Real Estate

Vancouver housing bubble?

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 26th, 2024 5:10 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Mar 10, 2010
1888 posts
656 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: The actual sales process will largely be guided by the desires of the insurer of most of the loans, CMHC. The CMHC has, in the past, shown a willingness to sit on properties for a significant period of time, rather than blowing properties out quickly through auction.

Since the CMHC faces a massive volume of insurance claims in the future, and since an avalanche of defaults into the marketplace would create a crisis of confidence in the marketplace, I would expect the CMHC to do everything possible to impede the price discovery process.

Fortunately for bank shareholders, the foreclosed houses do not sit on bank balance sheets, and will not become ongoing liabilities of the Canadian banks in terms of maintenance, property taxes, etc.

However, it is unclear whether or not a federal government entity (the CMHC) is required to pay municipal property taxes if they end up holding substantial portfolios. Currently federal government-owned buildings are exempt from municipal taxes and municipal bylaws. Could be some very interesting legal questions that need to be answered in this regards if the CMHC ends up holding large portfolios of foreclosures.
Well it's probably 50 or 60 pages back by now, but I'm still trying to figure out why there's going to be a 50 - 60% crash in real estate. No one has been able to point it out to me...doesn't a real estate crash need at least a few of these three things, if not all 3.

1) Over valued Real Estate that is out of whack with the norm...Real Estate is probably 10 - 15% overvalued with respects to income, interest rates, employment levels in most cities (Vancouver obviously more overvalued)

2) Huge unemployment - People losing their jobs at high rates will obviously have an effect on housing prices.

3) Interest Rates - Dramatically higher interest rates = Rapidly declining prices.

Now I'm under the impression that unemployment is heading down and interest rates are still at record lows...so other than being slightly overvalued as a whole (a few markets not withstanding), how are we going to see this 50 - 60% decline in pricing? What will force the homeowner (not investor who's maxed out) to sell when he a) has a job still and b) is renewing his/her mortgage at record low rates. I'm confused...I know it doesn't help the majority of people in this thread who've been hoping for years on end for a crash, but at some point logic has to come into play.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
Vitalogy80 wrote: Well it's probably 50 or 60 pages back by now, but I'm still trying to figure out why there's going to be a 50 - 60% crash in real estate. No one has been able to point it out to me...doesn't a real estate crash need at least a few of these three things, if not all 3.
Well this thread doesn't get too technical, but basically, as I argued extensively in another thread, the reason why Canadian RE will crash is that the CMHC has, through emmission of loan guarantees, overstimulated its supply relative to the ability of the economy to support such. To counter-balance a period of overstimulation, a period of understimulation will be required.
1) Over valued Real Estate that is out of whack with the norm...Real Estate is probably 10 - 15% overvalued with respects to income, interest rates, employment levels in most cities (Vancouver obviously more overvalued)
Many would argue that a 2-3X ratio of real estate to average incomes is all that is historically sustainable, meaning that RE is 200% overvalued in many parts of Canada with Vancouver being obviously even more insane.
2) Huge unemployment - People losing their jobs at high rates will obviously have an effect on housing prices.
Unemployment is already fairly high, especially amongst the group demographically most likely to purchase housing, the 25-35-year-old crowd. And not looking to get any better as the 55+-year-old population, largely without adequate retirement savings, are staying in the workforce much longer than planned.

A US economist did a study and found that nearly 100% of the job growth since the 2009 bottom of the employment market went to 55-year-olds and older. I don't have similar data concerning Canada, but I believe the situation in Canada to be similar.

