Vancouver Condo Info

Those heretics over at Canadian Business magazine have a cover article this month called Why Buying a House is a Bad Investment.

The euphoria around home ownership crowds out some of the unpleasant truths about real estate: mainly, that long-term returns are often modest at best. Some studies have found that stock indexes actually outperform housing. More worrying is that real estate prices can and do fall — and they can take a long time to recover. Canada has not been immune to severe price corrections in the past, and we could be on the verge of another one now. With interest rates set to rise and curb affordability, and with economists speculating about a bubble, staking one’s entire financial future on a home is not necessarily a wise bet. In fact, a house just might be one of the most overrated investments around.

..and it goes on and on.

“There’s a unique confluence of factors that has driven house valuations up this sharply,” says Derek Holt, vice-president of economics at Scotia Capital. “They’re all temporary, and that’s a house price bubble that could be pricked as we go off into the next year.” The rate of growth in home prices for the past 10 years has in fact been out of line with prior decades, pointing to lofty valuations today, according to Holt. Prominent Canadians such as money manager Stephen Jarislowsky and former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge have also sounded the alarm recently on today’s unusually rich home prices.

You can read the full article at the Canadian Business website, but these people clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.  After all, real estate prices never go down, everybody knows that.

When Flaherty announced new rules for CMHC insured mortgages in Canada a few weeks ago, there were a lot of questions that remained unanswered. One of the big ones was about the new rule requiring approval based on the 5 year interest rate. The question was which 5 year rate would that be, the posted rate or the discount rate?

Canadian Mortgage Trends is reporting that it will be the 5 year posted rate, which makes sense since the discounted rate is infinitely variable, whereas the posted rate is consistent across all lenders. The posted rate can be found on the Bank of Canada’s website. That rate is posted weekly on Mondays, and as of Sunday night it is 5.39%. The current rule, set to expire April 19th allows lenders to approve insured mortgages based on a discounted 3 year rate, which is currently 3.29%.

This means that as of April 19th, buyers who don’t have at least 20% down and require a CMHC insured mortgage will be approved based on a rate that is more than 2% higher than it currently is to ensure that they can weather rising interest rates.

Just to illustrate what that 2.1% represents in real money, I used the ING mortgage calculator and plugged in some round numbers:

Household income: $100,000
down payment $30,000
Monthly loan credit card payments: Zero
Term: 25 years Property taxes: $2000 Condo fees: Zero

3 year discount rate: 3.29% – you can borrow $491,551

5 year posted rate: 5.39% – you can borrow $397,349

As always, corrections to my math or reasoning is welcome in the comments section below!

The REBGV benchmark house price reached $800,796 in February.  The rise in listings puts us into a ‘balanced’ market condition according to the Real Estate board.  Will we be able to maintain this ‘balance’?  I suppose it depends on how much our market is driven by CMHC support and how new rules and higher interest rates affect those margins.  Here’s some interesting math courtesy of reader bestplaceonmeth:

Based on $58,000 median household income in Vancouver using ING’s “how much can I borrow?” for 35 years (yes, 35 years – it’s what all the cool kids are doing nowadays).  Also assuming no other debts (ha ha) and a conservative $250 a month for property taxes or condo fees or both.

Prior to April 19, qualifying at 1.95% variable rate:

YOU QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE OF $415,270 WITH 5% DOWN!

After April 19, now having to qualify at 3.89% fixed rate:

YOU QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE OF $313,880 WITH 5% DOWN!

Holy foreclosure, Batman! That’s a 25% haircut off current prices!

Now let’s fast forward to the end of 2010, 4 successive 1/2 point interest rate hikes and you now need to qualify at a rate of 5.89%.

YOU QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE OF $244,287 WITH 5% DOWN!

That’s 41% less than 10 months ago, and we’re just getting started.

See, I told you math was fun.

Now, who wants to go out and get into a bidding war?

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out that CMHC currently requires the 3 year rate to be used, so the difference is not as extreme as the above example. DoDo1975 clarifies with this math:

A quick calculation shows that a family with absolutely zero debt making $90k a year could borrow $533,721.32 over 35 years today. All else being equal, after April that number will be $456,311.49 or approximately 14.5% less. This 14.5% is constant across all income levels.

If interest rates on the 5 year prevailing rate also go up 1.5% in the future, this translates into a 28% decrease in the amount someone can borrow compared to today.

Domus pointed out this article in the Globe and Mail.  Former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge is adding his voice to the opinion that the federal government should act now to cool the Canadian housing market.

“These prices look pretty high by any conventional measure,” he said in an interview, citing measures such as the ratio of house prices to incomes and rents to house prices. “So, the likelihood of house prices falling a bit over the next few years is probably somewhat greater than that they would rise over the next few years.”

