Up to our necks in debt
There are increasing indications that our reputation of being a financially conservative in Canada is more myth than reality. As a group, we’re taking on more debt than ever before and finding ourselves with less of a personal safety net should the economy take a dive. Since 2001 the number of people over 60 that still have a mortgage has been steadily increasing, and the mortgages that we all hold are of more and more exotic varieties. From todays Vancouver Province: Why we’re up to our necks in debt.
A rash of recent reports paint a scary picture of Canadians as spending like drunken sailors, leading to the prickly question of whether we should be forced to save money.
A Statistics Canada study showed Canadians are finding themselves with two mortgages and deeper in debt than at any time in their lives. They are increasingly house poor, and with housing values sliding, they often owe more on their properties than they’re worth.
…
The StatsCan study came out at the same time that the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada reported that personal bankruptcies reached their highest level in more than four years during April, up 19.3 per cent over the previous month and 18.3 per cent over the previous April.
And things will only get worse if recent numbers showing a gross domestic product decline during the last quarter continue, signalling an economic downturn, and if unemployment rates should start to rise.
As it is, mortgage payments make up 37 per cent of average household spending in 2007, up from 32 per cent a year earlier.
And those mortgages are getting more ‘interesting’. The common refrain that the Canadian housing market is not as vulnerable to downturn as the US market because we don’t have ’sub-prime’ mortgages is only part-true. What we do have is an mortgage insurance market that was liberalized in 2006 and has dramatically changed the landscape in the last few years with the introduction of zero-down, 40 year terms and adjustable ‘teaser’ rate mortgages:
With interest rates dropping, consumers might consider a front-loaded variable- rate mortgage. This option gives you a larger-than-normal discount from the prime interest rate for an initial period, say six months, before you decide whether to lock into a fixed rate.
Longer amortization periods, now up to 40 years, also are new. Holt estimates longer-term mortgages now account for three quarters of monthly insured purchase applications in Canada, with 40-year products accounting for half of that.
So will following the US lead into the area of ‘exotic’ mortgages lead to a similar result? Only time will tell, but it is interesting to see that this topic seems to be getting more attention within the government. That first article had this bit of info that was new to me:
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty recently suggested it might be wise to outlaw 40-year mortgages.
With up to a third of new mortgage applications opting for the longest term, removing that option could have a dramatic impact on our housing market at a time when it appears to be already slowing due to affordability concerns.
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
1
X
Bob from Vancouver Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 8:18 am
The end is here, now i wont be able to give away my house what have i done.
2
X
Big Crash Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Yet, the denial continues: “No, the economy is still going strong and RE prices still go up”. I s**t you not, that’s what the majority of people would say!!
3
X
Big Crash Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Ooops forgot to mention the 2010 Olympics… Yup, the two-week event will save the day, and RE prices will keep going up!!!
4
X
Re-diculous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Interesting: “Finance Minister Jim Flaherty recently suggested it might be wise to outlaw 40-year mortgages.”
Has that horse not already left the barn?
5
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Thank God for the Olympics…the OLYMPICS (lifting arms heavenward, torrent of tears of pure joy streaming down face) THE OLYMPICS!!! (collapses in heap of exhaustion and utter relief).
6
X
Thums up2 Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:24 am
“Yet, the denial continues”
YES B.C.Economy countinue to grow stronger because of the housing crash pain in america will be lift up by the same sector HOUSING it self where our supportive industries going to start pick up more bussiness,currently we are doing fine while some cities across the border are bottom out.It’s time to go back to work,actually they have already start going back to work.
7
X
Thumbs up3 Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
YES!! BC economy go strong fast – housing always UP UP UP! America be pain but BC always fine good and now work going bettter upper. Magic place Vancouver I buy condo and think STRONG! then values go better forever and ever!
8
X
umdesch4 Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thums up2:
You seem to be missing a step. To borrow a popular meme, the plan you’ve describe seems to consist of:
1. American housing crashes
2. ????
3. Profit!! (for BC economy)
I fail to see the connecting step 2. Are you saying that somehow a housing crash in the US will be followed by a rash of new starts? Or am I missing your point entirely?
9
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am
The Gospel According to Thums up2.
Today’s reading is from the Book of WTF?
So sayeth the God of Real estate:
“because of the housing crash pain in America will be lift up!”
(closing book respectfully)
Amen.
10
X
exx Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:58 am
B.C. real estate sales drop from one year ago
Muir added that the inventory of unsold properties may edge lower as properties priced in anticipation of a still accelerating market get pulled off the market or re-priced “according to today’s market realities.”
Just another reminder from our local MSM that the jig is up.
11
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I think it’s time we put together a short, inspirational collection from KRsh, Krash, Thums up, or WTF it’s name is. Maybe a day calendar? Everyday could have a picture of a shiny, pasteboard condo, and a bit of wisdom from this master of positive thinking (photoshop ideas welcome).
I think today’s gem is:
“It’s time to go back to work,actually they have already start.”
Right up there with “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.”
I feel a warm glow over my body – and here I was thinking doom and gloom! Thanks…whoever you are…
12
X
patriotz Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Has that horse not already left the barn?
It was Flaherty who let it out in the first place.
I think the Cons have wrecked their chances for re-election. Their policies, from the wrongheaded GST cuts to the irresponsible 40 year and 0% down mortgages, will magnify the impact of the upcoming US recession and hamper the government’s ability to compensate for it. Other parties will blame them for this and rightly so.
One other point that must be made – looking at Canada-wide figures obscures the magnitude of BC’s debt addiction. Every measure I’ve seen is as bad as in the bubbliest US states. Our savings rate is now a shocking -8%. Compare with +6% ten years ago, under the evil Glen Clark.
13
X
jesse Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Great post, Pope. You must mention stated income which, while a reasonable innovation in itself, is prone to abuse and miscalculation. For example a Realtor with 5 years experience goes stated income and buys a property. What are the chances their income for the past 5 years will continue for the next 5? Basically zero. The banks can only hope they did their math correctly and factored in the cyclical nature of real estate into their calculations.
Anyways, with the negative savings rate the debate around whether or not there is “subprime” or not is meaningless. Call it what you want, prime or subprime, the debt levels are high and unsustainable. If guys like Flaherty are saying this, two years behind their American counterparts making similar observations, that’s a bad sign.
Investors: it’s not too late! Sell now at an aggressive price and walk away.
14
X
bdk Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Krissh/thumsup/browntown must be wishing he could erase that comment, that is his stupiest comment today.
