Historical Free-for-all!
This site began in June 2006. For this weeks open topic Friday Free-for-all, let’s take a look back at some of the stories we’ve covered. In the last 3 years we’ve seen the US market bubble crash hard – Case Shiller recently recorded Phoenix as the first US city that has dropped more than 50% from the peak. Here in Vancouver we’re a couple years behind the US, but the economic indicators haven’t been that uplifting lately. Let’s look back at a time when we could laugh at the bubble:
-First Post! Think like a MILLIONAIRE!
-Stretching the loon – tips for first time buyers
-YOU can GET RICH in REAL ESTATE!
-MLS realtor-speak translation guide
-Sydney Australia vs Vancouver BC
-Types of potential buyers
-CMHC giveth zero down 40 year, then taketh away
-Housing market fantasies for Bears and Bulls
-What is sticker-flicker?
-Vancouver house price drop shopping spree!
So what are you seeing out there, and what have you seen? Any moments of nostalgia for the heights of the bubble days? Wish you’d bought in 2006? Post your news links, thoughts and anecdotes here and have an excellent weekend!
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
1
X
Arwen Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Did those awesome T-Shirts ever happen?
2
X
Hovering Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I love this blog (and it saved me from losing my shirt)!
thanks VCI
3
X
Bilbo Bloggins Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I still get asked everyday, “why are you renting — you could afford to buy a place… prices have dropped”.
I just smile smugly and reply, “because I can”.
Today, thanks to renting, my lifestyle has never been better.
I live in a nicer place. I have way more discretionary income.
I don’t worry about mortgage rates or losing my job or my strata fees going up.
I take holidays and drive a new car while at the same time, I put about $1500 a month aside for conservative investing.
Thanks landlords for subsidizing my indulgence.
Oh ya, I just spilled red wine on the carpet, but don’t worry, it’s part of normal wear & tear.
Just go pay the mortgage and feel sorry for this poor renter.
4
X
factcracker Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Do you still feel like Obama is your friend?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....04241.html
New Obama administration rules for American companies spell disaster for Canadian manufacturers. That means lots more unemployment.
5
X
hardtimes Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The government seems to think that no matter how outrageous prices have become they are going to defend them. It seems like debtors are more important to government than savers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30751842/
6
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“I don’t worry about mortgage rates or losing my job or my strata fees going up.”
HA HA yeah. I was part of a mass layoff. The people in my office with massive mortgages are sweating right now, and shooting out resumes like machine gun fire. Meanwhile, the lowly renters like myself are deciding how to goof off this summer before we find another job or go to school or whatever. I don’t have to do anything until the severance runs out and I get my EI (and I can live on 55%).
7
X
oneangryslav Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Check out this story from the New York Times economics reporter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05.....ure-t.html
“If there was anybody who should have avoided the mortgage catastrophe, it was I. As an economics reporter for The New York Times, I have been the paper’s chief eyes and ears on the Federal Reserve for the past six years. I watched Alan Greenspan and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, at close range. I wrote several early-warning articles in 2004 about the spike in go-go mortgages. Before that, I had a hand in covering the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the Russia meltdown in 1998 and the dot-com collapse in 2000. I know a lot about the curveballs that the economy can throw at us.
But in 2004, I joined millions of otherwise-sane Americans in what we now know was a catastrophic binge on overpriced real estate and reckless mortgages. Nobody duped or hypnotized me. Like so many others — borrowers, lenders and the Wall Street dealmakers behind them — I just thought I could beat the odds. We all had our reasons. The brokers and dealmakers were scoring huge commissions. Ordinary homebuyers were stretching to get into first houses, or bigger houses, or better neighborhoods. Some were greedy, some were desperate and some were deceived.
As for me, I had two utterly compelling reasons for taking the plunge: the money was there, and I was in love. It was August 2004, just as the mortgage party was getting really good. I was 48 years old and eager to start a new chapter in my life with Patricia Barreiro, who was then my fiancée.”
While I think that he let his dick do his thinking for him in this situation, there was one interesting tidbit in the piece that I think deserves more attention than it has gotten. During the housing boom in the US it was literally easier to get a $500,000 mortgage than to qualify to rent a $2000/month apartment. The standards for renters were tougher than for those trying to chase down a mortgage.
