Desire trumps economic negativity
According to this article on househunting.ca, the Canadian desire to own a home was the key to the quick recovery in the real estate market.
“While low interest rates were a principal factor driving home-buying activity, no one can discount the value that Canadians place in owning a home,” says Polzler.
Because of the increase in first-timer interest, the real estate industry was able to shrug off initial forecasts of a totally bleak year.
By the time the year-end national tally is complete — something that should come in the next week or so — 465,000 homes will likely have changed hands in 2009 in Canada, a seven-per-cent increase over 2008, predicts a Re/Max report.
“Some of the greatest percentage gains were reported in Western Canadian markets in 2009, demonstrating the higher the peak, the lower the valley,” says Elton Ash, executive vice-president of Re/Max of Western Canada.
“That said, the recession barely registered on year-over-year activity in most major centres — and the economic fundamentals in place going forward ideally positions the 10 provinces and the sector overall for further growth.”
“While low interest rates were a principal factor driving home-buying activity, no one can discount the value that Canadians place in owning a home,” says Polzler.
Because of the increase in first-timer interest, the real estate industry was able to shrug off initial forecasts of a totally bleak year.
By the time the year-end national tally is complete — something that should come in the next week or so — 465,000 homes will likely have changed hands in 2009 in Canada, a seven-per-cent increase over 2008, predicts a Re/Max report.
“Some of the greatest percentage gains were reported in Western Canadian markets in 2009, demonstrating the higher the peak, the lower the valley,” says Elton Ash, executive vice-president of Re/Max of Western Canada.
“That said, the recession barely registered on year-over-year activity in most major centres — and the economic fundamentals in place going forward ideally positions the 10 provinces and the sector overall for further growth.”
The higher the peak, the lower the valley?
January 19th, 2010 at 4:37 pm 1
@Stan:
You need a history lesson Stan
- Anti-Asian riots, early 20th century (Powell St, etc)
- Komagata Maru incident (circa WWI)
- Unemployed "riots" (really police attacks on demonstrators), 1930's
- Grey Cup riot, late 1960's (forget exact year)
- Gastown "riot" (also really police attacks on demonstrators), 1972
Also rock concert riots (although I won't call them serious) – Rock & Roll Revival, Rolling Stones (70's) and Guns & Roses (circa 2000), probably more.
Off topic but needed answering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 5:44 pm 2
wait, wait.
if 465,000 homes are bought, then 465,000 homes are sold.
this means NOTHING in terms of the "desire to own a home" unless it represents an _increase_ in the percentage of owners vs renters (and they provide no data on this)
I am getting rather sick of "business" reporters who seem to lack any rudimentary intelligence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 5:50 pm 3
Just saw patriozed's post. There is mild rumbling out there in Richmond. )see pic) One particular group is tied to negative news in Russia, Georgia, Milan, Madrid, Romenia … in recent years. I'm a non-white and I'm worried.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 6:02 pm 4
"The higher the peak,the lower the valley"
BIG MOUTH,SMALL BRAIN.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 6:28 pm 5
It's so cute how people think that little dip was the "bottom". Prices are so far out here, of course there is a ton of pent up demand that will buy at any price once the monthly payments are affordable. This is going to be a long slide with plenty of false bottoms, looks like the 10s are going to be a decade of deflation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 6:29 pm 6
@Stan:
I disagree. I think there are reasons for Vancouver’s bubble and they are all down to the “livability”, the “mountains and ocean” and all the other cliches
Those are sales pitches Bob Rennie uses to lure in more fools, and these lines or variations of are repeated all around the world. High real estate prices are due to a credit bubble. Prices would crash if you took away the gimmicks offered by CMHC and put more of the mortgage risk on the banks. They don't have much ammo left to keep this bubble going. If people were willing to pay a premium to live in Vancouver it would be reflected in local rents.
While you may be in love with your hometown, most the rest of the world does not care that Vancouver is in close proximity to the mountains and ocean. These people are in love with the unique characteristics of there hometown and the reasons you will give them to live in Vancouver won't sound appealing at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 7:06 pm 7
@Starving Artist:
Careful what kind of deflation you are talking about. During the great RE bust of the early 80's consumer price inflation continued at high levels. Asset price deflation and consumer price deflation are two different things. The former happens fairly frequently – it's usual known as a "bust", but the latter has not been seen since the 1930's.
We just might see negative CPI in Vancouver due to falling rents, but I don't see it Canada wide – the rest of the country, except perhaps Alberta, isn't that overbuilt. IMHO the BoC is not going to let CPI deflation happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 7:08 pm 8
Most of all, economists say, Japan's experience teaches the need to be skeptical of that fundamental myth behind all asset bubbles: that prices will keep rising forever. Like their United States counterparts today, too many Japanese homebuyers overextended their debt, buying property that cost more than they could rationally afford because they assumed that values would only rise. When prices dropped, many buyers were financially battered or even wiped out.
Take It From Japan: Bubbles Hurt (2005)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 7:16 pm 9
Silly real estate cheerleaders.
No matter how they try to spin it, there is ONE and only ONE reason for the recent spike.
The lowest interest rates since the invention of fire.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 7:26 pm 10
@bestplaceonmeth:
Who has denied interest rates have been a major factor? Every 'cheerleader' has said as much.
We still haven't gone negative or into qualitative easing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 7:54 pm 11
Dave, stop being such an obvious troll. Do you really expect -ve rates?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 7:58 pm 12
@Dave:
Read the article again.
The cheerleaders keep trying to find OTHER reasons for the recent surge.
"Desire to own a home"? WTF?
They've always desired to own a home, but have only purchased recently because they know they'll never see these interest rates again.
Again, the lowest interest rates since Noah built his ark is the ONLY reason real estate had such a big year.
