61 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rentah
rentah
13 years ago

mold:Wise to be a skeptic.But if you look at the content of the VHB posts, they're very much confined to VHBs areas of interest (YOY stats etc).So I have, as yet, no reason to believe that the VHB at rc's is anybody other than VHB.—

mold
mold
13 years ago

I think the VHB at chipmans blog is an imposter.. Its someone pretending to be VHB – Before he moved over the wordpress the blogger user info showed that user as being registered just a couple of months ago. Anyone can make an account and call themselves what ever they want.

rentah
rentah
13 years ago

VHB does occasionally post on chipman's blog, so you could catch him there.

Richard
Richard
13 years ago

little house in torontohttp://tinyurl.com/2qq8ht

blueskies
blueskies
13 years ago

invite him over, but keep in mind he doesn't like tin foil hats and bull droppings…….

Drachen
Drachen
13 years ago

I don't think VHB visits here anymore. Good point though. Does anyone know how to contact him?

-\/-
-\/-
13 years ago

VHB,sorry to ask, but could you re-establish your blog? I was using it for all the links and it was great.

patriotz
patriotz
13 years ago

Continuous usage (shelter, cars, appliances), will you be better off financially if you rent to own. Own of course. For obvious reasons. An owner takes on more risk for which he is compensated. In the case of a home, price risk. For a car or appliance, the risk of breakage, or getting out.The difference of course is that consumer durables never carry a speculative premium (well except PS3, Miata, etc). So you are never in doubt that for the long term it is better to buy – at any time – than to rent.But for housing the speculative premium can become so outlandish (1981, today) that buying at the wrong time can put you behind renting for decades. And the renter can always jump in at a market bottom, and be ahead of the buy-at-the-top owner for a lifetime.

freako
freako
13 years ago

""Renting is throwing away money" is an economic oxymoron. "The one that irks me is: "Why pay your landlord's mortgage"and"Have your tenants pay your mortgage for you"If I recall correctly, both Chipman and Aaron Best threw me that line.

freako
freako
13 years ago

"It doesn't make sense, period. Shelter is a service with a market value, and you're not throwing away money on renting any more than paying for any other service.""Do I lease or buy a car in which I drive to work every day?"There are two questions here:1. Is renting throwing money away? As per Patriotz explanation (and mine and other earlier), no you are getting SOMETHING for you money.2. Continous usuage (shelter, cars, appliances), will you be better off financially if you rent to own. Own of course. For obvious reasons. An owner takes on more risk for which he is compensated. In the case of a home, price risk. For a car or appliance, the risk of breakage, or getting out.There are also intangibles which are individual. Ownership may create stability and offer "ownership pride" and other intangibles. But… Read more »

patriotz
patriotz
13 years ago

Do I lease or buy a car in which I drive to work every day? Leasing a car is like leasing RE (i.e. 99 year), you're taking on many of the risks of ownership and it's definitely not renting. It's really an alternate form of financing ownership.If the monthly payments for renting (not leasing) a car were less than the monthly payments for buying the same car, how many people would buy?Oh right, cars depreciate but RE always goes up.You can pay for the use of a capital asset by paying the owner directly (renting), or by renting the money from someone else and taking title (owning). In the latter case you're also renting the asset to yourself. The question is in which case do you pay less – taking into account market rent, carying costs, and the upside/downside on… Read more »

jesse
jesse
13 years ago

"If they don't give me the money, I will kick them in the balls. I will charge 1% for my services."I suggest steel-toed boots. Not to increase the pain for the client but to reduce the pain on your toes."Are you 'throwing away' money renting a seat on a airplane instead of buying an airplane for your trip? Of course not."GE's corporate jet begs to differ. But it isn't used just once a year. Do I lease or buy a car in which I drive to work every day? I think there is something to the so-called "control premium" put on ownership.

patriotz
patriotz
13 years ago

I always get tired of the "renting is just throwing away money" argument….This only makes sense if the costs of owning and renting are roughly comparableIt doesn't make sense, period. Shelter is a service with a market value, and you're not throwing away money on renting any more than paying for any other service.Are you "throwing away" money renting a seat on a airplane instead of buying an airplane for your trip? Of course not. Are you "throwing away" money renting a car on vacation instead of buying one and then selling it 2 weeks later? How about renting a hotel room instead of buying a room in a "condotel"?"Renting is just throwing away money" is based on the false axiom "Real estate always goes up", or more precisely a belief that RE has a guaranteed rate of return higher… Read more »

aetakeo
aetakeo
13 years ago

Renters will pay me (into trust) the difference between ownership costs and their rent. I will invest it conservatively on their behalf. If they don't give me the money, I will kick them in the balls. I will charge 1% for my services.Right now, the difference between owning and renting is greater than many people have in their budgets, responsible or no.

