Welcome!
VancouverPeak.com- jesse and Makaya are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- jesse posted an update: CMHC starts, completions and under construction in Vancouver […]
- The Ant started the forum topic BC Population Growth in the group Housing Data
- jesse and The Ant are now friends
- jesse and wreckonomics are now friends
- wreckonomics posted an update: New Year, New HPI. ”Selection Broadens and Demand Eases to […]
- Best place on meth and admin are now friends
- jesse and Best place on meth are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic February 2012 Daily Numbers in the group Housing Data
Wordpress theme by Abhishek Tripathi of Mediawick Digital Solutions
July 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
NLL – I live in one of the primo locations. I’ve lived all over the city and I know what I like.
Most of our friends agree that although it’s smallish and old, our rental has some charm and we’ve done a nice job. You know who practically insulted it outright? Our realtor. He said “I can’t believe at your age you would sell your lovely townhouse and live like students.” This same realtor would probably be singing the praises of this house’s stained glass etc. if we’d bought it for $1M!!
July 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am
I just came across this and had to laugh. I live about half a block away from this listing in a large one bedroom apartment. I rent for $780 a month. Even if someone had this place paid off, their maintenance and tax every month would be about $558 a month, plus any other expenses. Granted it’s a bigger, nicer place than mine, but $555,000?
http://www.6717000.com/mls/V75.....ro-st.html
July 6th, 2009 at 3:23 am
observer:
Exactly how would CMHC handle a situation (what would happen to bond holders, bond prices, yields) where widespread defaults happen.
CMHC is a Crown corporation and its obligations carry a Crown guarantee, no ifs, ands, or buts.
If CMHC got into a position where it was unable to pay its bondholders due to mortgage defaults the GoC could advance it the funds to do so, or CMHC could simply sell more bonds on the open market. The GoC could either lend the money or grant it (purchasing equity in effect). The BoC could also purchase CMHC debt but cannot buy equity. If CMHC were lent the money either by the GoC, BoC, or the bond market it would have to recover it though higher premiums which would be just desserts IMHO.
There is no doubt CMHC will suffer big losses in BC but the question is how big these will be compared to its reserves. The last major bust in Canada was the Toronto bust of the early 90′s, so they should have a good sized war chest. Note, again, that the RE market in the rest of Canada is nowhere as inflated as in BC. IMHO the CMHC will suffer the majority of its losses (in dollar terms) in this bust in BC alone.
I think if the GoC chose to grant CMHC taxpayer’s money to cover losses it would be politically explosive. It would be seen as a bailout of BC and to a lesser extent Alberta and Toronto by Canada’s non-bubble regions – in particular Quebec. Just imagine Gilles Duceppe taking that one on.
My views on the irresponsibility of the “Conservative” government on this issue are well known on this board and I think they deserve to be defeated on this issue alone.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Stu: Sounds to me more like an immigrant rip off than immigrant stimulus.
Anyways, it isn’t clear to me that Vancouver will be able to continue to grow in population if it doesn’t have a meaningful economy to support it. Having the economy based on housing people and swapping RE isn’t enough.
It could go the route of a resort city but then eventually the population would plateau in that case.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
rubberduckie,
We had to give a little on location to find places like this. Our rent would get us a rathole in Kits/West End/The Drive.
In our previous place we had a Tenant From Hell upstairs. We’re so glad we left.
This is a great time to find a better place. Lots of good stuff is coming on the market after being foolishly abandoned by FTBs.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Boombust:
You said your parents bought a new house in Coquitlam in 1966 for $16,250.
To put that in perspective, the average income in the US for 1966 was $6,900. Sorry couldn’t find Canada for that year but prob not far off of that.
So that NEW house cost approx 2.4x avg income.
Try finding that these days.
