Trade deficit at record levels
Patriotz pointed out this article at the CBC: Canadas trade deficit has grown to the largest level ever, and this at a time when oil and commodity prices are high.
The gap between what Canada sells to the world and what it buys from other countries expanded to the largest point on record in July, as its trade deficit expanded to an all-time high of $2.3 billion.
Exports fell 3.4 per cent during the month, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday. That was more than the corresponding decline in imports, which were down 2.2 per cent.
Exports of energy products fell 8.5 per cent to $8.2 billion for the month, the data agency reported, while exports of automotive products dropped 5.3 per cent to $5.9 billion.
“This is about as bad as it gets for Canadian exporters, at least so far,” Scotiabank economist Derek Holt said in a note following the release of the data. “[And] the details are worse.”
Read the full article here.
October 11th, 2012 at 1:16 am 1
Charlie Smith in the Straight:”Toronto bankers put the squeeze on Vancouver real-estate developers”
http://www.straight.com/article-805306/vancouver/real-estate-squeeze-play
” Simpson declared that first-time buyers face significantly higher monthly payments because of this limit… It definitely is impacting first-time home buyers,” he stated. “That’s where this whole thing starts—with that first-time buyer.”
“He added that it wouldn’t surprise him if the Conservative government is crafting public policies to move the country’s wealth away from real estate and into paper assets to please CEOs of the chartered banks, no matter how disruptive this might be to the Vancouver economy and to first-time home buyers.”
There it is again, a govt conspiracy to crash the Vancouver market therefor ‘hurting’ the first time buyer. Charlie likes to push this angle. He must dream of Eugen Klein in his sleep.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 3:44 am 2
Real estate IS a paper asset, because its market price is driven by the availability of credit, not its actual economic value.
What could be more obvious.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
3
October 11th, 2012 at 5:07 am 3
held up in moderation yesterday, I’ll try this again (without the link):
RBC new mortgage rule effective now:
(according to RBC mortgage specialist Jason Wang)
1. personal mortgages: upper limit now restricted to 2.5M (used to have no firm upper limit)
2. LTV ratio decreased “Especially to Greater Vancouver Area”. First $1.25M, 80% max LTV. The rest: 50% LTV
(previously no firm rule)
so CMHC rules focus on first time buyers (and houses >1M), while OSFI is pressuring existing home owners (via HELOC rules) and high end markets (via upper limit on mortgages and LTV caps).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 5:16 am 4
I never understood the way most people use “paper asset” as an epithet. If I own 1/100,000th of a railroad as common stock, is that a “paper asset” notwithstanding that the 3:15 from Kamloops could crush your puny Kia like a… er, nevermind.
I understand how a ticket to next week’s 6/49, or an option contract or a credit default swap could be considered mere paper. But an actual claim on the profits of an operating enterprise? How about a mortgage secured by land? A REIT? Is that mere paper?
If anyone can honestly explain the legitimate difference these people are trying to make, I’d be grateful. But if they’re just disparaging other asset classes to their own benefit, as I suspect…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 5:29 am 5
Comment held in mods yesterday x2, will try again:
RBC new mortgage rule now effective:
1. Personal mortgages: upper limit now set at $2.5m. Previously there was no firm cap.
2. LTV ratio decreased “especially for Vancouver area” First $1.25m:80%max Ltv. The rest:50%.
According to RBC mortgage specialist Jason Wang.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 6:15 am 6
September sales dollar volume graphs by region:
http://s7.postimage.org/qexnhvut7/Sept_Graphs.jpg
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 6:17 am 7
From the Georgia Strait Article linked to by Southseacompany:
“Meggs said that city staff recognize that a condo sold to an investor can boost the stock of rental housing, but this doesn’t provide a long-term solution for tenants. “Because people are owning it for fundamentally speculative reasons, they tend to rent it out for a while, and then cash out,” he noted. “And it ceases to be part of the rental market, so it’s not sustained.”
