Open Topic

Friday Free-for-all! Oct 7th 2016

208
208 Comments

Well, it’s the end of another beautiful work-week and that means it’s time for another Friday free-for-all!

This is our standard end of the week news round-up and open topic discussion thread for the weekend.  Here are a few recent links to kick off the chat:

–Vancouver down for the count
–Sales plunge 33%
–AirBnb registration system
–Government wants your opinion
–IMF lowers canadian economic outlook
–Foreign buyers almost disappeared
–2 years from retirement, buy a house?
–Why would anyone get into the market right now?
–West Van vacancy tax
–

So what are you seeing out there? Post your news links, thoughts and anecdotes here and have an excellent weekend!

208 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
southseacompany

“Why Canadian homeowners should take heed of the ‘leverage cycle’ theory”, Globe & Mail subscription

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economic-insight/why-canadian-homeowners-should-take-heed-of-the-leverage-cycle-theory/article32314870/?1476134326442

“Among the contenders for this year’s Nobel Prize in economics was a Yale University professor named John Geanakoplos, whose work focuses on what’s known as “the leverage cycle.” While he didn’t win the prize – it was awarded Monday to a Finnish and British team – the fact that Mr. Geanakoplos attracts this level of critical acclaim should serve as a wake-up call to Canadian homeowner”

0
0
southseacompany

Entire article; Among the contenders for this year’s Nobel Prize in economics was a Yale University professor named John Geanakoplos, whose work focuses on what’s known as “the leverage cycle.” While he didn’t win the prize – it was awarded Monday to a Finnish and British team – the fact that Mr. Geanakoplos attracts this level of critical acclaim should serve as a wake-up call to Canadian homeowners. The Yale scholar’s research, born out of the U.S. housing market meltdown and global financial crisis, shows that if Canada is in a housing bubble, the economy will take a pounding when it bursts. Mr. Geanakoplos’s theory defies conventional wisdom, which dictates low interest rates are driving up home prices. The Yale professor argues interest rates are only part of the story. His thesis is collateral drives asset values. In the case… Read more »

0
0
ostritch

Three years after Sydney took measures to burst their bubble:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/shortage-of-homes-defies-effort-to-rein-in-prices-20161006-grwv1h.html

0
0
Just me

It is wall of money, and Vancouver (like Sydney) is being swept away. There is no denying that, and do not believe those who say otherwise. I can see why many people want it to go on. It is like having a world-class industry, while it lasts. Of course, it is not quite the same, as we are simply giving away a non-renewable resource (land) without building any foundation for future, continued success. In 20 years from now, when all has been sold, this city will be one gugantic safe deposit box for those mainlanders who managed to get their money out. No other industry will be able to profitably function in this place. We can still stop it, we just have to start by replacing the provincial government. They quite clearly stated that local people should suck it up… Read more »

0
0
Newcomer

So you think that Chinese economic expansion will continue for 20 years. You have a lot more confidence in central planning than I do.

0
0
ostritch

If you read the article they state population increase is currently to blame. So the cooling actions they took which were to force foreigners to sell houses when they left the country plus a rate increase that affected all punters has not curbed price increases. There is a panic on for SFHs again.

0
0
Just me

If you read about the way chinese family networks operate, you can see that legislating against foreigners is not enough. You have to increase carrying costs, and link housing titles to incom tax files. What David Eby is saying, basically. I would never think I would say the NDP is our only hope. But such are the times.

0
0
Just me

No I don’t. I was simply stating what I suspect Vancouver will look in 20 years. A resort city where homes are safe deposit boxes.
As for China, I think some time within five years there will be some major shock/adjustment. What happens next is anybody’s guess.

0
0
Slava

It is already like that now. You are 20 years too late with your prediction.

0
0
Oracle

He’s playing you.

0
0
Oracle

Man are you naive. Or a troll. Whenever Chinese immigration is mentioned, your panties or underwear get tied up in a knot. Troll?

0
0
Combat roach

As said many times before, only way to deal with plaque is to make a hard stop and cut on Chinese immigration and money coming to Canada.

0
0
Oracle

Bingo! Otherwise only multi millionaires will be able goafford detached.

