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*

1801802804806807816

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    I'd argue that this is already happening. No one with any sense is holding a large amount of cash for any length of time because they know inflation is eating the value.

    Personally speaking, I'd be happy to paid in silver coins….or MTG cards



  • Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭Greyian


    Saying it took hundreds of years to get to 17 trillion, but has nearly doubled ten years later is fairly meaningless though.

    Between 2014 and 2023, there was a jump from 17,824 billion to 33,167 billion. 86% increase in 9 years.
    If we compare 9 year periods going back (each time from the beginning of the following period, so 2005 - 2014, 1996 - 2005), 86% increase over 9 years is by no means an outlier.

    Start Year

    End Year

    Start Value

    End Value

    % Growth

    Annualised %

    2014

    2023

    17824

    33167

    86.08%

    7.14%

    2005

    2014

    7933

    17824

    124.68%

    9.41%

    1996

    2005

    5225

    7933

    51.83%

    4.75%

    1987

    1996

    2350

    5225

    122.34%

    9.28%

    1978

    1987

    772

    2350

    204.40%

    13.17%

    1969

    1978

    354

    772

    118.08%

    9.05%

    1960

    1969

    286

    354

    23.78%

    2.40%

    1951

    1960

    255

    286

    12.16%

    1.28%

    1942

    1951

    72

    255

    254.17%

    15.09%

    1933

    1942

    23

    72

    213.04%

    13.52%

    I've only gone back to 1933, as the data in your link only went back to 1929, so we can't go back another 9 years.
    So of the ten 9-year periods, 2014 to 2023 would be the 4th lowest for % growth.

    Edit: Posted before being finished.

    To link all this back to the property market, this all really indicates that with a long term outlook in mind buying as soon as possible is the best option, as the cost and value of your debt will decline over time while the nominal price of property will increase.

    Post edited by Greyian on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    my point is that a large majority of that debt relates to the grossing out of the balance sheet due to QE and this portion is meaningless (I.e gov owes itself this debt)

    Technically all QE is a maturity swap from long term cash to short term cash which results in the equivalent of a interest rate cut and stimulates the economy…..overstimulate and you have inflation under stimulate and you have a recession.

    The only extra cash that makes its way into the real economy is what was spent by way of fiscal spending whether it be investment in infrastructure etc or stimulus cheques. I’m not saying this aspect is meaningless but the numbers are a lot smaller and not as sensational.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Trump promising to cut corporation tax to 15% if elected. source twitter

    Might want to work on new competitive advantages like, maybe, housing



  • Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    House prices up more than 8% in the 12 months to May 2024;

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/07/17/house-price-inflation-jumps-to-82/

    Mahklouf doing exactly as he is supposed to with his looser borrowing policies for home buyers. It seems counter intuitive to allow for such inflation while there is a broader fight against inflation going on in the Eurozone. As inflation in the wider economy cools, housing is inflating to levels which become more unsustainable the more inflation cools. Unsustainable because it means that, as salaries don’t rise as much, people can’t borrow as much and therefore further growth in house prices can only be sustained with more leverage and that is of course a dangerous game. It seems we are at the point that house prices are only climbing because of more leverage being introduced to the market and that is not a good policy which we already know.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Unsustainable because it means that, as salaries don’t rise as much, people can’t borrow as much and therefore further growth in house prices can only be sustained with more leverage and that is of course a dangerous game.

    Speaking of leverage, on Morning Ireland yesterday an interviewee spoke about earnings multipliers for mortgages, who said that the rules are bent at a bank's discretion under certain conditions. The LTI criteria seem to be bent for high earners where bonuses and other income sources apply over a certain number of years.

    Naturally enough banks would be aware of the risk profile of an income stream, but nevertheless it seems irrational to me to have more permissive lending based on historical high earnings, where that historical period spans a stock market boom.

    Looking at a Central Bank report from 2016, it seems to show a significant increase in defaults as LTI increases: https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/financial-system/financial-stability/macroprudential-policy/policy-documents/2016-review-of-residential-mortgage-lending-requirements.pdf?sfvrsn=86c4da1d_12

    Does anyone have any insight on these practices? For example, what sources of income and collateral apply here to increase LTI (I hope the answer isn't 'rental income' and 'properties'), or, are there any breakdowns from the Central Bank on lending by LTI?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,084 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The risk profile of buy to let makes it a very poor investment. Add on the eye watering interest rates for a BTL and it very quickly becomes not worthwhile. Much better returns elsewhere



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,970 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    If you are borrowing money for it, then you need to compare like with like. i.e. compare the interest rate for a BTL mortgage with the rate you'll get for a personal loan to buy the alternative (or even secured against that alternative).

