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

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Well the fact that the government have recently felt the need to change stamp duty laws to stop them buying buying in bulk would be one.



I have no idea if it is as high as 40%, all I am saying is that I don't find Marius' argument that most new build estates only have 10% of social housing to be credible.

But for some reason it should be credible to say that housing authorities buys large volumes in most of new developments in addition to 10%.

am_zarathustra

I can't imagine the 36% of new build bought by instititutional investors as per the Irish Times article is all in 100% SH estates. I only know of a handful of those in the country and the fuss made when the government manage to do it is embarrassing so I'd imagine it's not likely to have fallen through the cracks. SH often goes in the last phase, Iif you look at the plans in most large scale new builds (lord knows I have) it's clear. The developer might wait til the last 40-50 when they don't care anymore and then just do a deal, CC will pay full price anyway, no EA cut, clean exit as the CC will snag. Desirable areas often aren't under as much pressure from housing lists ect

hometruths

JDD wrote: »

I don't think housing boards are able to buy up large volumes of new builds in housing estates that are in high demand areas. Honestly, while developers love cashflow, it would be counter productive for them to sell large chunks of their estate to the council for social housing. This is simply because larger estates are sold piecemeal - 30-50 units at the time as and when they are built - and an estate may get a "reputation" (rightly or wrongly) early on as having a high number of social housing units. They'll find it difficult to sell in later phases if a reputation like that takes hold. And why bother when there are many private buyers falling over themselves to buy the units?

For instance, in our estate the developers have released 30/40/50 units at a time for private sale (outside of what they build for the council - the 10% - and anything they might have directly sold to REITs). As far as I can see so far about 90% of the houses and 60% of the apartments have been sold to owner occupiers - based on Daft rental listings. I can't imagine there's too many houses left over for the council to buy.

I'm not saying you'd immediately know if the people next door owned the house or were renting it off the council, but you'd definitely know if 30/40% of your road was. And while you'd be reluctant to talk about that in case it ran down the value of your house, people outside the estate would know. It would be inevitable that word would get out and developers know that would be kryptonite to later sales.

Developers are selling entire estates to funds who in turn are leasing them in all or part to the council for social housing. Amidst the recent furore in Maynooth it turned out that the underbidder was an AHB bidding with council funds.

Everything you say makes a lot of sense in theory, but if in practice the developers are offloading in bulk, maybe the demand from private buyers is not high enough?

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

But for some reason it should be credible to say that housing authorities buys large volumes in most of new developments in addition to 10%.

Yes.

It's precisely because I believe that to be a credible statement, that I don't believe that they are mostly 10% social housing to be a credible statement!

Villa05

schmittel wrote: »

No idea on the 40%, but I'd say it is closer to the true figure than 10%.

The report quoted below which goes up to 2019 may give clues



https://www.thejournal.ie/homes-bought-by-institutions-increase-5472495-Jun2021/

The report notes commitments in the Programme for Government to drastically increase the number of houses being built, and says these efforts are undermined by fewer homes going to families.
It states: “An increasing proportion of newly built homes were bought by ‘non-household’ entities.
“In 2010, the proportion of new homes purchased by non-household entities was 5.6%.
“By the end of the year 2016, the year Rebuilding Ireland was published, this had increased to 21.8%, increasing again to 32.9% in 2019.”

JDD

Offloading in bulk is different. If a developer is going to sell a whole estate to a REIT it's because they want a guaranteed flow of cash on a guaranteed date, which assists them in securing finance for other developments. There's usually plenty of private buyer interest, but it costs more in terms of estate agent fees and faffing around selling to a private buyer.

Developers do have their eye on the long term though. If they're buying a swathe of land in Cherrywood or Bettystown or Baldoyle, the one estate they sell to a developer isn't the sum total of their interests. And if there's a REIT estate on one side of the road, with 50% council renters, the estate that the developer is building on the other side of the road is going to have it's prices dampened by being so close to a purely rental estate. Unless the developer is going to sell every estate to a REIT, it knows it's going to be left with a pup when the REITs inevitably pull out of the Irish market.

