Personal Finance

Another real estate bubble?

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 17th, 2013 5:22 pm
Tags:
None

Poll: Are we in a 2nd real estate bubble?

  • Total votes: 0. You have voted on this poll.
Banned
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
54 upvotes
poop_on_you wrote: Pretty sure most of class b) is not going to skyrocket to where they were last year before August. When you lose 50% of your money, you will have to gain 100% just to break even.
Why do you think that? You're caught up in the media propoganda that the stock market is 'going nowhere'? Seriously, if you have an asset class that is yielding 10% in earnings, and can tack on some growth ontop of that -- won't that eventually provide a better return than some asset class that's already been severely played out?
I'm not even going to ask you how it's "roughly on track" to earn 1000, and never mind the fact that we still had a contraction(deflation) last quarter. But how did you manage to ADD the 2% inflation onto your return? You know in most valuations, inflation goes on the denominator right?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inf ... return.asp
Well, with lower financing costs, and more slack in the labour market (all those tradespeople not building houses -- so they can be hired cheaply to build oilsands projects) -- why won't earnings skyrocket?

Seriously, I look at commodity prices, and I see them basically similar to what they were when the stocks were much higher.

You look at the interval 1989-2000, stocks what, doubled or tripled, while real estate, at best, remained stagnant and actually fell severely? Why couldn't we have a repeat of that?

Oh, the Nortel trap, you mean like the commodity trap last year which is what most of TSX consisted of?
Commodity prices and commodities are doing just fine. It was people trying to save their skin in the housing (financing) markets that caused them to be sold off. Heck, we're back to $3 copper again, $75/barrel oil yesterday, $950 gold. The markets are neither reflecting these prices, *nor* the reduced costs in operating the companies (financing, labour), nor the reduced discount rate applicable to financial assets generally because of lower interest rates.

Yes anecdotal opinions from an internet guy is the most reliable information there is. I will go by that and disregard all the other real data since they are all fudged even though a lot of them show negative impacts.
I didn't allege they were fudged; rather, I alleged that those players have every incentive to 'look the other way' on things like the kickback schemes, the free trips, free colour TV's and cars, etc., that are being included with condos, just to keep the prices high. Now, if you have any evidence that CMHC or Statscan have designed their surveys to exclude the impact of such kickbacks, I'd love to hear it.
Post the "rest" of the balance sheet.
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil110-eng.htm

Now take a look at the rows entitled "non-financial" assets, and in particular, look at the 'value' of principal residence. It 'rose' by $36,000 (in real terms). The average net worth of Canadians only rose by $28,000 over the same interval.

Since house appreciation is greater than the average net worth of Canadians, we can conclude that Canadians, minus their principal residences, actually were poorer, in real terms, in 2005, than they were in 1999.

Now, I'm no economist, but I can't see how possibly house prices can rise, while overall net worth, excluding housing, can fall. I just don't see it as being sustainable, since its external economic activity that drives housing prices, and not the other way around. I do also see, from that Statscan table, that mortgage debt grew by $15,000 in real terms -- so, practically speaking, that means that Canadians aren't really any wealthier, in real estate terms, but merely, that Canadians, on average, are taking on more debt to purchase real estate, thus running up prices.

I mean, sure go ahead and keep believing that equity will go up if real estate tanks. I mean, real estate is not a huge part of the overall economy at all. When real estate crashed, US equity market skyrocketed afterwards right?
Well US housing is down roughly 50%, but the Dow is back at 10k. A lot of capacity in the US banking system has been shaken out, and the very steep yield curve now, in mortgage assets, along with the 0% Fed Funds rate, is allowing capitalized banks to make insane amounts of money right now.
Sorry to resort to sarcasm, but it's really not worth having an intelligent discussion with you. I'm mostly only here to see if anyone has any actual information that I haven't seen before. So far, you've only completely made up yours.
I have done no such thing, so I don't see it really being worth having a discussion with you if you're just going to toss wild accusations out there, or resort to emotion the minute someone challenges you on your hippy-dippy view of real estate valuations.
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 6, 2008
664 posts
20 upvotes
pitz wrote: I have done no such thing, so I don't see it really being worth having a discussion with you if you're just going to toss wild accusations out there, or resort to emotion the minute someone challenges you on your hippy-dippy view of real estate valuations.
pitz wrote: a) Apparently, the average 'downpayment', across all buyers of houses, including existing homeowners, is ~6%. Which means that actual, new buyers, have, in almost all instances, 0% down.
pitz wrote: Apparently, the average 'downpayment', across all buyers of houses, including existing homeowners, is ~6%.
pitz wrote: and in Canada, the multiplier is 6X salary right now.
poop_on_you wrote: Just wondering where you are getting this info.