8
X
helltopay Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Patiently Waiting:
# 6 PW, the sudden drop off the employment train has been a real bone shaker to a lot of people. The mortgage, the car lease(s), the private schools and general expenses had a great many boneheads oblivious to the possiblity of change and now they are paying for thier financial myopia. A big house in the valley don’t mean squat when you got no jack in the bank.
I have always believed strongly in the F.U Resume concept. When you can say F.U to every rotten thing that the economic universe can throw at you then you’ve got a handle on personal planning. It seems that you have a handle on things. Good for you.
I had a transition present itself some years ago and I decided to take my kid out of grade school ( in grade 5 you can do it) to home-school through distance ed and travel for a year. I sold my house ( I owned it outright), put everything including the car in a storage facility and took a cab to the airport.
People I knew were freaked out, couldn’t believe that something like that could be even imaginable because they were stuck in restrictive jobs , had huge payments and couldn’t get out if they tried. I’ll tell you it pissed a lot of people off and made a lot of others very jealous. But, we had a great time teaching grade 5 on the beaches of Fiji, Australia, Borneo and Thailand. The profit I’d made on the house more than covered my total expenses so it didn’t end up costing me a dime.
I put it all down to the F.U resume. You can control your life if your smart. I came back after a great year, bought another house and just saw my kid go back to his 3rd year UNI, so I lost nothing, gained everything and still grin when I see the jealousy still lingers on the morons who never could figure out how to manage themselves.
Theres nothing wrong with renting if you are putting the balance aside for diversified investments. At the end of the day you may even surpass the forced savings plan of real estate ownership. In fact the Wiltshire 5000 has vastly outperformed real estate as an investment vehicle over the longer term.
Enjoy yourself, you got it right.
9
X
squidly77 Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
the most hated realtor in america who said this
That’s all one. I don’t care. The whole of the last century was dominated by the bad behavior of viciously angry wretches, but look where it got them. The BubbleBloggers will someday bawl balefully in private, but they will never, ever admit that they have been very publicly very foolish. You will know and I will know and in the secret chambers of their hearts they will know they were wrong all along. But as long as you don’t hold your breath waiting for that contrite admission of error, you should be fine
http://www.bloodhoundrealty.co…..log/?p=114
is now in foreslosure
http://exurbannation.blogspot&.....swann.html
we were all 100% right all along
the realtor trolls were 100% wrong
10
X
TUT Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
squidly77:
Sorry but it seems that the links are not complete..
11
X
patriotz Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
helltopay:
Theres nothing wrong with renting if you are putting the balance aside for diversified investments.
It doesn’t matter what you do with the balance, you are still ahead.
If you are paying more in ownership expenses (interest+taxes+maintenance etc.) than rental value, you are throwing away money. You are paying more for a place to live than you have to. Such an owner can come out ahead only if someone comes along who is willing to throw away even more money (the greater fool). The renter is ahead simply because he is paying less money for the same thing.
Just as someone who pays $1/litre for gas is ahead of someone who pays $1.50/litre, regardless of what he does with the savings.
12
X
squidly77 Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
ill try again..must be some kinda realtor voodoo black magic
americas most hated realtor greg swann who taunted housing bubble bloggers in 2006 when the pheonix housing bubble first began unwinding
That’s all one. I don’t care. The whole of the last century was dominated by the bad behavior of viciously angry wretches, but look where it got them. The BubbleBloggers will someday bawl balefully in private, but they will never, ever admit that they have been very publicly very foolish. You will know and I will know and in the secret chambers of their hearts they will know they were wrong all along. But as long as you don’t hold your breath waiting for that contrite admission of error, you should be fine.
http://www.bloodhoundrealty.co.....log/?p=114
is now dead broke and his house is in foreclosure
http://exurbannation.blogspot......swann.html
we were all 100% right all along
the realtor trolls were 100% wrong
13
X
asp Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
#8, I think you meant “You can control your life if you’re smart.”
14
X
TUT Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
squidly77:
This time the links worked!
Interesting turn around, thank you.
15
X
dug Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
thanks for everything, Pope. Those early posts are a howl and just nailed the unfolding mania. Good job! I’ve learned lots.
16
X
observer Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Just as someone who pays $1/litre for gas is ahead of someone who pays $1.50/litre, regardless of what he does with the savings.