This is why condos are not included in the CMHC vacancy rates. On Tuesday I posted stats from CMHC showing the vacancy rate in the City of Vancouver was 0.7% last year and has been as low as 0.3% in recent years. Some dismissed these stats because they don’t include condos, only purpose-built rental buildings. Then I showed stats from CMHC showing the vacancy rate for condos was about 2% in 2010.
Condos are not included in the vacancy rate because condos are fundamentally not rental housing. Yes, some condos are being rented out–but I think the rentals are more short term, one or two year leases before the owner sells.
The rented apartment I grew up in in Marpole in the 80s and 90s, my parents rented it for about 16 years. I don’t think you can rent too many condos for that long.
We have a problem here for how we calculate vacancy rates. CMHC is justified for excluding condos (and creating a separate vacancy statistic just for condos) for the reasons I have stated above. But I do recognize that condos can represent a form of rental housing, albeit a more tenuous form. So this should be recognized somehow in the stats. I guess the best way is what CMHC is currently doing–one vacancy rate stat calculated for purpose built rentals and another vacancy rate statistic for condos.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
4
October 11th, 2012 at 6:27 am 8
Due to repeated failed attempts posting the following (stuck in mods), I posted it in Vancouver Peak forum:
RBC’s New Mortgage Rule Change now in effect! http://vancouverpeak.com/groups/data-hounds/forum/topic/sandbox/?topic_page=2&num=15#post-2627
we probably have OSFI to thank for
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 6:30 am 9
I am also a bit curious about this trade deficit issue. Why is the Canadian trade deficit at record levels despite strong oil prices?
My guess is the value of the Canadian dollar plays a big role. When we had large trade surpluses, the Canadian dollar was much lower than it is today making our goods cheaper for other countries to buy. Now with our Canadian dollar worth more than the American, our goods are more expensive for other countries to buy so they are buying less of it. A strong Canadian dollar also means it is cheaper for us to import goods so maybe we are importing more from other countries now, adding to the trade deficit.
That’s my armchair economist’s attempt to answer the question posed by Patriotz yesterday. But I would appreciate if someone with better economic qualifications than me would try to explain this.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 6:41 am 10
Well, with Stephen Harper, the CIA’s Bureau Chief in Ottawa, I don’t doubt that there is a massive amount of manipulation of all kinds of things.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
8
October 11th, 2012 at 6:57 am 11
“Flaws in a national databank that helps determine the value of houses across Canada have helped fuel inflation in home prices, putting mortgage lenders and borrowers at greater risk, key players in the housing sector have warned.
Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail detailing confidential statements from banks, appraisers and mortgage insurers show rising worry over the use of a database operated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The documents suggest the data are flawed and help push home prices up.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/potentially-flawed-data-used-by-banks-and-lenders-bump-up-house-prices/article4603237/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 8:14 am 12
@joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs: OUR SYSTEM IS SUPERIOR!
all the cockroaches are going to start coming out now.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
4
October 11th, 2012 at 8:25 am 13
A couple of days ago there was a discussion on international students driving up rents. As we’ve come back to trade deficits (education is currently a big ‘export’ for us), I thought I would bring it back up: a lot of misinformation was being passed around. How do I know? I work in enrolment management at a local U.
‘Foreign Students take seats away from domestic students’
This is not technically true. Colleges and universities are funded for a certain number of students by the province. The two big universities locally have been running at about 105% of this number of domestic students. International students are over and above this number. Eliminate all the international students and we’d still be funded for the same number of domestic students. Those remaining would have to deal with fewer choices for courses, as about 10% of faculty would need to be laid off.
That said, international students do cluster in professional areas: business, engineering, etc. In the short and medium term, this means that it is possible that international students displace domestic students in these specific programs. This is partly why SFU implemented a different GPA for international students this year. (you need a higher admission average to get into SFU as an international than as a domestic student). Medical school in BC (and a bunch of other high demand college programs like Nursing) often don’t accept any international students. Int’l students wouldn’t be willing to pay the actual cost of these programs.
