Housing sales hit 20-year low
Sorry to end the love-fest that is the last post, but the news waits for noone. Today the Globe is reporting that Housing sales hit a 20-year low.
The selloff in real estate has morphed beyond a correction of overheated individual markets into a broad national slump, with prices posting their worst decline in nearly 20 years in November.
In the face of a collapse in consumer confidence, the number of resale homes sold in Canada plummeted by 42 per cent year-to-year to 27,743, the lowest level since January, 2001.
I haven’t followed Benjamin Tal’s comments as close as most here, but I’m guessing his tune is changing somewhat:
This is clearly a market that is extremely risk averse, and this is not the ninth inning of this game, this is just the beginning. I think that any hope of a quick turnaround … is misguided.
Housing sales hit 20-year low as real estate slump widens
-ReductiMat
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
As promised… Tony Gioventu of CHOA (Condominium Home Owners Association) as heard on the Christie Clark Show, CKNW. Starrt about halfway through hour two. This link should be hour 2 only, just go halfway through. Immediately
after some relationship fluff.
Well worth a listen.
December 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Paul: Re #95
That posting was copied from the Greater Fool site. I am not the one who wrote it. I will continue to post any similar stuff I find.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Paul, dude… You seem to be getting too emotional about our little bet here…
I don’t think you understand that I am one of the biggest bears around. I am not predicting roses and chocolate bars for real estate!
Perhaps our economy is somewhat similar to Spain, that could be, industry wise. I am not disagreeing. My point was simply that they have more foreign speculators per capita than we do (ours were a myth!)
I am also not disagreeing that this burst is going to be unfrickinbelievable in scope!
“Ms. Kniffen said about 40 percent of Cascadia Pacific Realty’s clients were Americans” is a direct quote from the company not my writing fiction. Look it up on their web-site. Look for quotation marks in my posting . They are these sqiggly things “”””””””””” on either side of an enclosed grouping of words. Ex: The dog said “Woof” at the mailman. Woof is the direct quotation.
Let’s not get too pedantic here, mmmkay? I understood that was a quote from an RE agent, which is exactly why I ignored the hell out of the quote and asked you for a REAL stat, not something imaginary from the RE fairies.
Dude, it’s your own fault that you chose to use an RE agent as your proof that there are more foreign speculators in Vancouver than in Spain!
Is the bet on or off? Where are your numbers? Do you want to call a truce, or do you want to share a keg in 15 years?
December 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Where did I say that it does? I simply said that it’s detrimental to an economy to have negative growth, am I wrong?
It sure isn’t what you wrote. Your commentary was all within one paragraph implying that you considered a declining population would result in declining productivity. Convenient that you change your interpretation after having it explained. GDP growth and productivity are two different concepts. You were confusing the two.
In any case, yes negative growth is detrimental to an economy.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Do you understand what productivity is?
Yes.
You are not using the term correctly.
How did I use the term incorrectly?
The size of the work force doesn’t enter into it.
Where did I say that it does? I simply said that it’s detrimental to an economy to have negative growth, am I wrong?
I also said that it’s detrimental to an economy to have an aging population. I’m talking about the effects of the Boomers aging and expiring on real estate values. But outsourcing will save us, thank you Jeebus!
December 17th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Dave what happens to our economy when productivity declines by say 1%? It’s bad right? With the Boomer generation winding down we’re going to see a declining population. What effect do you think that has on an economy? Oh and you’re right about immigration but guess what, most of the immigrants coming to Canada are Boomers!
Do you understand what productivity is? You are not using the term correctly. Productivity is simply a measure of output per unit of work (e.g. one hour). The size of the work force doesn’t enter into it.
I can only presume you are referring to a drop in overall economic output due to a decline in the workforce. I doubt that our economic output will drop. Firstly, there are lots of workers coming behind the boomers. Secondly, our population is still growing. Thirdly, many boomers will remain in the work force in part time or consulting roles. Remember, they are an active bunch.
And finally, I would predict that should the workforce drop in size, productivity increases would likely make up for it. It’s a global economy and outsourcing services and products is easy to do. That will allow our workers to take on roles that generate higher GDP per work (i.e. higher productivity). But, I am not a macroeconomist so this is just a hunch on my part.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
that is market, sorry