Just to play devil’s advocate: you can either pay 1/litre for gas every time you need the gas (renting) or pay 1.5/litre for gas by buying 25 years worth of gas (buying). The bulls will tell you that the price of gas will always go up so it is worthwhile to pay the extra price now. The bears will tell you that the price of gas cannot always go up and that it will drop from the currently overpriced values. The other complication is that the buying is often with financing and the bulls will adjust the down payment so that it appears your monthly mortgage minus expenses are less than rent when a proper fundamental analysis would reveal in fact renting is cheaper than buying.
17
X
observer Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
(note: it is always possible to arrange things so your mortgage plus expenses is less than rent by having a large enough down payment, for instance, if you have enough cash to buy it without financing. So by the bulls argument, anyone with enough available cash should always buy. Clearly this is incorrect but I wonder if any bulls are able to pinpoint the fallacy in this argument.)
18
X
helltopay Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Real estate has always been sold as a great long term savings vehicle. It was spun as ‘forced savings’ for people who couldn’t budget for themselves. This and whole life policies were ideas that came out of the 1940’s and 50’s.
If a peson rents AND saves a portion of his/her income and dedicates it to long term investments in a diversified portfolio of several asset classes, they would in fact achieve the same thing , or do better based on the long term performance of the stock market vs real estate. This would render moot the argument that real estate is THE savings vehicle and that rent was ‘throwing money out the window”.
The ‘forced savings’ idea is just another successful advertising cliche with due to it’s success has been adapted into the colloquial speech. This is much the same as ” Diamonds are forever’, ” They say”, ” A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, etc.
Generations of dimwits have repreated the mantra and now speak it without understanding it and use the expressions when vocalizing at those times when the brain is giving you nothing.
19
X
patriotz Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
helltopay:
This and whole life policies were ideas that came out of the 1940’s and 50’s.
The reason why buying a house worked as an investment vehicle (better language then “forced savings vehicle”) in the 40’s and 50’s was because the yield on RE was higher than the yield on fixed income.Someone who buys a house with a mortgage is long RE and short fixed income.
Or to put it simply…
BUYING WAS CHEAPER THAN RENTING
20
X
Anonymous Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Where has Krrish gone?
He had a lot to say when the market was being ridiculous but now that reality is setting in..
Maybe he’s panhandling and praying that he can sell his assignment
21
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
People also didn’t use the house as a cash machine back in the 1940s-50s. Just like the renter can blow their savings on coke and whores, so can the homemoaner with their equity.
22
X
Anonymous2 Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Anonymous: I think he has sold one of his unit eight months ago,He has planned to move in one of his unit coming to complete-closing date may(2)+9 =29 and he is going to rent out one of his unit closing date July or August.He will step out for Olympics rental then return back to his unit after-He has plan to trade both of his units with sfh around 2011 as move up buyer to fill the requirement of principle owner,He also has planned to give away his entire share to his brother(low income earner)from the previously owned SFH.These day he is currently assisting his brother3(economists bear who has sold his unit last year to re-enter) skipped 3 best stages to buy sfh now paying 150k extra within 1.5 months.
This post is from best of my knowledge.
23
X
Denialisrampant Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Truth is ugly. It’s so much easier to look for ‘green shoots’ and ‘blueskys ahead’. Disonance is just plain uncomfortable. Faced with discomfiting thought provoking reality, most people prefer to look away.
I wouldn’t suggest anyond read this article unless you can stand a bit of the old ‘heat’.
http://www.321gold.com/editori.....51509.html
24
X
helltopay Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:19 am
patriotz:
#19 , The catch-phrase ” forced savings” seemed to ring a deep pyschological bell with the previous generation. It was the banking and real estate industries ‘mantra’ for a long time. Those children from depression era parents were brought up on stories about ’saving for a rainy day’ and ‘ see a penny pick it up and all the day you’ll have good luck’ and were force fed the advertising goop by marketing experts who know how to push peoples buttons. So the idea of ’saving’ even if you had to be forced’ to save was considered a good thing. The term ‘investment’ wasn’t part of the blue collar lexicon until the 70’s when mutual funds became more mainstream and the banks started offering them to the public as long term investments. It started a whole new era in catch-phrase invention.
25
X
patriotz Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
helltopay:
Savings is investment. As the formula puts it,
Y = C + I + G
In other words income (Y) not consumed (C) or spent by government (G) is invested (I). (I have omitted exports and imports for simplicity).
