What if mortgages were harder to get?
Right now mortgages are easy to get and interest rates are dirt cheap.
But the one thing you can rely on in economic cycles is change.
What will it look like if interest rates start to rise or mortgages get a little more difficult to obtain?
Or worse, what if the CMHC wasn’t there to insure low equity mortgages and everyone required a 20% down payment?
The Globe and Mail has an article outlining some of the repercussions: lower prices, economic fall out, etc and comes to this conclusion:
For the time being, mandatory 20-per-cent down payments are merely an academic discussion. Our government wouldn’t risk such a bold change. That said, the trend of transferring more housing risk to the private sector may continue.
Other countries deem us lucky to have a proven and reliable housing finance system. Rather than dismantle it, it’s likely safer to spot the risk areas and carve out those malignancies with a scalpel. That would minimize collateral economic damage, incentivize proper risk taking, and further reduce the odds of government-funded mortgage rescues.
It would also preserve housing options for qualified Canadians who have lesser payments but can afford to own.
Read the full article here.
October 8th, 2012 at 12:07 am 1
Anybody here giving thanks for the CHMC? They’re going to need some sympathy before too long….. Oh wait.. That’s us taxpayers. Good thing those who didn’t buy into the hype can mitigate their losses (for teh most part).
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
5
October 8th, 2012 at 3:59 am 2
“Other countries deem us lucky to have a proven and reliable housing finance system.”
Our housing finance system has been the enabler of a runup in house prices and consumer debt equal to that of the US in 2006.
A sensible system of housing finance would not allow house prices to rise above sustainable levels – roughly the levels seen in the US today.
Objective observers in other countries know this perfectly well.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 4:39 am 3
Well, sitting here in Zurich I think I can comment on some of this, given the Swiss reference.
In Switzerland you have a very large percentage of properties owned either by long established family history or by institutional funds. As well, properties rarely change hands, thus creating a very stable environment in which to rent. Finally, many policies are in place to ensure balance between owning and renting and some tax policies are even punitive against owners (although you can deduct interest expense, you must include in your income the hypothetical rent that the property would earn if it was rented).
However, balancing it all out, there is a very well funded retirment and pension system. Every employer is required to provide a pension and every employee is required to save. A person earning 100,000 per year (a modest amount by Swiss standards) will typically save approximately 30,000-35,000 per year in their various levels of pensions. In Canada, you will max-out at approx 20,000 and of this, 18,000 is optional as an RRSP (and may not even be funded by your employer). Thus – in the Canadian environment, you really almost have to have a house as this is the only mandatory savings you have.
Renters in Switzerland are paying to consume shelter at a rate commensurate with the capital value of the property. This means price/rent is in balance. Property values are driven by incomes as property is something to be used as a consumption in the domestic market. As people earn money domestically and then pay rent, this puts the price/income into balance. As Price/Income and Price/Rent are in balance – - wow – - rent/income is also in balance. What a concept.
However, as renters are consuming shelter, they are also forced into massive manditory savings through the pensions. Where do the pension funds put their money? Well – - Real Estate of course because it provides a steady long-term income flow that pensions need. Pensions of course also invest in corporate stocks especially those who pay dividends.
Throw into the mix the fact that properties have massive damage deposits of up to 3 months rent (take a place at 5,000 per month rent and that 15,000 damage deposit goes a long way to protecting the interests of landlords) you get very good quality properties. The fact that the majority of properties are owned by institutions or are at least managed by institutions means that all the housing stock is accessible to everyone at all income levels.
There are some drawbacks – - home renovation / decorating / kitchen renovations are really not that common. Everything is white – really white – and kitchens are almost all the same version of 3 types of stove / 3 types of fridge and 3 types of dishwasher. Bosch / Zug or Miele. But the quality is always top.
I’m going on a bit but in summary – - Canada can not change it’s approach to housing support quickly. It could be done over time – however – in the long run, without a change to pension regulations, you will create an entire generation of people who will retire and end up with nothing. In that situation, there is only one source of money to pay.
I would be much more encouraging changes to pensions so that people have much larger savings, diversified savings, such that they do not retire with only 2 assets – - Their House and the miniscule CPP they will earn.
We do however need some more changes – they just won’t come fast enough.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 6:13 am 4
@yvr2zrh
I want to move to Switzerland now. That sounds wonderful!
