yvr2zrh posted this analysis of the percentage of property listings for sale that are vacant:
Across REBGV 19% of listed SFH are vacant and 31% of attached/apartments are vacant. So – 50% as the comment from Jesse is higher than actual but not completely out of reach for apartments. Some variations are noted.
SFH Vacant stats (number/%)(in order or highest to lowest) Richmond 175 – 24% Van West 148 – 23% North Van 55 – 21% Port Coq – 22 – 21% Whistler – 39 – 21% Van East – 87 – 20% Burnaby – 71 – 20% etc . . .
For Apartment/Attached, the following are the vacant properties Whistler – 177 (42%) Maple Ridge – 94 (34%) Van West – 522 (34%) New West 110 (33%) Van East – 169 (33%) Burnaby – 261 (31%) Richmond – 298 (31%) North Van – 115 (30%)
– So, even if you have people who just want to hold back, why would they when there is cash outflows to carry the property and the future outlook is for price decreases?
Those who just hold off selling, where they are actually living in the unit, and are waiting for prices to increase, are bound to die living in that unit.
Later today, I will post my predictions for the 2013 market based on my model. What is really helpful is the MOI/monthly price change graph. That has been a really good indicator of price movements. Thus, I will post the projected MOI movements for 2013 and then we can see where the prices fall. It is important to know that listing volumes are down from last year. This is sufficiently so that we may see 2013 inventory intersect the 2012 inventory possibly at the end of the Spring and then track 2012 for the rest of the year.
This will be interesting to watch because once we are down 10-15% from peak prices – how can they continue to say things like prices are flat and this is a soft landing? I would say any decrease of 20% from the peak is not good as you immediately remove even more move-up buyers and put 1000′s of people underwater immediately.
My brother lives in North Burnaby in the area bounded by Hastings and Parker, Willingdon and Gilmore. His neigbhour a couple of doors down (whom both he and I know as we played soccer on the same youth team) many years ago) tore down a nondescript bungalow and built himself a large house. Almost to the day of the one-year anniversary of the place having been completed this friend is sitting at home watching television early in the evening (this happened a couple of weeks ago), when he hears the doorbell ring. He opens it to find a gentleman standing there asking if the house was for sale. The friend asks sarcastically “do you see a for sale sign?” “No”, responds to (as it turns out) real estate agent. The real estate agent continues, “would you be willing to sell it, anyway?”
The friend thinks about it for a second and says “sure, the price is $1.3 million dollars” thinking that would scare the real estate agent away. Anyway, long story short, the real estate guy goes to his car to call someone, comes back and says “okay!” Now my brother thinks that his home is worth about a million dollars.
Crazy! I’m going to get in touch with our friend to find out more of the details.
Here’s a couple of recent stories about Canada’s Housing Agency: First off there’s the news that the government seems to be trying to figure out how to distance themselves from it, maybe by selling it off:
Anyone trying to understand the concern over a potential housing bubble in Canada need look no further than the debate among government officials over whether to exit the mortgage insurance business.
The board of Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp. considered selling the home loan insurer last year, according to former Chairman Dino Chiesa, who’s term ended in March. CMHC, set up in 1946 to promote home ownership, also studied the sale of Australia’s government-owned insurer and presented the findings to the Bank of Canada, according to documents released to Bloomberg News under Canada’s Access to Information Act.
But of course the CMHC is also saying they see ‘no sign of a market bubble’.
While the report did not make specific reference to the government’s changes in the oversight of CMHC, it did offer what could be characterized an strong validation of its role and operations.
“CMHC follows prudential regulations as set out by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, with CMHC maintaining more than twice the minimum capital required by OSFI,” it said. “As a result, CMHC is well positioned to weather possible severe economic scenarios.”
The report also highlighted the important role CMHC plays in the housing market, which it said accounted for 20%, or $346-billion, of Canada’s gross domestic product last year. It pointed out the agency “manages its mortgage loan insurance and securitization guarantee operations using sound business practices that ensure commercial viability without having to rely on the government of Canada for support.”