"Let's demolish the four great myths of housing"- Conor Skehan

[Leo]

Bit players control >90% of the rental stock though.

100% outside urban areas!

In 2018, landlords with single properties represented 69% of landlords alright. At that point, just under 3% of landlords owned 10 or more properties, with a third of them having more than 100 properties on their books. I'd be interested is seeing how that has evolved since then with more commercial investment.

Rates of home ownership both rural and urban have been trending downwards for the past 30 years. If the numbers living in rented homes continues to increase, and 5% of landlords are exiting the market every year, surely it follows that more and more are being run by landlords who are in it commercially rather than by accident. Sure, there's a way to go yet, but the rental market isn't really the horror show that some vested interests make it out to be.

 

[Thirsty]

rental market isn't really the horror show

Do you own your home? Or are you renting long term?

 

[Leo]

Do you own your home? Or are you renting long term?

How do you think my experience is representative of the entire population?

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

In 2018, landlords with single properties represented 69% of landlords alright. At that point, just under 3% of landlords owned 10 or more properties, with a third of them having more than 100 properties on their books. I'd be interested is seeing how that has evolved since then with more commercial investment.

I was too conservative. RTB says that "Larger landlords associated with 10 or more tenancies, manage roughly 20% of all private tenancy stock registered with the RTB." So it's more like 80% of properties controlled by bit players.

If the numbers living in rented homes continues to increase, and 5% of landlords are exiting the market every year, surely it follows that more and more are being run by landlords who are in it commercially rather than by accident.

I am all for professionalisation. My best landlord ever was an Irish developer who held on to a whole apartment complex built in the 90s.

I just don't think that professionals are replacing small-time landlords fast enough though. At the moment you have a perfect storm of tax and regulation forcing the small guy out, and a government that doesn't want the funds buying up new developments.

So for the time being your average renter is stuck with an amateur landlord who has a pretty high probability of leaving at any stage.

How do you think my experience is representative of the entire population?

I literally know one person over 40 who is renting on principle. He could afford to buy property but prefers financial assets. He's moved jobs and countries several times and is not married and has no kids.

I don't think there are many people like him though at his age.

 

[joe sod]

I heard John Fitzgerald formerly of esri but all the time on media discussing retrofitting of houses to make them "green" compliant for energy and everything. It would cost a lot of money and require a lot of skilled labour. When pat Kenny pointed out that this scheme as well as costing a lot of money would suck scarce construction workers away from actually constructing houses. He admitted this would be an issue and didn't really have any solution. At the same time the government has kept the pup in place until end of summer so there is no compulsion for young people to get into construction indeed many construction workers are still on it.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan is the state not the problem in most cases with all these contradictory schemes and incentives sucking workers away from doing what they should be doing

 

[Thirsty]

@Leo How do you think my experience is representative of the entire population?

Why do you answer a question with a question?

I find it interesting that those who expound the view that long term renting is perfectly fine; are not, from what I can see, renting long-term themselves.

 

[Thirsty]

So it's more like 80% of properties controlled by bit players

I don't think it's fair to categorise small landlords in this way; without them there would be even less rental properties on the market.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

I don't think it's fair to categorise small landlords in this way;

Not my use of the term!

I'd like to see more bigger players in the rental market. I think they are better for tenants.

I think small landlords are leaving faster than bigger landlords can replace them though and I don't think that's a good thing.

 

[Leo]

Why do you answer a question with a question?

I find it interesting that those who expound the view that long term renting is perfectly fine; are not, from what I can see, renting long-term themselves.

Because your question has no relevance. The above just confirms your views are based on assumptions!

 

[Thirsty]

views are based on assumptions

I've proposed that everyone posting here says clearly if they are a homeowner or if they are renting long term.

And it is very relevant, putting your money where your mouth is so to speak.

So far as I can see (but this is a very long thread & I may have missed some); only @Purple and myself have said what our housing status is - would you like to add yours @Leo?

Thirsty (home owner!)

 

[deanpark]

I've proposed that everyone posting here says clearly if they are a homeowner or if they are renting long term.

And it is very relevant, putting your money where your mouth is so to speak.

So far as I can see (but this is a very long thread & I may have missed some); only @Purple and myself have said what our housing status is - would you like to add yours @Leo?

Thirsty (home owner!)

What a great idea Thirsty! I also nailed my colours to the home owning mast. I encourage transparency as there's smoke and mirrors with the pro-renting argument on the thread.

 

[Delboy]

I'd like to see more bigger players in the rental market. I think they are better for tenants.

The evidence in the market, especially Dublin, would say you are wrong. The big players have set new levels for higher rents and are deliberately keeping properties vacant to underpin those higher rents

 

[odyssey06]

The evidence in the market, especially Dublin, would say you are wrong. The big players have set new levels for higher rents and are deliberately keeping properties vacant to underpin those higher rents

I wonder is that a distortion caused by government rent limits.
If they reduce the rental price they may not be able to increase it again easily and this affects the asset value of the property.

