Friday Free for all!
Lets round up the weeks news stories! Thanks everyone who’s posted links, and thanks to Don, who’s been emailing in many interesting articles. Ok, let’s get to it! Here are a few links to kick off the weekend discussion:
-Canadian house sales reach record high in December
-Vancouver new house prices down 2.8% YOY
-New highrises won’t spoil view of north shore
-BabyBoomer demographic impact charts
-Graph: Peaked in Seattle
-Global leverage, house prices and consumption
-Canadians more cautious about debt than Americans
-One in every 7.5 US houses behind or in foreclosure
So what are you seeing out there? Post your news links, thoughts and anecdotes here and have an excellent weekend!
January 15th, 2010 at 8:27 am 1
I'm not one to dwell on the weather…but honestly when you have rain like we've had over the past week it definitely contributes to the argument that Vancouver is by no means the end all be all. I keep having to remind myself that most of the world seeks, craves and wants live with sun most of the year. I have heard many people joking that they hope their house doesn't float away. I definitely wouldn't want to borrow 700K for a crappy house unless it was a tropical paradise. East Van shacks do not qualify as being in a tropical paradise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 8:55 am 2
I know many people that go through the standard Vancouver winter vitamin D deficiency and SAD symptoms every year. I succomb to a bit of it myself, but try to spend at least a part of the winter somewhere else with sun.
I wonder if the tendency of Vancouverites to overvalue housing has to do with the shitty winter weather? I also wonder is that's why we have a problem with construction quality. So much of our construction seems like it was thrown up as quickly as possible to get out of the rain.
"just throw some stucco and a tarp on it, we'll fix it later."
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 10:08 am 3
I agree, outside my window is most certainly 'world class' weather. Once the world experiences it there will be no stopping the masses of eager and exceedingly wealthy immigrants.
"Many individuals grew suddenly rich. A golden bait hung temptingly out before the people, and, one after the other, they rushed to the tulip marts [condo openings], like flies around a honey-pot. Every one imagined that the passion for tulips [real estate] would last for ever, and that the wealthy from every part of the world would descend on Holland [Vancouver], and pay whatever prices were asked for them." – "The Tulipomania"
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 10:35 am 4
#1 @buffates: re East Van shacks: I don't know, they sure feel tropical when you jam enough hydroponic supplies into them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 10:47 am 5
Poor VANOC! They just can get good press these days!
“The U.S. government is cautioning Americans coming here for the 2010 Winter Olympics that the Games could be magnet for terrorists.”
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/81599222.html
(And they didn’t even include warnings about getting tazered by the RCMP on arrival
Ya, everybody wants to live here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 11:23 am 6
Don't leave out the VPD they may shoot or slam your head to the pavement. Equally inept, hopefully they have learned a little bit about crowd control since the hockey riot fiasco ,truly shameful.
Just a thought can you get vitamin D from grow op lights if so then that might be what we lack from thinking the best place on earth. You can smoke a little hippie lettuce that would probably help as well.
So then maybe the best place on earth is your East Van basement grow show.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 11:33 am 7
This graph is awesome:
http://edmontonhousingbust.com/files/100112-3.jpg
It shows a big jump ~62-63yo, thus in a few short years there's be a much higher percentage of retirees all at once if they choose to retire at 65yo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 11:44 am 8
@buffates:Vancouver is better than Haiti numbers of deads are unknown above range of 50,000 from earthquake, More than 1,400 Canadians still missing in Haiti.Vancouver is better than Floridain Hurricane and California's wildfire,Vancouver is better than Indian plague,Vancouver does not give birth to terrorism like Pakistan,Vancouver does not spread SARS like China nor it does spread Swine flu like Mexico,Vancouver is better than Indonesia where more than 250000 people died of Tsunami and still counting every year.Vancouverites does not die with hunger like people in African countries.Vancouverites does not pay for flu vacine.This city is beautiful because of rain.
People like you and those who voted you up deserve a solid kick out from Vancouver who did not realize that they were residing in "The Best Place On Earth".
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 11:51 am 9
@buffates:
Do they?
Then how come so many people from sunny climates live in New York, London, Paris, etc.?
"It's the economy, stupid".
Forget the weather arguments, and stick to the numbers. And the numbers say that Vancouver is headed for a bust approaching 50%.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:08 pm 10
Actually Patriotz I disagree. The numbers, taken literally say that Vancouver is headed for a 60-70% bust, we passed 50% years back. But the degree of the bust partly depends on how much continued interference there is in Real Estate from the government and the CMHC, it may be as low as 50% if they don't realize that the CMHC is actually working against it's mandate by offering mortgage insurance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:30 pm 11
So , the attack on seniors savings comes out of the closet and begins in earnest. If you're in line for an inheritance you should be very concerned about the government latest efforts to ratchet up the already spiralling costs for seniors. The unions and the government are grabbing every dime they can from these frail heroes of the Canadian past.
Increased costs to seniors are all going to wages and benefits for union parasites who can't seem to make ends meet under the outrageously covered up hyperinflation of groceries, fuel and housing. So what do they do? Well stick it to the seniors of course. Any talk of firings or fiscal responsibility yet? No? Gee thats new.
This rape of the Canadian seniors is the most dispcable event in the history of this country. The governments clawing back and destruction of savings in this country is designed to turn you all into slaves.If todays seniors are being forced to liquidate thier lifetime of savings to subsidize bad policy now, can you imagine what it's going to be like for you?
The zero percent regime has served to force the seniors over a barrel that has only increased the tax benefits to the governments. Shame beyond shame. Anyone in the civil service and the union movement should be ashamed of themselves for being party to screwing your own parents. Like I said , forget about the inheritance, you just got suckered into giving it to the government.
Will the last person leaving because taxes have hit 100% please turn the lights off?
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/seniors+face+h…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:37 pm 12
Bdk toll:
It isnt that most of us dont like vancouver, we just dont like the arrogance of saying we are the best place on earth. It is a good place, but saying it is the best makes us lazy and we stop trying to improve it. Since that phrase was coined homelessness has trippled and social services have dropped.
Even if you think this is the best place on earth, we certainly arent moving to improve ourselves further.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:38 pm 13
BTW, interesting hits on the predictive linguistics meme re; the Haiti issue. Predicts hundreds of thousands of new refugees coming north, possibly to Canada, very scary.
