New unit sales across Vancouver.
Continuing with the theme of yesterdays post, inventory has posted the new unit sales numbers for all of Vancouver. Dramatic, though not as dramatic as Vancouver West alone. Are we seeing the biggest changes in the ‘most desireable’ neighborhoods like we did in 2008?
Aug New Unit Sales
1994 = 371
1995 = 357
1996 = 390
1997 = 412
1998 = 280
1999 = 364
2000 = 215
2001 = 250
2002 = 193
2003 = 416
2004 = 272
2005 = 560
2006 = 389
2007 = 385
2008 = 176
2009 = 383
2010 = 96 ***Aug 17
August 18th, 2010 at 12:16 am 1
First!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:30 am 2
Something to enjoy with your morning coffee:
And for you CMHC fans,
Leverage of 85:1, good thing real estate only goes up or they might be in trouble… or should I say we (tax payers).
http://www.cbc.ca/money/moneytalks/2010/08/michae…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:39 am 3
On a lighter note…
I just received an e-mail from a realtor in Coquitlam.
I was watching a house in the Canyon Springs neighbourhood, which is slightly north of Coquitlam Centre.
The house is 24 years old, 3/3, 1700 sq. ft. yada yada…
It SAT on the market for about three months, starting at 535K
After several reductions, it finally sold last week for 473K.
Prices only go "UP"?, SuperSmartBull? He he…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:40 am 4
"And for you CMHC fans,
CMHC, which insures these mortgages, has about $9 billion in equity, while it guarantees – get this – $770 billion in mortgages
Leverage of 85:1, good thing real estate only goes up or they might be in trouble… or should I say we (tax payers)."
It's been said more than once on this and other blogs that CMHC became RE pimps during this bubble. As all of this unfolds over the next years, and reality sets in, it will become common knowledge that this is the role that CMHC played, particularly with their "forecasts". Their irresponsible actions will be spoken of in Parliament and other high places. But it will be small comfort to us as we foot the bill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:49 am 5
@Boombust: First of all, please stop watching house, it is creeping out owners. Second, thank you for one data point to prove market fall. Continue to use this rigor analysis, you will do well in life. How does list and sell difference prove prices falling, home maybe listed too high because owner and realtor not understand home value.
Third, now that new Johnny Horton mall coming, Coquitlam Centre not poplular so maybe prices fall a bit there before Canucks win Stanley Cup in 2011 starting next leg up to mooon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:58 am 6
@Boombust:
I was looking through some Surrey MLS listings the other day and found a couple of pictures featuring…. snow covered roofs, yards and driveways.
WTF?
Is it "Realturds" or more like "Realtards"?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:04 am 7
"Their irresponsible actions will be spoken of in Parliament and other high places."
The Conservatives will likely be out of office when this reaches max pain and they'll blame everything on whoever follows. "Canada's economy was the envy of the world when we were in office." Rinse & repeat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:05 am 8
@joycer: "has about $9 billion in equity, while it guarantees … $770 billion in mortgages"
While I think CMHC has been reckless and has done the exact opposite of its mandate with its mortgage insurance products, insuring mortgages isn't exactly like insuring cars or hurricane damage. There is residual value in case of defaults.
While the government may need to step in and backstop CMHC I don't think it will be more than $10-20 billion total.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:06 am 9
"…thank you for one data point to prove market fall."
You're welcome. There are MORE examples, just so you know.
Now then, why don't we see what YOU can come up with to show it the other way around?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:21 am 10
"While the government may need to step in and backstop CMHC I don’t think it will be more than $10-20 billion total."
How do you figure? It stands to reason the bulk of CMHC's business has been in the largest, most expensive and bubbliest markets; those most likely to hit the big value hits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:30 am 11
@Boombust:
How about your friend Larry, he has this today:
http://www.yattermatters.com/neighborhood-numbers…
Fraser prices way way way up like kite to moon. So what does that prove?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:37 am 12
"Fraser prices way way way up like kite to moon. So what does that prove?"
It PROVES that we are following the same crash and burn pattern of every other boom market.
As volumes decline, the Greater Fools skew the prices UPward, when they buy.
Hello?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:49 am 13
There are many things that are overlooked when talking about CMHC.
