New mortgage rules April 19th

The Federal Government has just announced their anticipated changes to insured mortgage rules to prevent a Canadian housing bubble (which they see no evidence of yet).

The key changes are:

– borrowers must qualify for the 5 year rate even if they opt for a shorter term.

– on refinancing, the maximum amount of equity withdrawal is reduced from 95% to 90%.

– non owner occupied residences bought for speculation now require a 20% down payment.

More info in this Reuters article. There’s still time to buy (or sell) under the old rules, but you better hurry!

118 Responses to “New mortgage rules April 19th”

- ♦ ↓ ↓ ↓ Click here to leap to comment form ↓ ↓ ↓ ♦ -

    "non owner occupied residences bought for speculation"

    What are the real rules here? do they have some magic formula to decide if a given purchase is for speculation?

    Or is that just a editorial comment, and the rule will apply to all non owner occupied properties, regardless of the motivation for the purchase? Perhaps we will have to wait 'til April to see.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    These are good and prudent changes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    blueskies Says:
    3

    we all knew this was coming…. no big surprise here

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    So in addition to "beat the HST", we can expect to hear:

    "There’s still time to buy under the old rules, but you better hurry!".

    How about this one, "There's still time to screw yourself if you believe everything you read"

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    blueskies Says:
    5

    What are the real rules here? do they have some magic formula to decide if a given purchase is for speculation?

    if you already own a home and leverage the equity to buy another you are a speculator……

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    This is a band-aid on a 3rd degree burn.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @asp:

    do they have some magic formula to decide if a given purchase is for speculation?

    I do. If the rental income does not cover monthly ownership costs, you are a speculator.

    Thus all buyers of investment RE in Vancouver today are speculators.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Here's an interesting exercise:
    http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/buho/buho_007.cf

    Put in 5800/month gross (70K annual ~ average). 35 year ammortization, 2% variable rate, monthly taxes of $300, and heat at $200.

    Maximum mortgage = 410K

    Now change interest rate to 4% fixed 5-year and the maximum becomes: 307K

    However you change the monthly income, the difference is the same percentage, 25%. For example, at 10,000/month you can get a maximum (variable rate) of 816K vs. 612K on fixed 5 year.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @blueskies:

    I don't agree. Lots of people with long term prudent outlooks leverage the equity in their primary home for second home investments. That doesn't make them speculators.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    observer Says:
    10

    Here are some other definitions:

    You are a bank sponsored speculator if buy and sell a property within 5 years, which not your principal residence and for which you took out a mortgage to purchase.

    You are a CMHC sponsored speculator if you are a speculator and your mortgage is insured by CMHC.

    What is necessary to return the market to health is to reduced the number of sponsored speculators because they carry systemic risk to our economy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Carioca Canuck Says:
    11

    These "changes" are nothing more than window dressing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    gvrdpropertyowner Says:
    12

    If CMHC was abolished there would be no need for any of this. All we need to do is let the banks assume the risk for the loans that they approve— including mortgages.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    So, I have now heard and gone through these measures. I believe they amount to a smokescreen, but there is NO substantial change from the status quo.

    In particular:

    – using a 5-year fixed mortgage to qualify borrowers will result in 'inflated' income and some creative 'accounting'; brokers will get around that rule in no time. The only sensible thing to reduce borrowing would be to INCREASE the downpayment: there would be no getting around that, no mortgage broker could help you cheat. The government has chosen not to do that. They WILL pay for it in due time;

    – introduction of a mainimum 20% downpayment for CMHC-insured mortgages on second residences for 'speculative' purposes: what is speculative? If my wife buys a house in her name in order to flip it in 12 months, is that speculation? If I buy a 'holiday' home in Whistler, is it speculation?

    Flaherty has chosen to avoid real change. They want the party to keep on going, without carrying the responsibility for the following bust.

    These changes will have zero impact on Vancouver's RE prices. They will only crash under their own weight.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    patriotz patriotz Says:
    14

    @gvrdpropertyowner:

    All we need to do is let the banks assume the risk for the loans that they approve— including mortgages.

    Um, the problem is that the taxpayers are assuming the risk for the banks. As in CDIC. That is, we are guaranteeing the banks' borrowing, whether or not we are guaranteeing their lending.

    The government has every right to regulate bank lending because the taxpayers are the ultimate bagholders.

    Non-bank, non-insured lenders can and do make mortgage loans on any terms they like. It's their money and they can do what they want with it. Funny thing though, they are getting out of the business. Why is that you think?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @joycer:

    "How about this one, “There’s still time to screw yourself if you believe everything you read” "

    Nah, too much effort for most people, they'd rather just drop the soap in a prison filled with Real Estate agents and have them do the screwing, for a commission of course!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    These may be harsh enough measures to keep the market afloat until April, Real Estate agents will be working their asses off to sell before then and some people will want to buy before the new rules. If there is a surge in activity though it will mean an even steeper drop after April as the last of the future demand (at these prices) is used up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    mathematics Says:
    17

    It's just mathematics, demand has been weakened. The measure of qualifying for 5 year term will affect the Vancouver market, possibly in a material way considering reports of how many people are barely qualifying. There was an article in the Straight over the last year were the couple said the only reason they could get in was the variable rate mortgage, if rates doubled (to something like 4%), they said something like, "we're dead".

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @domus: Sounds like you are predicting a true subprime situation here, whereby lenders start to lend to subprime borrowers under the new regulations. Worst in fact because in the US, at least they were acknowledged as subprime, rather than under the black market subprime. I guess it all boils down to how well the government can enforce these rules.

