Oracle @ 147

don’t see how you could pull that off – most couples struggle with getting a first class mortgage from decent lender showing dual income – with just single income to show – they wouldn’t be able to afford to buy. Most spouses would have to have good credit history and guarantee the mortgage to get a decent mortgage.

If the market turns bear – mortgage lenders will also turn bear and loan conditions will be tougher – so even more difficult to get finance on a single verifiable income.

Here’s an idea.

Let either the wife or husband buy a house. If the market tanks, let whoever owns the home declare bankruptcy. Divorce if you have to. Let the state and banks deal with the losses. Then the other half can buy when the dust clears. Then get remarried.

‘Historical expensive’ is still too expensive for almost all families to buy a SFH in Vancouver proper as a first time buyer. That is not going to change. Even with a 50% correction and normal interest rates at say 6% you can do the math on what is affordable and a SFH is in Vancouver is still not affordable for most.

Canadian Dollar falling of a cliff vs the Indian Rupee. This gov should be tried for treason…they’re making everyone here poorer. Meanwhile I know many Permanent Residents here in Canada earning 9% interest in bank accounts in India. One family just sold their land for $2 Million Canadian, now in the bank earning almost $200,000 per year.

Yes report it blah, blah, blah. But half of the south Asians in Surrey are doing the same thing. Unbelievable the corruption this gov allows.

@ 140Ah the predictable ‘Well it’s always been like that post’.

Well, there’s expensive (historical expensive) vs expensive – things are out of control astronomically untouchable 20 x income for even an East of Main house expensive. Forget about any house West of Main expensive.

It ISNT ‘like it always has been’. You do the math.

Do you not get that?

“Paul B’s numbers show that listings are surging ”

Listings went from a peak of 17000 this fall to 10200 and now its at 10500
so this is what you call surging? only if you look at the graph with a microscope, the same microscope you try to find your dick with.
You think I’m smug? If real estate tanks, its ok because I am retired in my 30s from other investments. boom

@RobertJ #135. Unfortunately, 65% of Metro Van are homeowners, think they’re millionaires now, and don’t want prices to fall. Thats is the biggest incentive for politicians not to act.

And I didn’t say not to worry. The fact that most sales are less than a million IS reason to worry. Not sure where you got that 80% from, probably just hyperbole. It appears that most working families ARE choosing to buy. And go into huge debt to do so. Certainly the ones I work with are. That is more worrying than the 10% of rich folk buying those plus million $ homes.

@134
Yes the HUGE trouble is that a Condo isn’t housing. It isn’t housing for ANY family with just one child over 5.

And expensive isn’t just expensive no matter what. There’s expensive which is relative to historical norms re income. And there’s insane expensive where 80% of working young couples can’t even begin to consider ever buying a house.

We have to draw distinctions and not resort to too many generalizations. If there’s a rapid increase in the severity of the ‘expensive’ to the point of it being potentially a sociological problem then we cannot say ‘well It’s always been that way (expensive)’ or ‘don’t worry because 71% are still under a million’ (condos!)

That kind of narrative just gives our elective representative an escape route to not act.

CanucksBoy, if the home costs $900k and the mortgage is for $900k then you’re forgettting that most move-up buyers would have a sizeable downpayment. Or do you really think that a first timer buyer should be able to buy a SFH in the city?

Birth tourism from China on the rise in Richmond BC. Hong Kong banned expectant mothers from China in 2013.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Birth+tourism+rise+Vancouver+Richmond/10713600/story.html

@127

127 wrote: “So, if typical, even in City of Van vast majority of sales are still for homes less than $1million.”

You use the word even. But doesn’t those COV sales stats also include Condos? If so, then that’d be the other 71% vs 29% of house – which would = pretty much 90-100% of houses? That is inane.

It says that the picture is very bad, saying that the majority of sales (which are tiny condos) are under isn’t much comfort for woking families, and doesn’t really paint a true picture.

I don’t know how you draw the conclusion that things aren’t that bad.

They’re terrible. Something needs to be done.

Re # 123

Here’s some stats on CoV only. Can’t find yearly stats, but here are some snapshots for March 2012 and February 2013.

http://issuu.com/jefffitzpatrick/docs/february_2013_sar
http://issuu.com/jefffitzpatrick/docs/03_mar_2012_-_sales_absorption_report/1?e=6607087/7744375

Summary CoV;

March 2012
Totals Sales; 952, sales over $ 1mil; 255 (27%)

February 2013;
Total sales; 385, sales over $ 1mil; 112 (29%)

Other monthly stat packages for 2012 & 2013 also in this link, by price range. Didn’t do math for all of them, but glancing at all, it appears that majority of sales also tend to be in under $ 1million range.

So, if typical, even in City of Van vast majority of sales are still for homes less than $1million.