Every time someone takes CMHC insurance out, they have to pay a premium which is somewhere around 1-3% of the ENTIRE mortgage. What are the odds that a bank would have a property on their hands that was worthless? I would say slim and none. CMHC isn't on the hook for the entire mortgage since only some of it will have to be recovered. If someone puts 10% down and the market tanks 30%, CMHC only has to pay out 20% of the value to the bank.
It would not even be close to 85:1 leverage as someone has stated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:07 am 14
@Boombust: OK, so rising price prove crash. So what about your Coquitlam example of 'price decline' which also use to prove crash? Rising and Falling prices both prove crash? That is fantastic news for bears.
Too bad I did not recognize you as bear troll.
Some bears looking for price crash so hard and for so long that they see sign of crash in any data. Even lower toothbrush sales prove that crash is coming. Crazy chicken BoomBust-land bears will be renting for rest of life even if more expensive than owning, because signs will always point to crash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:10 am 15
Decades ago, in university, I remember learning about how the CMHC owned whole empty towns. The one industry died; everyone became unemployed and moved away. The CMHC took big loses and could do very little about it.
Vancouver and Toronto are much different stories. There will always be rental value in the properties. But more importantly, there will be middle class-to-wealthy former owners who can be chase-down for everything they own (outside of RRSPs). Generations of wealth in many established Vancouver families is about to be recovered by the CMHC and/or banks. You are going to hear former trust fund brats say "you want fries with that?".
And the wealthy immigrants? Expect to see expensive cars abandoned at the airport. Any wealth they patriated to Canada, any businesses they built, gone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:13 am 16
@SuperSmartBull:
Only 7 sales! This not enough to use as price data. Sales have crashed over 50 percent. SuperSmartBull can't sell anymore, need to deep throat renter in shower to keep from moving out. Think ahead this time, buy strepsils.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:14 am 17
"So what about your Coquitlam example of ‘price decline’ which also use to prove crash…"
Well, IT SEEMS TO ME that a very nice house IN THAT AREA, (which I happen to know) that SAT for AS LONG AS IT DID and then sold for THAT price…looks and smells like a correctiondeclinetumbleslidecrash in prices.
Silly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:16 am 18
re: CMHC comments:
$770B in mortgages
$9B in equity
To G's point, it's not as bad as made out. If made assumption of a foreclosure rate of 1% (worse than current US rate of ~0.7%) then we're talking about $7.7B in mortgages affected. If we make a wild ass guess of all foreclosed mortgages being 30% underwater (probably overstated) then we're only talking about $2.5B. In that scenario CMHC is adequately funded. Correct?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:16 am 19
"Think ahead this time, buy strepsils."
Or, spray for Athlete's Foot, at the very least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:19 am 20
@fixie guy: For CMHC loss estimates: as a quick estimate, let's say the national market drops 30% from peak in 10 years. Assuming the provision remains untouched, let's assume the average mortgage is 15% below peak prices. That works out to about 15% average loss on $500BB, or $75BB notional shortfall assuming no principal payback (which there is). This would be the amount CMHC is on the hook for if all loans defaulted.
Now assume 20% foreclosure rate on insured loans over the 10 years, so that equals $15BB CMHC must pay out over 10 years.
They will make some up by increasing premiums, tightening approval criteria, and cutting staff, as well as likely turfing some of their actual housing affordability initiatives (which MI is not). If we also include the principal reductions but also assume defaults are more common with those with lower equity positions, I think they will probably stay solvent but will be under massive pressure to reconstitute their balance sheet if these losses materialize.
I just don't see how CMHC is a "massive" liability to the government. It may well cost some billions but it's not in the order of many tens of billions or hundreds of billions from what I can ascertain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:28 am 21
As it stands now, China is exporting is bubble money into
Canada, USA, Europe, Hong Kong and Australia/NZ.
We as a nation are now relying on foreign investment to keep
the music going.
Bubbles are the same as pyramid (ponzi) schemes.
They collapse when there are no more new entrants at the bottom.
One way to keep bubble going is allow foreign entrants in.
Eventually though, foreign buyers also run out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:41 am 22
@Bilbo Bloggins: By your reasoning we could say any economy, since the beginning of time was a bubble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:42 am 23
Still missing inventory numbers. Perhaps there are fewer new units out there right now? There was that period a couple of years ago when construction basically ground to a halt, after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:46 am 24
When will we start seeing the impact of the 350 chinese buyers in the stats?