The market is going down so that means it’ll go up
It’s still mad that she/he can’t sell her condo, it’s been three weeks now.
15
X
Big Crash Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Thums Up2 says:
YES B.C.Economy countinue to grow stronger because of the housing crash pain in america will be lift up by the same sector HOUSING it self where our supportive industries going to start pick up more bussiness,currently we are doing fine while some cities across the border are bottom out.It’s time to go back to work,actually they have already start going back to work.
I say: ?????
16
X
Anonymous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I could buy his/her condo!! Meeeee meeee!
But, I wont.
Sellers may believe in greed, but as a potential buyer I believe in value.
I am focusing my time/energy on good investments now, housing is the worst investment now, for a few years to come. Why buy the sausage now when it will go on sale later? ;]
17
X
Dave Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
That was a pretty hollow article in that it didn’t provide any real data to back up the assertion that debt levels are too high or are unsustainable.
17% of homes have at least one mortgage. So, 83% of homes in Canada have no mortgage at all. Doesn’t sound so scary when you consider the later.
Of course bankruptcies are up due to the downturn in manufacturing back east and it should be no surprise the levels are at a 4 year high.
18
X
no_subprime_here Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Dave, I like your optimism, but 17% is wrong. They might have meant second mortgage.
The number of households with a mortgage is more like 60% according to
Statistics Canada
19
X
Warren Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Muir is on CKNW right now. According to our good friend Muir, supply and demand aren’t out of whack enough to forecast price declines. Hmmmm….
20
X
Ari Telias Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The “turn” is happening faster than I expected. I just told the wife yesterday: “We are partying in the blogoshpere.The main media will pick it up in a month or two!”…
And we got it today!
I have a feeling things will happen much faster here. Like a whiplash – a small movement on one end but a very fast movement in the other. Seems we were the long end when the US was the short end, all things considered.
If I am right (IF), then the downturn here will happen a. Faster. b. Deeper than the US.
Best regards,
21
X
Drachen Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Dave
“didn’t provide any real data to back up the assertion that debt levels are too high or are unsustainable.”
British Columbia’s citizens have a net negative savings rate. That is, by it’s nature unsustainable.
“17% of homes have at least one mortgage.”
Looks like that was a typo, he probably meant two mortgages.
22
X
Drachen Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Here’s something interesting however.
“mortgage payments make up 37 per cent of average household spending in 2007″
Approximately 65% of households have a mortgage. So of a mortgage holder’s income that would be 57% of the household income spent on the mortgage (once you remove the 35% who pay 0% of their income on their mortgage).
23
X
beatstreet Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Let’s face it, today a bushel of wheat is a better bet than a downtown condo or Dunbar SFH.
24
X
Vansanity Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Nice catch no_subprime_here! I thought 17% sounded extremely low! Should send that link to the journalist that wrote that article, if you have not already.
25
X
jesse Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“I just told the wife yesterday: “We are partying in the blogoshpere.The main media will pick it up in a month or two!”… And we got it today!”
This is why communication with the wife on this subject is so important. I was lucky enough to make some passing comments in 2006 about a friend who had property in Sacramento and was refusing to sell, to which I said they were crazy not to offload it as soon as possible. Now in 2008 they are negative equity, still with the property, and I remind my wife about my previous prognostication every few weeks. +1 credibility.
26
X
jesse Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“Approximately 65% of households have a mortgage. So of a mortgage holder’s income that would be 57% of the household income spent on the mortgage (once you remove the 35% who pay 0% of their income on their mortgage).”
I’m not sure the stats around the 57% of income spend on a mortgage come from. The stats I point towards are a 32K increase in households with mortgages paying 30%+ of household income towards housing from 2001-2006. The % of total households in this situation increased as well. Most households are not up to their gills in debt but the trend is for more of them to be and that is going to be what matters.
27
X
Burden of Proof Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“That was a pretty hollow article in that it didn’t provide any real data to back up the assertion that debt levels are too high or are unsustainable.”
Ha, ha! That is your MO, Dave!
28
X
Dave Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
British Columbia’s citizens have a net negative savings rate. That is, by it’s nature unsustainable.
You can’t ignore demographics with our savings rate. With boomers retiring, it will shift the percentage. How much, I don’t know.
It may very well be possible that a negative savings rate is completely normal with a large demographic of retired people.
29
X
Anonymous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Negative savings rate may be completely normal with the huge dope industry and billions in unaccounted dollars.
30
X
alexcanuck Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
and I remind my wife about my previous prognostication every few weeks.
And spend a couple of nights on the couch?
Sorry, just had to toss that out.
31
X
jesse Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“And spend a couple of nights on the couch?”
32
X
Raincouver Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Muir is on CKNW right now. According to our good friend Muir, supply and demand aren’t out of whack enough to forecast price declines. Hmmmm….
Just watched him on Global news, he chuckled his way through the interview but did concede ‘maybe a couple percent’ drop in prices.
33
X
alexcanuck Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I just went back over all 325 comment on the weekend thread. (Is 325 a record? At least people are talking)
“Dave” provided a grand total of three sources for all his “facts”
http://www.bcrea.bc.ca/economics/trends … hCheck.pdf
http://www.cucbc.com/publications/econo … 07octc.pdf
http://www.cucbc.com/publications/econo … g2008c.pdf
One from BCREA, two from Helmut Pastrick.
Good, solid reporting there!
34
X
patriotz Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
It may very well be possible that a negative savings rate is completely normal with a large demographic of retired people.
BC doesn’t have a large demographic of retired people. It’s the same as the Canadian average. Inflows of retirees to BC are nowhere near as big as many people think, and have been balanced by inflows of younger people.
It’s the historically slow-growing provinces, SK.MN, and Quebec east, which have the oldest demographics.
35
X
Vansanity Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
For those that can’t get enough Muir:
BC Home Sales Plunge in May
http://www.canada.com/victoria.....0883a29500
36
X
Drachen Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Anonymous
“Negative savings rate may be completely normal with the huge dope industry and billions in unaccounted dollars.”
As I’ve said many times before. The dope trade is organized. They know why Al Capone went to jail. They do their taxes like everyone else (well a little more creatively but nonetheless…) Does the term “laundering” mean nothing to you other than the textiles context? Laundered money is recorded, albeit not from the correct source so it wouldn’t skew the stats.
Dave
“You can’t ignore demographics with our savings rate. With boomers retiring, it will shift the percentage. How much, I don’t know.”
Our demographics are not significantly different from other places. Places with positive savings rates. What we have in common with other places where the savings rate is negative is a real estate bubble. Keep trying, eventually you might say something that makes sense.
