Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

The most recent set of new build figures suggest that only a third Were made available for sale to the general public. Gov, ahb and investment funds purchased the remainder. Recent developments would suggest that invest funds are the dominant player amongst them



I cited 3 and suggested another that might be more relevant to the Irish market (rent to income)

Top 20% can probably afford to buy

Maybe 60% are stuck renting at considerably higher cost than buying

The state is supporting the bottom 20% through rent supports that drive up rents for the middle 60% and outbidding the top 20% through purchasing or long term leasing pushing that cohort further away from their place of work

A survey with 5 metrics can't capture all this market behaviour that is far from sustainable




There are other posters better placed to comment on New Zealand, but they survey suggested numerous bubble dangers including affordability at 2008 levels

I think it is safe to say that the problem is not as simple as the presence of institutional investors in the market.

Marius34

Villa05 wrote: »

The most recent set of new build figures suggest that only a third Were made available for sale to the general public. Gov, ahb and investment funds purchased the remainder. Recent developments would suggest that invest funds are the dominant player amongst them

Second hand properties are part of the market, which can not be excluded talking about overall property market share.

MacronvFrugals

Varadkar said again today raising CB LTI limits "could" help the current housing issues

MacronvFrugals

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar said again today raising CB LTI limits "could" help the current housing issues

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do think that simply putting more money into people's pockets will increase the cost of housing by the same amount.

If two people are bidding on a painting, and both have 10k, the most it can sell for is 10k. But if they each have 20k..

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do think that simply putting more money into people's pockets will increase the cost of housing by the same amount.

If two people are bidding on a painting, and both have 10k, the most it can sell for is 10k. But if they each have 20k..

Exactly - but the average person is quite thick and thinks its just a money issue, so they would see 4.5x limit as great as they can afford more.
Until of course all prices rise due to constrained demand and we end up with the same unaffordability issue, but at a higher price to begin with.

Marius34

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do think that simply putting more money into people's pockets will increase the cost of housing by the same amount.

If two people are bidding on a painting, and both have 10k, the most it can sell for is 10k. But if they each have 20k..

It would increase the price (but not by the same amount of LTI increase), but it would also increase residential construction output.

MacronvFrugals

Marius34 wrote: »

It would increase the price (but not by the same amount of LTI increase), but it would also increase residential construction output.

HTB and Shared Equity isn't enough, the industry needs more carrots!

Are you a FF ghost from 2006?

Marius34

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

HTB and Shared Equity isn't enough, the industry needs more carrots!

Are you a FF ghost from 2006?

What it has todo me with FF? No I'm not.

MacronvFrugals

Marius34 wrote: »

What it has todo me with FF? No I'm not.

Used like that it's colloquial for doing reckless things which raising the CB's LTI would be!

JDD

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar said again today raising CB LTI limits "could" help the current housing issues

Luckily the Central Bank haven't listened once to politicians harping on about the mortgage rules. Varadkar isn't the first and he won't be the last.

When I was a renter it was less about capping the rent I had to pay, and more about being able to stay in the property we were renting. When you're in your twenties you can hop from apartment to house share to apartment and as long as its within acceptable commuting distance from your job/social life, it doesn't really matter.

What I was worried about was the landlord just deciding he was going to sell or refurbish the house we were renting. We had kids in the local primary school, and rental properties that we could afford in the area were few and far between. Apart from the fact that I didn't want to move my children from house to house every few years, I certainly didn't want them to have to change schools.

That's what motivated us to buy a house. I just couldn't see what benefit it would be to us to rent for the rest of our lives.

Even if we had a rent cap AND security of tenure I was worried about what we would do once we retired. What do they do in Germany/Denmark? Just rent a smaller place and pay for it out of their pension? What if their adult children can't afford to rent? I'm guessing that if you needed to go into a nursing home, that's just paid for by the state?

It's all very well to point to Germany and Denmark, and say that they get on very well with a lower house owning population. But they have a much stronger welfare state. While advocating for the government to take their hands out of the property market, and allow REITs and private landlords to own most of the properties, you might end up paying through the nose in your taxes to keep a safety net under those long term renters. Either way, whether it is paying for the State to build homes, or paying for the State to subsidise nursing home fees and provide more HAP support, you are going to end up paying.

yagan

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar said again today raising CB LTI limits "could" help the current housing issues

There's a whole tranche of Irish politicians who so believe in a laissez faire housing market that they see nothing wrong with using voter taxes to bid against their own voters!