    Fixed rates are still well below historical norms so there is still plenty of risk in the system even after these changes. And I still laugh every time I hear the the CMHC is insuring mortgages for investment properties without any safeguard that these loans are actually for long term rental stock rather than short term speculation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    White Payer Says:
    19

    I just got pre-approved yesterday. According to the "experts", I can buy a $700,000 house with 10% down on a 30 year term with my $93,000/year salary. Isn't that just about what the Van income/price multiple is?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @Dave:

    If you buy ANY property that is not your primary residence or a recreational property, then you are an investor. The word investor is a pretty synonym for speculator.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Loud Speaker Says:
    21

    @blueskies: Thanks for providing price cap on the real estate and making it stronger than ever before,Most of the Olympics visitors talk less about games and show more of their desire to have a place to live in downtown and Vancouver.New mortgage rules will bring death to already DEAD BEARS CASE.Thanks for your hard work through last decade.

    Question:What is the benefit of seeing future in advance.

    Answer:So we can change it accordingly to reduce risks and damages.

    Message:Enjoy the games and buy downtown/Vancouver condo without fear because nomore downturn in decades to come in the Olympics City 2010 best planet place.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The rule that you have to qualify for the 5 year rate is good. It would be shockingly irresponsible of anyone to buy on the basis of current variable rates. But 5 year fixed rates are under 4%, which isn't much of a buffer for a 25-35 year term.

    The 20% down rule seems like it could be a wash, depending on who is or is not considered a speculator. If rental income covers the mortgage it seems like you're not a speculator. But I don't understand why the government would lend money to this type of business and not another. I think the CMHC should be for owner-occupied properties only.

    So I guess we'll see. I don't think these rules will have much of a practical effect Canada-wide, but that could be the goal. We'll find out soon if Vancouver's market is as reckless as all the bears think it is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @patriotz: "Thus all buyers of investment RE in Vancouver today are speculators."

    I agree.

    Another way of putting this is to ask how many people would be buying at these price levels if they KNEW that prices would be flat to down. Answer: Almost none. Therefore, there is future price increase speculation in almost EVERY purchase.

    A related topic is how demand will respond to dropping prices. The bulls think folks will step in and buy.

    Many of us think that dropping prices will bring in cash-out/run-for-the-exits supply and FALLING demand as the speculative component of the price becomes worthless in a falling price environment.

    The critical point will be when prices drop below the early 2009 trough levels.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    averagejoe86 Says:
    24

    Too little too late. Bubble will burst in coming months.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    So essentially with the new CMHC rules the did nothing… A whole lot of lip service so when the bubble pops they can say "well we tried" 20% rule for investment properties? They shouldn't even be insuring anything other than someone's primary residence. They have no business insuring investment or recreation properties. Talk about forgetting what your mandate was!!! I was hoping for at least 30 year morts with 10% down. Qualifying for 5 year rates will do nothing, the banks will just fudge the numbers to make things work. They have nothing to lose by feeding people mortgages they can't afford.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I think these changes will have an effect. Not because they are substantive per se (as Domus pointed out there will just be even more 'creative accounting) but because the market it driven by subjectivity rather than objectivity.

    Up until recently the proverbial man on the street throught prices would go up & up in the next few years due to [INSERT WEAK REASONING HERE]. Now I don't hear that anymore – even Realtors are saying prices will 'stabilize' and that the price gains of the last few years cannot continue. That is, the generally accepted perception is that we won't continue to see rapid price appreciation.

    It doesn't take much to change the generally accepted perception that prices are going to rise to the generally accepted perception that they aren't. Or, heaven-forefend, that they are going to fall. Something as simple as tightening the mortgage rules might precipitate such a change. Or maybe the post (Olympic) party let-down. Or being presented with the bill for the party.

    Once perception in the market-place changes then that become reality.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is don't discount the human element in all of this. Analyze and critize all you want but at the end of the day every market is driven by human behaviour.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @White Payer:

    Your approved ratio is 7.5, Vancouver median is a 9.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @hackmare:

    The word investor is a pretty synonym for speculator.

    Replace "synonym" with "euphemism".

    A speculator is someone who can only get a positive return from capital gains. If you buy a CSB, for example, you're an investor, but you can't be a speculator because they always sell for face value, i.e. there are no capital gains possible.

    Similarly, if you invest in RE that will provide you with a positive return without selling it for a capital gain – in other words it's cash flow positive on rental income – you're not a speculator.

    We have a word for someone who thinks investing and speculating are the same thing – specuvestor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The very idea that there may be individuals in Vancouver who have extracted funds out of properties up to 95% of their current inflated values is completely mind-boggling. 90% is still speculation of the highest degree.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    “I just got pre-approved yesterday. According to the “experts”, I can buy a $700,000 house with 10% down on a 30 year term with my $93,000/year salary."

    At the current average Vancouver price/income multiple of 9.3, White Payer would be able to buy a property for $865,000.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Loud Speaker Says:
    31

    @averagejoe86: Because you think this is something new but not because these following rules are already implimented begining july 2009.

    BUYING

    Principle Residence:10%-20% down payments

    Revenue property:35% down payments firm on purchased prices despite gain or lost in purchase values.

    Too little too late and too bad for RE Bears who did not buy anything since 2001.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    #6 M If you put a bandage on a third degree burn it will fester.

    "This will help Canadians prepare for higher interest rates. One must always guard against the temptation take on more financial risk simply because interest rates are lower.”

    This move by Captain Crash Flaherty is like the alternative eb=nding to Thelma and Louise where Thelma tries to brake as the back wheels leave the edge of the cliff.

    Any rise in rates are going to put a huge number of FTBs underwater.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Olympic Accomodation not so good after all

    Even the athletes' accommodation at Whistler came under fire.

    "DON'T SNORE — 'THE WALLS ARE AS THIN AS CURTAINS,' Athletes and coaches slam Olympic Village accommodation," reads a headline on Germany‚'s Bild.com.

    http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/sport-n

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    pricedoutfornow Says:
    34

    @Wilma:

    WTF? Shoddy accommodation? But I thought these units were supposed to sell for $$$$$ after the Olympics? And what's this about sharing a washroom? So…I'm supposed to pay $500k for a condo and then don't even get my own washroom? What a load of c**p!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    #29/30

    "banks will still offer a lot to buyers under the new rules. White Payer (vancouvercondo.info 16 Feb 2010 at 10:11 am) would likely still get offered the terms they describe here"

    10% down = a CMHC mortgage, not one the banks would put on their books.

