NAMA - distortion. It’s everywhere.
i would say the figures are correct.
Nope. Rents were static for the same time last year.
Well I can tell you from personal experience
that they (either “accommodation sharing” or 2-bed apartments on Daft) have fallen in the September/October period in the areas of Rathgar, Rathmines, Ranelagh, Harolds Cross, Donnybrook, Miltown and Sandymount.
I didn’t look at other areas either last year or this year, so I’ve no idea about other places.
Definitely its feels like there are more people in education this year,
especially Government funded post-graduates courses,
so that might manipulate the market.
Also we know from before that when interest rates increased, landlords increased rents to cover the rate increases. Though as soon as people’s contracts ran out, they moved so the short-term increase was just that, short-term.
In my recent experience rents have increased a lot more than 3.7%
The latest Daft report is due shortly;)
do the CSO statistics show the number of houses rented YOY.
I think it’s like doing a salary survey of all those who have still got jobs, the likelyhood is many of those still in jobs would have got near inflation salary increases but the number in work has decreased.
I’ve said it before, D15 is the commuter belt and people don’t want to live in the commuter belt.
If you were able to get county by county, district by district figures for rental you’d see that in some places you can’t rent property and if you are lucky enough to rent it then the price is depressed.
That was probably reflected in the increases in August and September
Here’s a chart of CSO data showing the relationship of increases/decreases in Mortgage Interest to the movements in private rents since 2003. Also shown is the CPI over that period, and the rise and fall in house prices. The index is Jan’03=100.
Now that the interest rate cycle has turned it’ll be interesting to see if that gets reflected in rents.
I wonder will this reflect the apartment vs. house divergence that’s been discussed with regard to sales data. I keep on eye on rental apartment availability in Rathfarnham daily, for example (prime SCD), and while it hasn’t been precipitous, there’s been only one direction - down. My complex’s 2-beds broke the psychological 3-figure asking rent barrier this month. So it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see that, if there actually has been an average rise in rental asking prices, it was concentrated in the likes of 3+ - bed semis (family homes for those unwilling to buy.)
+1. And as one sector of the market drops it will suck demand from other sectors, whether that’s from good location to bad, from urban to rural, or from houses to apartments. People will only live where they can afford to live.
CSO figure is a national average, it could be higher in Dublin.
explain this one to me? i don’t see the logic. If yields improve is it not more attractive to buy?
Less money to save for a deposit perhaps, but it won’t affect their potential monthly spend.
Or Landlord’s experience of a 20% increase in rents might be anecdotal and not supported by evidence from the wider market? I have lots of anecdotal evidence that rents have not increased by 20% in Dublin. There is an argument that rents probably should increase by 18% to cover the increase in Mortgage Interest (ytd), but I suppose it’s swings and roundabouts. Given that there has also been an increase in heating, electricity and fuel costs of a similar amount, private sector wages are still tightening, unemployment is growing, people are emigrating and Rent Allowance is in the crosshairs, it’s difficult to see how tenants can afford to choose more expensive accomodation.
No doubt about it that it’s a healthy sign for the market if rents are increasing in line with inflation, and it’ll be interesting to see where the rental market is in a year’s time.
Increasing yields are going to draw investors into the demand side
You seem to be suggesting that the effect of renters not being able to buy will have a greater effect on prices than investors being attracted in i.e. the net effect is to suppress prices.
If increasing yields look attractive to investors they might be tempted in, thus pushing yields back down (prices up).
Furthermore, if it looks like rents have bottomed out and/or there is reduced risk of further falls, investors may reduce the yield they require.
Fixed that for you. Let’s not forget that NAMA has removed vast amounts of property from the market and as soon as there is a sign of investor demand those properties will be sold into the market, increasing supply. It’s also likely that NAMA will be forced to sell properties into the market regardless of whether there is demand or not, and as the Allsop Auctions have shown, investors will seek a yield of 8%-9% before they enter this market.
So, what’s more likely? In order to make an 8%-9% yield will rents double or will prices halve? It might be a mix of the two, but I suspect most of the pain will be on the asset price.
Now I suspect there will be clusters within that 10,000 so NAMA could be holding “vast” amounts in a particular area / estate, but, given that the 2006 census (2011 figures not available yet, I think) showed 301,300 rented units in the state, the NAMA holding is a tiny fraction of the overall figure.