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

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

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

Certainly as valid an explanation as that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Its not deflecting its trying to show you that the reports have differences and they are not called out.

By the way you are wrong on this too. If they make changes that means new published data is not comparable to previous years data they highlight the fact.

Not looking for a fight. Just saying.

PropQueries

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.

While I haven’t been really involved in this particular debate, I think the main conclusion is that our statisticians in the ESRI, CSO etc. aren’t up to scratch. The government could hire anyone straight out of college to put the data into an excel spreadsheet and export them into a fancy looking graph.

From our GDP figures to housing completions etc. they have proven themselves completely inept at their jobs over the past 20 years IMO

They basically just collect the data or accept at face value whatever data is given to them and then when there are any extreme outliers, they don’t seem to consider, interpret or question them or just appear to ignore them completely IMO

It’s near impossible to run a modern economy when the government has to rely on the “analysts” at the ESRI and CSO when planning for the future IMO

Just to add: the data collection and graphs from timing belt are very good and very much appreciated. I just expect much much more from the analysts at the CSO, ESRI etc. in their regular hefty reports instead of what appears to be mainly a copy and paste job from their previous reports in many cases

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

While I haven’t been really involved in this particular debate, I think the main conclusion is that our statisticians in the ESRI, CSO etc. aren’t up to scratch. The government could hire anyone straight out of college to put the data into an excel spreadsheet and export them into a fancy looking graph.

From our GDP figures to housing completions etc. they have proven themselves completely inept at their jobs over the past 20 years IMO

They basically just collect the data or accept at face value whatever data is given to them and then when there are any extreme outliers, they don’t seem to consider, interpret or question them or just appear to ignore them completely IMO

It’s near impossible to run a modern economy when the government has to rely on the “analysts” at the ESRI and CSO when planning for the future IMO

I agree with you that some of the stuff published for projections in the future seems a bit bonkers but I don't agree that CSO etc are unable to measure the data as it stands today. There is no evidence that they have got it wrong as far as I can see, though very happy to be corrected.

What I find a bit odd is the housing data that is measured rather than forecast, is riddled with anomalies that seem off in the context of what we are told about the housing crisis.

It is curious that people try to explain these anomalies away with a nothing to see here, various implausible explanations and failing that a simple damning of the data - sure you can't trust the CSO, they haven't a clue or look at GeoDirectory their reports are all over the place from one year to the next.

But weirdly these same data sources are seen as reliable to justify calls for building 30, 40, 50k housing units a year in the future.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I agree with you that some of the stuff published for projections in the future seems a bit bonkers but I don't agree that CSO etc are unable to measure the data as it stands today. There is no evidence that they have got it wrong as far as I can see, though very happy to be corrected.

What I find a bit odd is the housing data that is measured rather than forecast, is riddled with anomalies that seem off in the context of what we are told about the housing crisis.

It is curious that people try to explain these anomalies away with a nothing to see here, various implausible explanations and failing that a simple damning of the data - sure you can't trust the CSO, they haven't a clue or look at GeoDirectory their reports are all over the place from one year to the next.

But weirdly these same data sources are seen as reliable to justify calls for building 30, 40, 50k housing units a year in the future.

Some others who oppose you, including me, do not reject those report. I oppose your conclusions, not the reports. So no need to make this up.
You are the one who rejects major reports, which shows that there are not enough properties for housing.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Some others who oppose you, including me, do not reject those report. I oppose your conclusions, not the reports. So no need to make this up.
You are the one who rejects major reports, which shows that there are not enough properties for housing.

Ok fair enough. Just so I understand, and don't make stuff up - are you opposing my conclusions that GeoDirectory shows an increase of 28k properties in total residential stock from Dec 2019 to Dec 2020?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok fair enough. Just so I understand, and don't make stuff up - are you opposing my conclusions that GeoDirectory shows an increase of 28k properties in total residential stock from Dec 2019 to Dec 2020?

That's what report shows. I did not reject it. Equally as I don't reject that report shows only 20K increased from 2016 to 2020.
I oppose what conclusions you make out of it, not what report tells. As simple as that.

