Comments on: Infinity Surrey bankruptcy trouble

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:36:55 +0000

If you care to follow the “restructuring” by the Monitor

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/serv.....E400477B00

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: NO -LYMPICS

NO -LYMPICS — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:13:54 +0000

Hmmm Good stuff !

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: anonymous100

anonymous100 — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:35:17 +0000

Discovered this information – dated June 2007

reference: http://www.fasken.com/jung-dev.....financing/

Client
Jung Development Inc.

On June 13, 2007, Korean developer, Jung Development Inc. closed a $220 million major construction financing. Jung is among the largest Asian development companies operating in B.C. $170 million of the $220 million financing facility was committed by a syndicate of senior lenders led by CIBC and including RBC, Woori Bank of Korea (the largest financial group in Korea) and BCMP Mortgage Corporation, and $50 million mezzanine financing facility was committed by Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. in U.S. but led by Lehman’s Korean operations.

Fasken Martineau advised Jung Development in this transaction with a team from the Real Estate and Asia Pacific Groups including: Edmond Luke, Ian Cassie, Allison MacInnis, David Martin, Samien Safaei, Don Weaver, Darrell Wickstrom, Kate Seniowski, Jessica Spraggs, Mayne Young and Kwee Downie. The team worked over a period of four months to negotiate and complete this financing.

The Real Estate Group is also advising Jung on the development and construction of the project – five 36-storey highrise residential mixed-use towers in Surrey across from the King George Skytrain Station. Tower 1 with 345 condominium units is scheduled for completion in November 2007 and Towers 2 and 3 with combined 690 units are scheduled for completion in September 2009, with more work required before the Project is completed.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Piddlesbby

Piddlesbby — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:03:36 +0000

thereeldeel - pleeeeassse!!! I'm going to assume that you are an agent and your office is feeding you this bs optimism. We are going into a recession, the economy goes in cycles, this was predicted to happen. My developer friends have told me to wait until the end of 2009 to buy and although I didn't believe them when they told me 3 years ago, I'm sure glad that I waited. As you know, the only people who are buying are the ones who just sold and need a place to live!!! Once that is done, it's done. Talk to me next year when you are working part time at the Superstore with a hope and a prayer that you sell that one condo in Chilliwack you have listed. Sorry, but it's the way the business goes. It's not rocket science, it's a cycle and the boom will be back in 7-10 years.

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Anonymous100

Anonymous100 — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:32:58 +0000

"Freako", you are right - there is no way that Lehman's demise should be used as Infinity's excuse. Mr. Millar (spokesman for Fasken et al law firm) is incorrect with his information. He is not equipped with "real facts" or deliberately trying to misinform the public. Mr. Jung (the original deal maker) was taken over by Mr. Yang (and is not a reputable deveoper as Mr. Millar has stated nor does his group have sufficient knowledge or experience to carry out this scale of operation). Mr. Yang gets advice from Byron Lee (another lawyer) and they extensively recruited Korean management people through the local Korean papers believing they knew what they were doing. Secondly, it is not a Korean Company - Jung Development is a Canadian company with Korean owners. If the papers states they need $100M and also say they are 3/4 completed there is something seriously wrong. A layman may beieve Mr. Mllar but not experienced professionals. Mr. Jung was recently trying to start another King George project of similar scale and has not been involved with Mr. Yang's group for many months(nearly 15 months). It is Mr. Yang's senior management group that has conributed to his problem. The Lehman news was their excuse. What is very wrong is that these highrises are costing more to build than what the pre-sold values collectively can generate. Maybe their "budget" or "forcasting" number were being constantly revised (every week) without any "controls" in place. A tiger by the tail was too much for them to handle.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: freako

freako — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 05:39:47 +0000

Since Lehman Brothers collapsed, the financing for Infinity has dried up and they can’t pay the bills. The article referred to Lehman as the "original investor". This does not add up. Why would an investment banker on Wall Street make a direct investment in a Surrey condo. More likely, Lehman may have had something to do with underwriting the financing, but if that is the case, Lehman's demise shouldn't affect Infinity. Convenient excuse?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: thereedeel

thereedeel — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:41:39 +0000

Nothing ever stops. Real Estate continues to be bought and sold, albeit at lower prices, people still go to work, take the kids to school, etc etc. 33' x 115' building lots in East Vancouver were as high as $520,000. I've just witnessed 2 lots (with small homes) sell for $412,000. with multiple offers. I've seen homes at $900,000 sell for $750,000. Multiple offers. know of a house in Surrey that was listed and sold in one day with multiple offers because the price was bang on. There's still a lot of people out there with $$ so don't kid yourselves about a "crash". We ain't even close. This is a healthy, much needed adjustment in price that happens in a market that is governed by Supply, demand, interest rates, net-in migration, and affordability. Vancouver is a beautiful place to live. its expensive in every way, and unfortunately its going to stay that way. those looking to buy should really keep their radar up as number of developments that have been "shelved" in the last year is mind boggling. Know what that means? the supply gets gobbled up, there's nothing to replace it, and here we go again.......... watch and see.

