Friday Free for All!

It’s the end of the week, so lets do our regular news round up and open topic discussion.  Here are a few stories I’ve noticed lately:

Vancouver office vacancy rate jumps to 7.3%
BC Forest profits plummet
Food and housing costs drive inflation up
Carnival leaves town, tourism sector to lose $18 Million
MLS admits Vancouver despite economic slowdown
PM defends economic confidence against David Dodge
Detroit, Artists and the $100 house
Hong Kong stock commentator bursts into tears
Images from the global recession
What’s hot at the pawn shop

So what are you seeing out there?  Nervous about your job security?  Are you saving more or taking on more debt?  Post your thoughts, anecdotes and economic news here and have an excellent weekend!

note: any conversation on Vancouver, real estate or economics is allowed, please keep it civilized. When posting articles please only quote pertinent points and link to the original instead of pasting the entire article here. Pasting a link into your comment will automatically create a clickable hot-link. Linking to more than one external link within a single comment may cause your submission to get held up in the spam filter.

270 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
read on
read on
11 years ago

Raven is hardly respectful"

Raven Says:Reply to this comment

Then just ignore my posts, dumbazz.

Current score: -9

buff_butler
buff_butler
11 years ago

"LOL…you guys are PURPOSELY giving raven bad scores. how sad is THAT?

geez, she’s neither ’self serving’ or ‘arrogant’. she’s talking the truth."

I agree, I think this is very unfair. The person is both smart and respectful and disagreeing simply out of self interest doesn't promote two sided discussion.

On a similar note I do miss vancouverboom2's posts though, they crack me up.

observer
observer
11 years ago

patriotz, you don’t get it. i said for SOME FOLKS, those who have a lifestyle where they may want to leave quickly, renting is the best bet. but, for others, most, at ’some point’ they’ll want to settle down and at THAT POINT, it’s ALWAYS better to own. it’s amazing how some people don’t get this concept. I think it is important to make a distinction between 'settling down and being able to own' versus 'financially advantageous to own'. The two are not equivalent. It is possible that in many periods of history, it was financially better to own than to rent, and hence once you were in a position of not having to move and had a stable position, it was indeed good to take advantage of this financial benefit. When patriotz is pointing out is that currently it… Read more »

patriotz
11 years ago

getreal:

but, for others, most, at ’some point’ they’ll want to settle down and at THAT POINT, it’s ALWAYS better to own.

I get it all right. I think you don't.

It only makes sense to buy when prices make sense. Not whenever you want to "settle down". It that point happens to be, say, April 2008, you have just hosed your whole life financially.

getreal
getreal
11 years ago

LOL…you guys are PURPOSELY giving raven bad scores. how sad is THAT?

geez, she's neither 'self serving' or 'arrogant'. she's talking the truth.

you gloom and doomers, as you were called, simply wait around for 'bad times' so you can say 'see…i TOLD YOU things will get bad'.

LOL…amazing. as she said, if you don't like what she says, don't respond. but you will, because you have to show how smart you THINK you are.

getreal
getreal
11 years ago

patriotz, you don't get it. i said for SOME FOLKS, those who have a lifestyle where they may want to leave quickly, renting is the best bet.

but, for others, most, at 'some point' they'll want to settle down and at THAT POINT, it's ALWAYS better to own.

it's amazing how some people don't get this concept.

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

"I said expressly that a price/rent of 265 in 1997 was not credible except for a lot value property, so we really don’t have anything to disagree with on this one. You first post just said “oldie”, which was a lot less specific." Not credible to you. If we went along with your 150 price/rent ratio, then that house should've been purchased for $150,000. It isn't, because the full value of it is $265,000. "You traded up at a time when the market was overvalued. Even if the nominal price just falls back to what you paid, you will have lost money because ownership costs already exceeded renting in 2005." Nope, nope, nope. Our ownership costs was below renting because we have already paid down the mortgage so our loan servicing cost was less than half of the market rent.… Read more »

patriotz
11 years ago

Raven: Now that home is an oldtimer, almost a tear-down, in east vancouver, so not surprisingly it’s in the lower end of the average $390K in UBC sauder report. I said expressly that a price/rent of 265 in 1997 was not credible except for a lot value property, so we really don't have anything to disagree with on this one. You first post just said "oldie", which was a lot less specific. Ha, we actually “lost money” until 2003. Then in 2005, we sold it for $422,000 and bought a newer, larger house for $560K. Now it’s worth $750K and hasn’t dipped back to 2005 price levels. Yet. You traded up at a time when the market was overvalued. Even if the nominal price just falls back to what you paid, you will have lost money because ownership costs already… Read more »

ella
ella
11 years ago

"so the narrative goes." You and me, Ted 😉 I have to admit, that is was a big shock for me, when I first naively told people about some of the discoveries I made (for example when I read Shiller's Irrational Exuberance). I thought they'd be interested (or maybe even bored) but I wasn't ready for how angry it made people. I stupidly thought they would want to try to figure things out rationally, and instead they would just say "throwing money away", "olympics", "not making more land" and other things like that. Giving them another point of view made them uncomfortable and mad (even the ones who hadn't yet bought – I guess it hurt their dream). And I have smart, nice friends and family, too. I've mostly learned to clam up about it in public. Either people don't… Read more »

other ted
other ted
11 years ago

Ella I like your comment on doom and gloomer, I get called tha at work. I respond back that I am very optimistic actually. I see opportunity ahead. The doom and gloom argument is a straw man usually used by the types I work with. Arrogant egotists that are always wrong yet think they are always right and need an excuse. Me, you and others on this forum were not right we just happened to get it right with our negativity for a change, so the narrative goes.

