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
1637638640642643804

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,057 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The x houses per annum figures are nonsense without context - e.g. at what point do you intend for the supply crisis to be over?

    If new housing demand annualised was 10k for example, and pent up demand was 30k houses, and you built 11k every year for 30 years you might rectify the deficit by then.

    Or if you built 20k per year for 3 years it would do the same job.

    A simple forecast of X houses per year cannot be accurate because it doesn't contain enough information. You need a duration for that level of completions, and then a tapering off once the backlog is cleared.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    cso population growth figures would be key to it and a shortfall in previous years, this is a low estimate

    I wasn't there for the whole process of producing the report. This is from the department of housing

    are you saying they are wrong

    this is getting more hair brained as we go on



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It is the future assumptions about population growth and new build completions that are potentially problematic.

    There is no point in coming up with an estimate of pent up demand based on a shortfall of previous assumptions they may have been incorrect, either to the low or the high side. We know what has already happened in terms of population size and houses built.

    The idea of making an assumption about a backlog of pent up demand is ridiculous.

    To calculate future housing need projections you need:

    • Current population size
    • Current average household size.
    • Current housing stock number

    With these figures you can work out what is the current spare housing capacity (if any).

    Once you have that as a starting point, you can then make assumptions about future required spare capacity, changes in population size and household size snd make projections.

    Does this make sense?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The above post I think covers a reply to this too, the shortfall in previous years is irrelevant because we can calculate what actually happened, and adjust accordingly be it up or down.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I found the source of the 33,000 new builds per annum - it is an ESRI report in conjunction with the Dept of Housing.

    It has a huge amount of detail and clever assumptions concerning future population growth, based on mortality, fertility, migration rate etc.

    And obviously they use this to make their best guess at population growth, and thus they calculate we need in one of their scenarios 33,000 new build units a year. It is this scenario that was used for the Housing for All declared targets.

    But as far as I can see, nowhere in the report do they state what they are basing the starting point from - for all the modelling about future population growth and consequent housing demand, they publish nothing about the current population size, housing stock and spare capacity.

    Their assumptions about future population growth may well be correct, but if they are not factoring in whether we have 0%, 2%, 20% or even -10% spare capacity from the present, the figure presented for future housing demand is meaningless.

    This is the same across every future housing demand projection I have seen, hence why I said earlier I have not seen a credible projection.

    https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/RS111.pdf

    Post edited by hometruths on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Yes the government as they keep falling behind each year the numbers getting bigger to catch up



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    are you a conspiracy theorist? Or something

    They do a census, it measures population growth, this is not an estimate

    That is the starting point for population growth projections, they know numbers of births per year, immigration projections, this is the most fluid part

    They also know how many houses are there are

    They know vacancy rates, they know it's basically impossible to bring that below the 2% it's currently at, so there's no spare stock

    Most of those houses are not in a position to be used

    So new builds, renovations etc etc all account into the 30k figures



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Any projection of housing demand I’ve seen gives a big range because two key variables are

    • household formations (are we 2.2 or 2.3 people per house for example)

    • net migration figures

    Births and deaths are almost clockwork but the two above are not so easy to predict. Most projections give high and low end estimations based on varying assumptions of net migration and household formation. The difference in the results can be surprisingly high.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    are you a conspiracy theorist? Or something

    I'm just a guy that believes the data does not support the narrative. Some people do think that makes me a conspiracy theorist.

    They do a census, it measures population growth, this is not an estimate

    That is the starting point for population growth projections, they know numbers of births per year, immigration projections, this is the most fluid part

    They also know how many houses are there are

    They know vacancy rates, they know it's basically impossible to bring that below the 2% it's currently at, so there's no spare stock

    I am not claiming the census is an estimate. Quite the opposite, that's the point. I agree it's an accurate figure.

    But the accurate figures from the census tell us that there is spare stock. Whereas the narrative tells us there is no spare stock.

    Which is more likely to be correct? The census or the narrative?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    At the risk of cementing my reputation as a dog with a bone, any chance you could link to the most credible housing demand projections you've seen?!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 617 ✭✭✭J_1980


    Supply collapsing on daft.

    16514 now



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Not something I’ve looked at a lot but Central Bank did something. I think all focus on - assume now is ok, what is year over year excess need. Not seen a detailed assessment of current need vs current stock which I feel where your view differs from others on here

    https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/economic-letters/vol-2019-no-14-population-change-and-housing-demand-in-ireland-(conefrey-and-staunton).pdf



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    It doesn't say there is spare stock at all, can you flesh that out

    House prices and rent are at all time highs where is this spare stock being hidden

    I just don't think you understand how it works

    You have 10 years of under building, you do get this, what are the consequences?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    What is not credible about the government's projections


    You have provided zero evidence to counter it



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron



    Give us some examples? It's been steady for 10 years plus on population,

    And only going in one direction, and if things change you can adjust

    You don't just make a 10 year plan and stick with it

    what do you think is going to change on housing formation, most of the change has already happened with the drop in family sizes

    now even though there will be variance, so far only upwards, do you not think you plan using realistic numbers or not? because this is the crux of it

    so far no planning, disaster



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    Has this not been done to death on more than one occasion…



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭DataDude


    There are plenty of papers out there. Migration does vary year to year, often linked to to economic conditions. Household formation also varies. It’s touched on this paper as an example.

    https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/QEC2014SPR_SA_Duffy.pdf

    Absolutely agree - population is going up and will continue to do so. Whether that creates additional demand for 20,50 or 70k new houses per year. Depends who you ask.