Besides all of that, if REITs rent 50% of their stock to the council, they'll find that they won't be able to charge maximum market rents to other private renters. I think they'll be smart and keep that percentage low enough - enough to provide a guaranteed income but not so much that private renters are put off renting in the area.

I should say that I'm in favour of social housing and I think it is the ideal to have mixed developments. But you can't deny that where you have a high proportion of social housing in the area, there are more social problems. And that will put off private buyers and private renters.

Marius34

Villa05 wrote: »

The report quoted below which goes up to 2019 may give clues



https://www.thejournal.ie/homes-bought-by-institutions-increase-5472495-Jun2021/

Which says:
“In 2010, the proportion of new homes purchased by non-household entities was 5.6%.
“By the end of the year 2016, the year Rebuilding Ireland was published, this had increased to 21.8%, increasing again to 32.9% in 2019.”

So it's only 32.9% in total? If social housing would be closer to 40% for projects for private individual sales, the total numbers including the whole project sales, would be way over 40%.

Villa05

interesting take on how the cost of delivering housing can be reduced with details of projects being led by irish people in the UK and US, Starts @ 15 mins in, First sec on Corporation tax



https://play.acast.com/s/the-david-mcwilliams-podcast/143-g7-globalcorporatetaxes-disruptingthebuildingsector

Villa05

Marius34 wrote: »

Which says:
“In 2010, the proportion of new homes purchased by non-household entities was 5.6%.
“By the end of the year 2016, the year Rebuilding Ireland was published, this had increased to 21.8%, increasing again to 32.9% in 2019.”

So it's only 32.9% in total? If social housing would be closer to 40% for projects for private individual sales, the total numbers including the whole project sales, would be way over 40%.

The pace of growth is interesting




State and AHB purchasing is for social/affordable.


Do we know what proportion of investment fund properties end up in long term leases to the state, must be quiet high given promoting and marketing we are seeing being posted on these boards

DataDude

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40318424.html

Some seemingly major moves being planned. Although as always I'm skeptical about efficacy until something is actually implemented. One quote I found interesting was the following

"In Dublin, the median price for a new build home is €400,000, which would require a household income of over €100,000 to access the appropriate mortgage.

The Government’s objective is to achieve purchase prices in the range of €250,000 to €325,000 in Dublin."

The Government has often made general statements about getting people "affordable housing" etc. but it would be a big shift if they were to explicitly state "our desire/plan is for house prices in Dublin to fall by 20% - 35%". Part of me doubts they would target such a thing, although given voting demographics and recent poll results, maybe the penny will finally drop that the writing is on the wall for them unless something happens here.

It's an interesting conversation to have with FG supporters in particular (to clarify, I am one). Most naturally own their homes so have always assumed rising house prices = good...but now rising house prices all but ensure a Sinn Fein government. That has certainly clicked with a few I know.

hometruths

DataDude wrote: »

It's an interesting conversation to have with FG supporters in particular (to clarify, I am one). Most naturally own their homes so have always assumed rising house prices = good...but now rising house prices all but ensure a Sinn Fein government. That has certainly clicked with a few I know.

It's great to see the penny finally dropping.

All those property owners, happy to see ever increasing prices, and scaremongering would be buyers with "be careful what you wish for" should heed some of their own advice. SF will not be kind to them.

ELM327

DataDude wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40318424.html

Some seemingly major moves being planned. Although as always I'm skeptical about efficacy until something is actually implemented. One quote I found interesting was the following

"In Dublin, the median price for a new build home is €400,000, which would require a household income of over €100,000 to access the appropriate mortgage.

The Government’s objective is to achieve purchase prices in the range of €250,000 to €325,000 in Dublin."