37
X
Thums up2 Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Mortgage debt is a best alternate than renting a place for the following reason.
1.Mortgagee can live in desirable place forever.
2.Mortgagee will have benifit of inflation.
3.Mortgagee won’t be priced out as long he/she pay the mortgage payment.
4.Mortgagee can enjoy the convenience of work place and school for their childrens.
5.Mortgagee will earn the appreciation value decade after decade on their purchase.
6.Mortgagee dont have to waste his/her time thinking about housing or affordability.
7.Mortgagee don’t have to pay increased rent time after time and no rent at all after mortgage term.
8.Mortgage payment could be advance every year by paying 15% extra on your mortgage when the family income increase and mortgage payment go down to lower down the borrowed principle amount.
9.Mortgagee don’t really have to wonder place to place with eviction or moving notice.
mortgage debt is every where in the world people buy and don’t buy that for their own convenience,so basically this article tells borrowing a mortgage is too common.they had mention the point from “DAVE” about affordability not the income and they are trying to tell people what kind of advance mortgage is availabel in the market with no presure on interest rates also like to tell the buyers that our market and economy is good with no subprime mess.
10.“OUR OWN HOME IS A WONDERFUL PLACE ON EARTH”
38
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I really like that:
“Our own home is a wonderful place on earth” – catchy, sort of sounds like a Carpenters song – that has to go on the day calendar. Thums 2/Krsh HAS to be a put on. No one could mangle grammar that badly.
39
X
moldcity Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Dave, I’m no economics expert, so maybe thats why I don’t understand your prediction from the previous story:
put me down for 12 to 18 months of gains. In other words, if there is a correction, then I predict values will drop from 10 to 15% (nominally). So, if it breaks 15%, I will have been wrong.
How can a 10 to 15% drop in price mean 12 to 18 months of gains?
House prices are up 5.9 percent from last may, so wouldn’t an even smaller drop eat up 12 months of gains? A fifteen percent drop in prices is equal to almost 30% in gains is it not?
40
X
Dave Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
How many languages do you speak Bubble Lad?
I don’t understand making fun of somebody’s grammar when it isn’t in their native language. If anything, they should be commended.
41
X
Dave Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Mold, if you read the last discussion thread, you will find that my observation of prior corrections in Vancouver is that they turn the clock back about 12 to 18 months.
Based on that, my prediction would be that a correction would rewind us back to somewhere between the nominal prices of November 2006 and May 2007. That’s roughly a range of 10 to 15%.
Yes, based on the latest data from May 2008, one year would strictly be 5.9%. 13 months would probably be 10% and 18 months roughly 15%.
I don’t follow you last question (RE 15% drop being equivalent to 30% gains).
42
X
Anonymous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
“Muir is on CKNW right now”
WKRP in Cinncinatti???
43
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Come on:
“Our own home is a wonderful place on earth”.
give me a break. There’s no way that’s a mistake. I think Krsh has been putting us on the whole time.
44
X
Dave Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I just went back over all 325 comment on the weekend thread. (Is 325 a record? At least people are talking)
“Dave” provided a grand total of three sources for all his “facts”
One from BCREA, two from Helmut Pastrick.
Good, solid reporting there!
Data is data. Ultimately, it all comes from reliable published sources (e.g. statscan, MLS, etc..).
What would you prefer I use? Tarot cards?
What are your sources?
45
X
Swirlyman Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Renting a place may be better alternate than mortgage debt for the following reason.
1.Renter can live in more desirable place than what he/she could afford to buy.
2.When time comes to renew mortgage at higher rates, mortgagee will suffer effects of inflation.
3.Renter can stay as long as he/she pay the rent.
4.Renter can enjoy the convenience of work place and school for their childrens.
5.Renter will earn the appreciation value year after year on their savings, until house is cheap enough to buy.
6.Renter dont have to waste his/her time thinking about house maintenance or interest rates at mortgage renewal time.
7.Renter don’t have to worry about rent increases above rent control levels.
8.Renter’s saving could be increased every year by paying 15% extra into low-risk investment (e.g. budweiser stock) when the family income increase.
9.Renter don’t really have to worry about losing life savings on a single investment (house) because he/she bought at foolish time.
46
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Still, I think there’s a match to be made here: Dave & Krshh (or his/her many aliases) – that’s if, in fact, they are two different people. I see them strolling hand in hand across a wildflower filled meadow mumbling nonsensical opinions, exchanging their own graphs of housing values drawn in crayon. Krsh, aglow with his new friend’s defense of his poor grammar and opinions that make no sesne, has a sort of steampunk universal translator bolted to his chest, out of which sprout a variety of strange non-starters to which Dave nods his head appreciatively, acknowledging the sage wisdom of his new best buddy.
47
X
Thums up2 Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Swirlyman says “1.Renter can live in more desirable place than what he/she could afford to buy.”
What if your earning is less compare to the rent for desirable place? imagine some one can’t afford to rent a place with $50,000 anual earning but some one bought that same place with $40,000 anual income.
Q.who can afford to stay on desirable place from the above case?
A2.at the time of renew total mortgage amount is already low so inflation hardlly can hurt the buyer but renter for sure with 4% estimated anual increase.
A.3.is depend on the owner and the lease term.
A4.is same as A3.
A5.Hpi shows prices most likely go up compare the home price from 1867 to 2008.
A9.time is always good when you can afford monthly payment for the term.
48
X
richard Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“How many languages do you speak Bubble Lad?
I don’t understand making fun of somebody’s grammar when it isn’t in their native language. If anything, they should be commended.”
ha ha ha…. you’re new here so you have no idea at all who you are talking about, and i don’t mean bubble lad. let me just say, you are so so so so so so wrong in this specific instance.
49
X
holgs Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I don’t understand making fun of somebody’s grammar when it isn’t in their native language. If anything, they should be commended.”
How about when they can’t count? Thums asked:
Q.who can afford to stay on desirable place from the above case?
Check out that sweet foreign counting technique! 2, 3, 4 (well, actually 3 again), 5, 9!!!
50
X
Thums up2 Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Holgs,
On the left over points he is almost right,i can feel the increasing pain in bears because the are thirsty since long time,it’s been almost four year since they are blowing their whistles but horse man did not show up ok let me help them to take a preview.here goes the horse man and his horse http://gallery.bizhat.com/data.....se_car.jpg
51
X
Anonymous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
haha Holgs,He is almost right on the left over points so there is no rant for them.
