The story submission page is back!

Those of you who regularly submit news stories here have noticed that the submission page has been out of commission since we rebuilt the site. Well it’s now back in operation.

If you want to post an article simply go to and add it there.

The story submission form is only visible to registered and logged in users. Stories are moderated and may be edited before publishing. As always, posts must not be copy and paste stories. If you link to a published news story, please only quote a portion with a link to the original story and add your own comments to put it in context.

Contributors who have had a certain number of approved story submissions gain the ability to publish stories directly without moderation. Spam story submissions are obviously not welcome, but opinions and analysis are appreciated.

Please post any issues you have with the story submission feature in the comments below.

Thanks for being a part of the community here and helping to make this site a more interesting forum!

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


[…]Vancouver Condo Info » The story submission page is back! » Vancouver Condo Info[…]…


I was talking about this year alone. It just breaks the ice and gets the ball rolling — downhill.



In the States, prices are back to 2002 levels and still dropping.


@Laibach: Exactly. A 30% drop only brings the prices 5% below what detached was 3 years ago. Weren’t prices unaffordable then?



30% correction and then what? Do you think condo shoe-boxes priced at 600K after correction would be alright at 420K? Or crappy east-west-side dumps, 100 years old, priced at 1888K should sell for 1350K? 30% drop is just a milestone on the way down and still far far away from prices getting close to fundamentals or making any sense. At least 70% drop in a span of few years must be an imperative for this city/province in order to reinvent itself and get on the healthy ground.



The 48% is province wide. I wonder how many in Vancouver will be able to handle a bump in rates, particularly if the bump is more than two percentage points.


As concerns over the state of the Canadian real estate market abound, a new survey says nearly half of Canadians are unsure about their ability to afford their homes if rates rise by as little as two percentage points…

Regionally, residents of Alberta were the least concerned, with 73 per cent saying that rising rates would not affect their ability to afford their homes, while residents of British Columbia were the most concerned. Just 48 per cent B.C. residents are comfortable in their ability to handle higher rates.

Of course, you may also substitute “unemployment” or “higher living expenses” for “higher rates”.

fixie guy

14 Yalie Says:“The US bubble was caused by the same things ours was: artificially low interest rates and government mortgage insurance.”

That is one popular narrative but I don’t believe government mortgage insurance had anywhere near the impact it will here. F&F weren’t the only institutions gobbling up MBSs, the financial markets were also saturated with them. It’s the justification for TARP.
As purchasers of the same MBSs, F&F were certainly complicit too, just not to the extent it’s politically and philosophically expedient for those against social programs in principle to claim. The catastrophe of toxic assets was caused by decades of financial deregulation that facilitated hiding their real value. The relentless attack on any home assistance coupled with campaigns for even more deregulation has little to do with economics.

jumpin in

market down 50%, developer bankrupt:

Is this what is ahead of us?

Manna from heaven

More and more it looks like they are going to bring the amort. down to 25 years. Better than nothing but I would rather see the amort. stay at 30 and the down go to 10%.


@patriotz: “Do note also that the worst excesses in the mortgage market in the US were outside of the government and GSE sectors, i.e. in the private securitizations.”

Yes, and the patsy in the CDS/CDO debacle was AIG, which was is private and not backstopped by the US government. Of course later on it turned out that it was “too big to fail” and hence was backstopped after all.


@Navin R. Johnson:

I agree the CMHC was socialism for the corporations.

In the US they had socialism for the rich and bank CEOs with the bail-outs and capitalism for the millions being foreclosed


Would it be better if I used the term “deregulated”? Because when “free market” is used in the context of the financial industry, that’s what the players usually mean.

I agree the term “free market” is problematic in the financial industry since money is created by the government in the first place.

Do note also that the worst excesses in the mortgage market in the US were outside of the government and GSE sectors, i.e. in the private securitizations. And to my knowledge Ireland never had government or GSE guaranteeing mortgages in the first place.


One 30% correction, coming right up!

jumpin in
jumpin in

The epitome of bad taste. Can only be found in the best place on meth.

I had a good laugh on a rainy day, which is the only thing that matters, isn’t it?




@jumpin in: Only $725k? Maybe their mortgage is… underwater?

Navin R. Johnson

““The irony is that it is the socialist policy of insured mortgages via CMHC that created this epic disaster.”

Corporatist, not socialist. Offloading risk to the taxpayers and giving profits to private business is corporatism. CMHC board of directors a classic example.

“If the free market was not interfered with, this would never have happened as bankers could have accurately matched risk with the price of money to each Loan to value, credit, mortgage application etc..”

The free market would have gotten the message and put an end to the bubble in Canada at the same time it ended in the US, Ireland, etc. But up to that time a free market would have enabled a bubble here just as it did there. The free market got it wrong, big time.”

Patz…’re an astute mo-fo 🙂



I was referring to the US and Ireland before the bust. You may argue whether it should be called a free market, but that’s what people called it.

That’s rather disingenuous of you. You’re the guy nitpicking every last detail in other people’s posts, even the ones making the same point as you. Then you call it “free market”, just because everyone else does, even when it clearly was not?


29, VMD: Just want to say thanks for all your contributions. Always good stuff.


New Listings 268
Price Changes 139
Sold Listings 162


VMD @work

Burnaby SFH Median price declined $41k (-4.5%) vs last month, as per Larry’s “neighborhood snapshot series”.
Average price declined $15k (-1.6%)

(Ignore his “# Sold” stats as current month value is always grossly underestimated. Wait for official REBGV numbers)



“I was referring to the US and Ireland before the bust. You may argue whether it should be called a free market, but that’s what people called it.”

OK, scrap my question.



“But up to that time a free market would have enabled a bubble here just as it did there. ”

What makes you say that? We didn’t have a free market here because we had the CMHC interfering. Are you speculating that even in the absence of the CMHC, which is to say, even supposing that a free market were in operation, it would have got it wrong?