The Government has often made general statements about getting people "affordable housing" etc. but it would be a big shift if they were to explicitly state "our desire/plan is for house prices in Dublin to fall by 20% - 35%". Part of me doubts they would target such a thing, although given voting demographics and recent poll results, maybe the penny will finally drop that the writing is on the wall for them unless something happens here.

It's an interesting conversation to have with FG supporters in particular (to clarify, I am one). Most naturally own their homes so have always assumed rising house prices = good...but now rising house prices all but ensure a Sinn Fein government. That has certainly clicked with a few I know.

If you're spending that much - it's similar to our budget so I'm familiar with the workings - you need a household income of €91,400 if you are a second time buyer with the 20%/€80,000 deposit.

Hubertj

DataDude wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40318424.html

Some seemingly major moves being planned. Although as always I'm skeptical about efficacy until something is actually implemented. One quote I found interesting was the following

"In Dublin, the median price for a new build home is €400,000, which would require a household income of over €100,000 to access the appropriate mortgage.

The Government’s objective is to achieve purchase prices in the range of €250,000 to €325,000 in Dublin."

The Government has often made general statements about getting people "affordable housing" etc. but it would be a big shift if they were to explicitly state "our desire/plan is for house prices in Dublin to fall by 20% - 35%". Part of me doubts they would target such a thing, although given voting demographics and recent poll results, maybe the penny will finally drop that the writing is on the wall for them unless something happens here.

It's an interesting conversation to have with FG supporters in particular (to clarify, I am one). Most naturally own their homes so have always assumed rising house prices = good...but now rising house prices all but ensure a Sinn Fein government. That has certainly clicked with a few I know.

The challenge for whatever new policy they come out with will be results in the short term but that is very difficult when it comes to housing. Will they get the time? Or will any possible benefit from their policies not be realised until well after they’re gone.
Looking at Sinn Fein, the same will apply. They talk a great game but why will happen if there are not immediate results, which there won’t be…

cnocbui

The Swedish government has been toppled by a no confidence vote - the first time in history. The topic that did it? An argument over rent controls. That should help it sink in with the Irish government that they are as good as finished and that housing shouldn't only be for foreign owned investment companies and one smallish sector of the electorate, sponging off the rest.

javaboy

ELM327 wrote: »

If you're spending that much - it's similar to our budget so I'm familiar with the workings - you need a household income of €91,400 if you are a second time buyer with the 20%/€80,000 deposit.

Presumably, they're looking at FTBs too so why are they glossing over HTB? If you're on a salary in that ballpark, you're probably looking at maxing out your HTB grant @ 30k.

These calculations always assume the absolute minimum deposit especially when trying to push an agenda.

Sheeps

schmittel wrote: »

It's great to see the penny finally dropping.

All those property owners, happy to see ever increasing prices, and scaremongering would be buyers with "be careful what you wish for" should heed some of their own advice. SF will not be kind to them.

Sinn Féin in power will be good for home owners who want to see their house prices rise.

Villa05

More clues,

In fact, in 2019, 61% of the property purchased under the 'non-occupier' category in 2019, according to Goodbody’s, was purchased by the State.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0508/1217617-housing-analysis/

JDD

Villa05 wrote: »

More clues,






https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0508/1217617-housing-analysis/

If it is just new builds, then that works out at the state buying 21% of new builds (if we're saying 35%ish of new builds are bought be non-occupiers).

10% is automatically sold to them, so that means they are buying one in every nine units outside of that. A significant player, but nowhere near the 40% that others have bandied about.

That said, they could be buying 21% of new builds outright, and then renting some stock from private landlords/REITs that buy the remainder of the new builds. So you could have closer to 30% social housing in any new estate.

Marius34

JDD wrote: »

If it is just new builds, then that works out at the state buying 21% of new builds (if we're saying 35%ish of new builds are bought be non-occupiers).

10% is automatically sold to them, so that means they are buying one in every nine units outside of that. A significant player, but nowhere near the 40% that others have bandied about.