That's what keeps the cheerleaders awake at night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 8:03 pm 13
Ally123
Garth Turner has a couple of blog posts that are relevant to our conversation earlier today, one about how even in cottage country prices are headed downwards and one about being a contrarian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 8:41 pm 14
"Desire trumps economic negativity" could be "Wishful thinking trumps rational analysis". However Vancouver buyers threw rational analysis out the window years ago, so this is no surprise. The surprise will be "Math trumps wishful thinking" as layoffs mount and credit conditions change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 8:56 pm 15
I was at Burnaby City Hall today dealing with a secondary suite issue and the lady helping me was viewing the info on the house i rent. It was built in 1954 and valued at $14,000. According to the BOC inflation calculator that's $113,557 in today's money. Makes you think. BTW, the house was assessed by the city at 725.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 9:01 pm 16
Are these people at ReMax considered the 'experts'? From an economic point of view those statements have absolutely no meaning. Desire to own? Shouldn't they run out of potential owners? Or this person means 'desire to own multiple properties'?
I am more and more amazed by the low level of the conversation about real estate on the MSM and by RE 'experts'. These are just random words that have no meaning!
They should say something about population growth, immigration, levels of construction, financing and interested rates, aging and family formation. Instead they come up with some undefined 'desire'.
I have a desire to fly….I guess I will grow wings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 9:07 pm 17
@HappyRenter:
Damn right! I find it unnerving how the MSM keeps ignoring the most obvious cause: the CMHC and the artificially cheap price of credit that it gives to undeserving borrowers (meaning, borrowers with uncertain income and little down payment).
Remove, or restrict, the CMHC and the whole house of cards starts unravelling. Even if the 'desire' is strong, may I add.
This reporter is either being a cheer-leader, or simply he/she doesn't get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 9:51 pm 18
http://www.city-data.com/forum/vancouver/650618-w…
reneici – 01-09-2010, 11:56 AM
If you are thinking about buying a place….just buy it. And keep it.
I don't know what's gonna happen to Vancouver real estate price for sure in the next 3 years, but I know for sure that the price will only go up in the next 10. There's so much room for Van's real estate to grow. Look at the real estate prices of comparable North American cities in the States such as SF and you'll see that Vancouver still has room to grown.
The prices for condos are not bad now (better than a couple years ago). If you buy it now and keep it you can only profit from it in 10 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 9:51 pm 19
http://www.city-data.com/forum/vancouver/867368-r…
reneici – 01-09-2010, 10:19 AM
But still….Surrey is good for future property investment, SPECIFICALLY, properties around areas where the new metro station will be built. They will definitely go up.
So…. property investment & slutty daughters. Hmmm…Tough choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 9:52 pm 20
http://www.city-data.com/forum/vancouver/867368-r…
Reneici – 01-16-2010, 10:07 PM
Hi,
It really depends, there are many different facets and different income levels who manage to make Vancouver their home.
When people talk about property prices, they refer mostly to downtown Vancouver. It is really expensive. I lived downtown (Yaletown) and most people are paid well. Some condos are over a million dollars, but there are lots that are cheaper.
I have a lot of friends who are like bartenders, waiters, artists, etc who also live downtown with lower income. They usually live around Davie and rent ranges from $800-$1200 a month, but the apartment's really old & small. So it is totally possible to live downtown without being super rich. However these are mostly single people in their 20s and 30s.
If you have a family with 3 kids, it's better to live in the suburbs like Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey, etc. They are not too far from downtown (20 minutes for Richmond & Burnaby, for example) but you still get to enjoy all the benefits that Vancouver can provide–take your kids to ski, to kayak, to hike in the mountain, etc.
A regular one bedroom condo in Vancouver is about $1200-$1600 & a 3 bedroom can go up to $2500 to $3500.
A one bedroom condo in Richmond is about $1000, and it's possible to find a 3 bedroom for about $1600 a month. Surrey is even cheaper. It's not a bad idea to buy a house in Surrey because even though it's relatively cheaper now, real estate will definitely go up in the future.
I don't think it's that hard to make a living in Vancouver, but it's harder for immigrants. Not because immigrants are discriminated upon. It's usually an English issue. If you don't speak perfect English it'll be harder.
The good thing about Vancouver is that it has a lot of Asian immigrants. Which country are you coming from? If you are Chinese, you can live in Richmond or Burnaby. Both have a huge Chinese population, which means a lot of work is needed for people who are bilingual.
My parents are Asian immigrants too. My mom only deals with Chinese-speaking people (even though she speaks English because she prefers using her mother tongue), everyone from her insurance broker, her banker, family doctor, stores she buy groceries from, restaurants, lawyer, real estate agents, etc has to speak Chinese. So there is a demand for people who can work in 2 languages. It's similar for Indians too. There is a huge Indian population around Main street & in Surrey.
If you have 3 kids it will be tricky, but not impossible. How old are your kids?
I know a lot of families who immigrated from Asia. Families of different income levels. It's an investment for most. They moved to Vancouver so their kids can have a better future because most second generations don't have a problem making a living in Vancouver & they enjoy a better life. I don't know anyone who's not happy with the decision, even though it's not easy, especially in the beginning.
In the beginning it'll be tougher, but after your kids go to university that's when you reap the benefits. Your kids will have a better life, better education, you guys will have better medical care, you can enjoy the beautiful city and the better living standard. And when you get old, you will enjoy all the benefits Canada offers to seniors.
Comparing Vancouver & Toronto… They are both good for a new life. Toronto does have more work opportunities & is cheaper. My boyfriend's parents came from China too so we are both 2nd generation kids; he grew up in Toronto & I grew up in Vancouver and there's not a huge difference. We both turned out really well. Even though we always jokingly fight about which is better (I think Vancouver is better and he thinks Toronto is better). What I wanna tell you is that doesn't matter what decision you make, it will be a good decision, because things will work out and these cities are both great cities. Just avoid the super cold prairies like Calgary, Edmonton, etc.
BUUUT, even though my Toronto-bred boyfriend (he got a relocation package and his company moved him to Vancouver a few years ago) always bitches about the rain in Vancouver, about how ppl in Van can't drive for shxt, about how it's more expensive, he still admits that life in Vancouver is a lot better than life in Toronto and he'd like to stay in Vancouver when he wants to build a family.