What people do not undestand is that the cost of renting capital – all capital – is consumption. If you’re a house renter, that’s your rent, If you’re a house owner, that’s your interest, taxes, and all other costs.
Buying a house when ownership costs exceed rent is not a forced savings vehicle. It’s a forced dissavings vehicle, because it consumes income that you otherwise would save, all other consumption being equal.
26
X
helltopay Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
patriotz:
Well then, you’re going to love the Purchasing Parity calculation which puts the value of one 1979 dollar at .2966 cents in 2008 buying power. Now thats the power of holding a long term investment. It almost makes me want to spend every nickel I own before it becomes worth even less next week. In real terms every savings is dissavings. The idea that we’re getting ahead is just another Jedi mind game.
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/result.php
27
X
patriotz Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
helltopay:
In 1979 Government of Canada long bonds were yielding about 10%. That’s a nominal total return of 1586% to today, which is a real total return of 470% or 5.5% annually.
Inflation actually results in higher real interest rates because lenders are uncertain about future price stability. The long bond rate peaked at 18.14% in September 1981, which was the best return on a guaranteed investment in Canadian history.
http://www.bank-banque-canada......_hist.html
28
X
Rado@freemarkets.ca Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Will someone help this poor soul: http://vancouver.en.craigslist.....26506.html
29
X
Anonymous Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
patriotz: “Inflation actually results in higher real interest rates because lenders are uncertain about future price stability.”
Wouldn’t the same be true about deflation? Is there any indication what the risk spreads are today?
30
X
Anonymous Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
B.C. government asks workers to take time off without pay
Can anyone say “wage deflation”? Not 5 days after the election no less. This has a multiplied effect as when employees see wages cut back, they start saving even more in anticipation of further hardship. This is not the fiscal stimulus the government has been promising.
31
X
patriotz Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Anonymous:
Wouldn’t the same be true about deflation?
Yes, because interest rates can’t go below zero.
The long bond rate is the market’s predictor of future inflation. Right now it’s expecting very low inflation.
Of course the market can make wrong predictions. In the early 60’s it was predicting low inflation and was broadsided by the Vietnam War and the oil crisis. In the late 70’s and early 80’s it was predicting high inflation and was broadsided by Paul Volcker.
32
X
patriotz Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
The pilot project allows public servants to take off 20 per cent of their normal workweek as an unpaid leave of absence.
Now where did they get that idea – why would that be the “Rae Days”? But that was under the NDP in Ontario!
“The initiative was mainly based around a forced twelve days of unpaid leave for all civil service workers”
Rae Days
That was 12 days a year out of about 200 work days – only 6% of work time.
How long before the “Gordo Days” become mandatory instead of voluntary? How about, say, March 2010? Wouldn’t want to stir the pot before then would we?
33
X
realpaul Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Anonymous:
#30 This type of noise was predicted on this board some weeks before the election; that the reality stream of bad news would start spilling out shortly after the election. I would expect a gusher of knee wobblers to gush out very soon because it wouldn’t be politically tactful to wait for the effects of seriously bad news to overlap the Olympic running of the pigs. Get ready for a bloodbath;it would be the prudent thing to do if you were Gordo the Magnificent.
I read on Garths blog someone had mentioned that a relative was working at EI and were so swamped that they have been ordered NOT to answer the phones.
I wonder how the juxtaposition will be spun by the MSM which has hitherto been propped up by the deep pockets of the Liberal Party supporters. “What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve”, said young Willie.
Patriotz, I think that it was the 5 year note that hit 18%, I can only slobber in my dreams about a jackpot like that.
34
X
patriotz Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:02 am
realpaul:
Patriotz, I think that it was the 5 year note that hit 18%,
All durations got that high. I got about 18.5% (annual) on a six month GIC. Made a nice down payment. When rates get that high, cash is truly king.
35
X
Anonymous Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
helltopay Says:
Theres nothing wrong with renting if you are putting the balance aside for diversified investments.
————–
Screw “investments”.
Just spend it well and live your life. It is short and goes fast.
36
X
Anonymous Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Vancouver house price drop shopping spree!
——————————————
This is excellent!!! I wish someone could update it to reflect the total drop to-date.
37
X
hombre Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Got the shock of the decade last week….yup, the pink slip, along with about a dozen others.
The only reason it was such a shock was because I thought I was safe. It’s taken me this long to be able to confide in anyone other than my wife, and that’s mainly because I can remain anonymous here as long as I don’t elaborate on the details.