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
6
October 8th, 2012 at 6:18 am 5
Vote stuff up because some loser realtor is hacking the vote system.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
7
October 8th, 2012 at 6:21 am 6
@YVR2ZRH:
The message comes through loud and clear that voluntary pension savings, even in a country like Switzerland, do not work for most people.
As you said, left to their own devices people will turn to the most visible get rich scheme which in most Western countries over the last decade – the German-speaking ones being notable exceptions – has been RE.
Mandating employer pensions for everyone would probably be next to impossible in Canada given our close economic ties with the US. That leaves a bigger CPP to be the only feasible solution to getting Canadians saving effectively for retirement – a solution which the Cons oppose. Now add to that the raising of OAS eligibility and the clear outcome will be a large cohort of seniors who will forced to compete with younger workers for jobs.
If anyone wants to criticise the arguments below, do so on the basis on content, not the speaker:
http://www.canadianlabour.ca/news-room/editorials/conservatives-have-betrayed-canadians-cpp-reform
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
6
October 8th, 2012 at 8:34 am 7
I wonder if it would be possible, or desirable, to link CHMC insurance to a rent multiplier. For example, just as insurance is now only available for homes under one million dollars, you could say that insurance would only be available for homes selling at x times average square foot rents in the city. That might put an effective cap on prices for FTBs.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
5
October 8th, 2012 at 8:53 am 8
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/rob-mclister/17/aa3/b07
Rob McLister (the pimp that wrote the article)is afraid that if the government should stop the unethical practice of punnishing savers, it would cut into his profits.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 9:46 am 9
@patriotz: “That leaves a bigger CPP to be the only feasible solution to getting Canadians saving effectively for retirement – a solution which the Cons oppose.”
The CPP is poor value for the average working person when you factor in the amount paid in. I have done the math on my contributions combined with employer contributions and I will never get the amount put in out. I would have significantly more if that money was put in an RRSP. Increasing the CPP would be like increasing taxes on both workers and business to fund a retirement welfare system. There is also significant risk having everyone’s pension in one fund. What happens if CPP screws up and loses a lot of money. Everyone in Canada is screwed.
I think a better system would be a mandatory Pension similar to an RRSP with mandatory employer matching except you can’t access it until you are 55 or older . Maybe they could allow access to a low fee CPP investment fund to make it easy for those who don’t want to manage the money. At least you get to keep what you put in.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 9:50 am 10
@patriotz:
When you mentioned Switzerland, I remembered how it worked in Argentina. During the administration of Carlos Saúl Menem in the 1990s, whole pension system was privatized. People started to save money and private pension funds used their money on buying the Argentinian bonds. When economy started to slow down, many of these companies were not able to pay to their clients, and government had to pay instead of them. In the end, the crisis in 2001 completely destroyed whole system and left country on the edge of poverty.
In Canada, we have housing funding system instead of pension system. When I observe what is now considered as a common marketing strategy (How credit unions escape new mortgage rules) I can not stop to think that they use the same parasitic means to destroy the financial stability of many Canadians. As a consequence, it makes the whole housing system more vulnerable to crisis.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
0
October 8th, 2012 at 10:03 am 11
@YVR2ZRH: “In Switzerland you have a very large percentage of properties owned either by long established family history or by institutional funds.
I am assuming is Switzerland most of the housing is attached? I think for attached renting is great. There really is not much difference from a strata since the strata controls so much. For a detached house owning is much better (assuming normal price to rent). There is just too much stuff in a house you want to change, add, remove, etc that you cannot do with a rental.
Here is an interesting article on Swiss housing. It looks a little bubbly to me. Prices have doubled over the past 10 years. They claim 40% renters where Vancouver is around 50%.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/is-a-housing-bubble-drifting-toward-switzerland/article618805/
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
1
October 8th, 2012 at 10:04 am 12
My Amateur Landlord Panic Index (ALPI), measuring rentals available in a certain range, has reached a new high of 710. I will post again when the 800 mark is reached. Over the years (since 2008) normal seems to be 350 to 500. Last October, when we had to rent a place, there was very little available. We can get a lot of house now, for much less money.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
6
October 8th, 2012 at 10:07 am 13
@YVR2ZRH: “A person earning 100,000 per year (a modest amount by Swiss standards)”
Below is a link to Swiss salaries by position. The Swiss Frank (CHF) is at close to par with the Canadian dollar. With the average Swiss house being close to 900K it looks like they are in similar territory as Vancouver. The salaries look similar to what a person could earn here for the same position.
http://www.payscale.com/research/CH/Country=Switzerland/Salary
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
2
October 8th, 2012 at 10:27 am 14
Just noticed a “new” condo development in North Van offering $100,000 reduction in price for the final few available units (4 or 5 of the original 26 I think). Obviously, the get a “free” BMW promotion didn’t work. You have to feel bad for the one resale in the building that is asking $739k and the developers price is $649k. Ouch. I think this will be a sign of things to come.
