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

Villa05

Hubertj wrote:

This is a good move. The fact that councillors could block this process is ridiculous. Some of them can barely spell.

Is removing checks and balances regarding the disposal of state land by a Fianna fail led department wise

You used the word credibility yesterday. Does this exist with Fianna fail and their relationship with developers

This land development agency combined with Fianna fail scares me. It has the potential to plunder state assets for the wealthy in a manner that would make Putin in Russia blush

Be careful what you wish for and stop being selective in the history lessons you choose to study

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

That’s a good point. Never made sense to me to take the obsolescence rate during the downturn and apply it to now. Many obvious reasons (like the one you mentioned) why the obsolescence rate would have been higher during that period.

Given that the pre-Covid projected estimates of housing demand per year going forward were broken down as c.18,000 for existing domestic demand, c.12,000 for continued inward net migration and c.5,000 to replace obsolete stock each year, the rate of obsolescence is a big part of the projected future demand for housing.

If the projected annual rate for obsolescence (same goes for projected annual net inward migration) is wrong, it matters a lot IMO

It matters a huge amount. Reading the central bank figures the projections only take the loss of existing stock into account rather than any gain from renovations/repurposing.

If they are basing projections on losing 5000 houses a year from existing stock when the reality is we are gaining 7000 a year, it throws their sums off by 12,000.

In their low migration scenario (which is what ESRI expect for a few years post covid) their projected need is 23,000 new builds per annum based on 18,000 for natural population increase and 5,000 obsoletes.

If we are gaining 7000 a year it means the figure should be 11,000, less than 50%.

This is a big difference. And that's before you even get into the weeds over whether they really need to build as much as they think they do in the first place!

decreds

fliball123 wrote: »

What ever advice you get on here do not take it as gospel my god I hope to christ the conspiracy theory experts dont sway you one way or the other. If I was you I would sit down go over you finances, see how your relationship is with the family member as in pull him / her aside and ask "really how much of a burden am I here" I dont know your rental situation but 400 a month sounds pretty low. 200k in the bank there are over 2k properties for sale on myhome for that amount which would mean you dont need a mortgage. You must be on a high enough wage to able to get a mortgage of say 220 to 240k by yourself on the limit you set so financially you must be in good shape. But like I say it will all depend on your own circumstances. I would be swaying my decision on the below questions:

How much of a burden are you on the family member you are staying with
Do you need to live in a major city
Will you be WFH
How safe is your job
If property was to drop by say 10-15% how would it affect you
If interest rates were to go up by 4/5% could you afford to continue living
Can you supplement your wage with an up to 14k a year (tax free) rent a room scheme as you already seem to be used to living with other people.

I would look at those questions first before putting any credence on advice you get on here. Good luck with the hunt

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I had considered buying out right but i require a house near South Dublin for the kids and couldn't find any properties near the 200k mark.

After sleeping on it, i've decided to keep saving and purchase in around 18 months time. I wouldn't wish a crash on anyone but if prices dipped 10-20% ( as they seem ridiculously over valued at the moment), that would be ideal for me. If they rise by a small amount i won't be too concerned as i will hopefully have more saved. Time is not on my side so 18 months is the pushing it.

I've looked at other investment vehicles and don't feel comfortable putting the money into them as i fear we are coming to the end of market cycles and could lose a chunk of my deposit.

I may regret the property purchase as all indicators point to a massive crash across the economy but looks like this may take a few years to materialize.