0
0
Just me

More about what is happening in Chinese real estate.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2169358-chinas-ponzi-real-estate-market/

A Ponzi scheme of staggering proportions. By its sheer size it is making waves around the world. Vancouver is simply one of the first places where this tsunami of money has hit.
Funny how our market responds heavily to monetary policy choices of the PBOC.
Canada’s politicians should have built some protection fom it, but they were hostage (and remain so) to voters who benefit from this wall of money. Vote them out! No more Christy Clark.

0
0
Newcomer

One thing I a pretty sure of is that China’s RE is crazy. The average annual salary is about 6 grand US. The average price per square meter is about 6 grand US. So if you want to live in a modest home, you are on the hook for a hundred year’s salary. That’s quite the multiplier.

This article in Forbes sees the money coming from people’s pockets, not loans, but that is very hard to fathom.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes/#3787668b4aa5

I feel pretty confident that China’s RE market will undergo the biggest crash in human history, but I am not sure when.

0
0
Oracle

Nope. You are wrong.

0
0
YVR

I will summarize. Mortgage rates are going up across the board and credit is tightening.

0
0
Ulsterman

One of the links to advisor.ca said this:
“For tax years that end after October 2, 2016, CRA will now require taxpayers to fill out additional reporting when they claim the PRE.”

“The taxpayer will be required to provide basic information in the taxpayer’s income tax return for that year in order to claim the exemption,” says the Department of Finance. “

Does this mean you file when you claim the PRE when you sell or are you claiming it on your tax forms each year you simply live in the house?

0
0
Oracle

Purposely left vague so people can exploit loopholes.

Make it an annual form if you own property. And list both residence and investment properties and year bought.

0
0
Shut It Down Already

Surely you’re only claiming the exemption (from CGT) in the year that you sell.

0
0
Dyugle

That is the year you claim the exception. But CRA is building a database of all property and will automatically go after taxes on every sale if a property is not declared as a principal residence. This makes sense as right now the exception is automatically assumed unless declared otherwise. Imagine that the government did not track your employment and left it up to you to declare your income and pay all the required source deductions. Such a system is laughable and yet that is how real estate capital gains are being collected.
Pathetic.
This tax is the first shot at fixing the situation. If it does not work, expect more.

0
0
Shut It Down Already

So if they go after you you just provide proof that’s it was your PR. Easy.

0
0
YVR

According to Ozzy Jurock on the radio Saturday he stated you must report your principal residence each and every year you file taxes. He also noted you will now be required to pay capital gains taxes on the suit portion of the property.

Go to Oct 8, 9AM then the 40 minute mark to start the segment and the 47 minute mark for the principal residence part.

http://www.cknw.com/audio/

0
0
Oracle

The big problem Is owners of MULTIPLE homes not paying capital gains taxes when they own multiple properties.

CRA has to inventory all the Homes this year. Otherwise the grandma and the dog are going to get homes put under their names.

This fraud and bs has to stop.

0
0
YVR

“CRA has to inventory all the Homes this year. ”

Sorry Oracle wrong again. Current property ownership is in the land title registry which CRA has access to of course. If you transfer the property to Grandpa that will trigger a capital gain immediately. Going forward if Grandpa doesn’t already own a property he can claim the PRE but that is after paying up the accrued capital gain.

0
0
ostritch

One Chinese person has multiple names. Go get your license renewed at the MacDonald and 25th branch to see the sad comedy of the bc government trying to cope with that on our new licenses and Care Cards.

0
0
Oracle

True. Multiple passports.

0
0
Oracle

Gifts??

0
0
southseacompany

“Carney: ‘Not our job to fix consequences of low interest rates'”, The Week, UK

http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/64116/interest-rates-could-be-cut-again-despite-good-post-brexit-data

“Mark Carney has dismissed criticism that the Bank of England’s ultra-loose monetary policy has hurt ordinary savers at the expense of already wealthy asset owners.”

‘That’s not to say that Carney disagrees with the view of the Prime Minister Theresa May or the former chancellor George Osborne that the bank’s policies have had “distributional consequences”. He simply insists that it’s not up to the bank’s policymakers to fix them”

0
0
HAMster

When I read comments like Carney’s it just reinforces to me how evil these central bankers are. Complete psychopaths really.

