We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS been criticised for reportedly delivering only 20 council houses in the first half of this year – all of which were completed in the first three months of 2015.
The Anti-Austerity Alliance, citing the Department of Environment’s own latest figures, said that 20 local authority houses had been built in the first quarter of 2015.
A grand total of zero had been delivered in quarter two according to the Department’s figures:
Last November, the government committed to supplying 35,000 additional social housing units – at a cost of €3.8 billion – over the next six years.
With just 20 delivered by the mid-point of this year, it’s unsurprising that AAA TD Ruth Coppinger lashed the government for the lack of progress as the housing crisis dominates the political agenda.
“How in the midst of the worst housing crisis in living memory can the government think that the building of council homes shouldn’t feature?” Coppinger said yesterday.
How can Alan Kelly brag about the biggest ever investment in housing without one solitary council house completed in three months? These figures are shocking and shameful.
However, the Department of Environment hit back, insisting the figure of 20 – which is their own - was “grossly out of date”.
A spokesperson for the Department told RTÉ that, in fact, between Christmas 2013 and Christmas this year local authorities are on course to put 4,800 void (empty) homes to use.
They added that 3,500 social houses are currently under construction and that by 2017 5,000 units per year will have been completed.
Coppinger hit back today, pointing out that the government’s claim of the figures being “grossly out of date” didn’t stack up when they were published by the Department of Environment on 22 October – just three weeks ago.
Coppinger said:
If these figures are ‘grossly out of date’ as the government are trying to claim, my question is has the government built thousands of new council homes in the last three weeks?
The Dublin West TD said a situation had emerged whereby the government is now contradicting its own figures because the opposition had highlighted them. She said
The government should clarify the situation with the latest up-to-date figures since 22 October if they are so grossly out of date and loads of new homes have been built.
So this afternoon, TheJournal.ie submitted four fairly simple questions to the Department of Environment:
The Department did not directly answer our questions in its response, nor did it dispute the eye-catching figure of only 20 council houses so far this year.
They told us that in deciding on targets, the social housing strategy determined that the new-build programme would be “slow in the initial phases of the strategy as the planning and design and tendering processes had to be progressed first”.
However the Department insisted that it was confident that 7,000 units will be delivered this year through build acquisitions and the Rental Accommodation Scheme (which is for those on rent supplement for a long period) and leasing, and 8,400 under the Housing Assistance Payment scheme, which will be replacing rent supplement.
The Department also repeated that there are currently 3,500 social houses under construction nationwide.
By 2017 the government expects to be building some 5,000 new houses per annum, the Department said. It added:
We have already finalised in excess of a 1,000 voids this year and by the end of the year this will climb to 2,400 approximately.
It added that historically the final quarter of the year “sees an accelerated level of delivery as LAs [local authorities] finish out projects, finalise purchases/leases etc in order to draw down the funding before the end of the year”.
In conclusion, it is correct to say that only 20 council houses were built in the first half of 2015. But the Department appears confident that it will have delivered significantly more than that by the end of the year and many more in the years ahead.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“This is why Snapchat fully deserves a €16 billion valuation” And yet the article doesn’t explain why Snapchat deserves a €16 billion valuation. Sure, I understand its potential revenue raising abilities. I understand its appeal to advertisers. I understand that it hosts a lot of personal information which would be invaluable to potential investors and advertisers. But why, exactly, is it €16 billion? Why not €15 billion? Or €1000 trillion? How did they arrive at a figure of €16 billion?
I think the headline means, “Snapchat has recently been valued at $16bn. Here’s why it’s so popular/unique”.
Yeah, but we know why it’s so popular and unique. We see articles about it every second day. If, at this stage, you don’t know about Snapchat’s popularity and uniqueness then the likelihood is you just don’t care, in which case you wouldn’t be reading this anyway. We have still to see how exactly the 16 billion figure was calculated, which I what the headline alludes to.
What I was saying above is that Snapchat has three major features that could be massive money spinners for them, and how it’s effectively become a multimedia platform as well, they’re the most quantifiable ones unless you’re privy to their future plans then fire away.
As for how a company is valued, that takes into a number of factors into consideration which would include money raised (so far, it’s raised $648m in 6 different funding rounds), current popularity, the potential for growth in both revenue and users, (which links to the last one but anyway), the value of the industry (instant messaging would be the obvious one, but it’s now become a media entity and has video on its side so that’s two, three if you include Snapchat Stories and its potential for widespread event), assets (both digital and physical), is it public or private, and so on.
Determining the exact reasons why it settled on $19/€16 billion to the point of a formula isn’t possible since you don’t know what factors they’re prioritising ahead of others. Also, when you’re dealing with a private company as unlike Facebook, Apple, Twitter or any other public company, they’ve no obligation to share details about their plans or forecasts to anyone.
In Snapchat’s case, it’s potential in three areas as I mentioned above: events, multimedia (it trying to become a Netflix-style entity for articles, music and TV), and payments/ecommerce as they’re the ones that have a massive influence on this valuation. Also the core psychological element of Snapchat of limitation (which is oddly overlooked and was the main reason I wrote this in the first place) is such a massive factor and that seeps into all of its features. If Snapchat was just about self-destructing photos/videos on its own, then it would have been overshadowed by Facebook Poke back in 2012 or accepted Facebook’s $3 offer back in 2013.
The discussions I’ve seen on the subject (on Twitter and other sites) only mention Discover as if that was the sole reasons behind such a high valuation. The main point above is that it’s rarely one factor that leads to that, (especially when it’s well-known), and it’s weird how other features are forgotten about just because they’re not as new or shiny as the latest thing (or the tired ‘sexting’ angle that’s peddled out regularly).
Give it 3 yrs and youll see all such companies worth a fraction of todays value, times they are a changin
I get all that. The fact still remains that the headline suggests that the accompanying article will explain exactly how the figure of 16 billion was reached. I was curious to know how they got that figure. And yet, I’m still none the wiser. Should it have a large valuation? Obviously the answer is yes, and you have explained that both in the article and your comment. But we’re still no closer to understanding the 16 billion valuation. Sorry, but I’m a stickler for this kind of thing. If you know how, then say it and let the headline reflect it. If you don’t, then don’t mislead the reader into thinking you do, only to leave the reader empty handed.
If everyone on snap chat had a super sweet party = 16 x the amount of willie photos ever sent = 16billion
On Sesame Street their number of the day is 16 x 1billion. Tomorrow it will be $43 Billion
I’d say the long term bet is when an analyst bets a pension fund on this.
I’d be nervous.
Nothing on this Earth deserves to be valued at €16 billion
So what’s your idea of a max cap value so Andy?
You haven’t seen my willy.
If I owned it I would sell now
Fapchat
It deserves about a 16 CENT valuation. It’s ridiculous, and hopefully a fad that will die quickly. If the world is lucky, some evil company will pay 16B, then go out of business when people realise how stupid Snapchat is.
Never seen such anger directed at a mobile phone application before! Got dumped via Snapchat did you? :-)
have your say