Thanks for the response

Timing belt

There is a separate tread on Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for social housing if anyone is interested

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058157016

Ursabear

@decreds I think you are the same age, but in a much better buying position then I was when I first posted similar concerns about buying on boards a few years ago. I wasn't in a position to buy then but was just as worried about prices crashing after buying. I still am, but we have finally put a deposit on a house and am just delighted to be getting out of renting and getting a garden!! However I think with supply so tight and gov intervention with HAP and Reits etc I don't see prices dropping in the next 2 years , however I am not as informed on economics as most commenters. Like someone else said earlier just to follow your own best judgement . Sounds like you made a decision you are comfortable with and best of luck to you

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

Is removing checks and balances regarding the disposal of state land by a Fianna fail led department wise

You used the word credibility yesterday. Does this exist with Fianna fail and their relationship with developers

This land development agency combined with Fianna fail scares me. It has the potential to plunder state assets for the wealthy in a manner that would make Putin in Russia blush

Be careful what you wish for and stop being selective in the history lessons you choose to study

Checks and balances by unqualified political puppets? Checks and balances should be provided by people with competence and knowledge to comment on such subjects. I’ve interacted with some of the councillors in my area, members of all parties. Lucky if some of them can spell and they should be able to obstruct the provision of housing? Cop yourself on.
Your conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.

PommieBast

decreds wrote: »

After sleeping on it, i've decided to keep saving and purchase in around 18 months time. I wouldn't wish a crash on anyone but if prices dipped 10-20% ( as they seem ridiculously over valued at the moment), that would be ideal for me.

The problem is what happens within the market rather than the market as a whole. If prices do actually drop 20% it is going to be apartments (esp. 1-beds) tanking rather than the sort of house you would be looking for.

hometruths

Ursabear wrote: »

@decreds I think you are the same age, but in a much better buying position then I was when I first posted similar concerns about buying on boards a few years ago. I wasn't in a position to buy then but was just as worried about prices crashing after buying. I still am, but we have finally put a deposit on a house and am just delighted to be getting out of renting and getting a garden!! However I think with supply so tight and gov intervention with HAP and Reits etc I don't see prices dropping in the next 2 years , however I am not as informed on economics as most commenters. Like someone else said earlier just to follow your own best judgement . Sounds like you made a decision you are comfortable with and best of luck to you

Congrats and best of luck with it. As you say, follow your own best judgement, and your posts have always struck me that you have your head screwed on and your eyes wide open, which is the best you can hope for.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Checks and balances by unqualified political puppets? Checks and balances should be provided by people with competence and knowledge to comment on such subjects. I’ve interacted with some of the councillors in my area, members of all parties. Lucky if some of them can spell and they should be able to obstruct the provision of housing? Cop yourself on.
Your conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is a particularly bad incident you have had with councillors, and if so can you spill the beans?!

I have a pretty dim view of them generally, but I've noticed you're in a different league!

Villa05

Hubertj wrote:

Checks and balances by unqualified political puppets? Checks and balances should be provided by people with competence and knowledge to comment on such subjects. I’ve interacted with some of the councillors in my area, members of all parties. Lucky if some of them can spell and they should be able to obstruct the provision of housing? Cop yourself on. Your conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.

Thanks for addressing the core point in relation to Fianna fails and other government parties relationship with developers

The apathy you display shows how they get away with it

What is my conspiracy theory??

MacronvFrugals

Timing belt wrote: »

Definitely a good move as councillors will block and delay everything unless it comes from their own political party.

Isn't that democracy lads?

Timing belt

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Isn't that democracy lads?

It should be but all they are interested in is points scoring trying to get one over one of the other political party. They are all as bad as each other and end up doing nothing besides blaming each other for doing nothing.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is a particularly bad incident you have had with councillors, and if so can you spill the beans?!

I have a pretty dim view of them generally, but I've noticed you're in a different league!

Personal experience would be very local such as inactivity on quality of roads, proper support and engagement on elements of bus connects.
Overall I think they are simply an extension of their political parties which seems to take priority over the communities they are supposed to represent. Decisions seem politically motivated. Back to the Celtic tiger years and brown envelopes - who was the councillor they got on camera (ff or fg)
SF councillors have to bring advisors with them to council meetings and consult before making decisions. Im sure there are some who are very competent. Hands up I am a cynical f*cker.

MacronvFrugals

Hubertj wrote: »

Personal experience would be very local such as inactivity on quality of roads, proper support and engagement on elements of bus connects.
Overall I think they are simply an extension of their political parties which seems to take priority over the communities they are supposed to represent. Decisions seem politically motivated. Back to the Celtic tiger years and brown envelopes - who was the councillor they got on camera (ff or fg)
SF councillors have to bring advisors with them to council meetings and consult before making decisions. Im sure there are some who are very competent. Hands up I am a cynical f*cker.