“Whether there’s a bubble or not you can only see after the fact,” he added. But it wouldn’t take a bubble bursting to cause consumers pain. If your house price goes down 10 per cent and you’ve borrowed 95 per cent of its value, all of a sudden you’d be in hot water, Mr. Dodge noted.

His comments come as Ottawa weighs action to take a bit of steam out of the housing market. While the government does not believe there is a bubble, it has been evaluating tools it could use to help ensure that more consumers don’t take on mortgages they won’t be able to afford when interest rates rise or if house prices fall.

The worst scenario would be if both of those things occur at once. Consumers would find themselves with higher monthly mortgage payments and less valuable homes.

While it’s virtually assured that interest rates will rise at some point, Mr. Dodge is of the view that it’s also realistic to assume house prices will fall. He notes that mortgage rates are likely to rise, which will put a damper on the market. Secondly, “we’re probably into a fairly long period of relatively slow income growth,” he said, and that too will curtail some housing activity.

Read the rest of Dodges comment in the full article here.

Nero pointed out this article in the Globe and Mail about the Big Six Canadian banks urging the government to tighten up mortgage rules to control runaway speculation in the Canadian real estate market.  Just to be clear, these are the same banks that are making pretty much risk free income from these government insured mortgages.  About 40% of their loan portfolio is Canadian mortgages.  As Nero says:

In what world do the banks have to tell the government to rein in lending and squeeze profits?

The article points out that the banks aren’t so much concerned about people defaulting on their mortgages (the government owns that risk), what they’re really concerned about is mass foreclosures affecting peoples ability to pay off their credit card bills and other loans, since THOSE debts are not government insured.

So these are the big banks, why don’t they just tighten up their own lending standards? Patriotz summed the issue up nicely:

The banks are essentially facing a prisoner’s dilemma problem. They know that if the bubble continues, and collapses, they all will be worse off. But there is no incentive for any individual bank to restrict lending, because its competitors would just take the business, and thus that bank would end taking the biggest hit.

Also an agreement among the banks to restrict lending, even if it could be arrived at, could be viewed legally as a conspiracy in restraint of trade.

So the banks must appeal to a higher level to restrict lending to all of them equally.

So will Flaherty listen to the banks and tighten up mortgage lending standards and if so, what form will that take?  One point to remember is that this issue is about a national housing bubble, and I don’t believe there’s another major market in Canada that is as detached from local incomes as Vancouver.

update: Patriotz points out that Flaherty has made his decision, and somewhat sensibly decided to stick with the ‘warn them mildly and let them dig their own grave’ approach.

“In terms of Canada, we’ve been watching and monitoring carefully and we continue to do that. There are certain tools available to the government if we choose to use some or all of them. As you know, we did so in 2008, and we’re continuing to watch. Right now, there is no compelling evidence of a housing bubble in Canada. There are some signals in the market that are concerning,”

Mark Carney of the Bank of Canada feels the same way:

The central bank has no immediate worry about a housing bubble. However, Mr. Carney reiterated that households should be cautious about taking on home loans at current rates, which will inevitably rise.

“We’ve alerted to this issue, the broader issue of household debt,” Mr. Carney said. “We want to ensure people manage their affairs recognizing that the current situation with interest rates is extraordinary and extraordinary won’t persist.”

Both Mr. Carney and Mr. Flaherty have been urging consumers to act cautiously when buying homes for several months now.

Now that the W has revitalized the Downtown Eastside, eliminating the scourge of homeless, drug addicts, panhandlers and prostitutes there’s just one more bold step to complete this neighborhoods transformation: 270 sq foot micro condos.

For those keeping track, that’s the size of two parking spots.  You can tell your grandkids about the good ol’ days when your family lived in a spacious 450sq foot condo.

John Stovell, general manager of Reliance Properties, said there’s a strong need for more affordable rental units in the downtown area.

“So many people contact us, not with a specific size they want, or specific amenities, but they tell us where they want to be in the neighbourhood and how much they can pay. So often that amount is just not achievable for anything but a very specialized product like this,” he said.

“By cutting away the non-essentials, that is the only way to get to that price-point in Vancouver,” he said.

News Flash! This just in, hot off the presses!  Vancouver has become one of the most unaffordable cities in the world.

Vancouver not only has the least affordable housing of 28 markets measured in Canada, but of 272 metropolitan markets ranked in Ireland, the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, the U.S. and Canada, according to statistics compiled by the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

We’re number one! We’re number one!

The numbers are calculated by dividing the median (or middle) residential house sale price from the third quarter by median annual gross household income. In Vancouver, for example, a median home price of $540,900 was divided by median household income of $58,200 to create a multiple of 9.3. The group describes as “severely unaffordable” any reading of 5.1 and over.