Should you move?
Just to give you a different perspective of what your potential future can look like:
My parents & my boyfriend's parents probably felt it was tough in the beginning, not just financially, but also psychologically. It was tough for my parents because it's a new environment they didn't know anything about and they had to re-learn everything. It was hard for them in the beginning to make a living, but they managed.
They loved the new life. My mom looooves traveling and the benefit of living in Vancouver is that you can travel around North America cheaply. You can drive everywhere if you are good at managing your budget. My family used to drive around to different National Parks in Canada & the US & camp in the summer and that was the best childhood memory. My parents would've never been able to give us that in Asia–there are many things that money can't buy.
Medical care is another I'm grateful for. I went through a surgery when I was younger and my parents didn't have a pay a penny. My dad was just hospitalized because he was sick and I was out of town for work & my mom was traveling when it happened so only my brother was there. However we were free from anxiety because we knew the hospital would take really good care of my dad. He was in the hospital for a week and we didn't have to pay anything. I've been hospitalized in the US, in Europe, and in Asia (I used to work internationally) and Canada has probably the best health care system. That is something money can't buy.
It was REALLY difficult for them when I became a teenager because there was not only a generation gap, but also a cultural gap. My bf was the same with his parents. Both my bf & I had really rebellious teenage years (like all teenagers) but it was difficult for our parents because there was a cultural element they needed to learn to understand because it was almost like they had kids who became foreigners. Wait. WE WERE FOREIGNERS! I identify with the Canadian culture more than with my parents' Asian culture. So watch out for that. There's no avoiding it, just know it's coming.
But now my bf & I are grown. We are happy, we live a healthy life, we enjoy our life. We have a combined annual income of over $150K AFTER tax, which is an income we'd have to work like DOGS for had our parents stayed in Asia.
My parents are retired and his parents still work but are very relaxed and they all enjoy their lives (both in Toronto & in Vancouver). My mom only travels on cruises now. I don't think they regret moving to Canada for a day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 10:11 pm 21
"but I know for sure that the price will only go up in the next 10."
******************
No you don't, and if you claim to, then you are a liar.
They might, but there is a downside risk they might not. Try reading the article on Japan linked above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 10:52 pm 22
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/business/20home…
"As of December, the F.H.A. was insuring 5.8 million single-family residences that had a total loan balance of $750 billion. More than half a million of the loans were seriously delinquent and heading toward foreclosure."
Wasn't the CMHC cap just raised to $600 billion? Or was it 800?
With 1/10 the population, wow.
Or does FHA != CMHC?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 11:08 pm 23
Come on bitter bears, cheer up, stop being such downers on Vancouver, check this out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcJ7KTkeLUA
Awesome!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 11:33 pm 24
" demonstrating the higher the peak, the lower the valley "
I always thought it was "The bigger they are, the harder they fall"
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 11:44 pm 25
@Dave:
"Who has denied interest rates have been a major factor? Every ‘cheerleader’ has said as much. We still haven’t gone negative or into qualitative easing."
Unfortunatly this isn't true. BOC has been doing quantitative easing for ~5 months partly to counteract the exchange rate problems. We also reported negative inflation for 4 months. Similarly a week ago you mentioned that the stimulus has barely been spent. However it peeked on 2009 q3 and will be a net drag on GDP in 2010 q3.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 11:46 pm 26
@HappyRenter:
Saw an ad in the local paper-RBC is offering mortgages and lines of credit (based on collateral, a HELOC by any other name) in the two's, yes less than 3%.
Low enough for ya?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19th, 2010 at 11:50 pm 27
@WOW:
>>>If you are thinking about buying a place….just buy it. And keep it.
I don’t know what’s gonna happen to Vancouver real estate price for sure in the next 3 years, but I know for sure that the price will only go up in the next 10.<<<
Incorrect. Ask the Japanese.
20 years of lower real estate prices.
As for the U.S.- I'm not going to say "for sure" that they will follow the same route, but based on the Alt-A and Option ARMS coming due over the next 2 years I'd say it's a pretty good bet that their meltdown is only just beginning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 1:41 am 28
So if real estate prices drop by 50% will that mean that people's desire to own real estate has also dropped by 50%. What a bunch of morons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 1:48 am 29
BOC admits that all talk of recovery is based on phony money , lies and goofballing the media. Boy, there are a lot of suckers out there.
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/economy…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:02 am 30
@You Gotta Be Here:
If I've got to be here why is does the talent look like they were Green screened in the spot?
How many of those people still live here anyway???? Great fucking concept get people who don't live here and green screen them into shots that look like they are in BC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:51 am 31
Some thoughts on monetary policy. Imagine two groups of people: borrowers who want to spend money they don't have now, and savers who want to spend money they do have later. No moral judgements here, the purpose of a bank is to satisfy both groups of people at once.
When faced with a recession, central banks cut interest rates to put more money in the hands of borrowers now, while also reducing the incentive to save. In theory they should also raise rates, but nobody likes to curtail economic growth so there are always lots of reasons not to do so. Interest rates tend to go down over time, because we effectively ignore the price of fuel, food, houses, and stocks and use the price of Chinese sweaters to measure inflation.
Now GDP in our society is driven largely by borrowers, so much so that rates of employment are highly correlated with rates of credit growth. It all works until suddenly the borrowers can't borrow any more and some of them can't pay. Then what happens? Well, it seems we built a house of cards, and whatever they were buying is likely to collapse in price. Savers almost by definition won't pay the highest prices, as they could have borrowed to pay them earlier. What price will they pay?
I guess it depends on what the government does regarding money. Clearly the traditional route is for borrowers to go bust and prices to crash, with stabilization at a much lower level. But there is a widely acknowledged alternative now. A government can simply spend money and monetize debt like no tomorrow until inflation reduces the real value of debts. In effect, it can steal from savers and give to borrowers until balance is restored, and continue the cycle from there.