They're simply incapable of detaching their minds from other peoples money.

Marius34

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Used like that it's colloquial for doing reckless things which raising the CB's LTI would be!

I have never adviced to increase LTI limits. I just explaining some of difference could make the increase in LTI limits. Not everyone see things as black and white.

timmyntc

Marius34 wrote: »

I have never adviced to increase LTI limits. I just explaining some of difference could make the increase in LTI limits. Not everyone see things as black and white.

Prices for new builds are already very profitable for developers - where would the extra construction supply come from if the LTI limits were increased?

I dont think there are any builders out there holding off and not building because its not profitable enough - so I fail to see how any more carrots will do anything other than inflate prices on the existing supply.

hometruths

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

The SCSI now reiterating the ESRI's call for an increase in capital spending for housing


https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/state-urged-to-borrow-up-to-7bn-more-a-year-for-housing-1.4593042?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Flife-and-style%2Fhomes-and-property%2Fstate-urged-to-borrow-up-to-7bn-more-a-year-for-housing-1.4593042

Estate agents calling for more houses to be built? 2005 called and wants their news back:

'This includes delivering at least 80,000 new homes each year over the next five years to meet demand,' he said.

Hooke & MacDonald expect a further 80,000 new homes will be required and built in 2005, up from 77,000 last year. The company says that this level of construction activity has the potential to be at least sustained over the next five years, with new home construction potentially reaching 85,000 units a year.

By 2008 the same chap had changed his mind a bit:

Estate agents Hooke and McDonald are forecasting that 27,000 new homes will be built next year, dropping to 20,000 in 2010. This compares to about 90,000 new homes built in 2006...

...Hooke and McDonald's economist Geoff Tucker says the fall in home building is required because of the fall in buyer demand and the level of unsold stock in both the new and the second hand market.

Marius34

timmyntc wrote: »

Prices for new builds are already very profitable for developers - where would the extra construction supply come from if the LTI limits were increased?

I dont think there are any builders out there holding off and not building because its not profitable enough - so I fail to see how any more carrots will do anything other than inflate prices on the existing supply.

There are people who are fairly flexible in what they doing, there are people who are chasing higher income from outside Ireland. If construction sector wages goes strongly up, the employment in that sector would increase as well, from internal people as well as immigration.

FromADistance

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar said again today raising CB LTI limits "could" help the current housing issues

So in the last week Varadkar has -

- Called for Tax decreases for remote workers
- Said he sees an United Ireland in his lifetime
- Advocated increasing CBI LTI limits

He really is one man for all men :rolleyes:

JDD

schmittel wrote: »

Estate agents calling for more houses to be built? 2005 called and wants their news back:



By 2008 the same chap had changed his mind a bit:

There's a large difference between housing demand and housing need. You might have 100,000 people who want to buy two properties as BTLs. That's 200,000 units demanded. But they don't need them. Housing needs are much lower, and I think they have been identified by the ESRI - something in the region of 30,000 new/second hand units a year.

We're miles behind that.

yagan

FromADistance wrote: »

So in the last week Varadkar has -

- Called for Tax decreases for remote workers
- Said he sees an United Ireland in his lifetime
- Advocated increasing CBI LTI limits

He really is one man for all men :rolleyes:

There's a hint of desperation off him. If SF win the upcoming byelection I won't be surprised if he's ousted without contest in favour of Coveney.

hometruths

JDD wrote: »

There's a large difference between housing demand and housing need. You might have 100,000 people who want to buy two properties as BTLs. That's 200,000 units demanded. But they don't need them. Housing needs are much lower, and I think they have been identified by the ESRI - something in the region of 30,000 new/second hand units a year.

We're miles behind that.

Housing need? That was in the 2005 reports too:

However, a report from estate agents Hooke & MacDonald says that current level of residential construction at the very least need to be maintained over the next five years in order to meet the required demand.

