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

What land constraints?

There is plenty of land in the Lower Mainland.

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

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

#32
T192,

1)Debt obligations are a liability. Its costing Canadians plenty to utilize the 800 billion used to backstop the CMHC debt orgy as debt instead of capitalizng into other areas of the economy. Thats a philisophical argument though and I am not on the side of socialism in the marketplace. It always ends badly for the taxpayer.

2)The failure stats are not public information so we don’t really know what the cost to Canada is. We will find out eventually through FOI or the Auditor general but both systems are fraught with delay. Guaranteed, this massive debt overhang is far from ‘free’.

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

Well obviously Vanoc is saying to the Olympic committee “hey guys, we’ve greased up the pig, now get out there” with the purchase of 100,000 condoms to be distributed amognst the Olympic organizers. These cracked up yahoos will be cruising the streets on your dime!!!!

Is this also why Campbell decided to close all the elementary schools? So that a few stray kiddies might get dragged in to the bushes by a ‘visitor’. Of course he’d have diplomatic immunity and get away with it. This is our gift to the world. Abundant whores and poverty stricken single moms desperate enough to have to streetwalk. Don’t you feel proud to be a Canadian.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Sw.....story.html

A very astute reprter in Aussie during the Sydney games picked out a group of ‘visiting Olympic dignitaries’ and followed them straight from the airport to see where they went. They all went straight into the prostitution area and he photgraphed them in the act.

These are the type of scum who are involved in the Olympic Committee. And now you know. You not only pay for this but are expected to like it.

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

Current score: -19 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

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

I think what the original poster implied (or this was how I interpreted it anyway) was not that foreigners can not buy these bonds but that they are unwilling to, given the low coupon rates.

Yes, foreign purchasers of Canadian debt would get low yield combined with exchange rate risk. But the real reason there is little holding of Canadian debt abroad is that the country hasn’t had to borrow abroad – until very recently Canada had a longstanding current exchange surplus. In other words, Canada had been lending to the rest of the world, not the other way around.

Note that USD debt has a low yield as well but is widely held abroad, for the simple reason that the US has to borrow abroad. As well a number of the US’s trading partners (e.g. China) have an interest in supporting the USD and so will buy their debt at a low yield.

But now Canada is running a current account deficit, for the same basic reason as the US has been for years – a very low savings rate. And need I mention that the policies of our “Convervative” government have abetted that low rate. If our savings rate does not improve soon, interest rates will have to go up to attract foreign lenders.

http://www.economist.com/marke.....d=15020004

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

I guess the Canadian dollar appears to be the only viable proxy for a possible future hedge betting on housing prices decline in Canada. However, housing price adjustments can take place over multiple years (e.g. the United States), and often without a clear and immediate shorting target it would be very difficult to make money this way. Any suggestions in an open forum?

Current score: 12 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 10 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 31 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

God… Your predictions are so bad that you keep bringing up an instance where you were somewhat close (but still wrong) as an example of how prescient you are. That’s really sad.

I’m calling for prices to fall TO 40% of what they are now, a 60% correction.

My prediction, from about a year and a half ago (no I’m not going to waste the time to look it up, if you want to go right ahead) was that prices would fall in the fall of 2008 and either flatline or trend upwards in the spring of 2009, then the serious drop would start in 2010 with prices reaching bottom winter 2011 or later at 60% or more off current prices with a stabilization point of approximately 60% of current prices. If you want to bother to look for it I’m pretty certain it was within a month or two of our last peak.

Current score: 10 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

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

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

http://www.vancouversun.com/bu.....story.html

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

http://smr.newswire.ca/en/rema.....te-in-2010

Look for it tomorrow as a thinly re-written puff piece in the Vancouver Sun.

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

I did say prices would recover after correcting, but I did not predict the level of the recovery.

I don’t remember your predictions of the above. All I recall is that you have been calling for a 40% correction. Feel free to back up your assertion, not that I won’t take you on your word.

My predictions have all been mostly correct. As far as calling for a listings peak, you have to admit that I was more correct than anybody else including yourself. I said listings would peak after the Summer of 2008 and not continue rising as had been the general bearish sentiment. I picked a number and barely missed it. You are splitting hairs. Imagine if I had said the DOW would correct to 6,500 a couple years ago. Would you really say I was wrong because the recent Dow low was 6,550? No, it would be stupid to make such a claim. I’m not sure why you would do so in my case. It only makes you look petty.

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

“If memory serves me right, it’s been early 2007 since we’ve seen lineups for Vancouver condo pre-sales but that changed on Saturday as the investors lined up (in the rain) to take advantage of the low prices at The Mark, on Seymour and Pacific.

Onni’s new building will be 41 storeys and prices started at $325,000. Given that completion will be 2013, it’s a no brainer that investors can only win as this is one of the final sites available in Yaletown and we assume prices will be higher in 2013 than they are now.”

Hahah yes…. no brainer indeed

Current score: 17 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

I’ve told you all that before. Did you forget or are you just being disingenuous again?

Also, on one out of five predictions you have not been proved wrong YET on the other four you failed. Don’t forget those predictions when you showcase your record.

You know I wouldn’t call you out so often if you weren’t so systematically dishonest about this sort of thing.

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

Endangering futures? That cuts both ways.

I don’t just look at technical analysis (i.e. graphing). I also look at fundamental valuation. I look at all the data and consider different opinions.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. I am not trying to sell anybody a ‘bill of goods’. People are free to make their own minds up.

Again… the facts are that I have been quite accurate to date. How are your predictions doing again? How many years have you been wrong now?

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

I am betting you have never thrown a punch in your life. I bet you would piss yourself if I so much as raised my hand to you.

Current score: -19 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

That’s ummm… Unnecessarily violent don’t you think?

I mean he’s selling us a bill of goods that he doesn’t appear to entirely believe in, he’s disingenuous and he encourages people to spend recklessly and endanger their future financial well-being and he’s determined to use a system of forecasting that’s proven inaccurate in testing over a system that’s proven accurate in testing.

All of which makes him a bad person but all of us have our bad sides don’t we?

I say beating him up now will prove nothing, wait until AFTER the real estate collapse when he’s curled up in a foetal position contemplating how he could have been so terribly terribly wrong, THEN kick him while he’s down.

Nah, might hurt your toe, he’s not worth that.

Merry Christmas!

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

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

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

At that point I’d smack him and he wouldn’t get up

Current score: -14 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)