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
1295296298300301810

Comments

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


    None of us could have afforded college pre free fees so those that came to college going age when it was in play availed of it and as a result attained much better jobs contribute far more in tax and Less state supports

    The greatest equalisation policy of modern times, mind you, it does need to be balanced better apprenticeship programs

    A lefty policy that benefits everyone not least a massive factor in the level of FDI inflows into the country



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


    They've barely started to arrive and yet the government is already resorting to what looks very much like Direct Provision all over again. Understandable given the sheer numbers expected but this has to be put in context of yet another accommodation-related promise that the government had not properly planned for.



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


    For clarity and balance. This was in answer to what he would do with existing new builds in the pipeline, rather than their long term approach.

    Remember the state was entering inflation linked leases with the building to be handed back in original condition for these properties which was of far greater cost to the taxpayer. If SF policies shock you, fg's are stroke enducing



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


    Everyone has skin in the game as you put it if there is a financial collapse….even an individual on social welfare would be likely impacted. A financial collapse wouldn’t resolve the issues in the housing market as there is no oversupply of housing like in ‘08. In fact a financial collapse would make things worse in relation to housing for the vast majority of people.

    I have yet to hear a valid theory on how the financial system will collapse. For example your they of Banks running out of liquidity like in ‘08 is highly unlikely to happen because:

    1) Banks are required to hold significantly more liquid assets with the introduction of the liquidity coverage ratio

    2) unsecured inter bank lending is a thing of the past. (This is what caused the ‘08 issue when banks stopped lending to each other). Today 99% of interbank lending is conducted using Repo trades which means that the interbank lending is secured.

    3) The central banks have more tools than they did in ‘08 that enable them to provide temporary liquidity into the banking system if required.

    we all know that if the housing crisis was resolved it would be better for everyone and the economy. No one is arguing against that all that is being point out is it will take time to resolve and thinking a financial collapse will resolve is not looking at the big picture



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


    Yeah, you kind of have to stop the people making the problem worse before you even attempt a solution and that is where we are right now



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,305 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...there was actually an under supply of property, particularly in the dublin region, during the previous crash...

    we havent actually truly addressed all of the problems that lead to the crash, if any at all, the financial sector is still very vulnerable, and the fact private debt levels are now higher than ever before, baring in mind it was in fact private debt levels which ultimately lead to the crash in the first place, a significant proportion of these debts are now in the corporate sectors, and with our current situation regarding inflation, its very likely central banks are going to keep trying to increase rates, which in turn will increase risks regarding these debts, and then possibly......



  • Administrators Posts: 53,759 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    It matters not a jot, the uncomfortable truth that too many refuse to acknowledge is there is no way to mass build social / affordable housing without sending the private market sky rocketing.

    The government are getting absolutely destroyed on housing, the conspiracy theorists on here would have you believe they are ignoring easy solutions to the single biggest weight around their neck for some bizarre reason.

    He was also asked how he's going to increase the output of houses, given this is what needs to happen if you want to avoid spiralling prices, again he had no answer because there is no answer. We are very tight on labour. Material prices are through the roof. The answer is that increasing the output of social and affordable homes is going to decrease the output of homes in other categories, and therefore prices will go up. But it's bad politics to admit this.

    This was an event that SF literally had years to prepare for. Publicly debating the biggest issue of the day against the housing minister. The fact they had so few answers to the most obvious of questions must surely set off alarm bells in the heads of even the most cynical of people that perhaps things are not as straightforward as they want to believe?



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


    If the councils are currently buying social homes from the private market, then them building the homes instead would be a zero sum game in terms of prices. Less supply but also less demand.

    The other thing that actually would help is if they could entice builders away from commercial development and instead to social house building - that would likely cost the government a lot more € than the homes are worth but could get supply up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but supply is only half of the equation. What about demand? If there were to be a crash in the coming years, that would almost certainly lower demand. Consider the following possibilities:

    1.  The state cannot access credit readily and thus cannot buy up properties directly or rent them from investment funds.

    2. Following on from the above, the said funds see a drop in the possible units that can rent to the state, thus they lose interest in buying so many properties.