Declining standard of living…
July 5th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Listen son, the Japs don’t do immigration like we do here. The Shinto spirit must be preserved at the expense of any immigrant stimulis. If it was the same here Coquitlam would still be half bush.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
LordHuggington: The prolonged low interest rates in Japan didn’t save the housing market there. Actually, if you look at the graph of the Japanese housing prices, it’s pretty astounding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....050615.jpg
It goes to show that you can’t have sustained growth in house prices over long periods of time, so eventually the thing collapses. Not even low interest rates can keep it up. And if you think the old adage that there is only so much land in Vancouver, you certainly cannot deny the adage should apply to Japan, yet even that didn’t save them.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Renting sucks…. I know but how would you feel to face foreclosure. This will happen to many FTB’s that have got in at the top. It’s simple it is not the time to buy if you have to get a high ratio mortgage it is just too risky. If you have just sold and are looking to buy then that is very different. I have bought and sold many homes and will never put any less than 25% down. I will not pay the CHMC blood money they demand that is a waste of money. Just flush that right down the toilet. I like how Dave makes statements like the bank won’t raise rates over the next 2 years. He is always badmouthing others on their opinions and that is pure oral sewage. The fact is none of us even Dave knows what interest will look like in one year leave alone 2. FTB’s unless mommy and Daddy dumped a whole lot of money on you then no it’s not a good time to buy.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
So, does anyone want to take a stab at when we may see interest rates may start going up, or what we’ll need to see happen to cause such a thing? I’m not a finance guy, so have no idea. I just hope we don’t see the same thing here as has happened with interests rates in Japan, where they’ve been non-existent for ages. =(
July 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Thats 15% not 155% BTW
July 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Deliverator:
#86, you can also buy individual second and third mortgages through a plethora of mortgage brokers and second tier lenders . You still have to do your homework and realise you either know people or not before going into this buisness. At todays rates I wouldn’t touch one with a ten foot pole as you can get better returns in dividends with less risk. In the old days when 155 was the norm on a second it was not too bad as that was a few points above the T-Bill rate.
As I said earlier I will be surprised to see the low interest charade last much longer and things will get rocky.The most recent wave of FTB’s are barely working their mortgage at 5%. Anything above the and things are really going to fall apart. The Feds know this and are walking the tightrope hoping the economy improves so that they can get the higher earners borrowing again. The recent economic news has been so bad that they’re discussing a second stimulus. I don’t think that will fly. If it happens then look for some serious kickback from the bond holders.It doesn’t matter who you are, risk is risk. Even the Chinese will reach an inflection point where the US market stops to matter. The billion dollar question is where is that point?
Feds worried and Flarhety can’t say Canada in a sentence without scowling.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le1205586/
July 5th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Apologies if anybody already posted this.
It’s from today’s Province, and concerns how that condo presale you “sold” to someone else, may not actually stay sold:
http://www.househunting.ca/hom.....e2325338e3
July 5th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
No Longer Looking – that’s it, I’m moving to your house!
You lucked out, sounds like. And with a pet, no less. Lord knows the 10% of rentals that allow pets are typically the least desirable 10%. I think they say “It’s already soaked in cat pee and dog smell so who cares.”
When we viewed our house, the windows were all open and the house smelled great. The reality is it took 3 coats of urethane (put on by me) after we moved in to make it nice.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Interesting. The article states these bonds are guaranteed by the government and my interpretation is this makes it different than a true mortgage bond.
It would appear to be so. Assuming the mortgages backing the bonds are CHMC-insured, they would be de facto government-backed. At any rate, since the CMHC is federally-backed, the bonds they issue amount to federal government debt, though that debt does not appear on the books as such.
In a mortgage back security MBS, if your mortgagees defaults, that would mean you don’t get any payments or even possibly your principal back, right?
Typically, they are divided in tranches, with the highest rated (and therefore lowest-yielding) tranches being payed out first. Since default rates have been extremely low over the past 20-odd years, typically the principal has been safe in these instruments, and even in the lowest-rated tranches interest payments are rarely not met.
Is the buying and selling of true mortgage bonds happening only between large institutions (pension funds, CMHC, banks, etc)?
In general, yes. Though the general public has been able to participate somewhat through REITs.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Deliverator: Interesting. The article states these bonds are guaranteed by the government and my interpretation is this makes it different than a true mortgage bond. In a mortgage back security MBS, if your mortgagees defaults, that would mean you don’t get any payments or even possibly your principal back, right?