The first planeload arrived today…assuming everyone on board buys 1 house in Vancouver, that should bump up the monthly sales quite nicely!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:56 am 25
@SuperSmartBull:
>>>Crazy chicken BoomBust-land bears will be renting for rest of life even if more expensive than owning, because signs will always point to crash.<<<
Nonsense, little cheerleader.
I can only speak for myself but if owning becomes cheaper than renting then I will no longer be renting.
It just makes sense. Do you know what sense is?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 2:59 am 26
Bear Food. That's what's being shoveled on this site as of late.
Yesterday's post showed August sales in Vancouver West, but conveniently forgot to show the actual number of active listings IN Vancouver West for the same period.
Today's post is of the same nature … the number of "new homes" sold. And again they are not posting the number of new homes that are actually ON THE MARKET in the same period.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:00 am 27
@Best place on meth:
I don't think so. Sore throat and itchy feet clouding his sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:07 am 28
@Anonymous:
When will we start seeing the impact of the 350 chinese buyers in the stats?
The first planeload arrived today…assuming everyone on board buys 1 house in Vancouver, that should bump up the monthly sales quite nicely!
OK, but what if each buy 3 and huzba buy3??? Kite to the moon, I tell ya!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:21 am 29
I only read the foreclosures on this blog.
They have a point worth looking at
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:21 am 30
@fixie guy:
Don't be so sure. The Liberals know full well what's going to happen, and they don't want to force an election until the blame can be placed on the Cons. And Harper is not going to deliberately call and lose an election just so the Liberals can take the blame. He loves power too much.
The Cons' strategy was to pump the RE market and get a majority in 2008. They didn't pull it off, and there really isn't any plan B.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:38 am 31
@Vanrod:
How does nonsense like that get voted up? Economy and wealth can grow perfectly fine, supported by population growth, productivity gains, technological innovations and advances, and investment into such productive enterprises. Not everything that goes up in value is a bubble, that's just basic economics. By your reasoning, economic principles are irrelevant, since everything's a bubble so why bother with any analysis; we should all go home now.
And yes, the real economy, no matter how robust and grounded, would tank if new entrants dry up (ie population starts declining drastically). That doesn't make it a bubble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:41 am 32
Why only factor in the Chinese? The first of several boats from Sri Lanka just landed with over 500 people on board. They had to pay $45,000 for the boat ride, surely they'll have enough money to buy a few condos.
Focusing only on rich Chinese immigrants is racist. The whole world wants to live in a 400 square foot granite and stainless steal box.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:43 am 33
@Anonymous:
"And again they are not posting the number of new homes that are actually ON THE MARKET in the same period."
Why don't you enlighten us with the Listing Numbers then. By the way, I thought Bulls were complaining that Bears were too obsessed with inventory numbers and should focus on sales. Make up your mind baby Bull.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 3:57 am 34
@Anonymous: "they are not posting the number of new homes that are actually ON THE MARKET"
Doesn't matter. Developers and Realtors only get paid with SALES, not inventory. And by that measure they're not collectively making that much money these days. For some I think it's soon coming time they find out the colours of their parachutes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:09 am 35
Timely article at Automatic Earth today:
Fannie and Freddie : The Exit Doors are Shut
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
Sounds strangely familiar…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:24 am 36
"starting next leg up to mooon."
another leg up for supersmartbull?
with both legs up genitalia is now exposed
supersmartbull is about to become super dumb steer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:28 am 37
This isn't going to happen in Vancouver. It just isn't. When was the last time it was cheaper to own in Vancouver? Not being snotty — this is a genuine question. I can't even recall when it was cheaper to own rather than rent.
If you're looking at an investment property then I can understand applying this metric. But for buying a home, I don't think its a good idea to be so rigid. Depends on how important home ownership is to your family. I suggest telling your spouse that due to your own/rent calculations there is virtual certainty of never owning a home in Vancouver (even if it falls 25%) and see what his/her reaction is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:35 am 38
What exactly is the point of CMHC? To have a government role in the RE mortgage industry? To make some money as an insurance business? To increase home affordability for lower incomes?