That said, they could be buying 21% of new builds outright, and then renting some stock from private landlords/REITs that buy the remainder of the new builds. So you could have closer to 30% social housing in any new estate.

As well we would need to exclude development that entirely were sold to social/Reits, thus the actual number is even lower. All those articles point that the average real numbers of social housing in estates for private residents would be way less than 40% and closer to 20%, or even less.

JimmyVik

JDD wrote: »

If it is just new builds, then that works out at the state buying 21% of new builds (if we're saying 35%ish of new builds are bought be non-occupiers).

10% is automatically sold to them, so that means they are buying one in every nine units outside of that. A significant player, but nowhere near the 40% that others have bandied about.

That said, they could be buying 21% of new builds outright, and then renting some stock from private landlords/REITs that buy the remainder of the new builds. So you could have closer to 30% social housing in any new estate.

In Donabate the council made a deal with a REIT to rent all of the properties that the REIT buys in the area off them for 25 years. The REIT then negotiated with developers and bought the properties. This is ongoing. And im sure its happening in other areas. Thats just the only place i have first hand knowledge of.

Villa05

JimmyVik wrote:

In Donabate the council made a deal with a REIT to rent all of the properties that the REIT buys in the area off them for 25 years. The REIT then negotiated with developers and bought the properties. This is ongoing. And im sure its happening in other areas. Thats just the only place i have first hand knowledge of.

I suspected as much with how they are advertising specifically for financial opportunities in social housing. On the primerime program the rep for the funds was asked why they don't sell the building to the council, he replied that the councils want to lease not purchase and they were open to selling

hometruths

Villa05 wrote: »

I suspected as much with how they are advertising specifically for financial opportunities in social housing. On the primerime program the rep for the funds was asked why they don't sell the building to the council, he replied that the councils want to lease not purchase and they were open to selling

Brendan Kenny of DCC fame says:

But Brendan Kenny of Dublin City Council said the idea of having an asset at the end of the rental term is not necessarily all it's cracked up to be.

Which means that we have thousands of taxpayers desperate to buy because rent is dead money, being priced out of the market because the council are desperate to spend taxpayers money on rent.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Social housing - investor goldmine or public good?

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Brendan Kenny of DCC fame says:



Which means that we have thousands of taxpayers desperate to buy because rent is dead money, being priced out of the market because the council are desperate to spend taxpayers money on rent.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Social housing - investor goldmine or public good?

Makes sense… if you’re a public servant but aren’t that bothered about actual public service…..

Sheeps

JimmyVik wrote: »

In Donabate the council made a deal with a REIT to rent all of the properties that the REIT buys in the area off them for 25 years. The REIT then negotiated with developers and bought the properties. This is ongoing. And im sure its happening in other areas. Thats just the only place i have first hand knowledge of.

Which development is that? Semple Woods?

PropBuyer101

what are people's thoughts on the fact that this over bidding in property may lead to issues in loan offer/mortgage drawdown if the banks view that the property is not worth the value that it has gone sale agreed on. Surely if a house goes for 550K and its the same house that sold a few years ago for 450K then a bank will be like.. um no

timmyntc

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

what are people's thoughts on the fact that this over bidding in property may lead to issues in loan offer/mortgage drawdown if the banks view that the property is not worth the value that it has gone sale agreed on. Surely if a house goes for 550K and its the same house that sold a few years ago for 450K then a bank will be like.. um no

Banks will lend against whatever the market value of the house is - i.e. whatever it goes sale agreed for.

Aside from serious issues, they will not refuse to lend based on what they think the house is really worth - to do that youd have to speculate that prices would fall which isnt a guarantee.

Timing belt

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

what are people's thoughts on the fact that this over bidding in property may lead to issues in loan offer/mortgage drawdown if the banks view that the property is not worth the value that it has gone sale agreed on. Surely if a house goes for 550K and its the same house that sold a few years ago for 450K then a bank will be like.. um no

It won’t be an issue unless house is totally overvalued compared to similar house that are currently selling. The loan to value covers this.