It appears from the article that the CMHC uses this money to fund residential mortgages but it is the CMHC who is responsible for maintaining the interest payments to bond holders. But of course one has to read the fine print. If that is the case, there is an added layer of security to these bonds. This essentially means the government has to bear the consequences if things go wrong, perhaps through higher debt servicing costs if CMHC gets into trouble, so in a sense we are back to square one.
Is the buying and selling of true mortgage bonds happening only between large institutions (pension funds, CMHC, banks, etc)?
July 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
drugs “r” us:
You remember Miami in the 80′s, I guess not. The cocain train eventually derailed.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I live in a four-plex where a couple other tenants do serious landscaping (their choice). Nobody has built anything yet, but my deck is huge (a requirement for me).
I garden on my deck to my hearts delight and BBQ and let the cat out (on the deck). We hang art as we wish, and don’t get too stressed about holes in the walls.
I get to do all the extras while not worrying about boring basic maintenance and repairs. I did that stuff as a home owner, and didn’t care for it.
Extending a deck is outside of my skill-set, but I’m sure its fun.
Home owners rarely get to avoid cohabitants in Vancouver, sadly. And they will come to you for repairs and maintenance. And you have to jump through legal hoops to evict a Tenant from Hell. So much for freedom
Different kinds of freedom in ownership vs. renting, that’s all.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Oops. Looks like I was wrong about the CMBs:
http://findarticles.com/p/arti....._86042874/
They are a form of these packaged mortgage bonds. Sorry for the error.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Deliverator: I’m curious how widespread this packaging of mortgage bonds is here in Canada, because I for one don’t know where I can buy these mortgage bonds as an investment.
Ever invest in a REIT? The CMBs are not the same thing as these packaged mortgages. Rather, they are a way for the CHMC to raise money to fund its insurance business. In a way, all these bonds are related: federal government bonds, ostensibly being the most secure, command the highest price (the lowest return), and therefore set a floor for expected returns for other bond issues.
I believe the mortgage bonds are structured much the same way as they used to be in the US, before the ‘innovations’ that took place in the 2000′s. The general idea of these ‘innovations’ was to package sub-prime mortgages along prime mortgages, tack on some insurance, wave a dead chicken over the result, and get Moody’s or S&P to give it a ‘AAA’ rating so that retirement funds and other large conservative pools of capital would be able to invest in them. To my knowledge the Canadian banks stayed away from such bold new ideas.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
No Longer Looking:
We are renting a lovely house with a big yard. I’d like to say renting is exactly the same as owning, but it isn’t. You don’t have control over your situation, which is mostly just a brain block, but it’s a block all the same!
If I owned this house, I’d extend the back deck, do some serious landscaping, etc. I actually enjoy doing that stuff.
I’d also kick out the Tenant from Hell who rents the other part of the house… but that’s another story!
Owning is about control.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Deliverator: I’m curious how widespread this packaging of mortgage bonds is here in Canada, because I for one don’t know where I can buy these mortgage bonds as an investment.
Are these mortgage bonds the same as CMHC bonds you can buy on the bond market? If so, are they structured like the ones in the US where if defaults rise, the bonds become toxic assets, or are they a different instrument?
Exactly how would CMHC handle a situation (what would happen to bond holders, bond prices, yields) where widespread defaults happen. Have they been stressed tested against worst case projections for unemployment?
July 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
One decent question is ” How long can the Feds keep up the charade?” The smiling impish face of Jim Flahrety laughs in the face of the bad economic numbers while BOC governor states that ‘the pot is empty and risk is growing’. The bankruptcy, welfare and EI numbers tell the real story, don’t they.
Some interesting infighting shaping up south of the border with Biden announcing that ‘we fucked up’ in the read on the economy. Colin Powell turned on Obama recently stating that the cupboard is bare and spending is so out of control that the great great grandchildren are now officially screwed.
The buisness numbers are failing ( except on the front page of the Province of course), in fact the real estate sales numbers continue to show aggregate weakening accompanied by falling prices. The hype is temporary. Cash is King, don’t get lost in the smoke effects. Buying now is like getting drunk and taking home the fat chick standing by the mens room door at closing time.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:47 am
patriotzed: I agree that we have a lack of true diversity in BC economy and if you cut out RE related sectors then you are pretty much left with very little of consequence. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this will ever change unless people get ruined by RE investments in a way that leaves deep scars. Policies have been such that it has been simply easier to make money on RE than to go into these other sectors.