52
X
Anonymous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
seems like bears are defenceless with open net-no goal keeper ce ce ce.
53
X
Brittanny Spears Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Thumbs up: If you read like you write, you may be missing some of the more important points and making bad decisions.
54
X
Anonymous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Me not up but what point Christina? sorry Brittanny??.
55
X
moldcity Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Dave, If you have $100 and it goes up by 25% you have $125. If that $125 drops by 25% you now have $93.75. Percentage increases are not the same as percentages decreases.
56
X
bdk Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Have you been smoking crack krissh/Satv/thumsup/browntown or whatever you are calling yourself?
You’re even more wacked out and crazy today.
Maybe you got into the crazy glue at work?
Have you bothered calling any realtors to ask them if you have a chance in hell of selling your “properties”?
They’d probably just presume you were some crazy panhandler who’d picked your card up off the street.
“I am best place on earth and score goals on left while wages increase this year”
57
X
bdk Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Sorry for letting the troll bait me.
Let’s get back to the real point of todays links:
The Market is tanking, anyone who buys today will be broke
Proof from best BDK on the board
“A rash of recent reports paint a scary picture of Canadians as spending like drunken sailors, leading to the prickly question of whether we should be forced to save money.
A Statistics Canada study showed Canadians are finding themselves with two mortgages and deeper in debt than at any time in their lives. They are increasingly house poor, and with housing values sliding, they often owe more on their properties than they’re worth.”
The Market will go down worse than Las Vegas or Miami
58
X
Anonymous Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
you are good this time finally you are able to copy and paste stuff to make some stuff then make some more to hide what you have made before then start smoking in your balcony come back and make some more then more later,when the previous stuff you have made fulfil the bin just dump that in big container come back and make some more finally write some thing in capital letters and say usa is subprime country of this world where lender sucks blood of borrowers from mexico first they lend them money then take their homes back and issue deportation order then go for coffee break and have another smoke in your balcony with your friends from hasting street and tell them krrish says there is no bubble then come back to your desktop and countinue to start making stuff up.
59
X
jesse Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am
OT, but check out this article published on RET, courtesy Business in Vancouver. Quote:
“Indeed, the credit meltdown has shaken the confidence of many lenders.
Loan-to-value ratios in Vancouver have decreased from between 70% and 75% a year ago, to between 60% and 65% today, requiring buyers to put up more cash at the time of purchase.”
LTV down 10%? In Canada? Holy crap.
60
X
Re-diculous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Here’s the Sun’s reporting on the Cameron Muir interview;
http://www.canada.com/vancouve.....0883a29500
End of article:
Tsur Somerville, director of the centre for urban economics and real estate in the Sauder School of Business at the University of B.C., said the experiences of Calgary and Edmonton are evidence that real-estate prices can decline even in locations where the economy is strong if prices get out of equilibrium with fundamentals.
“We’re not magically immune to the fact that overpriced markets have to adjust,” Somerville said.
However, that doesn’t necessarily mean price corrections, Somerville said. Prices might simply stagnate, as they did in B.C. during the late 1990s, Somerville added, or simply slow to below-average levels.
“I’m confident that [B.C.] markets are adjusting back towards equilibrium,” Somerville said. “But what I’m not clear on is what path that will take.”
61
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:10 am
However, that doesn’t necessarily mean price corrections, Somerville said. Prices might simply stagnate, as they did in B.C. during the late 1990s, Somerville added
That was at the bottom of a bear market, you moron. Market tops in RE are never flat. Market bottoms are.
And to think my taxes are paying this clown.
62
X
Van Man Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:16 am
During the 80s and 90s crash, the subsequent downturn brought prices down first and then sort of lingers for a couple of years before another upturn brings prices back up to newer levels. However, it is difficult to make discount purchases on BC RE as people who attended Tom Vu’s real estate seminars had found out. Also, the past downturns were domestically caused. This current boom is global and as you all have witnessed, it’s not only a BC problem, but the US, UK, Spain and the rest except Japan and Frankfurt, Germany. The boom is or was caused by the carry trade from Japan and China, who seemed intent to madly print their Reminbi so they can devalue their currency against the US in the mission to keep exports CHEAP. These are distortions in the economy that is causing all this massive boom happen.
It’s difficult to control countries that are intent in devaluing themselves in order to preserve their status quo.
Even after more than 10 years, Japan is still stubborn in clearing its credit problems. It is intent to slowly purge bad credit with a devaluation. When RE prices fall down to 23 year lows, suddenly it gets a lot easier to clear bad credit with today’s money don’t you think?
Will we ever get to Japan’s stage? I think the hallmark of that is evident. The Feds are bailing out people like Bear Stearns and buying quality ABCP so preserve the status quo.
We too are bailing out people who own subprime toxins by bailing out the investors of Canaccord Capital. I never agreed that people should be bailed out of anything, even though they claimed ignorance that they were safe bonds.
You know, the things they are doing were exactly what was done in Japan. If you follow Japan’s path, you could end up like Japan’s RE. Maybe not as drastic, but maybe it will.
If the market languishes for a couple of years, it believes the prices are not discounted. That’s what happens to Japan’s RE. The market still did not believe it has been discounted low enough to economic fundamentals, because it went up SO HIGH during the 80s bubble. Our prices went up SO HIGH also, something that has never been seen before even during the 80s and 90s bubble. People are afraid to see prices reset back to 1997 levels, so they write articles to comfort the general public that it will be a soft landing and that homes will stay in the 1 million territory for as long as it takes. BUT, and a big BUT! Wages will need to catch up to those inflated assets to restore fundamentals.
Unfortunately, the internet was not prominent during the 80s and 90s bubble. Yes, we did have Fidonet (a modem bulletin board service), but it is in no way anywhere as big as our WEB. What the internet does is provide us with price parity. See, we now know prices for a certain item just by checking eBay.com or .ca or Amazon.com. It keeps local prices at bay. It can also keep local wages at parity against what the world out there is paying. But China and India aren’t play the same ball game as we do. If we start raising wages in manufacturing and service, we guarantee much more job cuts. The recent layoffs from GM is proof that it’s cheaper to make stuff elsewhere. But it is massive increase in wages that we need in order to restore the upward trend. Either our wages meet current RE prices, or RE prices have to come down low enough to meet our current wages of affordability. That’s why prices will never go up forever. They might go sideways, but this is based on previous historical performances, but you know, these same economists say historical performance is not an indicative of future returns. The current bubble is not even anywhere close to the historical standards we’ve seen yet. How it behaves forward in the future is something nobody knows. But Japan is very close, because they had an older generation that was a decade early from going into retirement, whereas where we are now is where Japan was in the 1980s.