pitz wrote: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil110-eng.htm

Now take a look at the rows entitled "non-financial" assets, and in particular, look at the 'value' of principal residence. It 'rose' by $36,000 (in real terms). The average net worth of Canadians only rose by $28,000 over the same interval.

Since house appreciation is greater than the average net worth of Canadians, we can conclude that Canadians, minus their principal residences, actually were poorer, in real terms, in 2005, than they were in 1999.
I will respond to this part, since you actually posted some real info.

Why would you subtract the principal residence from their networth? It doesn't prove that real estate WILL crash. It just shows that in the event of a crash for ANY investment, the gains will be zero. I mean, that applies to everything. If you subtract the the mutual funds and stocks gains from your networth, you can still say that they were poorer than they were in 1999. The difference is, people in 2002 were actually poorer than 2001, and people in 2009 were actually poorer than 2008, and that was because of equity.

I dont know what that has to do with your original post of
"Equity" dissappears awfully fast when the fundamentals catch up to the market. If you look at the rest of the balance sheet of Canadians, its been devastated."

You should be posting balance sheet specifically regarding to the fundamentals of the real estate equity. You know things like household debt level vs disposable income, mortgage debt vs revolving debt, delinquencies on different types of debts. Those are fundamentals for real estate market. As far as the data I've seen, they haven't been devastated.
Banned
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
54 upvotes
poop_on_you wrote: Why would you subtract the principal residence from their networth? It doesn't prove that real estate WILL crash. It just shows that in the event of a crash for ANY investment, the gains will be zero. I mean, that applies to everything. If you subtract the the mutual funds and stocks gains from your networth, you can still say that they were poorer than they were in 1999. The difference is, people in 2002 were actually poorer than 2001, and people in 2009 were actually poorer than 2008, and that was because of equity.
Well, the question there is whether real estate 'wealth' can really rise in the absence of other wealth, on a sustainable basis.

Real estate, is a form of 'consumption', in that, its price will ultimately be a derivative of the wealth of the population, and those who are buying it (which is why you can pick up a nice house in a 3rd world country, for practically nothing, but a nice house in relatively wealthy North America..costs a fortune).

If non-real estate wealth hasn't grown (and admittedly, non-RE wealth was quite inflated in 1999, because of the Nortel bubble), then how can RE wealth grow sustainably?

I mean, buildings are inanimate objects, they don't produce anything, they just store things. Its not possible, by any means, to build an entire economy just upon real estate.
I dont know what that has to do with your original post of
"Equity" dissappears awfully fast when the fundamentals catch up to the market. If you look at the rest of the balance sheet of Canadians, its been devastated."
A quick extrapolation of stock prices in 2005, versus stock prices today, in real terms, would show you that business ownership wealth is decreasing.
You should be posting balance sheet specifically regarding to the fundamentals of the real estate equity. You know things like household debt level vs disposable income, mortgage debt vs revolving debt, delinquencies on different types of debts. Those are fundamentals for real estate market. As far as the data I've seen, they haven't been devastated.
Well that 2005 StatsCan data shows that valuations on businesses, and on personal financial balance sheets, have been deteriorating, against a backdrop of rising RE prices. Who cares about delinquiencies, they won't experience an uptick until the economy is in a severe downdraft, which it doesn't need to be, to experience RE price falls.