The Lonsdale corridor, as well as Marine Drive in NV, will offer endless entertainment as this will continue to play out over and over again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
1
October 8th, 2012 at 10:28 am 15
@YVR2ZRH: “I would be much more encouraging changes to pensions”
You’ll see gun control before you’ll see the current federal government relinquishing individuals’ control over their investments.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
October 8th, 2012 at 10:36 am 16
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/netherlands-house-prices-dropped-the-most-on-record-last-month.html
Netherlands House Prices Dropped the Most on Record Last Month
“Prices declined 8 percent from the same month a year earlier, after falling 4.4 percent in June, national statistics agency CBS in The Hague said on its website today. Values have fallen 15 percent from a peak in 2008 and are back to about the same level as eight years ago, CBS said. Prices had already dropped 5.5 percent in May from a year earlier.” Ouchh
Bubbles are popping in europe one by one..swiss will not be spared
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
October 8th, 2012 at 11:41 am 17
@Dire Straits: “swiss will not be spared”
They’ll probably come out neutral.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
3
October 8th, 2012 at 12:01 pm 18
@Anonymous:
” With the average Swiss house being close to 900K it looks like they are in similar territory as Vancouver.”
As someone has already pointed out, a far smaller % of households live in detached houses in Switzerland versus Canada. Thus comparing median price of a detached house versus median income is not a valid comparison.
You have to compare price versus rent.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
5
October 8th, 2012 at 12:06 pm 19
@Anonymous:
“I have done the math on my contributions combined with employer contributions and I will never get the amount put in out (from CPP). ”
Then please share the numbers with us. It wouldn’t give away your income because CPP caps out around the median income. Also you are incorrect characterising CPP as a tax because its assets are separate from government.
As I’ve said voluntary plans aren’t working and any compulsory plan would share the same basic features as CPP. They would be investing in the same markets.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
10
October 8th, 2012 at 12:18 pm 20
This is a global issue.
The Banking system is connected, in more ways then one, and it will systematically trash Canada just like everywhere else.
The US Fed already injected a cash infusion into our Banking system months ago.
Its house of cards and its just starting to unwind in Canada
We are no different.
Sell and rent if the math works.
Interest rates will go up,the banks do not care about you they make money either way.
Sorry for sounding so gloomy but the States and Europe for starters are full of horror stories.
The housing recovery they speak of in parts of the US.
How is it a recovery when the previous owners forclosed, and it is being sold off for a fraction of the original cost?
Its crap, lies,smoke and mirrors.
Do your homework and insulate yourself from the future.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
October 8th, 2012 at 12:40 pm 21
jesse :
They’ll probably come out neutral.”
ha-ha good one, i forgot that they money cockrouches
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
October 8th, 2012 at 12:43 pm 22
@patriotz:
You sound like Bob Rennie. He too believes if you can afford a shoe box then housing is affordable and there is no bubble. You only have to look at the salaries and prices provided on the previous links to know there is a bubble brewing. A mechanical Engineer in Switzerland makes 81K per year. They make more than that in Canada but look at the housing prices. If rent reflected those prices the average professional cannot afford to live there.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/is-a-housing-bubble-drifting-toward-switzerland/article618805/
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 12:56 pm 23
@patriotz: “Then please share the numbers with us.”
Just to keep it simple we will use todays $ for everything assuming CPP rates and payouts will be adjusted according to inflation.
45 years working x $4613.70 per year = $207,603 contributed (employee + employer).
CPP pay only $986 per month at age 65. You only get the contributions back ($207,603) when you are 82 years old at the current payout.
On the other hand if you invested $4683 in a RRSP and made 5% per year return for 45 years you would have close to 9 million at age 65.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
1
October 8th, 2012 at 1:10 pm 24
@Anonymous: I work in IT in Switzerland, that payscale site seems to be quite a bit on the low side. With company pension contributions, I earn more than 30% more than what I could make in Canada. An investment bank offer I had was probably 50K more than I could make in Canada.