Is it moral? No. Will it work? I think so. A government doesn't need the bond market to buy its debt. They can (and would) simply monetize it all. As long as government finances improve while they're doing this it's hard to see how they'd pay any kind of penalty later. Countries such as Argentina faced few penalties after an outright default. The markets have short memories, and governments are fickle.
About the only thing I can see that could stop this would be public outrage. Every "bad" side effect should work in its favor. In conclusion, it should always be easy to devalue a currency. Simply print money and hand it to people. Helicopter Ben.
Comments?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:15 am 32
The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to pull all my money out of the banks. They are paying and in some cases lending at less than the rate of inflation. I could simply pay hookers to rape me and at least have a chance to get off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 4:08 am 33
@rp:
Are you kidding? They faced sky-high interest rates. That always follows a debt default.
As well high inflation always results in high interest rates. Lenders are not going to give their money away.
There is no free way out of debt, either private or public sector. The only practical way is that followed by the Liberal government of the 90's and after the current group of lunatics is out of power it will have to be followed again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 4:14 am 34
@rp:
Banks are just intermediaries between borrowers and lenders. If you want to eliminate the middleman, that's what the bond market is for. But if you want a higher rate, you will have to buy private sector (non-guaranteed) debt. You don't get something for nothing.
BTW, the banks don't determine the rates for borrowing and lending, any more than gas stations determine the price of gas. The bonds markets and BoC (the latter in the very short term) do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 7:24 am 35
"The higher the peak, the lower the valley"
Not according to those winged, bird-like base jumpers in Norway.
This man should be turned into Soylent Green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 7:58 am 36
“The higher the peak, the lower the valley”
————–
To be honest, for all the sense that made, the RE shill may as well have said "The greener the banana, the redder the sunset".
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:26 am 37
@You Gotta Be Here:
Who's bitter? I'm not the fool buying Vancouver RE for a 2% net yield. I'm not the guy who's going to lose my shirt. If you want bitter, check out today's buyers a few years from now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 10:05 am 38
@oneangryslav2:
So if real estate prices drop by 50% will that mean that people’s desire to own real estate has also dropped by 50%. What a bunch of morons
——————-
Not sure I get your point. If prices do drop 50%, how anxious would you be to jump in before prices fall further?
Everybody knows, or should know, that you can’t use past performance as a basis to predict future returns, yet most people actually do. The recent run up in the Van RE market and other canadian markets (and the entire US market) is a textbook case of this foolish thinking. So, if the history was a recent 50% drop, how anxious do you think that folks will be to get into the market? Look at the US, they’ve had massive drops – yet folks aren’t flocking to get in the market (mostly because they’re broke which make them even more leery about putting their final few sheckles into a market that’s recently dropped).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 10:40 am 39
@BF:
The economic expression of the "desire" to own anything is the demand function, i.e. how many people are willing and able to buy at a given price.
If prices have dropped, yes that does mean the "desire" to own has changed – i.e. there has been a shift in the demand function. Fewer people are now willing and able to own at the old market price, therefore the price had to go down (because the number of houses didn't).
To talk about the desire to own something without coupling it to the willingness and ability to pay is operationally meaningless. If wishes were horses, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 10:46 am 40
@37 – Patriotz says "Who's Bitter?". Clearly YOU are…
From last thread, Patriotz says:
"…A generation or more ago Vancouver was nice. Frankly the city has become quite nasty. Endless conflict between the “haves” and “have-nots”. All people seem to talk about is RE and crime. No interest in any genuinely productive activities. Expecting something for nothing just because you live in the “best place on earth”…"
Cheer up Bitter Bears! …or move to Halifax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:05 am 41
The bitter people I know are the ones that don't have the disposable income to send their kids to private school leaving them to be under educated in the crowded and underfunded public system, they can't go to the great restaurants, and the only vacation they can take is to a local camp-ground.
They will never be able to fund their kids university education. Even buying dental care is a stretch for them. They have no ability to save for retirement. They live in fear of one parent loosing job.
These people have one thing in common. They own Vnacouver real estate and their mortgage payments, maintenance expense and property taxes eat up most of their income.
They live in vancouver but they live like a Shanghai shoe repair man. No spending power, no options. Just toil to scrape by in the "best place on earth".
These people work in the same office as me with similar incomes. They are bitter when I talk about sending my kids to a $12,000/ year private school and when I take them to Europe every summer. They are bitter when I go to a high end restaurant a couple of times a week. I tell them – you made your choice to buy, it must be worth it, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:33 am 42
"no one can discount the value that Canadians place in owning a home,” says Polzler
68% of Canadians own homes
70% of Americans own homes
I wonder if Americans still value home ownership?
Will Canadians value home ownership in the future?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:41 am 43
@VRENGD
Sorry to burst your bubble, yet private schools are overrated. In the battle of nature vs nuture, nature wins. Your $12K/yr is just as wasted on schooling as theirs is on housing.
The big disadvantage of a private school is socializing.
- University is 100+ student classrooms, little teacher attention, and lots of distraction. All very new to private school graduates, and a lot to adjust to.
- Unless you're rich and gifting your kid a job too, everyone starts out at the bottom in the workplace. Hard work may get you to the top, yet more often than not its socializing that climbs the ladder. Private school graduates aren't prepared to socialize outside of the controlled environment they were raised in.
Did you know most private schools pay teachers less than public? So why are you paying $12K/yr for sub-par teachers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:54 am 44
#33 & 34 @patriotz: What stops a government from monetizing 100% of the deficit and extending as much credit as it wants to the population? The currency will crash and the cost of imports will rise sharply, but will the population care? Maybe if they import food, energy, or raw materials. But if a country exports those things there will be jobs. I'm not saying this is a good idea, it's completely crazy. But lending anyone a million dollars to buy a house is also crazy, and the government already does that, so where does it end?