Thank god we’re renting, and not stuck with a mortgage.
This may be my last post for a while, but just wanted to warn others who might feel just a bit too confident. The economy sucks, and don’t rule out the unexpected. It can be damned humiliating.
38
X
realpaul Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
patriotz:
#34 P, In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still getting 12 to 14% on T-Bills. It was like a second income. Cash is truly King at those points in time. My opinion is that we are seeing the set up for another rise in rates due to the undeniable inflation created by huge amounts of cash flooding the system. I would be a very happy camper if intrest rates resumed the long term average of 10%. Of course I’d be a much happier camper at 18.5.
39
X
Jeff Barkley Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
This is a perfect time to add a little financial history to our lives
http://www.321gold.com/editori.....51609.html
While it is long, this presentation for institutional investors puts this entire market into perspective. There have been serveral “great depressions” throughout history and there are several characteristics that have been repeated each time. Please forgive my crude simplifications. Each depression begins with an asset bubble of one type or another. The stock markets boom and regulation is removed after the wealthy twist politician’s arms. The crash occurs in the markets as credit tightens and everyone loses approximately 45% in the initial stages. A huge bear market rally follows and calls of a bottom are made. Politicians and buisness leaders crow about how it is turning around and there will be a recovery in the second half of the year. Confidence swings skyward, and stocks rise. This is where we are today….then, in the second half of the first year, another crash occurs, markets turn down again to new lows and the economy keeps sinking, with unemployment rising. At this point in the 1929 crash unemployment was 8% as it is in the US. By the middle of the depression, it was 25%.
This may not occur this time, but history certainly shows it is a likely scenario. It tells me that we should not jump into the real estate market right now, even if you can afford it. I will be waiting a little longer. We should know by the fall if it really is “different this time”. House prices outside of the center of the city are still dropping so we have nothing to lose by waiting, except a fleecing by those that caused this mess…
40
X
realpaul Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Intrest rates have to double to get back to normal. All time low yields force governments hand.
“As the latest Barron’s points out, the 30-year Treasury has fallen 20% year-to-date. Despite this sharp fall, however, the long-dated Treasury is still yielding 4.1%, or about 50% below its average yield between 1977 and the present. Therefore, if the economy shows the slightest sign of recovery, long-term yields are almost guaranteed to rise from the recent lows toward more normal levels. When yields rise, Treasuries fall! No rocket science there!
But then again, with so many structural problems in the world’s economy, who really believes that the economy will heal any time soon? So suppose we stay in this trough for a while longer, and suppose the Keynesians continue to rule the world, a likely scenario, the government will spend, spend, and spend even more to get things going again. With dwindling tax revenues, the government will then have to issue more Treasuries to finance new spending. The liability side of the government’s balance sheet will then bloat; and debt ratios will deteriorate. Naturally credit ratings, and hence prices, of U.S. Treasuries will plummet!
Is that how it will end? Not necessarily. There is an alternative, but similarly tragic, ending. The Fed may emerge to make a desperate rescue attempt. But we already know this rescue will be in vain, because we have already seen this movie before. Back in March, the Fed announced that it was going to buy $300 billion worth of long-dated Treasuries. Treasuries jumped for a day or two after the announcement, but then they have resumed falling since. And even if the Fed succeeds at propping up Treasuries, it will only be because Gutenberg had invented the printing press. And if Gutenberg had not invented this magical contraption, Bernanke would have. In the end, Treasuries will be repaid, but with paper that, may not exactly be worthless, but will definitely be worth less. Treasuries buyers, choose your poison! ”
41
X
Boombust Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I see price reductions all the time in the Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge areas.
What’s all the worry about? The reverse tsunami will wash into Vancouver in a few months.
It started in Vancouver and it will finally end there. That’s how it has always worked in the past.
42
X
Mold city Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
hombre: My condolences man, I’ve been laid off before due to lack of work. It sucks. Keep positive, keep in touch with friends and be thankful you’re smart enough to have stayed away from heavy debt.
43
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“It can be damned humiliating.”
Hombre, is that just the fact you were laid off, or did management bungle the process and make it worse?
Isn’t it funny how little you care about real estate now?
I’m still sticking around in the background, but I’m only interested on an intellectual basis (especially reading patriotz’s logical posts which helps me stay sane:)).
Take it easy.
