Investment Firms Buying Estates

maestroamado

The Student wrote: »

Banks will not release funds for apartment blocks at the same interest rate as they do for houses. Housing developments are typically built in phases with the bank releasing fund for subsequent phases when some or all of previous phases are sold. Housing developments are less risky to banks.

Apartment blocks need to be completed before any apartment can be sold and hence more risky to banks.

Institutional investors don't have this issue.

For the record I don't agree with Institutional landlords becoming to big but at the same time I don't agree with the State potentially scaring them off.

I am a single property landlord who sees how one sided the rental market is to people like me and perhaps institutional landlords might level the playing field for me and others like me.

So the Government are completely at fault on this one.
We bailed out the banks leaving us loaded with debt for generations.
So now the Government are supporting those banks against the taxpayers and the voters.
I be surprised if the get away with this one as its a hot topic now...

The Student

maestroamado wrote: »

So the Government are completely at fault on this one.
We bailed out the banks leaving us loaded with debt for generations.
So now the Government are supporting those banks against the taxpayers and the voters.
I be surprised if the get away with this one as its a hot topic now...

We needed to bail out the banks as we needed a functioning banking system. Without one the country would have ground to a complete stop.

Banks are still private entities whose objective is profit maximisation. The State is merely a shareholder.

maestroamado

The Student wrote: »

We needed to bail out the banks as we needed a functioning banking system. Without one the country would have ground to a complete stop.

Banks are still private entities whose objective is profit maximisation. The State is merely a shareholder.

We are the shareholders of the state and our people cannot buy homes because of the actions of a few...

The Student

maestroamado wrote: »

We are the shareholders of the state and our people cannot buy homes because of the actions of a few...

That is a different debate than the topic of this post.

maestroamado

The Student wrote: »

That is a different debate than the topic of this post.

So its ok then...

jrosen

Even if the government are successful in limiting the % of homes that funds can purchase it still doesn't stop housing agencies buying up the rest. It wont really solve the issue for any person/couple wanting to buy.

Imo if the state have people they need to house then let them build and house them. Leave the developments alone for people to purchase.

Fred Cryton

jrosen wrote: »

Even if the government are successful in limiting the % of homes that funds can purchase it still doesn't stop housing agencies buying up the rest. It wont really solve the issue for any person/couple wanting to buy.

Imo if the state have people they need to house then let them build and house them. Leave the developments alone for people to purchase.

50% will be ring fenced for first time buyers apparently.


But you're right in that the real problem is the council backed by taxpayer cash are hoovering up any new supply. They need to tell the councils stick with your 10% and no more.

maestroamado

jrosen wrote: »

Even if the government are successful in limiting the % of homes that funds can purchase it still doesn't stop housing agencies buying up the rest. It wont really solve the issue for any person/couple wanting to buy.

Imo if the state have people they need to house then let them build and house them. Leave the developments alone for people to purchase.

The housing agencies need to build there own housed and let the developers build for people to buy.
I think there are few people who can take on this task.
If the banks/funds want to get involved in this let them do the development with an appointed builder/developer...

jrosen

Fred Cryton wrote: »

50% will be ring fenced for first time buyers apparently.


But you're right in that the real problem is the council backed by taxpayer cash are hoovering up any new supply. They need to tell the councils stick with your 10% and no more.

Is it fair though to ring fence for 1st time buyers? I can see the logic in maybe a small % for first timers but I dont think its right to lock other people out who want to buy a home assuming its going to be their home that they live in

I agree with your second point, stick with your 10% and be grateful.

StephenRy30

Feel lucky to be in a position to build rather then go through all this and bidding wars paying way over the asking price when house isn't even worth it . If we were not in a position to build we would seriously think of moving abroad.

Fred Cryton

jrosen wrote: »

Is it fair though to ring fence for 1st time buyers? I can see the logic in maybe a small % for first timers but I dont think its right to lock other people out who want to buy a home assuming its going to be their home that they live in

I agree with your second point, stick with your 10% and be grateful.

It's a bit ridiculous alright unless the estate was clearly designed with starter homes in mind and prices in the 200 -400k range.



But what if the developer wants to build an estate with homes costing 600k? Problem we have now is these are likely to be in South Dublin, and the Council are entering into leasing arrangements with the developer to take the entire estate. So the welfare class will be living in South Dublin in homes valued at 600k while the rest of us struggle on with next to no supply of new private homes. Only in Ireland.

Mad_maxx

StephenRy30 wrote: »

Feel lucky to be in a position to build rather then go through all this and bidding wars paying way over the asking price when house isn't even worth it . If we were not in a position to build we would seriously think of moving abroad.

thats more expensive than buying in most cases right now

Mad_maxx

Fred Cryton wrote: »

It's a bit ridiculous alright unless the estate was clearly designed with starter homes in mind and prices in the 200 -400k range.