Hubertj

It’s the extra day

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Some others who oppose you, including me, do not reject those report. I oppose your conclusions, not the reports. So no need to make this up.
You are the one who rejects major reports, which shows that there are not enough properties for housing.

He’s right to question and interpret the reports IMO

The CSO and ESRI are incredibly incompetent on the interpretation side IMO. The best examples are the 2016 census with vacant properties and 2015 leprechaun fiasco.

The higher ups in the both the CSO and ESRI should have spotted the obvious furore that would result from both i.e. we were in the middle of an apparent housing crisis in relation to the time of the census 2016 and the 2015 GDP growth of 25% would obviously have raised eyebrows at that time.

Instead they ignored both issues at the time and it took them c. 2 years to respond when they should have had the foresight to explain (or at least make an attempt at explaining both) prior to publication IMO

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

That's what report shows. I did not reject it. Equally as I don't reject that report shows only 20K increased from 2016 to 2020.
I oppose what conclusions you make out of it, not what report tells. As simple as that.

You cannot compare 2016 Geo data with 2020 Geo data as they changed the methodology.

My conclusions are based on what we know for sure:

Total housing stock increased by c. 28k
New builds increased by c. 21k
Therefore c 7k properties were added to the total housing stock that were not new builds.

If they are not new builds, the only possibly source for these properties are from existing properties that were not counted as habitable residential stock in 2019.

The above is what we know for sure.

My conclusions are:

If we are adding c. 7k properties from reclassifying uninhabitable properties we clearly are overestimating the problem of obsolete properties and should be careful about making housing need projections based on 5000 properties per annum becoming obsolete.

Do you oppose those conclusions and if so why?

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

He’s right to question and interpret the reports IMO

The CSO and ESRI are incredibly incompetent on the interpretation side IMO. The best examples are the 2016 census with vacant properties and 2015 leprechaun fiasco.

The higher ups in the both the CSO and ESRI should have spotted the obvious furore that would result from both i.e. we were in the middle of an apparent housing crisis in relation to the time of the census 2016 and the 2015 GDP growth of 25% would obviously have raised eyebrows at that time.

Instead they ignored both issues at the time and it took them c. 2 years to respond when they should have had the foresight to explain (or at least make an attempt at explaining both) prior to publication IMO

In fairness to the CSO I think they played the vacancy situation well.

The whole point of the census is to report the actual statistics that are on the ground irrespective what the policitical/media/social narrative is and what the public might expect the results to be.

They collected the data and published the results without fear or favour or any commentary. When the inevitable fury unfolded and everybody said they were wrong they published further data and calmly defended their accuracy.

Hats off to them in my opinion. It would have been easier for them to bow to the pressure and fudge something. I just hope the next census does not become politicised.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

You cannot compare 2016 Geo data with 2020 Geo data as they changed the methodology.

My conclusions are based on what we know for sure:

Total housing stock increased by c. 28k
New builds increased by c. 21k
Therefore c 7k properties were added to the total housing stock that were not new builds.

If they are not new builds, the only possibly source for these properties are from existing properties that were not counted as habitable residential stock in 2019.

The above is what we know for sure.

My conclusions are:

If we are adding c. 7k properties from reclassifying uninhabitable properties we clearly are overestimating the problem of obsolete properties and should be careful about making housing need projections based on 5000 properties per annum becoming obsolete.

Do you oppose those conclusions and if so why?

Yes, I oppose your conclusions, as this kind of information is unknown and not provided. There can be many reasons for increase in those number, anyone could make their own conclusions they like, it's not a facts, nor report speaks about it.

MacronvFrugals

He certainly is right to question the figures, there's form in many places....

Homeless figures were added up incorrectly


https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30855461.html

PropQueries wrote: »

He’s right to question and interpret the reports IMO

The CSO and ESRI are incredibly incompetent on the interpretation side IMO. The best examples are the 2016 census with vacant properties and 2015 leprechaun fiasco.

The higher ups in the both the CSO and ESRI should have spotted the obvious furore that would result from both i.e. we were in the middle of an apparent housing crisis in relation to the time of the census 2016 and the 2015 GDP growth of 25% would obviously have raised eyebrows at that time.