Its entirely possible that people just wake up tomorrow, and realize that the TSX is going up, and houses are stagnant and going down, and stop placing bids on houses. That's cyclicality for you. Stock investors haven't seen returns in close to 15 years now, on average, while houses have at least doubled. Do you honestly think that houses are going to keep pulling forward, when you can buy the same sort of after-tax cashflow in the stock market, for a mere fraction of what it would cost in the housing market??
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6843 posts
377 upvotes
Toronto, ON
pitz wrote: Anything CMHC insured *is* subprime. And CMHC insurance has been 'involved' in most originations in Canada. Much to the credit of the USA, 'subprime' has mostly dissappeared, while in Canada, you just walk into any branch of any bank, and you can get approved on the spot for a no-money-down, subprime loan.
While I agree with you on just about everything else, I think you're redefining subprime. Since when is anything without a 20% down payment subprime?!?
Deal Addict
Jan 11, 2004
1277 posts
161 upvotes
VivienM wrote: While I agree with you on just about everything else, I think you're redefining subprime. Since when is anything without a 20% down payment subprime?!?
It demonstrates is fundamental lack of understanding of real estate. CHMC insured mortgages have nothing to do with subprime mortgages.
You can draw some parallels between them but they are fundamentally different.

That and the CHMC program that allowed for 100% LTV was revoked along with 40 year amortizations over a year ago...
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
18456 posts
4772 upvotes
Toronto
GonePostal wrote: It demonstrates is fundamental lack of understanding of real estate. CHMC insured mortgages have nothing to do with subprime mortgages.
Yup.
Banned
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
54 upvotes
VivienM wrote: While I agree with you on just about everything else, I think you're redefining subprime. Since when is anything without a 20% down payment subprime?!?
That is subprime. Maybe they don't use the term in Canada, but if it involves CMHC insurance it means that a Canadian bank isn't allowed to lend against it without insurance.

If you work out the interest rate that's implied by CMHC insurance, it is easily >10% in most circumstances.
It demonstrates is fundamental lack of understanding of real estate. CHMC insured mortgages have nothing to do with subprime mortgages.
You can draw some parallels between them but they are fundamentally different.

That and the CHMC program that allowed for 100% LTV was revoked along with 40 year amortizations over a year ago...
a) See above; CMHC-insured mortgages are Canada's equivilant of 'subprime'. "Subprime", in the USA, refers to anything that's not prime. "CMHC-insured".

b) 100% LTV is alive and well, through the "cash-back" schemes of the banks. For instance, you take a 95% loan to buy a house, and the bank instantly gives you 5% cash back, charging you a higher interest rate to make up the difference. Or the vendor gives a kickback or 'gifts' a downpayment. So to say that 100% LTV has dissappeared in Canada is completely not true.

And 35 years, 40 years, there's hardly a difference. Anything involving <20% downpayment in Canada, or >25 year amortization, that requires CMHC insurance, isn't a prime loan, isn't being directly issued by a Canadian bank, and therefore, by definition, isn't prime, or I guess you could say its subprime.
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 9, 2003
24645 posts
1806 upvotes
Markham, ON
depends on whether the govt can handle future inflation with the trillions in US deficits project in the next decade...and billions pumped into the economy.

Right not we are experiencing deflation with no signs of inflation so interest rates are low...if the govt doesnt know when to cut off the tap...central banks will be forced to take reactive measures before hyperinflation happens. Interest rates could rise steeply again and variable mortgage interest holders will hurt big time (as well as business paying for loans). High interest rates kill the real estate market.

govt's are walking on a very tight line right now (cut off too soon, economy could fall right back into a recession)....loans are virtually free money right now (a lot of using this free money to purchase hard assets because they foresee inflation in the future).

If you are not investing on real estate and are using the home to live...than the "free money" is a huge incentive. If you are investing...these ppl are trying to unload as quickly as possible...the low interest rates are a godsent right now.
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2005
4169 posts
16 upvotes
thelefteyeguy wrote: Right not we are experiencing deflation with no signs of inflation so interest rates are low...if the govt doesnt know when to cut off the tap...central banks will be forced to take reactive measures before hyperinflation happens. Interest rates could rise steeply again and variable mortgage interest holders will hurt big time (as well as business paying for loans). High interest rates kill the real estate market.
It won't just be those on variable rates. The average 5 year fixed mortgage holder's mortgage will expire within 2.5 years. Another way to look at it is 1/5 of people with 5 year fixed mortgages will have to renew within 1 year.