    For someone who has the cash - then yes, put it in a diversified portfolio. But if all you have is 100k, and the choice is between buying a BTL with a mortgage, and investing that 100k today in something else …… do you think you'll be able to buy that house in 20 years with the proceeds from your 100k invested into something else? (at the future price of course). Bear in mind too that you will have some additional CGT from you other investments that you won't have with your property.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    What the government is doing is the main driver of house prices. The majority of ftb are buying 2nd hand homes. The driver of prices is new builds, this is where the majority of market interference is



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,267 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    The majority of FTBs buy second hand homes, but also I believe the majority of new homes are bought by FTB to benefit from HTB.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,066 ✭✭✭amacca


    I believe I'm not informed enough to fully understand some of this post

    Just by way of clarification..does this mean that a large majority of govt debt is a direct result of quantitave easing...because in order to introduce more liquidity to the system govt bonds (debt) have been purchased from itself...or EU doing it for countries in EU?

    Therefore its introduced more money but just by borrowing from its future self?

    And a lot of this extra money doesn't make its way into the real Joe bloggs economy because its spent on investment in infrastructure etc so it doesn't have nearly as big an effect on inflation as people think?

    Something along those lines?

    Just to argue for the sake of it (i might learn something)...does it not mean that govts don't really have to tighten their belts due to the put it on the never never aspect of it....or at least prolonging the day of reckoning indefinitely...and that has a big influence on inflation as they will only squeeze majority of voters out of necessity......but at some stage the piper will have to be paid?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    From the government that sold multiple apartments beside Tallaght hospital for a little over 100k per apartment in 2018



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,740 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Cant see the link, but the govt are providing 250k towards construction cost per unit?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    When all the grants available for developers/purchasers are added, up to 250k per unit is funded by taxpayer interventions

    An analysis by the Business Post of the average subsidies that have been awarded under each policy intervention has shown buyers of apartments under the Croí Cónaithe scheme will be able to receive close to €250,000 of taxpayers’ funds to buy a unit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,815 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    The government did not sell them NAMA sold them. It 2aa at arms length from the government. Maybe the government should have purchased them but that is another discussion

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    The state/local authorities/housing associations were given first refusal. The local authority took 64 of the 500 on a long term lease plus deal.

    These apartments could also have been used as affordable rentals for Health care/teachers/Gardai staff untill they have moved up the salary scale given that they are adjacent to Tallaght hospital and on the luas line. Such a move would be profitable for the state as well as easing public sector wage pressures and a significant dividend for society

    FFG will do nothing unless there cronies are benefiting from it. There is absolutely no consideration as to what is in the best interests of the country.

    If they were under state control and the State passed up the opportunity to buy them. FG effectively sold them

    "On this occasion, before their sale, Nama offered all 500 apartments in this complex to the Housing Agency and the local authorities and when these parties indicated that they wished to proceed with 65 of these units, Nama was happy to facilitate this," the spokesman said.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Don't worry about it. They'll run another few billion through the magic-money press and hand it out. That'll fix it!



  • Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    Tech stocks faltering today; a risk to Ireland’s corporate tax take once these corrections get going properly. Less money for the government to waste on propping up existing house prices. If prices increased at the same average rate from the last 5 years (ca. 40%) the average house price nationally will be around €600k by 2034.

    Surely people don’t really believe this can happen, meaning that there must be some peak at the moment which will not be surpassed by much, if anything in the next decade at least?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭DataDude


    On the tech stocks. They’re up 40% over the last year. 20% in the last 3 months. They’ve come back down about 5% or so. It’s hardly representative of major threat to their viability/profitability…

    House prices are up about 30% in 5 years. 5.5% p.a. compound
    Certainly don’t think this is sustainable in the long term, no.
    3% in line with wage inflation is probably the best prediction. So another 15% or slightly higher by 2034 would be the most reasonable guess.


    ‘…Meaning there is some peak at the moment that won’t be surpassed by much in the next decade at least’

    The chances that house prices won’t be significantly higher than they are today in 10 years are vanshingly small. It’s almost a certainty. Can’t fight inflation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,051 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Can't flight inflation, and can't fight 100,000+ per year annual population growth with an output of under 35,000 houses per year.