Even we did have the human capital to be world class in other sectors, the group think peer pressure to buy into RE is definitely taking its toll in diverting resources into what essentially amounts to a socially acceptable form of a ponzi scheme.
But again, we all have a part to play in this (small or large) and we will all have a part in the consequences.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:10 am
“Can’t afford a house with a yard? Screw it. Buy a tiny condo and fill it with monotone furniture and bowls of wicker balls.”
Or you could just rent a nicer house than you could ever buy
Seriously, your post is another example of our pointless society and economy. *SIGH* indeed
July 5th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“If they lost their job due to this downturn, then maybe the job they were doing wasn’t providing enough true value to the economy and was only being maintained through the bubble anyways. It’s cruel thing to say to be sure and I’m not saying that this is the case.”
I question the value of the North American economy itself. Very few people do anything that’s of true value these days, in my humble opinion.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
As I stand by watching friends buy real estate, I admit I feel tempted. Tempted to lower my standards.
We humans are equipped to deal with changing environments by discarding unattainable goals and making new lower ones. Can’t afford a house with a yard? Screw it. Buy a tiny condo and fill it with monotone furniture and bowls of wicker balls. Got nowhere to garden, entertain, build things, or do any sort of hobby at home? Go out shopping and buy more stuff. An enormous t.v. to bathe you in unnatural blue glow late into the night. High-calorie food to eat when you’re bored or lonely. New wardrobes in progressively larger sizes.
*SIGH*
July 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
observer:
If they lost their job due to this downturn, then maybe the job they were doing wasn’t providing enough true value to the economy and was only being maintained through the bubble anyways.
That is certainly true for those working in RE, construction and finance.
But the real problem is much larger. The RE bubble has diverted investment and labour from the productive sectors that provide real income in the long term and support secondary industry. The restaurant or travel industry employee who loses his job in this recession does so because the primary economic sectors such as manufacturing and high tech have atrophied (both here and elsewhere) due to so many resources having been diverted into this bogus RE boom, both here and in the US.
BC had a lot more people working in real industries that produced tradable products 10 years ago. BC’s “golden decade” has been nothing but fool’s gold. These sectors have been losing jobs but the loss in employment has been masked by the rise in RE-related sectors. This mirage will not remain in place for much longer. They have gotten the message south of the border, but we haven’t here – yet.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:54 am
2-The bank has 100k$ to lend, for 5 years. Either it buys 5year govt bond or it lends it to a poor vancouverite through a 5 year fixed mortgage.
It does not buy a 100K govt bond, for the simple reason that the interest rate on that bond is lower than on the GIC. The GIC has a higher rate because it is illiquid. The bank loans the money to a private sector borrower.
Government bonds have the lowest yields of any debt securities because they offer both security and liquidity. Unless they are parking money short term, banks do not buy government debt because they can’t make a profit on it.
A simple description of how banks lend money for mortgages would be the following:
Assuming a 10:1 reserve ratio is required of the banks, bank A borrows $100,000 from the BoC at interest rate X. This money is ‘created’ out of thin air, with the stroke of an electronic pen, by the BoC.
It then proceeds to lend $9,000 to each of 10 individuals at rate (X+Y)%, holding $10,000 in reserve. These individuals use the money to purchase their homes.
The sellers of those homes then deposit $9,000 each into their banks, each of which proceed to lend $8,100 to each of 9 individuals, holding $900 in reserve. $72,900 is thus created out of thin air with the stroke of several electronic pens.
And so on, until $900,000 is lent out against $100,000 of reserves.
The banks, using their rights to borrow in the short term directly from the BoC, earn the ‘spread’ in the interest rate between the BoC’s short term rate, and the longer-term rates they charge their customers.
Often, the mortgages created are then packaged and sold as mortgage bonds. The price the market is willing to pay for these bonds sets the rate of return, which in turn determines the rate the banks will set for their lending requirements.