Further, in Switzerland, even the lowest wages are still quite high. Starting wages at a supermarket are around 50K a year. The non-mandated minimum wage is around 40K. Welfare for a single person is apparently 2200 a month, people consider this terribly poor. Point: overall, it seems to me salaries are much higher than in Canada.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 2:22 pm 25
“There has been lots of talk about the market slowing down…a summer that offered wonderful weather…contributed to this notion.”
- A realtor from Ottawa
One one hand, the RE industry says “no bubble” – implying that the market is driven by rational buyers & sellers that have priced homes efficiently.
On the other hand, they suggest buyers are like monkeys with short attention spans and things like weather can easily distract them from making the largest purchase in their life.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 2:24 pm 26
@crashcow,
That’s just too funny! If it rains they blame it on the rain, if it’s sunny they blame it on the sun.
I wonder what’s the perfect condition for people to buy homes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
0
October 8th, 2012 at 2:32 pm 27
Happy Crashgiving, bears!
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
5
October 8th, 2012 at 2:38 pm 28
@crashcow:
What? All i have to do is sign on the dotted line? Hey look, that dog has a puffy tail … Here puff puff, here boy.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
7
October 8th, 2012 at 3:07 pm 29
RBC Lending Policy Update (from someone working for the bank?):
“As the government policy tightening for equity deals, it is getting challenging to obtain an approval for equity take-out requests today. However, RBC remains very competitive in terms of providing financing to those who have high net worth properties or having over 35% downpayment to purchase their new properties. If clients are either new
immigrants or non-residents, RBC also has excellent equity programs to serve those clients in need.
For refinancing up to 65% of the property value, clients may need to provide either employment income or liquid investments, either in Canada or overseas, to illustrate the repayment ability. For those who report employment income earned in Canada in particular, we may be able to provide financing up to 80% of the property value.
For new immigrants, we can lend up to 75% of the purchase price, providing clients can show sufficient liquid investment to support monthly mortgage payments.”
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
0
October 8th, 2012 at 3:26 pm 30
@Anonymous:
“You sound like Bob Rennie. He too believes if you can afford a shoe box then housing is affordable and there is no bubble. ”
Oh come on off it. What I have always said is what matters is price versus earnings, i.e. rents. If earnings cannot cover price you have a bubble in RE or anything else. Rennie himself has admitted that this is true in Vancouver, but he has his own pet definition of “bubble”.
The Economist says that RE prices in Switzerland are undervalued -7% versus incomes and -2% versus rents (In Canada they are +76% and +32% respectively). It may well be that SFH could be overvalued as they are a small % of dwellings.
http://www.economist.com/node/21551486
But if you want to challenge the Economist, let’s see some price versus rent comparisons.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
5
October 8th, 2012 at 3:34 pm 31
@swissmacchiato: “With company pension contributions, I earn more than 30% more than what I could make in Canada.”
You make 30% more with pension contributions in Switzerland. And housing costs look to be more than double that of Vancouver which is in a bubble and requires 80% of the average income to buy a home. Maybe I am not good at math but it sounds like Switzerland is in worse shape than Vancouver and in far worse shape than the rest of Canada.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
9
October 8th, 2012 at 3:41 pm 32
@Anonymous:
Your numbers are invalid for anyone who started working before 2003 because the CPP contribution rate has increased greatly over the last 3 decades. In 1985 it was 1.8% (each for employee & employer), now it is 4.95% each.
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/cpp/contribrates.shtml
On the other hand there’s a case to be made that new entrants to the labour force will be getting a bad deal – those rate increases were made to ensure that the boomers will get their CPP.
But if a new tier of CPP were created now it would not be subject to these demographic issues.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
7
October 8th, 2012 at 4:03 pm 33
@patriotz:
You can plug in what ever CPP rate you want starting from what ever point you want and it will never match what you could get on your own. It works great for someone who only started working 20 years ago and is retiring today but not great for someone who works for 40 to 45 years. One group is subsidizing the other which IMO is not a fair pension system and why it should not be expanded and if anything disbanded completely. People really need to do the math and they will figure out how ripped off they are getting just like with EI which is even more of a joke. The part most people miss is the employer is matching what the worker pays.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
2
October 8th, 2012 at 4:25 pm 34
Here is how CPP works:
Person A gets average job paying 50K per year in the private sector at 20 years old and retires at 65. He pays into CPP the max for 45 years. At age 65 he gets the max CPP with no other pension and lives very modestly.