0
0
Newcomer

They aren’t evil, they are just specialized. Their job is to make certain indicators fall within certain numerical ranges. They try to do that, regardless of what the unintended consequences are.

0
0
Just me

Why? The mandate of central banks includes price stability and, in the case of some, employment stability. For example, the official mandate of the Fed recites: “The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates. ” Carney is stating the obvious he cannot step out of his mandate and fix the consequences of low interest rates. Fixing that is up to politicians, by law. Of course politicians could in principle change the laws and give cenrtral banks a larger mandate. Would you like that? A Nobel prize winning economist (Maskin) has recently suggested that fiscal policies should be outsourced to experts, given some broad targets set by politicians. Given the abysmal record of politicians in doing the right thing, and considering recent disasters due to… Read more »

0
0
HAMster

Interest rates have been moved too low and held there for too long; that is the issue. They have caused needless asset bubbles and unneeded suffering to the masses in order to shore up their banker buddies. Make no mistake, it is always about the bankers and to hell with everyone else.

0
0
Newcomer

While I tend to agree, we don’t actually know what would have happened if the central bankers had not goosed it. We could have be eating cold spam in the dark by now for all we know.

0
0
patriotz

No, the real issue is that governments have refused to use the right remedy (fiscal stimulus) due to ideological reasons, which means the central banks have been left to use monetary easing to avert consumer price deflation, which they have a legal mandate to do.

0
0
southseacompany

“Global economy weekahead: Elusive 2016 Fed interest rate hike coming into focus”, Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-economy-idUSKCN1271VR

“Minutes on Wednesday of the Federal Open Market Committee’s September policy meeting, at which three members voted for a hike, could do more than any data release to convince investors of what already looks like a greater than 50-50 chance of a December rate rise.”

0
0
No Money Down

It will be very interesting going forward to see how CRA views capital gains on the suite/lane house/business use portion of the property.

Previously, it was generally to the homeowner’s advantage (at least in Vancouver) to declare suite income because it was often negative after deductions for interest, taxes, heat, electricity, etc. I know someone who is selling and had dutifully filed suite income for years and deducted 20% of those costs. Can CRA now not apply CGT to 20% of the gain?

Same goes for business use. You could “get away” with declaring 10% of your property as a “home office” no questions asked. Does CGT apply to that 10%?

Also laneway houses that are rented out and income declared. How can CRA not tax that component?

0
0
Hyper-mega-Bull

My understanding, and I’m not an accountant, is that as long as they don’t declare depreciation they won’t get hit with capital gains tax.

0
0
patriotz

That is the case as long as the part of the house that is rented out or used for business purposes does not involve substantial modification of the structure and is not substantial in size compared to the whole house. Definitely does not apply to a laneway house.

0
0
Newcomer

Actually, that is not the case. See: http://househuntvictoria.ca/2016/10/07/do-you-have-to-pay-capital-gains-tax-on-your-suite/

0
0
patriotz

Thanks for the link, but it does not disagree with what I said. The judgment was based on the fact the house was physically a purpose built duplex and as such could not be considered a principal residence in its entirety.

0
0
Newcomer

I might have misunderstood but you seemed to say that the criteria were, “substantial modification of the structure and is not substantial in size compared to the whole house” even though modification is not a test and nor is size. The test is whether it is separate and whether is occupied as a dwelling by the owner or their family. So, for example, a 6000 sqft house with a 300 sqft suite, which was originally built as such (no modification) and is rented out no a non-family member, would not qualify for the exemption. A room in the house would qualify, because it is not separate, even if it were created by substantial modification and even if it took up a quarter of the house.

0
0
patriotz

Changing part of your principal residence to a rental or business property

You are usually considered to have changed the use of part of your principal residence when you start to use that part for rental or business purposes. However, you are not considered to have changed its use if:

your rental or business use of the property is relatively small in relation to its use as your principal residence;
you do not make any structural changes to the property to make it more suitable for rental or business purposes; and
you do not deduct any CCA on the part you are using for rental or business purposes.