3) Interest Rates - Dramatically higher interest rates = Rapidly declining prices.
The CMHC has artifically subsidized interest rates to be significantly lower for much of the market than would ordinarily be the case. This subsidy cannot perpetually expand as the CMHC limit has been hit. Hence, as the subsidy is unwound, interest rates as applicable to actual retail borrowers are likely to expand quite significantly. Quite beneficial to the banks, but terrible for existing and new borrowers.
Now I'm under the impression that unemployment is heading down
Wrong impression, especially with a large chunk of Canada's population engaged in the business of supply to the housing sector and related consumer consumption. Nevermind the collapse in certain regional industries such as the oil and gas industry's expansion in Alberta.
and interest rates are still at record lows...
Only on short-term loans, not the entire amortizations. And record lows means that there's more room to move upwards than downwards.

so other than being slightly overvalued as a whole (a few markets not withstanding), how are we going to see this 50 - 60% decline in pricing? What will force the homeowner (not investor who's maxed out) to sell when he a) has a job still and b) is renewing his/her mortgage at record low rates.
a) a rotation towards different types of employment and/or a reduction in employment income, and b) mortgages don't really have much room to go down, especially with the CMHC no longer backstopping the market. Additionally, c) another outlet for speculation is likely to form in the economy, hence diverting capital away from housing speculation.
I'm confused...I know it doesn't help the majority of people in this thread who've been hoping for years on end for a crash, but at some point logic has to come into play.
There's a lot of logic to a crash, but little 'logic' towards prices remaining at this elevated plateau. Enjoy (or hate) the ride down!
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Jul 16, 2003
10397 posts
1468 upvotes
Toronto
gizmo8 wrote: Where is the %20 pullback in GTA prices?......
You need to keep pressing F5.... it will be here, anytime between now and the next 500 years. Im sure the exact date in in one of the 79856 threads about the crash that is just around the corner.

F5....F5....F5....
Andre Oliveira - Mortgage Agent
Mortgage Intelligence - FSCO# 10428
Banned
User avatar
Jul 16, 2003
10397 posts
1468 upvotes
Toronto
Is it remotely possible that you are in denial too? Maybe your personal interest in a massive real estate crash is clouding your judgement?
Andre Oliveira - Mortgage Agent
Mortgage Intelligence - FSCO# 10428
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
19892 posts
4111 upvotes
9347934 downvotes
Soft landings are like Sasquatches. People talk about them, people believe in them, but nobody's actually seen one.
Banned
User avatar
Mar 31, 2010
1948 posts
441 upvotes
laptop-tech wrote: Is it remotely possible that you are in denial too? Maybe your personal interest in a massive real estate crash is clouding your judgement?
He he, what consolation you have.
You are starving and you are worried about others.
Deal Addict
Mar 10, 2010
1888 posts
656 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: Well this thread doesn't get too technical, but basically, as I argued extensively in another thread, the reason why Canadian RE will crash is that the CMHC has, through emmission of loan guarantees, overstimulated its supply relative to the ability of the economy to support such. To counter-balance a period of overstimulation, a period of understimulation will be required.



Many would argue that a 2-3X ratio of real estate to average incomes is all that is historically sustainable, meaning that RE is 200% overvalued in many parts of Canada with Vancouver being obviously even more insane.



Unemployment is already fairly high, especially amongst the group demographically most likely to purchase housing, the 25-35-year-old crowd. And not looking to get any better as the 55+-year-old population, largely without adequate retirement savings, are staying in the workforce much longer than planned.

A US economist did a study and found that nearly 100% of the job growth since the 2009 bottom of the employment market went to 55-year-olds and older. I don't have similar data concerning Canada, but I believe the situation in Canada to be similar.




The CMHC has artifically subsidized interest rates to be significantly lower for much of the market than would ordinarily be the case. This subsidy cannot perpetually expand as the CMHC limit has been hit. Hence, as the subsidy is unwound, interest rates as applicable to actual retail borrowers are likely to expand quite significantly. Quite beneficial to the banks, but terrible for existing and new borrowers.



Wrong impression, especially with a large chunk of Canada's population engaged in the business of supply to the housing sector and related consumer consumption. Nevermind the collapse in certain regional industries such as the oil and gas industry's expansion in Alberta.



Only on short-term loans, not the entire amortizations. And record lows means that there's more room to move upwards than downwards.




a) a rotation towards different types of employment and/or a reduction in employment income, and b) mortgages don't really have much room to go down, especially with the CMHC no longer backstopping the market. Additionally, c) another outlet for speculation is likely to form in the economy, hence diverting capital away from housing speculation.