Person B becomes a cop at age 20 and works for 25 years paying into CPP for 25 years before taking the Cop pension and retiring at age 45. He will get the same CPP as person A above at age 65 even though he didn’t work for the last 20 years but collected a pension. His Cop pension continues after age 65 along with the CPP. Person A paid the CPP for an additional 20 years while this guy was retired but they still get the same CPP at age 65.
Person C goes to university and gets a Phd in economics and works at a university in the real estate program making 350K per year starting at age 45. After working for only 20 years and paying CPP for only 20 years he retires with a full CPP plus millions in the bank due to his high salary and a big fat university pension. Person A started paying CPP 25 years prior to this guy but they both get the same CPP at retirement.
How is this system fair? And people want to expand it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
13
October 8th, 2012 at 4:30 pm 35
@Anonymous:
Which is even worse if you are self employed since you pay both parts yourself.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
9
October 8th, 2012 at 5:31 pm 36
“a big fat university pension”
No such thing in BC – I can tell you that for a fact.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 5:32 pm 37
We’ll see what happens. Boomers run this country. A huge chunk is about to be taken out of their nest egg. We’ll see how willing they are bail out a bunch of young and full of cum brats who bought more condo than they could afford so that they’d have better access to casual sex.
After seeing their net value crash I don’t think boomers will be in the mood to take money from their precious medicare for those brats.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
13
October 8th, 2012 at 7:29 pm 38
I’m hearing from HOMEOWNERS now that many are predicting price drops of 40% or so over the next couple of years. These are folks that own their homes and have no axe to grind.
Interesting how the sentiment is turning. I’m nearing NO bullish commentary.
Time + slow market = falling prices
Rinse and repeat.
Muppets, your fucked.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
9
October 8th, 2012 at 7:36 pm 39
Question for the group:
This is a 1/4 share in Whistler. I have heard they are well built and well maintained. What you get is 1 week per month plus the 2 weeks combined at X-mas and New Year’s every fourth year.
Seller has dropped his price to $159K (Assessment is $233K)
http://www.realtylink.org/prop_search/Detail.cfm?MLS=V861502
For this you pay $650 per month which covers the strata, taxes, upkeep and updating of the unit when required. You aren’t able to store anything here so it is basically a weekly rental.
This development has at least 12 for sale and they are all the same basically so like a condo it is a race to the bottom when someone cuts their price. 18 months ago these were changing hands for $240K I noticed on Vancouver price drop that someone has cut his price to $159K (most are around $180K) A full owned unit (not the 1/4 share) is worth close to $1 mil.
Now you can rent out your week anytime and the rents seem pretty good on VBRO. That said, why should this have any real value? It is essentially a time share. You can sell it but you always own only 1/4. Your monthly payments at $650 mean that you are basically renting it for $100 per night. Anyone stuck with one of these is bleeding cash every month hence the desire to unload it.
I was looking at these for a family holiday place for the next 20 years. If I do the math and take $160/20 years = $8K per year + $650 month = a cost $15,800 per year. (No inflation or special assessments in the math or the time value of money) I am assuming I sell it in 20 years for what I paid for it on an inflation adjusted basis.
Experts say the average vacation home is used 58 days per year. If I used it that much I would have the equivalent of $272 per night that I could spend on rental accommodation if I did not buy it. If I used it the full 13 weeks per year I would have $173 per night to spend on accommodation. The draw back is I only get 13 weekends and I would be much more likely to use it on the weekend.
So with this math I don’t see any reason why someone would buy one of these unless they thought they could make a capital gain. Should these have any real value? It appears to be a rental without any of the advantages of ownership. I could understand if rentals were hard to come by or if you could build equity or store stuff but none of that exists. [Am I missing something?
Input appreciated especially from those who might own a 1/4 share or know someone who does.
Thanks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
October 8th, 2012 at 7:40 pm 40
Switzerland is still doing well because still have the banking secret a.k.a the anonymous number account in place. Take that out of the equation and the picture would be a lot bleaker. For some reason they are incredible protective about the secret account and despite pressure from various other countries do not want to give it up. In fact they are fighting the German government over the Germans buying CD Roms containing leaked information on bank accounts German citizens hold in Switzerland to evade taxes.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
8
October 8th, 2012 at 7:40 pm 41
McLovin,
Unless your retired and can use the full week (every fourth), it’s expensive as you pay a cleaning fee each time. From the price point, I think your talking Creekside, which is a bit on the quiet side, you can’t exactly stroll to Whistler. So in my analysis, it was not worth it.
I spend a ton of time up at Whistler, you can get some great rental deals.