63
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Van_man, you say prices in Japan got ‘So High’. Please provide some data to compare their highs to our highs (e.g. price to rent, affordability, etc…). Simply saying, ‘SO HIGH’ does not a comparison make.
64
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Dave, instead of looking at Japan, let’s just look at the other side of Zero Avenue and the Rockies. Rather a more relevant comparison, wouldn’t you say?
Price/rent and price/income (affordability) are currently worse in Vancouver than any US city was at the top of the market except for the San Francisco and LA areas. I think we are worse than the whole US now. We are also way worse than Calgary and Edmonton were at their market top a year ago.
Listings per capita in GVRD now exceed metro Phoenix two years ago.
How do you like those apples to apples?
65
X
umdesch4 Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:20 am
“Listings per capita in GVRD now exceed metro Phoenix two years ago.”
No kidding…I hadn’t been thinking about it in per capita terms, but now that you mention it, that’s even more insane.
On a related note, Paul’s new numbers posted last night have the REBGV listings at 18,629, with his comment “Will we hit 19k this week? Looks like it.”
66
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:46 am
I agree Patriotz. I think the best comparisons are done closest to home. Calgary and Edmonton are definitely worth looking at to consider Vancouver.
There are some obvious differences (definitely not apples to apples… maybe pears to apples). Calgary and Edmonton skyrocketed in prices over a very short period, while the run-up in Vancouver the last few years has been moderate. The drop in Edmonton and Calgary so far has been relatively small although listings are quite a lot higher than before.
So, if those markets only corrected a small amount (to date), then I think the effect in Vancouver would be less.
67
X
van-zee Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Here is a table of global price to rent and price to income tables, it only features from 1990 to 2006. Interesting to see the Swiss numbers drop over time along with Japan.
http://tinyurl.com/52fg8u
68
X
betamax Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:51 am
It may very well be possible that a negative savings rate is completely normal with a large demographic of retired people.
must…keep…grasping…at…straws…retiring…boomers…will…save …us…..
69
X
richard Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:57 am
“…while the run-up in Vancouver the last few years has been moderate…”
riiiight
70
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:17 am
“Calgary and Edmonton skyrocketed in prices over a very short period, while the run-up in Vancouver the last few years has been moderate.”
Yes, moderate like Miami. Where prices have fallen 35% and are still dropping like a stone. Actually London was MORE moderate and they’re starting a serious downhill slide. Tokyo took 10 years to reach the peak of the bubble but they lost every cent in gains over the next 15 years. The sharpness or shallowness of the graph makes NO difference. What makes a difference is how far the price has deviated from fundamental value. In our case that’s about 3x.
“I don’t follow you last question (RE 15% drop being equivalent to 30% gains).”
Mould worded it poorly but I’d expect anyone who’d taken an economics class to understand.
If a market rises 50% then it falls 33 1/3% how much was the net change in the market?
The answer is 0. A $100 object rose to $150, then dropped 1/3 of it’s value, back to $100.
71
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:51 am
van-zee, that data still doesn’t answer my questions regarding fundamentals. Looking at relative values by setting an artificial baseline tells me nothing.
I want to see specifics (e.g. actual price to rent, actual affordability) before I will buy into any sort of comparison with a foreign market.
72
X
ReductiMat Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Dave, looking at the housing-busts occuring simultaneously across the globe, would you agree that there are house-price fundamentals that transcend geo/political boundaries?
73
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I’VE GOT IT! Krsh/browntown etc is actually a brilliant poet: arranging his comments in stanzas reveals a mind of great subtlety and brilliance:
“I can feel the increasing pain in bears
because the are thirsty since long time,
it’s been almost four year
since they are blowing their whistles
but horse man did not show up
ok let me help them to take a preview.
here goes the horse man and his horse.”
The imagery here is breathtaking. I especially like the “horse man”. Boy, do I feel like an idiot!
I nominate Krsh as poet laureate of the Bubble.
74
X
alexcanuck Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Great post Bubble Lad!
One quibble though. An error crept into the last line
“here goes the horse man and his horse.”
Should read
“THERE goes the horse man and his HOUSE.”
75
X
thums up2 Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
bubble lad,
if you are looking for response it could be better if you post your opinion on real estate or economy if some thing else catch your attention skip that to reach on the next post.
I am just wondering that the pope did not pay attention on your increasing disappointment for crash other wise he should have unpluged your wires long ago,
If you guys don’t like to respect our economist like muir and director somer what to expect from you? that’s why i don’t care what you say it makes me feel like you are a one of the domestic idiots who disrespect the statue of our economy and real estate and calling our economists moron,clown, and blah blah.
be careful next time wires unpluged coming close to your IP!
76
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am
ReductiMat, to some extent… yes.
Fundamentals will always drive the performance of a market in the long term. But the interplay of fundamentals is different in every market. So just because Spain crashes in price does not mean it will also happen in Vancouver.
I think one needs to be very careful when using an external market as a predictor of our market. For example I don’t believe Miami or Spain to be good analogies because of the high proportion of outside buyers in those markets (i.e. they are vacation destinations). I can see making a correlation with the Okanagan because some trends are similar.
I think Vancouver would best be compared to places like New York, Boston, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco. All those cities are North American, on the ocean, preferred living destinations, major regional centres, multi-cultural centres and have diversified economies. Those markets are holding up fairly well in comparison to other cities like Miami, Las Vegas and Phoenix. For example, Seattle hasn’t really dropped much off it’s peak. Of interest, their average value is very similar to Vancouver and the total appreciation since 1980 is similar as well.
77
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
That’s crap, Vancouver is way more expensive than Seattle and (especially) Portland. It’s even more expensive than New York and Boston.
I think even LA is cheaper than Vancouver now, and only San Francisco and San Jose are still more expensive.
78
X
betamax Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Those markets are holding up fairly well in comparison to other cities like Miami, Las Vegas and Phoenix.
LOL. Yes, because those places are ground zero for the bust.
Seattle hasn’t really dropped much off it’s peak.
Not yet, but the party just ended there. The bubble hit the north-west later, and so did the bust. A few short months ago, people on the Seattle blogs made the same arguments you have here. They’ve vanished now, just like you will a few months hence. Don’t worry, we’ll still mention you once in a while and have a good laugh.