    Do your homework, banks have taken on almost no new mortgages since the credit crisis began. Yet overall mortgage debt has ballooned to new records. Reason, banks aren't lending they are just passing the mortgage off to the CMHC. Actions speak louder than words. The banks are saying it's a great time to buy a home, but what they are doing is avoiding mortgages like the plague.

    "Between the beginning of 2007 and 2009 Canadian Banks increased their total mortgage credit oustanding listed on their books by only 0.01% (see CMHC chart below). One has to question if real estate was such a great investment, why didn't they want to touch it?"
    http://americacanada.blogspot.com/2009/07/cmhc-an

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    /dev/null Says:
    36

    @domus: The government has chosen not to do that. They WILL pay for it in due time

    Have to disagree with you, domus. (Only on this point.) Canadians generally think everything is fine with the housing market and so they will see this as cautious preventative measures, just like that nice Mr. Flaherty is telling us. The myth of fiscally conservative Conservatives will continue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    #36 pofn, We all heard that the bldg quality was absolute shit as it was being slapped together. Obviously there is no insulation in the walls or floors, they didn't wrap the pipes or bother to fit the doors. Apparently the ensuite bathrooms were sacrificed for speed. There is an ongoing issue with water intrusion on the site and in the parking garage. Sweepers are going around with brooms.

    I also heard recently the putting the wino's back into the 250 social housing units is back on the table.

    Who did you say was going to pay $$$$$$$$$ for that crap?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Vansanity Says:
    38

    I do not agree that these rules will do nothing. The bottom line is that it will reduce the amount of debt that can continue to fuel this bubble. No matter how you cut it, the overall amount of debt that can go into the market, will be reduced. Thus reducing overall demand and limiting affordability. All of which are positives for dilligent savers that haven't bought into the bubble hype.

    However, I agree with one poster that this bubble would implode on itself regardless of any rules. I think this helps with the "Perfect Storm" scenario that so many of us saw coming in 2006 and 2007.

    And if I'm wrong that the rules will have any impact whatsoever, there is no denying the fact that the BOC has changed their tune. They are worried and they can't hide it any longer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @/dev/null:

    The myth of fiscally conservative Conservatives will continue

    Only until the house of cards comes down. The Cons knew that all along, but they thought a majority in the last election would give them 5 years for the voters to forget about it. That didn't happen, and it doesn't look like they have any plan B, other than to keep pretending everything is fine.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Vansanity Says:
    40

    Out of curiousity I just ran our current available mortgage for a variable rate vs. a 5 year fixed term. The 5 year fixed term was a 22.45% decrease from the variable rate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Mortgage Brokers still selling the 'its going to go up forever' story.

    Mortgage broker Jas Grewal said one group that will be affected by this is recent buyers who made a small down payment and are struggling with high credit card balances and other debts. By folding these debts into their mortgage, they can reduce their interest rate from as high as 19 per cent down to something closer to 3 or 4 per cent.

    “Let's say you put 10 per cent down – if we go from 95 to 90 per cent, you're not going to be able refinance,” Mr. Grewal said. “You're going to have to wait until your house value goes up and gives you some equity.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/per

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The idea that pre-qualifying borrowers for a fixed-term mortgage at historically low interest rates will protect them from interest rate hikes is laughable. Even if they get a five-year fixed rate mortgage, they'still in serious (in fact, nearly certain) danger of paying a higher rate on the subsequent 25 years of the mortgage.

    But if they do what Flaherty is talking about and qualify for a fixed rate mortgage at today's rates and then take out a variable rate mortgage, it offers no protection. Because by the time their variable rate goes up and they want to re-finance into a fixed rate mortgage, the interest on that fixed rate mortgage will already be higher. It's pure lip service. If Flaherty were really doing something, he would've upped the minimum downpayment on all CMHC mortgages to 20% and reduced the maximum amortization to 25 years, like it was before the bubble.

    My favourite part of the article is the quotes, however. I love the way every single person prefaces their comment about how to deflate the bubble with "There is no bubble, but…" as if denying the bubble will prevent a crash. It'd by like Toyota saying "there is no problem with our accelerators, but just to be safe we're recalling millions of cars."

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    You people should chill out and watch the olympics. Anyone going to the game at 4:30? Any guess as to whether canada can put in 10 goals or more?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Starving Artist Says:
    44

    “Let’s say you put 10 per cent down – if we go from 95 to 90 per cent, you’re not going to be able refinance,” Mr. Grewal said. “You’re going to have to wait until your house value goes up and gives you some equity.”

    LOL I like how rising value is just a given. "New Paradigm" indeed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    supra, you had better hope they don't, as you will run out of fingers…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Mansour al-Hallaj Says:
    46

    It's mind-exploding how the Government is wiggling and struggling and covering their eyes in successful attempts to UNSEE the way out. They are doing tons of unbelievable tricks instead of letting only those access the market, who have one single solid, reasonable tool: money. Not credit, money.

    WHY are they doing it? No really, I have no idea how the Government works – why are they not going the simple way? Who benefits, and how?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    richasian Says:
    47

    It's real simple bears rich people like me need forenting loser like you to pay mortgage forever. New mortgage rules only keep you out of the market and me in it making money so I'm good with that. Happy times forever for me and sad times for you.

    Everyone buy condo during games since it's so good weather.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Rich Scotsman Says:
    48

    49

    It is really simple rich asian attempting to project imaginary wealth – rich locals like me need either unintelligent foreign capital to buy my place allow me to cash out with windfall gains or waves of underemployed, cash poor immigrants to rent my squalid houses….