‘Well-qualified Local students are being turned away because of international student enrolments’
Retention rates at the margin in the local universities are quite poor. Currently the universities are admitting many under-qualified students, despite the fact that averages make it tough to get in, many (25%) of students struggle intensely. See: http://www.sfu.ca/irp/students.html#performance. 25% of SFU first years have a GPA below 2.0. Lots of contributing factors to this, and there are many things being tried to help struggling studnets, but preparation and motivation are both big, big factors. Well-qualified students, by and large, are not being turned away.
‘Students pay about 20% of the cost of education’
Undergrads pay about 1/3 of the cost of education, perhaps as high as 40%. This is rising: each year, tuition rises by CPI, each year the gov’t grant stays the same. The grad students pay a much smaller proportion of their costs. Undergrads also subsidize research efforts by paying faculty salaries. The faculty workload is about 50/50 teaching/research. All base funding to pay those salaries is per student and taken out of the gov’t grant and tuition. There are good arguments as to why this should be done, but that’s too off topic for me to go into.
‘International students raise rents city-wide’
International students (I’ve been one) want the cheapest, closest place to university. UBC has built several thousand new dorm rooms in the past decade. We often cite here the foreign owners buying West Side homes for their kids to go to school. I think the argument is that this part of the market has a modest impact on rents, mostly clustered around the campuses.
’50% more international students’
There is some extra capacity in the infrastructure at universities. UBC has factored some capital costs into their international tuition rates (UBC basically runs a university within the university for international students – the accounting model is excellent for ensuring they pay their freight). There will be a pretty big cost to adding this capacity, more than the premier seems to realize. Or we force students to take more evening classes and instructors to stay to teach late (neither group is keen for this). The other challenge is that adding that capacity and maintaining quality requires hiring continuing staff. It’s tough to eliminate staff. Demand is short-term (Australia relied on int’l tuition, became unpopular in India and China and suddenly had giant holes in university budgets). A massive increase in the short term is probably not a sustainable idea, but I could be wrong.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
4
October 11th, 2012 at 8:34 am 14
@joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs:
“During a hot housing market, a wider margin of error on estimated values was less of a concern, since there is smaller likelihood a mortgage or loan refinancing will end up under water. But if the market starts to fall, as some economists expect, the accuracy of appraisals becomes paramount. When a lender is forced to liquidate a home in the event of a default, it could incur a loss. In the case of CMHC, the federal government would be left picking up the tab.”
This reads like something posted on VCI. How did the media get smart so fast, after all those years of being stupid?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 8:57 am 15
#7 @joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs: “I am also a bit curious about this trade deficit issue. Why is the Canadian trade deficit at record levels despite strong oil prices?”
I have worse economic qualifications, but I’ll chip in anyways. Canadians are borrowing heavily from the rest of the world and importing goods using borrowed money. That credit is available because international investors think Canada’s economy is in relatively good shape. And we appear to be in good shape because Canadians are spending lots of borrowed money.
If Canadians invest this money wisely into productive assets then we will be able to repay the loans with interest and make ourselves wealthier in the process. That is what investors collectively believe will happen. But if Canadians are financing consumption then it takes on the characteristics of a ponzi scheme.
It should also be pointed out that we are not like the US, because Triffin’s paradox allows them to run ever larger trade deficits for as long as they have the world’s reserve currency. This is required for the world economy to grow. Canada doesn’t have that luxury. However, our prior trade surpluses put us in a reasonable position, so we could keep this up for a while. International investors are undoubtedly learning what we spent it on though, and I doubt they will be impressed if this continues:
http://colgoldcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/condo-21.png
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 9:13 am 16
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/potentially-flawed-data-used-by-banks-and-lenders-bump-up-house-prices/article4603237/comments/
this comment from “Elucidate” in the comment section says it all
“Exactly. The CMHC should have never existed in the first place. Affordability? My posterior.
All they’ve done is kill affordability by fueling speculation and a giant housing bubble that’s going to deflate the economy for years to come.
Young buyers across the country have hamstrung their financial future thanks to the CMHC, Flaherty and Carney.
