Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1235236238240241810

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    It's not any change in corporation rates that would screw over Ireland. It is moves towards requirements that profits are booked in country of sale.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt



    It depends on what you define as 'Interest Rate'.

    Will rates increase?..... yes most definitely but the ECB rate increases will be small as I don't believe this is the tool that the ECB will use to cool the economy.

    If you are looking at what people generally refer to as the ECB rate which is the Deposit facility rate I don't see this rising above 1% in the next 3-5 years. If it was to rise to even 1% it would be a major interest rate hike. The reason for saying this is that you need to look back and see where this rate has been historically and understand that changing the deposit facility rate as a monetary policy tool has not been used much since 2008 due to the zero bond nature of rates during the period.

    i.e.

    Instead the ECB have been using QE to implement monetary policy to influence market rates. To understand this you need to understand how QE works and that it is not 'Printing money' as some people believe it is. The ECB buy government bonds and Blue chip companies bonds which reduces the supply in circulation and thereby pushing the yield lower. The debt markets then reprice all debt as a result which results in lower rates for debt. It produces the same effect as a interest rate cut to the ECB deposit facility rate.

    QE is a more powerful tool as it is not just short term interest rates that are manipulated (like a change to the ECB deposit facility) but they can influence long term interest rates by buying longer term bonds. This is important to understand as they have a tool to influence the full yield curve where as a change to the ECB rate only changes short term rates. Why is this important? It is important because they have a tool to prevent an inverted yield curve which normally the first sign of a recession. (i.e. short term rates are higher than longer term rates)

    As debt becomes cheaper it encourages individuals/companies/governments to borrow more and in doing so create 'New Money' to replace the old money that is being destroyed when debt is repaid. If the money supply increases it is because individuals/companies/governments have borrowed more money than is being destroyed. whether the mechanism to lower rates is an interest rate cut or QE is irrelevant both are tools used by the ECB to spur growth in the economy or to cool the economy if they increase rates by either raising rates or undertaking Quantitative tightening (QT).

    If the ECB were just to increase the ECB rate to cool the economy and inflation we would end up with an inverted yield curve which would be very dangerous to future economic growth. Instead I believe the ECB will undertake QT as the main driver to cool the economy with only moderate increases to the ECB rate (to impact consumer sentiment and their expectations of inflation)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Amadan Dubh


    Speak of the devil and he shall appear - talking of the unsustainable government spending already, even before we factor in the billions we will need to borrow after covid to invest in infrastructure and housing. But no, no this is good value compared to building housing itself, once you ignore the impact it has to the wider housing market and the increased costs it adds to housing by being such a whale in the market.

    For conclusive proof that the housing market is being propped up by the State and is in no way sustainable unless "sustainable" means the government can spend unlimited amounts on propping the whole thing up;

    "The shift from directly building social homes to providing rent subsidies – the so-called bricks to benefits switch – has been one of the most significant recent trends in housing here and in other countries. The average monthly rent subsidy in 2019 was €1,872."

    The Government spent close to €900 million on rent subsidies in the private sector last year, according to new figures obtained from the Department of Housing.


    This included €542 million on the Government’s main rent subsidy scheme: HAP (Housing Assistance Payment).

    Spending on HAP has risen by more than 80 per cent since 2018 amid criticism that the Government’s increasing use of rent supports is adding to pressure in the rental market here.


    Some 100,000 households, a third of the rented sector, are now reliant on some sort of State subsidy.

    Mr Ó Broin said the Government was absorbing a significant amount of the limited supply of rental accommodation, which was aggravating the State’s rental crisis.


    “This is a direct consequence of their failure to provide an adequate supply of social housing,” he said. “This over-reliance on the private rental sector is bad for social housing tenants, private renters and the taxpayer,” Mr Ó Broin said.


    “The Government must increase direct investment in social housing output and year on year reduce its use of the private rented sector to meet social housing need,” he said



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals


    A prediction made by DCC's head of housing policy and research Dr Dáithí Downey in 2020 that the cost of HAP annually by 2025 will equal that of the children's hospital (1.7 billion) would seem to be fairly accurate considering the current trajectory!





  • Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭SmokyMo


    This alone should be enough for government to resign and loaf any pleb asking you to vote for FG/FF.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt



    The government has always been a big player in the property market. If you look back through history the government have always been a big player whether it was building social housing or whether they are providing rental support. This is not going to change anytime soon nor will it change depending on which political parties are in government.

    If the Government provide social housing instead of HAP it still impacts on the housing market as resources are diverted away from the private sector to build social housing. It's not like the countries ability to build more houses has increased.

    People that give out about HAP are generally the same people that give out about social housing saying that the government are giving out houses for free. At the end of the day without government assistance to provide housing whether it is is social housing or HAP a large portion of society will be unable to secure somewhere to live and we would have the equivalent of Trailer parks like in the US along with all the social problems that come along with that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Amadan Dubh


    This is similar to the institutional gaslighting that I notice occurs in any government statement or lobbyist commentary, "we aren't the bad guys, we're actually the good guys and are part of the solution, not part of the problem". No one who is against HAP, that I can see and certainly speaking for myself, thinks that those needing HAP are some sort of trailer trash class. To dismiss arguments that criticise the level of spending on HAP and rental assistance so flippantly perhaps indicates a vested interest in the status quo, but that is my own speculation as to your context.

    If the government provides its own form of social housing it reduces the reliance on the private sector and takes the deep pockets State out of competition with private individuals and by current estimates that would involve an extra 1/3 of tenancies being converted from State-funded to private individual tenancies - even cutting the 1/3 by 50% would result in 50,000 tenancies no longer being State funded.



  • Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭iColdFusion


    SF want to massively increase social housing spending by borrowing more, want to buy up more private houses for social housing and want to remove HTB for people wanting to buy their own homes?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The government have not historically played a large role in the rental sector, except as a supplier (social housing).

    They have not until recently become a larger demand-side actor in this space. HAP inflates all rents, the same way extending LTI limits would inflate house prices. The government have deep pockets and can big higher and higher with HAP to ensure that HAP recipients pay their rent, meaning that rents will keep inflating as a result. It is not normal, or good policy, and cant be conflated with building social housing (which is positive economic activity, and gives the government an asset at the end of the day.)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    If he government provides social housing it results in people moving out of private rented accommodation but results in less private housing being built. It's simple!!!!!

    As for accusing of gas lighting, all you are doing is trying to move the focus away from what I am saying.... This is something that I have noticed a lot with your posts this year where you come on and say Ukraine will crash the economy or interest rates will rise by 6-7% and when you are challenged on it you ignore and post something different to drive the conversation into a different direction because you are unable to explain the logic that has lead you to make such crazy claims.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Even if government building social houses results in less private housing overall being built, it tends to increase the total amount of housing built compared to when the state arent funding builds. More money/work in houses tends to attract labourers and total capacity to build increases - this is different to rental sector, where even when rents are quite high it doesnt have half as much of an effect on new rental supply, largely because rental income is taxed at 50% for all bar institutionals, which makes rent increases less of an attraction to would-be landlords.

    It is not a case of damned if you do, damned if you dont. Social housing is objectively a better investment for the state, and a better outcome for housing and rental markets than HAP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Amadan Dubh