Occasional Linguistic Fill Notes
"Haitian Diaspora"
With former president Clinton mentioning the 'Haitian diaspora" on an MSNBC interview last night, struck me as we should look at the use of 'diaspora' as it pops up related to Haiti.
Sure enough, got 93 'hits' on the phrase on Google's news search engine right now and no doubt that will continue to build.
We had discussed 200,000 – but we also had references to 220-million. Still, decimal points are a real soft spot of the web bot processing. Cliff points out there's a big linguistic difference between millions and thousands, but bear with me for a sec. What IF the number turns out to be 200 or 220-thosuand and the directional language we were seeing was not 220-million north to Canada, but instead 220,000 north to the USA?
If I were a betting man I'd lay down a few cents betting that within a few days to weeks, we will hear about calls for the US to accept (200,000 to 220,000) Haitian refugees in the US on an emergency/humanitarian basis.
Our time machine is rickety and all, but may be offering hints on this one…and we're just too dense to get it all sorted right. Quick! Build more SQL predicates!
Sure builds the fill for the descriptors fit 'the land where people eat dirt' doesn't it? More on that as Cliff runs linguistic fill stats. Bet me on the 'humanitarian' wave of refugees? Timing fits with all the talk about violence in the streets and imagery of national collapse, too.
From george Ures 'Urban Survival' site this am.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:39 pm 14
@Bdk toll: Let me get this straight. Vancouver is a better place to live than some of the most unfortunate, disaster torn places on the planet; therefore it is the best place on earth?
It's too bad that comment is going to get modded down into oblivion. It should be enshrined somewhere as a warning to future generations of the dangers of undeveloped reasoning skills.
Oh, and if you don't think there's a connection between Vancouver and terrorism, I suggest you might want to google "air india bombing" or "Ahmed Ressam"
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:54 pm 15
RE 'up' 72% nah thats not a bubble. Keep moving, nothing to look at here.
Hey McBear, how about the complicit politicians encourage terrorists to take up residence in Canada angle? While you're googling the air india bombing why not look at all our brave politicians having fundraising dinners with tamil tigers and marching with sikh terrorists in Vancouver and the surrounding area during the 'promote terrorist parades' throughout our community.
By allowing terrorism to thrive here because Canada wants to snub its nose at US policy is really of no benefit to Canada is it? Does anyone think that by giving sanctuary in canada to the sikh terrorists, tamil tigers boat people and muslim extremists poring into Vancouver and Toronto that these people suddenly becomr good little taxpayers waving the CDN flag at a hockey game? Right, don't be naive eh?
We have imported hundreds of thousands of terrorists and thier families. Just like in Europe today, we'll wish we hadn't.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:55 pm 16
heres the clip from the Nat post
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/economy…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 12:58 pm 17
Wow, every pane of glass in Vancouver must be showing tongue prints because the window – lickers seem to be out in full force today.
Where is SupraLady Boy? I mean cmon' dude, your buddies are all posting like mad. Finish up with Daddy, wipe the coconut milk off wherever it landed and post something already.
RealPaul, you might want to make yourself another tinfoil hat, I think you lost the old one. Personally I hate the elderly; they take way too long in lineups and they're a drain on the system. Screw 'em. Their money should go to the younger union members with families anyway. I hope they end up hungry, cold and shivering in the dark.
As for those Haitians, yes we should probably just let 'em rot where they are. It's not like Canada and the US were built on the strength of hardworking newcomers. Don't worry dude, none of those nasty teenagers are sneaking onto your property at night.
Geez you guys must be getting a lot of rain, the loonies seem to have nothing to do but post post post. We had some great sunny days here in Halifax. It's overcast and drizzling this afternoon, but it's not too bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 1:19 pm 18
RE 13
Quebec loves francophones so they will be opening the floodgates for many displaced Haitians. Aids is rampant there so hopefully there are some tests involved. It is great to offer hope to others but feel that money and resources is a much better alternative to adding to our poor workforce and dismal economic outlook.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 1:38 pm 19
scullboy said: "Personally I hate the elderly; they take way too long in lineups and they’re a drain on the system. Screw ‘em. Their money should go to the younger union members with families anyway. I hope they end up hungry, cold and shivering in the dark."
…………………..
I hope you scullboy never have to grow beyond the age of 35 and die young so as not (in your own words) to cause long lineups and drain the system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 1:46 pm 20
@as-you-wish:
I'm counting on it.
Personally I'd support any party that proposed mandatory euthanasia. Just think of the money we'd save! I'm not even talking about the huge savings in health care. Think about the improved productivity for the rest of us! No more near-deads counting out change while half a dozen twentysomethings wait in line. No more dawdling behind a grey hair in the slow lane. No more accidents cause by the elderly with their bad eyesight and slow reflexes.
And if you really want to hit the trifecta, we could sell the bodies to those Richmond dim sum dumps Supraboy frequents. They're higher in nutrients then the rat droppings those places use in the food currently.
I bet the customers would even get a pleasant buzz from the medications leftover in their decrepit old systems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 1:49 pm 21
@realpaul:
What? A higher percentage of seniors have defined benefit pension plans than those currently working. Know the main reason? More seniors worked in union jobs than those currently working, i.e. the % of union jobs has declined.
The fact is that the influence of unions in Canada has declined considerably over the last generation. They have been on the losing side of almost every policy fight. Had unions gotten what they wanted, pensioners (even those who had had non-union jobs) would be better off today.
I'm not trying to be an apologist for unions, just responding to the absurd notion that unions are in charge of current economic trends. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 1:52 pm 22
as-you-wish:
I believe scullboy was being facetious, but I could be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 2:03 pm 23
HELL NO i wasn't being facetious! Grind up those greyhairs and sell 'em to the rich Asians.
While we're at it we could probably cook any Haitian earthquake survivors that show up here. I'd expect them to be healthier, organic free range and antibiotic free. We could save the Haitians for the younger union members and their families though.
Hey, we could have the Quebecois cook the Haitians. It would bring a whole new meaning to Creole cuisine. Brilliant!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 2:25 pm 24
@scull boy
Have you read "Children of Men"?
