Real Estate

Vancouver housing bubble?

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 14th, 2020 9:54 am
Tags:
None
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3201 upvotes
Calgary
gomyone wrote: Guess Rosenberg hasn't been reading enough Mark77 bcbgboy13 posts to truly appreciate that imminent devastation Canada's whole housing market is 'about' to experience :lol:
I find that US-based research outfits tend to have a very poor understanding of how the CMHC works, and take views which usually lack explanation or any logical construct.

For instance, it is rare to see the bear-side research outfits acknowledge that CMHC-insured mortgages are essentially government bonds. Sometimes the bank bears attempt to imply that there is widespread fraud in the origination process (evidence of which is scant on an anecdotal basis in Canada). Sometimes they simply fall back on platitudes or things that would have been more applicable to the US style of banking environment where the banks were running, and were burned by large duration gaps in their portfolios -- obviously not applicable to the Canadian banks that do not generally rely on or engage in maturity transformation as a source of revenue.

The most rigorous analysis, IMHO, of the Canadian Schedule 1 banks (not the credit unions which I believe are in serious trouble!), is the willingness of people to bid them up to levels that have now exceeded their valuations in 2008. Something which has not happened for most other sectors of the publicly traded stock market in Canada.
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
Jun 28, 2007
3861 posts
1025 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: I find that US-based research outfits tend to have a very poor understanding of how the CMHC works, and take views which usually lack explanation or any logical construct.
Because you are naieve when it comes down to these sorts of things, Rosenberg actually works for Gluskin Sheff - its a Toronto based buy side firm - his office is actually just blocks away from mine. Also as an FYI - Rosenberg (who was once chief economist at Merrill Lynch) also previously worked at CMHC. As such, he definitely has a far better understanding of how that organization works than you do.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3201 upvotes
Calgary
gomyone wrote: Because you are naieve when it comes down to these sorts of things, Rosenberg actually works for Gluskin Sheff - its a Toronto based buy side firm - his office is actually just blocks away from mine. Also as an FYI - Rosenberg (who was once chief economist at Merrill Lynch) also previously worked at CMHC. As such, he definitely has a far better understanding of how that organization works than you do.
*sigh*, I gotta hand it to you, you never do waste even the slightest opportunity to take a shot at me when my reply was clearly referring to the US based analysis.

I haven't seen this 'analysis' from Rosenberg, so by all means, if you have a copy of it, or even a link, that's publicly available, please post such, in support of your bull or "no, its not going to revert to mean" case for Canadian RE. Tiny snippets are really hard to comment on.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Feb 7, 2006
2658 posts
1169 upvotes
sigh!! :facepalm: :facepalm:
MMMM wrote: Mark remember back in Feb when you stated the price of wood dropped and you gave a silly link showing that wood(brd foot) is going up.
Mark77 wrote: Go back and re-read the post in question. I'm not going to waste more time with your ridiculous trolls.
Gee Mark77 remember this post:

Mark77 wrote:Straight from the National Association of Home Builders:

http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=527

Look at that -- prices pretty flat over the decade, with some definite periods where lumber was available for half price.

So spare us your bizarre claims that have ZERO credibility to back them up.
Followed up by this post:

Dinnie740 wrote:**sigh** Once again, Mark77 with more misinformation that's factually incorrect.

January 9 2004 Composite price was $334 and futures price was $332.
March 8 2013 Composite price was $423 and futures price was $395.

Do those numbers seem "pretty flat"? Seems like an increase to me. Definitely NOT decreasing in cost as you were first babbling about. Once again, you got called for a BS statement.
Then you finish off realizing you look like an idiot with your usual verbose garbage.
Quote Originally Posted by MMMM View Post
Uh Mark....if you check the stats to the link the price of lumber is almost at its highest point in years. It has been climbing for a while, mirroring what is happening in home building
Mark77 wrote: .Sure, there's been a bit of an up-tick in the United States, and a lot of capacity has been liquidated in the supply sector due to the decline. But there's also been a significant amount of inflation in fuel, etc., over the past decade, yet prices have remained relatively flat.

I was mostly responding to Donnie740's claim that prices can only go up on the inputs. When we know that isn't true, especially when we're dealing with extremities.

In the context of real estate, inflation can be used to scale long-term real estate prices, but generally can't predict short-term prices. Shiller found that over the very long term, with economic cyclicality removed from the equation (ie: averaged out), houses only saw appreciation, when appropriately maintained, at the rate of inflation.

