D
Are you not aware of any historic information any further back than 2002 , many of my assumptions about the lunacy nowadays aree based on long run data not post 2002 froth.homeowner said:With BOI in 2002 it was 3.5 times your salary plus 1.5 times your partner's salary.
homeowner said:With BOI in 2002 it was 3.5 times your salary plus 1.5 times your partner's salary.
2Pack said:Are you not aware of any historic information any further back than 2002 , many of my assumptions about the lunacy nowadays aree based on long run data not post 2002 froth.
In 1996, 10 years ago, mortgages were
1. Max 90%
2. Based on 2.5x main and 1x second income
3. Repayment not IO
4. 20 year or maybe 25 year repayment terms.
a 35 year old who got a mortgage then will normally be clear by 55 .
In 2006 its
1. max 100%
2. mega x income , 5x-7x main in some cases.
3. IO so you still owe the lot in
4. 35 years, when you are 70
A mortgage of 3.5 x salary or higher is very recent , 2x or 2.5x is the long run historic multiple .homeowner said:Eh whats the point of all this?
Persius said:You are correct in theory, which is one reason I thought I wouldn't be able to afford a house back in 2001 (I still don't have one), even though I could actually afford to meet the mortgage repayments. However talking to some people who did buy, and other anecdotal evidence, the banks regularly offered more on an "individual basis".
Now in theory, a single person can borrow up to 5 times their gross salary (if I remember correctly). As stated in previous posts, and often heard in conversations, the banks regularly offer more than this on an "individual basis". I think the likes of TSB and BoS are much less flexible as their loan quotations are made via call centers. However the mortgage advisors in the likes of BoI and EBS seem to have much more flexibility in deciding how big a mortgage to offer someone. And the brokers seem to also be able to get much more than the 5 times one salary. Did you see "I'm an adult, get me out of here"? If I remember correctly, the host was regularly able to get mortgages well above 5 times earnings to singles without any debt.
whathome said:Further comparison to the US market. They're saying that the US is over-priced and going to crash, what about this comparison?
$640,000 - 915 sq ft in Ballybough, Dublin 3 : [broken link removed]
$640,000 - 960 sq ft in New York's extremely wealthy Upper East Side : http://realestate.nytimes.com/+comshare/vulisting.asp?Lid=253-NS6060810
StoppedClock said:What do people think are the percentage of specuvestors who will be happy with nominally flat prices, (i.e. the soft landing) and therefore hold on to properties for the long term
homeowner said:Also I would like to point out that people under the age of say 26 who bought at their currently salary will most likely see a large increase in their salary as they progress in their careers and double incomes when they move in with someone, so what might seem like a huge multiple of salary now will not be so big in 5-10 years time. In fact those people will be in the best position for clearing their mortgages off much earlier.
Persius said:2) Specuvestors who were in it for the quick buck could be easily convinced to take a "long term view", and not try to sell in a flat market.
howstrange said:Agreed. Sure there was people who made a killing even in the last 2 years!! The IO and 100% mortgages drove prices through the roof. FTB's thought it was 10 Christmas's at once. But I really think things have changed now. Would like to see more examples of an increase in supply before we can say things are turning though.
Persius said:2) Specuvestors who were in it for the quick buck could be easily convinced to take a "long term view", and not try to sell in a flat market.
Dusty said:My point was that in those two years that you have been waiting for the long promised collapse in house prices they have risen significantly and are continuing to do so. Do you really think they will drop back that far to make your wait worth while or would you have been better off buying two years ago?
If you are buying a home (as opposed to an investment) it really doesn't matter as it will iron itself out in the long run (10-20 years) and we'll all look back and reminisce on how cheap houses where in 2006!
Dusty said:If you are buying a home (as opposed to an investment) it really doesn't matter as it will iron itself out in the long run (10-20 years) and we'll all look back and reminisce on how cheap houses where in 2006!
Bedsit said:US mortgage market rebounds on brighter outlook
[broken link removed]
I guess everything is hunky dory again!!
On an unadjusted basis, the Index increased 4.3 percent compared with the previous week but was down 24.9 percent compared with the same week one year earlier
Persius said:One of the reasons why it really "is different" in Ireland (mainly thinking of the cities) is the low density of housing. It has been said previously that the price someone pays for a house is not just the price of the time and materials that went into building the house, but also the price of the site. In a low density city such as Dublin, the price of sites (at least those in centralish locations) will be higher per household than the price of an equivalent site in a higher density city such as New York.
Of course it matters! There is no guarantee of anything in 10-20 years time.Dusty said:If you are buying a home (as opposed to an investment) it really doesn't matter as it will iron itself out in the long run (10-20 years) and we'll all look back and reminisce on how cheap houses where in 2006!
Dusty said:If you are buying a home (as opposed to an investment) it really doesn't matter as it will iron itself out in the long run (10-20 years) and we'll all look back and reminisce on how cheap houses where in 2006!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?