For those that haven't: The story describes a world without children, where people have become sterile. The population ages and society must deal with it. They find out that society is one giant ponzi scheme, and without children being born, there's nolonger enough new people to support the aging population. They deal with it by offering seniors a chance to cull the herd. Seniors can chose death, and by doing so the government will provide subsidies to their families.
Its an interesting story that will get played out here to an extent. The number of young people are dwindling compared to the aging population, and we'll soon have to change our ponzi scheme of the young paying for the old.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 2:42 pm 25
@patriotz:
I agree somewhat. People need to support themselves first and will go where the money is. But all things being equal, most people prefer sunny warm weather.
When you look at the US, where people have a choice of virtually any climate, people have been moving towards the sun in droves. The population of Phoenix has quadrupled since 1970 because of the sun and lack of snow, not because there were lots of job openings.
P.S. Scullboy, you been nipping at the cooking sherry?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 2:55 pm 26
Back on topic you scum sucking losers!!! The 2010 Olympics is around the corner and I've got my tickets to the best events including gold medal hockey ring side. All subsidized by sucker loser renters like you. Eat it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 2:56 pm 27
taylor192:
Man am I looking forward to paying for all the CPP of the boomers.
I dont really know how I feel about the whole thing. The boomers lived through pretty good times so they should have a few bucks saved up and should be able to fend for themselves. They should really only get out what they put in for things like CPP. It doesnt really seem fair for me to pay extra because it turns out millions of people didnt plan on living past 75.
On the other hand they all (well most) helped make the country what it is today. Since we all seem to like it (if you dont, then leave, no law is forcing you to stay) then we kind of owe them.
I am all for free buses for people over 65 and certain services to make their lives better, but if they got all this way and dont have any money in the bank, then it doesnt seem fair us young folks have to pay them for the rest of their lives.
However, I do think that anyone over a certain age (say, 90) should get extra benifits. Most people never plan to live that long so it is very understandable if they dont have enough in the ol RRSP to last through 25 years of retirement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 3:35 pm 28
@richasian:
Mr. Jurock, would you please tone it down – there may be children perusing this site.
~Best Place on Meth – unofficial sponsor of the 2010 Hellympics~
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 3:39 pm 29
Not everybody likes having sun and hot days every day of the year. I like having snow in the Winter (Vancouver doesn't get that much). I like the Fall and seeing leaves fall off the trees. I like the Spring in Vancouver which has mixed mild weather. I would happily trade the Winter here for something else, but the climate for 9 months of the year is perfect for me.
It seems that in a lot of hot places people just run to their air conditioned cars or houses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 3:50 pm 30
Canadian mortgage borrowers not taking 'undue risks'
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 3:50 pm 31
richasian:
Wow cool man, I got hockey tickets too, and I could afford them because I pay half of what it would cost to own. Funny how these things all seem to work out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 3:53 pm 32
Move-Uppers’ Dilemma: Rent? Buy? Speculate? Hedge? Become A Landlord?
One would think that a clear tax-exempt profit of $150,000 would be a reason to celebrate. But, for this couple who want to move up, it’s just the start of difficult deliberations regarding strategy. Without actually using the words, they’re playing with market timing, hedging, & speculation. They’re also considering plunging into ‘landlording’ without a lot of forethought. The whole scenario has a sense of urgency that comes with bubbly markets and anxious participants. -vreaa
see
http://tinyurl.com/ylshbzm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 4:47 pm 33
"And if you really want to hit the trifecta, we could sell the bodies to those Richmond dim sum dumps…"
That's already been done, you dunce. It's called Soylent Green. Very tasty, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 5:05 pm 34
richasian dum dum.
Hockey is played on a rink not a ring, boxing is in a ring. It just goes to show how these tickets are wasted on people who have no idea about anything to do with sports. Enjoy the game at the ring and keep you eye on the ball or puck or do you know the difference? Anyways you seem like a real gem, best of luck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 5:17 pm 35
@crabman:
There had to be lots of job openings, otherwise all those new arrivals would have been unemployed. Granted Phoenix probably has a larger than average population of retirees but not that much.
But it is sort of a chicken and egg thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 6:12 pm 36
YAY!!!
The big red W is about to be lit up for the first time since the reconstruction!
As I understand it the developer plans a "T" and an "F" to follow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 6:22 pm 37
I was just listening to CBC radio, they were talking to someone from the city council who says there's a plan in the works to remove the viaducts through the Strathcona region and turn them into developable land, he figured they'd get about 6-8 city blocks freed up.
No more land Dave? They're still making new land in the downtown core!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 6:34 pm 38
sounds good to me
those viaducts are ugly as hell
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 7:01 pm 39
@davers:
They will. CPP contributions were increased during the Mulroney government (as I recall) to address the issue of future boomer retirements. CPP has its own asset base, it doesn't pay out benefits from current contributions.
OAS is another story as the benefits come out of general spending and I'm getting nervous with the news that's coming out lately about a structural deficit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 7:12 pm 40
"…unsustainable non-bubble…"
ha ha ha. must be political speak for "okay we have a bubble but we can't say bubble"
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 7:36 pm 41
@Tim Geithner
The survey, released Thursday by the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 7:43 pm 42
Due to all this rain, my ceiling is leaking. I told the building manager today at 3pm and she's arranged for someone to come over tomorrow at 9am to fix it. Was contemplating how if I owned, rather than rented this apartment, I'd be on the hook for paying to fix the leak. Or perhaps would have the headache of arguing it with the strata nazis, since the leak seems to be originating from the roof. None of that for me, I'll be off to the gym tomorrow while the guy fixes it, and leave it to the landlord to cut him a cheque. Ha! Oh the joy of renting
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 7:45 pm 43
@Drachen:
I never said there wasn't land available. I said taking land and turning it into a development is a lengthy and difficult process. I bet you the land in question would take more than 10 years to get to market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 7:52 pm 44
The point is not how long it takes, or how difficult it is. The issue is how much it COSTS. But then you were never big on debating relevant issues were you?
There's plenty of development opportunities to last for the next 10 years and it's pretty likely the housing in the city is already years ahead of demand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 9:50 pm 45
@Drachen:
I agree. Costs are a function of time and difficulty, amongst many other factors.
I also agree that there will always be plenty of development opportunities.