If you meet all of the above conditions, the whole property may qualify as your principal residence, even though you are using part of it for rental or business purposes.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4037/t4037-e.html#P4328_161895

0
0
Newcomer

Fair enough. But let’s note that this relates just to the special circumstance of a change to a part of a principal residence, which was really what we were discussing. That said, I would guess that it is useful guidance if you start from a principal residence in which no part was originally intended to be a rental property. It’s worth noting that, when the chips are down, this does not seem to be how the tax court has seen it (Curious Cat, an accountant, gives us quite a few more examples from the tax courts in the comments of that link I used).

0
0
Leo S

Except that every suite consists of structural alternations to the house. And that’s not the important part, the important part is that the part of the house is not normally inhabited by the owner and thus capital gains tax will be due.

0
0
Newcomer

Again, see http://househuntvictoria.ca/2016/10/07/do-you-have-to-pay-capital-gains-tax-on-your-suite/ to get a clear picture. The case law has established that if you do not actually occupy a portion of the space, even if you just leave it empty, but certainly if you rent it out, you pay full capital gains tax on that portion. Up to now, if you didn’t declare depreciation, the CRA had no way of knowing how you were using the property. Now everyone has to declare how they are using the property so everyone will have to choose between making false declarations or paying up.

0
0
No Money Down

Reporting the sale of your principal residence for individuals http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/bdgt/2016/qa11-eng.html 8. What do I report when I actually sell my principal residence, if I used part of it as my principal residence and another part for my business or to earn rental income? If only a part of your home qualifies as your principal residence and you used the other part to earn or produce income, you may have to split the selling price and the adjusted cost base between the part you used for your principal residence and the part you used for other purposes (for example, rental or business). You can do this by using square metres or the number of rooms, as long as the split is reasonable. Instructions will be provided in the guide T4037, Capital Gains 2016, on how to report the sale of your… Read more »

0
0
No Money Down

The change in position in all 3 levels of government in the last few months has been staggering and completely unforseen (except for Bob Rennie apparently). I had expected Christy to go into the 2017 election pandering to existing homeowners on the platform of “if you want to lose all your equity vote for the NDP”.

I had a number of conversations this summer with SF homeowners in Vancouver who believed they were fully entitled to all the equity they had “built up” and that the government shouldn’t interfere with the market (LOL). In their mind, the money was already in the bank.

Interesting times.

0
0
Kim

The funny thing is in the stock market there is a lot of regulation. Not so for this wild west YVR RE casino.

0
0
Oracle

So this is Official wording on Principal residences when you have 2 or more houses.

“While the family member must “ordinarily inhabit” the principal residence, CRA has said living in a property for “short periods” will qualify it for the PRE. ”

They will allow the loopholes to continue.

0
0
Oracle

Rent it out for 8-10 months to foreign student. Collect cash. Then “live” in it for 2-3 months saying it’s a summer home.

That’s what people are going to do when gov openly gives them the loopholes.

0
0
Newcomer

Sure, you can commit out and out tax fraud, but the difference is that now you will be signing your name on a schedule in which you put the specifics of your fraud in writing and risk 14 years in jail. It used to be you could just forget to declare things. Not anymore. Now you have to willfully engage in a demonstrable criminal act. That doesn’t sound very attractive to me.

0
0
Oracle

I’m beings a devils advocate here. Trying to spot loopholes that gov may have intentionally left.

I agree there should be a yearly form where everyone identifies their primary residence. Invasion of privacy??

Also what about foreign students and homemakers who won’t file returns?? Seems unfair.

0
0
Newcomer

They have to file when they sell because they will have income in that year. It’s not yet clear if the new rules mean that they have to file each year that they live in a property that they own.

0
0
patriotz

“I agree there should be a yearly form where everyone identifies their primary residence. ”

BC has had one for decades – it’s the Home Owners Grant application on the property tax form.

And this from the guy who is the “expert” on home ownership.

0
0
YVR

You confuse tax evasion and loopholes. You are talking about tax evasion. Under the new rules it just got a whole lot tougher to get away with tax evasion and everyone will have a paper trail filed in their tax returns that will make it easy for CRA to catch those evading. To claim a property as a principal residence it will have to be in the persons name and filed on their tax returns each year. If they do not declare a suit in a SFH it will be an easy target for CRA to audit.

0
0
Shut It Down Already

CRA now refers to itself in the third person? Who are you quoting?

0
0
Oracle

Lawyer website

0
0
YVR

Here is the full text. Again Oracle got it wrong. Only one PRE per family. No loopholes.