Of course the people who bought near the peak are the ones that we should be most worried about, since their equity will be most at risk partially because their purchase prices were higher and also because they were more likely to opt for long amortizations and smaller downpayments to avoid being "left behind". Timewise this occured roughly between August 07 and August 08. Their 5 year fixed mortgages will be coming due August 2012 to August 2013. If interest rates rise before then, RE values will face a strong headwind, and if interest rates are still high by then it will be a storm rather than just headwind. BTW, I'm talking mainly about markets like Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton which have had a massive runup compared to the likes of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal.

Oh, and to those saying inflation will inflate away their RE debts, unless you're on a very long term fixed rate loan, your mortage payments will jump suddenly when it's time to renew at a higher interest rate while your salary will grow much more slowly with inflation. Also, at that point the value of your real estate asset will probably at best stagnate while inflation drives up prices of almost everything else.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
18400 posts
2791 upvotes
Langley
poop_on_you wrote: For short term predictions, you will need to see the household debt, home owner's equity and general economic data. A selling frenzy would only be triggered by high delinquency rates. The mortgage arrears for Canada are extremely low right now at sub 0.5% and it doesn't look like it'll shoot up any time soon. Even when unemployment kept rising in recent months, people were not forced out of their homes. Nobody is forced to sell their homes, why would the price come down?
We didn't see a selling frenzy because people get a year of EI, then social assistance. People who were laid off could refinance at longer terms with lower rates.

The layoffs started last fall. Within a few months, we'll start to see people's EI run out. Once prices have started falling, more and more people won't be able to refinance because they have no equity, and they're already at the longest possible terms.

We saw roughly a 10% price drop between 2007-2008 in major cities in Canada, really with no trigger. Sales just started slowing, then prices started falling. It's not a selling frenzy, but people wanted to get out of a falling market.

Delinquency rates are low but climbing. The higher they get, the more upward pressure there is.

Interest rates are going up, because the government is spending more then it's making, so it either has to borrow more money (driving the price of a 5 year mortgage up) or printing money (which also drives 5 year mortgages up, because investors expect to be compensated for higher inflation.)


The biggest reason that I think that real estate will fall quickly is because it's a positive feedback loop. Rising prices encourage more people to leverage and buy. But falling prices cause more people to panic and sell. If we can get a 10% drop (in TO/Van/Cal etc) in a year with very little downward pressure, is it unreasonable to think that we could see 30%-50% over 5 years, with high unemployment and rising interest rates?
Banned
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
54 upvotes
thelefteyeguy wrote: depends on whether the govt can handle future inflation with the trillions in US deficits project in the next decade...and billions pumped into the economy.
The 'beauty' of a stock-led reflation is that relatively few people own stock, so the effect on aggregate demand won't be anywhere near as great as, say, with housing, where ~70% of the population owns their own home.

For instance, if the stock market doubles, Bill Gates' wealth would double. But will Bill Gates go on a big spending spree if he's now worth twice as much? Of course not.

But did people go on huge spending sprees when their houses doubled? You bet they did, hence, all the inflation we saw in the past few years (and the crash when home equity dissappeared!).
Right not we are experiencing deflation with no signs of inflation so interest rates are low...if the govt doesnt know when to cut off the tap...central banks will be forced to take reactive measures before hyperinflation happens.
But where does the *demand* that's requisite for hyperinflation, come from? That's my big question, in the Canadian context. I can understand, in the USA context, hyperinflation coming from a collapse in the USD$, China selling off T-bonds, China stopping exports to the USA, etc. But Canada has enough of a resource industry to generate enough exports to pay for its imports.