Years ahead? More like a year behind. Look at inventory and sales. We have low inventory and high sales. What does that tell you about supply and demand? Duh.
Construction starts have been very low for a year. It's more likely that we will be facing a crunch in the near future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 10:42 pm 46
Off topic, but interesting since education is the other bubble/racket that people are increasingly priced out of for no good reason:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/14/where-all-that…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 10:52 pm 47
This comments section is becoming a freak show of the bitter and twisted, the racists and the malcontents.
Too bad, being a bear on housing doesn't mean you have you to hate everyone else.
Yes, we should have bought a few years ago. We didn't we will get over it. No need to hate the world and hope for armageddon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 15th, 2010 at 11:33 pm 48
@frank:
So, being negative on Vancouver's real estate market = hatred, racism, malcontent, bitter, twisted.
Thank you, useless real estate cheerleader for your enlightened wisdom.
I sense the end is near for the likes of you.
http://espn.starwave.com/media/ncb/2004/0315/phot…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 12:04 am 49
Looks like we outed scullboy as a union member, that was easy. As far as grinding up the seniors, it appears thats already being done. The trouble with the idea about thinking that your safe is that it's usually you thats next in line for a screwing.
Freedom ain't free amigos and when we let our seniors down we just step into line to take the next bullet.What we should be doing is bringing the government back into line not allowing them to divide and then conquer an increasingly weak population scared out of its wits because if the increasing costs which are 100% part of the plan to bring you to your knees.
Some people don't like the truth. They hate real estate prices going up but they refuse to contact thier MP's and complain about the insane fiscal policy of zero interest rates. They dodn't like to see more citizens killed by the RCMP than by the Taliban but they refuse to speak out. The see the teachers union flushing the kids down the toilet and they support them. Go figure.
BTW I make a tinfoil hat look prettty damn good and I don't have to live in some shithole on the east coast or a 200 square foot condo Vanshithole because prices have escaped me.
Still I take every opportunity to tell my elected officials that they are doing a really shitty job. If there were more Canadians that chastised the government instead of sticking their heads up thier asses it would be a better country. Next time you suck some union leaders bone or listen to the lies they spew remember that you're next in line for a screwing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 12:52 am 50
@realpaul:
How do you manage to come up with the idea that unions and government are screwing us simultaneously?
~Best Place on Meth – unofficial sponsor of the 2010 Hellympics~
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 2:56 am 51
@Dave:
Inventory and sales have nothing to do with actual supply and demand. They are simply indications of speculative interest. In other words, the number of properties people are willing to buy ard sell is not connected with the number of properties people need to live in.
Real rents are indicative of actual supply and demand, and they have been falling for the last decade, which means that actual supply has been outpacing actual demand.
DUH
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 7:00 am 52
@patriotz:
How many net rental units were added to GVRD last year? And how many people were added?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 12:27 am 53
[...] buffates 15 Jan 2010 8:27 am – “I’m not one to dwell on the weather…but honestly when you have rain like we’ve had over the past week it definitely contributes to the argument that Vancouver is by no means the end all be all. I keep having to remind myself that most of the world seeks, craves and wants live with sun most of the year. I have heard many people joking that they hope their house doesn’t float away. I definitely wouldn’t want to borrow 700K for a crappy house unless it was a tropical paradise. East Van does not qualify as a tropical paradise.” [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 8:41 am 54
@Dave:
If, as you're implying, there were more renters added than rental units, why are rents going down?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 9:27 am 55
Rents are going down because generous landlords are cutting tenants/visitors a discount during the Olympics. Har!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 9:50 am 56
@taylor:
I've read both "Children of Men" and "A Modest Proposal". I'm guessing a *LOT* of people haven't.
What drives me nuts about the boomers is they expect us to pay for *everything*. We'll have to pony up for their hip replacements and everything else as they start to fall apart. We'll have to cough up for their cpp payments. And then to top it all off they seem to expect that we'll pay insane prices for their houses.
Hopefully they're in for a surprise…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 9:50 am 57
@Dave:
Um, Dave, you have to compare total growth in households with total growth in dwelling units. Because people who buy don't have to rent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:09 am 58
"Look at inventory and sales. We have low inventory and high sales. What does that tell you about supply and demand? Duh."
It means that rent prices were reached on equilibrium point in the slow sales environment in 2008 that increase demand to buy instead of renting.Vancouver real estate circle react in following order.
Slow sales:In this circumastances more peoples are renting that increase the demand of rental unit that help increase the rents.
High sales:In this environment tenants are actually buyers they will leave the rental unit that increase demand to buy housing unit.
Results:
Slow sales=higher rents
High sales=Stable rents
Circle revision 6 months
Direction for rent and housing prices UP
Witness:Rebgv Graph,Assessment values,Cmhc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:11 am 59
@Dave:
Not that many rental units have been built recently. Why? Because condos are MUCH more profitable. Why? Because they are very overvalued! Duh.
If you look at total housing units built over the last 5 years or so, about 2x the number needed have been built. I did a post with the exact numbers a while back, but don't feel like digging them up again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am 60
@vreaa:
Rents aren't going down. They continue to go up. Have a look at the latest CMHC report.
The growth in rental rates has actually outpaced inflation for the last few years.
I also think the statistics are misleading. I believe there has been a shift from the single use rental building to single unit condos. The latter command around 50% more rent per month compared to the former. It would be interesting for somebody to do the math and adjust for this shift. What if rents have actually grown faster than inflation for the whole decade?
In answer to the question to Patriotz… Only 711 rental units were added to Vancouver CMA (including single use condos) between Oct 08 and Oct 09.
https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/catalog/productDeta…
Our population added something around 40,000 people, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 to 20,000 households.
Seems like we might be facing a shortfall.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:21 am 61
@patriotz:
Patriotz – "Inventory and sales have nothing to do with actual supply and demand."
Dave – Slaps forehead… sigh…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:38 am 62
@Tinfoilhat:
Dude, I posted a couple of comments advocating grinding people up and eating them. How exactly did you go from that to "scullboy's a union member"? Was it because I suggested we feed the haitians to the young? I think it's time to loosen up the headband on that tinfoil hat, Grampa. You're starting to sound pretty unhinged.