    Either way, I benefit from the wannabe rich asian culture that seeks to project non-existent wealth at all costs…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    averagejoe86 Says:
    49

    Flaherty is either a liar or incompetent! He has to step down however it may be too late. The bubble is going to burst after the Olympics

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    patriotz patriotz Says:
    50

    @averagejoe86:

    I agree that BC is going to crash and burn, but it's not really about BC. There are only a couple of ridings in the province that change hands between the Cons and the Liberals, so the fallout is not going to amount to much in the big picture.

    What the Cons are really worried about is a BC-style crash and burn in metro Toronto, particularly in "905" (outside City of Toronto). This is where federal elections are decided. I think they are trying to engineer a "soft landing" in that region (by which I mean a descent not exceeding 10% annually), and given it's about 40% cheaper than Vancouver that just might happen, if there isn't a double dip from south of the border. But that's a big "if".

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    superduperbull Says:
    51

    Bear real estate prediction olympic medal count : 0 Gold, 0 Bronze, 0 Silver

    Bull real estate prediction olympic medal count : 1 Gold, 0 Bronze, 0 Silver

    So I guess we could say that the bulls "own the podium" and the bears continue to rent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    scullboy Says:
    52

    I guess even Grampy Tinfoil's right once in a while:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le1469927/

    "'This should have a limited impact on what I see daily,' mortgage broker Peter Majthenyi said "

    By a startling coincidence this dirtbag tried to sell me a mortgage a few years back when I was shopping for my first home. The gist of it was he could arrange for 105% of the purchase price.

    The devil was in the details, however. I found a less disreputable broker who pointed out I'd have spent an extra $50,000 over the course of the mortgage had I gone with that product.

    Weird to hear that name again…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bearsince08 Says:
    53

    International Media: "WORST OLYMPIC GAMES EVER?"

    http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news;_ylt=Apb

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Mansour al-Hallaj Says:
    54

    richasian (#49) – If you were replying to my question, thank you. Thank you for the part where you don't judge me. And that other part, you are doing it wrong: I am not a huge fan of being a slave; I am not earning megabucks, I see no difference between renting from a bank and renting from a human, ergo I am not in the market and feeling good.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @bearsince08:

    The Guardian is a socialist rag with an agenda. They are probably making a push to unionize the games in London in 2012.

    If they were real journalists, they would actually get their asses here in town.

    Pathetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Transparent Says:
    56

    "If they were real journalists, they would actually get their asses here in town."

    Why? So they can see the FACTUAL screw-ups in person?

    What, being here and seeing the failure to have the four torches rise at the OC; seeing the death of the Georgian; seeing the rain washed unsafe slopes of Cyprus; seeing the absence of sufficient public transit; or seeing the faces of those whose tickets were cancelled makes for better reporting?

    Or to see the nice sunny weather, which makes are those FACTUAL events disappear…

    Oh, by the way, I forgot that newspapers NEVER string facts together about events in another country and write news pieces…the Guardian staff must the first ones to do this…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    realpaul Says:
    57

    #55 right you are to point this out. The international media has been dumping on Vanshithouse and the Mickey Duck nature of the games organization and Orwellian Coverups of the local politicians since they got here.

    Many locals are unable to understand that there is a world outside of the FartBubble of the Canadian media.

    a) the local media is run by local advertisers

    b) the local advertisers have a vested intrest in getting you to think that everything is as they say it is so that you continue to blindly turn over your money.

    The new spin on Canada's failure to 'own the podium' is coming in big tear buckets. They are droning the catchphrase 'disappoint and respect' over and over. This concept is to make you empathize with the losing side and not begin to think about how the previuos hype got your expectations running hot. You are now being steered towards other emotional values.

    The mayor now say "We'll follow up AFTER the games" in other words they have no success to actually prove exist.

    The jerkoffs at Vanoc are blaming the atheletes.

    Meanwhile I watched wipe out after wipeout on the hills this morning due to a poorly designed track. Vanoc blames the weather.

    Excuse me? The temperatures right now are exactly average for February. The entire premise of the games has been based on obfuscation and lies.

    Stephen Colbert said it right when he asked,

    "Maybe when they decided that the games should be held in Shitcouver, some one could have asked if it snows up there in February" LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    Hey gang, I know its hard not to support your side and the whole tribal thing but this whole Olympics hype has been nothing but lies and people trying to manipulate you.

    And if you think the excuses and apologies are thick now…..just wait, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @Transparent:

    So they could look at the positives instead of the negatives that losers like yourself like to focus on. Vanoc could do things 99% perfect and dummies like yourself would still complain about something.

    Wow, a torch didn't get up. Everything else went well and was positively received.

    The weather is perfect and it's sunny all week. Get out and enjoy life.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    realpaul Says:
    59

    #57 Dave, you are such a douche, the reporters from the Guardian have been reporting onsite and the Guardian is a very conservative paper. It is actually a capitalist medium and very pointed on its stand against the strident socialist whacko's. I suggest you read it and not simply regurgitate the anxiety of Gordon Campbell. The truth about Vanshithouse is getting out and the local apologists look like fools trying to deny it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    patriotzed Says:
    60

    @Dave:

    OK Dave, here something from the Times of London. You know, the paper that Rupert Murdoch owns:

    "The team behind the London Olympics are leaving nothing to chance in order to avoid the sort of disasters befalling the Winter Games in Vancouver." — Kevin Eason, the Times of London.

    http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/sports/article/45

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    realpaul Says:
    61

    I wonder if ALL the ticket funds from people who get screwed on this Olympics will ever be even close to refunded?

    Will the people who paid more than market for scalped tickets on Vanocs scalper site get the full refund or only the face value. What about all those poor suckers who got ripped off by Vanocs santioned brokers in the US?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100216/wl_canada_af

    This will go down as the games with the biggest black eye ever!!!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    best_place_on_meth Says:
    62

    Question,

    When Flaherty says that banks must approve mortgages based on the 5 year fixed term, is that the posted rate of 5.39% or the typical discounted rate of 4.09%?

