Current public sentiment towards the housing market?

Status
Not open for further replies.
extract from davys stockbrokers

Mandatory mortgage stress testing could mean applying rates of 7.0% next year
One of the issues occupying our minds at the moment is mortgage affordability. Since we did our mystery shopping exercise earlier this summer, ECB rates have risen 0.5% to 3.0% and look like hitting 3.5% by year-end. In fact we expect them to reach 4.0% sometime early next year. Hence first time buyer (FTB) affordability is being slowly squeezed, and the only way for the banks to respond is to stretch out the term even further. The typical FTB term is currently heading for 35 years, so do not be surprised if more of the banks start offering 40-year terms. Note that availability of a 100% LTV mortgage will not solve this problem.
If we take our mystery couple earning €60,000 between them, our average loan offer was €326,000 or 5.4x salary. At the time ECB rates were 2.5%, so over 35 years this equated to 32% of salary being used to pay the mortgage. Note that most banks work off a maximum of around 35% for that kind of income level (some take note of minimum residual income levels too). With ECB rates at 3.5%, that figure rises to over 36%; at 4.0%, it reaches 38.7%. If ECB does hit 4.0% next year, our loan offer would have to be cut to €295,000 (a reduction of nearly 10%) in order to get back within the lending guideline. That would have meant a one-bed apartment and not the two-bed for the couple in our shopping exercise. Extending the term to 40 years would help but not by much - it would cut the figure from 38.7% to nearer 37%, which is less than the hit from a 0.5% rate increase. Finally, investors should bear in mind that the banks are still mandated by the Regulator to stress test mortgage applications for rate increases of 2% from current levels. This suggests that the banks could be plugging mortgage rates of over 7.0% into their new business models next year. That works out at 49% of salary. Ouch!
 
Last edited:
extract from davys stockbrokers
If we take our mystery couple earning €60,000 between them, our average loan offer was €326,000 or 5.4x salary.

Gotta love the magic maths applied here. That would be 10.8x salary gentlemen. When it actually reaches 5.4x salary, it will be more realistic.
 
It seems according to that article and one from the smh posted earlier that folks in the states (where 'gas' is $3.50 a gallon) and in sydney (approx 0.60 euros a litre for petrol) have copped on that their reliance on their cars must change in the future.

Not so in the land of the shoddy houses many miles from everywhere and the small roads clogged with oversized vehicles driven by idiots
Oh right, so anyone who drives a 4x4 or an SUV is an idiot? Give it a rest.

Off-topic, but in California, the Americans are as car dependant as ever. It really is a sight to behold. Literally, every second car is an SUV or 4x4, even the poorest of white trash take great pride in their overpowered vehicles, despite often living in trailers.
 
Gotta love the magic maths applied here. That would be 10.8x salary gentlemen. When it actually reaches 5.4x salary, it will be more realistic.

Why? Because it's a couple? If it was just one person earning 60K, would you argue it's not 5.4x salary?
 
Oh right, so anyone who drives a 4x4 or an SUV is an idiot?quote]

I did'nt mean to imply that everyone is an idiot. Those who need them for work fair enough. Those who pay 90k for them and use them for shopping are the idiots I am talking about // ends rant
 
Good thread to watch to see how the market is. (please no bears or bulls post on the thread....just leave it and see how it goes)


(as a side note if one really wanted to get a 'bargain' on a downward market you would only need to ascertain the vendors situation to know whether you could extract a high discount. In fact you could put this, 'stressed' vendor, as your first criteria. So instead of looking for a 3 bed semi with kitchen extension you would look for a 3 bed semi with 'stressed' vendor. )
 
2 more articles from the Sydney Morning Herad (tuesday edition)

The trend of Australians taking out equity has ended, due to high interest rates and the decline in the price of property. As your average Aussie has an even worse savings rate than the average Irish person (no SSIA there) this will probably have a large impact on purchase of big ticket items such as cars, holidays etc...

The other article, the Urban Development Institute of Aus says that there will be a shortfall of at least 50,000 new homes by 2031 (due to population trends) and are recomnending the government to be more flexible zoning land. Turns out that this institute represents 'developers and property industry firms'. It reads to me that they're trying to buck sentiment, hoping to get Bruce and Sheila out into the property market again.

I think the Australian experience is interesting as they appear to be a good 18 months ahead of us in any property downturn that may come our way. So expect more doom and gloom articles from the mainstream media, followed by puff pieces masquerading as research from the vested interests.

One to watch.
 
A couple of interesting sites if you have not already seen them:

Housing Crash Continues
[broken link removed]

A good piece, which dissects 42 separate housing clichés. Among much else of interest, it suggests an interesting price rule:

"Another rule of thumb is that a fair house price is 125 times the monthly rent. If a house rents for $2000 per month, then a fair price is $250,000."

I remember when this applied in Ireland, too, years ago - the ratio now appears to be about 250:1.

Yes, I think I shall continue to rent.
 
Interesting link posted earlier

[broken link removed]

The quote below really struck me as being relevant possibly to future Ireland..

"If you buy, at least you have a house, but if you rent, you end up with nothing."
FALSE. Renters in the Bay Area end up with much more money, while living in the same quality house as an owner. At the end of 30 years, a renter would have enough principal saved to buy the $700K house mentioned above and would have spent $162,846 less on rent than he would have spent in interest payments. And he would have lived in an equivalent house all that time. Owners frequently end up with nothing because they lose the house to foreclosure.


The old "rent is dead money" cliche is totaly laid to rest there in an unbalanced market like ours.
 
Really amazed at how suddenly the australia market has been called a crash.
 
Which does not mean that it isn't happening of course
Really? Where? I'll hand in my bear card and move there! We were talking about the 125 x rent=actual house property value, which I think is probably a bit low.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top