WHAT’S THE PRE?
A family unit (the taxpayer, her spouse, and any unmarried minor children) is entitled to one PRE per year. Families who have two or more properties must choose which property to designate as the principal residence in a given year. While the family member must “ordinarily inhabit” the principal residence, CRA has said living in a property for “short periods” will qualify it for the PRE. (Read these articles for more on the PRE’s details and exceptions.)

Families with one home have only one principal residence, so they get the full exemption from tax on any capital gains. But people with more than one home can choose which residence to designate as principal, provided the residence qualifies.

http://www.advisor.ca/tax/tax-news/principal-residence-exemption-whats-changed-what-hasnt-213198

0
0
Hyper-mega-Bull

When tax evaders fabricate their own realities loopholes are not the primary concern in my opinion.

0
0
Ulsterman

No question the market for SFH’s in North Burnaby has seized up at current asking prices. I noticed today that MLS® Number: R2107375 has been reduced about 5% from 1.5m to 1.425m. Not a huge drop but it’s a start.

0
0
Burnaby Bear

I drive by MLS R2091381 every day. It was listed in June or July for $1.888m and dropped to $1.788m 5 or 6 weeks ago. Still not sold. MLS R2108368 still says “New Listing” on the sign, but it has been listed for at least three months.

0
0
CanNeverThinkOfAGoodName

If the seller reads this they’ll think you’re interested and the price will stay, or stay longer than it would otherwise. Maybe…. (hope not).

0
0
burntout

YVR says from Ozzy Jurock

One interesting thing he noted is you must claim your principal residence every year on your income taxes even if you do not sell.

HOW MANY OF YOU THINK THE STUDENTS AND HOUSE WIVES WHO BUY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Vancouver property even submit a tax return.
Answer = zero

0
0
Oracle

True.

They simply won’t file a tax return.

Plus, no withholding tax here I think.

Hot air by Trudeau.

0
0
YVR

“Plus, no withholding tax here I think.”

Wrong again Oracle.

Purchaser is required to withhold 25% (or 50% in some cases) of the total purchase price.

http://www.thecoastgroup.ca/faq/non-residents-renting-property-in-canada-2/

0
0
patriotz

“Answer = zero”

Anser = all of them, because you have to file to get child benefit, GST credit, etc.

0
0
YVR

Then they won’t be able to claim the house as a principal residence when they sell and they will be taxed on capital gains. The house may also be classified as “vacant” in Vancouver and taxed with the vacant house tax. In West Vancouver they are planning a new increased property tax rate for ALL houses that are not declared principal residences. The free ride is over.

0
0
Just me

Extremely good description of what is going on in China’s RE market. I now understand why they think they are getting fantastic deals here in Vancouver: they are cheap compared to what you get over there!
(Incidentally, I felt really sorry for the young lady in the interview, she reminded me of many friends here in Vancouver. Truly sad.)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/beijing-shanghai-shenzhen-the-cities-where-house-prices-rose-by-30-to-40-per-cent-20161003-grtwe6.html

There is no way this all thing can end up well, it is a ticking time bomb. No amount of central planning can generate a soft landing. This is going to be crash and burn.

0
0
Newcomer

“But with economic growth slowing, the temptation to allow bustling housing activity to buttress gross domestic product has proven hard to resist.

The problem, however, is that even average properties in major cities are far out of the reach of ordinary workers. In first-tier cities like Beijing, home ownership for ordinary young workers is near impossible without help from parents, or unless their family got in early and already owns real estate. ”

Change Beijing to Vancouver of Toronto and this could be Canada. It is the malady of our time.

0
0
Bag it and tag it

The smart money in Beijing is selling and buying oversees which is one of the prime reasons for the surge in Chinese buyers in Van and elsewhere the past year or so. Bubble dominos, soon to be followed by crash dominos.

0
0
patriotz

“The smart money in Beijing is selling and buying oversees”

Selling one bubble asset and buying another is not what I would call smart.

0
0
Patiently Waiting

Why did this couple go to the media? Did they think they were helping AirBnB?

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/10/04/vancouver-renters-fight-for-the-right-to-airbnb.html

0
0
Shut It Down Already

“He came to us saying…stop using short-term stays, and we gave him the finger”

He sounds like a fantastic tenant.