    I don't think deflection is the appropriate way to describe a refusal to concede or an agreement to disagree on a topic. On the Ukraine point, I am just saying that interest rate rises are already needed but I speculate that to introduce them now would be to admit that they misjudged and got it wrong on inflation to date, so instead there will be a new reason or augmenting of the energy crisis reason to justify the change in tone around interest rate increases which I am confident will occur with the ECB in the coming months. On interest rate rises, I was just referring to mortgage interest rates being at 4-6% between 2005 and 2008 and that currently mortgage rates are around 1-3% so when the ECB gets finished with its interest rate increases of anything from 1-3%, this could translate into variable mortgage rates of similar to what we had in 2005 when the boom got boomier.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Easier said than done you go and tell Jenny there with the 3 kids from 3 different daddies that she cant live beside mumsy and see what she says. The truth is there is a sense of entitlement and the lefties pander to this. There were some of the reasons listed in the below article for people not accepting social accommodation. I mean imagine turning a house down as the garden is not big enough or they need a second toilet or that it is not close enough to a town or a school or hospitals. Yet those on the ladder or trying will have to accept what they they can afford. The vested interests are those who are supposedly poor and there will not be one government party who will turn the tap off as they will be obliterated in the elections. As I said before imagine a party saying no more HAP no more FTB they would last about as long as an ice cube in a volcano. You said that it may take decades to shift this paradigm I would say it would need a couple of centuries. This is the crux of the issue that people are looking at in this country we have the poorest competing with FTBs via the government then throw in the REITS and vultures and anyone trying to stand on their own 2 feet to get a property are priced out of it. Also we need at least 100k houses (weather they are built or bringing stock back on stream that were not habitable) to begin as in right now to be able to house our population with just to stand still and if our population does not increase going forward. How long would this take to achieve, how much would it cost and how is it paid for. That is the question that Mary Lou should be asked but as of yet no one has asked it the shinners are all smoke and mirror and the magic act is going to fail horrendously but what are a political party to do they simply cant tell the truth as it is unpopular.


    https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-refusals-ireland-4607803-May2019/#:~:text=These%20categories%20included%3A%20housing%20being,%3B%20and%20'other'%20reasons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭SmokyMo


    100% HTB should be scrapped! Long time ago. This has been argued for extensively. Scheme only drove prices up and vast majority already had enough for deposit.

    I dont think that what SF wants based on what their housing spokesperson says. But my original point still stands.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭fliball123


    The funny thing is the same shortage of property and property related issues are been seen in Northern Ireland and guess who is in power up there I cant see the shinners being the next great white hope people are making them out to be. As a voter its depressing as the current shower are useless as well



    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/house-prices-in-northern-ireland-rise-by-almost-10-1.4649292



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,680 ✭✭✭CorkRed93


    i'd likely vote for them (unless they keep up this property tax facade) as i cant be arsed even pretending FF/FG will try anything better themselves. SF will have all their ideas but they'll need time to change things and when people dont see new gafs for sale for 150-200k SF popularity will fall and theyll be out on their ears. Irish housing system is such a mess its hard to see any gov fix it in short term tbh. Depressing is about where Im at with it all aswell.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    The government have always been a big player in the property market and will continue to regardless of which political party is in government.

    For the record I am in favour of social housing and not a fan of HAP.... All that I was pointing out is that when government shift their policy on housing from one area to the other it just moves the pain from one place to another. If the government built more social housing it would result in more private rental property being available but this would be at the expense of first time buyers as there would be less supply of private new builds.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    If there is little capacity to increase new property due to a shortage of labour it will not result in more housing being built as the constraint is still in place.

    Over the long term a increase in social or private houses being built will attract more labourers but it will make no difference in the short term.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    No one is asking you to concede or to agree to disagree... All I am asking you is to provide your logic behind your claims because without it your statements look as if you are reading a headline in the paper and automatically concluded that this will crash the property market but are unable to explain how or why you believe it to be the case.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,680 ✭✭✭CorkRed93


    HAP is one of the greatest rackets ive seen. Im sure government will come up with something nearly as insane in years to come but its hard to see it beat



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭iColdFusion


    Scrapping HTB would be madness and it's effect on the housing market is vastly overstated, 2nd hand prices have been sky rocketing without any HTB interference for some time now.

    I honestly think SF's housing policy is to force as many people as possible into social housing and I haven't seen any clear plan on how exactly they will magic up all the extra houses they are promising if elected, pretty sure they don't know themselves and their entire plan is to just blame FF/FG, its the only thing SF are experts at!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,994 ✭✭✭Taylor365


    I'll be voting SF, not because i want to, but because any other vote is a vote for FF/FG.