    It makes a big difference.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @realpaul:

    Realdummy, you don't know what you are talking about. The Guardian would only be considered conservative from the point of view of a hard core communist.

    Another gold bitches…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    patriotzed Says:
    64

    @best_place_on_meth:

    When Flaherty says that banks must approve mortgages based on the 5 year fixed term, is that the posted rate of 5.39% or the typical discounted rate of 4.09%?

    I would think the mortgages would have to be approved on the basis of the best 5 year rate available to the buyer, which is the market rate (rather than the posted rate).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Why is everyone so testy today? The tightening of mortgage insurance approval requirements is no surprise. The government has to look after its own rear end from time to time, even if it's a bit late to the pitch.

    It's almost a certainty CMHC will use posted rates, not discounted rates, to govern approval criteria. Why? I'm sure most of you can guess but it's because when it comes time for renewal and your income has changed for the worse, nobody else will approve you, even at a higher rate. The bank you're with will only give you posted rates at best because you have nowhere else to go. CMHC intimately knows how the game works and needs to plan accordingly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @patriotzed: Why would CMHC use market rate? Is there even a transparent market for mortgages and does CMHC have access to this data? Just curious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    realpaul Says:
    67

    #65 D, I repeat, you are such a douche. I read the Guardian daily when in London and ocasionally here. The fact that they have reported the truth about Vanshitstain really has the local organ grinders up in arms. But that phony response is strictly for local consumption.

    As was pointed out you must also think that Rupert Murdoch and all the other scathing reports by the international news media is what 'ganging up'? Did ABC do the bed bug infestation story because they are 'ganging up'

    Did the german media who got into Rich Colemans face about why nothing had been done about the DTES have 'an agenda'?

    Sorry DDDDDDDDDave but 'bitches and throwing horseshoes' are for inmates. Are you feeling like an inmate Dave. Maybe you're waking up to the BS?

    Can you really justify spending 7 billion for a medal? Can you possibly overlook the seniors standing in line at the foodbank today? Are you one of those who believes gordon Campbell when he say "The mentally ill people are choosing to live outside". What kind of fuck up can not see through this crap?

    Heres a story on an even bigger attempted tax heist. Do you enjoy having your money stolen from you?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/p

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    best_place_on_meth Says:
    68

    It's great that we OWN THE PODIUM and all, but why do the Americans and Germans keep standing on it?

    It really is better to rent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Transparent Says:
    69

    60

    Pathetic comeback blinder boy…

    "So they could look at the positives instead of the negatives that losers like yourself like to focus on. Vanoc could do things 99% perfect and dummies like yourself would still complain about something."

    They were being generous – they forgot about the 20 minute delay in singing the national anthem because the native "heads of state" were late, the sleeping governor general caught on tape, the fact that the OC portrayed us as a land of drum beating natives who only eat salmon and play with polar bears…

    Oh, and I forgot that news should always focus on the bright side….because clearly that is what you see when you open the pages in the morning….

    Face it, the FACTS of the OC were presented – you may not like them, but the events that they cited did occur…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @realpaul:

    Are you mental? Rhetorical… The Guardian is very left wing. Why would you claim otherwise? Bizarre.

    We have shovelled money into the DTES. Lots has been done. There are limits to how much money we can shovel into a problem. I am sick of dummies trying to lobby government about how they want MY tax money spent. Most of the people complaining are leeches on our government to begin with and they are a net cost to government because they don't pull their own weight. If they really wanted to help fix the problems, they would become more productive and direct their energies into local initiatives that actually help people.

    The Olympics have nothing to do with the DTES. It doesn't take away from it in any way. It's a ridiculous connection to make and extreme left wing socialists like yourself are the ones making it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    patriotzed Says:
    71

    @jesse:

    Why would CMHC use market rate?

    Well if it were just a transparent economic issue the market rate would be what matters, not the posted rate which is just a negotiating position. But I guess if the motivation is to squash the bubble which they don't want to talk about, using the posted rate gives the greatest effect for a given amount of political capital.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Not much of a name Says:
    72

    @Dave:

    I actually agree with you for once.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @Dave:

    I am sick of dummies trying to lobby government about how they want MY tax money spent.

    I agree with you. Which is why I applaud Flaherty's announcement today. I don't want my future tax dollars being used to pay out claims on imprudent speculative purchases via CMHC.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Check Your Facts Says:
    74

    72 Dave

    "The Olympics have nothing to do with the DTES"

    Ummm – check your facts before you lose it on crazy RP.

    Instituting affordably housing that would address, in part. the downtown eastside WAS actually part of the Olympic bid. All those crazy protestors linking the Olympics to the DTES actually have a point….

    Personally, I don't think that VANOC should have linked the two together, but that is what they did. And they have not followed through on their Olympic promise…

    So rant on RP, despite the fact that I ignore you most of the time…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    DTES or Bust Says:
    75

    Dave, Dave, Dave…

    "The Olympics have nothing to do with the DTES. "

    The homeless issue, represented by the DTES, was supposed to be tackled as part of the bid to hold the Olympics. It was DIRECTLY linked to the event. The whole push to open and redevelop SROs was part of the Olympic pledge.

    So you see, you are clearly, and utterly wrong on this one my little Vancouver cheerleader…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    London's bid also included similar measures. It may not have been part of the formal bid but its knock-on effects of revitalisation of East London were being heavily promoted by all levels of government in the lead-up to the IOC vote.

    Similar announcements were made by Canadian politicians for Vancouver 2010. Anyone who claims the Olympics have nothing to do with the DTES is wrong.

    There have been minor DTES funding announcements. It is unlikely these announcements would have been any less without the Olympics. The protesters' complaints have to do with the amount of funding and planning being far too low from what they thought was "promised".

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    scullboy Says:
    77

    @Dave:

    "Wow, a torch didn’t get up. Everything else went well and was positively received. "

    Except for….. you know…. the dead guy.