    3. Property ceases to be such a lucrative investment for many, and they look elsewhere.

    All three of the above would lead to a drop in demand. I don’t know likely any of the above would be, but I think we need to remember that supply is only short because it cannot meet the current demand. If the demand falls, the supply will be in excess.  

    In fact, is this not precisely what happened in 2008? The proverbial back-side fell out of the market as the credit dried up. Demand fell, but the supply of Celtic-tiger cardboard boxes remained the same. Ergo, we had a crash.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,759 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    It is not really a zero sum game. The number of private buyers remains constant, while the supply available to them will decrease.

    It will be easier to house the social/affordable segment, with the cost that it's going to become more difficult for the private buyer.

    If you are suggesting they build their own stock at the exact same level as what they purchase currently then this fixes and changes absolutely nothing.



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators Posts: 53,759 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Yes but in 2008 demand was somewhat artificial fueled by insane credit and purchasing behaviours.

    Today it's very different. People can't afford to house themselves. If things crash, they will still need to house themselves.

    Building patterns have also changed, everything is done in phases now. Not much housing is built without already being bought. If things crash, we aren't going to be left with lots of surplus stock or ghost estates.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,305 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    yup, demand itself wont fall, it ll just keep rising, as the need to house will still be there, and rising, baring in mind, we ve just come through a period of rising birth rates.........



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


    Demand up to a certain cost exists. But don't think students or Ukranian refugees or Indian tech workers or even families migrating to Ireland can afford to buy homes let alone rent. The concept of demand destruction has started to happen the last few years, evidenced by more talk of our "competitiveness" being under threat from high housing costs. As mentioned before, the standard new build rentals are geared for the upper end of the market - as the default. There is little to no "affordable targeting" housing coming onto the rental market - this is not sustainable and cannot last, it is as simple as that.

    Demand is there until it isn't which means it disappears gradually and then suddenly. But for me, demand only exists to a certain price point and the mere fact that people need somewhere to live does not automatically justify current housing costs, even in our tight supply market, let alone further increases, without something giving.



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



    Why is government policy centered on amongst the most expensive solutions imaginable?

    Why no supply side measures and rafts of demand side measures?

    Why do we have expensive ineffective regulation that not only adds unnecessary costs but acts as a barrier to entry for smaller players?

    Why is the state the biggest land hoarder in the country yet paying top dollar to investment funds and paying billions in rental supports.


    Sufficient action on all these issues would make a substantial difference to supply, cost of delivery. A decent state attempt to deliver housing would in my opinion spur on the private sector to deliver a bit more to get them out before the state supply is market ready



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


    I presume you're talking about our retail banks and not financial instrument issuing / derivative counterparty investment banks like GS, JPM, DB, BB etc.? Because they have been very active in the structured instrument and derivative markets the last decade, with the instruments getting ever more complicated and speculative.

    Remember this back in 2016, DB is a Lehman Bros waiting to happen and will, in my view trigger the liquidity pull back;

    The DB scandal a few years ago sprung up in my mind after I read a story yesterday about Barclays playing fast and loose in the structured instrument market, and getting caught with its pants down;




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭combat14


    interesting to see govt. budgeting 2.5 billion as cost of housing ukranian refugees next year..

    given that no money as far as i am aware has been allocated to home owners (unlike uk) most of this must be going into the pockets of hotels/ landlords/ b&bs etc.

    on a plus side there seems to be positive noises from russia / ukraine talks and hopefully with a little luck this issue will be resolved shortly... if that is the case perhaps the government could allocate some of the 2.5 billion if unused to our own housing crisis and perhaps some of the tens of thousands of spare rooms that were so kindly offered might remain available for irish renters but more than likely that is a pipe dream unless govt. further incentivise homeowners



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


    It would change more than nothing, as it gives certainty that demand for construction workers will remain. We are already seeing developers pulling back from construction due to materials inflation making it less and less viable to build for the private market - state funded social housing is the solution to keeping this labour and skills in the country.

    It was one of the great mistakes after 2008 to not continue building at some level, and we are currently suffering as result, unable to get enough labour to build at scale. The state building more social homes gives a consistent base level of work for those people, and we still deliver homes.



