Apartment won't sell

[Fergal]

Is it possible that your auctioneer has a close relationship with the developer? In that case he would not want you to drop prices lower than the developer's prices.
PS
I agree with an earlier poster that individual auctioneers will see a sale as more important than colluding with other auctioneer to artificially trying to sustain high prices.

 

[Bananaman]

As said before its only worth what someone will pay and if there's no interest the best way of attracting some is to lower the price.

If your certain your not going to rent it, i personally wouldn't be holding on to it. Especially with two mortgage's & considering even the most bullish of commentators predict little or no price rises this year.

My advice- drop the price and avoid two mortgages and if you have the time, sell it yourself as mentioned and save on fees

Best of luck with the sale

 

[demoivre]

The market doesn't agree with you the futures market is priced for a March hike

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adb5l8wtu51A&refer=home

This really isn't the thread for it so we can can agree to differ

Unlike yourself I haven't made any definitive statement in this thread about the timing or direction of interest rate changes so the futures market agreeing or disagreeing with me doesn't arise. I merely questioned your assertion that the " Good news is that the rate rise won't happen till March instead of Feb. " I was curious as to your certainty about an event that you can't be certain about and I felt your statement might be misleading for some people reading this thread.

 

[Sunny]

Unlike yourself I haven't made any definitive statement in this thread about the timing or direction of interest rate changes so the futures market agreeing or disagreeing with me doesn't arise. I merely questioned your assertion that the " Good news is that the rate rise won't happen till March instead of Feb. " I was curious as to your certainty about an event that you can't be certain about and I felt your statement might be misleading for some people reading this thread.

On the contary you made a difinitive statement saying that Trichet said nothing on Jan 11 that would make people think that the rate rise was happening in March rather than Feb. I was just repsonding to someone who said a rate rise was going to happen in Febuary. I should have said "in all probability" it won't happen till March so sorry for that.

 

[gortbeg]

I meant that for a 2 bed apartment in Oranmore are selling from 280-300k. The new ones in my estate are selling for 270k and are being sold by a different auctioneer to the one I am using. On the plus side I actually got a call yesterday about viewing for today so fingers crossed something good comes out of it. I was actually just about to put it on Myhome.ie when I got the call. The auctioneer already has the apartment on daft.ie. If nothing comes out of the viewing today should I have it up on myhome.ie as well or is having it on daft enough. Thanks for all the feedback.

 

[pjq]

Check out the post on selling yourself , http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=44901 , I thinlk that myhome.ie is locked up by the EAs and individuals cant advertise there . Put up your own daft.ie advert , its worth paying premium to be at the top of the list , there are plenty properties listed twice by different EAs .
Lastly , I have sold a house in a rural area ( see above link ) on daft , in the dead month of August I got 10 to 20 hits a day , this increased to 40 - 60 a day in the frenzy of October , the hits dropped dramatically with budget speculation in late Nov and in early Jan it was only 100 hits in a week . Maybe you have to wait for the the next selling season , the newspaper suppliments and the EAs will russel up a frenzy that will float your boat also .
pjq
PS drop the EA and put his fees twords 1. an early sale at a reduced price or 2. the extra interest on your mortgage payment to hold out until the selling starts again .

 

[andagda]

the hits dropped dramatically with budget speculation in late Nov and in early Jan it was only 100 hits in a week .

Does anyone still seriously believe that it was budget speculation that slowed the market? The only people still trotting out that line are the vested interests who want more than anything to convince us the party is still going. Buyers were not waiting to see what would happen in the budget - they knew that any decrease in stamp duty would not make buying a house any easier, it would merely go into the sellers' pockets.

Stamp duty is a tax on the seller, not the buyer. If anyone was waiting for the budget it would have been the vendors. There's an argument to be made that the stamp duty system in and of itself is damaging to the market because it hampers movement, and perhaps it should indeed be reformed, but no individual buyer is thinking about that when deciding to make the plunge on any one house.

Remember, just because you hear a particular opinion on the news from an estate agent/auctioneer/mortgage-provider repeated over and over again that doesn't mean it's necessarily true - or even that the person giving the opinion really believes it themselves.

 

[beattie]

Does anyone still seriously believe that it was budget speculation that slowed the market? The only people still trotting out that line are the vested interests who want more than anything to convince us the party is still going. Buyers were not waiting to see what would happen in the budget - they knew that any decrease in stamp duty would not make buying a house any easier, it would merely go into the sellers' pockets.

Stamp duty is a tax on the seller, not the buyer. If anyone was waiting for the budget it would have been the vendors. There's an argument to be made that the stamp duty system in and of itself is damaging to the market because it hampers movement, and perhaps it should indeed be reformed, but no individual buyer is thinking about that when deciding to make the plunge on any one house.

If it was the SD issue which slowed the market it should have filtered out by now.

 

[davet]

Buyers were not waiting to see what would happen in the budget - they knew that any decrease in stamp duty would not make buying a house any easier, it would merely go into the sellers' pockets.

Stamp duty is a tax on the seller, not the buyer.

Eh tax on the buyer not the seller surely. Its paid by the buyer afterall

 

[cik]

Eh tax on the buyer not the seller surely. Its paid by the buyer afterall

In modern Ireland Buyers have been spending everything the banks will let them borrow and therefore Sellers have been receiving everything banks will let Buyers borrow, minus the Stamp duty.

If there was no Stamp duty the Seller would simply recieve a higher amount as the Buyer seems to spend every single penny he can get his hands on.