Look at Ben Bernanke. He monetized $1.5T of MBS last year so that primary dealers could buy treasuries. That's what, 80-90% of the deficit? And our dollar is too *high* compared to theirs? When will it ever not be?
http://tinyurl.com/yadn8x7
If the government monetizes everything they can just ignore the bond market. Nobody would buy a bond anyways. Money is a confidence game. Also, take another look at Argentine interest rates. There was a massive fissure as the currency lost 80% of its value, but anyone locked in over 5 years didn't face high rates, only the economic aftermath.
http://tinyurl.com/yfc9taz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_c…
Is a bigger crisis really so implausible? We are doing crazy things, and rather than correct them we seem to be doubling down. Carney talks about raising rates, but will he do it in June? What if the Fed doesn't? What if the Fed never does, because the American government can't service its debt under normal conditions?
Flaherty talks about austerity, but he is a proven liar. Lied about the recession, the depth of the recession, the deficit, and then the size of the deficit. He's lying right now about the 2010 deficit. There's no reason to believe anything he says. Carney is more credible, but he'll find it incredibly hard not to follow Bernanke. It looks like one big confidence game of contradictory promises. They can't raise rates and simultaneously keep our dollar low.
I think all they're going to do is talk. They're revising forecasts right now and laying the groundwork to do absolutely nothing. No rate increases and no reigning in of the CMHC. You're right that lunatics are in charge, but I don't see them going anywhere or changing course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:59 am 45
Private school teachers are far from sub-par. Many very good teachers choose to work in the pvt system as the conditions (wider than just pay) are on the whole much better, the students and the facilities superior, and one is free from the shocking seniority culture of the BC Teacher's Union – which, imho, should be broken up as the cartel that it is.
But taylor's general point is on target – the biggest impact on kids is not the school they attend, but rather the home environment. clever well supported kids will do well no matter what school they attend (well, as long as said school is not in Beruit or Haiti or Surrey (joke!, maybe) or somewhere)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 12:20 pm 46
The advantage I see in private schools is that all the paretns of all the kids are doctors, lawyers, business people, etc.
There is a culture of success and university education is a given. Students are shown a wide horizon of options and opportunities such as american schools, medical school right after graduation at places like St. Andrews in Scotland (where prince William or Harry, can't recall which went)
About 95% of students go on to University. At the public school where i graduated, it was more like 15-20%.
I do not think that the kids are smarter or the teachers are better. I do think that the culture is different. 95% of the students are expected so succeeed by the teachers and their parents. At public school, your kids are there with welfare cases, druggies, head-bangers, morons and kids with no ambition.
Anyway my point is, I have money to spend on that if I want to. I will also have money to send my kids to Harvard or Cambridge if I want to. You may not think that Harvard and Cambridge are good schools but my point is that I can do this for my kids because I pay 1/3 the shelter expenses of my owner friends.
If I am burning my money, my point is that because I rent, I have money to burn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 12:34 pm 47
intrawest foreclosed
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 12:34 pm 48
I agree – it is about contacts and expectations. Then again, I wouldn't want my kids socialising ONLY with members of the privileged members of society. I'd prefer them to have a more middling experience of schools, just like me (otherwise I think they might grow up to be pretentious little twats, but that's just my own fears, I guess).
William went to St Andrews, which upped its toff-factor from its already high levels. St Andrew's is a fine place (I've taught there in the past), although the weather can be atrocious.
Harry didn't go to University at all. Straight into the army for him, to which he is suited, as he's bit thick to be honest. Not that I'm saying folks in the army are all thick – just that his talents lend themselves to the practical rather than the intellectual.
Just one note: Actually, money won't help your kids get into Cambridge (as an undergraduate). Their college interview system is money-blind for undergraduates (not so for postgrads, however, as they'll take anyone who has the money). It will help for Harvard though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 12:37 pm 49
46 X Anonymous Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
intrawest foreclosed
——————————
What a complete PR disaster. I almost coughed up my coffee while laughing. Oh the irony!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 1:01 pm 50
@VRENGD:
You can call it a culture of success, I call it a culture of entitlement. The kids think they're automatically going to be successful, and have a right to be successful, because everyone in their social circle is. Well the world doesn't work that way.
To the best of my knowledge only one BC Premier in the last 50 years attended private school. Guess which one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 1:40 pm 51
As for the private versus public school debate, I attended a university in Ontario with a 30-70 split, and many of the posters comments on valid.
Private school kids come to university a little “socially retarded,” unable to effectively deal with the independence they have been granted. They cannot compete in a 400 person introductory courses, because they fail to realize that they are simply a number and that introducing yourself and dropping names does nothing to impress professors. They were often the ones that engaged in binge drinking because they had not experienced it in their previously controlled environments, and were often responsible for petty thefts and vandalism (as they were unaware or, or failed to fear, the consequences of their actions).
In contrast, public school kids understood that they needed to produce quality to earn the respect and attention of the professors, and frequently excelled. While all first years come to the table with A averages, public school kids were the first to rebound when they got their first B or C from “weeder” courses. Private school kids failed to grasp the concept that just because they paid for inflated grades at private school, you are not guaranteed an A at university. It took the private school kids a while to deal with this reality. Public school kids had often been exposed to juvenile drinking and theft earlier, so they understood boundaries and their own personal limits.
That being said, the learning curve by fourth year had been ironed out by both sets of students.
Private school kids often did well in smaller seminar courses, because of their previous training. They were also better at socializing with professors at this stage of their academic career, often because they came from homes with money where socializing with “adults” is more expected. They had often moved away from childish antics. After 4 years, public school kids got better at the smaller group interactions, as classes progressively got smaller.
That being said, I would want my kids to attend public school to ensure that they are not socially retarded during university and after, but I would want them to attend private school to cultivate social networking skills in the hopes of landing jobs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:01 pm 52
Does this apply to Canada, and Vancouver? Time will tell ..
http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:23 pm 53
The Olympics 'Gong Show' may have just begun:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/100120/sports/busi…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:26 pm 54
@51, I doubtit. Too many gamblers and not enuf casinos. :p
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:44 pm 55
Never been to private school and I am no advocate. But three cents you came across as socially retarded with that post. A lot of generalizations I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:46 pm 56
It seems to me that based on a objective indicators such as price to rent and average price to average income, Vancouver is the worst real estate investment in the entire world.