Because if its the latter, it has failed miserably. I can understand the role of a CMHC-type entity but if the purpose is to allow individuals to finance their homes, not only has this not been achieved but they have actually made homes even less affordable. Massive Fail.
IMO, CMHC should only be insuring FTHB's who are buying a principal residence. Period. They should not be insuring investment properties and current homeowners.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:41 am 39
#20 J, naturally we won't see an entire meltdown of the 700 billion dollar plus mortgage portfolio, many people actually have equity. The problem we face in Canada is that the majority of FTB's in the past five years have none. The CMHC debt is almost as large as the national debt……the idea that we can double our payments through increased taxation would only serve to drive more people out of the mortgage market ( similar to what is expected as CPP payments do as they increase) because many FTB's are mere percentage points of income of 'affordability'.
My point…….?????? who gets to pay for the meltdown…….even if it is marginal ( 10 to 30%)and people walk away from underwater mortgages? An increase in CMHC insurance premiums will only exacerbate the affordability issue ergo fewer people buying. Aren't the realtards blaming the fall for HST increases?????
What is the straw that breaks the camels back?????? Only one thing can solve the issue of a reliable insurance program…more particapation and that is not going to happen without buyers…..something has to give…..I suggest its the pricing……but that will wipe out the last five years of FTB's equity to get a new crop of suckers in…….Oh Oh the circle of death.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:46 am 40
@realpaul: "I suggest its the pricing"
Absolutely. "It's the price, stupid."
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:54 am 41
@Anonymouse:
When I bought in 2004, my 5yr fixed mortgage, property taxes, and strata fees were break-even with what it would cost to rent (Kits). I ran the calculations before committing to buy.
So to answer your question, it would have been cheaper to buy than to rent (roughly) from 1999-2004.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:54 am 42
@Anonymouse: "This isn’t going to happen in Vancouver. It just isn’t."
For condos it most definitely will. SFHs in the city itself will most likely stay cheaper to rent than own but that's justified due to density increases and commensurate capital appreciation.
The SFH market can see a large variance in pricing and quality. Cookie cutter condo prices are a much better gauge of overall market health IMO as they're pretty much as close to a commodity as you can find in real estate. When these types of dwellings are cheaper to own than rent, the bottom is nigh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:56 am 43
@ jesse
"For CMHC loss estimates: as a quick estimate, let’s say the national market drops 30% from peak in 10 years."
You lost me already, that sounds wildly optimistic given the extreme and rapid price rises. Only 30% in two years would surprise me. Then we factor in how severely underwater first buyers with little equity react, the job losses when Canada's little real estate engine that could no longer can, on top of unknowns like future interest rates, and that scenario reads to me more like a 'whew, got away with it' best case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 5:19 am 44
@Anonymouse:
I rented a suite similar to this one in 2001 for $900. This unit sold for $95,000 in May 2001, for a pric/rent of 105, which made buying it cheaper than renting.
Today they are asking $327,000 and they rent for around $1300, for a price/rent of 251.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 5:24 am 45
@fixie guy:
Anti1cipating more than a 30% decline in home prices across Canada is too drastic. Certainly I believe condo prices in Vancouver can fall 50%, as can the houses in the out-lying areas like Surrey, Langley, etc.
But the best areas, such as Vancouver West, won't drop much more than 15%. There is a lot of demand for SFH especially in the best areas. Most areas of Canada didn't go up as much as Vancouver and Toronto, which means they won't go down very much either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 5:41 am 46
@jesse:
When these types of dwellings are cheaper to own than rent, the bottom is nigh.
I guess you meant it is a balanced market at that point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 5:42 am 47
"I was watching a house in the Canyon Springs neighbourhood, which is slightly north of Coquitlam Centre.
The house is 24 years old, 3/3, 1700 sq. ft. yada yada…
It SAT on the market for about three months, starting at 535K
After several reductions, it finally sold last week for 473K."
I did a double-check on that. Actually, it was on the market for over 5 months.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 5:45 am 48
@Eric Jackson:
Anti1cipating more than a 30% decline in home prices across Canada is too drastic
Too drastic for whom?
For speculators?
For Realtors who are speculators?
For money laundering criminal element?
For escorts and pornstars?
For wife and huzba who buy 3+3?
For Tamil boat refugees?