Current score: -8 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: NO -LYMPICS

NO -LYMPICS — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:29:17 +0000

poooooooooooo

We’ll, back to the affordability issue.
The real estate auction phenomenon has established itself in BC already. We may see this more and more on this in the near future. Maybe then we will see people jumping in and being able to afford what they couldn’t previously. What is going on now may show too much product , nervous buyers and nervous lenders moreso than ever before in the past.

re DCC’s.
Actually some of the tables I see show DCC’s for higher density are propertionally higher than say more detached units( ie SFH). DCC’s seem to end more a flat rate for SFH,and regardless of the lot size. DCC’s for multi – family tend to nail the purchaser for every sq. ft. as by definition they don’t have any outside yards other than shared via the strata.

DCC costs are just pimping by the City. They don’t seem to realize that they may get the same coin by keeping the DCC’s reasonable and encouraging development, which fits with your affordability issue. What often happens is the City waves the increased DCC “red flag” far enough in advance and hopes a lot of developers will pay off the DCC’s under the old DCC rate, and thus the City coffers get filled up. Its simply a scam.

Epiphany re inflation ? No, that’s obvious…not sure your point. Inflation via added Gov’t costs, speculation due to cheap money and rising building costs.

Time will tell

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: NO -LYMPICS

NO -LYMPICS — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:07:23 +0000

hey Tony Danza .... No..actually a good on - line cage match debate sometimes lives things up. Simply close your eyes when you are scrolling through stuff you don't like.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: poooooo

poooooo — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:25:55 +0000

hehehe, i duno no-lympics, yes oversupply creates lost equity for those that do not know how the market works, but what would you rather do? no create affordable units? infact, you can only start to reduce and hopefully eliminate asset depreciation and equity loss by encouraging an increase in supply which will reduce swings in the market. eh eh eh? i'm really quite suprised you just enlightened to the whole concept of inflation!!!!! YIPEE oh, and the city increased DCCs because the market rate for construction labour and materials increased so much so due to developers wanting more and more right?? oh what you ask? single family sprawl, because arnt DCCs disportionally lower for multi-family? incentive much? sadly city halls are still filled with old mentalities, on both sides of the counter.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Tony Danza

Tony Danza — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:47:57 +0000

Is it that bowl of ganj I just pounded or does it seem like NO-LYMPICS and poooooo are a twelve year old arguing with himself?

Current score: -1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Piddlesbby

Piddlesbby — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:41:30 +0000

Thanks poooooo and no-lympics, very entertaining posting! I’ve been on the sidelines watching for the last 5 years and I can’t wait to buy at rock bottom prices. Have been renting the same place for many years and my landlord has kept my rent low, so there was no reason to buy in this crazy market. I’ve saved a lot and my income has almost doubled, so I’m looking forward to finding something big and new. I’m still going to wait another year and either buy a sweet townhouse downtown or two condos east of Burnaby. Who would have thought??? All these years I have been listening to friends and family tell me that I better get into the market, it’s only going to go up, up, up, you know the Olympics are coming and all….blah, blah, blah. Now I’m the “smart” one they say. No one I know has made any serious money. Most of my friends and family are common folk. Some sold and bought for a bigger house, other first time buyers tried the condo flip or renovated a house and sold it. No one made millions by any means. Real Estate agents/marketers, banks, mortgage brokers, developers and construction companies made a killing. As in the US, it’s all crumbling around them. There will be some buyers, like me, but it won’t nearly be enough to maintain these prices. What is worse, my friends and family who now own million dollar homes and ¾ of a million mortgages will lose all their equity and will be coming to me to rent one of my condos. Yes an exaggeration, but you get my point.

Current score: 7 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: NO -LYMPICS

NO -LYMPICS — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:56:23 +0000

Poooooooooooooooo

Please don’t try to impress me with framed sheepskin backed expertise. That’s a future cage match.