Instead they ignored both issues at the time and it took them c. 2 years to respond when they should have had the foresight to explain (or at least make an attempt at explaining both) prior to publication IMO

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, I oppose your conclusions, as this kind of information is unknown and not provided. There can be many reasons for increase in those number, anyone could make their own conclusions they like, it's not a facts, nor report speaks about it.

Ok, great, that's what i was interested in discussing, what are some of the many other reasons for this increase? What other possible sources could the additional housing units be from?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, great, that's what i was interested in discussing, what are some of the many other reasons for this increase? What other possible sources could the additional housing units be from?

I mentioned, that there can be various reasons or adjustments.
It can be similar case to 2017, but as this is on much lower level than what was in 2017, they may not see a reason to report that kind of details. I don't think it's possible to give exact property stock numbers on a particular times. Or exactly to define when it's still a residential stock, or should not be counted as such. Different analyst may look it differently. There are so many reasons, that I would not know which is a right one for this case. Simply its unknown, as they don't provide this kind of information.

Timing belt

Marius34 wrote: »

I mentioned, that there can be various reasons or adjustments.
It can be similar case to 2017, but as this is on much lower level than what was in 2017, they may not see a reason to report that kind of details. I don't think it's possible to give exact property stock numbers on a particular times. Or exactly to define when it's still a residential stock, or should not be counted as such. Different analyst may look it differently. There are so many reasons, that I would not know which is a right one for this case. Simply its unknown, as they don't provide this kind of information.

I see you are still going...

You are correct the difference could be anything... it could be as simple as someone typing in numbers the wrong way around.. we don't know without seeing the granular data or it being highlighted in a report.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I mentioned, that there can be various reasons or adjustments.
It can be similar case to 2017, but as this is on much lower level than what was in 2017, they may not see a reason to report that kind of details. I don't think it's possible to give exact property stock numbers on a particular times. Or exactly to define when it's still a residential stock, or should not be counted as such. Different analyst may look it differently. There are so many reasons, that I would not know which is a right one for this case. Simply its unknown, as they don't provide this kind of information.

If you're referring to the difference between 2016 and 2017 the data was not comparable because they changed the methodology.

The whole purpose of the report is to provide exact, or as accurate as possible, housing stock numbers. Whilst inevitably they will miss a few here or there it is not credible to suggest they might overestimate the increase in housing stock by about 30%.

You say you do not reject the report, but you are suggesting that we cannot actually rely on the data because of 'adjustments' or a "different analyst" - which brings me back to my earlier point:

schmittel wrote: »

It is curious that people try to explain these anomalies away with a nothing to see here, various implausible explanations and failing that a simple damning of the data - sure you can't trust the CSO, they haven't a clue or look at GeoDirectory their reports are all over the place from one year to the next.

MacronvFrugals

The below in bold about land hoarding I hadn't realized this was the consensus?


UN says Ireland applies 'preferential tax laws' to vultures funds and it 'cannot continue'

The report also warns States, such as Ireland, that the use of private equity and asset management firms in housing “in its current form runs afoul of international human rights norms and cannot continue.”

At this time we have identified six States, but there are many more where these same issues are of serious concern, including in the global South. We are ready to engage in a dialogue with all relevant States and financial investors as to how this problem can be addressed,” the experts said.

The UN report and letter by Leilani Farha said the situation was being made worse by land hoarding – investors sitting on vacant land to restrict supply and thus increase demand and value.

It also noted that private equity landlords, such as Ireland’s largest landlord, I-RES REIT, “have openly discussed policies of introducing the highest rents possible in order to increase returns for shareholders”.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I see you are still going...

Sure am. I think it is worthy of discussion if we are happy on here to hammer away at the need to build a heap of houses to replace the obsolete stock.

Timing belt wrote: »

You are correct the difference could be anything... it could be as simple as someone typing in numbers the wrong way around.. we don't know without seeing the granular data or it being highlighted in a report.