79
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Over a ten year period, average prices in Seattle ran up from $250k to $575k, or roughly 1.3 times. Similarly, prices in Vancouver over the last ten years have gone up roughly 1.3 times.
http://www.housingbubblebust.c.....hWest.html
Of interest, Seattle and Portland have never given up nominal gains until last quarter. Soft landings are indeed possible.
80
X
Disbelief Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Interesting that Dave compares cities with vast economies. These are cities that are world class and not third world class. Vancouver has way less economic clout than that of those cities mentioned. Real estate is local and not really comparable. If you must Portland would be a pretty good comparision. The fact is that any city that has risen past the 250x rent is well overpriced and needs to come down.
81
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“I am just wondering”
by Thums up2
“I am just wondering
that the pope did not pay attention
on your increasing disappointment
for crash
other wise he should have
unpluged your wires long ago,
be careful next time wires unpluged
coming close to your IP!”
See! It really works. And remember kids: “respect the statue of our economy” (I think that’s like the Gassy Jack statue in Gastown?).
82
X
bdk Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Anonymous, do you mean Krissh? the one the Vancouver Sun called an idiot? He also calls himself browntown/thumsup/informer and other names and is not only an idiot he’s nuts.
Hmmm, I’m so confused why would you suggest i hang out with an idiot like him? does he smoke? most warehouse workers do right?
Prices are already down 12% this month, by this time next year they’ll be giving condos away free!
83
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Dave
“until last quarter. Soft landings are indeed possible.”
Way to count your chickens man. Why not just take the logic one step further and say Vancouver hasn’t come down off it’s peak yet, therefore it will never come down. It’s been bright outside for many hours now, therefore I predict night does not exist any more. I’ve been alive for dozens of years and haven’t died yet therefore I am immortal.
Do you SEE the slight hole in the logic of judging our market against one that hasn’t completed the cycle yet?
84
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
You missed the point Drachen. The point was that the Seattle market did not have a down year for the entire period between 1975 and 2007. That’s a 32 year run. Some periods were stagnant while other periods were bullish. But overall, the slow periods did not give up nominal gains.
So once again, soft landings are indeed possible including in markets with similar demographics to Vancouver.
85
X
The Van Man Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Dave said:
Van_man, you say prices in Japan got ‘So High’. Please provide some data to compare their highs to our highs (e.g. price to rent, affordability, etc…). Simply saying, ‘SO HIGH’ does not a comparison make.
I say:
If you bother to do some research in our prestigious Vancouver Library (after all, we all paid taxes to staff these people right?!?) and bother to check the Japan Statistical Year Book — it’s difficult to locate but it’s in the Asian studies,
it comes with a graph describing the Housing Price Index. A similar index is used by the Landcor website too.
I’m using Japan’s average HPI for 6 largest cities. In 1981, the HPI stood at 100. In 1986, it stood at 125. In 1990, it stood at 250. In 1991, it stood at 350. In Vancouver East and West, they are currently standing at 250. I don’t know about you but 350 is higher than 250 don’t you think? However, Japan’s average home prices stood with a HPI of 200, which is slightly lower than ours. However, the average is 250 if you combine both, so it’s really NO SURPRISE. When the index was last recorded in 2004, the HPI stood at 105, very close back to 1981, a span of 23 years!! And yes, it is still falling as we speak.
What’s alarming is the similarity of the index performance between the Japanese HPI and what’s show on the Landcor website as well as the Americans. The rise is so similar. Why is it so similar?!? This is the question. If the rise is the same, wouldn’t the fall be the same too?!?
Granted that Japan does not have a favorable immigration policy — it’s almost impossible to become a Japanese citizen if you’re a foreigner, but still the market does not believe that value has been restored in the Japanese RE as of yet.
The same could happen here, albeit maybe milder. But that prospect is scary to say the least..
86
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Sorry that I haven’t wandering into the Asian studies section of the VPL and come across the statistical year book and happen to come across the HPI.
HPI is not the data I am looking for. I am looking for valuation measures. The base year in Japan may very well have been a high point, while ours could be a low point. It is possible that our high valuation had better affordability than their base HPI.
87
X
observer Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Dave: regarding your observation that downturns typically give up about 12-18 months gains going backwards from the peak:
Might it be possible that the longer the run up to the peak the longer the clock is turned back, which might explain why the downturn in 1995 turned the clock back more than previous downturns, which were following short run ups.
Another issue is how long the downturn takes to bottom out, which is the more relevant point I think in one’s decision to rent or buy. After the 1995 downturn, it took until 2001 for prices to start appreciating again. If rents and cost of living were low during that period, it might not have made sense to buy depending on one’s financial and economic circumstances, and indeed be worth sitting out for more than 12-18 months because the downturn was prolonged.
88
X
Dave Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Observer, I think that is a valid observation and a reasonable expectation. The 1980 run-up was short and steep, which produced a similar fall (i.e. fast and deep). The 1995 run-up was slow and long and the correction was minor in magnitude but took longer to play out.
It also obviously depends on the trigger. For example, a major recession would knock values down more quickly than a slight economic downturn.
The pattern seems to be flat prices for 6 to 7 years and then another bull market.
As before, I think a person should buy when it makes sense to them. Trying to time the market isn’t worth doing. If you can afford to buy, plan to own for at least 5 years and find a product you want, then by all means, take the plunge. If I knew ahead of time that prices would be stagnant, I would rather buy earlier than later and start building equity.
89
X
ReductiMat Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Dave, would you agree that the number of first time buyers that can afford to buy at this price point are at its lowest in say the past fifty years?
90
X
“Road To Hell” Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Chris Rea “Road To Hell” Live on Letterman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOimUM_sA0Q
“And all the roads jam up with credit
and there’s nothing you can do
It’s all just bits of paper flying away from you.
Look out world, take a good look what goes down here.
You must learn this lesson fast and learn it well.
This ain’t no upwardly mobile freeway
Oh no
this is the road
this is the road
this is the road to hell”
_______________________
91
X
The Van Man Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Dave, the HPI is a broad measure of the movement of single-family house prices. The HPI is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same properties. This information is obtained by reviewing repeat mortgage transactions on single-family properties whose mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since January 1975.
The HPI serves as a timely, accurate indicator of house price trends at various geographic levels. Because of the breadth of the sample, it provides more information than is available in other house price indexes. It also provides housing economists with an improved analytical tool that is useful for estimating changes in the rates of mortgage defaults, prepayments and housing affordability in specific geographic areas.
The HPI includes house price figures for the nine Census Bureau divisions, for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Divisions.
