Current public sentiment towards the housing market?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope. One is loadsa people trying to sell, the other is fewer people looking to buy.

As for those reports you mention, ask yourself who publishes them.... think about it now, what interest might a bank or an estate agent or the construction industry have in reinforcing positive sentiment?

Listen, if there was a shortage of housing then rent would be much more expensive. It isn't because there isn't any shortage.

There is, or rather there has been, a shortage of housing for sale because specuvestors have held onto properties for capital appreciation. These guys will let these go once they start costing (or stop making) them money, they wouldn't own them in the first place if they weren't in it for the money.

I agree. This is a speculative market its important to remember that. Many people bought because prices were going up when prices stop going up many people will stop buying, the market will revert to fundamentals. But the fundamentals will be altered by the fact that the housing market has panned, and a US slowdown will be underway.
 
100 year mortgage anyone?


mmm, this is something they did in Japan back at the hight of it in the early-mid nineties (maybe they still do)..... a multi-generation mortgage: you buy the house, and your kids inherit your debt, and repay the remaining 20 or 30 years, or whatever it was originally set at
 
In a couple of years time, I bet people like that will be all over the airwaves demanding the taxpayer bails them out of their financial situation. What's more, I bet the government will cave.

Exactly my sentiment. I just don't think recent purchasers can have grasped the enormity of their commitment - it's one thing if rents were on a similar footing and there was therefore little choice - but what were/are they hoping for ? A soft landing, an interest rate plateau and everything ticks on as the Celtic Tiger pads through the next 30+ years ?

Now if I were a lender, I wouldn't make a big deal of pointing this out to them... Nevertheless I can already imagine a scenario of compensation in the future, either from the banks or the taxes of those who DIDN'T take on such a monumentally irresponsible gamble.
 
mmm, this is something they did in Japan back at the hight of it in the early-mid nineties (maybe they still do)..... a multi-generation mortgage: you buy the house, and your kids inherit your debt, and repay the remaining 20 or 30 years, or whatever it was originally set at

exactly, I was looking for a wikipedia reference for it but no joy!
 
You have to say it is pretty "stupid" (not for want of a better word) to buy at 2k a month over 30 years when, as was pointed out by somebody, they could probably rent the same place for 1100, not pay legal bills, stamp duty, uncertain interest and still create a "solid future for themselves".

Absolutely but who doesn't make a stupid investment mistake every now again? I bought Eircom shares for god sake - and a house! Even W2DW gets it wrong on occasion. I just hate when posters on this thread seem to gloat over what will be unbearable misery for many people. Okay, the bears have had to put up with unbelievable smugness from many quarters but lets not lose the run of ourselves.
 
At this stage I don't think people like this are actually buying anything, after 3 years how much of the capital will they have paid off?

The general opinion on this thread seem to be that it's all about capital appreciation. It's not. For the next 3 years, that couple have someplace to call home, where they have the freedom to do as they wish, within limits imposed by society. There are not subject to a landlord's whims for a start. I don't know why more renters here aren't worried about where they are going to live, given that all of us investors are supposed to be selling up fortwith!

Cellopoint, you might yet find yourself living in Clondalkin ( I believe that area was the target of your last disparaging remarks on AAM). If there is no capital appreciation to be expected, and IR rising, landlords will raise rents to cover themselves. You can huff and puff all you like but they are entitled to do this and will do it.

Granted, that couple will not have made much of a dent in the mortgage after three years, but renters will have stood still. A little gain is better than nothing. After 5 years, they are in a better position all round. If they fall on hard times, they have a 2 bed which they can take advantage of by renting one room via the rent a room scheme and pay no tax. I'm not saying I agree with their purchase....but they do have options which most renters don't.
 
The general opinion on this thread seem to be that it's all about capital appreciation. It's not. For the next 3 years, that couple have someplace to call home, where they have the freedom to do as they wish, within limits imposed by society. There are not subject to a landlord's whims for a start. I don't know why more renters here aren't worried about where they are going to live, given that all of us investors are supposed to be selling up fortwith!

Cellopoint, you might yet find yourself living in Clondalkin ( I believe that area was the target of your last disparaging remarks on AAM). If there is no capital appreciation to be expected, and IR rising, landlords will raise rents to cover themselves. You can huff and puff all you like but they are entitled to do this and will do it.

Granted, that couple will not have made much of a dent in the mortgage after three years, but renters will have stood still. A little gain is better than nothing. After 5 years, they are in a better position all round. If they fall on hard times, they have a 2 bed which they can take advantage of by renting one room via the rent a room scheme and pay no tax. I'm not saying I agree with their purchase....but they do have options which most renters don't.

Not sure I agree with this....
If theres a serious crash, (and thats not a certainty btw) the houses won't disappear, they will still be there, probably owned by the banks who will have to offload them, what about the empty houses discovered during the census?