Again brings me back to my earlier point:

schmittel wrote: »

It is curious that people try to explain these anomalies away with a nothing to see here, various implausible explanations and failing that a simple damning of the data - sure you can't trust the CSO, they haven't a clue or look at GeoDirectory their reports are all over the place from one year to the next.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Sure am. I think it is worthy of discussion if we are happy on here to hammer away at the need to build a heap of houses to replace the obsolete stock.



Again brings me back to my earlier point:

What is your point do you think the reports are 100% correct with no erroneous data?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

What is your point do you think the reports are 100% correct with no erroneous data?

No report like this is 100% correct. But I have no reason to believe they are not an accurate measurement of the housing stock.

SO if they say housing stock has increased by 28k, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept that as a fact.

I also think there is enough info in the report to conclude that 7k of that increase is from existing properties, not previously classified as habitable.

Thus it seems most likely to me that bulk of these properties are coming from renovations/change of use.

I am interested to hear any other ideas of the likely source but I don't think data entry error is a likely suggestion.

Do you have any other ideas?

MacronvFrugals

It would be naïve not to question figures if discrepancies are present


CSO explains discrepancy in housing figures to Oireachtas committee

The Central Statistics Office has explained the discrepancy between its figures on the number of new houses built and the Department of Housing's figures at an Oireachtas committee.

The CSO's Census figures published in recent weeks showed Ireland's housing stock increased by 8,800 units between 2011 and 2016, a rise of just 0.4%, with 33,000 householders indicating their home had been built in the previous five years.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0510/874008-housing/

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

If you're referring to the difference between 2016 and 2017 the data was not comparable because they changed the methodology.

The whole purpose of the report is to provide exact, or as accurate as possible, housing stock numbers. Whilst inevitably they will miss a few here or there it is not credible to suggest they might overestimate the increase in housing stock by about 30%.

You say you do not reject the report, but you are suggesting that we cannot actually rely on the data because of 'adjustments' or a "different analyst" - which brings me back to my earlier point:

They equally can change slightly methodology, but much more insignificant than of 2017, which I consider as adjustments. I said there could be many reasons, other adjustments
I don't reject the report, ok, I told many times this already. Stop making-up this stuff... I mentioned you many times, I don't reject the report, but your conclusion! Write it down for next time!
You ask a question, and then looking what you can find some meaning between the words, and not what I mean. It start to get annoying...

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

They equally can change slightly methodology, but much more insignificant than of 2017, which I consider as adjustments.
I don't reject the report, ok, I told many times this already. Stop making-up this stuff... I mentioned you many times, I don't reject the report, but your conclusion! Write it down for next time!
You ask a question, and then looking what you can find between some meaning between the words, and not what I mean. It start to get annoying...

Ok you accept the conclusions of the report. I get it.

You accept that housing increased by 28k.

You just don't accept my conclusions that the bulk of the increase over new builds is likely to be renovations. I get that too. You think it is more likely to be "adjustments".

But you keep telling me I am wrong, and am spinning data or whatever, but you have no plausible explanation to refute my conclusions other than some vague talk about adjustments without giving any logic to your argument.

What exactly do you think they are adjusting?!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

No report like this is 100% correct. But I have no reason to believe they are not an accurate measurement of the housing stock.

SO if they say housing stock has increased by 28k, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept that as a fact.

I also think there is enough info in the report to conclude that 7k of that increase is from existing properties, not previously classified as habitable.

Thus it seems most likely to me that bulk of these properties are coming from renovations/change of use.

I am interested to hear any other ideas of the likely source but I don't think data entry error is a likely suggestion.

Do you have any other ideas?

As I have said over and over again we don't know what is driving the 6.2k difference... I have emailed them on the one off chance that they come back and tell us....
I would be surprised if it was a data entry error but in the 2019 Q2 the total stock reported is lower that the figure quoted on page 3 because someone typed 2,009,809 instead of 2,009,089.

This is not me discrediting the data all I am pointing out is that there can be errors in the data reported.... Just look at the mistake I made the other day when I messed up sorting data and it showed Carlow with high rise.

Likewise I don't understand why detached properties are showing a decrease of housing stock of 5/6% between 2017 and 2020... It doesn't seem right but yet the overall figures appear to make sense.

