the GeoDirectory, actually is not 21K, nor 28K of new housing stock for 2020. Both numbers means something different, and not annual new housing stock for a year of 2020.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

The Geodirectory report for 2020 states 21k additions not 28k

Apologies, but I hope you'll me forgive for thinking your credibility in being able to see what's under your nose in the data is diminished somewhat in light of the old rural people being the majority of 7/10 of the population, and 47% of apartments being built in Carlow.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

Who do you think bought up and now owns all that excess supply from the boom years? How do you think we went from too many houses in 2011 to no houses in 2014?

All the excess supply from the boom years is about to re-enter the market and the data is not going to catch any of it IMO

No idea who bought it, but I agree at some stage that supply is hitting the market and everybody will be saying "Wow, were did all these houses come from?!"

Are you sure it was 2014 that we officially had no houses? I thought it was a bit later. I was trying to remember the other day, and did a bit of googling but could not identify the point when we went from oversupply to panic, we need to build.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Apologies, but I hope you'll me forgive for thinking your credibility in being able to see what's under your nose in the data is diminished somewhat in light of the old rural people being the majority of 7/10 of the population, and 47% of apartments being built in Carlow.

If you want to trade insults go find a mirror!!!!

If you have something constructive to add then I will listen.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

If you want to trade insults go find a mirror!!!!

If you have something constructive to add then I will listen.

Great.

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 where are the other 7k coming from?

Timing belt

Timing belt wrote: »

You need to step back and ask why savings have increased during the pandemic and why this is the case globally. A lot of people assume it is because people do not have the opportunity to spend with the lockdowns which will contribute to the effect but I still think the main reason is that people are unsure of future events and how it will impact them financially and this is the reason for the increase in savings. This has been the case during every recession and in part contributes to the recession as when people save they stop spending which slows the economy down more.

The 08 crisis came about because the financial system was drained of liquidity and came to a stop and then the house of cards started to fall. A similar event took place in march 2020 but the central banks stepped in and injected liquidity and got the system moving again but no-one has no idea for how long this will last.

The economic forecasts are all for growth in the coming years once Covid is put to bed but there is no guarantee that this will be the case as the financial system is very fragile at the moment and it would not take a lot to have the house of cards crashing down again.

My view on property is that we will see and increase in prices in the next 1-2 years as along as the financial system does not crash.... are house prices or rent levels sustainable at the level they are at is the important question because if you think they are then there is no crash in property coming if you think they are not sustainable then a crash is coming.

In the mean time should you purchase a property all depends on your personal circumstances and whether you believe house prices are sustainable... For example if If you are paying high rent you may be financially better off buying even if the property value drops in a year or two.

There is no one size fits all and any decision is personal and based on a risk/benefit analysis.

Because banks stopped give 110 percent mortgages as in 2007 and started ask 20-30 per cent deposits after 2008.Because banks stoped give car loans to people on PUP and people got make own savings to buy one.Because savings was growing from PreCovid times and credit unions got setup limits for savings in credit unions please read 2019 news.The story about people will buy house because saved 700 euro because did not go to Spain is complete bs !

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Apologies, but I hope you'll me forgive for thinking your credibility in being able to see what's under your nose in the data is diminished somewhat in light of the old rural people being the majority of 7/10 of the population, and 47% of apartments being built in Carlow.

So what’s the answer? Is it a mystery? Or is it derelict units? Or student accommodation as someone else said? Did someone find a load of gaffs when on staycation during the summer? The suspense is killing me.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

No idea who bought it, but I agree at some stage that supply is hitting the market and everybody will be saying "Wow, were did all these houses come from?!"

Are you sure it was 2014 that we officially had no houses? I thought it was a bit later. I was trying to remember the other day, and did a bit of googling but could not identify the point when we went from oversupply to panic, we need to build.

I think you’re right that people will be shocked when this supply begins to hit the market.

In relation to the Irish housing shortage in 2013, here’s a link from 2013 titled: “Government called on to address housing shortage in Budget 2014”: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

In relation to who bought them, the RTÉ documentary did a good analysis back in 2017:

“The Great Irish Sell-Off (Monday, RTÉ One, 9.35pm) comes to putting a face on the otherwise anonymous financial companies that now control 90,000 mortgages and €200 billion in property and business loans in the country.”

It’s still on the RTÉ player for people interested.

