no viewings in nearly 3 months

johnnyg said:
she's asking approx 550K, anything below that and she will be in negative equity
Click to expand...

the sale price achievable for the house (or any house!) has nothing to do with the purchase price.

a couple of years ago people were paying prices for houses based on a combination of faulty assumptions and rampant speculation. those assumptions have now been proven wrong, therefore house prices that were based on speculation and faulty assumptions are no longer obtainable.

throw in rising interest rates, rising unemployment, reduced availability of credit and increased levels of savings required to purchase a house and your sister might be settling in for the long haul if she wants to avoid negative equity.

[broken link removed]
 
MrMan said:
You don't generally get back more for having a high spec as it might not suit all tastes and it tends to just make the house more saleable than similarly priced ones.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Spending tens of thousands might only slightly increase the value but it will help the place sell if there are other houses in the estate at the same price range.

Think I saw on property program (there are so many) that spending 50k on an extension might only add around 10k-15k to the value.

And if the person the OP is describing spent thousands on upgrades like fancy tiles or decking, then a lot of people don't care about that stuff and definitly don't expect to pay extra for it.
It gives an advantage when selling but not much of a price advantage.
 
550k is a completly unrealistic sale price for carrigaline in the current market. as has been mentioned before it has chronic traffic problems, if you were moving to the town with a young family you would have problems getting them into the school as they are overcrowded. to sum up the infrastructure there is terrible. I'm afraid your sister will have to be realistic and drop the price or hold on to the house if she can afford to.
 
As someone on the forums here put it (very well i must say) before....
The house is only worth what someone will pay for it, - not a penny more.
 
Apparently this house is 'value for money' at €550k, just because that's what someone paid for it before and it looks nice or something.

Totally delusional.
 
It is crazy what people think is a reasonable price for a house. I feel that it won't be for another 5 or 6 years before house prices come back to the value they were about 12 months ago. They will lose about 30-40% of their value over the next couple of years so if you want to sell now then lower your price. Don't just ride along with the market value because nobody is buying. 550k is not value for money. 400k, perhaps, is value for money. Look at the trend, its not going to change now and for a few years either:

[broken link removed]
 
Sure why even say 400k is value for money its still nearly half a million why not say 10k is value for money its all relative so throwing in aimless percentages makes no sense to anyone.
 
MrMan said:
Sure why even say 400k is value for money its still nearly half a million why not say 10k is value for money its all relative so throwing in aimless percentages makes no sense to anyone.
Click to expand...

MrMan you are the last property bull standing on AAM. Possibly in the country.

I hope they put up a statue to you in Limerick somewhere

[broken link removed]

Or should that be a monument..
 
well if she is not getting any viewings, then most of the other detached houses must not be getting any either...if everyone is going to offer what they thisnk its worth, you would still have viewings...what this implies to me is that people are not upgrading to detached houses at the moment and this idea that you wait until they drop to 400K etc is unrealistic as in the case of my sister and the majority of house sellers is that they will go into negative equity and why would you sell then to make a loss...so to those people waiting to for them to drop rock bottom, then i would say not a chance, it will be only be the people that need to sell due to unforseen circumstances or people who bought there house 20 years ago that will sell below cost of what they bought them for and this applies to all sectors of housing not just detached houses..the only advantage of having a detached house is that there are few and far between and if you want one it will cost you, its like what BMW say, to get one you, you will have to incur cost to have one.
 
johnnyg said:
so to those people waiting to for them to drop rock bottom, then i would say not a chance
Click to expand...

and to people like your sister vainly hanging out for 2006 bubble prices I say not a chance, the world is moving on now. by the sounds of it she won't be.
 
so are you telling me that if you bought a house for 500K put 50/60K into it to fit it out that you would sell it for 400K...and make a loss of 150/60K not a chance. whats going to happen is that they will stay put thats the reality...
Nobody will sell at a loss unless they can't pay for the repayments, thats the reality here, so people hoping that a house on the market for 550K now will sell for 3/400K in a few months or next year is a non runner, and are fooling themselves
 

johnnyg, do you not agree that sometimes it is better to realise a small loss now than a much larger one later on?

please reopen this thread in a year's time and let's see how prices are faring in Carrigaline. For your sister's sake I hope well but if I was you, I'd be telling her to sell now for whatever she can get.
 
johnnyg said:
so are you telling me that if you bought a house for 500K put 50/60K into it to fit it out that you would sell it for 400K...and make a loss of 150/60K not a chance. whats going to happen is that they will stay put thats the reality...
Click to expand...

Yep, that's why I said your sister is in for the long haul. At least 10 years I reckon.

Nobody will sell at a loss unless they can't pay for the repayments, thats the reality here, so people hoping that a house on the market for 550K now will sell for 3/400K in a few months or next year is a non runner, and are fooling themselves
Click to expand...

Equally people who are trying to sell property for 2006 bubble prices are fooling themselves.

There are a lot of people in Ireland who bought better property than what your sister has during the 60s/70s/80s & 90s for a comparitive pittance. They will sell for the market rate after the current downward adjustment has taken place and still make a handsome profit.

Only those who bought in the last few years are caught in the vice grips of negative equity. But they're probably less than 20% of the total market, and they are victims of bad luck and bad timing. And as you say, if they can keep making the payments (for the next decade imo), they might eventually get back to break even. That's what happens when you buy into a bubble market unfortunately.

The ISEQ is down 60% from last year and everybody has accepted it. I don't see why it should be any different with property owners.
 

i don't know what you call a small loss 150K to me or most people is a huge loss and wouldn't make you go sale agreed
 
cromulent said:
Only those who bought in the last few years are caught in the vice grips of negative equity. But they're probably less than 20% of the total market.
Click to expand...

I don't think so mate, thets a way bigger % than that, i'd say more 60%

...and for the quality of houses in the 60/70/80's well thats dubious to say the least in most cases as there was inferior building practices (and that was among the competant builders following the regs at the time) and quality of materials plus the biggest factor these days is insulation, back then "what was that - oh yeah a bit of white foam thingy here and ther"
 
Last edited:
Is your sister trading up or is she getting out of Irish property altogether?

If she's trading up this is all a bit academic because the more expensive house will have fallen by more in price than her own
 


60% ?? ..... think that's a tad sensationalist to be honest.

We're talking more or less the people who bought in the last 3 years, and that subset that had minimal deposit. A significant group, but hardly 60% in fairness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register