As I have said all day we don't know what is driving the difference and is it just a one off correction to data or is it something that will happen every year.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok you accept the conclusions of the report. I get it.

You accept that housing increased by 28k.

You just don't accept my conclusions that the bulk of the increase over new builds is likely to be renovations. I get that too. You think it is more likely to be "adjustments".

But you keep telling me I am wrong, and am spinning data or whatever, but you have no plausible explanation to refute my conclusions other than some vague talk about adjustments without giving any logic to your argument.

What exactly do you think they are adjusting?!

I can not give the answer, for things that we don't know, this information simply is not provided. It can be so many things. For example maybe they remove obsolesce only every few years, maybe they change some kind multiple use properties to count as residential, I have no idea, nor I'm interested to go in that type of speculation for the things we don't know.. I would need to spend many hours to look for possible cases for you, not interested in wasting time on this analysis.
I equally wouldn't know the reason why there was a fall of housing stock numbers in 2017, if they wouldn't tell.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

As I have said over and over again we don't know what is driving the 6.2k difference... I have emailed them on the one off chance that they come back and tell us....
I would be surprised if it was a data entry error but in the 2019 Q2 the total stock reported is lower that the figure quoted on page 3 because someone typed 2,009,809 instead of 2,009,089.

This is not me discrediting the data all I am pointing out is that there can be errors in the data reported.... Just look at the mistake I made the other day when I messed up sorting data and it showed Carlow with high rise.

Likewise I don't understand why detached properties are showing a obsolesces rate of 5/6% between 2017 and 2020... It doesn't seem right but yet the overall figures appear to make sense.

As I have said all day we don't know what is driving the difference and is it just a one off correction to data or is it something that will happen every year.

I know you have said over and over again we do not know for sure. And I have agreed with that. I am not saying that renovations/repurpose is the definite answer, just that I think it is the most likely.

All I am asking is what do you think is the most likely explanation?

I am not asking for a certain answer, that you can stand over in court. Just an educated guess!

MacronvFrugals

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank

in Ireland, vacant housing units rose from 140,000 in 2002 to over double with 289,451 in 2012 according to a report issued by Deutsche Bank. Their report translates that it would take 43 years to fill such a number of houses.

In April 2010, Nama boss Brendan McDonagh told the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee that the state agency would consider bulldozing properties in certain circumstances, but that this would not be the "first option".

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

hometruths

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank





https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

I think we'll turn back to oversupply just as quickly.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I know you have said over and over again we do not know for sure. And I have agreed with that. I am not saying that renovations/repurpose is the definite answer, just that I think it is the most likely.

All I am asking is what do you think is the most likely explanation?

I am not asking for a certain answer, that you can stand over in court. Just an educated guess!

It could be anything from student accommodation to data cleanse of the data because they know the census was coming.... whatever it is it has increased the housing stock reported.

Your explanation is plausible but as I previously pointed out the ESB Reconnection data does not back this up... You have suggested that 6.2k properties never had their ESB cut in the first place and yes that is possible at now point have I disagreed.

I think the most likely explanation is that there are multiple things driving the difference I think student accommodation accounts for about 2k of it but I have no proof, I think a data cleansing exercise was undertaken and I would suspect that Postman pat may not have been that diligent in filling numbers as it would not be his main priority. yet again I have no proof or even an estimate of how much this would contribute. It is for this very reason that I have said we don't know it could be anything.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

I think we'll turn back to oversupply just as quickly.

Interesting heat graph. Very insightful.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

It could be anything from student accommodation to data cleanse of the data because they know the census was coming.... whatever it is it has increased the housing stock reported.

Your explanation is plausible but as I previously pointed out the ESB Reconnection data does not back this up... You have suggested that 6.2k properties never had their ESB cut in the first place and yes that is possible at now point have I disagreed.

I think the most likely explanation is that there are multiple things driving the difference I think student accommodation accounts for about 2k of it but I have no proof, I think a data cleansing exercise was undertaken and I would suspect that Postman pat may not have been that diligent in filling numbers as it would not be his main priority. yet again I have no proof or even an estimate of how much this would contribute. It is for this very reason that I have said we don't know it could be anything.