Link about RTÉ documentary in Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/the-great-irish-sell-off-turning-the-spotlight-on-ireland-s-vulture-capitalists-1.2931597

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

So what’s the answer? Is it a mystery? Or is it derelict units? Or student accommodation as someone else said? Did someone find a load of gaffs when on staycation during the summer? The suspense is killing me.

Who know's but Geodirectory data shows 6,759 less detached house included in their housing stock this year.

2019 - 654,264
2020 - 647,505

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

So what’s the answer? Is it a mystery? Or is it derelict units? Or student accommodation as someone else said? Did someone find a load of gaffs when on staycation during the summer? The suspense is killing me.

I am curious about what the answer is as well. I suspect it's derelict units be renovated.

I'd like to know what other posters think is the reason which is why I asked the question. All I know is Props thinks its the funds at work, and Timing Belt thinks I should be more careful about comparing different datasets!

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

I think you’re right that people will be shocked when this supply begins to hit the market.

In relation to the Irish housing shortage in 2013, here’s a link from 2013 titled: “Government called on to address housing shortage in Budget 2014”: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

In relation to who bought them, the RTÉ documentary did a good analysis back in 2017:

“The Great Irish Sell-Off (Monday, RTÉ One, 9.35pm) comes to putting a face on the otherwise anonymous financial companies that now control 90,000 mortgages and €200 billion in property and business loans in the country.”

It’s still on the RTÉ player for people interested.

Link about RTÉ documentary in Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/the-great-irish-sell-off-turning-the-spotlight-on-ireland-s-vulture-capitalists-1.2931597

That does surprise me that we've been talking about a housing shortage since 2013. I am definitely remember we had a surplus in 2012!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I am curious about what the answer is as well. I suspect it's derelict units be renovated.

I'd like to know what other posters think is the reason which is why I asked the question. All I know is Props thinks its the funds at work, and Timing Belt thinks I should be more careful about comparing different datasets!

The difference in housing stock in the geodirectory reports is as follows based on figure 1 on page 4 of both 2019 & 2020 reports

2020 2019 Difference
DETACHED 647,505 654,264 -6,759
SEMI-DETACHED 501,535 493,252 8,283
TERRACED 569,423 558,738 10,685
BUNGALOW 289,356 273,356 16,000
DUPLEX 25,220 25,508 -288
TEMPORARY-DWELLING 9,381 9,239 142

2,042,420 2,014,357 28,063

HansKroenke

Gradius wrote: »

An anecdotal thing, but surely a large proportion of the pup payment (perhaps largest) is simply being funnelled into property rent, no?

I know of several people, now out of work, receiving pandemic payment and it's in one hand from the government, and out the other hand to landlords. In Dublin anyway.

I fail to see a rationality for how property prices and rental prices are INcreasing during a global pandemic with more people out of work than ever before, and business essentially closed, struggling or altogether wiped out.

It reeks of artificial inflation, in my opinion. Perhaps mixed with some form of desperate speculation?

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this

There is a bubble in the property sector, inflated up by the State. That is evident and it is not just from the PUP.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

The difference in housing stock in the geodirectory reports is as follows based on figure 1 on page 4 of both 2019 & 2020 reports

2020 2019 Difference
DETACHED 647,505 654,264 -6,759
SEMI-DETACHED 501,535 493,252 8,283
TERRACED 569,423 558,738 10,685
BUNGALOW 289,356 273,356 16,000
DUPLEX 25,220 25,508 -288
TEMPORARY-DWELLING 9,381 9,239 142

2,042,420 2,014,357 28,063

28,063. Who’d have thought it.

I wonder where the apartments are hiding?

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

I think you’re right that people will be shocked when this supply begins to hit the market.

PropQueries wrote: »

Probably due to supply like these 47 apartments in Ballybofey (link below) that will be entering supply in 2021 but won’t be recorded in the new build statistics at the end of this year.

47 apartments, sold for around €1.5m. That's what, roughly €30k each.

That's suggests to me there's low demand in the area. I suspect any similar developments in high-demand areas have long since returned to market.

While you might well be correct that a few similar developments will return to market this year, I suspect they'll be in similar low demand areas otherwise they'd already been offloaded.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

28,063. Who’d have thought it.

Good spot on the apartments.

But we also now have to figure out what is that 6,000 reduction in detached houses!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

28,063. Who’d have thought it.