Ooooo yeah…. calling Halifax a shithole. That's really original. More people killed by the cops then the Taliban. Time to go for a walk there, Gramps, you know how confused you get when your blood is all angried up.
I can just see you writing your elected officials a la Grandpa Simpson:
"Dear Steven Harper, there are too many provinces. Please eliminate three. P.S. I am not a kook!"
Yeah that'll make 'em swing into action all right.
Your obsessions make you look unhinged buddy. Maybe you should calm down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:40 am 63
OK, so here's some numbers for Dave to ignore:
Population of Vancouver CMA
2001: 1,986,965
2006: 2,116,581
Avg growth/year = 25,923
Total dwelling units in CMA in 2006 = 817,224 = 2.59 persons/unit.
So, for annual growth of 25,923, we need about 10,000 housing units/year. Over the last several years, we have averaged about 18,000.
Link
Link
Inventory and sales are short-term supply and demand. The long-term supply and demand are determined by the above numbers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:58 am 64
crabman, Vancouver is massively overbuilt because everyone wants to live here! DUH!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 11:00 am 65
@crabman: great post crabman, thanks! I am curious to see how Dave will spin them.
About rents: they are defnitely not going up. in fact, in several fancy buildings, they are actually going down (something going for 2000/month 2 years ago can be picked up for 1850/month).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 11:04 am 66
@Dave: @Dave:
Holes in Dave's argument:
- Purpose built rental apartments in this city are at least 20 years old so they have no chance of renting for the same amount as all the newer condos out there.
- New condos still have shitty rental yields and are about as good as a GICs in terms of being an investment property.
- Vancouver CMA added approx. 15,000 condos and 5,000 houses in 2008.
- Most of those 5,000 houses now have basement suites. For example, my neighbors house which has two people living in it got torn down last year, and the new house has two suites and there are now 8 – 10 people in this house from month to month. These two suites don't show up in any official stats.
Dave, if you had $800,000 sitting in the bank would you buy a rental property in Vancouver? What sort of yield are you looking at?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 11:22 am 67
Dave also happens to be Rob
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 11:29 am 68
@Dave: I love how you imply that rents have gone up because condos are more expensive than rental buildings. In other words: if you build it, they will come? I guess it's really that simple in your head.
You need to get your nose out of CMHC reports. They only focus on purpose built rental buildings, which is an aging/declining market. If you listen to them you'd think the vacancy rate for Vancouver is actually 1%! Well of course it is for old lowrise buildings, because there haven't been any new ones built in decades, while the amount of lower-middle class people needing shelter has increased. Supply will always be tight and rents won't go down much in that segment of the market.
There aren't any stats for the rest of the rental market – only anecdotal evidence and educated guesses. For example, downtown vacancy has been estimated at 5-10% by a property management firm. This same firm also estimates rents are down 10-20% in the last year.
Anyway, feel free to keep projecting CMHC stats onto the whole city, and we'll feel free to keep laughing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 12:41 pm 69
@Dave:
"In answer to the question to Patriotz… Only 711 rental units were added to Vancouver CMA (including single use condos) between Oct 08 and Oct 09.
Our population added something around 40,000 people, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 to 20,000 households."
Wasn't I just accusing you of wanting to debate irrelevant issues? The number of rentals is irrelevant, it's the number of new dwellings that's relevant (as was pointed out earlier). The fact that you've continued on this tangent just proves how disingenuous you are, ESPECIALLY after it was pointed out to you that your data point was irrelevant.
The "rentals vs new residents" point is completely misleading and what's more it's obviously your INTENT to mislead people with such a fallacious argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 1:17 pm 70
Dave= Rob
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 1:32 pm 71
@Dave:
Ok Dave, so explain to us why both inventory and sales fluctuate wildly while both total population and dwelling units increase steadily.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 1:32 pm 72
@Drachen:
I guess the right answer is "no more land that isn't being sat on by greedy developers hand in glove with your local politicians, until the people of Vancouver are stupid enough to sop up RE overproduction and leaky condos already on the market at bubble prices, then (wave of magic rezoning wand) "Hey everybody, I found some more land!"".
Stole this link of an interview featuring Jerry Rubin from Garth's site. His take on the current insanity: "it's not a bubble if money is free".
http://watch.bnn.ca/squeezeplay/december-2009/squ…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 1:35 pm 73
sorry, JEFF Rubin.
Interesting show on the asset bubble on CBC Fifth Estate – I think it re-airs tonight…
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/house_of_cards/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 1:54 pm 74
“it’s not a bubble if money is free”
———————————
No. It's only not a bubble is money is free _FOR EVER_.
And good luck with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 2:06 pm 75
@crabman:
They are supply of and demand for ownership of RE, which is a capital transaction, which is entirely different from supply and demand for shelter, i.e. the use of RE, which is consumption, and determined by the number of households and dwelling units and indicated by real rents.
It's not really a short-term versus long term thing. The demand for shelter isn't more volatile over the short term than the long term. It's an ownership versus use thing. Demand for ownership is more volatile because it's speculative. Any dwelling may or may not be on sale at any given time. It has nothing to do with how many dwellings there are. Likewise the number of households who want to buy is not a function of the number of households.
Analogous is the supply and demand for farms and for food, or for Telus shares and for phone calls, etc. If Telus shares go up 50% it doesn't mean that people are making 50% more phone calls, or more calls at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 2:06 pm 76
@mino3:
You need to get your nose into the CMHC reports because you don't know what you are talking about. The CMHC does in fact complete a rental condo market survey. I said above that rents for such condos are about 50% higher. Instead of making accusations, perhaps you should do a little reading. Please see the link I provided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 2:12 pm 77
@Just Walk Away:
I agree with some of your points as they are the same as mine. However, your final point is incorrect regarding secondary suites. As in my post above, these numbers are tracked by CMHC. Between 2008 and 2009, only 711 rental suites were added to Vancouver CMA, including the units you speak of. Not much, hey?
As far as new building construction, 4999 of those new houses were replacing older houses, which doesn't add to the total amount of real estate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 2:19 pm 78
@patriotz:
Economics 101. This is what you would expect with a free market where supply and demand are constantly trying to find an equilibrium. Demand for real estate can quickly change in the short term (e.g. interest rate changes, economic changes) as can supply. Your expectation for a steady state supply and demand equilibrium is faulty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 4:16 pm 79
@Dave:
What expectation? What equilibrium? I used neither term above.