He was a Gaeler, Hugh McElvaney from Monaghan - "Money, Sterling,I want loads a money!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DQL11dFVOc

MacronvFrugals

Timing belt wrote: »

It should be but all they are interested in is points scoring trying to get one over one of the other political party. They are all as bad as each other and end up doing nothing besides blaming each other for doing nothing.

Ah sure who cares about democracy, i would prefer the councillors we elect not having more powers taken away, Hogan already took away most of the teeth they had in 2013.

MacronvFrugals

2011 - How it started

2021 - how it's going - Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for
social housing





Now just bypass councillors to hand public land to developers and some are delighted with this, whats the point in electing councillors?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

It tells us the total housing stock has increased by 28k. 21k of these are new builds and 7k are from some combination of renovation/repurposing. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

Can you prove it? Does it say anywhere like this? You always looking for source from other people if you are not convinced.

That's nonsense. And you know it. It means exactly the same to me if they don't say they have calculated the figure differently hence we can compare 2019 to 2020 like for like but cannot compare 2016 to 2020 like for like.

Again this is not a difficult concept to understand.

The point I was making, that not each time housing stock numbers mean exactly the same thing. It can be that they make adjustment, re-calculate. You was the one telling that housing stock numbers, means housing stock, not considering other possible cases on their estimates. They are not regulated to provide exact details on their numbers.
They clearly says they have added 21K new addresses. If some got renovated, what is this? It's not a new address? if not, maybe it was already in their database part of the housing stock. We simply don't know that much of details...

Marius34

Timing belt wrote: »

It does if it is an error that relates to prior years....

I have emailed them the following:

Great job, but I'm afraid they won't respond to such questions for non-customers.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Can you prove it? Does it say anywhere like this? You always looking for source from other people if you are not convinced.

No I cannot prove it which is why in the first instance I asked what other peoples thoughts were, hoping for some constructive debate.

But logic dictates if they are not new builds then they must have come from existing stock. They did not appear out of thin air.

If they came from existing stock the most likely source, in my opinion, is from renovations/repurposing old buildings.

Marius34 wrote: »

The point I was making, that not each time housing stock numbers mean exactly the same thing. It can be that they make adjustment, re-calculate. You was the one telling that housing stock numbers, means housing stock, not considering other possible cases on their estimates. They are not regulated to provide exact details on their numbers.
They clearly says they have added 21K new addresses. If some got renovated, what is this? It's not a new address? if not, maybe it was already in their database part of the housing stock. We simply don't know that much of details...

It's very simple. These are not estimates like future build requirements. They are drawn from a database of every recorded housing unit in the country.

They state that at end of 2019 total residential stock was 2,014,357, and at end of 2020 total residential stock was 2,042,426 - an increase of just over 28k.

What part of that do you not understand?

Timing belt

Marius34 wrote: »

Great job, but I'm afraid they won't respond to such questions for non-customers.

Well if you don't ask you definitely won't get a response

Did the same with the CSO before and they came back and explained the data in an email and even suggest an alternative data source that verified the data I was looking at. The guy seemed happy that someone was looking at his data

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

No I cannot prove it which is why in the first instance I asked what other peoples thoughts were, hoping for some constructive debate.

But logic dictates if they are not new builds then they must have come from existing stock. They did not appear out of thin air.

If they came from existing stock the most likely source, in my opinion, is from renovations/repurposing old buildings.

Debate is good, when you don't imply what it mean exactly for unknown information. I personally think that they make constant adjustment. But none of us can be sure what's that mean really, if they don't tell it.

It's very simple. These are not estimates like future build requirements. They are drawn from a database of every recorded housing unit in the country.

They state that at end of 2019 total residential stock was 2,014,357, and at end of 2020 total residential stock was 2,042,426 - an increase of just over 28k.