PropBuyer101

timmyntc wrote: »

Banks will lend against whatever the market value of the house is - i.e. whatever it goes sale agreed for.

Aside from serious issues, they will not refuse to lend based on what they think the house is really worth - to do that youd have to speculate that prices would fall which isnt a guarantee.

sounds good. bit bizarre though as i thought the whole point of a valuation report was to check house is in line with other properties in area ie. check property register and you are not buying it for more than its worth according to other similar houses in area. but maybe thats more so in other countries than in here. great to know then we wont all have issues when it comes to the valuation reports as this over bidding is crazy!!

PropBuyer101

Timing belt wrote: »

It won’t be an issue unless house is totally overvalued compared to similar house that are currently selling. The loan to value covers this.

aww ok so its what other properties in the area or currently being sold for as of that date - gotcha!

am_zarathustra

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

sounds good. bit bizarre though as i thought the whole point of a valuation report was to check house is in line with other properties in area ie. check property register and you are not buying it for more than its worth according to other similar houses in area. but maybe thats more so in other countries than in here. great to know then we wont all have issues when it comes to the valuation reports as this over bidding is crazy!!

I think it was also to stop shady dealings on the market which could be flagged to the bank based on a odd, extreme over valuation or undervaluation. Including your deposit it would be hard to argue the actual equity in most of the houses currently for sale in the current market. Value is a moving target for sure but I suppose you have to take the snapshot you have. I can't see prices across the board suddenly falling by 10% so the LTV should keep banks safe. Probably the best anyone can hope for is a stabilisation of prices really.

JDD

schmittel wrote: »

Brendan Kenny of DCC fame says:



Which means that we have thousands of taxpayers desperate to buy because rent is dead money, being priced out of the market because the council are desperate to spend taxpayers money on rent.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Social housing - investor goldmine or public good?

I haven't read the article but there probably are some good reasons for this.

Say the council buy a block of 50 apartments and have a churn of social housing residents through them for 20 years.

Compare that to a family buying a house that they expect to be in for 20 years.

After 10 years of social housing turnover, the council will find that the wear and tear on the building will start to cost money. It's not to say that social housing residents will wreck the place, but inevitably you are less "bought in" to keeping a place nice if you are renting rather than owning it. And churn, even of excellent renters, is going to increase wear and tear. Outside of that it will be the usual plumbing, roofing and landscaping costs that will start to hit. They'll have none of that if they lease from a REIT - the cost will all be on the REITs side. And perhaps REITs are better at keeping those wear and tear costs low, what with economies of scale over many apartment blocks and well, being a private company who are more focussed on costs.

A family will probably find that it takes a bit longer for that wear and tear to kick in, because they have been the only ones to live in the house and issues tend to be nipped in the bud before a pipe breaks or there's a hole in the roof.

A family will probably be happy to pay those structural costs because they need that asset at the end of the mortgage as security in retirement. The council doesn't need that kind of security.

Lastly housing regulations change over 20 years meaning a building bought 20 years ago may not comply with housing regulations now. Look at all the cost of taking down council flats in town in order to build compliant apartments and houses. The council will have none of that risk in this case. They just end the lease, and enter into a lease for a newer block of apartments.

I agree that in basic terms, it is better to be the owner of a property rather than paying dead money to a landlord. But for a council there's a lot more to be considered.

timmyntc

JDD wrote: »

I haven't read the article but there probably are some good reasons for this.

Say the council buy a block of 50 apartments and have a churn of social housing residents through them for 20 years.

Compare that to a family buying a house that they expect to be in for 20 years.