But since you brought it up: my expectation is that the price of RE cannot exceed fundamental value, which is the present value of rental income, indefinitely. The reason is if it does, investors are losing money on an operating basis and can only make a profit by selling for a high enough price to recoup the losses. This is a Ponzi scheme, specifically an asset bubble, and requires an exponentially increasing input of capital. This is the reason why all bubbles fail, whether they be in stocks, RE, or any other asset.
That does not mean that the price of RE must remain at fundamental value indefinitely thereafter. Just until the next cohort of fools with money (or credit) emerges. I do think that due to demographic, debt and income issues insufficient demand will exist to inflate a new bubble for a generation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 4:19 pm 80
@Dave:
As far as new building construction, 4999 of those new houses were replacing older houses, ……
—
Ya, and every single one of them were build with at least one rental suite
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 4:28 pm 81
@Dave: I don't understand how you could have read patriotz's post–the one you linked to–and come up with this response. It can be only one of two things:
1) You truly don't understand the difference between speculative demand and demand for shelter.
2) You're being willfully ignorant and disingenuous for some reason.
As for your remark about "steady state supply and equilibrium", I'm not sure what you mean. The fact is that demand for shelter is represented–as patriotz has repeated ad nauseum–by the price people are willing to pay to put a roof (and roof) over their heads. Period. Real rents in Vancouver are decreasing. If you don't believe me, answer a specu-land-vestor's ad on Craiglist, go and view the place and offer 15% lower than the asking price. See what happens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 6:58 pm 82
@Dave: I would fail you! You just don't have the knack for economics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 8:09 pm 83
@oneangryslav2:
The middle one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 8:16 pm 84
@patriotz:
Well, it has exceeded your 'fundamental value' about 95% of the last 40 years. How's that pricing model working out for you?
You don't understand basic economics of supply and demand. It's pretty simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 10:14 pm 85
Dave is pretty funny. He thinks that this is a market that will not revert to the historical average.
Hey dave, show me a link to a real estate market somewhere in the world, anywhere, that has not reverted to the historical average in price growth following a boom.
(psst, I bet dave will show me a graph of current bubble markets and say, see these have not reverted to the historical average)
I await dave's post so I can have a good laugh. Don't make me wait too long, dave.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 11:30 pm 86
"From hell I curse you" says the petulant scullboy. Ha, too bad I'm in Hawaii in a beachfront condo and not eating shit in Newfie.
Veratis vos liberabit, my goofy friend. Unions suck and cop killers are a fact of life in Canada, deny everything, no one gives a shit why you're shaking your bony fist.
The government loves the mindless losers who suck up the swill the way you can. Congrats on being a loser.
BTW, when you unroll the tinfoil it makes a great sun reflector to get the hard to tan parts. Try it…no wait, theres no sun in newfie!!!! lololololol
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 16th, 2010 at 11:52 pm 87
@Dave: Well said about basic economy.I think Patriotz,Drachen,The Pope,Vhb,Crabman,and Freako were born in cold months between September to Febuary most of time they respond like sleepyheads that's why they were unable to see 70 percent correction was converted into 70% appreciation since 2004 and most of their followers spend their time thumbing down the truth to lose their sense in dark.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 1:42 am 88
@Dave:
Your link doesn't work.
Here's a link that works: http://www.cmhc.ca/en/hoficlincl/homain/stda/sure…
CMHC themselves say:
"The survey targets only privately initiated structures with at least three rental units"
So that rules out all condos and basement suites. Like I said, it only applies to purpose built rentals.
There's mention of a "secondary rental market survey" that includes leftover dwelling types. Gee, telephone surveys to individual landlords – that's got to be real accurate. I'm sure they're counting all those people with illegal basement suites!
Calling up a property management firm that represents a whole building (the main survey) seems fairly reasonable, but calling up private landlords individually (the secondary survey) seems like barely more than a shot in the dark. It sounds extremely time consuming and error prone. How do they know who owns which condo? How reliable is the data they do get? What is the sample size? And illegal suites, by their nature, are not even on the CMHC radar.
Face it, not even CMHC has much grasp on the secondary rental market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 3:15 am 89
@Dave:
Bears don't have to be right about prices 100% of the time, or 50% of the time, or even 5% of the time. They only have to be right once. If I feel that a house that sells today for, say, 800K, is really worth 400K, and the real price falls to that value at any time in the future, I win. And everyone who previously bought for more than that, i.e. the bulls, loses.
As to why we have that 95%, Robert Shiller put it best:
"Vancouver is the bubbliest city in the world".
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 8:20 am 90
@patriotz:
And how will the guy who has been waiting for 22 years do (i.e the last time prices were at your valuation metric)? Do you think prices will come back to the level that he had been waiting for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 9:11 am 91
@Dave:
I think a return to 80's real prices is unlikely, in the near term anyway, because interest rates then were over 10% which is historically anomalous. Assuming an interest rate of 6% going forward housing was fairly valued in 2001, and yes I expect a return to real prices of that year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 9:22 am 92
Awwwww….. it's that cute. Grampy has mistaken the hibiscous wall paper in Springfield Retirement Castle for a tropical paradise.
Funny thing there, Gramps…. when you mentioned unrolling your tinfoil hat an using it for tanning I got this image of the old bag from "There's something about Mary" tanning her withered old tits. Brrrrrr, makes me glad I'm on this coast.
No sun on the east coast huh…. you must be yet another dimwitted old coot who hasn't been east of the Rockies. It's a gorgeous sunny day here AGAIN… the temp is around +3, the sky is brilliant blue and I'm going running.
I finally figured you out. You're one of those paranoid, greedy old fucks who did pretty well for himself and now demands his free medical care and pension benefits while simultaneously obsessing about how everyone else (unions, the government, the RCMP) are out to steal your money.
I knew that crack about grinding up the elderly would out the loonies….