Meanwhile, the tax-payer gets the shaft while the banks reap profits the whole time. The banks, who should have been absorbing the risk of lax lending. But instead it’s you and me. Thanks to the Canadian Moral Hazard Corporation.
Thank you Flaherty and your so-called “conservative” policies. Absurd.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
66 
2
October 11th, 2012 at 9:23 am 17
@joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs: The thing about that article is that everyone seems to be complaining about CMHC’s EMILI system, but from diametrically opposing sides: there seem as many complaints that the automated valuations are causing CMHC insurance to be TOO HIGH as there are complaints the potential systematic overvaluation and algo gaming are causing a housing bubble.
But I think above all people like being angry at CMHC
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 9:51 am 18
@rp1:
Impressive analysis of Canada’s trade deficit. I think you are more qualified in economics than I am. I’ve never heard of “Triffin’s paradox” before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 10:43 am 19
@southseacompany:
Good luck to Vancouver condo developers getting future projects 50% pre-sold with 20% down payments as prices continue to fall.
And goodbye speculators – Aloha, suckers!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 10:45 am 20
@Best place on meth: ” Aloha, suckers”
a·lo·ha/əˈlōˌhä/
Exclamation: Hawaiian word used when greeting or parting from someone.
How true, BPOM.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 10:46 am 21
@Just Looking: Many thanks for your contribution.
“preparation and motivation are both big, big factors”
Is it the lack of decent jobs for graduates? I’d have a hard time getting motivated too if I graduated with a $60K debt and a job making coffee at Starbucks.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 10:49 am 22
We’re number 2.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/410875–vancouver-second-worst-city-for-traffic-congestion-report
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 10:59 am 23
An interesting article by Garth Turner 9 months ago, regarding Emili and robotic appraisal system:
http://howestreet.com/2011/01/emili/
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 11:09 am 24
High-end getting hammered.
V939075 1451 Angus Drive
Westside character mansion reduced by $2 million or over 16%. From $11.9 to $9.9 million.
V947974 1575 Acadia Road
Third reduction. Now $7.99 million down from $10.38 in May. That’s about $2.4 million in total reductions.
Soon hopefully professors will be able to buy these places again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 11:31 am 25
@Patiently Waiting:
Also, no huge sales so far this month.
The 3 highest:
1990 W 18TH AV, ask $8.5, sold $7.5
1725 KNOX RD, ask $6.80, sold $5.95
1251 W 46TH AV, ask $5.19, sold $4.54
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 11:41 am 26
@Patiently Waiting:
So – this is somewhat of an academic piece of information. Properties at this level are not reflective of the normal market – on the way up – and on the way down. It is interesting to see that someone has taken $2M off the table. However — what is more important to all of us is watching the base price of a piece of land fall. That is the only statistic that really means much. Everything else is reflective of all the cost inputs and builder profits that can exist in new product or even used product.
We have seen the base price fall quite a bit now in Van West and in Richmond even more. I would say now that 90% of Richmond properties sell below assessed and 50% sell for more than 15% below list. Van-West is somewhat similar but not as bad and the bare land sales (tear-downs) are also down at least 10%.
We do however see the builders that spec built for 2012 sales starting to take big discounts. Some are even over $1M compared to the asking price earlier this year.
So that’s my stat for the day. We are seeing decreases in the bottom of the market – the bare land prices. As we go into December / January – - the rocket rise of Inventory will take us to that level we have yet to reach this year. Prices will continue to fall in the next 12 months and specuvestors will question whether the strategey of the past 5 years has been smart!!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 12:30 pm 27
@Patiently Waiting: If you go to Danielle Park’s blog and find a recent clip of Marc Faber talking about the stock market… the last 14 seconds of this clip includes him calling out the equity that’s been placed in what he calls “Mayfair” real estate markets and how he thinks prices in these types of markets will get hammered.