In Canada, since all mortgages are essential ARMs that re-set every 3-10 years, banks are largely insulated from changes in interest rates in the long term, and since the CMHC insures all mortgages, they are largely insulated from default.
Nice work if you can get it.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:18 am
patriotzed:
You could be very cut throat and say those innocent people who did not participate in the RE bubble directly might possibly have had a hand in benefiting from it indirectly in the following sense. If they lost their job due to this downturn, then maybe the job they were doing wasn’t providing enough true value to the economy and was only being maintained through the bubble anyways. It’s cruel thing to say to be sure and I’m not saying that this is the case. But it is a possible viewpoint.
Ultimately, I think human nature is such that we all want to get something for as little as possible. If current policies continue to encourage this to an extreme point, then we (will) have a problem. The only way for this to correct itself is for some people to suffer some financial pain if no reason or sense will sway them. Hopefully, the policies will be such that those who are more valuable are rewarded, or at least by putting many capable people into debt at inflated prices, they will create such a class.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:09 am
re: standards of living
http://tinyurl.com/kly965
fascinating read on the worlds’ standard
of living and changes that we in North America
are facing based on the lack of availability
of cheap energy…..
July 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Dave said: “I don’t think you can generalize like that. Now is a good time for some people and not a good time for others. It really depends on personal circumstances.”
It’s a slippery slope. Once you say this can be a good time to buy for some people and not for others, some people will buy even though it is not a good time for them. More to the point, many people will buy even though it may not be a good time to buy for anyone.
I don’t think the issue is really about the decision being dependent on one’s circumstances.
Because one can simply ask if it makes sense for someone with enough cash to buy RE (with no financing) at current prices versus renting. If the answer to that is yes, then Dave’s comment could be relevant because then one would have to look at how much financing one needs and what its costs are, etc.
But if it doesn’t make sense for someone with enough cash to buy RE clear at current prices, then it certainly wouldn’t make sense for someone to buy with financing.
Of course, with the low interest rates acting as a mirage these days, many people would say it is better to buy RE rather than rent if you have enough cash because the cash is earning very little interest. But we all know the hidden traps and pitfalls behind this simple reasoning.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:59 am
observer:
It is sickening that many innocent people will get ruined
What innocent people? If you buy a house at an inflated price you yourself are responsible for the inflated price, and you are without doubt expecting to sell it later for a higher price, which makes you a speculator.
The innocent people are the ones south of the border and here who did not participate in the RE bubble but will face loss of work because of its collapse.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:55 am
bof:
2-The bank has 100k$ to lend, for 5 years. Either it buys 5year govt bond or it lends it to a poor vancouverite through a 5 year fixed mortgage.
It does not buy a 100K govt bond, for the simple reason that the interest rate on that bond is lower than on the GIC. The GIC has a higher rate because it is illiquid. The bank loans the money to a private sector borrower.
Government bonds have the lowest yields of any debt securities because they offer both security and liquidity. Unless they are parking money short term, banks do not buy government debt because they can’t make a profit on it.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:44 am
stu forgets that rents need to cover carrying costs. Ain’t nothin to do with traffic man.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Listen gang, Stu here’s lots of dumb excuses here but it is as simple as this. When Stu came to BC Coquitlam was half bush. They could build houses to meet immigration demand. Try that now. Stu gets hassled trying to drive his auto around town. Now they want to close a lane on the Burrard bridge. Supply and demand, Stu gets cranky.
July 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
mino3:
I think this has been a sign of a declining standard of living for the past 30 years-they call it the disappearing middle class. Our jobs certainly won’t lead us to great wealth, stocks don’t always do so well, things just get more and more expensive, we take on more and more debt just to maintain the standard our parents had….what’s left? Oh! Buy a house and you’re set for life! Too bad that party’s over…some people are predicting the middle class will disappear completely and we’ll be no better off than the rest of the world with huge gaps between rich and poor. By the time us in our thirties are set to retire, there will be no such thing as retirement (unless you’re one of the super wealthy, not like us working stiffs)hmm…gotta get me one of those senior-level public sector jobs…
Gloomy way to think, but that’s what it seems to be coming to…
July 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Dave said: “I don’t think you can generalize like that. Now is a good time for some people and not a good time for others. It really depends on personal circumstances.”