That’s why the Japan’s HPI index is used as well as the Landcor Website. Now, there’s also the S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index (another HPI). And while both serve in a similar fashion, the Case-Shiller is a value method which can skew the index when more expensive homes dominate the statistical homes. It does not take into account refinancing appraisals as do the Housing Price Index. So in effect, this index is a measure of what you are looking for..
To give you an idea of HPI in various states in the big US of A. Using the base index of 100 from 1980, the 1Q of 2008 shows the West South Central states standing at 234.29,
West North Central states at 305.56, East North Central states at 320.16, Mountain states at 385.87 and the Pacific states at a whopping 562.44. Our HPI pales in comparison to theirs. That is also why our homes are still valued as being cheaper, if you compared our apples to their expensive apples.
The state of Hawaii is some 500 in the HPI index.
So in reality, everybody have problems. And that was why, I was interested in Japan because where they were 10 years + ago is where the Americans are right now and soon will we. The fall is eerily similar.
You know, I hope it doesn’t behave like the Japan HPI index. There are a lot of home owners like ours who will have found out that homes and cars are so alike!
92
X
The Van Man Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Dave,
Unfortunately, I still can not locate an extensive HPI index for the GVRD region like those published by the OFHEO. With the Americans, you can actually see this information..
In Washington state, starting with the index of 100 from the 1980, they went through a similar rise and fall in their real estate, but during a span of some 20 years, to the year 2000, their index never had gotten past 300. Just 278.84. But from the year 2000 to 2008,
it went from 278.84 to a high of 512.54 in 2007. It has dropped since to 510 in 2008.
It took 20 years to get a more than double in the HPI, but it took only 8 years to not only quadruple but, I don’t even have words for that. California is even more silly at 600+. In fact, California is suffering from a big decline more than the others.
Our HPI is also behaving very similarly. I don’t think you’re going to see price drops like those that we saw in the early 80s and mid 90s. Because, during those years, the HPI went a little more than fundamentals, but quickly went back. It didn’t have 5x increase like we do today! When you have an index going from 150 to 600 in 6 to 8 years, it definitely isn’t going to take 6 to 8 years. Remember that historically and with proper fundamentals, this index level is simply unsustainable. So far, price drops have been mild in the US. I see not much changes in the HPI, so either prices will drop slowly like Japan does or somehow, fundamentals like wages have to rise 6x to 8x higher to catch up to home prices.
93
X
Dave Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Dave, would you agree that the number of first time buyers that can afford to buy at this price point are at its lowest in say the past fifty years?
Yes, they have significantly dropped in the last few years.
I think it will provide some buffer on the downside because many of those people will want to enter after only a moderate price correction.
94
X
Digi Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:18 am
As before, I think a person should buy when it makes sense to them.
I Agree, but your own estimate of a “10 to 15% drop” would be pretty dramatic at todays price levels. The lowest end 10% drop represents savings of more than $77,000 at todays benchmark house price.
As also pointed out, prices usually drop and then stagnate for years, so no real rush trying to ‘time the bottom’.
For me personally, $77k is worth waiting for.
95
X
ReductiMat Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Then I guess the question is, how far ‘out of the money’ are the first time buyers. I’m guessing from the outset my inclination is much higher than yours.
My wife and I make a lot of money relative to the median or average. I have no idea how a family can survive here on $50k a year. We’ll likely be buying when prices in prime-Yaletown hit $300/$400 a sq. foot or never. Whichever happens first.
96
X
Warren Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:29 am
ReductiMat,
I’m in an almost identical situation, looking for prime Yaletown. As for $50k families, it doesn’t sound like much, but you and I are in lets say the top 20% of earners, looking for RE in the top 5% of cost, in terms of the area. Its all relative.
97
X
Drachen Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Dave
“The pattern seems to be flat prices for 6 to 7 years and then another bull market.”
Would you stop looking at just the Vancouver graph? It only goes back 40 years and has only 2 or 3 features on it from which you’re drawing conclusions. Do you realize how utterly stupid that is?
98
X
Dave Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Digi, it is also possible prices will continue to rise. What if they go up another 5 to 10% and then drop an equivalent amount? So, much for you $77k savings. I heard a lot of people say the same thing all the way up in the bull market… ‘I’ll wait until it corrects a bit and then buy’. Unfortunately, a lot of people missed out.
Reductimat, I don’t know how far out of the money those buyers are. Were they just new to the workforce a few years ago and now have higher income and more stability? Or are they mostly people in a similar economic circumstance as they were before? I think there are probably more people in the first camp. The people in the second camp are probably always within the 30% that never buy real estate anyways.
That’s quite a drop from where Yaletown currently is at. Don’t hold your breath.
The funny thing I find about your statement most of the people who sat out on this bull market want to buy a condo downtown. I have yet to hear anybody say they are holding out to buy in Burnaby, North Van, Coquitlam or Richmond. The reason for that is because those places are still affordable. I know people who wanted to buy but couldn’t afford downtown 4 years ago. I sent them listings for places outside of downtown which were completely in their affordability range. But no, they only want ‘the best’. In the meantime, they missed out.
99
X
Dave Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Only 40 years? That covers quite a few economic cycles within the same market (i.e. apples and apples).
Unless you subscribe to long wave theory (e.g. Kondratiev), then I think it is a solid time period to use.
100
X
Dave Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Ha ha… thanks for reinforcing my stereotype Warren before I got the post off.
101
X
Digi Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am
What if they go up another 5 to 10% and then drop an equivalent amount?
Possible, but not very likely.
Ok lets say they did, If I’m looking at it as an investment it still an extremely poor one. Transaction costs are what, around 6%? So after that rise and drop I’d be down about 6% IF I bought with 100% cash down. Thats ignoring the opportunity cost of that cash.
Lets say it takes two years for your imagined rise and fall. In that time the difference between what I save on rent vs. purchasing costs is currently around $2k per month. That adds up to almost $50K that can go into better investments than a stagnating (more likely dropping) real estate market.
If I was a gambler (you’d have to be to buy in Vancouver right now) I could take out a loan and make leveraged investments in any sector.
Let me ask you a direct question if you believe Vancouver Real Estate is not a bad deal right now: are YOU buying at these price levels?
102
X
ReductiMat Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Dave, don’t feel bad for me on missing out. I’m saving roughly $6,000 a month renting versus buying the same place.
I have saved the difference and have done far better investing that sum than if I’d bought the place outright.
My position is that we don’t have a strong enough economy to support $5,000 dollar rental pricing now, nor will we in ten years. $9,500 a month? I’ll give it a reasonable chance in twenty five years. (This is for 1,200-1,400 sq. ft. prime Yaletown).
