lightweight said:
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!
Might not be subject to the landlord's whims, but may be subject to the whims of the property management company. I would hate to live in a place where some clip-board jockey with a luminous jacket is forever knocking on your door telling you what you can and can't do.
lightweight said:
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.
I wouldn't live in Clondalkin if I was paid. In fact, my professor at university asked if I would move in to his spare house in Clondalkin at low rent about a year or two ago, which I politely refused.
BTW, we'll see how rents pan out over the next couple of years. The only way you'd see jumping on the housing gravy train is if I was paying substantially more to rent, than to buy. Right now, my landlord (also one of my best mates) is renting to me at a yield of @1% in D6. It just wouldn't make any sense for me to buy in this climate. (I have an eye on a flat in Berlin at the moment).
lightweight said:
Granted, that couple will not have made much of a dent in the mortgage after three years, but renters will have stood still.
You're forgetting they've also payed the difference between renting (13k a year) and owning (23k a year), as well as 2k's worth of management fees etc. Therefore, they need capital appreciation of 12k each year, just to break even. The risk they've taken on is not worth the potential gain.
lightweight said:
A little gain is better than nothing.
Not necessarily - you have to weigh up the risks involved in a potential downturn. If you play poker, you'd be aware of pot size to probability ratio. Now were I to weigh up the potential gain vs the probability of a crash, I'd fold my hand straight away. Irish property is a bit like playing an off-suit 2 & 7 with AAK on the board. (might make for a good bluff, but you can't bluff forever if the fundamentals just ain't there...)
lightweight said:
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.
Don't forget renters have a lot of options which owners don't. E.g. if they don't like their social housing neighbours, they can just go on daft and find a new place. Or, if the washing machine is broken, they can just ring up the landlord. Or, if they don't like the traffic, they can find somewhere closer to work. Or, if there's an economic crash, they can just up and leave and ride the next boom wherever it may be.
We've had the whole rent vs. buy debate already. Can't remember what the consensus was, but for me, it's: you'd be mad to buy in 2006.