There's a lot of logic to a crash, but little 'logic' towards prices remaining at this elevated plateau. Enjoy (or hate) the ride down!
Why would we use 2X - 3X income as a base to judge whether housing over valued or not? Shouldn't we be judging it based on affordability? For example...what's a better time to buy a house with a mortgage of 75% of the cost of the house? When you're making $50,000/year, interest rates are 20% and the house is worth $150,000 or when you're making $50,000/year and the house is worth $200,000 but you can get an interest rate of 3%? You'd have a lot of extra money obviously with a mortgage that's at $200,000...even though the house costs 33% more.

I can renew my mortgage on a 5 year rate today at 2.99%, so I can lock in at this rate today...are you considering a 5 year loan short term?

As for unemployment rate, I guess I'm just using the official government of canada unemployment rates, but perhaps you have stats that show unemployment is going up since I'm under the wrong impression.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
Vitalogy80 wrote: Why would we use 2X - 3X income as a base to judge whether housing over valued or not?
The 2-3X ratio is derived from the historical median ratio. You can view it as an empirical ratio, or you can simply look at it in terms of the number of man-years required to build a house and the amount of labour that typically a man should have to re-pay in order to own a house, on average.

My father and a friend built the house he now lives in, and it took them about a year as part-time amateurs. Figure that construction labour is 30-40% of the inputs to the house, the other 60-70% being purchased construction supplies, land, etc. So about 3 man-years for a new house. A used house obviously will have been depreciated over brand-new construction, so basically you get something between 2 and 3 man years.

Also, figure that the banks don't generally let you use more than 33% of your income to pay a mortgage (historically), and they give you 25 years to pay your mortgage -- so if you work through the math, at historic interest rates, the most mortgage that is within that 33% ratio is around 3X income.

Shouldn't we be judging it based on affordability? For example...what's a better time to buy a house with a mortgage of 75% of the cost of the house? When you're making $50,000/year, interest rates are 20% and the house is worth $150,000 or when you're making $50,000/year and the house is worth $200,000 but you can get an interest rate of 3%? You'd have a lot of extra money obviously with a mortgage that's at $200,000...even though the house costs 33% more.
At 20% interest rates, the $200k house (@3%) would be worth closer to $30,000 or so because there's only so much income actually available to make the payment with, ie: $6k/year. Obviously you'd want the 20% interest rate and the $30k house because pre-payments against principal have a dramatic effect on paying off the loan quickly. While putting an extra $1000-$2000 a year against a $200k house at 3% amounts to practically nothing.


I can renew my mortgage on a 5 year rate today at 2.99%, so I can lock in at this rate today...are you considering a 5 year loan short term?
Yes, 5 years is short term loan considering that most people pay their mortgages over a span of 20-25 years, sometimes even longer. Long-term would be like a loan greater than 10 years.
As for unemployment rate, I guess I'm just using the official government of canada unemployment rates, but perhaps you have stats that show unemployment is going up since I'm under the wrong impression.
Employment quality in non-government, non-RE, non-consumer-consumption industries has been very weak over the past decade, and the official unemployment numbers have been skewed by a significantly declining employment participation rate. Also, in the case of new graduates, there's a real issue of employment quality. A mechanical engineer who delivers pizzas, for instance, is considered to be 'employed' as a pizza driver, not an unemployed mechanical engineer.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
19892 posts
4111 upvotes
9347934 downvotes
Vitalogy80 wrote: Why would we use 2X - 3X income as a base to judge whether housing over valued or not? Shouldn't we be judging it based on affordability? For example...what's a better time to buy a house with a mortgage of 75% of the cost of the house? When you're making $50,000/year, interest rates are 20% and the house is worth $150,000 or when you're making $50,000/year and the house is worth $200,000 but you can get an interest rate of 3%? You'd have a lot of extra money obviously with a mortgage that's at $200,000...even though the house costs 33% more.

I can renew my mortgage on a 5 year rate today at 2.99%, so I can lock in at this rate today...are you considering a 5 year loan short term?

As for unemployment rate, I guess I'm just using the official government of canada unemployment rates, but perhaps you have stats that show unemployment is going up since I'm under the wrong impression.
Because housing supply growth isn't based on affordability....