It's not new student accommodation - they've been including that in new addresses since 2018.

I think data cleansing is more plausible than students. Though if so, it begs the question as to why they feel the need to tweak their findings in anticipation of the census.

Whatever it is I'll just have to add add it to my ever growing list of evidence that we don't need to build 30k units a year.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Interesting heat graph. Very insightful.

Apologies. Light on substance. But you know as well as I do if I explain all the reasons I think why we are in danger of seeing oversupply again, I'll need to put a trigger warning on it!

PropQueries

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank





https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

And one year later we had a housing “shortage”:

Link here to 2013: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

The only thing that changed in that 12 month period was the vulture funds beginning to enter the market and the CGT tax breaks.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

And one year later we had a housing “shortage”:

Link here to 2013: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

The only thing that changed in that 12 month period was the vulture funds beginning to enter the market and the CGT tax breaks.

It's amazing to compare two quotes, only 12 months apart:

"Over 200,000 houses would need to be demolished in order for the housing supply to fall to three years of current population growth."

and

Bob Jordan, Chief Executive of Threshold, said that up to 30,000 new houses need to be constructed annually to meet the ongoing demand for new homes.

MacronvFrugals

PropQueries wrote: »

And one year later we had a housing “shortage”:

Link here to 2013: https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013/

The only thing that changed in that 12 month period was the vulture funds beginning to enter the market and the CGT tax breaks.

I think this commenter seen the shared equity scheme 8 years ago...

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

It's not new student accommodation - they've been including that in new addresses since 2018.

My whole point is we don't know so you can't say it's not student accommodation. Yes they have been capturing it but we don't know how often or what they classify as a dwelling is it a bed or unit.....

I think data cleansing is more plausible than students. Though if so, it begs the question as to why they feel the need to tweak their findings in anticipation of the census.

Post man pat not updating correctly who knows..Why do they have lower housing stock than the CSO we don't know.

what is interesting is that actual no of vacancies has dropped since 2017

2020 2020 2019 2019 2018 2018 2017 2017
Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2
Housing stock 2,042,426 2,025,732 2,014,357 2,009,809 1,993,672 1,983,715 1,974,349 1,967,698
Vacancy rate 4.60% 4.50% 4.70% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90%
no of vacants (Stock x Rate) 93,951 91,157 94,675 96,436 95,696 95,218 94,769 96,417
Qtr movement 2,794 -3,517 -1,761 740 478 450 -1,648 -2,466


The 2020 Q4 has obviously been impacted by Covid.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Apologies. Light on substance. But you know as well as I do if I explain all the reasons I think why we are in danger of seeing oversupply again, I'll need to put a trigger warning on it!

Oversupply where? Which is better over or under? How many should be built? What type? Where? When? By who?
Tried to follow the thread the last few days. Mad stuff altogether. I thoroughly recommend the ignore function which I recently figured out how to use. Cuts out noise.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

My whole point is we don't know so you can't say it's not student accommodation. Yes they have been capturing it but we don't know how often or what they classify as a dwelling is it a bed or unit.....


Post man pat not updating correctly who knows..Why do they have lower housing stock than the CSO we don't know.

what is interesting is that actual no of vacancies has dropped since 2017

2020 2020 2019 2019 2018 2018 2017 2017
Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2
Housing stock 2,042,426 2,025,732 2,014,357 2,009,809 1,993,672 1,983,715 1,974,349 1,967,698
Vacancy rate 4.60% 4.50% 4.70% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90%
no of vacants (Stock x Rate) 93,951 91,157 94,675 96,436 95,696 95,218 94,769 96,417
Qtr movement 2,794 -3,517 -1,761 740 478 450 -1,648 -2,466


The 2020 Q4 has obviously been impacted by Covid.

What is interesting is number of vacant in Dublin has risen since 2017.

I Can’t add that fact to my list. It’s been pinned to the top for a while.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Oversupply where? Which is better over or under? How many should be built? What type? Where? When? By who?
Tried to follow the thread the last few days. Mad stuff altogether. I thoroughly recommend the ignore function which I recently figured out how to use. Cuts out noise.