Can anyone come up with a city that has valuation metrics that are more unattractive than Vancouver?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 2:55 pm 57
Other Ted
It sound like you have never been to university period let alone a private school. You must not understand the term socially retarded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:03 pm 58
Intrawest foreclosing.
Vancouver teachers getting laid off.
B.C. government lays off 233 in forests, citizens' services ministries.
And sadly Duthies books closing.
Better get some more desire to trump the negativity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:19 pm 59
here is the link to nonmouse's comment on intrawest.
http://olympics.thestar.com/2010/article/753481–…
i guess the olympics isn't the cash cow they claimed it will be. Also I kept hearing the sea to sky improvements wil pay for itself with increased visitors. The stats show otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:20 pm 60
Guarantee I am more educated than you Bismarck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:42 pm 61
why were my last two posts deleted
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:42 pm 62
now they are back
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:49 pm 63
^^ paranoid much? Black helicopters?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 3:50 pm 64
59 Other Ted
Yes, clearly, judging by your syntax and diction.
In conjunction with your higher level of education, I bet you: earn more money; are better looking; have a wider circle of friends; have a better house; and insert one upmanship line here. If so, you are just like every other anonymous blogger here : )
Come back and talk to me when you are Fulbright Scholar.
By the way, Bismark is a family name, not a misspelled reference to Otto Bismarck or the battleship Bismarck. But thank you for trying to play “who is the smartest.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 4:03 pm 65
@VRENGD:
About 95% of students go on to University. At the public school where i graduated, it was more like 15-20%.
——-
Well, as Mark Twain like to repeat: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics!
You don’t think that the well healed folks that can afford to put their kids through private school, and who themselves in all likelihood went to university, perhaps put some pressure on the little ones to repeat in their footsteps?
I’ll give you another tip about how your statistics are based on an absence of the larger picture. If you were paying the big $’s to put your kids through private school, one might think that you’ve be expecting high marks in return for the high dollars expended, and private schools don’t like to disappoint in this area.
And by coincidence, one needs high marks to get into university (which by the way, in case you didn’t go to university, is a costly affair, which the well healed are in a better position to encourage and support).
Next lesson: how to become a perpetual student since maintaining you comfortable lifestyle (supported by the folks) doesn’t rely on you actually having to have a job.
Of course a higher percentage of private school grads will go to university: everything in their lives, including the school they attend, is structured so that they have every opportunity to go to university. Your statistic, which private schools spew ad nausea, is nonsense!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 4:39 pm 66
@Bismark:
i am the finance minister of nigeria, and do I have a deal for you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 4:44 pm 67
^^^
The crazies all come out when one of their own gets called out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 5:01 pm 68
wow a fulbright scholar you are awsome Bismarck. The only person playing the I am smarther than thou game is you. and you are the only one that feels the need to come here and brag, ie. being a fulbright scholar. And by the way I don't own a house and if I did I could care less if yours is bigger than mine or not. Because when I buy I will be buying for my needs not to impress.
I see I hit a raw nerve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 5:26 pm 69
@Bismark:
You misuse commas and semicolons consistently and you include at least two other grammatical errors in your message about HIS poor grammar. How sad is that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 5:31 pm 70
44:
heeled, man, heeled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 5:38 pm 71
@patriotz:
That's an extreme example. I could find the other extreme if you would like.
There are still good caps rates in this market. You just have to spend a little time looking and look outside of the downtown core.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 5:53 pm 72
@Dave:
"That’s an extreme example. I could find the other extreme if you would like."
Please do, I'm tired of you spouting off crap without data to back yourself up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm 73
Drachen
Did you really want somebody to review all your posts to come up with a whole host of grammatical errors? I guarantee that your posts will be replete with them.
Did you really want someone to review all of your posts when to see if you directly or indirectly tried to assert your dominance or your intelligence over another poster? I trust there will be many of those.
Even though you are not involved in that stupid pissing match don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 6:07 pm 74
#67
Playing the smarter than you game?
I believe your exact comment was “[I] guarantee I am more educated than you Bismarck”
Just because you were schooled, no pun intended, does not negate the fact that you tried to play a game that you were unqualified to play.
Hit a raw nerve?
I think that you give yourself a little too much credit.
The comment about the house was simply one of many examples of “one upmanship,” hence my statement “insert one upmanship line here.”
You could have easily “hit a raw nerve” about “women” or “friends” or “money" because all of those were mentioned. However, you singled out "house," ostensibly because this is an RE blog. In doing so you lost the point of the comment.
Try and keep up and follow the line of thought – I know it is a challenge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 6:38 pm 75
All men are created equal" Thomas Jefferson
But a minute after birth, that all changes. Well educated parents instill the desire to learn in their children over riches. The illiterate instill their children with the need to validate themselves by accumulating money at the expense of knowledge.
The doctor and the plumber can both afford BMW X5's. But only the plumber hangs truck nuts from his.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 6:38 pm 76
@ESL:
Do you mean, "rent a glass house"?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 6:42 pm 77
#49 patrioz: "You can call it a culture of success, I call it a culture of entitlement. The kids think they’re automatically going to be successful, and have a right to be successful, because everyone in their social circle is. Well the world doesn’t work that way.
To the best of my knowledge only one BC Premier in the last 50 years attended private school. Guess which one. "
………….
Funny, you post reminds me of Conrad Black.
I bet Madoff went to private school too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 6:44 pm 78
Global newcaster @6 o'clock news:
Oympics 5-rings now looks like a 5-ring circus. :p
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 6:49 pm 79
@Drachen:
10% Cap Rate.
http://looplink.loopnet.com/16490410/ColliersMN_V…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 7:04 pm 80
vrengd says:
If I am burning my money, my point is that because I rent, I have money to burn.
well, not really. very important for renters like you to take the renters premium and invest it wisely. even in cash flow challenged markets like vancouver the owner is cash flow ahead of a renter after 8-12 years. after 25 they own and you have a shoebox full of rent reciepts from your landlord. explain that to the kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 7:06 pm 81
@VRENGD
My original comments were directed to a sense of entitlement I got from your post about sending your kids to private school. If you didn't mean it that way then great.