If interest rates are historically low, house prices will go up, because people do look at affordability. But the higher house prices (and lower construction costs due to the same low interest rates) make housing more profitable, resulting in oversupply of housing. As an example, there have been roughly 50% more housing starts than household growth in Toronto over the last 5 years. And given lead times on all housing forms, that oversupply will continue for some time after house prices have fallen under development cost.

In Vancouver, a house costs 3x the average income to build but sells for 9x average income. Development is currently highly profitable, which will unquestionably cause oversupply.

Over the long term, the true cost of a house will be passed onto consumers - and that cost is 2-3x average annual salary.

And before someone mentions land costs, bear in mind that the existence of condos, townhouses, and even rowhouses create an upper limit on the value of land. As land values rise, more people opt for housing where land is a smaller portion of the total cost. Condos are essentially landless, and the price should change very little with land value changes - especially the ones outside of the downtown core.
Deal Addict
Mar 10, 2010
1888 posts
656 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: The 2-3X ratio is derived from the historical median ratio. You can view it as an empirical ratio, or you can simply look at it in terms of the number of man-years required to build a house and the amount of labour that typically a man should have to re-pay in order to own a house, on average.

My father and a friend built the house he now lives in, and it took them about a year as part-time amateurs. Figure that construction labour is 30-40% of the inputs to the house, the other 60-70% being purchased construction supplies, land, etc. So about 3 man-years for a new house. A used house obviously will have been depreciated over brand-new construction, so basically you get something between 2 and 3 man years.

Also, figure that the banks don't generally let you use more than 33% of your income to pay a mortgage (historically), and they give you 25 years to pay your mortgage -- so if you work through the math, at historic interest rates, the most mortgage that is within that 33% ratio is around 3X income.




At 20% interest rates, the $200k house (@3%) would be worth closer to $30,000 or so because there's only so much income actually available to make the payment with, ie: $6k/year. Obviously you'd want the 20% interest rate and the $30k house because pre-payments against principal have a dramatic effect on paying off the loan quickly. While putting an extra $1000-$2000 a year against a $200k house at 3% amounts to practically nothing.





Yes, 5 years is short term loan considering that most people pay their mortgages over a span of 20-25 years, sometimes even longer. Long-term would be like a loan greater than 10 years.



Employment quality in non-government, non-RE, non-consumer-consumption industries has been very weak over the past decade, and the official unemployment numbers have been skewed by a significantly declining employment participation rate. Also, in the case of new graduates, there's a real issue of employment quality. A mechanical engineer who delivers pizzas, for instance, is considered to be 'employed' as a pizza driver, not an unemployed mechanical engineer.
Ahhhh, so the Government data is incorrect and your personal views are more accurate since you have a better interpretation of the employment status of 30 Million Canadians?? How do we know that a major problem in Mechanical Engineers being employed as Pizza delivery boys and not just one class of kids you know that got into an industry that a) was in decline b) had too many grads at the same time or c) have horrible interview skills and just can't get the jobs out there? All I'm saying is just because there are trained professionals, doesn't mean there are jobs for them. What if we train 1M new Doctors...a very valued commodity, but if 1 Million Doctors gradded this year, a lot of them would have trouble finding jobs as Doctors as well.

Lenders don't care how much you make, they care how much can he afford to pay and can he continue to make his mortgage payments if we give his this money...they generally look for a Debt to Income Ratio of 0.36 and obviously the lower the better. So for every dollar coming in if they give you this mortgage, you shouldn't have more than 36% covering housing costs. They also use the posted 5 year mortgage rates to see if you qualify, even when the posted rates are way higher than what a good borrower can get.

For example, my parents paid $91,000 for their house and they never had an interest rate less than 15%...I don't know what they made when I was young, but I'm sure it was less than I make now. I purchased a house for $320,000 about 7 years ago and my mortgage rate is currently 3.4% and due to change to 2.99% fairly soon. I'm positive that less of my income today is going to pay my mortgage than my parents when they had to pay their mortgage. Perhaps people used the 2X to 3X ratio because interest rates were historically much higher than they are today.

