As pointed out yesterday, the “K” benchmarks might be better observed from the standpoint of inventory levels which eliminate a comparable year. 2013 has only 3 comparable years for which official month end inventory in any month was higher than it is now. The relevant benchmarks are as follows:

17564 + 1 eliminates 2010.
18493 + 1 eliminates 2012.
20173 + 1 eliminates 2008.

No 18K party this month.

Maybe a 17K party next month!

I like this part:

“Both Mr. Meggs and city manager Penny Ballem say it’s impossible to predict whether the remaining 181 condos (as of Dec. 31, 2012) and transferred Millennium properties will do more than cover the last $300-million of the outstanding debt”

Gee how could we ever calculate something so complex?

What ever happened to all that litigation about leaky condos at the OV? Did the City cut a secret side-deal and settle? Funny how things went very silent on that one….

Vanpire

I am afraid of what “fancy ceilings” means …

This afternoon on Craigslist, a townhome for sale…in Bejing
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/rds/reo/3762633800.html

Coming soon to a location near you. I’m game.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22271537

Interesting article from the South China Morning Post.

How mainland Chinese immigrants are transforming Vancouver

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1213977/how-mainland-chinese-immigrants-are-transforming-vancouver

Good piece on bubbles from Goldman Sachs yesterday.. a couple quotes that I think apply to the local real estate market:

“The textbook definition of a bubble is asset price inflation
generated by excess demand, which is not fundamentally
supported.”

“During the US housing boom people hoarded property under the
belief that demand and prices would continue to rise. When that
belief was proved wrong, the inventory re-entered the market and
prices collapsed.”

#34 “RBC has 25-year term at 8.75 per cent…banks wouldn’t offer this if they were expecting a rate spike.”

The smart bankers know approximately what their funding rate will be by 2040(~next peak for interest rates). Interest rates are hardly rocket science. Banks know full well that interest rates are about to begin a 25 year secular bull phase.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/interest-rates-60-year-cycle/

@900KCrackhouse

That’s what I thought.

So your decision to spend money at local businesses gives you some sort of right to complain about municipal workers being paid too much of YOUR hard earned money? Great logic.

I work a job that apparently pays too much according to you. Yet I can only afford to rent.

@patriotz

As I said, it’s for the hyperbolic crowd… and for them maybe it’s sensible in the present. I just don’t know how their future selves will like owning a house.

Short Em, I don’t think they’re the target for this product – it’s probably more for doomers who read Zero Hedge.

Seeing as the 10 year fixed is 3.99 posted on the RBC website, then I think it is safe to say that RBC is expecting interest rates to rise longer term. You would be better off taking the 10 year and paying down (or saving) up to 4 per cent each year than taking the 8.75 fixed unless rates in 10 years are significantly higher than 8.75. So I guess this product is for the peace-of-mind of people who cannot commit to extra payments.

“RBC would not offer this product if they were expecting a high interest rate environment over the next 25 years.”

Predictions on interest rates over 25 years are pure guesswork, no matter where they come from. That said, RBC just has to guess the average interest rate in that period. Any spikes would drive down RE prices because they impact affordability at the time of the sale, and the change in prices would have a long-term forward impact, even if rates went down again. But the spike, if that is what it was, would only have a limited impact on the average cost to the bank of existing loans. So RBC’s predictions about average interest rates over the next 25 years should not be seen as indicating that RBC expects a consistently low interest rate environment.

@52 Says: “not about who gets approved and who doesn’t, it’s about who is stupid enough”

LOL! RBC knows who they are. They’ll be mailed an engraved invitation that may as well say:

“Hey stupid, we see you are going to be bankrupt soon. Why not pay some extra money every month for this thing that might make you feel better after we convince you to hang on until the court kicks your stupid ass out of OUR house and onto the street.”

It’s not about who gets approved and who doesn’t, it’s about who is stupid enough to apply for it in the first place. At 8.75% that’s a huge premium to pay when you consider you could have the first 5 of those 25 years fixed at 2.9%.

>Not to mention the ‘white flight.’

>Haven’t heard of that one before, what’s that?

it’s when ‘South Surrey’ becomes a place.

Q: where are you from?
A: i’m from ‘south surrey’. i’m white.

@45 Says: “penalty would be 3 months interest as per Section 10”

OK. Say that’s the only penalty and no sneaky fees. At 8.75, that’s more than RBC gets now before the financial corpse is hauled off to the incinerator. And, while the fool is still breathing financially, they can get 8.75 out of him for offering a locked in rate the doomed will never need.

I think it would be interesting to find out who gets approved for this product and who doesn’t. Approval, it seems, may be equivalent to being diagnosed with a terminal disease. The “lucky” beneficiary may as well tie a rock around his waist and jump in some deep water.

“On my block, 90% of the houses have an illegal suite on it. I would like to see CRA go after these people”

Why, to force the owners to prove they’re loosing money on the the rentals? You don’t pay taxes on a loss.