After 10 years of social housing turnover, the council will find that the wear and tear on the building will start to cost money. It's not to say that social housing residents will wreck the place, but inevitably you are less "bought in" to keeping a place nice if you are renting rather than owning it. And churn, even of excellent renters, is going to increase wear and tear. Outside of that it will be the usual plumbing, roofing and landscaping costs that will start to hit. They'll have none of that if they lease from a REIT - the cost will all be on the REITs side. And perhaps REITs are better at keeping those wear and tear costs low, what with economies of scale over many apartment blocks and well, being a private company who are more focussed on costs.

A family will probably find that it takes a bit longer for that wear and tear to kick in, because they have been the only ones to live in the house and issues tend to be nipped in the bud before a pipe breaks or there's a hole in the roof.

A family will probably be happy to pay those structural costs because they need that asset at the end of the mortgage as security in retirement. The council doesn't need that kind of security.

Lastly housing regulations change over 20 years meaning a building bought 20 years ago may not comply with housing regulations now. Look at all the cost of taking down council flats in town in order to build compliant apartments and houses. The council will have none of that risk in this case. They just end the lease, and enter into a lease for a newer block of apartments.

I agree that in basic terms, it is better to be the owner of a property rather than paying dead money to a landlord. But for a council there's a lot more to be considered.

Except in a lot of cases, the council does the maintenance and pays for wear and tear also. Certainly it does for the leasing deals with REITs. The property will be handed back like new, from the council. They manage the property, do maintenance, handle tenants in & out. The REIT does nothing but collect money from the council.

It most certainly is a bad deal.

Great talks was on Newstalk today morning about bubble on property market
Same as I was talking about last week

https://www.newstalk.com/news/house-prices-will-go-beyond-celtic-tiger-levels-without-dramatic-change-rory-hearne-1213914

And same songs again "this never gonna happen" "we have different situation"
And when this finally happening they saying This been Unexpected and should happen ! We could not do anything about it ! Not Us !

Today panic on building sites make me think that developers are on hurry to get last seat in last wagon in last train.That is all about.

Marius34

Was trying to find out data how much new builds are allocated to different types of buyers.
Unfortunately can't find such information
But here is some data for 2020.
There were total completion of 20,676. None apartments 16.662
From what I hear in here, almost all apartments are sold to Funds/REIT's. Thus we mostly can exclude from private resident sales.
In 2020 there were 8.496 mortgage drawdowns by FTB/Movers on new properties. Cash buyers accounts for around 25%. Thus this could be around 11.300 of sales to FTB/Mover purchase (could be slightly less wouldn't argue that).
What's left for Funds buying whole projects (none apartment)? Housing bodies buying whole estates? Social housing developments (none apartment)? Self build? And another 40% properties allocated for social housing in private estates?
It just tells how much the numbers in here are exaggerated from reality.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Was trying to find out data how much new builds are allocated to different types of buyers.
Unfortunately can't find such information
But here is some data for 2020.
There were total completion of 20,676. None apartments 16.662
From what I hear in here, almost all apartments are sold to Funds/REIT's. Thus we mostly can exclude from private resident sales.
In 2020 there were 8.496 mortgage drawdowns by FTB/Movers on new properties. Cash buyers accounts for around 25%. Thus this could be around 11.300 of sales to FTB/Mover purchase (could be slightly less wouldn't argue that).
What's left for Funds buying whole projects (none apartment)? Housing bodies buying whole estates? Social housing developments (none apartment)? Self build? And another 40% properties allocated for social housing in private estates?
It just tells how much the numbers in here are exaggerated from reality.

You should take a look at Overview of Social Housing Activity 2016-2021 Q1

Look at the figures for 2020, new build acquisitions + leasing, then take a look at completion figures 2020.

I think you'll find it suggests that claiming social housing provision is low i.e only about 10% in new build developments - is indeed exaggerated from reality.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

You should take a look at Overview of Social Housing Activity 2016-2021 Q1

Look at the figures for 2020, new build acquisitions + leasing, then take a look at completion figures 2020.