Clarke
Clarke
13 years ago

As a side comment, if you live in a strata, it tends to be a better place to live if there are more owners than renters. That being said, the argument of the benefit of "enforced savings" by taking out a large mortgage are rather chimerical presently, in light of the fact that recent buyers are likely to be sitting on negative equity in a year or so…….I always get tired of the "renting is just throwing away money" argument….This only makes sense if the costs of owning and renting are roughly comparable, and it has not been like that in the GVRD in the last number of years…..

casual observer
casual observer
13 years ago

Freako: Now we have very responsible individuals who rent because they are fiscally conservative, and 20 something ex-renters living from mortgage payment to mortgage payment.I couldn't agree with you more. I would prefer to be a homeowner again, but not when the economics favour renting by such a huge margin, as they do right now.Jesse: Thanks for the suggestion.I even threatened to change insurance companies. I got several competing quotes from other companies, however, there wasn't one that didn't charge more for renters, and the amount of savings was minimal.This was in 2004, and I guess insurance companies were still compensating for huge losses due to Sept. 11, 2001, bad weather, and "undercharging of insurance premiums". At least, that was the story I was being fed.If all insurance companies raise their rates at once, they can pretty much do so… Read more »

freako
freako
13 years ago

"I agree that renters are not necessarily less responsible than owners,but apparently insurance companies don't have the same impression."You got stereotyped, and were dragged kicking and screaming into a higher risk group.Again, the link is that irresponsible people tend to be renters, so it is assumed that renters are irresponsible. I presume that an insurance company needs something to go on, so they are sticking to their guns. In most cases, renter versus owner is just a proxy for two other risk categories, namely young age and irresponsible behavior (having more parties, houseguests, roommates etc). Fairly simplistic modelling, but I presume it has worked quite well until recently. Now we have very responsible individuals who rent because they are fiscally conservative, and 20 something ex-renters living from mortgage payment to mortgage payment.

Jesse
Jesse
13 years ago

"I really felt that since the only thing changing was our ownership status, we were being discriminated against for being renters."They are blanketing low risk renters with high risk ones. That is their choice. If insurance companies had the time to appraise each client, policies would be more efficient. The money they are making off you is so low it's not worth their while. My suggestion is to write a nasty letter and go to a different agency for your next house. Also let them know you told all your friends and family. You would be surprised how well this can work; letter writing can be effective but has recently gone out of fashion (meaning it is probably more poignant now than before).

Patiently Waiting
Patiently Waiting
13 years ago

<a href="http://lnk.nu/bloomberg.com/e5zhttp://lnk.nu/bloomberg.com/e5z<br />When people talk in the trillions, my eyes just glaze over.This is scary. Even renters holding cash are going to feel the fear.

casual observer
casual observer
13 years ago

Freako: 3. Renters are often seen as less responsible than owners. Some try to create a cause and effect argument that it is ownership that makes people responsible. Of course, the true reason is that responsible people are more inclined to own. You absolutely NOT argue that choosing to rent versus owning makes YOU (the individual) less responsible.I agree that renters are not necessarily less responsible than owners,but apparently insurance companies don't have the same impression.When we sold our place, we rented it back from the new owner until we found another place to live. When I went to change our contents insurance policy from a homeowners policy to a renters policy, THE PREMIUM NEARLY DOUBLED!I explained to them that we have lived in the same apartment for 11 years, we still had the same stuff, we were keeping the… Read more »

freako
freako
13 years ago

"To that end, I don't agree with government subsidies to home ownership – "Even if I did feel that ownership creates responsibility I would also oppose subsidies because they don't serve their intended purpose. They just push prices higher in a vicious cycle.The more assistance CMHC lends to FTB's, the higher prices will go. Notices our tendency to overshoot. As rates dropped dramatically, affordability WORSENED. Next, if prices do fall a fair bit, many marginal buyers will realize that their equity is in the hole and may walk. Homeownership DOWN. Prices DOWN.Of course, the overbuilding that occurred meanwhile will reduce housing costs, but what a circuitous route to that end. And what misalocation.

-\/-
-\/-
13 years ago

NewsflashJust pop by Rob Chipman's and look at the inventory and listing data.Wew had a 400 new listing day last Friday. The stock is now at over 11800……Air starts flowing out of the bubble….will it flow in an orderly fashion??

patriotz
patriotz
13 years ago

And maybe the idiot lifelong renter who pisses his money away would have done the same had he bought. Impossible to know.Not impossible at all. Just bring on no-doc, 100% financing, and presto, renters who piss their own money away become "buyers" who piss someone else's money away. I feel strongly that "owning" does not make people more responsible. I've always been just as responsible as a renter as an owner. It's responsibility which enables (or should enable) people to become owners. To that end, I don't agree with government subsidies to home ownership – they are unfair to renters, distort the market, and discourage people from acquiring the self-discipline they should have to be homeowners. Oh yeah, they don't make owning more affordable either.

freako
freako
13 years ago

The near zero / negative savings rate of the US/Canadian/UK economies suggests that MOST people have difficulty saving be it for lack of funds or lack of restraint aka. must have 42 inch plasma.Actually, I figure that 99% of falling savings rate is due to the wealth effect of rising property prices. In the present scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if renters are better savers, as they try to squirrel away enough for a downpayment. They tend to become more interested in the dull stuff of life like taxes, schools, child care etc. There could be something to that. I am always very of assumed causation. I think it runs the opposite direction more often than not. This would be a hard one to prove either way, because we don't have random samples. Maybe the born again dull and responsible… Read more »

BC Buds
BC Buds
13 years ago

"This discussion seems based on the assumption that owners will retire with no housing costs unlike renters." What about the idea of buyers putting the majority of their income into mortgage payments and having nothing to contribute to investments. All funds are directed to mortgage payments and basic survival. What happens 25 years down the road when they have a paid off house but no savings? Sell with all the other “real estate at any price” believers?