All I can say is that if you give people the option to buy a house a 2X income levels with 3% interest rates, you'll have no lack of interest.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
Vitalogy80 wrote: Ahhhh, so the Government data is incorrect and your personal views are more accurate since you have a better interpretation of the employment status of 30 Million Canadians??
Well we've had data from bcgboy13 showing most of the employment gains over the past decade have been in the public sector or in RE-correlated industries. Its not really a matter of personal opinion. Government data has its limitations. Most importantly, even if you trust the government data (which has severe limitations), this still doesn't explain the multiple expansion in the price to median household income ratio that we've seen in RE over the past decade. Which is the primary area of concern.
How do we know that a major problem in Mechanical Engineers being employed as Pizza delivery boys and not just one class of kids you know that got into an industry that a) was in decline b) had too many grads at the same time or c) have horrible interview skills and just can't get the jobs out there?
Well we have data that clearly shows that the industries that employ those types of people are in significant decline in Canada. It was an example that we shouldn't dwell upon, as I was using it to explain how strictly using government-stated 'unemployment rates' should be with the utmost in caution. The shift towards more part-time and contractual/temporary employment also creates problems with the more traditional calculation of the unemployment rate, and comparisons to the past may not be all that useful.
Lenders don't care how much you make,
The CMHC insures 70% of Canada's mortgage debt, and they have strict standards in terms of debt servicing ratios. CMHC's standards are the standards used by a banking industry.
they care how much can he afford to pay and can he continue to make his mortgage payments if we give his this money...they generally look for a Debt to Income Ratio of 0.36 and obviously the lower the better. So for every dollar coming in if they give you this mortgage, you shouldn't have more than 36% covering housing costs. They also use the posted 5 year mortgage rates to see if you qualify, even when the posted rates are way higher than what a good borrower can get.
Sure, but we have tons of 50-60 year-olds with loans that are structured as though these individuals will be in the workforce for another 25-years before paying them off in full. We have record numbers of people entering retirement with mortgage debt. And those 5-year mortgage rate qualification rules are only applicable to CMHC-insured debt.
For example, my parents paid $91,000 for their house and they never had an interest rate less than 15%...I don't know what they made when I was young, but I'm sure it was less than I make now. I purchased a house for $320,000 about 7 years ago and my mortgage rate is currently 3.4% and due to change to 2.99% fairly soon. I'm positive that less of my income today is going to pay my mortgage than my parents when they had to pay their mortgage. Perhaps people used the 2X to 3X ratio because interest rates were historically much higher than they are today.
Sure, and there's a pretty good chance at some point over the lifetime of your mortgage, that you will be paying the 15% rates again. Your folks experienced the 15% rates early in their lives/careers, you may very well experience them at the mid-point or the end of your life as a mortgage debtor.
All I can say is that if you give people the option to buy a house a 2X income levels with 3% interest rates, you'll have no lack of interest.
I don't believe such a situation will ever exist, as in order to get the Canadian market down to 2X income levels, a very substantial number of defaults will occur, and either after-tax income will collapse (due to additional taxes to repay CMHC debt), or interest rates/lending spreads will rise back to historic levels or above.

The bottom of a lending-induced asset bubble tends to be quite the opposite -- a lending-contraction induced asset depression. House at a very low multiple of income. Lending very scarce and only available at very high cost.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 2, 2007
1330 posts
386 upvotes
Toronto
Vitalogy80 wrote: Ahhhh, so the Government data is incorrect and your personal views are more accurate since you have a better interpretation of the employment status of 30 Million Canadians?? .
Employment data for BC (Dec.2000 to Dec.2012 Seasonally adjusted CANSIM table 282-0088 x1000 persons):

Code: Select all

(NAICS) Table 282-0088 SA	                Dec.00	Dec.01	Dec.02	Dec.03	Dec.04	Dec.05	Dec.06	Dec.07	Dec.08	Dec.09	Dec.10	Dec.11	Dec.12	Y0Y 12/00
Total employed, all industries	                1948.4	1892.4	1966.5	2030.8	2061.1	2130.2	2180.3	2250.7	2253	2228.4	2261.3	2293.9	2313.3	18.73%
														