Right, I'm off for a run. Before I go though, some advice: Misquoting Shakespeare and Melville just makes it look like it's been waaaaaaaay too long since you cracked a book dude. You might want to… you know…. read "Macbeth" and "Moby Dick" rather then rely on old "Star Trek" episodes to make you look smart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 9:31 am 93
Dave, do you think there is more financial risk in taking Patriotz's advice and not buying for years/decades/whatever because housing is overpriced by his metric, or in taking your advice and buying now when prices are at all-time highs and interest rates can, at best, not go down any more? Honest question. What are the financial costs of waiting until housing is fairly valued (even if that never happens because Vancouver is different)?
Wouldn't the renter have been spending less per month over that time? So they're only losing out on appreciation of the property, which I think we all know can change quickly and significantly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:12 am 94
"70 percent correction was converted into 70% appreciation since 2004"
Well, an appreciation of 100% only needs a 50% correction to go back to the starting point.
Ain't math fun?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:13 am 95
@Dave:
So far, it's CMHC's word against yours. Their own website says their secondary market surveys are very flimsy, yet you take them as gospel. Of course you do.
If someone actually involved in the rental market every day estimates downtown vacancy is 5-10% and rents are down 10-20%, and CMHC calls up a few random landlords to conclude vacancy is 1.2% and rents up 3%, then guess who is more credible? The property firm even has a vested interest to paint a rosy picture! I'm not claiming that these downtown estimates paint the full picture, but the polar opposites of CMHC vs reality shows you how flawed CMHC's methods are.
I know it's comforting to think that government has all the answers, but try to think for yourself once in a while.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:15 am 96
("even if that never happens because Vancouver is different)?"
Yeah Dave, how different ARE we?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:34 am 97
@hippo: $8,000 special assessment for a 16 year old building? They got off easy! Where I'm renting, the owners had to come up with $20,000 each to replace the membranes in a 12 year old building. Of course, compared to the Governor's Tower, my landlord got off easy too. Those guys had to cough up $120,000 for a 13 year old sieve to replace the entire building envelope!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:35 am 98
@/dev/null:
Risk works both ways. There will be times that Patriotz approach will be the best and times that my advice will be the best. I would argue that my approach is better more often than his. More later when I have time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:45 am 99
Hurry! Granite and chrome pirices are going to rise sharply!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:58 am 100
The "Donavon" wow the 1 bedroom units are very small in this condo building. Anyone like having your head in a cupboard ala murphy bed style.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 12:17 pm 101
@Dave:
Perhaps you could explain to us under what circumstances buying now is better than buying later at a lower price. Because I can't think of any.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 12:18 pm 102
"If someone actually involved in the rental market every day estimates downtown vacancy is 5-10% and rents are down 10-20%, and CMHC calls up a few random landlords to conclude vacancy is 1.2% and rents up 3%, then guess who is more credible? "
Random data point – I'm currently moving into a bigger place in a better location for a 19.5% rent reduction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 12:53 pm 103
@crabman:The new home insurance for owners starting 2009 cover up to $50,000 to deal with assessments,Tenants don't know about it.
@Anonymoose:Most of owners rent out their unit on daily basis @ $175-$525 per day depend on the size of unit.This process provide better return than monthly rent at the end of year.So one can assume that vacancy rates are higher while it's not because listings will hang over their forever time by time.
@Boombust:A state or God has a limted capabilities to full fill the dream of all human,One should understand within six month but trolling for six year with same issue is nothing more than retard instead of smart.
Do you think fundamental can cheat with people for centuary?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 12:57 pm 104
Bob Rennie Tells Chinese Customers Vancouver Prices Will Keep Rising
see
http://wp.me/pcq1o-mK
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 12:59 pm 105
"explain to us under what circumstances buying now is better than buying later at a lower price."
If "later" is 10-20 years and you want the stability being an owner-occupier, cognizant of all the risks involved, you'll be willing to pay a premium. As an investment I can't think of any valid reasons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 1:06 pm 106
@vreaa:
Thanks for all your work. The the narrative is the most important factor in this mess.
"“The unique thing about Vancouver is nobody builds rental towers (anymore). For the offshore investor properties are easy to rent out as there is no rental stock.” "
Now if rentals truly were good business surely somebody would be building rental towers.
See also this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RO93OS0Sk&fe…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 1:29 pm 107
so much fael today
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 1:32 pm 108
@#108 vreaa, that's funny. You can inform Bob Rennie that Chinese investors put a statue of China's Communist Party chief dancing on Lenin's head in Richmond center.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 1:44 pm 109
@100 crabman, so you think it's not too bad @$8k per unit to repipe the whole building. However this is the first I heard that a building needs repiping after only 16 years.
Last year I had to sell a cash-flow rental condo because the tenant's customers .. oops .. visitors kicked down and damaged the door that cost me over a thousand$. Now I heard there is a provincial wide ruling that all doors and windows irrespective of who and how they are damaged, are to be replaced by the building strata. Now I regret selling the condo, the tenant's customers can break as many doors as they want and I don't have to pay from my own pocket.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 1:59 pm 110
@vreaa: Maybe Bob should walk around the West End once in a while— there is NO shortage of rentals available.
And why would any developer build rental purpose property, which would only sell to a professional for about $200 to $300 per foot based on today's CAP rates, when there is a limitless supply of amateurs who are willing to pay $600 a foot for a structure of less quality in the same location.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 8:26 am 111
@mino3:
You are spouting off about things that you haven’t even bothered to research…. again.
Seriously, why not try and do a little reading and inform yourself?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 3:33 pm 112
@jesse:
Depends on who "you" are and what the premium is. If I saw a place I really liked at a reasonable price (and by that I mean 40% nominal off today's prices) I wouldn't sweat the possibility of a further 10% decline.
But do you really think anyone buying today thinks there's a good chance of prices dropping 50%? I don't think so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 3:48 pm 113
@Dave:
So if you want to be wrong do what Dave says and if you want to be right do what patriotz does.
Dave you have never been right about anything, so clearly doing the opposite of what you say is good advice!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 3:52 pm 114
So when Bob says there are no new rental buildings being built in the west end does he mean that he isn't involved and therefore they don't exist?
http://www.canada.com/Vancouver+approves+high+ris…
The same guys who did Shangr La are building two rental towers in the west end as we speak….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 3:54 pm 115
Rental Rates in the west end are back down to $825 for a one bedroom, easy to find if you walk around.