    Don't get me wrong dude…. I *LOVE* the face that you called Grampy Tinfoil and "extreme left wing socialist". COnsidering how much Grampy hates unions I figured this is just about the worst name you could pull out of a hat. Well done!

    I'm guessing from the tone on the board y'all are feeling a little over-partied or something. Everyone seems pretty stressed. I have to admit the best view of the Olympics is probably from my couch in Halifax…

    Ah well, I'm off to make a gorgeous scallop chowder. I have to do something with the extra lobster stock. Pound for pound lobster seems to be about the same price as chicken this way. it's bad for the fishermen, but great for the chefs!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Vansanity Says:
    78

    As stupid as Supraboy sounds, he actually sounds exactly like the majority of people I work with. They all think the world is going to want to move here because we're having some nice weather.

    Apparently incomes, employment, jobs, taxes, prices, the economy isn't what we should be focused on. Apparently it's meteorology that dictates why people live where they do.

    Interesting… make sure no one tells the world about San Diego, Miami, Phoenix etc.. I hear they get sunshine too on occasion. Slightly cheaper to live than here too.

    It's the Weather stupid! lol

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Why do Realpauls personal, childish attacks v Dave get green arrows while Daves reasoned response receive red arrows? I am a housing bear, but the personal attacks are ridiculas. Dave always keeps a leveled head. I would be embarrassed when re reading your posts, Realpaul. Also, its common knowledge the Guardian is left wing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Different Names, Sam Says:
    80

    81

    Hell, neither Dave nor Real Paul is ever "wrong" despite having factual information presented which is contrary to their views….

    I guess its it the competitive blogging spirit of always having to be "right"….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [...] banks will still offer a lot to buyers under the new rules.  White Payer (vancouvercondo.info 16 Feb 2010 at 10:11 am) would likely still get offered the terms they describe here [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [...] banks will still offer a lot to buyers under the new rules.  White Payer (vancouvercondo.info 16 Feb 2010 at 10:11 am) would likely still get offered the terms they describe here [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Flaherty just confirmed my fears:

    'Reckless' speculators get a cold shower

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business

    "…At the same time, Mr. Flaherty acknowledged that even though most lenders already ask mortgage-seekers if they plan to live in the home they're trying to buy, they're not always sure they get an accurate response. The new rule is “not easy to administer but it's not impossible either,” he said…"

    Also interesting is that finally somebody is raising the issue of CMHC insuring (i.e. subsidizing) the loans of RE investors and speculators.

    Here is Royal LePage chief executive officer Phil Soper:

    This has some suggesting in the industry suggesting CMHC should get out of insuring investment properties altogether.

    “CMHC isn't in the business of helping businesses prosper through investing in real estate,” said Mr. Soper.

    “Their goal is to help Canadians own a principal residence. Their role should be muted, and so it seems rational to make these changes.”

    Exactly! The stated (original) role of CMHC was to help Canadians to own their main residence. What it accomplished was an increase in valuations that mde RE even harder to obtain (typical distortionary effect of subsidization). But now we are at the pure farcical consclusion of this saga: the CMHC is actually subsidizing speculation and multiple onwership, reducing affordability for first time buyers!

    The politicians are silent about this scam. It is one of the biggest scams in this country, worth literally billions of dollars every year. The distortion is huge, the efficiency loss is massive: we need to ABOLISH the CMHC! It is the biggest obstacle to a functioning RE market.

    Write to your MPs! Let them know you want to scrap the CMHC and you are aware of this scam!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Interesting article about the Canadian housing bubble on the Financial Times website: http://www.ft.com

    here's an excerpt:

    One measure of the “underlying supply/demand fundamentals” of housing is the amount home prices rise relative to rental prices. In normal times they rise at roughly the same rate. In the US, house prices rose over 100 per cent between 2000 and the peak of the housing market in 2007, according to the 20-city Case Shiller index, while rental prices grew just 24 per cent. By contrast, in Canada rental prices rose 11 per cent from 2000 to 2008, while the price of a houses in the Teranet 6-city composite index rose 85 per cent over the same time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    hardtimes Says:
    85

    scullboy and dave, what pair, birds of a feather as they say. Dumb and dumber others would call it. both raving deniers. one with an axe to grind the other having been pushed into a toilet and can't get himself out bwahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as RP says

    I'm siding with the international press on the Olympic issue and the sane people who have the guts to make thier views heard on the public denial of issues in Shitcouver.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @daeset:

    DAESET 84

    It sounds like an article worth reading. Your link is to the page of the FT. Could you link to the piece itself, or give the title so that I can search it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @domus: Your link is to the page of the FT. Could you link to the piece itself,

    actually if you click the link, it will take you directly to the article but here is the fully exposed URL:

    http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2010/01/12/bank-

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bestplaceonmeth Says:
    88

    12% of Canadians believe this is the worst Olympic games in history.

    I have to agree.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @daeset: I take that back, the original link got screwed somehow. apologies!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    realpaul Says:
    90

    So Dave, you are saying tha you disagree with the majority of British Columbians who were polled recently and said that the Olympic game were wasting money? These people are all leeches to you? Whys that, because you have bigger bills than you can handle and you need to sell condos or you end up in some east coast shitlick like scully?

    I'm confused, you are saying I'm a leftist and your bumboy is saying I'm anti-union, you two should con fab over at vanfan 2010 and get your stories straight.

    Even the CBC is reporting that the Vanoc Games are the biggest fuck up ever. Don't dump on the international press just because they have exposed you as a denier and a liar.

    You seem to have a name for everyone that disagrees with your twisted POV. Theres a name for people like you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bestplaceonmeth Says:
    91

    I've been hearing more horror stories about the behaviour of the private security personnel "guarding" the Olympics, some of it from close associates who witness it firsthand.

    Apparently these hired goons were hired on 3 weeks notice and were given very limited training, from the RCMP manual no less.