'The economy is becoming increasingly reliant on migrant workers to fulfil the labour requirements of Irish employers. With net inward migration now averaging close to 50,000 per annum, it is critical the appropriate physical and social infrastructure is in place to accommodate the growth in population,' comments Geoff Tucker, Economist with Hooke & MacDonald.

Villa05

Hubertj wrote:

I think it is safe to say that the problem is not as simple as the presence of institutional investors in the market.

It's clear that there lobbying of government while people with proven experience of delivering affordable accomodation are voices in the wilderness will do little to solve these perceived complexities

MacronvFrugals

Darragh O Brien coming out swinging with this one!

New rules will mean only social and affordable housing for public lands in Dublin and Cork

Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien has promised to change the mandate of the Land Development Agency (LDA) so that it will provide 100 per cent social and affordable housing on public land in Dublin and Cork.

Paywall:
https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/new-rules-will-mean-only-social-and-affordable-housing-for-public-lands-in-dublin-and-cork-4b0af282

Villa05

Marius34 wrote:

Second hand properties are part of the market, which can not be excluded talking about overall property market share.

Of course but I believe that segment was quiet last year and even in normal times we have one of the lowest rates of turnover in housing

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Housing need? That was in the 2005 reports too:

Would you have expected an “Economist” with an estate agent would have said anything else? Mad stuff altogether though that they thought those sort of numbers were required. I wonder how those numbers aligned with ESRI or CB projections for units. Or did they do that back then?

Marius34

Villa05 wrote: »

Of course but I believe that segment was quiet last year and even in normal times we have one of the lowest rates of turnover in housing

It was pretty much busy as usual except April-June. Second-hand market has higher turnover than new builds.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Would you have expected an “Economist” with an estate agent would have said anything else? Mad stuff altogether though that they thought those sort of numbers were required. I wonder how those numbers aligned with ESRI or CB projections for units. Or did they do that back then?

Wouldn't expect them to say anything different, that was kind of the point.

As for the ESRI - take a look at their October 24th 2006 report on housing:

The current period has seen much higher demand, averaging 74,800 dwellings on an annual basis. With economic growth expected to continue, as well as income and employment growth and a net inflow of people into the country the demand for housing is forecast at an average of 71,900 units between 2007 and 2011

But don't worry. This time it is different.

MacronvFrugals

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Darragh O Brien coming out swinging with this one!

New rules will mean only social and affordable housing for public lands in Dublin and Cork

So if you're out making a decent income, then sure you can afford to commute. :rolleyes:

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

This is fundamental untrue. If nobody could afford to pay prices would not be rising and nobody would be buying anything. You are reading the information in a way that suits your views.
The last bubble was an over supply and cheap credit.
We are currently under supplying and credit is hard to get. Very different situation.

The articles you pointed to don't agree with you but are saying there is a larger inequity appearing as different industries were effected differently. Construction workers are now benefiting from the pandemic and charge more. Office workers saved money and never lost any income. Many younger office workers dropped their rental and moved home. Lots of stored income.

I get the feeling Irish people think the property market will return to bygone times where most people could buy a home. We had the highest homeownership in the world in 80s/90s. That was always going to change as we became more integrated in global economics. This was obviously going to effect property.

There are permanent changes that happened to the property market that started in the late 90s, they won't ever be reversed. People are having difficulty accepting this. It is weird somebody in their 20s going on about how houses were cheaper and easier to get in times before they were born. Often overlooking stamp duty and large interest rates.

The difference between 2007 and today is
Today we have less people with big incomes and rising prices ( price bubble )
In 2007 we had same amount of people with small income but with big support from bank ( mortgage bubble )
In both situations we have bubbles.

You will never sell 100 houses worth 1 million each
To 80 buyers with 1 million incomes
And 20 buyers with 500 000 incomes
That why Central bank under preasure to reduce lending requirements.
Because bubble on market already ! And builders will not sell them houses because banks not gonna give bigger mortgage !
So here we have price drop to level when less earning people will afford buy houses.
Same what was happening every single recession !
And when builders invested 1 million in land cant sell houses to get money back we have banks which gave loan to builders buy land and investors which gave money to build houses losing money !
Same as happened in 2008

Villa05

Marius34 wrote:

It was pretty much busy as usual except April-June. Second-hand market has higher turnover than new builds.