But what if the developer wants to build an estate with homes costing 600k? Problem we have now is these are likely to be in South Dublin, and the Council are entering into leasing arrangements with the developer to take the entire estate. So the welfare class will be living in South Dublin in homes valued at 600k while the rest of us struggle on with next to no supply of new private homes. Only in Ireland.

yes and those policies are likely to be extended if SF lead the next government

coolshannagh28

Muahahaha wrote: »

Sunday Times reporting that the plan is to allow cuckoo funds buy 50% of any new development. No mention of taxing them the same as private landlords so their financial advantage will still be there. While it will help first time buyers of family homes it doesnt solve the problem as they will still be competing against them.

I can also see the cuckoo funds challenging any new laws into the High and Supreme Courts who have always upheld property rights strongly. It wouldnt surprise me if the courts ruled in their favour because as a company they have the same property rights as an individual and preventing them buying what they want to could be ruled as unconstitutional.

The govt will do anything to avoid taxing our overlords in New York , what treason did Noonan concoct against the state in 2011 ?

maestroamado

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The govt will do anything to avoid taxing our overlords in New York , what treason did Noonan concoct against the state in 2011 ?

Not much point in blaming Noonan, its our fault as we are here now and are putting up with it...

yer man!

I wonder, if funding housing developments is such an issue, would there ever be scope to build the development as a "self build" type arrangement?

Developer designs the estate and gets purchasers to buy off plan, they organise a self build mortgage and release funds as the house goes up, developer draws it down as needed?

This is the way it's done in Netherlands, which always surprised me and I saw it as outlandish in the beginning but it could have it's merits. If banks are such a hassle, can other investments streams be sourced? We have people frothing at the mouth with cash to buy property and the bank seems to be petrified that they will be left with unsold or half built unsold assets.

coolshannagh28

maestroamado wrote: »

Not much point in blaming Noonan, its our fault as we are here now and are putting up with it...

How do you boil a frog ? the electorate has acquiesced in the deception . the Corporates should be taxed as the rest.

maestroamado

yer man! wrote: »

I wonder, if funding housing developments is such an issue, would there ever be scope to build the development as a "self build" type arrangement?

Developer designs the estate and gets purchasers to buy off plan, they organise a self build mortgage and release funds as the house goes up, developer draws it down as needed?

This is the way it's done in Netherlands, which always surprised me and I saw it as outlandish in the beginning but it could have it's merits. If banks are such a hassle, can other investments streams be sourced? We have people frothing at the mouth with cash to buy property and the bank seems to be petrified that they will be left with unsold or half built unsold assets.

That couldn't work in this country.
Its just too sensible...

maestroamado

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/nama-close-to-approving-sale-of-dublin-apartments-to-uk-based-fund-1.4567753?

More of the same and this is a Government agency...

lawrencesummers

maestroamado wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/nama-close-to-approving-sale-of-dublin-apartments-to-uk-based-fund-1.4567753?

More of the same and this is a Government agency...

Credit to the government here, this policy they have implemented has been extremely successful.

It’s a pity that it’s success benefits millionaires from other countries to the detriment of Irish citizens, but thems the breaks.

lawrencesummers

Fred Cryton wrote: »

50% will be ring fenced for first time buyers apparently.


But you're right in that the real problem is the council backed by taxpayer cash are hoovering up any new supply. They need to tell the councils stick with your 10% and no more.

The 50% is not going to solve anything.

It’s just going to create problems for legitimate people who are not first time buyers like downgraders, empty nesters, divorcees, separated taxpaying people.

It still keeps the market attractive because of the tax efficiency and WILL in fact drive prices up further as the same amount of cooktop funds bid for a smaller amount of property.


The problem is a simple one, remove the tax attractiveness to outside funds, and increase supply. We need to be building 50k houses per annum for the next 5 years, not under 20k as we currently do.

Anything else will just make it worse.

coolshannagh28

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The 50% is not going to solve anything.

It’s just going to create problems for legitimate people who are not first time buyers like downgraders, empty nesters, divorcees, separated taxpaying people.

It still keeps the market attractive because of the tax efficiency and WILL in fact drive prices up further as the same amount of cooktop funds bid for a smaller amount of property.


The problem is a simple one, remove the tax attractiveness to outside funds, and increase supply. We need to be building 50k houses per annum for the next 5 years, not under 20k as we currently do.

Anything else will just make it worse.

This is exactly correct , our government will do anything to avoid offending the Funds by doing something frightful like asking them to pay tax like the citizenry . This initiative is designed to fail and will fail as has every other adventure since 2011.

lawrencesummers

Do they think the people in this country are idiots? Complete idiots.