I wanted to re-post that because the “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil” blog monkeys seem intent on modding him into oblivion regardless of the point he tries to make.
Mod away, bears.
July 4th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I think the resurging bubble in Vancouver is a sign that our standard of living is declining and people see no other way to get ahead in life. They feel entitled to some lifestyle (out of their reach) and they know they can’t attain it the conventional way from their insecure low paying jobs, so they throw caution to the wind and gamble on RE. The worst that can happen is everyone else pays for their stupidity, right?
The sad part in all this is the government is encouraging it every step of the way.
July 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
It’s possible that US rates will jump due to their massive debt load, thereby putting pressure on our interest rates.
Agreed. The problem with the RE market is that we are currently at unusual extreme point where conventional advice no longer applies and where it is important to apply more objective measures of value.
The group think wisdom is luring people into borrowing large sums of money to buy an asset whose price no longer corresponds to objective measures of value but only to subjective perceptions of value.
It is sickening that many innocent people will get ruined, but as Margaret Atwood aptly notes in her payback, no one is completely innocent and even the innocent play their part.
If as a group we do not listen to reason and learn to value things more objectively, and do not weed out those who would try to convince us otherwise, the only way to correct things so the economy doesn’t completely collapse is for some people to get ruined.
July 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
What I keep wondering is how people can watch housing prices crash all over the world-then run out and buy themselves a house in Vancouver with a massive mortgage. Hello? I mean even if it doesn’t crash here (which seems unlikely) wouldn’t you want to err on the side of caution and not buy, maybe wait just a little while and see what happens? If all the airplanes in the world suddenly started plummeting to the ground, why on earth would you decide a trip to Paris (via plane) was suddenly a great idea? Why, why, why?
Oh, I forgot…we are “special”
July 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Another reminder, just to clarify what the risks are. In Canada mortgages are non-recourse, so if you default on your mortgage and they foreclose, the bank will take your house, you will lose whatever money you paid into it, and you will still have debt if the value dropped by more than what you paid in total, and your credit will be ruined.
I want lower house prices, but they are going to ruin people. The prospect makes me sick.
July 4th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I think it’s more likely that housing will crash before the rates go up, although the couple needing 4% or lower are screwed. I think the average person has capitulated and is no longer thinking 5-10 years out, due to all the uncertainty and nonsense in the media. There is very little acceptance of the financial crash and the probable consequences (deflation, unemployment) that could be with us for a while. People are in denial.
So we’ve got another chance to board the Titanic before it goes down. Rates won’t go up until there is competition from investments, or the government starts issuing outrageous levels of debt. I doubt the Conservatives would do that, and Canada paid down a lot of its debt in the last 15 years or so, relative to GDP. So rates should be low for a while. It could be 4-5 years, certainly two. But people without jobs can not pay mortgages, and most mortgages now need two full time incomes to pay. A 10% unemployment rate could wipe out 20% of young families. That is not a gamble I would make.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
real paul good post. We here in Canada are not far off from these problems as we are just a satellite of the US.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
observer:
I agree! It seems like we’re getting ourselves into a subprime situation here-teaser interest rates offered for a short period of time, then BAM! up they go. It’s not true that the lenders (banks) want interest rates to stay low, I recently read a paper put out by TD that was making a case that the banks were AGAINST low interest rates-how will they charge fees on those money market funds if the bank rate is 0.25%? Not enough room to maneuver in that case. And the banks definitely don’t have any input on whether interest rates go up or down. And they won’t stay this low forever, that’s for sure.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
This has been brought up many times before in various forms but I can’t help but wonder that we are simply setting ourselves up for a Canadian variant of subprime crisis.
The low interest rate policies promoted by government and banks was meant to keep the economy from free fall and to preserve wealth stored in RE due to its importance to the financial sector.