ella
ella
11 years ago

Other Ted: "I am starting to get tired of classifying people broadly as bulls or bears. You mention that you are thankful you didn’t listen to the bears in 1997. Who says those are the same people who are bearish today. Being a bull or a bear is not a personality trait. Its about outlook right now not forever." I couldn't agree more. If that wasn't such a long quote, I would put it on a T-shirt 🙂 I do get frustrated at the way people willfully misunderstand this. I was now known as as the doom-and-gloomer in my family because I wasn't buying property or bank stocks in the middle of the decade. Now things are reversed and I'm telling them that it's worth (cautiously) investing, and that I'm starting (**starting**) to look out for properties that might suit… Read more »

no-lympics
no-lympics
11 years ago

Interesting article The Big Takeover The global economic crisis isn't about money – it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/267939… AIG is reminding me more and more of the Rockefeller Oil monopoly in the late 1800's early 1900's . Rockefeller owned companies had approx. 17% of the entire U.S GDP..which forced the Gov't to force Rockefeller break up his monopoly into a number of smaller companies with different owners. aka create competition. This story seema to provide an eerily similar story, except AIG is less obvious..simply "on paper" . It almost seems like AIG positioned itself in such a way so as to effectively become a de-facto US Gov't, if not world Gov't. It cannot fail, but that is it's position of strength, and it can literally dictate terms in subtle… Read more »

ella
ella
11 years ago

I fond something fantastic today:

http://www.moneyscience.com/Finance_Focus/Robert_

You can listen to Robert Shillers Financial markets course at Yale online. There are even slides and exercises.

It's great because the lectures are very recent.

I <3 Shiller.

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

I'm done. Time to go celebrate the 500 pts Dow rally.

ella
ella
11 years ago

"And when the likes of you criticize my investment decisions and question my intelligence, I am put in the position to stand up for myself." Oh my goodness. Calm down. You're on a forum where the primary point of discussion is whether or not Vancouver/Canadian real estate is a good buy or not. Of course your decisions are going to get criticized. "You, on the other hand, have accused me of being an equity locust, because I was priced out of vancouver, I took my money and drove up the cost of Edmonton RE. You remember how I responded to you? I said it was nonsense, and that Edmonton’s RE was hot because their economy was hot (in other words, locally driven). See what I mean when I say you (and others) are putting words in my mouth?" You. took.… Read more »

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

"Your self-serving and self-congratulatory hubris is far from my taste."

Get over it. We ain't friends.

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

If this is so boring and tiring for you all, why did this forum go up to 253 posts? If you don't want to hear my tiring, repetitive "bullishness" or dose of reality, then don't post delusional baseless crap like houses in 1997 was $390K, price/ratio was better back in 1997, houses should only be worth NPV at the current mortgage interest rate.

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

"I am a bit sceptcial that a house that was valued at $320 in 2005 is now worth $750 even in vancouver."

Go back and read my post SLOWLY again. I said we sold that house in 2005 for $422K and bought a new one at $560K, which is now worth $750K today.

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

"Actually, no. I read the blog for the sense that posters such as Patriotz writes. Your self-serving and self-congratulatory hubris is far from my taste."

Then just ignore my posts, dumbazz.

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

“I believe what was debunked is that they were actually an important market driver, were permanently driving up prices (or would be there to bail out local flippers in Washington and Oregon), rather than that people never looked further afield for cheaper markets after making money in richer, overheated markets." In other words, you're saying that the mythical Californian equity locusts are a bust. http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2007/07/08/the-myth… "Anecdotally, you are engaged in exactly that (couldn’t afford to invest in Vancouver, so went to Edmonton). I know someone who used the equity in their Vancouver home to buy up North. Same idea." I'm like any other investor–I put money where I think I can get the most ROR. Who in the right mind want to cashflow negative in Vancouver (except that moron who wants to pay $3K/month on a vacant condo instead of… Read more »

other ted
other ted
11 years ago

I am a bit sceptcial that a house that was valued at $320 in 2005 is now worth $750 even in vancouver. Considering that a good dose of the increase in price in Vancouver occured between 2002 and 2005. I don't believe any neighborhood mor than doubled between 2005 and 2007. But I could be wrong just don't buy it. Anways I find the Raven stuff boring lets all give it a rest. Raven you are not like the other bulls on here so I don't find you that annoying but its really getting tiring. Lets call a truce you are happy, real estate works for you. Good for you lets all move on. I am starting to get tired of classifying people broadly as bulls or bears. You mention that you are thankful you didn't listen to the bears… Read more »

read on
read on
11 years ago

So boring that you still follow my posts and make an effort to response? LMAO.

=======

Actually, no. I read the blog for the sense that posters such as Patriotz writes. Your self-serving and self-congratulatory hubris is far from my taste.

realpaul
realpaul
11 years ago

Another great example of delusion:

http://torontorealtyblog.com/2009/03/23/how-many-

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

"raven is becoming very boring. if her/his/its plan was to bore us all to death, you have done that."

So boring that you still follow my posts and make an effort to response? LMAO.

Raven
Raven
11 years ago

"There is no way that a house that rented for $1000/month would sell for $265K in 1997, unless it was a lot value property (i.e. a shack). The benchmark used by UBC was about $390K in 1997, and that is a composite of a bungalow and an executive house." SMH, you're clueless. $390K is in 2008 dollars. You'll have to dial back inflation. Here's an inflation calculator from the Bank of Canada: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_cal… I inputted $265K in the "basket of goods" field and 1997 "would cost" input 2008. I got $330,000. Now that home is an oldtimer, almost a tear-down, in east vancouver, so not surprisingly it's in the lower end of the average $390K in UBC sauder report. But let's say I didn't correct you about the inflation adjustment. Then 150 price/rent ratio would make rent for an average… Read more »