C'mon, these guys eat drastic for breakfast, I'm sure they can take it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 5:53 am 49
But the best areas, such as Vancouver West, won’t drop much more than 15%.
this is a fascinating and pervasive myth, I wonder why it has such staying power? In previous market crashes it was precisely the most desireable areas that saw the biggest drops, see 1981 and 2008 for example.
It makes sense when you think about it- the "best" areas are the most likely to get overbid in a boom and have the furthest to fall in a bust.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 6:04 am 50
@Eric Jackson:
Don't know why you got voted down, I agree that across CANADA prices probably won't drop more than 30%.
I disagree with your view of Van West though.
As desirable as it may be, this area got out of whack the most in the entire country.
When the AVERAGE house gets up to 1.7 million there's going to be big problem down the road.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 6:04 am 51
What's this talk about Vancouver West won't drop by more than X%.
We all no that RE never goes down…so that is a moot point!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 6:29 am 52
@Eric Jackson:
Actually, Eric, I would argue that areas like Van West have been bid up the most and thus would have the farthest to fall (amongst detached properties).
Still, I'd imagine most areas will suffer a similar % decline, just depends most on what the % runup is from the long-term mean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 6:38 am 53
@crabman:
Unless taxes, strata and maintenance came in well under $300/month it may still have been cheaper to rent.
Just goes to show how far down we have to go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 6:42 am 54
Unfortunately for the most desirable areas the buyers are usually moving up from the less desirable areas and condos. Rising prices increase the equity in these less desirable areas allowing them to be sold at a healthy profit. This gives them a big enough down-payment to move to the more desirable area and thus supports the price growth in the more desirable area. A crash in the less desirable areas will remove the move up buyers from the equation. Without them where is the support for the market going to come from?
It's a long way down from the top of a pyramid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 6:54 am 55
"I suggest telling your spouse that due to your own/rent calculations there is virtual certainty of never owning a home in Vancouver (even if it falls 25%) and see what his/her reaction is."
– I suggest getting a spouse who isn't a financial moron.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 7:00 am 56
You have to buy know. This is the bottom before prices go to a new high. Buy now or you'll die of bitterness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 7:07 am 57
This place is starting to give off vibes of a Florida or California RE forum circa 2006. 30% too drastic? Good luck with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 7:22 am 58
@Raguz: "I guess you meant it is a balanced market at that point?"
I'm not sure there will be much undershoot. I don't think it's a sure thing that prices will fall much more than 8-10% cap on good quality condos.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 7:29 am 59
Hey bears, wake up! You are waiting for home price to come down to your income level. Tom Vu did not get rich using this strategy. He raise his income to match house price. That way he become so damn rich. You think girls care that I am ugly? No, because they see I drive Bentley with 2 more in garage. So time to get off your lazy ass, tell other lazy bear to get lost and start making money Tom Vu style!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 7:32 am 60
@fixie guy: "Only 30% in two years would surprise me."
In terms of CMHC's portfolio, while they have insured many mortgages in the past couple of years, it has not resulted in an egregiously low average LTV of the collateral. Much of the MI was accumulated when prices were lower. Run the numbers however you see fit but, from what I see, CMHC's biggest flaw isn't its fiscal health, it's its mistaken belief that offering MI and clearing MBSs makes housing MORE affordable for homeowners.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 7:44 am 61
"I don’t think it’s a sure thing that prices will fall much more than 8-10% cap on good quality condos."
Why not? Before this ridiculous boom began, a condo cost peanuts.
Now, with so much overbuilding, and with tonnes sitting empty, I think there will be gnashing of teeth and sorrow a'plenty before this is said and done.
Look to Miami and San Diego as places with HUGE condo gluts and see what happened to them.
Someone posted a Crigslist ad just today, on Garth's site. He/she/it is trying like hell to unload three assignments in D/T Vancouver.
Would YOU want to be in their shoes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 8:21 am 62
Deflation the heck. Ask Pretcher and likes to explain to us why someone is bidding $130 for Potash now and the stock is now trading at $148, expecting more entering the bidding.
Ask him why those Farming equipment stocks are up.