Goods-producing sector	                        400.8	361.5	401.3	411.5	438.9	448	476.2	490.5	482.2	431.5	443	456.6	464.1	15.79%
Agriculture	                                27.9	24.8	35.3	34	38.5	39.4	36.5	38.4	29.1	32.3	31.1	26.7	27.9	0.00%
Forestry,fishing,mining,quarrying,oil,gas	47	37.6	39.7	41.3	36.5	36.2	47.3	50.4	51.6	39.5	37.3	43.5	48.7	3.62%
Utilities	                                9.7	10.8	11.9	10	8.1	8.5	9.1	12.6	12.3	14.7	14.2	10.5	16.6	71.13%
Construction	                                109.1	103	118.2	122	152.5	171.7	182.5	206.3	208.8	194	184.6	207.1	206.3	89.09%
Manufacturing	                                207	185.3	196.2	204.2	203.4	192.1	200.9	182.8	180.4	151.1	175.8	168.8	164.7	-20.43%
														
Services-producing sector	                1547.6	1530.8	1565.1	1619.3	1622.2	1682.3	1704.1	1760.1	1770.8	1796.9	1818.3	1837.3	1849.3	19.49%
Trade	                                        301.6	307.6	331.8	324.1	307.7	349.3	336.1	360.8	351.8	365.3	365.4	357.9	362	20.03%
Transportation and warehousing	                116.9	105.8	115.6	120.6	115.9	115.7	115.4	132	120.4	111.4	130.2	127.5	119	1.80%
Finance, insurance, real estate and leasing	126.2	117.1	135.2	124.5	132	127.9	143.6	138.9	143.2	146.1	135.5	132.8	135.6	7.45%
Professional, scientific and technical services	141.4	131.3	136.2	141	150.5	161.8	160.6	157.2	163.3	165.4	175.1	194	174.4	23.34%
Business, building and other support services	72.5	68.4	72.1	88.3	86.7	85	100.8	101.9	99.2	88.6	93.8	82.3	94.6	30.48%
Educational services	                        137.6	139.3	135.5	134.4	135.9	143.6	157	155.6	158	165.6	171.6	162.3	186.8	35.76%
Health care and social assistance	        199.4	202.3	212	215	218.3	212.2	238.1	234	247.5	261.9	255.5	278.8	265.1	32.95%
Information, culture and recreation	        104.6	104	99.7	108.1	108.5	127.3	106.7	124.3	113.1	108.7	105.4	113.7	121.5	16.16%
Accommodation and food services	                158.2	168.5	148.7	162.5	176.1	176	169.4	165.8	181	166.6	165.6	178.7	176	11.25%
Other services	                                97.4	98.8	88.3	101.2	94	90.8	87.7	88	94.6	107.6	106.4	104.3	105.4	8.21%
Public administration	                        91.8	87.9	90	99.6	96.4	92.7	88.8	101.6	98.8	109.7	113.8	105.1	108.8	18.52% 
Combined employment in the Utilities + Education + Health Care + Public admin was 438,500 in 2000 (22,51%) and is increased now by 31.65% to 577,300 (24,96%).
These are not 100% public sector but a big % is.
Once the single pony construction slows down and employment there tumbles - whose taxes are going to support the bloated PS with their sky high salaries and DB pensions - the coffee baristas and the Walmart and Winners sales clerks???
My work here is done - [IMG]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Au7PTwsCIAAu7G_.jpg[/IMG]
SOFT Landing - [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/14ilmqt.jpg[/IMG]
Bonus parade Can banks - here - with "No banker left behind"
Les États-Désunis du Canada - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpDRg7TLY8c
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
adamtheman wrote: My job doesn't depend on real estate doing well. So I'm not sure what my personal interest is in a massive real estate crash. My reasoning is based on logic. I've watched the city I grew up in be destroyed by high house prices. For people to afford mortgages, they now stuff 2 or even 3 illegal suites in their basements, some of them with 6 foot ceilings, exposed plumbing, no insulation, leaky doors, bugs everywhere, etc. I'd hard to find a house in Vancouver now that hasn't had the basement converted into at least 2 illegal suites. Go on MLS and check out the descriptions of houses. What other city does this happen in? Maybe Toronto, but surely not as bad as Vancouver. But US cities? What US cities have such a massive abundance of illegal suites everywhere? Besides that, we have watched businesses close up because they can't afford to operate. Leases are too high, and when a 60 year old bungalow costs a million dollars, no one wants to work for $10 an hour.
Indeed. And the social problems that are in the pipeline from an inevitable real estate crash are numerous, particularly towards the younger generation who isn't sitting on a boatload of bank stock, or enough housing equity to survive a significant fall. Housing should be something that people live in -- not a glorified wealth redistribution mechamism from the young to the old, as young people essentially are enslaved to fund the retirements of the hoardes of sellers in Canada's major cities who have houses "worth" a million bucks for the mere fact of being old and having the fortune of buying in the 1950s or 1960s.