Nor do I think we’ll see suites selling for $2,000 a square foot for standard floor plate, 1,200 sq. ft. suites within fifteen years.
With those assumptions, I’ll be just fine renting in perpetuity, thank you.
103
X
Drachen Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Dave
“Only 40 years? That covers quite a few economic cycles within the same market (i.e. apples and apples).
Unless you subscribe to long wave theory (e.g. Kondratiev), then I think it is a solid time period to use.”
Wow, you really don’t pay attention do you? I’ve said a half dozen times already to you that I believe the bump in the ’90s was a feature of our current mega bubble. Certainly the market has been abnormal since the late ’80s. I know your type always wants to believe Vancouver is “different”, although nobody has really explained why it’s different and you certainly seem happy to use other cities as proxies when you think it fits your argument. The fact is bubbles have been happening for hundreds of years and the result is always the same. Prices drop to approximately the level they were at before the bubble.
I know you’ll probably argue that it’s not a bubble. If that’s your line then explain how prices can triple without any real fundamental change in the market?
104
X
jesse Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“it is also possible prices will continue to rise. What if they go up another 5 to 10% and then drop an equivalent amount?”
Good luck with that. It’s possible but unlikely to say the least. Don’t say you didn’t get the memo
. Anyways if prices went up X% and fell back to today’s values a renter who is paying less in rent than the interest/taxes/maintenance for owning the same property is still further ahead.
“I have yet to hear anybody say they are holding out to buy in Burnaby, North Van, Coquitlam or Richmond. The reason for that is because those places are still affordable.”
Once again you miss the big picture. Lump everyone’s incomes into a giant pot and lump the appraised prices of residential properties into another pot. The income pot cannot carry the property pot.
It doesn’t matter if someone can afford a 30 year old walkup condo in Surrey. They have made a lifestyle choice and can rent a great place downtown for way cheaper than it is to buy it. Sounds like a good deal to me. They’re likely going to “miss out” buying at the peak as well.
105
X
jesse Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“explain how prices can triple without any real fundamental change in the market?”
That’s easy: prices were significantly undervalued before. Nobody realised it until just a few years ago. Besides, prices are forward looking and the future is looking pretty good. Future’s so bright, I gotta wear rose-coloured shades.
106
X
Drachen Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Jesse
Well if someone were to attempt to use that explanation then they really also owe an explanation of why purchasers were wrong about fundamental value then and they’re right now. An explanation of how this realization could come about in such an incremental fashion would help too.
107
X
observer Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Dave: Yes, I think in the event of a prolonged downturn or stagnation, there is also the possibility that it would make sense for some to buy rather than to rent, depending on one’s financial and the economic circumstances. But my point was that it would depend on a lot on the individual’s situations, and it must be the case that there would be a balance between those for which it makes sense to buy and those for which it does not make sense to buy, otherwise if one camp were to greatly outnumber the other, the market would not be in prolonged stagnation and would start tip either way.
One point which hasn’t been raised explicitly is that the criterion for deciding whether to buy or rent depends somewhat on whether one is buying to live in or buying to invest. For those who are buying to live in, sometimes there are other factors besides pure fundamentals and one often talks about an ownership premium. For those who are investing, the incentive in the past few years has been price appreciation since price/earnings (price/annual earnings from renting after expenses) is at an all time low right now.
If we have a prolonged stagnation, this incentive would disappear, suggesting that a prolonged stagnation is not stable and would tip towards an accelerated downturn if one believes there is a significant amount of investors playing the market for price appreciation (which I think few would deny).
Of course another possiblity is that investors are betting that rents will rise. However, historically if you look at the Saunder and statcan data, rents/salaries have more or less moved in tandem and followed inflation (with the important remark that couples now have to both work to maintain this salary against inflation).
There are indeed signs that inflation is picking up. However, our price points in Canada are higher than in the US, suggesting that the US has more room to handle inflation in terms of cost of living versus after tax salary. The evitable spikes in the interest rates that accompany inflation together with higher cost of living in Canada seem to also suggest a sharper downturn rather than a prolonged one.
108
X
observer Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Dave: Yes, I think in the event of a prolonged downturn or stagnation, there is also the possibility that it would make sense for some to buy rather than to rent, depending on one’s financial and the economic circumstances. But my point was that it would depend on a lot on the individual’s situations, and it must be the case that there would be a balance between those for which it makes sense to buy and those for which it does not make sense to buy, otherwise if one camp were to greatly outnumber the other, the market would not be in prolonged stagnation and would start tip either way.
One point which hasn’t been raised explicitly is that the criterion for deciding whether to buy or rent depends somewhat on whether one is buying to live in or buying to invest. For those who are buying to live in, sometimes there are other factors besides pure fundamentals and one often talks about an ownership premium. For those who are investing, the incentive in the past few years has been price appreciation since price/earnings (price/annual earnings from renting after expenses) is at an all time low right now.
If we have a prolonged stagnation, this incentive would disappear, suggesting that a prolonged stagnation is not stable and would tip towards an accelerated downturn if one believes there are a significant amount of investors playing the market for price appreciation (which I think few would deny).
Of course another possiblity is that investors are betting that rents will rise. However, historically if you look at the Saunder and statcan data, rents/salaries have more or less moved in tandem and followed inflation (with the important remark that couples now have to both work to maintain this salary against inflation).
There are indeed signs that inflation is picking up. However, our price points in Canada are higher than in the US, suggesting that the US has more room to handle inflation in terms of cost of living versus after tax salary (my guess as to why the BoC didn’t cut rates last week). The evitable spikes in the interest rates that accompany inflation together with higher cost of living in Canada seem to also suggest a sharper downturn to bring the market to fundamentals first.
109
X
observer Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Sorry everyone for the duplicate post, my browser froze. Also, I meant price/earnings is at all time high.
110
X
jesse Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“Of course another possiblity is that investors are betting that rents will rise…
There are indeed signs that inflation is picking up.
For inflation to be translated to rent inflation, wages need to rise as well or people just densify to make it affordable. As an example from a specific profession, Vancouver area Realtors on average are earning 25% less commissions this year than last. Public sector workers have wage increases negotiated at 2-3% per year. Hardly inflationary. I’ll believe stagflation when I see paycheques rise otherwise I’ll just reduce my spending in other areas to compensate for goods inflation. I’m sure most Canadians are doing the same or maybe just going into debt.
111
X
observer Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Jesse: Point taken, inflation of prices doesn’t necessarily equate inflation of wages.