Real Estate

Ottawa Real Estate market discussion

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 24th, 2020 2:08 pm
Tags:
None
Member
Aug 14, 2007
453 posts
201 upvotes
Ottawa
Furcorn wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2019 3:22 pm
It must be different in TO where buyers spend time searching for houses they want to see. A buyer's agent cannot refuse to show a house which a buyer wants to see. Not sure what type of alternate universe you live in where buyer's agents have some magical lordship power. They have zero here.
Many buyers with agent are blindly trusted their agent recommendation, and many first time buyers don't even know MLS.ca is existed. If sellers don't offer commission to the buyer agent, they will don't show the house to the buyer, it is as simple as that...
[OP]
Deal Addict
Nov 26, 2004
2324 posts
419 upvotes
audiorichard wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2019 4:06 pm
Many buyers with agent are blindly trusted their agent recommendation, and many first time buyers don't even know MLS.ca is existed. If sellers don't offer commission to the buyer agent, they will don't show the house to the buyer, it is as simple as that...
That's an excellent point. This just demonstrates the buyer is actually the person who is paying the commission. Yeah, there is a house that is worth $500k being listed for $440k. But if the seller is not willing to pay the buyer's agent commission as he need to net $440k out of the deal and the buyer is not willing to pay out of his own pocket that $11k to the buyer's agent, the agent who is supposed to not cost the buyer any money will be hiding that listing from the buyer.
Sr. Member
Jun 7, 2017
773 posts
550 upvotes
BC
William W wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2019 5:22 pm
That's an excellent point. This just demonstrates the buyer is actually the person who is paying the commission. Yeah, there is a house that is worth $500k being listed for $440k. But if the seller is not willing to pay the buyer's agent commission as he need to net $440k out of the deal and the buyer is not willing to pay out of his own pocket that $11k to the buyer's agent, the agent who is supposed to not cost the buyer any money will be hiding that listing from the buyer.
... which is not necessarily good for the buyer, LOL. If the buyer puts no effort into his own search then he deserves what he gets.

For all the times when I hired a buying agent, it was a team effort. We both came up with a set of houses to see. If my agent declined to show me a house I would fire him on the spot.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Nov 26, 2004
2324 posts
419 upvotes
Furcorn wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2019 5:34 pm
... which is not necessarily good for the buyer, LOL. If the buyer puts no effort into his own search then he deserves what he gets.

For all the times when I hired a buying agent, it was a team effort. We both came up with a set of houses to see. If my agent declined to show me a house I would fire him on the spot.
He may not necessarily out right decline to show you the home but just made up some excuses like the home is conditionally sold, or the home is not available for viewing for the time you want to see the home. Without full MLS access where buyers get to see realtor's comment, it will be very difficult to validate what he is telling you.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 4, 2004
5011 posts
1085 upvotes
Ottawa
Furcorn wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2019 3:22 pm
It must be different in TO where buyers spend time searching for houses they want to see. A buyer's agent cannot refuse to show a house which a buyer wants to see. Not sure what type of alternate universe you live in where buyer's agents have some magical lordship power. They have zero here.
Of course they can refuse to show it; they work on commission - they can't be forced to work if they don't want to. That said, the client certainly has the right to fire them.

I think most agents would reach out to the vendor and if the vendor does not want to pay commission, they'd simply tell the client that unless the client is willing to pay their commission separately, the client is welcome to visit the home by themselves and present an offer but the agent would not be involved in that transaction. Not only because they aren't getting paid but also because if they are involved, they are legally liable.
Member
Aug 14, 2007
453 posts
201 upvotes
Ottawa
That is why it makes me laugh every time when I hear broker said: "it does not cost the buyer one cent to hire buyer agent." For the whole transaction, there are only ONE party is paying CASH to complete the deal. Is it the seller? is it the broker? Come on, everything is pay by the buyer. The purchase price is already included all the costs in the transaction. When the sellers sell their house, the asking price is already included the market price of the property and all type of transactions cost (lawyer fee, broker fee, taxes....etc.)

On the other hand, it is fair to pay commission to the buyer agent. It takes time and there are costs involved to find a buyer, agent is doing it for living. Therefore, if I am selling my property, I will simply to pay fair commission to the buyer agent to complete the deal. It is because the buyer agent is working for me to bring the buyer to the table. Smiling Face With Open Mouth
Sr. Member
Jun 7, 2017
773 posts
550 upvotes
BC
audiorichard wrote:
Jan 23rd, 2019 9:34 am
That is why it makes me laugh every time when I hear broker said: "it does not cost the buyer one cent to hire buyer agent." For the whole transaction, there are only ONE party is paying CASH to complete the deal. Is it the seller? is it the broker? Come on, everything is pay by the buyer. The purchase price is already included all the costs in the transaction. When the sellers sell their house, the asking price is already included the market price of the property and all type of transactions cost (lawyer fee, broker fee, taxes....etc.)