But the low interest rates are also inducing FTB to buy overpriced RE without regard to the intrinsic value of the RE. The current rationale is that our banks are more prudent in lending so mortgagees should be able to handle the inevitable future rate increases and all is in order. If our banks are really prudent, then the pool of quality FTB will become ever more scare as more and more enter the RE market, unlike what happened in the USA where they keep the pool growing by decreasing quality.
Another line of thinking is that rates won’t increase until the economy picks up anyways. But there is still the risk of a scenario where rates increase before the economy can support current RE prices due to inflation (either anecdotal or official) or that the economy stagnates and slowly kills off overstretched mortgagees through unemployment and reduced opportunities to make money (look at japan’s housing prices since it burst).
July 4th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Vanbanker – ask your coworker if paying interest on his mortgage is “throwing money away”.
What’s the difference really? A cost of living is a cost of living, emphasis on the cost. Lower the cost and you should increase your savings, pretty simple.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The suspension of work at the Echelon is only one sign of larger problems in Las Vegas. Three million square feet of retail space now stands vacant, and nearly $10 billion in commercial property is in financial distress. In 2008, more than one in 12 of the city’s houses received a foreclosure notice.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Are you feeling safe? Are ‘things going to roll along and be ‘hunky dory’ forever? Not according to the macro guys like George Ure.
In case you’ve been sleeping, America is going down the crapper by fits and starts due to the fact that America’s Framers had in mind the design for an ‘independent’ kind of America, one where self-sufficiency, freedom, minimal governance, and oh, did I mention the pursuit of happiness? was the goal.
—
I’ve proposed that there are seven major physical support systems which define the physical quality of one’s life and that each of these has be undergoing dramatic change over the last year to the point where it’s tearing the country apart despite the best intentions of those who would pretend to lead us.
Food: Over the past year, millions of American families had to make the once ‘unthinkable’ decisions – “Do I feed my family or make this house payment?”
Shelter: Thanks to the government-sponsored (starting with Greenspan et al and their ‘easy money, non-regulation of housing lenders) we’re still in the opening portion of the Second Depression with housing prices down nationally almost 33% (*S&P/Case-Schiller this week) since most markets peaked in mid-2006.
Transportation: Ford skirted financial death, but GM and Chrysler have been bankrupted.
Communications: Television, once mandated by the Communications Act of 1934 to serve the public need, interest, and concern, can now no longer be had “free”. You have to either buy an analog -digital converter, or put on the yoke of a monthly cable or satellite bill to get your news. The corporate hijack of communications is nearly complete. Where else, but in America, would the public supposedly have ‘free access’ to what goes on in Washington, but then have to pay to have a corpgov ‘provider’ move the signal to the home? And it doesn’t stop there: Censorship of the internet is coming along nicely too, in places like Australia which are test beds for the limited or corporate domination of sheepish people.
Energy: We’ve been fighting in Iraq – ostensibly for freedom – yet strangely as the energy deals come together for the multinationals, the war ‘winds down’. It’s a shocking coincidence.
Environment: Health care reform is coming, along with taxes on cow-farts, or anything else that Al Gore and his cronies can sell as ways to ‘Save the earth from global warming’. Reality check: It’s summer. And in case you didn’t notice, the “Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing affordable medical coverage.” Affordable? In whose book? Meantime, notice how the ‘avoid crowds or swine flu might get’cha’ meme effectively killed the “Tea Parties”? Might as well set up an exchange to trade wife-beating credits while we’re at it.
Finance: The country is essentially broke. Unbelievable as it is, the people who are trying to monetize misery are still spending far beyond the ability of the country to pay – unless, of course, they plan a massive hyperinflation starting as early as late fall this year. Of course, that would fit nicely, since hyperinflation now won’t take as much equity out of the pockets of the PowersThatBe since the weakest of our countrymen have already been foreclosed upon before paying back their mortgages with hyper inflated (thus widely available cheaper money) will be one of those fire exits that’s been conveniently chained shut.
It might be a brave new world after all.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Hey, I can beat that…
My parents bought a brand new house in 1966 in Coquitlam for $16,250.00. A 25 year fixed rate mortgage of 6.25% paid it off in 1991.
Nevertheless, they sold it in the 1973-74 boom for $48,000.
Imagine that!