Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

Franks Happy Place posted:

Contracts you sign don't overrule whatever is outlined in legislation. A lease agreement that stipulates something that isn't in some way backed up by the RTA is unenforceable. I'm not sure if agreeing to extra cleaning is outlined somewhere because its been a while since I read through it, but if there isn't a specific RTA clause about that then its meaningless.

There's a section at the end of the government-approved template specifically for additional clauses (like pet deposits, no smoking, etc). As long as no rights are waived, the clauses are not "unconscionable" and both parties agree, they're legit.

# ? Dec 25, 2013 01:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 00:03

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

I do, but I am also an unironic socialist and pay money to post on an internet comedy forum so

I don't really "get" why the maintainance thing is even a thing. Like do houses not need maintainance if you own them? At worst you are no worse off renting.

# ? Dec 25, 2013 01:21

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Throatwarbler posted:

I don't really "get" why the maintainance thing is even a thing. Like do houses not need maintainance if you own them? At worst you are no worse off renting.

Houses can have pretty expensive maintenance if you hold them for long time such as replacing the roof, busted hot water heater or sometimes fixing other annoying small problems like a leaky roof.

Then there's all the other upkeep such as mowing the lawn, wash/sealing deck or painting.

# ? Dec 25, 2013 02:42

cgeq: Jun 5, 2004

Shifty Pony posted:

Was this with professional property management services, or with amateur landlords? The latter can be a royal pain but there is no guarantee that the former will be any good either because I've noticed a bunch of pop-up "property management" companies around here lately. It almost reminds me off all the people who rushed out to get their real estate licenses during the big bubble.

The professional property management company I've rented from before was the one to actually give me a bill on moving out for carpet cleaning (and over almost 3 years I never even spilled anything, but it seemed to be standard procedure for them) and cleaning crumbs out of the fridge (didn't know I needed to check for and mention crumbs being there when I moved in). The amateur landlords were the ones loose with the threats but I actually got back my whole security deposit and never ended up paying a dime with them.

These were in different jurisdictions, Utah and Alberta, so different rules may have been in effect. All the different laws are enough to make a renters head spin, not that it isn't worth it, though, but it's no walk in the park.

# ? Dec 25, 2013 03:05

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

cgeq posted:

The professional property management company I've rented from before was the one to actually give me a bill on moving out for carpet cleaning (and over almost 3 years I never even spilled anything, but it seemed to be standard procedure for them) and cleaning crumbs out of the fridge (didn't know I needed to check for and mention crumbs being there when I moved in). The amateur landlords were the ones loose with the threats but I actually got back my whole security deposit and never ended up paying a dime with them.

These were in different jurisdictions, Utah and Alberta, so different rules may have been in effect. All the different laws are enough to make a renters head spin, not that it isn't worth it, though, but it's no walk in the park.

the more unscrupulous companies pretty much see the deposit as a quick way to make money.

# ? Dec 25, 2013 06:46

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Lexicon posted:

People still use 'bourgeois'?

silence, neoliberal

# ? Dec 25, 2013 09:59

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

Lexicon posted:

People still use 'bourgeois'?

Were you going for a post-username combo there?

# ? Dec 25, 2013 15:41

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Kafka Esq. posted:

Were you going for a post-username combo there?

Haha, no, but it definitely works.

# ? Dec 26, 2013 03:25

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1859411-west-coast-city-battle-san-francisco.html

When discussing Vancouver's housing market I think it helps to frame the absurdity in terms of economic output. I'm just gonna dump this link here because it's a convenient internet forums post containing city gdp numbers.

For god's sake, Portland has a higher GDP than Vancouver. I'm trying to find actual citations for Vancouver's GDP.

quote:

2012 GDP
San Francisco $630.675 Billion
Seattle+Portland+Vancouver $561.350 Billion
Seattle $275.411 Billion
Portland $174.469 Billion
Vancouver $111.470 Billion

Per Capita GDP, 2012
San Francisco $75,349
Seattle $62,607
Portland $58,311
Seattle+Portland+Vancouver $56,960
Vancouver $45,257

edit: lol check out page 16 of this document

http://www.vancouvereconomic.com/userfiles/file/news/BCBC%20Report_March%202010.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/194183322/BCBC-Report-March-2010

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Dec 28, 2013

# ? Dec 28, 2013 07:56

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1859411-west-coast-city-battle-san-francisco.html

When discussing Vancouver's housing market I think it helps to frame the absurdity in terms of economic output. I'm just gonna dump this link here because it's a convenient internet forums post containing city gdp numbers.