My guess is Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow, Meath.

Timing belt

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Less than 9 years ago NAMA was talking about bulldozing property because of the oversupply, a dramatic turn around all the same.


It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses says Deutsche bank





https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

And to think that Deutsche Bank own circa 750m of property in Ireland with the majority purchased over the previous few years.

Smiley11

No offence lads but you should really set up a private argument thread between yourselves. I've resorted to scrolling through pages & pages of 28k/7k posts which have produced absolutely nothing definitive for all of the rambling.

The only reason I'm still following is that occasionally, something interesting pops up & of course, I have a vested interest in the property market presently. The reality for every single poster here is that not one of us can predict the future. There is no property genius here (& I'm not implying that any of you purport to be one) but please give it up with the arguments over nothing. Maybe you came up with some interesting "fact" while I was scrolling, but I doubt it.
I'm sure most reading here would love to read anything interesting you have to say but a few here have lost the run of themselves with sniping. Pointless. All we want to do is buy or sell a house in an insane market. Snipe amongst yourselves & more power to you if you choose to do so.

I am pretty sure that comments here are created by number of PA who play "independend opinion " here.Same names,same opinions.Time to close this "discussion" because the only point here Buy Property Now because it will be more expensive after.The prices will Up because demand is high and supply is low.Same songs every day from 2019.

Smiley11

I'm not isolating any particular person but the way the thread has gone recently isn't helpful to anybody. Its killing the thread & only that I really want to buy a house this year, I'd be gone. Hands up, desperation is me clinging here.

I'm certainly not independent or unbiased but something has to give here because its quite toxic & pointless. Seems to be a lot of muscle flexing in "Prove it", "Show it", "Where did you find that data?". Give it a rest lads, you're never going to win this thread, none of us will. Its impossible.

It would just be nice to see people whose names we don't recognise contribute but honestly the way its gone has to be unbelievably off-putting to genuinely interested posters. I'd say they must look at the last 50 pages & run for the hills! I'm genuinely saying please start a thread amongst yourselves because a lot of us have a long slog ahead & have no interest in what you seem to deem important.

PommieBast

Smiley11 wrote: »

I'm certainly not independent or unbiased but something has to give here because its quite toxic & pointless. Seems to be a lot of muscle flexing in "Prove it", "Show it", "Where did you find that data?". Give it a rest lads, you're never going to win this thread, none of us will. Its impossible.

The 2020 thread ended much the same. More or less an argument between people wishing for either 2007 or 2011 prices. Was a seperate thread much more specific to those actually buying/selling but I left that one when I pulled out of my most recent Sale Agreed and forget its name.

Smiley11

I was on the 2020 thread too unfortunately but I just feel a lot of us here have had a hard year, whether we've succeeded in buying/selling or not. I'm on the more specific thread also but they're all of interest to me in our current predicament.

The chest pounding is just a waste of everybodys time. These guys could easily set up a thread amongst themselves & pound to their hearts content without the rest of us having to wade through the aforementioned. I never want to see 28k/7k figures ever again...unless theres a conclusive point to it all. I nearly broke my thumb with the furious scrolling.

Why did you pull out of your Sale Agreed if you don't mind my asking? I'm not asking for a lot of detail but genuinely interested as I've seen a few houses come back on the market in the last couple of weeks in Cork, not the house I want of course but c'est la vie!

Timing belt

I calculated some data to see what affordability looked like at a county level.

The logic I used was:
- I found the median wage for the area, for people renting privately from the 2016 census
- I got the Average house price was taken from Geo-directory 2020 Q4 report
- I then assumed that a couple were both on the median wage and worked out how much of a deposit and mortgage they would need to buy an average priced house in the area.
- I then calculated what % of the max mortgage that the couple could take out based on the CBI rules (3.5 x salary)
- I then calculated what a mortgage repayment would be on a 30yr mortgage @ 3% and included the average rent as per daft 2020 Q3 report.