    If I was saving to buy a house in the next 2-3 years I'd be worried. The only way is up, unfortunately.

    And it'll be very hard to outsave the yearly increases, as well as pay sky high rent, as well as build a substantial deposit for the vast majority of Irish workers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    No reason other than government policy that ireland is amongst the poorest performers. We should be up there with Denmark, Norway and Finland



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    think this stat is not just people living with parents but is people dependent on parents financially which would mean a significant portion of people away at third level are counted despite not living at home during college terms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Italy and many of the other countries that "beat" Ireland in this list have other issues such as massive youth unemployment that would make things harder for "young" people. I actually personally know numerous Italians in their late 30s who live with their parents, have no steady job and are essentially stuck in life.

    Ireland essentially has full employment, yet we're still high on the list.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Mortgage drawdown figures for 2nd qtr released.

    FTB buying 2/3s old properties v 1/3 new properties. It would appear that the grants to help first time buyers are increasingly pricng out first time buyers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭DataDude


    That’s quite a remarkable misrepresentation of the facts. The second hand market is always going to be much bigger than the new market for obvious reasons so the above is a very silly comparison to draw.

    Reality - “FTB mortgages on new properties increased by 19.2% to 2,404 and in fact accounted for over 83% of home mortgage drawdowns on new properties”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    2,404 represents less than 1/3 of new homes output adjusted per quarter and includes self builds indicating that despite multiple incentives more than 2/3s of new homes are outside ftb budgets

    The report and other reports reveal that the 2nd hand market is at its lowest levels in terms of stock

    Second hand sales are increasingly landlords leaving the market, thereby increasing the dysfunction of the the market for new entrants.

    Government policies are making the market much worse

    The survey found that six in 10 sales in Limerick City in 2023 involved landlords selling their rental properties and leaving the market, with four sales in 10 in the county being fleeing landlords



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭DataDude


    That’s just you wanting to force your pre-held view onto the data when it is showing literally the exact opposite of what you expected.

    83% of the new houses for sale to open market were bought by FTBs. You are concluding this as evidence that FTBs can’t afford new houses…remarkable.

    In terms of why more aren’t on the open market. Tonnes of reasons:

    • Government being forced to acquire en masse due to pressure from left wing parties to address social housing stock
    • Approved housing bodies per above
    • Build to rent are more profitable than to sell for apartments. We also have an extremely large rental deficit so this is much needed.
    • Investors wanting to capitalise on some of the lowest prices relative to rental yields in developed world.

    You’re saying that the actual reason is FTBers just can’t afford them so ‘someone else’ is picking up them in absence of ‘real demand’.

    This is clearly utter nonsense and if you don’t take my word for it, I suggest you go to some viewings of new build launches in Dublin. You won’t find any tumbleweeds…



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,662 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Build to rent are more profitable than to sell for apartments. We also have an extremely large rental deficit so this is much needed.

    Investors wanting to capitalise on some of the lowest prices relative to rental yields in developed world

    Despite this every apartment is getting a taxpayer grant of up to 130k plus a waiver of development fees and water connection fees, yes investors are well looked after not to mention the tax advantages on the rental income, which is so high most traditional rental consumers are living with parents

    Government being forced to acquire en masse due to pressure from left wing parties to address social housing stock

    Approved housing bodies per above

    Whatever your political leaning, almost every government measure has been criticised by independent analysts as been inflationary and doing little to solve the problem and far more likely to make it worse, hence your queues at new developments in Dublin, maybe they might be better off going to the commuter counties where 40% of buyers are Dublin workers.

    83% of the new houses for sale to open market were bought by FTBs. You are concluding this as evidence that FTBs can’t afford new houses…remarkable

    83% = 2404 which includes self builds

    Self builds account circa 5,000 p/a of new homes output. Self builds by there nature are not for general sale but would be included in ftb figures where the occupants are ftb's. Self builds in general are in possession of a site which would be 20% of the cost of the home and qualify for FTB grant and first home scheme. One could ask if this is wise spending of taxpayer funds for a home that would probably be built were the grants available or not

    5000/4 = 1250 per quarter

    2404 - 1250 = 1154

    1,154 ftbs per quarter of new build homes is an abysmal outcome given the taxpayer funding that is being thrown at it. Developers, land owners and funds are the main benificaries of this spend and the main lobbyists determining policy.

    The vast majority of people searching for a home to buy or rent are the big loosers.

    @datadude Are you comfortable with your hard earned taxes funding this dysfunction?



Advertisement