What part of that do you not understand?

The part that housing stock mean exactly same thing each year. Instead there could be adjustment, as proved in 2017 report. There is no such information for 2020, but nor it states that its 28K of actual annual gain, and not revaluation or something else.

Simply, as you say, it's worth a debate, but not take as a fact, for something we don't know.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Debate is good, when you don't imply what it mean exactly for unknown information. I personally think that they make constant adjustment. But none of us can be sure what's that mean really, if they don't tell it.




The part that housing stock mean exactly same thing each year. Instead there could be adjustment, as proved in 2017 report. There is no such information for 2020, but nor it states that its 28K of actual annual gain, and not revaluation or something else.

Simply, as you say, it's worth a debate, but not take as a fact, for something we don't know.

If they had made a meaningful adjustment to their calculations they would have declared it as they did in 2017.

I was looking to debate the source of the extra 7k, not whether or not we could take the headline figure as fact or not.

I did not expect someone to say well I don't believe the data. That's just nonsense. But I should have known better.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

If they had made a meaningful adjustment to their calculations they would have declared it as they did in 2017.

I was looking to debate the source of the extra 7k, not whether or not we could take the headline figure as fact or not.

I did not expect someone to say well I don't believe the data. That's just nonsense. But I should have known better.

No they won't they never declared the 22k adjustment in 2017.

In fact if you look at the 2017 report that included the derelicts they made reference to the fact that there figures agreed to the CSO which highlighted that there database was different to the CSO figures as it was including the derelicts.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

If they had made a meaningful adjustment to their calculations they would have declared it as they did in 2017.

I was looking to debate the source of the extra 7k, not whether or not we could take the headline figure as fact or not.

I did not expect someone to say well I don't believe the data. That's just nonsense. But I should have known better.

Before you was saying that housing stocks, mean housing stocks. Once we see that it's not always a case, now we take as a fact that they should inform each time of any adjustments.

You expect to much for all the details, that they should provide. They didn't declared why there is 7K in difference, means they don't provide all the details, and there are simply more details that we don't know.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

No they won't they never declared the 22k adjustment in 2017.

In fact if you look at the 2017 report that included the derelicts they made reference to the fact that there figures agreed to the CSO which highlighted that there database was different to the CSO figures as it was including the derelicts.

What 22k adjustment are you referring to?

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Before you was saying that housing stocks, mean housing stocks. Once we see that it's not always a case, now we take as a fact that they should inform each time of any adjustments..

I am saying they have not made any adjustments, so we can compare the 2019 to 2020 figures.

You expect to much for all the details, that they should provide. They didn't declared why there is 7K in difference, means they don't provide all the details, and there are simply more details that we don't know.

I don’t expect too much at all. I’m happy to rely on the common sense logic that if the 7k units are not new builds, they must be existing stock reclassified and the most likely source is uninhabitable or change of use.

It’s You and others who need them to spell it out for you.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I am saying they have not made any adjustments, so we can compare the 2019 to 2020 figures.



I don’t expect too much at all. I’m happy to rely on the common sense logic that if the 7k units are not new builds, they must be existing stock reclassified and the most likely source is uninhabitable or change of use.

It’s You and others who need them to spell it out for you.

This could equally mean, that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

No they won't they never declared the 22k adjustment in 2017.

In fact if you look at the 2017 report that included the derelicts they made reference to the fact that there figures agreed to the CSO which highlighted that there database was different to the CSO figures as it was including the derelicts.

Ok I get the 22k now from reading your earlier post.

But it is irrelevant because you can not compare 2017 to 2016 because they made some wide ranging changes to their methodology and classification between the two years.

On the other hand the figures from 2019 and 2020 are directly comparable.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

This could equally mean, that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.

Nonsense.

discodiva92

A property in a very slight after location of Limerick city that didn't sell with an auctioneer,then didn't sell with BidX1 then went up for 350k with another auctioneer just went for 335k

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Nonsense.