    Nothing really competes with those dinosaurs, the ones in the dail and those voting for them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,521 ✭✭✭wassie


    HTB distorts the market by serving to increase the cost of housing. Its essentially a subsidy and a prime example of Govt intervention on the demand side when supply is the issue. Anytime a subsidy is handed out you will see an equivalent price adjustment, negating any tangible benefit. Unfortunately the Govt is beholden to maintaining high property prices. Industry will feed you plenty of BS of why its needed because its basically free money in their pockets.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    For anyone interested the CSO released its new Dwelling completions for Q4 2021 today and can be found here





  • Registered Users Posts: 995 ✭✭✭iColdFusion


    Ahh here the government are throwing billions at buying up homes for social housing and funding HAP but helping working people buy their first home by claiming back some of the tax they have already paid is a step to far?

    Do we actually want people to be able to buy and build their own homes or is the plan to get the taxpayer to pay for everything forever?

    As for driving up the cost of housing you need to talk to someone building their own home who obviously isnt out to make any profit, material costs and building regulations have driven up costs consistently for years, it's far more expensive to build a minimum compliance house now than it would have been during the boom, there was no need for heat pumps, air tightness, triple glazed windows or mechanical ventilation back then.

    Im 100% sure scrapping HTB will cause more harm than good to the housing market and increase costs to the taxpayer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,521 ✭✭✭wassie


    So the Govt throwing 'billions' at buying homes is justification for them also distorting the market? Personally the less the Govt interferes with the demand side the better. I want people to be able to buy homes at affordable prices rather than pretending to help home buyers by artificially inflating prices by subsidies. But this means lower houses prices and this is not palatable to our politicians seeking re-election.

    Re: building regulations - this is often wheeled out as a cause of increased costs but these are in direct response to the expectations of society. We expect our houses to be much better than they were even 20 years ago. That comes at a cost. Also Building regs are in effect a minimum standard, not the gold standard as is often purported. When you look at total life cycle costs to build and operate a house over 40 years, then the economics demonstrate which is cheaper. Essentially you are front loading capital costs upfront to offset operating costs, which also have the added benefits of more comfortable, healthier, safer and environmentally friendly houses - which is essentially what building regulations are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Near me, things have only just recovered from the last crash to the point market values reflected the cost of supply at the start of the pandemic and people have started to build houses again.

    It has taken the buyer of my property 12 months to get finance and to the point the bank will grudgingly hand over the money.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,603 ✭✭✭Villa05


    This is not going to go down well especially when yesterday they were reporting delays in processing visas for 27000 construction workers. They have the staff to create an action plan though to sort it out

    Too many officers no soldiers. Nothing done


    146,300 people are now working in the construction sector. There is also growing interest for employment permits from abroad, with 27,000 applications in 2021.

    Tánaiste Leo Varadkar told a press briefing today that there have been delays in processing these requests, but an action plan has been deployed to reduce turnaround times




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Timing belt



    You need to remember that back in 2005/06 the ratio of new houses to population increase was 1 house per person leading to a oversupply of properties.

    The ratio today is something like 1 property for an increase of 4.2 people in the population and as a result we have a massive undersupply of properties.

    Comparing the housing market today to 2005/06 just because prices are rising or as you like to put it 'booming' is misleading as there is no comparison and it is a totally different market today

    • credit supply restrained by central bank rules
    • massive undersupply of properties,
    • the average LTV of properties on the bank books now is something like 50% compared to being up in the 90's back in 2005/2006.
    • Liquidity now provided by central banks or provided by repo transactions as opposed to unsecured inter-bank lending back in 2005/2006
    • The risk of a credit crunch where banks stop lending has become a remote possibility in a downturn thanks to higher capital requirements and the introduction of countercyclical buffers. Back in 2005/2006 it was more or less guaranteed that in a downturn bank's would need to cut lending due to lack of capital on the banks books.

    So what will be the cause of this crash that you predict will be coming our way?



Advertisement