I wonder where the apartments are hiding?

They are reported separately and are not included in the figures you Quoted:

2020 2019 Difference
DETACHED 647,505 654,264 -6,759
SEMI-DETACHED 501,535 493,252 8,283
TERRACED 569,423 558,738 10,685
BUNGALOW 289,356 273,356 16,000
DUPLEX 25,220 25,508 -288
TEMPORARY-DWELLING 9,381 9,239 142

2,042,420 2,014,357 28,063

Apartments 191,996 185,523 6,473

2,234,416 2,199,880 34,536

New address added per Geo Directory 21,851

Unexplained difference in Geodirectory data 12,685

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

They are reported separately and are not included in the figures you Quoted:

2020 2019 Difference
DETACHED 647,505 654,264 -6,759
SEMI-DETACHED 501,535 493,252 8,283
TERRACED 569,423 558,738 10,685
BUNGALOW 289,356 273,356 16,000
DUPLEX 25,220 25,508 -288
TEMPORARY-DWELLING 9,381 9,239 142

2,042,420 2,014,357 28,063

Apartments 191,996 185,523 6,473

2,234,416 2,199,880 34,536

New address added per Geo Directory 21,851

Unexplained difference in Geodirectory data 12,685

Now we’ve increased the housing stock by 34.5k. If we keep this up we’ll have solved the housing crisis by midnight!

Are you sure your figures add up?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Now we’ve increased the housing stock by 34.5k. If we keep this up we’ll have solved the housing crisis by midnight!

Are you sure your figures add up?

I am sure you are able to read the report to check

Browney7

Timing belt wrote: »

The difference in housing stock in the geodirectory reports is as follows based on figure 1 on page 4 of both 2019 & 2020 reports

2020 2019 Difference
DETACHED 647,505 654,264 -6,759
SEMI-DETACHED 501,535 493,252 8,283
TERRACED 569,423 558,738 10,685
BUNGALOW 289,356 273,356 16,000
DUPLEX 25,220 25,508 -288
TEMPORARY-DWELLING 9,381 9,239 142

2,042,420 2,014,357 28,063

16,000 bungalows??? Who's building bungalows in this day and age? Or are all the one off new build rural properties being classified as dormer bungalows?

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

I am curious about what the answer is as well. I suspect it's derelict units be renovated.

I'd like to know what other posters think is the reason which is why I asked the question. All I know is Props thinks its the funds at work, and Timing Belt thinks I should be more careful about comparing different datasets!

Does it show by county the additional units?

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

Good spot on the apartments.

But we also now have to figure out what is that 6,000 reduction in detached houses!

Aren't somewhere between 5000 and 8000 properties lost each year to obsolescence?

Timing belt

Graham wrote: »

Aren't somewhere between 5000 and 8000 properties lost each year to obsolescence?

Prop does not think so....

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

16,000 bungalows??? Who's building bungalows in this day and age? Or are all the one off new build rural properties being classified as dormer bungalows?

It's their database numbers/estimates, it doesn't really mean that it's a new supply.

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

Aren't somewhere between 5000 and 8000 properties lost each year to obsolescence?

Yep, that will explain the drop. but if there are 28k new units overall it suggests that Props was totally right in his assumptions that obsolescence has a negligible effect.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Prop does not think so....

If there is a net gain, obsolescence is meaningless.

A lot of this obsolescence will be older houses knocked to make way for multiple new ones.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Yep, that will explain the drop. but if there are 28k new units overall it suggests that Props was totally right in his assumptions that obsolescence has a negligible effect.

We don't know if these are new units as the report talks separately about new address points only being 21k.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

If there is a net gain, obsolescence is meaningless.

A lot of this obsolescence will be older houses knocked to make way for multiple new ones.

If we are to use that logic then we need to exclude the new houses that are replacing them.:rolleyes:

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

It's their database numbers/estimates, it doesn't really mean that it's a new supply.

What does it mean then? Pre existing houses that the postman didn’t notice last year?

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

Yep, that will explain the drop. but if there are 28k new units overall it suggests that Props was totally right in his assumptions that obsolescence has a negligible effect.

It means we need to build 5000 - 8000 new properties every year just to stand still.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

If we are to use that logic then we need to exclude the new houses that are replacing them.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: indeed

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

:rolleyes: indeed

Its good that we all now agree that obsolescence exists and needs to be considered.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Its good that we all now agree that obsolescence exists and needs to be considered.