For god's sake, Portland has a higher GDP than Vancouver. I'm trying to find actual citations for Vancouver's GDP.

edit: lol check out page 16 of this document

http://www.vancouvereconomic.com/userfiles/file/news/BCBC%20Report_March%202010.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/194183322/BCBC-Report-March-2010

It's another reason why the percentage of income stat from the CBC is so skewed.

# ? Dec 28, 2013 08:23

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Not even ahead of Phoenix.

Nothing about Vancouver makes any sense to me.

# ? Dec 28, 2013 18:47

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; Guten Abend, meine Damen und Herren.

Lexicon posted:

Not even ahead of Phoenix.

Not even ahead of Detroit.

# ? Dec 30, 2013 02:06

RedFlag: Nov 22, 2007

Knocked up this map quickly for the political maps thread.

Does not account for payroll taxes. Data from the CMHC and minimum wage from Wikipedia. It's for (average) two-bedroom rentals, which should also be on there somewhere.

# ? Jan 1, 2014 03:31

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

RedFlag posted:

Knocked up this map quickly for the political maps thread.

Does not account for payroll taxes. Data from the CMHC and minimum wage from Wikipedia. It's for (average) two-bedroom rentals, which should also be on there somewhere.

Nice. Is that per week?

# ? Jan 1, 2014 03:51

SpannerX: Apr 26, 2010; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.; Fun Shoe

Cultural Imperial posted:

Nice. Is that per week?

I'd say that's per month.

# ? Jan 1, 2014 03:53

Sovy Kurosei: Oct 9, 2012

RedFlag posted:

Knocked up this map quickly for the political maps thread.

Does not account for payroll taxes. Data from the CMHC and minimum wage from Wikipedia. It's for (average) two-bedroom rentals, which should also be on there somewhere.

No numbers for the territories?

EDIT:

Oh, FFS Alberta, your minimum wage is $9.95? You can't knock that wage up a nickel for a round $10 like everyone else?

Sovy Kurosei fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Jan 1, 2014

# ? Jan 1, 2014 05:22

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

themainlander.com/2013/05/21/trickle-down-affordability-and-the-citys-rental-100-program/

quote:

Filtering Theory and Neoliberalism

The Rental 100 program is justified by the City on the ideological basis of the filtering theory. Filtering theory, developed by right-wing think tanks in the United States in the 60s and 70s, refers to the assumption that when new high-end units are added to the market, housing consumers move up the housing commodity chain, leaving their previous affordable units available for others. For example, when a condo is added to the market, it may be purchased as a �starter home� by a tenant whose previous high-end rental apartment (like that at 3002-3036 West Broadway) becomes available. This unit may become occupied by a renter who vacates their low-end rental apartment, which in turn may become available to someone in social housing, and so on down the ladder.

Many real estate corporations in Vancouver take filtering theory to its logical conclusion, arguing that the more high-end units we add to the market, the more people we help by pulling tenants up the housing ladder, improving the average level of housing quality and affordability for everyone.

The Rental 100 program is a variant of filtering theory. Here the objective is to add high-end rental apartments to the rental housing stock, thereby �pulling� tenants from the low-end rental stock, indirectly making more affordable units available. Ironically, of course, it is frequently the unprotected low-income units that are demolished in order to make way for the high end of the chain.

Studies of the Canadian housing market indicate that the effects of filtering theory are not only exaggerated, but nonexistent with regard to the housing conditions of low-income renters. Andrejs Skaburskis� 2006 essay, �Filtering, City Change and the Supply of Low-priced Housing in Canada,� concludes that, �[T]he filtering process is both too slow and, at best, can have too small an effect to be part of government strategy for reducing the housing burdens of low-income people. Filtering is not helping lower-income households.�

In Vancouver, the gap between the income of homeowners and renters is statistically significant, with homeowners making a full double that of renters. Compared to other cities, Vancouver�s rental market and owner-occupied markets are relatively distinct and hermetically sealed, with little upward mobility, or filtering, from the former to the latter. Most renters do not have the option of moving into the owner-occupied market, and filtering theory policies do not �pull� renters up the chain. It could be in recognition of this break in the filtering chain, despairing of filtering theory�s ability to bridge the growing chasm and class divide, that the city has attempted this micro-intervention of filtering theory at the level of the upper-end rental market.

Despite evidence that proves the contrary, filtering theory remains popular for trickle-down apologists of gentrification and deregulation. Today �filtering� is a rising theory among Vision Vancouver councillors and among neoliberal policy makers across the globe. Filtering theory provides a theoretical framework that makes divergent forces (the withdrawal of public funding for housing, the city-state�s participation in gentrification, and the goal of improving the general housing stock) appear as seemingly compatible processes. It also provides a justification for subsidizing the private development industry, of which Rental 100 is an apt example. Rather than producing affordability or social justice, filtering theory restructures cities on the basis of profit and social exclusion.

thanks gregor

# ? Jan 1, 2014 06:49

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

Supply creates its own demand you filthy pleb!