0
0
Patiently Waiting

Imagine him as your host. What would he say if you asked for an extra towel?

0
0
Sailor55

He’d probably give you the boot.

0
0
HAMster

Did they declare that $2,000 month income on their taxes?

0
0
Chinabuyeverything

Not a chance

0
0
Combat roach

I would assume they just did it.

0
0
chilled

I’ll bet the airhead names her son ‘Cole’

0
0
Boombust

How about “Jamie” or “Cody”?

0
0
Newcomer

These guys think that there should be an exception for this kind of BNBing, but it is the worst kind. This is the renter’s version of low interest rates. They can’t afford the asking on their local income, so they turn it into a hotel to cover the rent. This is now a rent comp for the neighborhood, so everyone else has to BNB to cover their rent. I know many people doing this. Horrible practice.

0
0
patriotz

This is the best part of the story:

“adding that after fighting several eviction attempts, he and Slaw decided to buy a condo in False Creek.”

0
0
history

Ryan Kirwan, HQ Mortgages Inc. October 4, 2016 at 8:24 AM Wow! “Of all the changes the government has made over the past couple of years to curb housing prices, this may be the one that gets it done! For those buyers with less than a 20% down payment, this new policy could mean a HUGE difference in affordability. And the Finance Department just didn’t pick on the rich this time! Relatively speaking, everyone that needs Mortgage Default Insurance will be affected. “What this new policy ‘should’ accomplish, is that in due time, housing prices will have to adjust to the Buyer’s affordability. If the Seller wants to wait for someone to come along with 20% down payment, they may be waiting a long time. In order to sell their home quicker and open up to more buyers, they’ll have… Read more »

0
0
YVR

Listening to Ozzy Jurock today and his outlook on the new changes are pretty dire (for RE pumpers that is). One interesting thing he noted is you must claim your principal residence every year on your income taxes even if you do not sell. I assume they will also ask if there is a suit, specific questions on rental income, etc. Plus how many audits will this start. Those who all of sudden claim a suit who didn’t in the past claim any rental income. Game change for those with suits. Get ready to pay your taxes and penalties!

0
0
history

All those mortgage writers laid off by the new rules could be hired as goo tax auditors. But that might be conflict of interest.

0
0
Brian Ripley

On my absorption rate chart there is a clear break in trend for Vancouver sellers:
http://www.chpc.biz/mar-moi.html

It has been a fascinating blow off top to a mature bull market. The Toronto market is a bit slow on the change but their sales volume is 4 times that of Vancouver’s and I suspect unless earnings pick up, the sentiment change will pick up speed there as well.

Seasonally, it’s all over until 1Q 2017. It’s going to be a long wait for any flippers who have purchased recently.

0
0
Lurker

I can’t read your charts. Could you try making them simpler? One piece of data for one city at a time?

This is insane:

http://www.chpc.biz/uploads/9/7/9/5/9795010/sep16-moi_1_orig.png?716

0
0
paulb

New
160
Price Change
69
Sold
101
TI:9852

http://www.paulboenisch.com

0
0
bullwhip29

Ontario Wants Foreign Housing Investment, Finance Minister Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-07/ontario-wants-foreign-housing-investment-finance-minister-says

0
0
patriotz

Translation: We’re afraid the new Federal regulations will bring on a bust, and the provincial election is less than 2 years away.

0
0
bullwhip29

In real estate limbo, how low can we go?
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/pete-mcmartin-in-real-estate-limbo-how-low-can-we-go

0
0
bullwhip29

Vancouver’s housing boom sets off human-rights alarm at UN
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/vancouvers-housing-boom-sets-off-human-rights-alarm-at-un/article32298690/

0
0
Kim

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/first-time-home-buyers-take-hit-with-new-mortgage-rules-1.3795836

Poor Dil Kaur. Must be one of Oracle’s relatives.

The article makes the assumption that prices will keep on rising. Don’t people realize that this is the problem? Low interest rates? And this lady is some admin person (probably making at most 40k a year) who was looking for a 600k-700k house? With parental help, of course.

0
0
bullwhip29

and how does differ from your thesis that high dividend paying stocks are the place to be?