When Buyers spend the maximum no matter what then the eventual destination is less relevant to them, it is more relevant to the seller as it is money they arent getting (that they could be getting).
Hence it is a tax on the Seller.

....

As for this thread it seems we have a new participant in the whole game - the motivated seller

 

[Remix]

Eh tax on the buyer not the seller surely. Its paid by the buyer afterall

I first came across this paradox on Shane Ross's . Does make sense when you work throught the logic and consider what happened to prices after the last stamp duty adjustment.

[written 2005]

There is a bit of a myth about stamp duty as it is not a tax on the buyer but on the seller - nobody quite realises this. The former Minister for Finance was in full agreement with me in this regard....

Let me explain what I mean. If one buys a house and pays 6% or 7% of the cost as stamp duty, or 9% if one pays at the top rate, one must have the money to do so. One must have borrowed it or acquired it somehow and have it in one’s back pocket. If there were no stamp duty, one would pay the same price for a house because the price would simply increase accordingly. The buyer, who would have the money to pay if there were stamp duty, would be prepared to pay the same amount if there were none. It does not matter to the buyer whether the money is spent on stamp duty or on the house and therefore the person who is actually getting less from this system is the seller. Stamp duty is therefore a tax on the seller although it does not appear to be so.
.
.

The banks are also involved because they are lending money recklessly, thus increasing the price of houses. They do not care about the consequences for the buyer. They are lending recklessly in a period of very low interest rates. This is fine if one wants to borrow a lot of money at present but it will be bloody murder when interest rates increase suddenly. I am not referring to the gradual increases which I suspect will occur next month or next year......

 

[phoenix_n]

Does anyone still seriously believe that it was budget speculation that slowed the market?

Yes they do. I had a conversation with two colleagues who said the stamp duty caused the slowdow but they were also surprised at my prediction on house prices this year (cant share as is banned) as it went against newspaper articles.

People believe what they read. ( when this is the only source of information that they use )

e.g. weapons of mass distraction.

 

[demoivre]

I first came across this paradox on Shane Ross's . Does make sense when you work throught the logic and consider what happened to prices after the last stamp duty adjustment.

[written 2005]

His argument is largely based on the premise that "If there were no stamp duty, one would pay the same price for a house because the price would simply increase accordingly ". The present stamp duty system would see €72000 payable on an €800k house, for example. How the removal of stamp duty would, de facto, result in that house price increasing to €872000 is beyond me and it would be an even more bizarre argument in a slowing or falling market imo.

 

[demoivre]

Yes they do. I had a conversation with two colleagues who said the stamp duty caused the slowdow but they were also surprised at my prediction on house prices this year (cant share as is banned) as it went against newspaper articles.

People believe what they read.

I don't.

 

[phoenix_n]

I don't.

Well found. But I can't comment as the subject is verboten but I am sticking by my original prediction.

Asking price may not necessarily reflect actual selling price.

 

[Remix]

His argument is largely based on the premise that "If there were no stamp duty, one would pay the same price for a house because the price would simply increase accordingly ". The present stamp duty system would see €72000 payable on an €800k house, for example. How the removal of stamp duty would, de facto, result in that house price increasing to €872000 is beyond me and it would be an even more bizarre argument in a slowing or falling market imo.

Be it houses or whatever, sellers are usually very efficient at passing on price increases to buyers. Not so snappy at passing on savings.

Successful buyers of €800k houses are already paying €872 - this is the effective cost of the house to them. Sellers and those who work for them know this. Expecting the €72k saving to be simply passed onto the buyer would also be a little bizzare imo.

Unless of course there are very few or no more buyers of 800k houses and a correction is underway. But sure with our booming economy, immigration, full employment etc we've been told that can't happen. Right ?

 

[serotoninsid]

You're saying that second hand apartments are priced at more than new ones?!

Don't mean to pull this thread off topic but just a quick point. For 'second hand' homes that are just a year after being signed off, could it not be expected to get the same/a fraction more than the same house in the new phase of a development (selling off plans) on the basis that the new house would be builders finish as opposed to existing which owner has finished off ie. tiling, carpets,etc.?

 

[phoenix_n]

Don't mean to pull this thread off topic but just a quick point. For 'second hand' homes that are just a year after being signed off, could it not be expected to get the same/a fraction more than the same house in the new phase of a development (selling off plans) on the basis that the new house would be builders finish as opposed to existing which owner has finished off ie. tiling, carpets,etc.?

Have to take into account Stamp Duty.

 

[Dreamerb]

Don't mean to pull this thread off topic

Or perhaps, back on topic?!

but just a quick point. For 'second hand' homes that are just a year after being signed off, could it not be expected to get the same/a fraction more than the same house in the new phase of a development (selling off plans) on the basis that the new house would be builders finish as opposed to existing which owner has finished off ie. tiling, carpets,etc.?

The builder's finish versus owner's finish effect is approximately cancelled out by the stamp duty effect for owner occupiers, so I would expect second-hand in those circumstances to be about the same price or a little less, depending on the price levels. And, of course, the quality of the finish will have an effect, as will the degree of personalisation. High quality bland will generally get you a better price and a quicker turnaround, far as I can see.

 

[serotoninsid]

The builder's finish versus owner's finish effect is approximately cancelled out by the stamp duty effect for owner occupiers

These homes are only going for €190-€220k(not a typo - just one of the least developed parts of the country!). Have I got it right in thinking stamp duty isnt a factor in this case?