I think you'll find it suggests that claiming social housing provision is low i.e only about 10% in new build developments - is indeed exaggerated from reality.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting it, so apparently you arguing with yourself

hometruths

schmittel wrote: »

I think you'll find it suggests that claiming social housing provision is low i.e only about 10% in new build developments - is indeed exaggerated from reality.

Marius34 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone suggesting it, so apparently you arguing with yourself

Maybe you missed these posts:

Marius34 wrote: »

Most new housing developments (for sale) are middle income. They consist of low percent of social housing.

Marius34 wrote: »

Which development?
Normally its 10%

Marius34 wrote: »

And yes I still see that most of those projects for private individual sales are with 10% social, and not 40%.

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, but all the new estates that I know for private resident sales, are only around 10% for social housing. You can read as well on boards people discussing about new developments of interest, they all see around 10%.

Marius34 wrote: »

Here some projects are for 100% social housing, some 100% Rentals, and the ones for private market sale, are mostly only 10% for social housing.

I am not arguing with myself, but also I am not about to get into another circular argument with you. We've already had any and all discussion of an important property market related topic banned on here because of it. Let's not risk having discussion of social housing numbers banned too.

As Yurt said, the goalposts have left the stadium at this stage, I totally agree:

Yurt! wrote: »

This is not a good faith conversation. I'm out.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Maybe you missed these posts:


I am not arguing with myself, but also I am not about to get into another circular argument with you. We've already had any and all discussion of an important property market related topic banned on here because of it. Let's not risk having discussion of social housing numbers banned too.

As Yurt said, the goalposts have left the stadium at this stage, I totally agree:

I'm not claiming anywhere that social housing provision is low. So you trying to find argument, for the claims I don't stand for.
My post were related to new developments for private individual sales, not overall social housing market share, nor did I mentioned that its 10% on average, but rather most common in those developments. There are lots of projects dedicated to social housing, or bought 100% by housing estates, making social housing market way above 10%.
If you have questions what i mean, you welcome to ask, but don't push words to my mouth.

cunnifferous

Marius34 wrote: »

I'm not claiming anywhere that social housing provision is low. So you trying to find argument, for the claims I don't stand for.
My post were related to new developments for private individual sales, not overall social housing market share, nor did I mentioned that its 10% on average, but rather most common in those developments. There are lots of projects dedicated to social housing, or bought 100% by housing estates, making social housing market way above 10%.
If you have questions what i mean, you welcome to ask, but don't push words to my mouth.

Can you explain exactly what you are trying to say? After reading your last few posts I really am none the wiser.

Marius34

cunnifferous wrote: »

Can you explain exactly what you are trying to say? After reading your last few posts I really am none the wiser.

My initial comment was that middle class typically avoids areas with large amount of social housing. And looking for new developments, which typically has only 10% dedicated to social housing.
I was argued, that most new estates are pushed to around 40% for social housing.
My point is that social housing are not evenly shared across new developments, but rather there are development 100% for social housing, whereas the ones middle class buys are typically with only 10% of social housing (obviously there are many as well with higher percent).

drogon.

Do we have any stats on the occupancy rate for property owned by investment funds ?

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

My initial comment was that middle class typically avoids areas with large amount of social housing. And looking for new developments, which typically has only 10% dedicated to social housing.
I was argued, that most new estates are pushed to around 40% for social housing.
My point is that social housing are not evenly shared across new developments, but rather there are development 100% for social housing, whereas the ones middle class buys are typically with only 10% of social housing (obviously there are many as well with higher percent).

That's rubbish
You think that estates where 'middle class' people are buying are not selling more than 10% social.housing?

yagan

Marius34 wrote: »

My initial comment was that middle class typically avoids areas with large amount of social housing. And looking for new developments, which typically has only 10% dedicated to social housing.
I was argued, that most new estates are pushed to around 40% for social housing.
My point is that social housing are not evenly shared across new developments, but rather there are development 100% for social housing, whereas the ones middle class buys are typically with only 10% of social housing (obviously there are many as well with higher percent).