Unfortunately, the clip is cut after that one single comment. But the Mayfair market is basically, the Shaughnessy market. It’s where oil barons from Russia, Chinese kleptocrats, etc., move their money into what they consider to be a protected bubble: a small group of superrich investors who can buy and sell to each other and keep prices inflated and insulated from whatever occurs in the general marketplace. You know, the kind of thing that would get you thrown in jail if a court could prove you did this with a stock.
It’s a nice in theory… I guess we get to see firsthand how it works out in practice.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 1:34 pm 28
Re; Georgia Straight article.
That Charlie Smith article made the cover too. Interesting cartoon graphic portraying home buyers being hurt by not getting bank loans.
http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/display/images/Cover_2338.jpg
So disappointing to see this old radical rag start lipsyncing the REBGV’s propaganda blaming policies that have tightened lending as being a bad thing for the Vancouver market and local home buyers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 1:44 pm 29
@joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs: I knew it was a government conspiracy to crash the housing market and depress Canadian economy to make our dollar cheaper so Harper could appease the export industry! It all makes sense now!
/tinfoilhat
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 1:52 pm 30
@southseacompany: It’s always amazing how short people’s memories are when it comes to amortization periods in Canada. The accountant, Bert Paul, talks about the tightening of credit but seems to forget the fact that it merely went back to the way it was six short years ago. Oh this may be a shocker, but Bert Paul was employed by a RE development company until July 2012.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 1:55 pm 31
@rp1:
Why is the Canadian trade deficit at record levels despite strong oil prices?
“I have worse economic qualifications, but I’ll chip in anyways. Canadians are borrowing heavily from the rest of the world and importing goods using borrowed money.”
That is exactly correct. Canada’s biggest export is bonds, but they don’t show up in the trade statistics.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 1:59 pm 32
@southseacompany:
“That Charlie Smith article made the cover too. Interesting cartoon graphic portraying home
buyerssellers being hurt by buyers not getting bank loans. ”Maybe not what what they intended, but there were no captions, so I’ll just make a factual interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 2:00 pm 33
@patriotz: “Canada’s biggest export is bonds”
Someone else is funding the trade deficit at, now, interest rates lower than inflation. Sounds like not entirely a bad deal.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 2:22 pm 34
@joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs: Joe, I’ve been renting from private “investors” for 6 years now, they Should be included in vacancy calculations. I looked at a new purpose built place downtown 3 years ago (the rise) and the value was worse than private Specu-landlords
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 2:33 pm 35
From the straight article complaining about the tough regulations bankers are asking for:
Half of them have to be sold to legitimate consumers who reside in Canada and who have ID,” he insisted. “They will actually scrutinize every contract and look at the IDs. And every single contract must stipulate that the consumer must put down 15 to 20 percent cash. That money has to be sitting in a third-party trust account—and the banks will actually check all of those details before they’ll lend a penny to that developer.”
OMG, so you mean you can’t fake sales now to prop up your overseas futures market? MAC realty should be embarrassed to be complaining about what should have been a bare minimum all along!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 2:43 pm 36
Buy a house and get a free car seems like a good trade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
October 11th, 2012 at 2:49 pm 37
@jesse:
That’s what a trade deficit is, you borrow to close the trade gap. But with the low interest rates, it sounds like free money. Too good to be true? The chickens will come home to roost.
It works in the US (as far as anyone can tell) because they have the reserve currency, and it is their obligation to provide as many dollars as the world demands. US started running trade deficits when it went off the fixed exchange rate gold standard in 1971 and the dollar became the reserve asset.