 

[Purple]

The evidence in the market, especially Dublin, would say you are wrong. The big players have set new levels for higher rents and are deliberately keeping properties vacant to underpin those higher rents

Higher rents are a reflection of supply and demand and vacant units are a reflection of bad regulation of the market. None of that is the fault of large scale landlords.

 

[Coconut Water]

The First-Time Buyer’ is a myth that needs to be put into perspective as the ultimate tiny tail that is wagging a very big dog. There are about two million houses and apartments in Ireland. Out of about 24,000 annual house purchases, only around 6,000 are first-time buyers.

This means that national policy is driven by the needs of one third of one percent of all homeowners, and one quarter of annual sales.

That's completely backwards. The smaller the share of houses that go to FTB the more of an issue it is. If no FTB could afford to buy a house would he consider the crisis over?

 

[jpd]

We need to make the pie bigger, not argue over who gets a bigger slice of the same size pie

Moving dwellings from rented dwellings to owner-occupied dwellings, or vice versa, does absolutely nothing to fix the housing crisis - we need to put in place policies that ensure more dwellings are built - full stop.

If this means higher densities in locations where people want to live, then so be it and we should ensure that the planning system makes available the roads, schools, shops, parks, etc that are necessary

 

[Purple]

We need to make the pie bigger, not argue over who gets a bigger slice of the same size pie

Moving dwellings from rented dwellings to owner-occupied dwellings, or vice versa, does absolutely nothing to fix the housing crisis - we need to put in place policies that ensure more dwellings are built - full stop.

If this means higher densities in locations where people want to live, then so be it and we should ensure that the planning system makes available the roads, schools, shops, parks, etc that are necessary

I agree that we need higher density housing but I think that the flaws and dysfunction within the process, from land purchase to housing completion, are a bigger issue. There is nothing driving efficiency within the system, any part of the system, as it's a sellers market.

Factors which contribute to housing shortages and affordability include;
Land hoarding and the inability of the government to tax and/or regulate it.
The small number of entities which own the bulk of the development land as an understandable result of NAMA taking over vast amounts of debt from vast amounts of developers and selling it off in large chunks.
The time to takes to get planning permission, and the associated cost of finance.
Grossly inefficient construction methods. . For an industry that makes up 13% of global GDP is it remarkable that it is so grossly inefficient and sees such low returns.
Costs imposed by the State.
Provision of infrastructure services by the State.
The high rates of interest within the mortgage market, driven by banking capital requirements, the fact that mortgages in this country are effectively unsecured debt
A general lack of competition within a fragmented construction market which has low levels of capital intensity, high labour costs and low barriers to entry at the lower end.

 

[Leo]

I was too conservative. RTB says that "Larger landlords associated with 10 or more tenancies, manage roughly 20% of all private tenancy stock registered with the RTB." So it's more like 80% of properties controlled by bit players.

But not all bit-players are bad. What incentive is there for landlords with 10 or fewer properties to keep flipping tenancies on a regular basis, particularly in RPZ areas which account for the majority of tenancies?

I'm not suggesting there isn't an issue here, but the narrative that there is a high level of volatility experienced by the majority isn't borne our by the evidence. 17,000 landlords have left the business in the last three years while the number of households in rental accommodation continues to steadily increase. At that rate we'll have bit players in the game for quite some time yet, but there are already over 1,000 landlords who own more than 100 properties.

The RTB reports don't support the narrative of tenants suffering from insecurity in their tenure. Only 5% of tenants in RPZ zones reported a somewhat or very negative relationship with their landlord, and only 6% reported they felt very insecure, those with a poor understanding of their rights were far more likely to feel insecure.

I just don't think that professionals are replacing small-time landlords fast enough though. At the moment you have a perfect storm of tax and regulation forcing the small guy out, and a government that doesn't want the funds buying up new developments.

So for the time being your average renter is stuck with an amateur landlord who has a pretty high probability of leaving at any stage.

I'd agree with the rate being slower than what might be ideal. but recent legislation is certainly moving the needle. I believe the recent government move to block the mass purchase of developments is purely window dressing to appease the rabble. Otherwise why add restrictions so that it would only apply to developments after they had been advertised for sale while also talking about referring it to to the AG on fears such measures might be unconstitutional?

 

[Leo]

So far as I can see (but this is a very long thread & I may have missed some); only @Purple and myself have said what our housing status is - would you like to add yours @Leo?

I've spent many years renting and as an owner. My views are coloured by my experiences in both, but I understand I'm just one person, so my experiences are not representative of a national issue.

 

[Thirsty]

Indeed; I have paid rent myself in the past; many (most?) adults would have done so I would think.

But I think from your post that you are now a home owner, and I'm sure you had many good reasons, as did I, for making the change.

And that essentially is my point.