In a scenario where, say, the TSX quadruples (and housing stagnates, or goes slightly down), the beneficiaries in Canada would be relatively few. Although, with a reflated stock market, many new businesses would be started, and that would drive employment and industrial redevelopment higher, with the cheap equity that a high market implies.
Interest rates could rise steeply again and variable mortgage interest holders will hurt big time (as well as business paying for loans). High interest rates kill the real estate market.
Mortgage rates could rise, while business rates could fall. For instance, my stock loans right now are at ~1%, while variable rate mortgages are at what, 3%??
If you are not investing on real estate and are using the home to live...than the "free money" is a huge incentive. If you are investing...these ppl are trying to unload as quickly as possible...the low interest rates are a godsent right now.
Well, its only a 'huge incentive' if one can find things that will go up, to invest in. :P
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Deal Addict
Jan 11, 2004
1277 posts
161 upvotes
pitz wrote: That is subprime. Maybe they don't use the term in Canada, but if it involves CMHC insurance it means that a Canadian bank isn't allowed to lend against it without insurance.

If you work out the interest rate that's implied by CMHC insurance, it is easily >10% in most circumstances.



a) See above; CMHC-insured mortgages are Canada's equivilant of 'subprime'. "Subprime", in the USA, refers to anything that's not prime. "CMHC-insured".

b) 100% LTV is alive and well, through the "cash-back" schemes of the banks. For instance, you take a 95% loan to buy a house, and the bank instantly gives you 5% cash back, charging you a higher interest rate to make up the difference. Or the vendor gives a kickback or 'gifts' a downpayment. So to say that 100% LTV has dissappeared in Canada is completely not true.

And 35 years, 40 years, there's hardly a difference. Anything involving <20% downpayment in Canada, or >25 year amortization, that requires CMHC insurance, isn't a prime loan, isn't being directly issued by a Canadian bank, and therefore, by definition, isn't prime, or I guess you could say its subprime.
Subprime mortgage loans refer to lending to borrowers that can not or will not qualify for a "prime" loan, not a conventional/high ratio loan. There is a significant difference.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sub ... rtgage.asp
What Does Subprime Mortgage Mean?
A type of mortgage that is normally made out to borrowers with lower credit ratings. As a result of the borrower's lowered credit rating, a conventional mortgage is not offered because the lender views the borrower as having a larger-than-average risk of defaulting on the loan. Lending institutions often charge interest on subprime mortgages at a rate that is higher than a conventional mortgage in order to compensate themselves for carrying more risk.

Redefining the word doesn't mean it's true.
An additional differentiator is the fact that CMHC insurance has no direct affect on the interest rate that the lender gives you. Meaning just because you are CMHC insured they aren't going to tack on another 2 points, unlike subprime lending.

There were several subprime lenders in Canada. So it's not like CMHC insured mortgages are the "northern subprime". We had the very similar products available as the US.

Second 100% LTV mortgages are gone. The only CMHC product that I know of that allows for "cash back" is CMHC Flex Down. It would be near impossible (if not impossible) to qualify for 95% LTV and 5% cash back from the lender/vendor. CHMC wouldn't approve the loan.
In spite of this implausible scenario with the cash back, the loan is still 95%LTV. No money came out of your pocket but there is still ~5% equity in the property. The cashback is used directly towards the down payment.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 2, 2007
1330 posts
386 upvotes
Toronto
GonePostal wrote: Second 100% LTV mortgages are gone. The only CMHC product that I know of that allows for "cash back" is CMHC Flex Down. It would be near impossible (if not impossible) to qualify for 95% LTV and 5% cash back from the lender/vendor. CHMC wouldn't approve the loan.
In spite of this implausible scenario with the cash back, the loan is still 95%LTV. No money came out of your pocket but there is still ~5% equity in the property. The cashback is used directly towards the down payment.
Sure about that?
This past weekend a friend went to two places in Toronto that advertised 5% down with 0% interest for 3 years.

The first one I cannot provide any details - as he was driving around he could hear the noise of three landing airplanes and decided to skip on the spot without going to the sale office.