Its really all down to interest rates and where values go. If prices stay much the same (drop 10%, yeah a few years renting will have meant no negative equity) If they drop 40%, well thats another story, it'll be like a neutron bomb, the houses will stay but the owners will be hit.. they will probably end up as tenants of the bank. And if they stay the same, the mortgage holder is the winner...

Time to get out the popcorn and sit back....
 
After 5 years, they are in a better position all round.

Assuming prices keep rising surely?

If the price stays the same they will have about 80K behind them by saving 10K per year in mortgage repayments and further savings in insurance, furnishings, maintenance fees etc.

A price drop does not bear thinking about.
 
The general opinion on this thread seem to be that it's all about capital appreciation. It's not.

I agree that some people around here seem to rate every home purchase as if it were an investment, it isn't. Having said that, these guys are pushing the boundaries of what they can comfortably handle, and that ain't smart.

I don't know why more renters here aren't worried about where they are going to live, given that all of us investors are supposed to be selling up fortwith!

Ah yes, you'll be selling up forthwith, but who'll be buying? Not to mention that Joe Soap, the amateur investor, will be eaten alive when the big boys in construction pull the plug on all their immigrant tenants.

If there is no capital appreciation to be expected, and IR rising, landlords will raise rents to cover themselves. You can huff and puff all you like but they are entitled to do this and will do it.

Landlords don't set the rent, the markets do. No point asking for 1500 a month when the apartment next door is up for 1200. Unless landlords form their own cartel, the landlords who bought 5-10 years ago can and will undercut those who bought in the last 5 years. You can ask for whatever rent you want, doesn't mean the market's gonna cough up for it.
 
Not sure I agree with this....
If theres a serious crash, (and thats not a certainty btw) the houses won't disappear, they will still be there, probably owned by the banks who will have to offload them

interesting tangent .... Foreclosure. Its something which banks in ireland VERY rarely do, which is great. The number of foreclosures has been in single figures for years.
In the UK the banks foreclose much much easier and quicker.

It will be interesting to see the Irish banks reaction to any inability of FTB's on already over-stretched mortgages to repay. Surely it will (unfortunately) be more evident in the coming years.
 
Listen, if there was a shortage of housing then rent would be much more expensive. It isn't because there isn't any shortage.
There is, or rather there has been, a shortage of housing for sale because specuvestors have held onto properties for capital appreciation. These guys will let these go once they start costing (or stop making) them money, they wouldn't own them in the first place if they weren't in it for the money.

If a lot of empty “investments” come on the market, then rents are going to get v soft indeed. If these properties don’t get sold, then the holders may decide to rent at any price rather than leaving empty. I.e. “No more capital appreciation so best get €400/mth for that idle 1-bed apartment in Cork street”. This would trigger a game of undercutting existing landlords.

Excellent, maybe I can negotiate even cheaper rent next year J
 
mmm, this is something they did in Japan back at the hight of it in the early-mid nineties (maybe they still do)..... a multi-generation mortgage: you buy the house, and your kids inherit your debt, and repay the remaining 20 or 30 years, or whatever it was originally set at

Isn't a 100 year mortgage better than an interest only mortgage?

An interest-only mortgage is an infinite term mortgage - the ultimate in inter-generational mortgage lending (even worse than Japan).
 
Isn't a 100 year mortgage better than an interest only mortgage?

An interest-only mortgage is an infinite term mortgage - the ultimate in inter-generational mortgage lending (even worse than Japan).

LOL, slight problem if the kids refuse to born into slavery :)
 
Isn't a 100 year mortgage better than an interest only mortgage?

An interest-only mortgage is an infinite term mortgage - the ultimate in inter-generational mortgage lending (even worse than Japan).

An infinite interest-only PPR mortgage is RENT, plain and simple. The bank buy the house on your behalf and rent it to you. You'll never own a single brick of it.
 
Matt Cooper has just mentioned that the housing market appears to have taken a sudden dive and will be discussing it on the last word soon.
 
Matt Cooper has just mentioned that the housing market appears to have taken a sudden dive and will be discussing it on the last word soon.


Going back to the title of the thread, whether or not a crash actually develops, SENTIMENT is on the move......
 
I wouldn't have thought that the Last Word was main stream. Wait until Adrian Kennedy starts talking about it!!
 
An infinite interest-only PPR mortgage is RENT, plain and simple. The bank buy the house on your behalf and rent it to you. You'll never own a single brick of it.

Not quite. Suppose the house costs 300K and you pay interest only, in 10 years time the outstanding debt will still be 300K regardless of market conditions in 10 years.

Eventually, maybe after 30 years, you should be able to buy the house for a weeks wages, inflation and all that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top