idiots - there is your evidence right there.
the fact that there is less demand suggests that prices are still too high!
Too high becuase they don’t take account of the CURRENT fundamentals.
Whatever happened to the dead cat???
The idea that there are residential investors even considering whether the current situation is the bottom or not is laughable.
At best, Mr. Buckley should refer to “former residential investors turned rubbernecking spectators”.
I’m also beginning to wonder if we don’t need to factor in the likelihood of direct property taxation accruing directly to local authorities. There is already a gesture of taxation on second homes. But local authorities seem to be coming under budgetary pressure as their development contributions dry up. And public finances in general will be under huge pressure so how likely is it that LA’s will lobby for and the government would favour a source of income that LA’s can sequester for themselves…?
Fair point here by Irelandis…, because in recent years when prices were increasing, papers stopped reporting that prices were increasing, telling us instead that the rate of prices increasing was itself increasing (i.e. price growth is ACCELERATING, house prices are going up faster now than they were last year!), so you’ve got to wonder why “valuers” have now removed the time element from their price guesstimates.
But since they don’t know (and they are EXPERTS, don’t forget), how about some Pin suggestions about how to get the rate of price decrease back into the valuations? How about, unsold properties drop in value by one euro per day per thousand euros?
Last House price assessment based on sale of similar property = 100,000 euros
Time since most recent sale of similar property = 40 weeks = 280 days
Amount of price drop = 280 x 1 x 100 = 28,000 euros
Revised maximum value = 72,000 euros
The earnest, direct tone of this straightforward explanation is kinda funny - he is simply describing in 2 simple sentences what happens in “a property crash”, and I don’t think he even realises it.
Another snip from later in the piece:
Until people realise how utterly, utterly ludicrous this is, we’ll not reach the bottom. Dublin - a peripheral, unimportant, smallish city - being more expensive than one of the great cities of the world which is also the world’s financial and cultural centre, and more expensive than the city at the centre of the EU is just too ludicrous for words. Dublin should probably be close to half as expensive as London and Brussels.
In fairness and if I’m honest, I am somewhat surprised yields on commercial offices are close on 6%. I thought it would be lower. I am certain that figure would be lower for residential investment properties though.
They will be lower. All leases are being renegotiated by anyone looking to remain viable in the New Year, I’d imagine plus there is still a trickle effect of recently completed unneeded commercial property and new vacancies coming onto the market.
The only way is down.
I believe yields are calculated against the present value of the property. If correctly marked to market yields have bizarrely increased in recent months (as asset values plummet).
I know this is of no comfort to the asset owner as the asset value and rental income are both down but have noticed commercial property puffers using this increasing yield stat of late.
It’s true that yields are based on current market capital values. But these yields are calculated on the passing rent , ( i.e. an antecedent rent agreed at the commencement of a lease or at review) rather than current rental values, which are now lower than rents of two or even three years ago. If you calculated the yield based on current capital and rental values; I think you’d find that yields remain depressed.
So investors won’t touch a market with no real transparency and where nobody knows what the hell real asset values are?
Captain Obvious strikes again!