    You have to wonder why the security budget is a staggering 900 million dollars, I mean what self respecting terrorist gives a shit about womens hockey or the giant slalom.

    Then I read this from the security company itself:

    >>>Mark Lalonde of Canpro Global Services says he's more than doubled his staff of 220 to provide high-level protection for host broadcaster CTV, more than a dozen Olympic sponsors and visiting entertainment and sports celebrities.

    Lalonde says their main concern isn't terrorism but the potential for protesters to use global media coverage of the Olympics to make a point at the expense of corporate sponsors.<<<

    http://www.ctvolympics.ca/about-vancouver/news/ne

    Man, that's chilling. The Gestapo is here to protect Coca Cola.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    lol, dave is such an ignorant fool.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Nonymouse Says:
    93

    @64304">bestplaceonmeth:

    I don't know the fucktards throwing newspaper boxes through store windows are pretty much are to blame for the increase in security measures. I know people are angry at the tar sands but dressing up in black and vandalizing storefronts in the middle of the day is a pretty stupid thing to do.

    Now the forces that be just have to point to this incident and say see we needed all this security and we intend to keep these cameras just to keep an eye on the trouble makers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    No rich asians up at whistler this olympics … just whitey

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @realpaul:

    The Olympics are probably going to be a waste of money. If I had to choose between wasting money on Olympics or DTES, I'll pick the Olympics. At least I get something back.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Inventory Says:
    96

    REBGV & FVREB Active listings

    Percent of occupancy

    54.95% Owner Occupied

    18.84% Tenant Occupied

    5.71% Under Construction

    20.49% Vacant

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    realpaul Says:
    97

    The deniers and the Vanocksuckers damage control units are on full spin cycle. They disagree with the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Daily Mail (all commie leftist rags according to Dave and the Newfie bumboy reverse refugee thrall and failed fry cook scullboy) CBC, NBC and ABC have all been negative on the Vancock Games fiasco. I guess David Letterman is a communist too eh Dave ?

    CBC surprised me but then I figured out that they are not dependant on advertisers promises, weird spin on that ticket. They finally prove themselves useful. When even the CBC can't stand the bullshit you know that something BIG is up.

    David Letterman had to say something about the sleazy chezzy way that the Vancock spinsters have tried to blame the Luge guy for his own death. That was really disgraceful.

    That totally dumb fuck Greggy Robertson-Dipshit Boy Finger puppet mayor of The No Vision Vanshithole Party comes out today and blames everything wrong on …get this …THUGS and ….GLOBAL WARMING Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah OMG I'm gonna crap myself.

    The temperatures are bang on average for Vanshit this time of year….no deviation. And this little hole starts back down the Global Warming rabbit hole? hasn't his puppet masters been reading any of the evidence that the entire push for global warming has been exposed as a giant farce!!!!! I posted an article by the Washington Post just this morning.

    Hey Dave, is the Washington Post a pinko rag with a hard on for Vanshithole too? Woodwards and Berstein ring a bell? Watergate???????

    Yeah Dave I want something back too, lets start with my 7 BILLLLLLLLLLION DOLLLLLLLars of wasted money that could have fed the hungry, opened libraries, put text books in the schools, made a few patients less likely to die in the hospital hallway, built some seniors homes built another university, lowered tuitions, made the HST a no go etc etc etc.

    In 'Davespeak' I say to you…'Are you mental?'

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Most of our bad press so far (aside from when we killed that guy and blamed him for it) has been coming from the British media. They are incredibly biased. The 2012 London games are coming and they are even more haphazard than we are. I've been on their "tube". It was like a ferris wheel – start and stop, start and stop. Not at stations mind you, we were just stuck in various places for 5 minutes at a time. I'm sure it was impressive in the 19th century! How these people ever ran an empire is beyond me. I can only imagine it was done with many steam powered contraptions exploding all around them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bestplaceonmeth Says:
    99

    rp: Next time you're in London go across the Thames and check out the Museum of Torture. Then you'll understand how these twisted pricks ran an empire.

    Realpaul: I think you should stop holding back and tell us how you really feel.

    Enough of the wishy-washy, fence-sitting, politician bullshit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Anonymous Says:
    100

    Don't get mad at Dave. He's still smarting from the CMHC bombshell and is taking out his frustration on the homeless.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The Brits will do anything to sell a newspaper. Absolute rags even the Guardian. The Brits can't win at anything even there national sport Cricket. Ha ha what a name.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    This blog is descending into utter nonsense.

    Keep it to housing. Seriously.

    I found today's announcement interesting with the 80% LTV ratio for non-owner occupied mortages being the most significant in my mind.

    What I'm wondering is how they determine owner vs non-owner occupied? I've met a lot of amateur landlords who don't even claim their rental income for tax purposes.

    But if this works it should put a dent in the downtown 600-700sq.ft condo market. If people have to put $100,000 down for what it is essentially a cash-flow negative investment it will certainly spook a few amateurs away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    scullboy Says:
    103

    Hey Grampy, you really should scroll back a little and check out the astonishing number of times you reference excrement in your posts. EVERYTHING is poo – related with you…. references to me, Dave, the East Coast, the West Coast, the media, Halifax, Vancouver, the Olympics, global warming, Trudeau, the Third World…. *EVERYTHING*. YOu are *the* most fecally obsessed old bastard I've ever met, so I really have to ask:

    Does the shit fascination come from some sort of scat fetish or have your ancient and crusty bowels finally let go for good, forcing you to constantly think of nothing more then how to avoid voiding yourself in public?

    I gotta say buddy, feel free to call me every name in the book. I've got 2 careers and a great life on the go out here. Unlike you, I *like* where I'm living, and if you check my posts I think you can see I'm having a blast. I'd much rather be living this life then be some scat-obsessed old bastard screaming at the world because his number's almost up and he plainly didn't get what he wanted out of life.