Ok, let’s consider it. How would you calculate the obsolescence rate?

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, let’s consider it. How would you calculate the obsolescence rate?

do tell

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Now we’ve increased the housing stock by 34.5k. If we keep this up we’ll have solved the housing crisis by midnight!

Are you sure your figures add up?

I just read some of the detail in the report and it appears as if they do categorise apartments in the housing stock

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

What does it mean then? Pre existing houses that the postman didn’t notice last year?

I don't know. One thing I'm quite confident there was no 28K new housing stocks added in 2020.
Why do you use those numbers as a new housing stocks? would you use same numbers as a new housing stocks, if there would be difference only of 5K, between 2019 Q4 & 2020 Q4?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I just read some of the detail in the report and it appears as if they do categorise apartments in the housing stock

Who’d have thought it.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Who’d have thought it.

I know a housing report that does not have a category for apartments....

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, let’s consider it. How would you calculate the obsolescence rate?

You tell me...

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

do tell

I’ll use fliballs source:

fliball123 wrote: »

I replied to Props with this link that shows his figures are completely inaccurate with regard to houses coming on stream of course when you prove him wrong he simply ignores the post..Here it is again for you props

https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/the-challenge-of-housing-obsolescence/#:~:text=According%20to%20Sirr's%20figures%2C%20a,19%2C000%20is%20due%20to%20obsolescence.

These are figures from 2016 but the method of calculation is the same:

According to Sirr’s figures, a total of 123 houses become obsolete in Ireland every week, or 6,394 houses a year. 
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.

Apply to that to 2020. The difference between 21k houses being built and the net gain of 28k is due to obsolescence.

I.e the amount of people renovating/rebuilding properties is greater than that letting them fall into dereliction.

We don’t have an obsolescence problem and Props was right to disregard it in his assumptions.

Timing belt

[/HTML]

schmittel wrote: »

I’ll use fliballs source:



These are figures from 2016 but the method of calculation is the same:

According to Sirr’s figures, a total of 123 houses become obsolete in Ireland every week, or 6,394 houses a year. 
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.

Apply to that to 2020. The difference between 21k houses being built and the net gain of 28k is due to obsolescence.

I.e the amount of people renovating/rebuilding properties is greater than that letting them fall into dereliction.

We don’t have an obsolescence problem and Props was right to disregard it in his assumptions.

I am confused as the housing stock you are getting your 28k from includes vacant properties....Are you saying that the additional housing is derelict properties being brought back to life?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

[/HTML]

I am confused as the housing stock you are getting your 28k from includes vacant properties....Are you saying that the additional housing is derelict properties being brought back to life?

I can see you are confused. But I cannot help you as I don’t understand why you are confused.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I know a housing report that does not have a category for apartments....

I meant who’d have thought your figures didn’t add up.

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

We don’t have an obsolescence problem and Props was right to disregard it in his assumptions.

I don't think obsolescence is a problem. Obsolescence is a necessary part of things changing/improving.

At the same time, it would be silly to suggest the loss of 5000 - 8000 properties per year is of no consequence and shouldn't be taken into account when considering new build requirements.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I meant who’d have thought your figures didn’t add up.

Its your logic that does not add up and as I said before if you want to argue go find a mirror I am sure there must be one in one of the vacants

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

I don't think obsolescence is a problem. Obsolescence is a necessary part of things changing/improving.

At the same time, it would be silly to suggest the loss of 5000 - 8000 properties per year is of no consequence and shouldn't be taken into account when considering new build requirements.

But if we’re seeing a net gain of we are not losing 5-8k properties a year. That’s the point. Older properties are being maintained better or brought back into use.

It would be silly to make new build need projections based on losing 8k houses a year when we are actually gaining 7k a year. That’s a 15k swing.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Its your logic that does not add up and as I said before if you want to argue go find a mirror I am sure there must be one in one of the vacants

I’m not trying to argue, your figures clearly were incorrect, and I was just trying to clarify what I meant. No offense meant.

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

But if we’re seeing a net gain of we are not losing 5-8k properties a year. That’s the point.

We're still losing 5-8k properties a year and replacing them with 5-8k new properties.

If I have 4 apples, lose them and buy 8 new apples, It doesn't change the fact I've lost 4 apples.