On the other hand, it is fair to pay commission to the buyer agent. It takes time and there are costs involved to find a buyer, agent is doing it for living. Therefore, if I am selling my property, I will simply to pay fair commission to the buyer agent to complete the deal. It is because the buyer agent is working for me to bring the buyer to the table. Smiling Face With Open Mouth
Totally agree to fair pay for service. Something like 6 hrs x $50/hr = $300 sounds reasonable for unskilled labor.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 4, 2004
5011 posts
1085 upvotes
Ottawa
Furcorn wrote:
Jan 23rd, 2019 4:43 pm
Totally agree to fair pay for service. Something like 6 hrs x $50/hr = $300 sounds reasonable for unskilled labor.
If you want to pay for service, you would have to pay for all services (e.g. $25 to get sales information, $50-100+ to do some market research, $25 to book appointments, $250 to show properties (even if you don't buy), $50-100 to write up an offer, $50-100 to meet you to go over the offer with you and have you sign it (although less if just doing digital signature and don't need to come to you), $200+ to negotiate an offer, $50-$100 to pick up and drop off deposit cheque, $200-300 to attend home inspection, $200-300 to talk to and send various documents to lawyers, bank, other agent, etc.

In the end, all these fees would likely be less than the current commission but would you want to pay them if you aren't buying something. Would you be prepared to pay an agent $300-400 to show you properties all day even if you don't see anything you like. Also, you're $50/hour might not be enough to attract people to the field; realistically, they might only be able to bill 20 hours per week so might want $100 or $200 per hour. Would you pay $1000 to an agent to show you properties for a day? What if you are just looking for a rental? Would you pay the fee then?

It's hard to justify rates of pay. We probably paid our daycare $6/hr but we'll pay a lawyer $300-400/hr ... between the two, the daycare is doing a more important job.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 4, 2004
5011 posts
1085 upvotes
Ottawa
cyberfreak123 wrote:
Jan 24th, 2019 11:11 am
I just want to share this interesting map of affordability. It looks like Ottawa is still affordable.

Income Required to afford a Home in each Ottawa neighborhood.
https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress. ... 670&zoom=2
Interesting to see but I don't think their numbers are realistic.

IMO, I don't think a household making $50k/year can afford to buy a $370k house (Orleans). If nothing else, I don't think a household making $50k/year could even come up with 20% down ($74k) (not that we're rich but we make quite a bit more than that and it's hard to put away even $5k/year ...)

Even if they had the downpayment, that would mean a $300k mortage and a $1500/month mortgage payment (assuming rates don't go up which certainly no garantee). Add $350/month property taxes, $450/month utilities, $100/month insurance, $100/month maintenance (probably too low) and you're looking at $2500/month on housing alone. Realistically, a household making that much (little) is probably going to put 5% down and then the mortgage jumps to $1850/month.

A household making $50k/year is probably making about $35k/year after taxes so under $3000/month net and they are going to spend $2500/month on housing !!! That would leave less than $500/month for food, transportation, clothing, savings, medicine, entertainment, etc. I think "the experts" say you can't really budget more than 30-40% of your income on housing.

I think those household incomes need to be doubled and then maybe it's possible.
Newbie
Aug 4, 2018
27 posts
michelb wrote:
Jan 24th, 2019 11:59 am
Interesting to see but I don't think their numbers are realistic.

IMO, I don't think a household making $50k/year can afford to buy a $370k house (Orleans). If nothing else, I don't think a household making $50k/year could even come up with 20% down ($74k) (not that we're rich but we make quite a bit more than that and it's hard to put away even $5k/year ...)

Even if they had the downpayment, that would mean a $300k mortage and a $1500/month mortgage payment (assuming rates don't go up which certainly no garantee). Add $350/month property taxes, $450/month utilities, $100/month insurance, $100/month maintenance (probably too low) and you're looking at $2500/month on housing alone. Realistically, a household making that much (little) is probably going to put 5% down and then the mortgage jumps to $1850/month.

A household making $50k/year is probably making about $35k/year after taxes so under $3000/month net and they are going to spend $2500/month on housing !!! That would leave less than $500/month for food, transportation, clothing, savings, medicine, entertainment, etc. I think "the experts" say you can't really budget more than 30-40% of your income on housing.

I think those household incomes need to be doubled and then maybe it's possible.
I would have to agree, especially with the new stress test, there's no way they're letting a 50k income household purchase a 370k home... over half your monthly pay going towards the mortgage payments, IF you have the 20% down doesn't cut it anymore.
Newbie
Apr 3, 2018
35 posts
1 upvote
I always thought with the new stress test they only allow 5 times your income as maximum limit if you have 20% downpayment. Atleast that is what they allowed for me.
Newbie
Apr 3, 2018
35 posts
1 upvote
Mattamy's Abottsville Crossing, Blackstone south, fairwinds, Monahan landing- Which is better location wise (school, entertainment, recreation, access to highways, transit etc) for investment purposes.
Newbie
Aug 7, 2018
27 posts
19 upvotes
I feel like those numbers would have been the limit pre-stress test, assuming you didn't have any other loans like a car loan.
This chart seems to think I could have afforded about double what my house cost me. I'd be living a pretty miserable life if that were the case I think.

Top