Back to real estate. Those bears are looking for buying a 60 lot house on the West side below 1M. In their dream IMO. Look at prime real estate in cities like San Francisco, Palo Alto, D.C, downtown Seattle. They are only off 20% from its high!! Who cares if real estate is in a dumpster in Florida or LV. Location location. Nobody forced you to buy the rural areas. Germany experienced the least amount of real estate appreciation in the last decade and mind you, you still need > 1M EUR to buy prime real estate in cities like Heidelberg (100 KM south of Frankfurt).
http://www.immonet.de/exposeansicht.do?mandant=Af…
Those deflationists the size of the pea fails to realize that inflation or deflation is not a force exerting on all sectors at once. Those preaching deflation because M3 is falling or debt is shrinking have their eyes closed on the continuous inflation of the Central Bank's balance sheet. M0 or Money base is exploding and is leaking out to sectors like precious metals, farmlands, and fertilizers.
There are lots of money to be made in those sectors and Pretcher and the likes are asking people to sit on worthless piece of paper currencies???
Sure. Good luck with them waiting for 60ft lot on West side selling < 1M soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 8:24 am 63
I remember Patina (attached to downtown YMCA, still under construction) being marketed back in 2007. That was the pinnacle of the Vancouver boom. 1 bedroom suites with NO VIEW were asking for 500,000 and more. How do I know? I was stupid enough to line up overnight to buy.
However, all 1 bedroom suites were sold out just before it was my turn to buy. I was gutted, thinking I missed out on the great investment opportunity. I was thinking of using up ALL my saving and stock for the deposit, which was around maybe 100k?
Now boy am I glad I didn't line up early enough to grab a suite. If I had bought one, I would be spending sleepless nights. I can't begin to imagine having to face the prospect of being stuck with that large a mortgage for a shoebox. (My bank approving the financing would be a different matter…)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 8:29 am 64
Infamous Nanaimo rat house to appear on international TeeVee:
An international video crew brought the bright lights to Nanaimo this week to shoot footage about a woman's problems with a rat infestation.
London-based Darlow Smithson Productions was drawn here by Tamara Hounsome's story about a rodent problem first discovered in May.
The shoot is for a documentary to air on the Discovery Channel's Animal Planet.
…
"She still hasn't located her landlord, and this week, Orkin trapped a "huge mother" rat downstairs in her Wellington-area rental house.
"That's 32 rats now," she said.
Hounsome has been keeping a photographic record of the vermin, just in case the landlord returns demanding back-payment on the rent. She said she was advised by the B.C. Residential Tenancy Branch to withhold rent payments until the landlord addresses the rat problem. That still hasn't happened."
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Rats+house+going+inte…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 8:39 am 65
@Boombust: "Look to Miami and San Diego as places with HUGE condo gluts and see what happened to them."
As much as I'm bearish on real estate, what makes you think there will be as much oversupply in Vancouver as in these cities?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:04 am 66
"As much as I’m bearish on real estate, what makes you think there will be as much oversupply in Vancouver as in these cities?"
Because, like those places, it's the best place on earth.
Silly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:06 am 67
@ jesse
"… it has not resulted in an egregiously low average LTV of the collateral. Much of the MI was accumulated when prices were lower…"
The first point is a bit of a question beg. Of course loan to value won't look bad at a bubble top. Re: the second, again, how do you figure? CREAstat's data shows nationally sales tracking prices, rising linearly from 2000 to 2009, followed by the 2009 burp and a return to peak levels. Most sales appear to have transpired at the high price end of the run.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:10 am 68
Anyone know what the current inventory levels are?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:11 am 69
New Listings 201
Price Changes 80
Sold Listings 91
Anyone going to check out Garth in Sept? I saw him here in 2008. He put on a good show!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:12 am 70
@Jim Bob:
17k.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:18 am 71
@paulb.:
Thanks Paul
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:32 am 72
@fixie guy: "Most sales appear to have transpired at the high price end of the run."
I don't have CMHC's annual report in front of me, but they do address the loan vintage distribution in the report. Certainly there has been increased levels of CMHC insured loans in the past couple of years but that has to be weighed against the previous years' loans that will have some principal payback built up. In total CMHC makes some argument for their loss provision levels and I think they are not absolutely unreasonable.
Also LTV is based upon LTV at time of MI purchase, not market value and, as I mentioned, is adjusted for principal payback of the older vintages still under protection.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:40 am 73
"Anyone going to check out Garth in Sept.?"