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


    There was 60k+ houses a year being built…nearly everyone I knew had another house the had purchased for an investment that they were renting out. This meant there was an oversupply of housing and to make it worse there was a large number of properties held by individual landlords. Why was this important? Because it was these individual landlords that started the fire sale on property which resulted in the price drop.

    If there was a financial crisis it is unlikely to have a similar impact on property prices like in ‘08 because there is no excess supply and very low numbers of individual landlords. The biggest impact would be on demand where you would expect the no of people immigrating into Ireland fall but without mass emigration there would still be a supply shortage which would provide a floor for house prices.



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


    Institutional investors are the only ones building apartments on any meaningful scale because costs prohibit most developers as you need access to large amounts of cash.

    yes demand from institutional investors may reduce but that will result in less apartments being built and will end up with higher rents.

    The only drop in demand that would result in lower house prices is if we had mass emigration or the no of immigrants coming to Ireland fell and we continued to build without taking this into account.



  • Registered Users Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Relax brah




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,305 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    again, yup those figures are indeed correct, but you ll find, most of the 'excess' properties were no where near the dublin region, once again, under supply in this region was noted, and the public made aware of it, i.e. not everyone was able to meet their property needs, and yes some indeed had the capacity to even purchase more than one property, largely due to credit markets, i.e. not everyone had these abilities, as is the case right now, and is probably far worse now also.

    again, you seem to not be able to see the bigger picture, virtually nothing has changed in global terms in regards the financial sector, and you can be damn sure everything isnt rosy with ours either, davy's etc, so......

    financial collapses are in fact highly complex in nature, as others have posted, nothing has truly changed in regards complex activities such as derivatives markets etc, again, china is some how managing its development/financial implosion, but theres still a possibility for it to truly implode, and we could potentially get caught up in it, due to these complexities. we never truly went far enough globally to prevent such outcomes, so.....



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


    No the liquidity regulation also applies to investment banks as well as retail banks. The majority of investment banks in Europe have been scaling back there operations for the past 10 years because the regulation is costly.

    The DB issue was brought about because they didn’t scale back their investment bank and unlike all other banks tried to expand instead. In the end DB were forced by the markets to restructure there businesses model as the investment bank was eating up capital and costing to much.

    The Barclays issue is in relation to over issuance of ETN’s and is small fish….The reason it is problematic for them is that they announced a share but back to the market but now need to delay it while the resolve the ETN issue. It is not an issue that would bring down a bank.



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


    The derivative markets have changed because any OTC derivatives have huge capital costs compared to derivatives that are traded via a clearing house. Saying nothing has changed is total rubbish!!!!

    The ability to see the bigger picture requires that you at least know the changes that have been implemented and how they impact the bigger picture.

    There is as much risk from our public debt as there is from a financial crash. Because public debt isn’t being used to invest in the country and instead is being used to pay running costs which is not sustainable in the long run.

    Post edited by Timing belt on


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


    Agree 100% that in an ideal world the government would step in build during a down turn to keep builders in the trade.

    unfortunately after 08 this was not an option because the IMF and Germany insisted on austerity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    So pre pandemic levels with signficantly fewer bars? I'd say they're doing alright



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


    It’s 30% lower than pre pandemic and that even includes the reopening after covid!!!



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


    08 to 11 we probably had an oversupply. A push to build in Dublin around 2014 and spread outwards where required from 2016 onwards would have alleviated many of the issues we are seeing now. The money was definitely there from 16 onwards



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


    The money may have been there but it takes time to get the housing machine up and running. Projects initiated around 2016 would have only hit the market in 2020 due to legal challenges and objections.

    Plus A lot of builders had changed jobs by that time as there was hardly any work in the prior years…if we learn anything as a country we need to learn not to let that happen at the next down turn



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


    Former head of the NY Fed writing an opinion piece today where he expressed his view that a soft landing is no longer possible and a recession is almost inevitable, mainly due to the Fed being too slow to act on inflation (and they have at least moved faster than the ECB);


    Jim Cramer of CNBC has called the bear market over which is potentially a sign that the exact opposite is happening;


    Post edited by Amadan Dubh on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    That's the downside of your housing policy left to the private sector. They build when it suits them and their investors



Advertisement