# ? Jan 1, 2014 07:06

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

The Economist has a new housing market comparison tool up: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/global-house-prices (Don't be put off by the embedded date in the URL - it's apparently current as of January 2014).

It's very revealing to see how Canada fares in international comparisons.

# ? Jan 2, 2014 19:48

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Cultural Imperial posted:

thanks gregor

This is how Vancouver does filtering.

This is the current state of a social housing complex that the city demolished in 2009, after evicting ~700 people.

gently caress the poors.
- Vancouver city council

# ? Jan 2, 2014 19:56

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

ocrumsprug posted:

This is how Vancouver does filtering.

This is the current state of a social housing complex that the city demolished in 2009, after evicting ~700 people.

gently caress the poors.
- Vancouver city council

I used to bike home past that while they were demolishing it, often late at night. At first, there were a few houses spraypainted with crying eyes and graffiti to the effects of "don't take away our homes!" About a day or two later, the chainlink fence and 24-hour security guards with dogs appeared. It was quite the bit of political/business interest nastiness that got very little attention in the local press.

The first condo block has just started going up on the east side of the lot. :smith:

# ? Jan 2, 2014 22:57

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Lead out in cuffs posted:

I used to bike home past that while they were demolishing it, often late at night. At first, there were a few houses spraypainted with crying eyes and graffiti to the effects of "don't take away our homes!" About a day or two later, the chainlink fence and 24-hour security guards with dogs appeared. It was quite the bit of political/business interest nastiness that got very little attention in the local press.

The first condo block has just started going up on the east side of the lot.

I am surprised they started construction. I was guessing that the developer was going to hold out until the number of social housing units he needed to build in the new development was zero.

I am presuming that he didn't already get it to zero.

# ? Jan 2, 2014 23:27

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

ocrumsprug posted:

I am surprised they started construction. I was guessing that the developer was going to hold out until the number of social housing units he needed to build in the new development was zero.

I am presuming that he didn't already get it to zero.

Hmmm... I've dug up the development application, and curiously, the stuff they are building right now is all social housing. Page 7 and 8 have the overall site plans, and they are pretty extensive -- the social bit is just a tiny corner. It could be pretty nice, though -- lots of mixed use, plus what looks like a small community centre.

It was still pretty lovely kicking all those people out.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 00:13

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Where did they end up?

# ? Jan 3, 2014 00:25

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Ben Rabidoux has some good suggestions on how to change cmhc lending rules.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle16178271/

quote:

My nomination for the understatement of the year goes to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who in early December observed that �regrettably, CMHC became something rather more grand I think than it was intended to be.�

Indeed. The Crown corporation, which originally had a humble mandate of helping first-time buyers obtain favourable financing, now insures $560-billion of some of Canada�s riskiest mortgages, more than double what it insured in 2005.

1) Increase income documentation requirements on insured mortgages

Canadians are rightfully proud of the stricter mortgage underwriting that spared us from some of the particularly egregious lending practices seen stateside before their real estate bust.

However, most Canadians would be surprised to learn that �prime� Canadian mortgages, particularly high-ratio mortgages insured by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., involve far less documentation than comparably-labelled �prime� loans in the U.S. � and this was true even during the subprime years.

Today, a borrower can obtain a prime, CMHC-insured mortgage with as little as a pay stub and a job letter, which would make it a low-documentation Alt-A mortgage by U.S. standards. RBC recently tweeted about this, noting that securing a mortgage in the U.S. requires more documentation than in Canada.

Interestingly, CMHC places the integrity of the underwriting primarily with the lenders themselves who profit from the mortgages, as the insurer seldom sees the physical documentation and very rarely spot checks mortgage applications at origination.

This relatively low standard for mortgage documentation coupled with a very obvious moral hazard leaves the door open for what the mortgage industry calls �soft fraud� or �fraud for shelter,� which typically involves the applicant (often with the knowledge of the lender) misrepresenting their financial circumstances, usually related to their income or job status.

There�s really nothing �soft� about this form of fraud, particularly when it�s a CMHC-insured mortgage where taxpayers are holding the bag. And while it�s impossible to know the true extent of the problem, one highly respected Canadian mortgage website suggested that it is �one of the most widespread and under-reported problems in mortgage lending� and that it is �surprisingly common these days.�

Regardless of the scope of the problem, the solution is relatively simple: CMHC should demand Canada Revenue Agency notice of assessments (NOAs) for all mortgage applications. This is common practice for prime mortgages in the U.S. and is a simple way to ensure that income or employment has not been significantly misrepresented given that NOAs are very difficult to alter or forge.