Many young professionals, for doing something as innocent as buying a house for their young family, will end up facing bankruptcy in the coming years. Not for spending all their disposible income on liquor and cigarettes. But merely for buying a house at a terrible time in the overall economic cycle. A lot of young people are also making career choices based on the presence of the current bubble in finance and real estate -- the pain of which I am intimately familiar with as I made the mistake of chasing a bubble in the tech industry in the late 1990s only to see most of my peers remain chronically underemployed/unemployed even to this day.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
Rustycage wrote: Nvm...
I know you deleted your post....but I wouldn't put a lot of faith into what a civil servant writes down on a piece of paper as a so-called 'assessment' of your pro-rata share of the property taxes applicable to your ownership of property. Assessment formulae are based on many things, and are, in many cases, are legally obliged to ignore certain factors relating to a property (ie: landscaping, interior finishings, etc.) in the interests of standardization.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 23, 2010
1140 posts
695 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: I know you deleted your post....but I wouldn't put a lot of faith into what a civil servant writes down on a piece of paper as a so-called 'assessment' of your pro-rata share of the property taxes applicable to your ownership of property. Assessment formulae are based on many things, and are, in many cases, are legally obliged to ignore certain factors relating to a property (ie: landscaping, interior finishings, etc.) in the interests of standardization.
I deleted my post because I was expecting this as a response and in reading most of the discussion in this thread I didn't expect the resulting conversation to go anywhere.
Jr. Member
Aug 3, 2010
154 posts
13 upvotes
Vancouver
On a related note, if you have the MLS number are you able to look up things such as prices of recently sold homes in the area or if the property in question was previously listed higher/lower?
Banned
User avatar
Mar 31, 2010
1948 posts
441 upvotes
Buy popcorn a.s.a.p..the show is starting in Vancouver
[IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/maji14.png[/IMG]

these two should go together


[IMG]http://vancouverpricedrop.files.wordpre ... /graph.jpg[/IMG]

Vancouver Price Drop
Moderate Price Drop Graph – January 7, 2012
43 Comments Posted by an observer on January 7, 2013
Yesterday I posted a chart showing how Vancouver West’s descent over the last 8 months from its peak, which has been called moderate and flat, is actually coming down at a faster rate than any US city. Vancouver West dropped 8.6% in the first 6 months and 11.1% in 8 months. There were two issues with yesterday’s posting – firstly, there were no pictures and who doesn’t love a graphical chart. Secondly, I only used the data from Vancouver West. To me this was reasonable but I can see why there were some objections.

In this chart I have combined the data from Vancouver West, Vancouver East, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby and New Westminster. This is a good representation of the metro Vancouver area and is a more accurate comparison. By combining these additional areas the peak is no longer April 2012 but rather May 2012. The result as you will see below is that the Lower Mainland is still dropping faster than any American city from its peak.
Member
Feb 8, 2010
326 posts
35 upvotes
Toronto
My condo in the GVRD just sold. Took 3 months, price was reasonably close to asking, within 3.7%. I'm selling to rent, but it has nothing to do with speculating on RE, I will be moving in with another person, closer to work. Although I'm skeptical about a "crash" I do think prices will continue to fall then stagnate. Now that I'm out of RE, bring on the crash.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)