44
X
patriotz Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
realpaul:
My opinion is that we are seeing the set up for another rise in rates due to the undeniable inflation created by huge amounts of cash flooding the system.
I do not think it is possible for rates to rise even as far as 10%. The reason is the huge level of consumer debt. If rates rose that much consumers would simply have no money to spend because their debt servicing costs would skyrocket. Also wages can’t keep up with inflation any more. Result would be a collapse in demand and deflation.
Essentially the deflationary effect of higher interest rates today is far more leveraged than in the 70’s and 80’s because of this. It took 18% interest rates back then to bring inflation to a halt. I think today they can’t go any higher than 6%. But even that much of a rise would put our RE market back on track with Phoenix.
45
X
Anonymous Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
patriotz: So funny how everyone knows better than the long bond. Until leverage decreases, inflation is not a worry, save the government going Weimar.
46
X
Vansanity Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Sounds like a rental support group in here. “Hi everyone… I’m a renter because I refuse to live ‘house poor’.”
Back to the reason we’re here.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/.....-2009.html
“Canada’s housing market to fall by double-digits in ‘09: CMHC
Rising unemployment have made potential homeowners reluctant to jump into the housing market. In addition, shrinking housing prices have made homebuyers hesitant to put their abodes on the market…Alberta and British Columbia are the two provinces where home values have experienced the biggest drops compared to their most recent annual peaks.
CMHC now expects the average price for a home in Alberta to reach $322,500 in 2009, down 9.4 per cent versus a peak value of $356,235 in 2007.
In the case of B.C., house prices will fall to $403,700 in the current year compared to a pinnacle valuation of $454,599 in 2008.”
47
X
realpaul Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:32 am
More double talk and wishful thinking from the CMHC today.
“OTTAWA — Housing starts are expected to decline this year but recovery slightly in 2010 as the Canadian economy begins to recover, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.”
Ans Patriotz, I feel zero sympathy for those whose personal debt now exceeds their own ability to service it. We have see the debt service ratio go from outrageous to unbelievable, but now the savers and the taxpayers are supposed to subsidize it? Wow I’m living in an upside down world ‘o madness. Isn’t the personal debt ratio something like 130% of disposable income in BC. Nobody can ever pay back 130% entirely, you could only make payments, as debt slaves.
I think the call for 6% ties in with what I posted about pressure on the historically low yields forcing intrest rates up to double todays rate. Interesting tie in, is that gold is very strong against the dollar indicating continued dollar weakness. At what point do they devalue the dollar or raise intrest rates. If the global economy starts to recover that will stall the flood into treasuries and defacto force the governments hand.
48
X
Denialisrampant Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Housing starts hit record lows, while new inventory hits record highs. Market shows no signs of ‘green shoots’ as earlier reported by deniers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....us_economy
49
X
UrbanSurvivalista Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Best read of the day
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm
50
X
oneangryslav Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Anonymous:
I agree; when you look at the amount of money that the US (and other governments) have printed recently, it absolutely pales in comparison to the amount of wealth that has been destroyed over the last couple of years. I agree with patriotz; this is not a repeat of the 1970s, for many reasons.
Remember, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes…
51
X
Anonymouse Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Hi,
Can someone tell me what a ‘Court Ordered Sale’ means? This a result of a divorce or something?
Thanks
Ps. love the blog/comments
52
X
kersplatt Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Anonymouse:
#51 Anon,
1)After the process of foreclosure has wound through the courts a judge issues an order to sell the property in question. The offers are sealed and acceptance by the court is based on the court ordered independant appraisal. This is based on a foreclosure judgement not a realtors sales pitch that a foreclosure proceeding is active or that a tax lien has been filed. Realtors are such scum, less than 1 in 100,000 would understand the proceedings.
2) If a divorce has remained unsettled then the claimants can apply for a court ordered sale.
3) If the public trustee ( shudder) is involved they will apply to the courts for the right to sale a property under the supervision of the courts. Say for example a person would have died intestate ( no will) or a minor child orphaned where the state would sell the childs estate assets to pay for support.
It could probably described ‘more better’ but thats generally the idea.
53
X
realist Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
kersplatt,
Thank you for your informative post. Also to other posters here who so generously share their knowledge. This is one of the few forums in which there is intelligent discourse on the subject of real estate. In my lifetime, people have stopped attending church and now manifest their tendencies to idolatry in the form of granite counter tops.