You are 100% correct that the atmosphere at private schools is better. They are from a culture of "success" in that they value education.
My problem is they need to eventually transition to socializing with the public. If your kids go to Harvard, they get another 4 years reprieve. If you gift them a good job then they never have to socialize with the public.
Or perhaps the biggest advantage, if they network their privileged peers they could get a job starting at the top – yet what have they learned? That entitlement means more than hard work or education?
Otherwise they eventually start at the bottom of the workforce with the rest of the public, without the skills to deal socially with this.
I went to public school, yet was enrolled in enrichment classes with the brightest kids. My parents enrolled me in many after-school programs where I'd be with other kids that were there to learn, thus the same culture of "success" that VRENGD desires. I think this was a good balance. To achieve the same balance with a private school I would want to enroll my kid in programs at community centres, and make friends outside of the private school system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 7:06 pm 82
The agency, which insured nearly a third of new mortgages in 2009, will increase the premium it charges for its mortgage insurance and require those with weaker credit scores to come up with larger downpayments.
Harder to get an Uncle Sam mortgage
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 7:09 pm 83
private vs. public schools: depends where you live i guess, public schools on vancouver westside or westvan would have the same quality students as a private school.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 7:24 pm 84
@VRENGD
I wanted to address the %95 go to university argument separately.
95% don't go cause their marks are good enough, or cause they want to. Entry grades for university are so low, that even the poorest grades from public school can attend a university. Students loans easy enough to get that anyone can afford to attend.
The only barrier to university is: choice. Private school students don't have a choice. They go cause its expected of them, as their parents push university as the only path in the culture of "success".
I think this is a mistake for a few reasons:
1. There's many other things besides wasting 4 years in university. Why blindly push this as the only option?
2. Canadian universities are nolonger about higher education. They are worker factories, churning out required pieces of paper without teaching many skills.
My mother, a university prof at one point, said it best:
"The day you arrive at university you receive your degree. The next 4 years is about sticking with it and not becoming frustrated. It'll take 4 years to teach 6 months of material. Your grades will hardly matter, are not written on your degree, and quickly forgotten with work experience. Unfortunately its what you need to do to get that piece of paper."
She was correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:00 pm 85
@Dave: 10% Cap Rate
… in Powell River, that growing centre of international commerce. You can find examples of 7-8% cap rates in Vancouver but there's a reason they're that high. The tenant base is extremely poor quality and, likely, the building is a wreck. Show me an average of 7-8% — not some "rare deals" — for a well-maintained property with decent tenant base. The "rare deals" are, as the name implies, rare. Most people buying aren't following your advice and getting in at 7-8%.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:03 pm 86
Vancouver Olympic b000m continues…Not! haha
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:04 pm 87
"one BC Premier in the last 50 years attended private school"
Mike Harcourt attended Churchill Secondary in Vancouver. He also had a decent kicking leg before his accident.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:16 pm 88
@Dave:
Last time I checked this blog was about VANCOUVER real estate. Powell River is how far you had to go to get something a realistic investor might look at?
Pathetic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:24 pm 89
@jesse:
OK you've eliminated Harcourt (Churchill is a public school of course).
Hint to answer: one of this Premier's key cabinet ministers also went to private school, but on the other side of the city.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:31 pm 90
@Dave:
That's a multi-unit rental, jackass (not to mention being in Powell River). We are talking about the inflated prices (i.e. low yields) on individually titled properties and you know it. I have explicitly said on this board that owners of multi-unit rentals expected an 8% cap rate. They are business people, not cowboys.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:37 pm 91
@Drachen:
Dummy… read my post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:39 pm 92
@patriotz:
Jackass, you're the dummy who made a claim that 2% was normal. I am just showing how biased your post is. Get the point yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:42 pm 93
@jesse:
And that's my point. Likewise to your example, there is a reason why some properties sell for a 2% cap rate. Powell River sells for a 10% rate for a reason as well. I am just showing the other extreme. Normal is somewhere in between.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 8:53 pm 94
Whilster up for auction
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 10:23 pm 95
@Dave: "there is a reason why some properties sell for a 2% cap rate"
There are reasons why properties sell for 2% cap rates because they sell, by definition. Whether or not there are valid reasons is another story and we'll find out for sure in 5-10 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 10:32 pm 96
@Dave: And@Dave:
Dave,
Not like this and that losers never come to know that they are at it for countinue ride so just to be straight go get a drilling machine with built in sockets for data inputs.Remember Dec 2008 buyers in market and trolls on the petrols include Jesse,son of Portland lost data mystary and lord of phoenix arizona add him in the jerks exclusively.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:07 pm 97
No snow on Cypress.
Whistler to be sold during the men's downhill on Feb 19.
VANOC crapping their pants.
Hey, that reminds me of a song…..
PANTS ON THE GROUND,
PANTS ON THE GROUND,
LOOKING LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR PANTS ON THE GROUND…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:32 pm 98
@bestplaceonmeth: First of all games must go on secondly,Do you think buyer will take that place in his suite case and fly somewhere else? Place is place after all it will remain part of whereever it is.
Why someone will buy that place?
Clue:for investment purpose, so once exit will make entrance for next till than it is Olympics all the way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:41 pm 99
Do you think buyer will take that place in his suite case and fly somewhere else?
————–
WTF? Seriously, are you on crack right now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20th, 2010 at 11:51 pm 100
Calling Strataman – brand new Ventana had a pipe burst on the 9th floor that flooded 3-4 units per floor on floors below as reported in RET. A new highrise in Burnaby had units flooded recently. How bad is the piping system of new buildings? Any advice or info appreciated. Also is it normal to repipe the whole building after only 16 years?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 12:37 am 101
@Dave: dude… Dave if you do research into the city its in economic decline… It had a paper mill thats been constantly laying off people and most importantly a contracting population and income! Its best diversification has been "tourism."