No…this is the era where all the economic formulas are turned upside – down and inside – out. A hot market produces a lot of crap aka leaky condos. Oversupply creates loss in equity ie depreciation for those who don’t speculate but get punished fiscally by those who do.

The current market was based on parties who thought the party would never end. As I posted earlier…the U.S. has homes being auctioned off for the price of a good used import car. Where are all the buyers clammering to buy these “deals” ?

You forget that once the market gets hot, and the builders anticipate a lot of demand, all the cost go up, adding to the sticker price. The builder builds because he thinks he can make THE maximum buck , they are not intersted in affordability. Most buyers appear to be buying on credit, very little down, so as the market crashes… they can’t afford the so-called deals that result over supply anyway, the credit has dried up. Banks and builders will want more of a down payment, which many won’t have in this receding economy. It is simply a fiscal Catch – 22 no win feedback loop. In my view “affordablity” for the average wage earner ended years ago, back in the early 1980’s, before the entire market got perverted by foreign $$$ .

Finally, it is Gov’t that creates a lot of grief and adds to the sticker shock, when I see some of the $$$ gouging BS the builders are obligated to do before they even start a pre-sale program. Our City upped the DCC’s 30 % in one year….Why? ….because they C-A-N, they don’t need a reason. Some poor schmuck has ultimately got to pay that, it’s called “the buyer”.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Vansanity

Vansanity — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:17:52 +0000

alexcanuck - it's all good.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: poooooo

poooooo — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:06:41 +0000

btw, please don't be offended with any particular points that I made, I just get very passionate about this issue while seeing many developers take advantage of the less fortunate. I am only trying to create an equal environment for all.

Current score: -1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: poooooo

poooooo — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:01:33 +0000

no-lympics, i stated that I had experience, not that I am currently working in that capacity. let me guess, you are a developer who rose from the ranks with no formal education and are pissed off that planners are telling you to put some landscaping in your development or do add some glazing to the facade? please, you and I both know that developers still control development by pissing on politicians who are too scared to back away for fear of losing their support and funding. The real point is, whats wrong with increasing supply? That only leads to affordability through less demand...maybe you should go back to school and take microeconomics 100. new High-rises are empty at night in d/t vancouver because people like you want to regulate supply therefore creating a speculator mentality that prices will only increase allowing people to hoard units and not sell them to people who will actually live in them. What do I have to enlighten for you next?

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: punface

punface — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:36:53 +0000

Hmmm I've travelled and lived quite a few other cities and I think the Skytrain is a great system for a city of our size. It has more frequent service than anywhere I've been. My only complaint would be the noise - it seems a lot louder than other systems. I'm even excited for the new line to open.

Current score: 5 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: NO -LYMPICS

NO -LYMPICS — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:24:04 +0000

Hey pooooo

(Now that you have calmed down…)

Sorry, but I have been dealing with City Planners for years.
In my view, they are simply obstructionist bureaucrats with far too much power as they pimp their “vision for the future ” ideas. I am dealing with a “young” planner right now who I can see is getting his strings pulled by their superiors to lie and obstruct us. Please excuse my REAL WORLD cynicism.

You are talking old school , mes ami. Yeah yeah yeah re density = affordability mantra. The reality is your bosses get their ears bent by the big boys to re-zone land and create a lot of displacement so they can pimp the land and the air above it with hi – rises.

I’m not saying City’s should regulate supply, but they should have used little common sense in supply and demand and instructing you planners to bend over for the big boys .

SkyTrain is ackowledged as a bad system most of the world has ignored. It’s truly delusional to think people will choose to locate near Skytrain and go to work, that’s a planners wet dream. We are Car culture..live with the reality. The hi-rises are empty, most of them are dark at night. That = speculation which you planners feed.

Skytrain was used as an excuse to rezone land for hi density…builders were running out of land…don’t you know what happened on Toronto ?

PS Call me in about 10 years when you dry out the wetness behind your ears, …hope you learned something in the meantime. BTW Bob Rennie is fed by you guys and your “visions” you planners are his pushers.

Current score: -5 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: patriotz

patriotz — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:10:30 +0000

The 25 billion bail out last week didn’t seem to get much press…
More likely is that this was a pre-emptive CMHC bail-out.

But it’s CMHC that is buying the mortgages (that it has already insured), not the government.

Flaherty says the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. will take steps to maintain the availability of longer-term credit by purchasing up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Ca.....36-cp.html

CMHC has been doing this for years. Google “Canada Housing Trust”.

http://www.financialpost.com/s.....mp;k=20957

The idea behind CHT’s issue was to finance the purchase of housing loans by issuing bonds and using the proceeds to acquire mortgage-backed securities.