There was a time 18-36 months ago where I saw landlords trying to get $1150 for similar one bedrooms in the same area.
This is the month before the olympics and prices are already down 30% and falling fast.
One middle aged woman was able to land a one plus den in the residences on georgia for $1,100, originally asking $1,500.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 4:02 pm 116
Back in 1979 people thought prices would go up forever.
In 1981 they tanked hard. It took 18 years to get back to where they had been.
If you talk to people that were involved in 1979 they will tell you no one saw it coming but it still happened.
Ignorance is bliss.
The way Dave gets smacked down repeatedly reminds me of that game, at the pne, where the heads pop up and you smack them down repeatedly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 4:35 pm 117
@Anonymous:
Quite right, I didn't see it coming myself.
But at that time, Vancouver had not seen a RE bust (nor had Canada or the US seen a national bust) since the Great Depression, and everyone thought it would take another GD to get one.
Well it didn't.
What's the excuse this time?
'The four most expensive words in the English language are "This time it's different"'
- Sir John Templeton
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 4:59 pm 118
"@Boombust:A state or God has a limted capabilities to full fill the dream of all human,One should understand within six month but trolling for six year with same issue is nothing more than retard instead of smart."
Well, I'd answer that if I knew what it is you're saying.
Perhaps you should try sign language next time. Or maybe even Pig Latin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 5:34 pm 119
It may not be an "explosion" of listings, but the numbers from January do look promising for the bears!
http://agentwill.com/weekly-stats/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 5:48 pm 120
"But do you really think anyone buying today thinks there’s a good chance of prices dropping 50%?"
Probably less than 1% of Vancouverites think 50% real price drops are in the cards. I would bet that less than 5% think 30%.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 6:01 pm 121
I feel like this is deja vu all over again. I lived in Ireland from 2005 to mid 2009. Until mid 2007 the Irish rode the RE boom like nothing you can imagine. For a population roughly the same size as BC, they took the RE boom to heights that Supraboy can only imagine. I had never seen such displays of wealth in my life- all from RE speculation.
The situation here is eerily similar- and some of the arguments are the same-
The Irish claimed that everyone in Eastern Europe was moving there to work- so there would always be new blood to feed the scheme
Their 12% corp tax rate would ensure a steady flow of corp investment and jobs and drive RE prices
The media (esp newspapers) were trumpets for the REIC. Their ad revenue depended on it. Reporters who questioned the boom were fired.
Anyone who questioned the absurdity of paying 350k euro for a shack 2 hour commute from Dublin was labelled an idiot.
Rents did not support the prices nor did incomes.
It all ended so quickly- and when it happened it happened faster than anyone could have imagined.
Once the construction jobs vanished, everyone realized that the building trade was busy building homes for builders who would be busy building homes for ????
One day a French coworker asked me to help him write a letter to his landlord asking him to lower the rent. He had noticed a flood of similar homes in his hood for a few hundred less.
The landlord accepted a 15% decrease in rent. The next day everyone in the office who rented called their landlord and told them to lower the rent. NOt one person was refused.
Consider that Dublin has a greater diversification of employment than Vancouver and is a 3 hour flight from 1 billion people.
If it happened there, surely it could never happen here.
Yes, it's different this time. It's much worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 6:07 pm 122
patriotz says:
If you talk to people that were involved in 1979 they will tell you no one saw it coming but it still happened.
Quite right, I didn’t see it coming myself.
But at that time, Vancouver had not seen a RE bust (nor had Canada or the US seen a national bust) since the Great Depression, and everyone thought it would take another GD to get one.
the 79 market was easily predictable, the government itself said they would raise interest rates to end the boom. in 81 mortgage rates got up to north of 20% and inflation stalled out. when the government indicates it wants deflation, there will be deflation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:07 am 123
A friend’s 16 year new condo building needs repiping done budgeted at $1 million. The piping system was supposed to last 20-25 years. Each unit has to cough out around $8000. But they have trouble hiring contractors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:10 am 124
A friend’s 16 year new condo building needs repiping done budgeted at $1 million. The piping system was supposed to last 20-25 years. Each unit has to cough out around $8000. But they have trouble hiring contractors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 6:38 pm 125
rubberduckie: the notion we hear in the press about the first half of 2010 being strong due to 09 momentum is wrong in my opinion. the olympics are slightly bearish in my opinion; i think they will do nothing for demand but listings of condos is going to pick up. i anticipate some owners will look to liquidate before expected interest rate increases in the second half. i wouldn't be suprised if the interest rate hikes don't come, demand could be somewhat stronger in the second half than anticipated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 6:54 pm 126
I'm not a bull but some times I feel that you guys are either passing out false hope or misguiding others. No way housing prices will come down that much. We'll be lucky if they are back to 2006 level. Significant number of professionals have had substantial income raises in the last 9 years since Liberals took office.
See for yourselves 2009 incomes
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/financial_stateme…
vs 2001 numbers
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/msc/2001/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 7:01 pm 127
@stagnate:
Interest rates went up to stop consumer price ans wage inflation. The RE bubble was in BC and Alberta and nobody in Ottawa cared about it.
We are currently seeing the lowest consumer price inflation since WWII and it's not going to require much higher interest rates to keep it that way, because of the record levels of household debt. And wages aren't going anywhere.
Note also that interest rates were much lower at the market bottom in late 1983 than at the market top in early 1982. The cause of the bust was not increased interest rates, but the same one as always – prices out of proportion with rents and incomes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 12:54 pm 128
[...] hippo 11:10 am – “A friend’s 16 year new condo building needs repiping done, budgeted at $1 million. The piping system was supposed to last 20-25 years. Each unit has to cough up around $8,000. But they are have trouble hiring contractors.” [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:56 pm 129
"No way housing prices will come down that much. We’ll be lucky if they are back to 2006 level. "
Everybody talks their book. In the end the numbers will tell – everyone place your bets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 17th, 2010 at 11:57 pm 130
@Anonymous #127: That's the funniest reasoning I've ever seen. Some doctors are getting paid more than they used to, so everything's going to be okay!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 18th, 2010 at 9:59 am 131
@rubberduckie:
Niiiice, listings are higher and sales are lower than 2008 so far, certainly looks like the recipe for a crash!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0