I’ll buy once prices fall another 30%.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
8
October 8th, 2012 at 7:43 pm 42
also hard to rent out, my intel tells me that most buyers have been very disappointed.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
5
October 8th, 2012 at 8:32 pm 43
Garth Turner:
The next hundred days could be the most pivotal in years for real estate.They’ll show one of two things. That the sales collapse now taking place in most of the country was just a silly overreaction to F’s big mortgage changes and new banking regs. Or, that housing is screwed.
Realtors (naturally) by and large fall into the first camp. Like the boss of the Vancouver cartel below), they maintain there’s a ‘standoff’ taking place between buyers and sellers. Vendors are wisely resisting dropping prices, they say, while opportunistic lurkers smell blood in the water and wait for values to fall along with sales. … …
http://www.greaterfool.ca/
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
1
October 8th, 2012 at 8:45 pm 44
@Mc Lovin
I’ve been watching those drop too. Similar situation at Legends at Creekside. All I can figure out is perhaps the $650 maintenance is for the full share and you only have to pay 1/4 of it? Otherwise $2600 per month maintenance is insane and the math, as you have pointed out doesn’t work out at all. At least at legends you get a very nice pool facility etc. Casabella is newer but doesn’t even provide that so what is the $650 for?
Anyone in an arrangement like this and can comment?
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
October 8th, 2012 at 9:17 pm 45
Re
1/4 share Whistler, I own one and yes can confirm the maintenance fees are per 1/4 yes they are high at approx 100$ night for a 2 bed and 50$ for a 1 bed, if your not using it at least 75% of the time it’s mot really worth it, but guys like me who go up every month it’s worth having, just try renting direct from Lodging Ovations during say Xmas or prime time in February or March and you’ll be paying 4-7 hundred a night for a 2 bedroom. Those hefty fees cover everything incl future capital replacement costs, they are very well managed and 100% stress free. These condos are best for users and not for income generation.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
3
October 8th, 2012 at 9:19 pm 46
@McLovin:
You have to make full use of the place to even consider it. You will never rent it mid week so for 5 days it will sit empty. And WTF is with $650 maintenance? Considering you have to pay $700 per month mortgage on the place that works out to an equivalent monthly rate of $5400.
Personally I prefer a little variety in my vacations and with this place you lose the luxury of being able to leave your stuff there, the fridge stocked etc so it is not much different from a hotel. You can get nice rooms for $200 per night in Whistler anytime but Xmas and be closer to the lifts.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
0
October 8th, 2012 at 10:02 pm 47
Nice rooms in whistler for 200$ night ? Maybe in June-November, and Fyi Legends is as close to the lift as they come. I just checked for example a 2 bedroom at Legends Dec 21-Jan-1 is 672.00 per night and that’s with a 30% discount 2 weeks would total 8450$
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
October 8th, 2012 at 10:47 pm 48
@WOWSERS:
Funny I said $200 per night anytime but Xmas and you use Xmas as an example.
Anyway you get Xmas once every 4 years. Over 4 years you pay $64,800 with mortgage and maintenance. The $8450 sounds like a deal to me compared to $64,800. Personally I would take the $8400 and fly to Hawaii and go to Whistler when it is $200 per night the other 50 weeks of the year.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
1
October 9th, 2012 at 4:15 am 49
@Anonymous:
“Person B becomes a cop at age 20 and works for 25 years paying into CPP for 25 years before taking the Cop pension and retiring at age 45. He will get the same CPP as person A above at age 65 even though he didn’t work for the last 20 years but collected a pension.”
That is simply not true. Full CPP payout is based on 40 years of contributions with the lowest 7 years excluded in calculating the payout. Someone working for only 25 years will get well under the full payout.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
October 9th, 2012 at 8:47 am 50
#7 @N: “I wonder if it would be possible, or desirable, to link CHMC insurance to a rent multiplier. For example, just as insurance is now only available for homes under one million dollars, you could say that insurance would only be available for homes selling at x times average square foot rents in the city. That might put an effective cap on prices for FTBs.”
Capping CMHC insurance to a multiple of local rents is an ideal solution.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
October 9th, 2012 at 12:20 pm 51
@Anonymous:
I wasn’t talking about housing, just that salaries are higher in Switzerland than in Canada, maybe not in all cases, but overall, for sure.
My rent is probably around the same as it would be in Vancouver. A typical mortgage for a similar place in the area would be be around the same cost as my rent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0