How can you dismiss this it is as valid an explanation as what you are putting forward. At the end of the day we don't know what this 6k relates to.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

How can you dismiss this it is as valid an explanation as what you are putting forward. At the end of the day we don't know what this 6k relates to.

I’m going to need some help understanding the validity.

How many properties that were habitable and included in counted stock in 2019, then became uninhabitable in 2020 but remained in the counted stock, would it take to increase the total stock by 6k in excess of new builds.

Presumably if this is a valid explanation it is mathematically possible, so could you help me out understanding the sums?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I’m going to need some help understanding the validity.

How many properties that were habitable and included in counted stock in 2019, then became uninhabitable in 2020 but remained in the counted stock, would it take to increase the total stock by 6k in excess of new builds.

Presumably if this is a valid explanation it is mathematically possible, so could you help me out understanding the sums?

My point is we don't know what the difference relates to... you have a theory good.... I am not dismissing it as we don't know.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

My point is we don't know what the difference relates to... you have a theory good.... I am not dismissing it as we don't know.

You asked me how I could dismiss Marius’ suggestion. My answer is I can dismiss it because I think it is mathematically impossible.

You said that Marius suggestion is as valid an explanation as mine, so presumably you think it is mathematically possible.

Are you still claiming that? And if so can you help me understand the maths?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

You asked me how I could dismiss Marius’ suggestion. My answer is I can dismiss it because I think it is mathematically impossible.

You said that Marius suggestion is as valid an explanation as mine, so presumably you think it is mathematically possible.

Are you still claiming that? And if so can you help me understand the maths?

Tell me when did the geodirectory start including student accommodation as housing stock? Answer we don't know as they don't share all the detail.. I can hazard a guess that it was in 2017 and is the 22k difference but I have no way of knowing as they don't say...

Villa05

MacronvFrugals wrote:

2021 - how it's going - Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for social housing

Does Ronan own the building (the toppling pint glass) where the Dail is sitting, I believe he was the developer

Timing belt

Villa05 wrote: »

Does Ronan own the building (the toppling pint glass) where the Dail is sitting, I believe he was the developer

Don't think so I think it is the Gov who own it via the strategic investment Fund.

He was one of a consortium of developers who developed it... It was like a who's who in building world

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Nonsense.

No surprise, since its not what you want to see.

Census show large vacancy, lets post it all over the boards as a simply vacancy.
Geodirectory showed large change in their housing stock change, lets call it an annual gain.
Same Geodirectory show much lower vacancy number.. why there is increase, why there is decrease, why is this, why is that... no, lets better recalculate it, and call as oversupply.

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

Does Ronan own the building (the toppling pint glass) where the Dail is sitting, I believe he was the developer

I believe he operates it under licence but the state own the building. Is that ok?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

You asked me how I could dismiss Marius’ suggestion. My answer is I can dismiss it because I think it is mathematically impossible.

You said that Marius suggestion is as valid an explanation as mine, so presumably you think it is mathematically possible.

Are you still claiming that? And if so can you help me understand the maths?

Why it's impossible? I'm not sure about number at all, and I'm not saying what it means.
But if as you say 21K new properties and 7K restored, (& if in reality there was 7K obsolete that was not adjusted in their DB). You get 28K of increase in their data. But the real annual gain would be just 21K

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

I believe he operates it under licence but the state own the building. Is that ok?

https://www.theccd.ie/about-us/board-of-directors#:~:text=The%20building%20itself%20is%20owned,Irish%20Infrastructure%20Fund%20(IIF).

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

No surprise, since its not what you want to see.

Census show large vacancy, lets post it all over the boards as a simply vacancy.
Geodirectory showed large change in their housing stock change, lets call it an annual gain.
Same Geodirectory show much lower vacancy number.. why there is increase, why there is decrease, why is this, why is that... no, lets better recalculate it, and call as oversupply.

Not sure how this is relevant to what I said was nonsense?:

Marius34 wrote: »

This could equally mean, that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.

So both you and Timing Belt think this is a perfectly valid explanation of an approx 6k increase in total housing stock but when challenged on it you deflect with talk of vacancies and Timing Belt deflects with student accommodation.