Traditionally the new build market is dominated by ftb and 2nd hand market by mover purchaser. Is that correct? and if I recall correctly a 2nd hand house changes hands every 60 years in this country.

What happens in the margins dictate what happens to the housing market as a whole as has been discussed before on these forums

Investment funds are very much the price setters with the market advantage of 0 cost finance and tax free status

Marius34

Villa05 wrote: »

Traditionally the new build market is dominated by ftb and 2nd hand market by mover purchaser. Is that correct? and if I recall correctly a 2nd hand house changes hands every 60 years in this country.

What happens in the margins dictate what happens to the housing market as a whole as has been discussed before on these forums

Investment funds are very much the price setters with the market advantage of 0 cost finance and tax free status

Don't know, it maybe multiple close competitors on New builds. But we talk New builds versus Second hand. And there are more FTB in secondary market, than for new builds, for long while, even before REIT's increased their share.

enricoh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So if you're out making a decent income, then sure you can afford to commute. :rolleyes:

People paying their own way in Ireland don't count, they are there to be milked though! Now jack up the price of that dirty petrol them commuters do be using.

enricoh

enricoh wrote: »

People paying their own way in Ireland don't count, they are there to be milked though! Now jack up the price of that dirty petrol them commuters do be using.

And we already know they're talking about a congestion charge, so then you'll also be getting taxed for travelling into Dublin.


It's such a backwards country. I've no idea how the whole thing hasn't collapsed in on itself yet.

Jmc25

schmittel wrote: »

As for the ESRI - take a look at their October 24th 2006 report on housing:

Mad stuff. The same guys who got it so wrong back then continued to weigh in and influence policy decisions all throughout the recession which followed - many of which are widely discredited today - and still continue to weigh in and influence policy to this day.

mcsean2163

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

The SCSI now reiterating the ESRI's call for an increase in capital spending for housing




.


https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/state-urged-to-borrow-up-to-7bn-more-a-year-for-housing-1.4593042?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Flife-and-style%2Fhomes-and-property%2Fstate-urged-to-borrow-up-to-7bn-more-a-year-for-housing-1.4593042

Truly astonishing to see SCSI make such a recommendation. It may not age well...

SmokyMo

Jmc25 wrote: »

Mad stuff. The same guys who got it so wrong back then continued to weigh in and influence policy decisions all throughout the recession which followed - many of which are widely discredited today - and still continue to weigh in and influence policy to this day.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Truly astonishing to see SCSI make such a recommendation. It may not age well...

Is it actually the same people? I am sure ESRI change staff.

But overall I agree, most text book economists are charlatans. Especially those who constantly forecasts and predict.

javaboy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The difference between 2007 and today is
Today we have less people with big incomes and rising prices ( price bubble )
In 2007 we had same amount of people with small income but with big support from bank ( mortgage bubble )
In both situations we have bubbles.

You will never sell 100 houses worth 1 million each
To 80 buyers with 1 million incomes
And 20 buyers with 500 000 incomes
That why Central bank under preasure to reduce lending requirements.
Because bubble on market already ! And builders will not sell them houses because banks not gonna give bigger mortgage !
So here we have price drop to level when less earning people will afford buy houses.
Same what was happening every single recession !
And when builders invested 1 million in land cant sell houses to get money back we have banks which gave loan to builders buy land and investors which gave money to build houses losing money !
Same as happened in 2008

These “bubbles” are not comparable. For the most part, builders have no problem selling what they build even at the current prices. When prices rise, I don’t expect them to struggle to sell them either.

There are loads of mortgage approved buyers out there clamouring for houses. Due to the central bank lending limits and the more risk averse mid-COVID lending from banks, these buyers are unlikely to default.

So can you explain what will make this bubble pop? Because if it isn’t going to pop, then it’s not a bubble.

Rising prices alone aren’t indicative of a bubble.

MacronvFrugals

javaboy wrote: »

These “bubbles” are not comparable. For the most part, builders have no problem selling what they build even at the current prices. When prices rise, I don’t expect them to struggle to sell them either.