http://preparednessdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/9867c_unemployment_TradeDeficitGDP.jpg
Hardly being an expert in the field, it would seem to me that Canada needs to maintain a trade surplus over time in order to buy dollars, and cannot sustainably run a deficit without consequences.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 2:51 pm 38
@Chem guy:
Of course not, specuvestors aren’t concerned about things like cap rates or even positive cashflow
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 2:58 pm 39
@Devore: “and cannot sustainably run a deficit without consequences”
Well of course, all Canadians have to do is import less.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 3:55 pm 40
More food for the bears:
3888 W 30TH AV V959821
On market for 96 days
Original price 1.79m
Reduced to 1.64
Sold for 1.54m
Last year a teardown on the west side of Dunbar would have gone for 1.6-1.7. This house is actually renovated, south side of the street, etc. So not a bad place. Still overpriced but a 15% reduction is certainly on the right track this early in the decline.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 4:12 pm 41
@Lurker: And it’s assessed at $1,751,000. 12% below assessment, that’s a good start
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 4:25 pm 42
@TNT: free is always good, but you don’t have to buy a new house to get a free car. If you buy buy my lightly used iphone for $350,000 ill throw in a free Toyota yaris!
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 4:26 pm 43
From the article in the Straight….
In my opinion, the 25 year limit is not the problem….the absence of it was. The inflated overhang from which is why first-time buyers face higher payments until the overall market adjusts. Has anyone ever heard of w-a-i-t-i-n-g and s-a-v-i-n-g for a larger down payment?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 4:40 pm 44
@ReadyToPop: I wonder what would have happened if the amortizations were never changed in the first place….
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 4:50 pm 45
@ Not much of a name…
Someone deep in the bowels of the Finance Ministry could probably accurately model that…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 5:26 pm 46
“McNeill didn’t express nearly as much concern about the 25-year maximum, but it is a major worry to Peter Simpson. Simpson declared that first-time buyers face significantly higher monthly payments because of this limit,”
no you f’ing idiot, first time buyers face “significantly higher monthly payments” because the amortization was INCREASED a few years ago creating this housing scam….wtf
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 5:31 pm 47
woops, i see ReadyToPop had already pointed out that blatantly obvious fact. Weird that it’s not so obvious to the “experts”
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 5:33 pm 48
@ Anonymous Says
You keep phone telemarketing now hiring.
Ring Ring wanna buy a Porshe.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 5:38 pm 49
A steady stream of young couples (25 to 35) comes through the house for sale next door (735K list in May, now 689K) and all I can think is that we may soon be calling them the dumbest generation. Read a book ever? Check out a blog? Ever notice the balloons of desperation?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 5:44 pm 50
on another note, I went to the River Rock Casino for a few hours today. HOLY CRAP was it ever packed! played some pai gow with some 70 year old Chinese women (lost of course). Gaming stocks/companies are probably loving this influx of Chinese to Vancouver.
I’m not being racist, I’m just stating the facts when I say that out of about 2000 people there were maybe 10 white people there. So this is a legit question, how are these Chinese folks (that obviously don’t work cuz they are there every day) able to afford to gamble? they are whipping out bills like there is no tomorrow..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 5:46 pm 51
@Vulture Fun:
This is the generation that is always complaining that the boomers screwed them over. What they don’t realize is that they could screw over the boomers without lifting a finger or spending a dollar, simply by refusing to buy their houses.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
2
October 11th, 2012 at 5:52 pm 52
New Listings 200
Price Changes 133
Sold Listings 92
TI:19061
http://www.paulboenisch.com
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
127 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 6:03 pm 53
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
26
October 11th, 2012 at 6:18 pm 54
@Lurker: Just wait a year or two when the bank of Mom and Dad is in default due to all their HELOC spending!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 6:41 pm 55
@ReadyToPop: “In my opinion, the 25 year limit is not the problem….the absence of it was. The inflated overhang from which is why first-time buyers face higher payments until the overall market adjusts.”
That might work for realtors who only care about the number of transactions, but home builders care more about the selling price. Any amount the extra max amortization adds to home values goes directly to home builders bottom line.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 7:07 pm 56
Renters haven’t always been the social outcasts they are today. In the past, renters almost dominated the television airwaves.