    I don't agree with Dave at all, but at least he's to be able to construct an argument.

    Christ man, go clean yourself up and examine your life, you're kind of a spectacle. If you really wonder why I hang out here, it's because you remind me of everything I hate in the elderly.

    Seriously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    ReadyToPop Says:
    104

    Now I guess I won't be able to flip that double-height shipping container near the Olympic flame downtown. The one that's been converted into a movie theatre. Jim, you've ruined my plans…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @scullboy:

    Dave's obsessed with intelligence based insults (inferiority complex I suppose) and realpaul is a fecopheliac what else is new?

    Neither really brings anything useful to the table although Dave is pretty fun sometimes because his 'arguments' are so full of holes just waiting to be poked.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @Vanguy:

    yes, the norm is vague and essentially unenforcable. It is just a way to deflect responsibility if anything were to go wrong.

    Abolish the CMHC!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @Drachen:

    I'm not the one to bring IQ into discussions. Project much?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    DoDo1975 Says:
    108

    Still would be interesting to find out exactly what qualifying for a fixed 5 year rate means. Does this mean their posted 5 year term? Someone elses posted 5 year? Their own 5 year discount term? Someone elses 5 year discount term?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    DoDo1975:

    I think this norm is vague on purpose…it can be bent! The government does not want to take away the punch bowl. The party has to go on. A vague norm is hard to enforce. This is the whole point here.

    Example: if I apply for a mortgage I can 'add' expected consulting fees to my income. The number is up to me to make up. Or I could use my partner's income. Or I could pick a favorable interest rate (even if i could never get it).

    All the restrictions based on the income of the borrower are virtually unenforceable. The only restrictions which are hard to elude are the ones pertaining to the actual cost of the estate: if someone tell you that you must have a 10% downpayment, there is no getting around that.

    Any doubts why the government is choosing to restrict reported Income?

    These are the same guys who allow the CMHC to bankroll speculators and investors by carrying their risk. Can you trust them to do the right thing?

    Write to your MPs and make yourself heard (Drachen posted email contacts for your area's MPs in the previous post). Tell them that, if they really want to have free market, they should start by removing the CMHC, which distorts the pricing of risk and encourages reckless behavior by speculators and RE investors, while at the same time pushing up valuations for people on the market for their main residences.

    The thing I find most unsufferable in this situation is the smug face of Flaherty, who goes on TV and claims to be doing the 'prudent' thing. This is wrong and the taxpayers will be left with the huge CMHC bill to settle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    #102 @Vanguy: I've noticed that the first 60 comments usually contain everything worthwhile, 60-90 is where it devolves into a personality driven freakshow, and anything with triple digits is essentially random. I'm surprised Godwin's law is not invoked more often.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Ulsterman Says:
    111

    Got to agree with Dave here. Anyone who has lived in the UK knows that the Daily Telegraph is right of centre and the Guardian is left of centre. This is just a fact of British life.

    I usually like the Guardian's reporting but i became skeptical after reading a report of the Olympics and the reporter described Van as a war zone/police state, with helicopters skimming the roof tops of False Creek. I'd just finished walking False Creek North that day and realised that this was very biased reporting.

    I'm an Olympic skeptic and generally can't abide the mindless ra-ra of people with regard to "our team". I'm also a housing bear. However, the vitriol aimed at Dave appears utterly mindless and unnecessary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    oneangryslav2 Says:
    112

    Anybody who has followed this blog for any length of time knows that I almost never agree with Dave, but Ulsterman (and Davie) is correct–the Guardian is left-of-centre. By the way, ulsterman, the Guardian article describing pre-Olympics Vancouver as a war zone was contributed to the paper by a Vancouverite freelancer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I just have one qyuestion regarding all these things.Will the people who paid more than market for scalped tickets on Vanocs scalper site get the full refund or only the face value. What about all those poor suckers who got ripped off by Vanocs santioned brokers in the US?

    ………….

    neeo

    uk mortgage

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    patriotz patriotz Says:
    114

    @neeo:

    Will the people who paid more than market for scalped tickets

    They paid the market price for the tickets, not "more than market". You are confusing market price with face value.

    Same goes for investments. Most bonds these days have a market price over face value because interest rates have gone down since they were issued.

    But the face value is what the bondholder gets back, and IMHO face value is what those ticket buyers should get back. They knew what it was when they bought the tickets.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Re-diculous Says:
    115

    Very good BNN piece this morning by Danielle Park on the situation in housing – well worth the watch:
    http://watch.bnn.ca/clip267421#clip267421

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2-can-chew Says:
    116

    @'What are the real rules here? do they have some magic formula to decide if a given purchase is for speculation?'

    Again, our gov't can't get their shit together.They are screwing average Canadians over 'over-seas' speculators.

    The Chinese citizen, when he/she buys a property in china only acquires it for 99 yrs. Basically a lease.

    So they come to Vancouver to secure their

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2-can-chew Says:
    117

    @'What are the real rules here? do they have some magic formula to decide if a given purchase is for speculation?'

    Again, our gov't can't get their shit together.They are screwing average Canadians over 'over-seas' speculators.

    The Chinese citizen, when he/she buys a property in china only acquires it for 99 yrs. Basically a lease.

    So they come to Vancouver to secure their money by speculating.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @asp: This is not good about housing market. The reson you will see housing market is go up quite a bit right now due to peopel go crazy to buy.

    However things will change when rules will apply. Because who has enough money to put towards home and stuck for long time to pay mortgage. Looking to persent market condition no one would like to take a risk. I will give 100% Guarantee that market will drop onces the rule apply.

    So if you think you have good money and you will pay 10% down or 20% down as a second home buyer just wait. U will see the good price drop due to drop in number of house sell.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

VCI Network

  • Take a Peak.

    The Vancouver Peak Discussion Forums are now open for collecting stats, sharing data, etc. Please register at the new site and let us know what you think.
Leap to comment form