    Problem with reacting on the fly is migration levels in particular can turn in an instant and decisions on housing supply can take years to convert to homes.

    It’s largely moot for now anyway. We’re not building enough by almost any metric and it seems we’re at full capacity. So keep aiming as high as we can and if it turn out we overshoot in years to come - so be it. It’s better than the alternative.



  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭mike_cork


    Rates rises announced by the AIB group (AIB,EBS + Haven)

    "New fixed rates at AIB, EBS and Haven will increase by between 0.15 percentage points and 0.70 percentage points.

    A rise of 0.70 percentage points is one of the largest mortgage rate rises so far announced by a mainstream bank.

    Variable rates are going up by 0.65 percentage points. The new fixed mortgage rates are effective from tomorrow, June 30."



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    home formation numbers are fairly steady across decades, trending slowly down and probably hit bottom now

    you dont react on the fly, these things change over years, you change over years, but you plan and do something, the worst thing to happen is you get a few thousand extra houses

    the original issue was just in response to another poster saying there was stock and no need to build



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Thanks for posting, it's a good example of exactly what I am talking about in that it focusses almost exclusively about what might happen re future population growth and forecasts numbers to accommodate that future growth.

    The only attempt they make to address whether we are ahead/behind/at where we need to be in terms of housing stock at the time of writing is in Section 4.4 Historic Estimates of Housing Demand 2011-2019

    Given the continued, albeit slower, growth in the population over this period it is useful to compare actual housing completions over recent years to estimated demand (Kennedy and Myers, 2019).

    Applying the same methodology used for the projection exercise to the historic data, it is possible to estimate the level of housing demand from 2011 to the present, consistent with the actual change in the population over this period. Our estimates indicate that on average, to keep pace with the growth in the population and changes in household formation, around 27,000 dwellings would have been required per annum from 2011 to 2019. Actual housing completions over this period amounted to around 10,500 per annum. The gap between actual housing completions and the estimate of demand based on population growth implies a significant degree of unmet housing need over this period.

    Essentially they are estimating something they could simply count to get an accurate figure. They are deducing that there has been an implied unmet housing need.

    And the accuracy of the estimates are entirely dependant on what base supply position they are using from 2011, a point in time which the data said we were in oversupply and narrative was it would take a generation to soak it up!

    In all the discussions about our future housing building requirements I have seen lots of estimates of what might happen in the future and lots of estimates about what has happened in the past.

    But I have never seen projections that categorically state this is exactly where we are today in terms of housing capacity, that's our baseline.

    If the only solution to the housing crisis we have today is a to build a certain number of new houses how come nobody has ever calculated that number and categorically stated it?

    i.e Forget about projections for the next 20 years, irrespective of what might happen in the future this is the figure that we need to build as a matter of urgency asap.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Again, I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but when you say "it seems we’re at full capacity" are you basing that on specific data you have seen or the consensus that's widely accepted?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Sorry full capacity was meant of our ability to build more housing. With unemployment at 3.8% I think it’s a fair assumption that we don’t have a tonne of builders twiddling their thumbs waiting for a call to build some more houses.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Fair enough, I'd agree with that.

    I thought you meant our existing stock was at full capacity, and I don't think there is any data to support that idea, hence was wondering where you got that notion from!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Now this is really going to be put a squeeze on things. 5 year fixed rate now at 5% - ouch.

    Up until now I’d have said - buy literally anything you can afford to lock in a cheap mortgage which will protect you from any price drop. Assuming others follow, which they will, that ship has now sailed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    vacancy rates from the CSO, thats even what the article from the IT used, did you read it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    they are off doing extensions, attic conversions etc, because people can't move, and the like and could be diverted to building, its a chicken and egg

    most would bite your arm off at guaranteed work

    the lack of steady work is what puts people off building in the first place



  • Administrators Posts: 53,843 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Interestingly though the Green Rate remains untouched, which means anyone buying a new build is safe from this one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭Browney7


    Interesting the Green Mortgages are staying put at 3.85%....will be good for people buying new build property and may actually incentivise people to invest in BER upgrades. I'm sure there's an ESG box and "driving customer behaviours" box being ticked inside in AIB as we speak on Climate change reports. Income stress tests at 7% will look interesting for sure



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    no wonder there are so many dodgey BERs out there



Advertisement