Flaherty thanks banks for not competing.

It’s not April 1st yet is it?

Because this article in the Globe and Mail reads like some sort of weird parody.

Canada’s Finance Minister has taken his battle against a housing bubble an extraordinary step further, issuing rare praise for the country’s banks for not matching Bank of Montreal’s cut-rate mortgages


Ottawa is growing concerned the banks could end up causing the housing market to overheat, especially after Mr. Flaherty has gone to great lengths to cool the market over the past year.

Could overheat? What brand of rear-view mirror are they using? Maybe if you didn’t use taxpayer money to ensure that they make money from mortgage business but take not risk of loss thanks to the CMHC that would help cool the market a smidge?

Mr. Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney have waged an all-out war against the massive build-up in consumer debt to record levels. Along with Mr. Flaherty’s restrictions – which reduced the maximum amortization on mortgages last year to 25 years, down from 30 – the central bank went so far as to warn it could raise interest rates to tame the borrowing binge.

All out war?!? This gets better and better! They reduced amorts to 25 years but who jacked them up to 30 in the first place? And warning that rates could go up? Boy, that’s tough!

Battling a housing bubble by undoing the things you did to fuel it is a bit like thinking that getting rid of your slingshot should be enough to un-break all those windows you shot out.

“I encourage responsible lending,” Mr. Flaherty said Friday. “I think that the financial institutions of course are major players in the residential mortgage market and it forms a major part of their asset portfolios and the Government of Canada has a lot to say about it, not only because we’re concerned about the economic fiscal health of the country, but also we have CMHC [the federal mortgage insurer] and many of those mortgages held by the private sector financial institutions are insured with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.”

Maybe via the CMHC you’re encouraging too much lending, responsible and not.

And here’s the punchline:

Mr. Flaherty’s praise of BMO’s rivals may be somewhat off target, though, since most of the lending sector is quietly offering the same rates as BMO, mortgage professionals say

Phew. Is that enough stupid for your monday morning?

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


space889 Says:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:48 pm

Though I don’t know why the rent is so expensive in Coquitlam, it really shouldn’t be that expensive like Burnaby or Vancouver.

It's not expensive. The morons who wrote/spun the article don't really understand supply and demand. Based your closing comments, space889, it seems as though you do.

By the way, does anybody know how easy it change to have your residential address changed in Coquitlam? Based on where my parents live (relative to other houses and the end of the block, 888 is up for grabs and my boomer parents will be wanting to downsize in about 5 years or so, so I'm just helping them begin the process now.


It’ll sure be nice to see b5baxter’s Inventory Graph……

Almost Sold

7 more foreclosures to be in court for sale tomorrow all in the Surrey Langely Maple Ridge,Burnaby New west i will post as often as i can these sort of stats


one more justification of why you need to buy rather than rent – when mass transit comes, you will be homeless if you don’t buy!

Though I don’t know why the rent is so expensive in Coquitlam, it really shouldn’t be that expensive like Burnaby or Vancouver.

Also, I think over medium/long term, we shouldn’t have a housing shortage since those old 4 level apartment buildings being demolished are being replaced by like 20+ stories with 4 or 5 times more units. Unless there are tons of new people magically appearing, those extra units either have to reduce rent to get renters or sit empty.


good-format Says:
March 11th, 2013 at 9:18 pm

The average inventory increase in last 5 business day was 97, if the same trend continues, the estimated inventory on April 29 is 17195


I’ll bet the ‘turdski’s will now start manipulating the listings stats by either under reporting or just holding off. Old trick they have pulled in the past.

Short'em High


How far back does your copy of paulb’s data go? Would you consider posting what you have as did?

’s data starts from March 2010 and does not include the price change count column. Price changes are a vital component of seller sentiment which I would like to incorporate into the SSI, Seller Sentiment Index.

posted here: http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Historical-Dailies

Publishing a link to a file also works: https://anonfiles.com/


The average inventory increase in last 5 business day was 97, if the same trend continues, the estimated inventory on April 29 is 17195

Vote Down The Facts

Jesse, I agree. The point was that they’re not “suckers” as the original poster claimed.


“they could undercut the market by 20% and still walk away very happy”

Of all the boomers I know who have sold, the primary concern is getting market value, mostly because in almost all instances they are buying elsewhere and pocketing the difference for future consumption.

Further to that my bet is most won’t want to be “taken advantage of”, meaning doing what everyone else is doing and listing based on comps.

Vote Down The Facts

Short Em, this site is indexed by Google….


Total days 20
Days elapsed so far 7
Weekends / holidays 4
Days missing 0
Days remaining 13
7 Day Moving Average: Sales 116
7 Day Moving Average: Listings 261
Sales so far 774
Projection for rest of month (using 7day MA) 1511
Projected month end total 2285
Listings so far 1872
Projection for rest of month (using 7day MA) 3393
Projected month end total 5265
Sell-list so far 41.3%
Projected month-end sell-list 43.4%
Inventory as of Mar 8th, 2013 16003
MoI at this sales pace 7.00




One sex change coming up. Thanks anon.


Mac: “Every time a woman states an opinion some douche comes in to tell her to calm down. ”

We have Vangirl calling Garth a “nut-job” amongst other things over multiple posts and you calling Sold2soon a “douche” for saying “Chill out”.

Yup you women need to “calm down”.


I saw this on the front page of the Metro today. You can see it on their print version of the website.

“Downtown Affordable Home Ownership

Earn Between 48k-65k?
Own Your New Condo for 0$ Down

Find Out How


25% Sold”

Now aren’t these 0% down mortgages supposed to be a thing of the past?


Bull, bull, bull,

Those boomers cashing million-dollar cheques are also burdened with helping their children into historically high-priced homes. Have more than one kid? Have more than one cheque to write against your million-dollar gain.


Vangirl #37,

You tell him Vangirl. Every time a woman states an opinion some douche comes in to tell her to calm down. Sold2Soon… I’m just guessing but maybe you sold too soon and need to relax and realize Garth is all over the place and pretty rude and blind when you point it out to him.

Short'em High

@Vote Down The Facts Says: “Looks like we hit 16k last year on March 23”

Where do you see this? Also, what was the largest number of price changes on any day in March 2012?

Vote Down The Facts

Looks like we hit 16k last year on March 23


Happy 16K everyone, here’s to another spring for our low performing RE market !

Romeo Jordan

thanks PaulB!!

Interesting, this market is as spongy as…a wet sponge.

No oomph, nothing, nada.

But…the widespread fear has yet to materialize, most sheeple don’t really understand/contemplate the dung they are swimming in.

Is but a matter of time, though. When the OFFICIAL stats ring in a 10% decline (however they spin it – ie. YoY, from peak, etc.) once the DOUBLE DIGIT decline becomes OFFICIAL, it’s game over. They will put their running shoes on and all try to hit the exits enmasse.

Good luck.

Bull! Bull! Bull!

patriotz says: “It was obviously a good decision at the time because prices were a low multiple of rents and incomes.”

just like many parts of the USA. right jesse? or is that a big bad bubble?


New Listings 289
Price Changes 139
Sold Listings 124
TI:16003 Party on dudes!



“it’s obviously a good decision in retrospect”

It was obviously a good decision at the time because prices were a low multiple of rents and incomes.

That’s the thing about RE – whether it’s a buy or not is a lot more obvious than with stocks.


@BBB I’m not saying it’a bad decision, it’s obviously a good decision in retrospect. But people acting like they are some sort of f’ing financical genius because they bought RE when they could have gotten the same returns from the S&P is laughable.