It would appear that many of those who would have middle class not long ago have been priced out of the private market.

rob316

Marius34 wrote: »

My initial comment was that middle class typically avoids areas with large amount of social housing. And looking for new developments, which typically has only 10% dedicated to social housing.
I was argued, that most new estates are pushed to around 40% for social housing.
My point is that social housing are not evenly shared across new developments, but rather there are development 100% for social housing, whereas the ones middle class buys are typically with only 10% of social housing (obviously there are many as well with higher percent).

We dont build 100% social housing developments anymore.

Marius34

bubblypop wrote: »

That's rubbish
You think that estates where 'middle class' people are buying are not selling more than 10% social.housing?

There obviously are developments that selling more, but around 40% in those developments are rare, you may have different opinion, but there is no data/reports to suggest that 40% social is common across the new developments.

Marius34

rob316 wrote: »

We dont build 100% social housing developments anymore.

Developers do

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

There obviously are developments that selling more, but around 40% in those developments are rare, you may have different opinion, but there is no data/reports to suggest that 40% social is common across the new developments.

No they are not rare, it's very common.

Amadan Dubh

The landlords of the retail sector in dire straits. The Irish Life property funds are likely to be part of the collection funds in big trouble, but pre-covid these guys had issues.

The 6% average decline in valuation of commercial real estate in 2020 is surely just the tip of the iceberg and is going to continue over the coming years as lease renewals arise and either aren't renewed or are renewed for lower rent / less space.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/retail-property-drop-puts-stress-on-funds-2x305j6sk

The hit to office and retail valuations in the pandemic has caused ten property funds with combined assets of €2.3 billion to breach or come close to breaching the terms of their loan covenants, according to the Central Bank of Ireland.

Four of the funds breached their loan agreements, while the remaining six came close to doing so. While all 10 avoided foreclosure, the Central Bank has warned of ongoing difficulties.

Funds own €23 billion of property, about 40 per cent of all Irish commercial real estate. Valuations fell by an average of 6 per cent in 2020, but the drop was 19 per cent for retail property. Another 5 per cent decline is expected this year.

1percent

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

The landlords of the retail sector in dire straits. The Irish Life property funds are likely to be part of the collection funds in big trouble, but pre-covid these guys had issues.

The 6% average decline in valuation of commercial real estate in 2020 is surely just the tip of the iceberg and is going to continue over the coming years as lease renewals arise and either aren't renewed or are renewed for lower rent / less space.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/retail-property-drop-puts-stress-on-funds-2x305j6sk

Might this be the butterfly that flaps its wings to cause the hurricane? If funds need to cover losses in one portfolio they will have to liquidate others? it is a massively complex and interwoven mess of loans, investments, returns, yields ect accross every asset class and most countries and currencies and I don't think anyone on this planet has a full understanding of what is connected to what.

I think something will happen like in '08, no idea what or when but it will cause a scramble to see who is holding what, who owes who what, who can keep their head above water and can't. Massive volatility everywhere with winners and losers.

As the saying goes, you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.

yagan

1percent wrote: »

Might this be the butterfly that flaps its wings to cause the hurricane? If funds need to cover losses in one portfolio they will have to liquidate others? it is a massively complex and interwoven mess of loans, investments, returns, yields ect accross every asset class and most countries and currencies and I don't think anyone on this planet has a full understanding of what is connected to what.

I think something will happen like in '08, no idea what or when but it will cause a scramble to see who is holding what, who owes who what, who can keep their head above water and can't. Massive volatility everywhere with winners and losers.

As the saying goes, you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.

If I can find it I'll post it later but a while back I saw a very interesting discussion online about how in the USA bailout money was propping up a lot of retail units owned by banks and investment groups. They kept unsustainable units open in order to keep rents up in their performing assets.

They described it as financial facadism but I'm not sure how it can be unwound if the government continues to prop them up. At some stage something has to give, I've just no idea what that something is.