Think about all the well-known TV sitcoms that revolved around renters: I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Three’s Company, Laverne & Shirley, Mork & Mindy, Good Times, Perfect Strangers, Ellen…
Contrast this to more recent TV like Desperate Housewives. When Susan Delfino rents out her house on Wisteria Lane and moves into a rental herself it is portrayed as a serious step down in status.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
2
October 11th, 2012 at 7:26 pm 57
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 7:34 pm 58
The Jeffersons, Seinfeld, and Friends also rented.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 7:54 pm 59
As someone who is moving to Vancouver, I can tell you from my rentals research the asking rents are all over the place. It’s also amazing how many owners are trying to treat their condos like “hotels”, pricing them per night etc…Lots and lots out there. It’s hard get through it all.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 8:03 pm 60
joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs Says:
October 11th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
The Jeffersons, Seinfeld, and Friends also rented.
Yeah but Cosby never rented. I remember an episode where his daughter was about to marry a janitor, and Bill was all appalled about the prospect, outraged and indignant if you will, then upon learning that his prospective son-in-law was a HOMEOWNER, well Bill offered him up an extra piece of pie… just a television show but probably one of the most influential in 1980s North America.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 8:19 pm 61
Looks like Larry Yattermatters is finished?
no action at all at his site. dead as a doornail.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
4
October 11th, 2012 at 8:39 pm 62
I WOULD NOT HAVE SEX IN MOST OF THE CRACK SHACKS IN VANCOUVER – THEY ARE SO GHETTO!
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
17
October 11th, 2012 at 8:42 pm 63
@Looking Now:
You mean this site? He wrote something on Oct. 1st:
http://www.yattermatters.com/
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
October 11th, 2012 at 8:56 pm 64
@Anonymous 56: re: “…rentals research…condos as “hotels”…”
Vancouver condo “hotels” is an interesting subject.
If you find a way to filter your searches based on short/long term lease, please post your observations. The keyword “furnished” sometimes works, but not always.
Exact keywords which capture a greater majority of the “hotel” listings may provide insight on the question of what sort of tenants are creating persistent demand for short term suites in a city with scarce world class attractions and plenty of conventional hotel rooms.
Some ideas: mining/exploration executives, idle wealthy hedonists who rotate their venue among major cities, immigrant applicants, … etc?
Who these tenants are would go a long way to understanding why there is “condo hotel” phenomenon at all.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 9:52 pm 65
@More Data Please: They weren’t renting them as standard condos so they decided to make them “hotel” condos to capture the masses of tourists….You same the same ones listed constantly.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 10:32 pm 66
@vangrl: “The CMHC should have never existed in the first place.”
Nice to see that this is getting so many upvotes. When I wrote something similar in the past, some idiot called me “paultard”
CMHC should be abolished.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 10:38 pm 67
larry must be inundated with listings though the $8.5 tudor mansion has not moved all year
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 10:49 pm 68
Very sorry for the request. However- – have we already had posted the sale / list numbers for October in the past 12 years? I don’t remember who posts it but it shows up the beginning of every month and I have not seen it yet. . . A repost would be very helpful.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 11th, 2012 at 11:03 pm 69
Going along the lines of my previous post. The 2 lowest priced sales in Vancouver today were for a renovated home in Dunbar and a view lot in Point Grey. Both sold for 10% below assessed. This is not typical of view lots as these tend to have intangible value which does not 100% get captured in the price. Note that on the view lot asking was $1.92 and sold was $1.65.
This is what we see every day . . every day the bar is lowered just a little bit. We only need to get 0.5% – 1% per month for this thing to really adjust properly over 36 months!!!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 11:19 pm 70
@joe_blown_away_by_high_housing_costs:
“The Jeffersons, Seinfeld, and Friends also rented.”
Sanford and Son owned their own junk yard and lived there too.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 11:37 pm 71
@More Data Please: “Who these tenants are would go a long way to understanding why there is “condo hotel” phenomenon at all.”
I think a lot of these place are peoples homes who are stretched so thin they are renting them out for a month here and there when they can. I have a friend who does this. He did it during the Olympics and now the rental company keeps his place listed continuously. Every few months someone rents it for a month and he stays with relatives or goes on vacation.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
October 11th, 2012 at 11:42 pm 72
@YVR2ZRH: Here it is:
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
October 12th, 2012 at 12:51 am 73
@ Patiently Waiting
“Is it the lack of decent jobs for graduates? I’d have a hard time getting motivated too if I graduated with a $60K debt and a job making coffee at Starbucks.”