I registered only yesterday for his "possible" second seminar. I hope they are able to go ahead with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:43 am 74
@Crabman & @M-Says,
Interesting anecdotes on the rent vs. own. No offense, but when I think about home ownership rent vs. own I tend to think of SFH. To my mind, condos are the last resort option only because of high unaffordability with SFHs. I'm not being a snob, chances are I will end up in a "condo" ownership. But I think for the average family they are thinking of a SFH and I don't see that rent vs. own calc ever working again for a SFH. Anyway, I did my own calcs back in the late 90s and it always seemed cheaper to rent.
Those Fraser prices are crazy! Over $100k increase from last month?! This is even with median price so its not due to anomaly sales. But just the fact that median prices are even at $900k for that area (which I don't consider particularly desirable) just blows me away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:55 am 75
@Anonymouse: Larry's numbers are useless based on the sample size. They are too small to be relevant. Look at the Kits posting…huge drops. It all depends on the sales mix.
Just wait for the "official" numbers in a couple weeks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 9:56 am 76
@paulb.:
>>>Anyone going to check out Garth in Sept? I saw him here in 2008. He put on a good show!<<<
Did he bring puppets and do his impressions of Cameron Muir and Helmut Pastrick?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 10:05 am 77
@Not much of a name…: Oh, you're right. That was based on a whopping 7 sales!!
Those sales numbers posted earlier this week for "Vancouver West". I assume these are Vancouver Westside and not West Vancouver. Does this exclude downtown sales? The numbers posted seem low in general compared to the Vancouver total. Are there really that many more sales in East Van or is downtown excluded from Van West?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 10:33 am 78
@Best place on meth:
Sort of, he had two of those guys who wear top hats over the upper half of their bodies and paint lips on their distended bellies come out for a few laughs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 10:34 am 79
Just watched CBC's report on the arrival of Chinese tourists.
Silly tourism industry, they actually believe they are here to check out the sites.
Tour guides will be so disappointed when all the questions they get are "When is the open house?" or "How much above asking price do I need to bid?"
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 10:45 am 80
@Anonymous: "they actually believe they are here to check out the sites."
Maybe they are but, from what I have seen of Chinese tours — and having actually gone on a couple — the local tourism industry won't be wringing their hands for very long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 10:53 am 81
@Dan in Calgary:
"It’s been said more than once on this and other blogs that CMHC became RE pimps during this bubble"
I keep an eye on the pimps.
And they pimped aggressively because the more dates (mortgages) they pimped the larger CMHC's portfolio became and the more hundreds of thou$sands of dollar$ their pay increased.
Pay packages are based on the size of the portfolio managed, so it was in their personal interest to increase it at no personal risk.
Immoral bastards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 10:58 am 82
@Anonymous: #79
I saw that story and was simultaneously amused and embarrassed at how this province sucks up to China these days in the hopes that they'll bail out our 1 dimensional economy by throwing a few yuan our way.
Gordo himself was there with a bunch of mounties in uniform bowing down to our new Chinese overlords.
The bewildered Chinese tourists looked like they just wanted to see some bears and get some decent dim sum for a change.
"Which way is Lichmond?"
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 11:35 am 83
@Anonymouse: I don't expect that luxury homes, or average SFH's in much of the westside will ever be cheaper to buy than rent. But for the kind of home the average person will buy, those numbers need to be very close. This would include most condos, and SFH's in most of greater Vancouver.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:03 pm 84
@jesse: Yay!! Minimum wage tourism jobs for everyone!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:04 pm 85
@jesse: Jesse, what do you mean?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:37 pm 86
@Cranteeny Bitchezz: Less than minimum wage to make the numbers work. There are all sorts of tours already offered in Chinese, Korean, Japanese,etc. with different qualities. From what I saw the margins are razor thin on the tour packages.
A family friend flew through Shanghai to Vancouver. He said the meals were absolutely horrid. His bread was mouldy and the attendant told him everyone else was eating it so there was no problem LOL! Cheap fares but brown bag it. Competition is intense for tours from China. I don't think it will add to GDP as much as would other areas of tourism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:48 pm 87
@crabman: impossible bear since everyone know rent didn't go up in last 10 year according to most bear. Unit should be $900 still and condo worth about 1 gold bear bar. It's all over anyway bear turn up Roten Apple by AIC and forget it all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 12:56 pm 88
turn up Roten Apple by AIC and forget it all
I was actually listening to this on the way home from work today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:39 pm 89
Looks like sales are pretty consistent around 90-110 on most days. What do the bears think, is this good or bad?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 1:42 pm 90
@ superduperbstime: "impossible bear since everyone know rent didn’t go up in last 10 year according to most bear.