0
0
Kim

I’m cash flow positive from day one when I buy a dividend paying stock.

I generate enough income right now to retire in my 30s. Don’t care what the stock market does. I’m diversified enough such that my portfolio will never go to zero. If it does, it’ll be because of some major catastrophic world ending armageddon.

I don’t need to take on debt which has risk, always.

That’s what’s different.

0
0
Shut It Down Already

What’s happens I find enough dividend cuts mean you have to start withdrawing equity? It’ll go to zero then.

0
0
patriotz

Even during the 2008 financial crisis bank stocks didn’t cut dividends. We’ve seen big dividend cuts in the energy sector recently but a diversified dividend paying portfolio has continued to do well and will continue barring a repeat of the 1930’s. And we know how well RE did back than.

0
0
Shut It Down Already

US banks cut dividends.

0
0
Kim

What happens if a 9.0 earthquake strikes Vancouver and your home crumbles and all Chinese refuse to invest in Vancouver? Canadian insurance companies go bankrupt and your million dollar bungalow is just dirt.

I hold companies that have been increasing dividends for 25 years plus. Not likely that all of them will cut dividends all at once. Didn’t happen in 2008. Not likely to happen in the future.

0
0
patriotz

“how does differ from your thesis that high dividend paying stocks are the place to be?”

The government doesn’t guarantee loans to stock buyers with 95% margin.

0
0
Gora

No, Ramindeep and Hardik are it’s relatives.

0
0
southseacompany

“Canadian mortgage rates could rise under Ottawa’s new rules”, Global

http://globalnews.ca/news/2990237/canadian-mortgage-rates-could-rise-under-ottawas-new-rules/

“Mortgage lending changes by the federal government are going to make it harder for non-bank lenders to operate and could see Canadians pay higher rates on their loans, mortgage brokers warn.”

0
0
southseacompany

“How the new housing rules affect your purchasing power”, Globe & Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/the-market/how-the-new-housing-rules-affect-your-purchasing-power/article32307002/

“We’ve asked RateHub.ca, an online personal-finance resource, to calculate what buyers at three income levels could afford under the new and outgoing rules. “

0
0
Oracle

Little Billy,

I’m in Laguna beach. Looking for a property near Heisler Park. Very nice day here.

Are you still worried about my predictions? Lol

Prices here crazy compared to vancouver.

0
0
YVR

You made it through the US border? Better wait till after the election before you buy in the US. If Trump is elected you may not make it through next time.

0
0
Oracle

You’ve drank too much koolaid. Nothing is going to change. Two puppets runs by the same masters. That’s what everyone here saying.

Canadian media Messing with your guys critical thinking skills.

0
0
dyugle

Laguna beach is to LA as White Rock is to Vancouver. Only problem is LA is one order of magnitude larger and has a diversified economy that is orders of magnitudes larger. They also have Fortune 500 companies located there where as we have none. But other than that the comparison is spot on, I guess prices will never go down, there will never be a NDP government or a recession and we will all get a pony.
Seriously though, do you think that this tax of Kristy’s is a plan to create an economic crisis leading to her reelection as the voters do not trust the NDP with the economy?

0
0
Oracle

More jealousy.

Expected from the fringe here on this blog. There is a group here who has been saying Laguna prices gonna crash 90%. Been saying it for 20 years now.

0
0
Whistler or Bust?

I doubt that. Laguna is world class and the prices are not crazy compared to Vancouver.

0
0
Chinabuyeverything

You are of course aware that if you buy property in the US you are deemed a US person by the IRS. And taxable on global income by the IRS.
Forever.

0
0
Newcomer

Bull. There is not a scrap of truth to that (it would be nice if that were true) but even if you weren’t just making stuff up, why would a Canadian care? We have a tax treaty with the US.

0
0
Ulsterman

exactly. you have to complete an IRS tax report each year i think but of course you are not double taxed. Fear mongering!

0
0
patriotz

“You are of course aware that if you buy property in the US you are deemed a US person by the IRS.”

That is complete nonsense. Vancouver residents have owned properties in Pt. Roberts and Birch Bay for generations. If you own a property in the US and rent it out you do have to file a return for the income, and when you sell it you have to report the capital gain. Just like a foreigner owning a property in Canada.

0
0