No corporation tax brought in.

No tax in rental income brought in.

UP to 50% of houses to be set aside for owner occupiers. So the funds can ONLY buy half of every house that gets built in the country, and they can still buy 100% of apartments, this will just send the cost of apartments soaring because funds will snap up all that stock and if they figure out some multiple company name vehicle to purchase 10 in each holding them they won’t attract the higher stamp duty on houses.

Why not use the funds to solve the problem???
Remove all the incentive to buy finished stock, and remove the incentives to rent it our, bring in a 5 years scheme to incentivise the construction of new modern A rated homes that are brought to market for owner occupiers in a realistic timeframe and at a affordable price. Let the funds get their return from investing in building houses instead of buying them.

Oh wait, the government own the banks and they hate competition. Forgot about that.

Pussyhands

Shameful from government.

I would fully support a blockade of investment funds rentals.

Fred Cryton

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The 50% is not going to solve anything.

It’s just going to create problems for legitimate people who are not first time buyers like downgraders, empty nesters, divorcees, separated taxpaying people.

It still keeps the market attractive because of the tax efficiency and WILL in fact drive prices up further as the same amount of cooktop funds bid for a smaller amount of property.


The problem is a simple one, remove the tax attractiveness to outside funds, and increase supply. We need to be building 50k houses per annum for the next 5 years, not under 20k as we currently do.

Anything else will just make it worse.

The two statements i have highlighted in bold above are completely contradictory. If the banks are not lending, and they're not as we now have by far the most conservative banking system in Europe, then who is going to fund new developments if we remove the tax attractiveness to funds. And no, the State is not the answer, we don't live in communist East Germany.

lawrencesummers

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The two statements i have highlighted in bold above are completely contradictory. If the banks are not lending, and they're not as we now have by far the most conservative banking system in Europe, then who is going to fund new developments if we remove the tax attractiveness to funds. And no, the State is not the answer, we don't live in communist East Germany.

It’s not contradictory.

We have to remove the tax attractiveness to funds purchasing investment properties so the housing market is occupied predominately by people looking to occupy the house they bid on.

And we need to build more houses, the core problem with the housing market in this country is a lack of supply, the division and allocation of the stock is continually highlighted but the problem is the lack of supply . If there is only so much pie to go around you can’t feed everyone unless you get a bigger pie.

lawrencesummers

Pussyhands wrote: »

Shameful from government.

I would fully support a blockade of investment funds rentals.

That would only hamper those who need to rent the overpriced property.

This problem is created by government policy, and government policy alone can resolve it.

Fred Cryton

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s not contradictory.

We have to remove the tax attractiveness to funds purchasing investment properties so the housing market is occupied predominately by people looking to occupy the house they bid on.

And we need to build more houses, the core problem with the housing market in this country is a lack of supply, the division and allocation of the stock is continually highlighted but the problem is the lack of supply . If there is only so much pie to go around you can’t feed everyone unless you get a bigger pie.

Imagine we kicked all the investment funds out tomorrow, what would happen?


The council would take over absolutely every new estate for social housing, backed by €3.5bn in capital from the Department of Housing


The councils are the real problem here.

lawrencesummers

[PHP][/PHP]

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Imagine we kicked all the investment funds out tomorrow, what would happen?


The council would take over absolutely every new estate for social housing, backed by €3.5bn in capital from the Department of Housing


The councils are the real problem here.

The councils are part of the problem because they are buyers of housing stock instead of creators of it, and this is because of government policy.

The overall problem is a lack of supply. The fact that the investment funds and government agencies are massive bidders in a under served market just makes it worse for mick and mary first time buyers because they are up against far far deeper pockets for the tiny amount of houses on the market.

hmmm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

And we need to build more houses, the core problem with the housing market in this country is a lack of supply, the division and allocation of the stock is continually highlighted but the problem is the lack of supply . If there is only so much pie to go around you can’t feed everyone unless you get a bigger pie.

I agree the core problem is lack of supply, but I'm not sure who "we" is.

Developers build houses. Developers need money to build houses, and they prefer it upfront because they are guaranteed a return and can build more as a consequence. If we push institutions out of the market, developers can't build houses.

There has been repeated problems with governments taking short term actions which get them plaudits from Sinn Fein and other Opposition parties, and the long-term consequences are a disaster. I saw earlier a Labour TD who supported mandatory quarantine now accusing the government of letting the aviation sector down, and I see SF on Prime Time saying that the government is doing nothing for renters at the same time as we are booting out funds who are funding rental properties - this sort of flip flopping is no way to run a country.