The second one (5 minutes to 401; walk to the beach) had 39 town homes and detached homes for sale priced between 435k and 485k (towns the same price as the detached ones):
Details of the offer:
1. Buy with 5% down;
2. No need to qualify - did not ask what is the meaning on this one
3. 3 years @ 0% interest
There were also $5k thrown into upgrading...
Banned
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
54 upvotes
GonePostal wrote: Subprime mortgage loans refer to lending to borrowers that can not or will not qualify for a "prime" loan, not a conventional/high ratio loan. There is a significant difference.
A high ratio loan is not a 'prime' loan. You can hide behind semantics all you want, but people who use CMHC insurance are subprime borrowers. The loans themselves cannot be bought by banks without being insured.
A type of mortgage that is normally made out to borrowers with lower credit ratings. As a result of the borrower's lowered credit rating, a conventional mortgage is not offered because the lender views the borrower as having a larger-than-average risk of defaulting on the loan.
Doesn't that describe the CMHC-using crowd too? A crowd that isn't able to save money (because they obviously don't have the downpayment), and is viewed by the lender as being too much of a credit risk to extend credit without insurance?

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no CMHC in the United States; high-ratio loans require PMI, which is basically the private-sector's version of CMHC mortgage insurance. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac only deal in prime, 'conforming' mortgages, and facilitate securitization of those mortgages with the assistance of their implicit government guarantee and backing.

One can either buy mortgage insurance, and pay an explicit premium, or take out a subprime loan, and pay an implicit premium (ie: a higher interest rate). Both the user of mortgage insurance (PMI, CMHC, etc.), and the implicit borrower are 'subprime', and both have similar effective interest rates.
Lending institutions often charge interest on subprime mortgages at a rate that is higher than a conventional mortgage in order to compensate themselves for carrying more risk.
There's no difference between a front-loaded mortgage insurance premium (ala CMHC, PMI, etc.), and a amortized premium.
Redefining the word doesn't mean it's true.
I have not redefined anything. I'm just showing you that CMHC insured borrowers are the same thing as subprime borrowers, for all practical purposes.
An additional differentiator is the fact that CMHC insurance has no direct affect on the interest rate that the lender gives you. Meaning just because you are CMHC insured they aren't going to tack on another 2 points, unlike subprime lending.
Ummm. But the CMHC premium itself is a front-loaded fee, which, if you amortize it over the loan, would give you exactly the same interest rate as you would be paying if you went to a 'subprime' borrower. Why? Because the risk profile is identical.

Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

If you'd like some mathematical examples, I'd be more than willing to post them. A CMHC-insured borrower is paying, in most cases, effective interest rates in excess of 10%/annum, once the mortgage insurance premium is properly amortized over its effective life.
Second 100% LTV mortgages are gone. The only CMHC product that I know of that allows for "cash back" is CMHC Flex Down. It would be near impossible (if not impossible) to qualify for 95% LTV and 5% cash back from the lender/vendor. CHMC wouldn't approve the loan.
Happens all the time. Why do you think outfits like TD have those "5% cash back" mortgages? Someone gets qualified for one of those, and then immediately uses the 5% cash back, to cover the downpayment, thus circumventing the CMHC 5% downpayment requirement. I only bank with TD, but I imagine all Canadian banks have some form of this.
In spite of this implausible scenario with the cash back, the loan is still 95%LTV. No money came out of your pocket but there is still ~5% equity in the property. The cashback is used directly towards the down payment.
"No money came out of your pocket" = no equity. And the interest rate, is obviously jacked higher, so the bank still gets its money. It really doesn't matter if you have 5% equity in anything, if the debt service costs are commensurately higher.
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Banned
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
54 upvotes
bcbgboy13 wrote: Sure about that?
This past weekend a friend went to two places in Toronto that advertised 5% down with 0% interest for 3 years.
Yeah, there you go; 0% interest for 3 years with 5% down, is at least a 10-15% writedown on the sticker price (and I'm sure more could be negotiated! -- probably 25% off for a 'cash' purchase!). They can't say "0%" down, as that would be implying outright fraud against CMHC, but certainly, they're willing to play games, which invariably involve kickbacks, cash rebates, etc.

Of course, to StatsCan, to the TREB, to anyone else who cares, they'll report those condo units as being sold for full face value. Which is why those numbers are problematic.
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)

Top