“Canadian home buyers will benefit because the bonds will provide the mortgage market with an alternative and competitive source of funds which will help lower mortgage financing costs,” said Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister responsible for CMHC at the time. CMHC is involved because it guarantees the timely payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds.

Since CHT’s initial issue, the borrower has developed into the country’s largest single issuer of fixed income securities. Last year, CHT went to the market on four separate occasions and scooped up $19.3-billion of capital — up from $17.25-billion in 2003. Included in the 2004 issuance was an $800-million issue of floating rate Canada Mortgage Bonds.

To put it bluntly, the government was just spinning something that happens all the time in an effort to be seen “doing something”.

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: patriotz

patriotz — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:59:23 +0000

“Densifying reduces infrastructure costs.”

That’s assuming that stuff is in walking distance,

No it isn’t. For a given number of people, the higher the density, the lower the infrastructure costs per capita. How hard is that to figure out really? The more spread out people are, the more roads, sewers, hydro lines, etc. you are going to need per capita.

Isn’t it obvious that 1000 highrise units in Whalley are going to need less new infrastructure than 1000 SFH or townhouse units in a new development in, say, Fort Langley?

When densifying an existing area the extra use of existing infrastructure is a bonus, but the cost difference remains even for brand new development.

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

Current score: 3 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: poooooo

poooooo — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:50:04 +0000

no-lympics, i have no vested interest in real estate at all at the moment. i have saved quite a lot for my young age (young 20s), more so than many people so dont start thinking im some yuppie fool who understands absolutely nothing about the financial sector. I just get upset when people are misinformed about what it takes to create affordability and proper 'planned' cities. Planning is my academic background and I have experience working in the planning department at city hall, so I understand what actually takes place. I am not a fan of beer as much as many canadians are, nor do I smoke, so please enough of the canadian-washing. Oh, and concerning Rennie, he is the utlimate piece of shit. I don't know how he can sleep at night in his bed filled with money. I'd rather have some character at the end of the day.

Current score: 3 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: NO -LYMPICS

NO -LYMPICS — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:33:55 +0000

Hey poooooooooooooooooooo aka Bob Rennie ( BTW I made sure I got a hard copy of your post before the Pope exorcises it ). Reading between the lines...I'm sorry to hear you lost a pile speculating on condos. No wonder you are less than diplomatic ....Tut Tut. You obviously have things figured out...no sense preaching to the perverted. Now go back and finish your first beer (and stop smoking in church while you were text messaging that intelligent comment). Bye bye Bob "poooo" Rennie PS Can I just call you sh*thead for short?

Current score: -5 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: poooooo

poooooo — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:13:23 +0000

no-lympics, you're an idiot, wtf, that's why there are so many NIMBYS because people like you hawk this shit all the time. high-density development must be located along mass transit lines in order to move people around the city. how the fuck do you think people are suppose to get around in a dense urban environment? their cars? stfu. increasing density increases affordability as units become cheaper to create in light of the fact that you have more units on one piece of land rather than everyone building a single family home and then having society at large pay for the lack of economies of scale. please, shut up. i can't seem to stop saying that, cause well I've had enough of stupid people like you making me look bad.

Current score: -4 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: condohype

condohype — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:30:34 +0000

Anonymous, realtor-marketers get paid for selling. It's a commission business. Rennie makes money when units sell. It's been reported that his firm charges around $50,000 per unit sold. Nobody's paying him when the product's not moving. But don't think for a minute that he's hurting. He's set up for the rest of his life. I mean, he's Bob Rennie!

Current score: 6 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: YLTNBoomerang

YLTNBoomerang — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:30:07 +0000

Big droppers out there: v736015 23.4% overall drop now at assessed value after 153 days on market v724337 12.5% overall drop now at 2.2% below assessed value after 216 days on market v7712572 17.7% overall drop now at 4.6% below assessed value after 139 days on market v724211 13.8% overall drop now at 1% below assessed value after 216 days on market v726308 5.9% overall drop now at 3% below assessed value after 76 days on market v733279 17.7% overall drop now at 1% below assessed value after 126 days on market My favourite as posted earlier is still: v731607 14.9% overall drop now at 9% below assessed value after 140 days on the market BTW, I will only post those that are below assessed value as there is no point putting v726098 on even though after 280 days on the market the price is reduced 25% as they started too high (still 10% over assessed).

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)