There are loads of mortgage approved buyers out there clamouring for houses. Due to the central bank lending limits and the more risk averse mid-COVID lending from banks, these buyers are unlikely to default.

So can you explain what will make this bubble pop? Because if it isn’t going to pop, then it’s not a bubble.

Rising prices alone aren’t indicative of a bubble.

The state being "the biggest player in the market" could be though

javaboy

javaboy wrote: »

These “bubbles” are not comparable. For the most part, builders have no problem selling what they build even at the current prices. When prices rise, I don’t expect them to struggle to sell them either.

There are loads of mortgage approved buyers out there clamouring for houses. Due to the central bank lending limits and the more risk averse mid-COVID lending from banks, these buyers are unlikely to default.

So can you explain what will make this bubble pop? Because if it isn’t going to pop, then it’s not a bubble.

Rising prices alone aren’t indicative of a bubble.

Builders have no problems selling houses to councils, housing authorities, charities and foreign investment companies.

Jmc25

SmokyMo wrote: »

Is it actually the same people? I am sure ESRI change staff.

Ah no I would imagine most of the staff have changed. I was talking more in general terms rather than specific about the ESRI. There's definitely still plenty of people, be they columnists or think-tank types, who came out with this kind of stuff in the 00s and are still knocking around giving their expert opinions on housing and everything else now.

javaboy

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

The state being "the biggest player in the market" could be though

bubblypop wrote: »

Builders have no problems selling houses to councils, housing authorities, charities and foreign investment companies.

Fair enough. But we aren't seeing over borrowed owner occupiers like last time. This isn't a credit fuelled bubble like 2007-8 that is going to pop in the same way.

Some people insist on comparing the two. I'm not saying things are functional and rosy. But the factors at play and the possible outcomes are very different.

am_zarathustra

Normal people are buying houses, they are just 20-50 grand more expensive than they would like. Half the people I know have bought in the last year or two (we are just at that age). Many have bought in areas slightly outside of what they wanted, or bought probate sales that need work, or home down a bedroom etc. I agree that the funds make it more difficult and prices have increased well beyond what anyone would have expected but there are regular people buying, and the risk of any of these people defaulting is very very low. It's a very different market to the mid 2000s. Large scale buyouts like Mariaville are the real issue, there are plenty of buyers for those, families who will have to wait now. I'd have issues with that but capping the number they can buy in any estate should help hopefully.

Any economist claiming to know what's going to happen is a charlatan. We are in unchartered terratories completely. The central bank deciding to take a gamble of increasing capital and driving demand seems reckless. I remember just in the middle of the crash someone pointing out that noone in the ERSI even had a masters, if they'd rounded a bunch business teachers up they'd have had to have twice the number of degrees or more.

Single people are really struggling. Apartments and every small houses are attracting big money as rentals and the 3.5 makes it tough. The LA mortgages give up to 5 if you can prove your very stable and earning less that 50000.

hometruths

javaboy wrote: »

Fair enough. But we aren't seeing over borrowed owner occupiers like last time. This isn't a credit fuelled bubble like 2007-8 that is going to pop in the same way.

Some people insist on comparing the two. I'm not saying things are functional and rosy. But the factors at play and the possible outcomes are very different.

Sure it's not a credit fuelled bubble with banks giving consumers 110% mortgages no questions asked, and thus is not going to pop in the same way.

But that's not a strong argument against the fact that it may be a bubble which could pop.

Whilst the factors at play might be different, the possible outcomes could be the same.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Sure it's not a credit fuelled bubble with banks giving consumers 110% mortgages no questions asked, and thus is not going to pop in the same way.

But that's not a strong argument against the fact that it may be a bubble which could pop.

Whilst the factors at play might be different, the possible outcomes could be the same.

So it is different this time?

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

So it is different this time?

I was being a touch sarcastic in my post re ESRI about it being different this time, apologies.

Point being ESRI in 2006 were basing their projections on "economic growth expected to continue, as well as income and employment growth and a net inflow of people into the country" which sounds a lot like what they are basing their projections on today.

No shortage of people telling us this time is different, but personally I am not so convinced.