Earlier in the thread, I gave some calculations of what Toronto RE prices could theoretically fall to, keeping inflation in mind. Of course, it could be worse, or it could be better, as extremes in sentiment and leverage, tend to reflect themselves in opposites extremes in sentiment and leverage. Remember grade 9 physics -- "for every force, there is an equal and opposite force". Or the first law of thermodynamics, also something most of us should've learned in grade 9.
So basically you post a useless quote to back your self up. As usual your wrong and have no idea what your talking about. You try to wiggle out with the usual wordy garbage. Then you respond with the Troll comment. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Banned
User avatar
Jul 16, 2003
10398 posts
1464 upvotes
Toronto
gomyone wrote: guess rosenberg hasn't been reading enough mark77 bcbgboy13 posts to truly appreciate that imminent devastation canada's whole housing market is 'about' to experience :lol:
8-)
Andre Oliveira - Mortgage Agent
Mortgage Intelligence - FSCO# 10428
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3201 upvotes
Calgary
MMMM wrote: So basically you post a useless quote to back your self up. As usual your wrong and have no idea what your talking about. You try to wiggle out with the usual wordy garbage. Then you respond with the Troll comment. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
If you look at the numbers, prices clearly oscillated in a band somewhere between around $500 and $200, but there wasn't that much of a trend towards upwards movement. That's generally 'pretty flat', with some general cyclicality as would be expected in a commodity.

Quite unlike, for instance, oil that started the 2000s at $20/barrel (give or take), and is today sitting at an average of $90-$100 for WTI. That's not flat at all -- that's a trend that exceeds inflation, even when you remove the cyclicality.

I stand by my comment. It seems that you have little better to do with yourself than quibble over some numbers which haven't shown a meaningful excursion from the mean, except for cyclicality and seasonality over the past decade. The numbers show that lumber clearly has undergone cyclical, not secular changes in price.
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
Jun 28, 2007
3861 posts
1025 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: If you look at the numbers, prices clearly oscillated in a band somewhere between around $500 and $200, but there wasn't that much of a trend towards upwards movement. That's generally 'pretty flat', with some general cyclicality as would be expected in a commodity.

Quite unlike, for instance, oil that started the 2000s at $20/barrel (give or take), and is today sitting at an average of $90-$100 for WTI. That's not flat at all -- that's a trend that exceeds inflation, even when you remove the cyclicality.

I stand by my comment. It seems that you have little better to do with yourself than quibble over some numbers which haven't shown a meaningful excursion from the mean, except for cyclicality and seasonality over the past decade. The numbers show that lumber clearly has undergone cyclical, not secular changes in price.
*sigh* why do you waste so much time, energy and RFD forum space defending all your outlandish posts? You are clearly wrong in nearly almost everything that you say when it comes to the economy, banking and the mortgage market (evident by the fact that no one who actually has tangible work experience in said industries will come to your defense or actually side with you and support your laughable theories).

I mean dont you have anything better to do with your time than constantly making yourself an embarrassment in this forum. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you - maybe that's your intent Mark? Do you want us to feel sorry for you or something?
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 3, 2004
5109 posts
3544 upvotes
Vancouver
gomyone wrote: *sigh* why do you waste so much time, energy and RFD forum space defending all your outlandish posts? You are clearly wrong in nearly almost everything that you say when it comes to the economy, banking and the mortgage market (evident by the fact that no one who actually has tangible work experience in said industries will come to your defense or actually side with you and support your laughable theories).

I mean dont you have anything better to do with your time than constantly making yourself an embarrassment in this forum. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you - maybe that's your intent Mark? Do you want us to feel sorry for you or something?
This is probably the 10th time I've seen you make a post like this. They all start the same... first you complain about Mark wasting his time on the forums, then you make a comment such as "Don't you have anything better to do with your time?". Then you make a condescending remark such as "I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you".

But the funny thing is.. despite all your mocking of Mark, you continue to stalk Mark on these forums and read every single one of his posts, replying to all of them... for months... and months... and months on end. Don't YOU have anything better to do with your time? Is business slow?
Sr. Member
Sep 15, 2010
535 posts
38 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: If you look at the numbers, prices clearly oscillated in a band somewhere between around $500 and $200, but there wasn't that much of a trend towards upwards movement. That's generally 'pretty flat', with some general cyclicality as would be expected in a commodity.

Quite unlike, for instance, oil that started the 2000s at $20/barrel (give or take), and is today sitting at an average of $90-$100 for WTI. That's not flat at all -- that's a trend that exceeds inflation, even when you remove the cyclicality.

I stand by my comment. It seems that you have little better to do with yourself than quibble over some numbers which haven't shown a meaningful excursion from the mean, except for cyclicality and seasonality over the past decade. The numbers show that lumber clearly has undergone cyclical, not secular changes in price.
I'm curious,
What do you do for work?
What about background?
Jr. Member
Aug 3, 2010
154 posts
13 upvotes
Vancouver
Mark77 wrote: I find that US-based research outfits tend to have a very poor understanding of how the CMHC works, and take views which usually lack explanation or any logical construct.

For instance, it is rare to see the bear-side research outfits acknowledge that CMHC-insured mortgages are essentially government bonds. Sometimes the bank bears attempt to imply that there is widespread fraud in the origination process (evidence of which is scant on an anecdotal basis in Canada). Sometimes they simply fall back on platitudes or things that would have been more applicable to the US style of banking environment where the banks were running, and were burned by large duration gaps in their portfolios -- obviously not applicable to the Canadian banks that do not generally rely on or engage in maturity transformation as a source of revenue.