Are your claims and Timing Belts claims an example of misrepresenting the data, spinning the data, misunderstanding the data or simply refusing to admit when you are wrong?

in other words the sort of stuff Props is routinely vilified for.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Why it's impossible? I'm not sure about number at all, and I'm not saying what it means.
But if as you say 21K new properties and 7K restored, (& if in reality there was 7K obsolete that was not adjusted in their DB). You get 28K of increase in their data. But the real annual gain would be just 21K

Apologies had not seen you replied to this when I posted the above (but my comment on TB stands!)

If you think it is possible that a 28k rise in the total housing stock including 21k new builds can be explained by uninhabitable properties not being removed from the count can you explain the maths?

Because I cannot understand it.

Hubertj

Timing belt wrote: »

https://www.theccd.ie/about-us/board-of-directors#:~:text=The%20building%20itself%20is%20owned,Irish%20Infrastructure%20Fund%20(IIF).

Thank you. I stand corrected. I was presuming the question posed by the other poster was leading to something

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Not sure how this is relevant to what I said was nonsense?:



So both you and Timing Belt think this is a perfectly valid explanation of an approx 6k increase in total housing stock but when challenged on it you deflect with talk of vacancies and Timing Belt deflects with student accommodation.

Are your claims and Timing Belts claims an example of misrepresenting the data, spinning the data, misunderstanding the data or simply refusing to admit when you are wrong?

in other words the sort of stuff Props is routinely vilified for.

I'm not sure what you mean, where I was wrong, that I haven't admit?
While you are wrong about Geodirectory vacancy calling those numbers as oversupply, but you won't admit it.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Apologies had not seen you replied to this when I posted the above (but my comment on TB stands!)

If you think it is possible that a 28k rise in the total housing stock including 21k new builds can be explained by uninhabitable properties not being removed from the count can you explain the maths?

Because I cannot understand it.

21K new + 7K restored = 28K (without adjustment)
28K - 7K obsolete = 21K real gain.

Note, I'm not stating that this is the case, I'm simply answering to your question how this is mathematically possible.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Not sure how this is relevant to what I said was nonsense?:



So both you and Timing Belt think this is a perfectly valid explanation of an approx 6k increase in total housing stock but when challenged on it you deflect with talk of vacancies and Timing Belt deflects with student accommodation.

Are your claims and Timing Belts claims an example of misrepresenting the data, spinning the data, misunderstanding the data or simply refusing to admit when you are wrong?

in other words the sort of stuff Props is routinely vilified for.

FFS I give up with you for the last few pages I have been saying that no one knows why the difference is there....Instead of picking up on this message you say I am deflecting with student accommodation.. Its not deflecting its trying to show you that the reports have differences and they are not called out.

You are just looking for a fight and as I said last night go find a mirror maybe while you are there you will see that you have been obnoxious on more than one occasion during this thread... you said you want a debate... everyone debated with the exception of you and prop I thought the consensus was we don't know and it could be multiple things.

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

Thank you. I stand corrected. I was presuming the question posed by the other poster was leading to something

I think it probably was... The gov probably gave a lease to someone and is now renting back from them.... not ideal but then what is at the moment with covid.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

FFS I give up with you for the last few pages I have been saying that no one knows why the difference is there....Instead of picking up on this message you say I am deflecting with student accommodation.. Its not deflecting its trying to show you that the reports have differences and they are not called out.

You are just looking for a fight and as I said last night go find a mirror maybe while you are there you will see that you have been obnoxious on more than one occasion during this thread... you said you want a debate... everyone debated with the exception of you and prop I thought the consensus was we don't know and it could be multiple things.

I'm not looking for a fight, I have been perfectly civil, and am simply asking you how is it Marius suggestion that you said was a valid explanation, mathematically possible?

This is the simple question you seem to be deflecting.

I am keen to know how it is possible, because maybe I will learn something.

Hubertj

Could the 7k anomaly be down to 2020 being a leap year, February 29th and all that. Just a theory....