Amadan Dubh

Aparthotels, student accommodation, co-living, office buildings and hotels are our 10s ghost estates in Dublin. Pretty dire outlook for Dublin city hotels for the summer season. This essentially means that they are looking at spring 2022 before they start to get some sort of decent bookings, at the earliest - another 9 months. This has massive repercussions for the businesses in the city which rely on tourism, namely pubs and restaurants, tourist attractions - here is a Failte Ireland publication on how vital foreign tourists are to jobs in Ireland and the economy https://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/Key-Tourism-Facts-2018.pdf?ext=.pdf

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/just-13-of-dublin-city-hotel-rooms-booked-for-summer-1.4596600

Internal industry figures show that Dublin city centre hotels are facing a disastrous summer, with average occupancy levels of only about 13 per cent forecast for the height of summer based on current bookings.

No pick-up is evident for when schools close. On most days in July fewer than one in 10 hotel bedrooms in the city are booked. That climbs to mid-to-late teens in percentage terms on Friday and Saturday nights.

There is a slight rise for August. Even then Dublin hotels are less than one-fifth booked most weekend nights. Average bookings are 13 per cent over the next 28 and 90 days.

Amadan Dubh

schmittel wrote: »

Sure it's not a credit fuelled bubble with banks giving consumers 110% mortgages no questions asked, and thus is not going to pop in the same way.

But that's not a strong argument against the fact that it may be a bubble which could pop.

Whilst the factors at play might be different, the possible outcomes could be the same.

The infamous "this time it's different" line, I love to read it!

javaboy

schmittel wrote: »

Sure it's not a credit fuelled bubble with banks giving consumers 110% mortgages no questions asked, and thus is not going to pop in the same way.

But that's not a strong argument against the fact that it may be a bubble which could pop.

Whilst the factors at play might be different, the possible outcomes could be the same.

What do you think could cause the pop and how might it play out?

I think things are relatively stable and unlikely to pop. Strong government intervention around institutional investors, AHBs, council purchases etc. might dampen prices but I wouldn't envisage a catastrophic collapse.

Personally, I think the real issue is in the long term when people locked into the rental market reach retirement age.

timmyntc

javaboy wrote: »

What do you think could cause the pop and how might it play out?

I think things are relatively stable and unlikely to pop. Strong government intervention around institutional investors, AHBs, council purchases etc. might dampen prices but I wouldn't envisage a catastrophic collapse.

Personally, I think the real issue is in the long term when people locked into the rental market reach retirement age.

If something causes rents to drop, expect many REITs to try and dump their property too which will in turn cause prices to drop/crash.

Problem is, govt through HAP and social housing leases are propping up rent prices. It would take big cutbacks or mass emigration to make rents drop sharp enough.

Amadan Dubh

javaboy wrote: »

What do you think could cause the pop and how might it play out?

I think things are relatively stable and unlikely to pop. Strong government intervention around institutional investors, AHBs, council purchases etc. might dampen prices but I wouldn't envisage a catastrophic collapse.

Personally, I think the real issue is in the long term when people locked into the rental market reach retirement age.

I fully agree with the last part, if there is a pension crisis now, it is going to be a lot worse when those who will never be able to buy start to get closer to retirement age. Maybe the State will just repurpose its 20/25 year social housing leases and use these long term renters to fill the properties? Or maybe the State builds big retirement villages out in Longford or one of those other counties that apparently exist but no one has ever been to.

yagan

javaboy wrote: »

What do you think could cause the pop and how might it play out?

I think things are relatively stable and unlikely to pop. Strong government intervention around institutional investors, AHBs, council purchases etc. might dampen prices but I wouldn't envisage a catastrophic collapse.

Personally, I think the real issue is in the long term when people locked into the rental market reach retirement age.

It could pop simply because the rental yield metric that drove the investor splurge goes into reverse, despite every political intervention to sustain it.

It could already be happening. A bust merely reveals what was already failing beforehand.

coolshannagh28

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

The infamous "this time it's different" line, I love to read it!

If and when the bubble pops it will be caused as last time by something that happens in the US , last time our housing model was akin to theirs and when their market hit the rocks so did ours. This time despite efforts to outsource risk we are still tied very closely to the US model and investment and when their QE experiment comes under pressure we will feel the effects.