Not only that, it is “unprecedented in modern history,” the group said.

Ah! A brave new era!  We’ve broken records and surely now prices have nowhere to go but up!  Congratulations to everyone who took part in the contest by bidding up home prices, and a special thanks to the CMHC.  I don’t think we could have done it without your generous support!

Bob Rennie is the quintessential salesman and like most marketers he knows how to talk his product up.  Here he is expounding on the wonders of Vancouver condos on the Chinese news site xinhuanet.com.  This follows the template of most of his ‘news’ releases but includes one very interesting quote about the post-games market here in Vancouver:

“I’ll guarantee it won’t hurt our values. I’ll guarantee it will maintain our values. The frightening part is if values go up too much. We don’t have financial sector head office jobs, no manufacturing. If we are basing things on local incomes, how does housing keep up with local incomes if we have a shortage? We have to be very careful on the affordability side.”

This is a very generous offer.  If anyone has the financial resources to ‘guarantee’ that your condo won’t drop in value it’s Bob Rennie.  This could be exactly what anyone who fears the fallout of a housing bubble needs to get them to buy property in Vancouver.  After all, many people are leery of buying in a market where prices are near record highs and there are no ‘financial sector head office jobs’ and ‘no manufacturing’, particularly when that city has a history of volatility in house prices and has seen market crashes of up to 50% in the past.  Watching people in cities around the world go into foreclosure or make mortgage payments that are far beyond the current value of their property doesn’t exactly instill confidence either, even if it IS different here.

I’m not sure exactly what the contract on this deal would look like but I imagine that you’d ‘lock in’ your purchase price and it would be held on record for any future point you decide to sell.  If the market goes up, you’ve made free money.  If the market goes down, I’m guessing Bob Rennie would write you a cheque to cover the difference between your purchase price and the price you were able to sell for.

Nah, that’s just silly… he’d probably have an employee write you the cheque.

I’m not sure if there are any catches, but with a deal like that how could you possibly go wrong?

Ok, this is all getting a bit weird.  First we heard from bank economists, Flaherty and the PM – the general message tended towards caution: don’t buy what you can’t afford, make sure you can handle rising interest rates, we’ll keep an eye on the Canadian housing market to make sure it doesn’t get too bubbly, that kind of thing.  Now we’ve got more warnings showing up in the mainstream press, but these are a lot more direct:

“If you’re somebody in a situation that you have only five per cent down and you’re stretching to get in the market with a 35-year amortization, I think that would be a very precarious situation right now,” said BMO Capital market economist Robert Kavcic.

Conversely, he said, “if you’re sitting on a pile of cash and looking to move into the real estate market, it would almost be a no-brainer to just wait for lower prices.”

Mr. Kavcic isn’t the only one in that article that thinks buying right now would be a mistake:

“It’s absolutely not debatable that housing prices cannot rise faster than incomes over the long term,” said Will Strange, professor of real estate and urban economics at the Rotman School of Management.

Sooner or later, incomes have to rise, or home prices fall, for balance to be attained.

Many analysts argue that home prices are not yet out of line with the incomes it takes to pay for them, Strange said. Yet with the job market still weak, and unlikely to drive new employment and higher wages, odds are that if something’s got to give, it will be prices.

“If I didn’t personally have most of my wealth tied up in housing, this would not be the time that I would choose to jump in,” Strange cautioned.

Now keep in mind these comments refer to the national Canadian real estate market where house price increases are starting to outpace incomes in many cities.  Here in Vancouver things are different: house prices have been outpacing incomes for years.

Don sent in this link to Helmut Pastrick of Central One Credit Union expressing concern about Flaherty’s recent talk of clamping down on the easy mortgage money.  Concern over a Canadian housing bubble has Flaherty, Harper and Carney musing about ways to dampen the market: rising interest rates, cutting terms down from 35 years and requiring a larger down payment.  It’s this last one that has Pastrick concerned.

A senior B.C. economist is warning the Lower Mainland’s recovering real estate market and construction industry will both take a hit if Ottawa makes it harder for first-time home buyers to get mortgages.

Helmut Pastrick of Central 1 Credit Union was responding to federal finance minister Jim Flaherty, who said the government will “likely” boost the minimum down payment from the current five per cent and cut the maximum mortgage term down from 35 years to ward off a potential housing bubble in Canada.

“It would have quite a negative impact,” Pastrick said. “It would certainly soften the real estate market. There would also be less new construction over time.”

A higher down payment threshold would force many first-time buyers with insufficient cash to delay buying.

As Don points out, is that really a bad thing?