Comments on: New mortgage rules April 19th

By: Darsh

Darsh — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:26:00 +0000

@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.

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

By: 2-can-chew

2-can-chew — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:31:28 +0000

@'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.

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

By: 2-can-chew

2-can-chew — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:29:57 +0000

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

By: Re-diculous

Re-diculous — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:15:42 +0000

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

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

By: patriotz

patriotz — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:58:21 +0000

@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.

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

By: neeo

neeo — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:36:15 +0000

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

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

By: oneangryslav2

oneangryslav2 — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:17:03 +0000

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.

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

By: Ulsterman

Ulsterman — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:34:52 +0000

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.

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

By: rp

rp — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:47:03 +0000

#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.

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

By: domus

domus — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:21:51 +0000

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.

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