Great to see this kind of information coming out from respected sources and, one expects, with sufficient data to support the findings. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to get aired in the broadcast media and how it will be presented.
This bit confused me though - BUYERS resisting price cuts??
I think that this is the first mainstream media articles that implies that one of NAMAs objectives might be to to prevent downward price corrections by keeping vacant properties off the market.
You’d better believe it. Even more so than sellers, the majority of buyers, particularly the FTB segment, have still not being able to properly deprogramme themselves of bubble propaganda. They think the fall in house prices is an anomaly (of course, one that might be taken advantage of). Ask yourself - if the banks tomorrow let it be known that they would be giving out loans of seven times multiple of salary for mortgages to all and sundry, what would be the response of a significant majority of buyers?
2pack - while the pin may have *assumed *or *felt *or had a gut good feeling that this was the case, dont you think that some , yknow, evidence, is useful to back that up? Or do you think anecdote and rumour, no matter how right post pacto, trump a decent solid attempt to uncover the facts in a rigorous manner?
Unless you are telling us that the reports authors jogged to every house in the country and checked its use, the evidence has been available for a long time (basically since the census).
Method 1: Census + ESB connections + household formation rate - obsolescence
Method 2: Census + CSO completions figures + CSO vacancy rate of new houses - obsolescence
Both these methods come up with roughly the same figure excluding holiday homes of 290-320k
Now, do tell what fabulous piece of new evidence has the study uncovered?
A bunch of pointy headed, sandal wearing, guardian reading, tree hugging pinkos get off their asses and do their jobs 2 years after the facts have been established by a bunch of amateurs and 3 years after the figures have been published by the CSO and ESB.
This is akin to the old consultancy joke, give him your watch and he’ll tell you what the time is…
There’s good quality work and there’s bad quality work, there’s no blanket get out clause that determines quality, an academic label certainly doesn’t confer it round dese parts and as YM stated between ESB / CSO statistics, there were plenty of hard numbers out there…
In fairness to the academics they have a grueling five hour a week teaching load. In addition they have to publish significantly to get tenure. Mind you their teaching is also formally assessed and they can get sacked for incompetence. (Only the first sentence is true.)