I'm kind of confused on how this makes your point. The dividends were great on Lehman Brothers 2 months before KO too….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 1:40 am 102
Wow, the tone has sure changed on the comments section of CBC sites et cetera.
Speculation is all about perception, and oh boy, it's not looking so hot right now. Maybe this thing is going to go down faster than I thought. Especially when the Fed MBS purchace program ends and FHA tightens up. Don't underestimate our ties to the US.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 8:19 am 103
@buff_butler:
My point is that a 2% cap rate, as suggested by Patriotz, is not the norm. He gave one extreme and I gave another. The real cap rate is somewhere in between.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 9:16 am 104
@Dave:
No, no you didn't give the other extreme, you went entirely outside of the lower mainland which is not 'extreme' it's out of bounds. It's also a multi-unit which is not what people here are talking about so it's out on two counts. Patriotz's example counts because it is on target for what this blog is about, unless you can find a comparable unit to COMPARE you're talking apples and oranges and, as always, you LOSE. For all the comparative value you might as well start looking in Bangladesh.
1) If you can't find anything in the GVRD to present your case then you don't HAVE a case.
2) If you can't find a single unit to compare to single units then you don't have a case.
Sometimes I think Dave is trying to be some kind of quizmaster, putting up completely flawed arguments to see if people can figure out what's wrong with them. I can't actually recall him EVER pushing an argument that didn't have serious logical flaws.
Everything Dave proposes is:
a) Based on Fallacies.
b) Based on inaccurate or intentionally misleading and irrelevant information.
c) Based on flawed analysis.
d) One or more of the above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 9:42 am 105
@Drachen:
Blaaa, blaaa, blaaa professor….
You need to start using that noggin a bit more. The point was to show an orange, not an apple. I have made this point three times already and it keeps going over your head.
Once again, a 2% cap rate is the extreme as is 10%. A penthouse in Shangra La gets you a 2% cap rate. A wood frame rental building in Powell River gets you 10%. Most of the real estate in Vancouver sits somewhere in between those two extremes.
This isn't difficult. Try to keep up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 9:54 am 106
Drachen, 2.000000001% is "somewhere between" 2% and 10%. Without Dave actually bringing anything but his faith to the table, I'm going to assume that's what he's suggesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 10:14 am 107
Dave is a fool. 2-3% cap rate is normal in Vancouver. The place I rent has a cap rate of 2.4%. We are talking about VANCOUVER here not Powell river, for god's sake. Try to pay attention dave, its not difficult.
Dave, post a list of VANCOUVER properties that have a cap rate significantly higher than 2%. You have been asked you have not done it. Once again, you prefer to spout BS rather than evidence. But then what would you expect form a Bull if not Shit!
are you this annoying in real life?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 10:23 am 108
@Dave:
Oh my god Dave, are you really that thick? Yes it probably sits between those numbers but since one number isn't even relevant your 'input' to the discussion is completely useless.
You might as well make up a pretend house in Dave's Private Land of Unicorns and Sunshine that makes 100%, the value of the example would be the same and the lesson would be the same, since 2% is one extreme the average is probably higher. How much higher is not answered by your false and misleading example, nor does it help us come any closer to recognizing where the actual average cap rate is. As such (and as always) your input to the discussion is less than useless, you're simply a distraction for those trying to find answers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 11:21 am 109
Ok, Dave. Drachen laid out the 3 ground rules in #103 and VRENGD found an example of 2.4% following those rules. Please indicate ONE example that trumps VRENGD. Anything that sticks to those 2 simple rules. Doesn't have to be near your invalid extreme of 10%. I just want to see how high we can go and we can take it one step at a time. Let's stick to Best-Place-On-Earth(tm) examples here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 12:40 pm 110
I suppose if you ignore realized gains on the investment. aka you allow net negative return on an investment then you can get some awsome cap rates but then that 10% they quote isn't the true cap rate because your not factoring in that element because it is infact integable and speculative however the propability of you recovering your full investment or even that cap rate is incredibly low.
An analogy would be if i got my friend to rent out my condo for 5x the price and then tried to sell it for 2x the price because the cap rate is "above average." Then if somoeone bought your friend would move out. Obviously this is a bad investment and the cap rate isn't a true representation of the future.
So yes. If you ignore investment research and take on extra risk you can get an "awsome" cap rate. Realistically though the typical cap rate ive seen is arround 2.5-3.5%. Once the risk free rate changes this will likely translate to more downward pressure on prices in two directions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 12:53 pm 111
@VRENGD:
It seems you guys are all arguing the same point as me. We all agree that the Powell River is an extreme. I never said I would provide a listing of all the cap rates for Vancouver proper, so I am not sure why you expect me to. I can tell you that the bulk of real estate has higher than a 2% cap rate. I'm not sure why some of you have to be so obtuse on this point.
Here is one such example:
http://www.REALTOR.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?proper…
If you rent this 1BR in Vancouver for $1,200 (less $150 maint), you would be just short of a 5% cap rate.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/apa/1558719…
If you put 25% down and locked into a 5 year fixed rate mortgage, you would be almost cash flow neutral on this deal. However, you are building equity with each and every payment, so really you are net positive each month. And as a bonus, the nominal rents keep going up and up every year.
If you go further out into Burnaby, New West of Coquitlam, you will find that the cap rates go up. You can get even better caps in Surrey or the Fraser Valley. If this Vancouver example is almost cash flow neutral, you can be sure that cash flow positive deals exist further out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21st, 2010 at 10:01 am 112
[...] from Ulsterman at vancouvercondo.info 19 Jan 2010 8:56 pm [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:25 am 113
@patriotz: "The kids think they're automatically going to be successful"
This is what eventually makes them successful. In thus thinking, they already _are_ more successful that those who visualise years of bleak, boring, pot- or alcohol-sugared wage slavery ahead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0