Pssst, chuckles… red line less than zero is four fours bad fortune:
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/data/ResidentialRea…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:12 pm 91
@Woodrow: What do you think Mr. Woodrow? What does this mean? Not a fugging thing that's what.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 4:15 pm 92
@jesse: Shouldn't these uber-riche Chinese tourists be flying over here in their G5's?
Mouldy bread, WTF? These are our new overlords, they deserve respect dammit!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 5:15 pm 93
Aug Richmond Unit sales
1994 = 328
1995 = 269
1996 = 306
1997 = 282
1998 = 183
1999 = 200
2000 = 239
2001 = 359
2002 = 336
2003 = 485
2004 = 331
2005 = 529
2006 = 412
2007 = 502
2008 = 178
2009 = 480
2010 = 198 ** Aug 18
Aug Unit sales Port Coquitlam
1994 = 104
1995 = 103
1996 = 85
1997 = 88
1998 = 67
1999 = 86
2000 = 66
2001 = 86
2002 = 85
2003 = 111
2004 = 80
2005 = 116
2006 = 106
2007 = 139
2008 = 64
2009 = 117
2010 = 30 ***Aug18
Aug Unit sales Maple Ridge
1994 = 104
1995 = 196
1996 = 141
1997 = 157
1998 = 146
1999 = 128
2000 = 121
2001 = 206
2002 = 186
2003 = 268
2004 = 158
2005 = 222
2006 = 211
2007 = 169
2008 = 108
2009 = 196
2010 = 59 ***Aug 18
Aug Unit sales Coquitlam
1994 = 184
1995 = 236
1996 = 167
1997 = 173
1998 = 136
1999 = 167
2000 = 142
2001 = 218
2002 = 208
2003 = 258
2004 = 185
2005 = 295
2006 = 249
2007 = 253
2008 = 106
2009 = 290
2010 = 72 ***Aug 18
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 18th, 2010 at 11:17 pm 94
Scanned the rags this am…not a word from the pimps…..are they getting another propaganda campaign and coordinating their efforts? I expect so……come Sept…"prices will be down"…."rates will be low'….new appliances will be gleaming….. and the local meida whores will be doing walk through tours of the usual plaster cat boxes and spinning real estate porn for the unwary and the unusually stupid who may have just emerged from grandmas basement with a mitt-ful of cash from the old broads cold dead hand.
Meanwhile I 'm wandering the concrete canyons of Manhattan laughing at how some smarmy degenerates have the audacity to refer to Vancouver as a city. There are shopping arcades larger than Vancouvers downtown. Amazingly there are businesses dominating the street fronts instead of a dead zone of crappy condominium towers as in Yaletown and Coal Harbour etc. NYC functions as a city and not a strip mall. I actually walked more than six blocks and didn't run across the beginning of a deplapitated tract of crappy houses….very refreshing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2010 at 12:10 am 95
@realpaul:
…or homeless people, drug addicts, and crack whores that have fled the rest of the country for warmer weather and easy access to their poison of choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 19th, 2010 at 6:33 am 96
#95 YLT-B. I saw one (1) panhandler on 42nd St close to Grand Central this am……no crackheads, crack whores, drunken yahoos….no bad people, homeless, no one sleeping on the street, in the parks, no pissing smell , no junkies crapping in the doorways of the needle exchange neighbours ( CAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE) no running sewage in the alleys, not a single rat, no roaches…….none of the things that are staring you in the face in Vancouver every day. And this is the biggest metropolis on the planet????????? Vancouver is a total shithole compared to New York. And…….great public transpo btw,,,,,airconditioned and on time….with turnstyles and conductors….easy to use.
The myth about people being rude here….totally false….people here are friendly and helpful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2010 at 12:51 pm 97
i live in curry cunts big ass hole pop corn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 6th, 2010 at 12:54 pm 98
i think tyt radios aka fake ctss in poop call police
Like or Dislike:
0 
0