The results were as follows:
Median Salary Average house price Deposit Mortgage Required % of Max mortgage Mortgage Repayment Monthly Rent
Wicklow 40,024 € 381,441 101,275 280,166 100% 1,181 1,489
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 67,696 € 596,976 123,104 473,872 100% 1,998 2,223
Fingal 49,337 € 406,458 81,292 325,166 94% 1,371 1,749
Dublin City 52,344 € 427,638 85,528 342,110 93% 1,442 2,035
South Dublin 47,549 € 365,392 73,078 292,314 88% 1,232 1,834
Galway City 42,631 € 318,744 63,749 254,995 85% 1,075 1,363
Kildare 44,224 € 318,744 63,749 254,995 82% 1,075 1,415
Galway County 35,903 € 257,864 51,573 206,291 82% 870 937
Cork City 40,661 € 290,943 58,189 232,754 82% 981 1,443
Meath 41,759 € 291,372 58,274 233,098 80% 983 1,393
Cork County 39,647 € 272,845 54,569 218,276 79% 920 1,057
Louth 33,484 € 226,631 45,326 181,305 77% 764 1,294
Wexford 31,140 € 201,607 40,321 161,286 74% 680 896
Limerick 34,899 € 219,596 43,919 175,677 72% 741 943
Waterford 32,666 € 205,501 41,100 164,401 72% 693 990
Kerry 31,410 € 195,409 39,082 156,327 71% 659 898
Kilkenny 37,004 € 224,366 44,873 179,493 69% 757 1,033
Clare 34,146 € 194,943 38,989 155,954 65% 658 900
Carlow 33,536 € 187,861 37,572 150,289 64% 634 864
Westmeath 34,815 € 194,420 38,884 155,536 64% 656 1,048
Laois 34,409 € 189,944 37,989 151,955 63% 641 1,030
Donegal 26,411 € 144,945 28,989 115,956 63% 489 655
Offaly 34,407 € 175,231 35,046 140,185 58% 591 974
Tipperary 32,760 € 165,369 33,074 132,295 58% 558 874
Monaghan 33,590 € 168,980 33,796 135,184 57% 570 1,393
Mayo 31,317 € 148,525 29,705 118,820 54% 501 744
Sligo 32,397 € 152,305 30,461 121,844 54% 514 785
Cavan 32,735 € 153,359 30,672 122,687 54% 517 769
Leitrim 27,930 € 126,316 25,263 101,053 52% 426 610
Roscommon 31,182 € 128,920 25,784 103,136 47% 435 728
Longford 30,743 € 122,989 24,598 98,391 46% 415 764



The one thing that stood out for me when looking at the data was that you can really see how WFH give's people a lot more options especially if they stay on a city wage.

Anyway I thought it was interesting so decided to share..

Cyrus

The one thing hopefully everyone can agree on is that in the context of over 2m is that 7k is statistically insignificant.

I doubt geo directory gave it 1 percent of the thought that some of you have.

If there are way more properties than we think then I’m sure we will see the number of available properties for sale (which is what really matters ) increase over the coming months/ years .

Zenify

Smiley11 wrote: »

its quite toxic & pointless. Seems to be a lot of muscle flexing in "Prove it", "Show it", "Where did you find that data?".

You hit the nail on the head here. I feel the same way. I've stopped reading the form many times because of this. I scroll through the arguments looking for a few good links relating to property news etc.

Toxic is the best word to describe it.

hometruths

I am clearly the guiltiest culprit on this, and understand it's tedious to wade through pages of tit for tat. Apologies.

There are a number of posters. two or three in particular, on here who, for whatever reason, try and contradict posts based on sound reasoning using spurious arguments. This was a perfect example claiming a mathematically impossible scenario as an alternative valid explanation.

I just find it incredibly frustrating, and whilst it would obviously be simpler just to move on and let it pass, if you do so, these same posters then use it against you in the future to say:

"Oh you only see what you want to see in the data, you misrepresent that, you are spinning the numbers, you have no proof of that, we've called you out on this before, you have a history of this, you're a conspiracy theorist etc."

It's a no win situation. But I get that it clogs up the thread, apologies.