Okay – so this takes me totally off topic – stop reading now if you don’t want insight into the current status of university grads.
There’s actually very good data collected by the province:
http://outcomes.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/BGS/ReportsbyProgramArea.aspx
You can finally compare Philosophy grads to biology grads and UBC grads to SFU grads to see just how much the extra prestige of UBC gets the average grad (hint: it’s not much). Careful that you look at the sample sizes, though – some are too small to make the stats meaningful.
For ‘generic’ degrees (the ones most commonly associated with ‘barista’: BA’s and BSc’s. This is a 2-year out survey of 2009 grads taken in 2011:
Median income: $40k
Unemployment rate 10%
Unemployment rate for all University Grads: 7%
% working retail clerk jobs: 1%
% who find their degree useful at work: 77%
% satisfied with their program: 94%
% with any debt: 47%
Median Debt of those with debt: $20,000
$40k in debt. The $60k of debt grad is a rare and profligate bird or a special case (ex: kids at home).
So, no, students aren’t graduating to go on and buy S class mercedes’, but I’d argue it isn’t as dire as the media is making it out to be. Universities don’t have control over the job market (which is a slog for the students I’ve talked to).
I’ve talked to probably 1000 kids a year about their future and how to get there for about 10 years. When recruiting, I go out and try to attract the best talent to whichever U I’m working for. When students ask me where the money is, I would tell them: take Earth Sciences (mining jobs, other resource industries). Still, it was like pulling teeth to get students to choose that program, especially those who had the math and physics skills needed. Those programs are wildly under-enrolled, your 4th year classes will be 10 people, jobs practically guaranteed. We still couldn’t get people to choose it. The same thing is true with the trades.
At 17, students have a lot of figuring themselves out to do – often it is taking, and deciding to drop out of a program that helps them figure things out. Even when directly informed about other more lucrative options, students would still go with their inclination
(or their parent’s directive), regardless of job prospects. And that’s how it should be (except tha parents). The reason I explain it is because people seem to think we are brainwashing students into doing something that doesn’t make sense. This isn’t true (at least in my experience overall).
So: I think I’ve shown that the problem of barista grads is exaggerated, and that the future isn’t totally bleak for grads, so long as they don’t aspire to owning a SFH in Dunbar (or anywhere in MetroVan) shortly after graduation.
So, why do the students who struggle not succeed? It’s a multi-factor problem and there is no single generalizable answer (sadly – this would make it easier to solve).
Here’s the reasons I see a lot:
-smart kid, didn’t need to work in high school. Suddenly, they can’t just study the night before and pass: they can’t figure out how to get their game up in time.
-school is hard and often dry. World of Warcraft, Facebook, Youtube and Real Estate Blogs are all more fun.
-Can’t adjust to the independent thinking and learning required.
-English skills are not sufficient (not necessarily immigrants, btw).
-Working lots of hours at a job per week.
-depression or similar issues.
-parents forcing them to do a program they don’t like and/or aren’t good at.
-some students just aren’t sufficiently talented.
For those that don’t fail out there is a whole other list (simply figured out it wasn’t for them, for example. Some transfer to another school, but count as dropouts).
Hope that givs you some insight…
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
1
October 12th, 2012 at 9:52 am 74
@Anonymous: Hmm, renting the place out “per night” like a hotel eh? Send a notice to the building managers if you see this, the other owners will appreciate it as in almost every building downtown this is explicitly against the rules. The reason this is against the rules is to maintain the security of the residences, the buildings liability coverage, and my favourite…to limit prostitution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 12th, 2012 at 11:20 am 75
@Just Looking: I’ll be responding in the next thread, Friday Free For All.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14th, 2012 at 5:57 pm 76
@Just Looking:
Just Looking, there is no offtopic on free-for-all Fridays. Thanks a lot for sharing this!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0