The most rigorous analysis, IMHO, of the Canadian Schedule 1 banks (not the credit unions which I believe are in serious trouble!), is the willingness of people to bid them up to levels that have now exceeded their valuations in 2008. Something which has not happened for most other sectors of the publicly traded stock market in Canada.
Aren't these outfits putting billions of dollars on the line when they make these bets? They probably did at least some due diligence.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3201 upvotes
Calgary
JuanExprales wrote: Aren't these outfits putting billions of dollars on the line when they make these bets? They probably did at least some due diligence.
There's one dude from San Francisco who copped an interview with the Globe and Mail recently:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... e11731134/

Apparently he's staked "95 percent of his investors' assets".

I can't find any information, but assets under management is in the low tens of millions of dollars apparently. A drop in the bucket. I personally believe he'll be roadkill on both the shorting the CAD/USD, and the banks front. But I guess that's the price of an 'education'.

(I personally can think of few things more pathetic than calling up the Globe and Mail and lecturing them on how much Canada sucks, especially originating from a morally bankrupt nation (India), and living in a financially bankrupt one (USA)).
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
Jun 28, 2007
3861 posts
1025 upvotes
adamtheman wrote: This is probably the 10th time I've seen you make a post like this. They all start the same... first you complain about Mark wasting his time on the forums, then you make a comment such as "Don't you have anything better to do with your time?". Then you make a condescending remark such as "I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you".

But the funny thing is.. despite all your mocking of Mark, you continue to stalk Mark on these forums and read every single one of his posts, replying to all of them... for months... and months... and months on end. Don't YOU have anything better to do with your time? Is business slow?
Lol and this is the 11th time I've seen YOU jump in to "defend" Mark when I make comments about the misinformation in his posts. Who's stalking who? Why do YOU keep following me around RFD or try to erroneously expose who I am when none of my comments are even directed at you? How creepy is that? I mean Mark is a big boy and i'm sure he can defend himself and doesnt need your "help" (unless of course I'm missing something!!! :confused: )

And trust me, I hardly reply to ALL of Mark's post - I can barely keep up with his prolific posting activity. Just take a look at his post count: 16,000+ since 2008 (and that's not including his other aliases!). Meanwhile, I have a bit more than 2000 posts since 2007. In case you can't do the math - that's an eighth of what he posts!!. Of course, every now and then I do find the need to call him out on his twisted theories (as do many others here) and I believe that IS a service to new visitors to this forum who are looking for clear and helpful advice - what service are you providing by stalking me with your PMs and threats to "expose" who i really am?

And since you asked, business is fantastic - bonus season was especially good this year. In fact, I recently helped to bring in a very large new client to my firm that should ensure another nice bonus next year. Thinking this might help us to upgrade our vacation home in Arizona. Thanks again for asking and showing your concern. :)
Banned
User avatar
Jul 16, 2003
10398 posts
1464 upvotes
Toronto
flyordrive wrote: I'm curious,
What do you do for work?
What about background?
It has been stated here that he has been unable to obtain or maintain employment for 10 years.
Andre Oliveira - Mortgage Agent
Mortgage Intelligence - FSCO# 10428
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 28, 2007
3861 posts
1025 upvotes
laptop-tech wrote: It has been stated here that he has been unable to obtain or maintain employment for 10 years.
Yeah but it's not his fault- his chosen profession of engineering has been decimated by the real estate economy. I mean even though the unemployment rate for engineers is below 3% in Canada, that is a "statistical mirage" created by the government's staunch defence of the real estate and financial industry. Someday though, much like Nortel stock, there will be a day of reckoning when the subprime fueled Canadian housing market crashes and holders of gold producer stocks will be able to buy homes for pennies on the dollar!
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3201 upvotes
Calgary
gomyone wrote: Yeah but it's not his fault- his chosen profession of engineering has been decimated by the real estate economy. I mean even though the unemployment rate for engineers is below 3% in Canada, that is a "statistical mirage" created by the government's staunch defence of the real estate and financial industry. Someday though, much like Nortel stock, there will be a day of reckoning when the subprime fueled Canadian housing market crashes and holders of gold producer stocks will be able to buy homes for pennies on the dollar!
Wow, talk about an exaggeration. I've kept no secret of the fact that my training and expertise is largely in a deeply cyclical sector of the economy that is highly over-supplied (hundreds of resumes received per position). It speaks to your character that you attempt to make a mockery out of such. Nobody in the engineering profession actually believes the unemployment rate is "below 3%" (in professional circles, its estimated at closer to 50-60% since that's the number of people who graduate yet can't obtain professional licensing due to poor employment prospects).

Last but not least, it is rather telling that you've chosen to attack the messenger, rather than the message. You never used to be this bad. Do they give you some gold star down at Bentall every time you write an anti-Mark77 post?
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...

Top