Interestingly enough, many lenders insist on seeing NOAs for conventional mortgages that aren�t being insured. This suggests, not surprisingly, that their underwriting is more stringent when they are forced to bear the risk for the mortgage they originate rather than insuring the mortgage through CMHC and passing the risk on to taxpayers.

2) Reinstate the regional mortgage cap

Prior to 2003, CMHC had a regional mortgage cap that set a maximum dollar amount on the size of mortgage they would insure. This made a lot of sense given that CMHC�s original mandate was geared toward helping first-time buyers get into entry-level housing. The logic here is simple: If a buyer can afford a home that is priced significantly above the local average, they shouldn�t need what effectively amounts to a taxpayer-backed subsidy to do so.

In what can only be described as a massive policy blunder, this cap was eliminated in 2003. For nearly a decade, CMHC would insure mortgages of any size, from simple starter homes to opulent mansions, a truly epic case of �mandate creep.� In 2012, a nationwide limit was re-established; CMHC will no longer insure mortgages on homes that are purchased for more than $1,000,000.

This is a step in the right direction, but it ignores the fact that a million-dollar home is well above a starter home in nearly all parts of Canada. This should change. One possible solution would be to set the maximum mortgage cap to the average resale price in each census metropolitan area and have that cap change annually to reflect changing house prices.

3) Eliminate the second home program

CMHC currently has a program that allows buyers to purchase a second home with as little as 5 per cent down. This program is most commonly used for purchasing recreational properties such as cottages, but can also be used to purchase a �pied-�-terre� for those who have to often travel to another city for work, or to purchase a home for children while they are attending college or university.

In the context of CMHC�s original mandate, this program is simply indefensible. If someone is fortunate enough to have the income and assets to purchase a second home, for recreational purposes or otherwise, they should not require taxpayers to bear the risk, particularly considering that the majority of Canadians are not fortunate enough to own multiple properties themselves. This program needs to go.

As an aside, contacts in the mortgage industry suggest that some investors are also currently abusing this program. In 2010, the government wisely changed the rules so that investors must put down 20 per cent on investment properties. However, the door has been left open to purchase investment properties with 5 per cent down through the Second Home Program, with taxpayers bearing the risk. Of course, the applicant can�t state up front that the home will be rented out, but they are free to quietly rent out their second home after the deal closes.

4) Increase transparency and oversight

The ironic part about Mr. Flaherty�s comments that CMHC has become something more �grand� than it was intended to be is that Canadians still have no idea just how �grand� CMHC has actually become since we still don�t know exactly what is included in that $560-billion in insurance in force.

This was driven home to me last year when a developer told me that CMHC recently had a program (and perhaps still does) that allowed developers to get insurance on loans for their condo developments. This is unbelievably bad policy. This effectively lowers the interest rate the developer would pay, but you can be assured that those cost savings would not be passed on to consumers at the other end. In essence, taxpayers were assuming risk on these development loans to pad developer pockets.

Dr. Ian Lee from Carleton University�s Sprott School of Business has in the past been an outspoken critic of CMHC�s lack of transparency. He recently told me via e-mail that �CMHC is the least transparent of all Canadian Crown corporations concerning its numerous activities and detailed breakdown of its insurance guarantees.�

This needs to change. Canadians have a right to know exactly what is in CMHC�s insurance portfolio considering that all taxpayers are collectively on the hook if these insured loans were to sour.

As we enter 2014 with Canadian households having higher debt loads than ever and house prices in most Canadian metropolitan areas at all-time highs relative to local incomes, Canadians should increasingly be asking if CMHC, in its current form, is serving and protecting their best interests.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 01:09

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

Cultural Imperial posted:

Where did they end up?

"Other social housing", apparently. You can bet it was nowhere near as well located, though, and tearing 700 people out of a community in one fell swoop does not do good things for the community. Apparently it was the Province behind all this, though -- Geoff Meggs has little good to say about the process.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/after-protests-and-planning-little-mountain-ready-to-rise/article4372893/

GlobeAndMail posted:

The saga started in 2007, when the federal government handed over all of its social-housing sites to the provinces.

Almost immediately, Housing Minister Rich Coleman came up with a plan to sell the Little Mountain project, first built in 1954, to a developer with the promise that the social housing units be replaced in the new, much denser development.

Holborn was chosen as the successful bidder in 2008, before the worldwide recession exploded, for a price the province has never revealed.

However, there�s a widely held belief that Holborn paid a premium in the expectation of getting permission from the city � then led by mayor Sam Sullivan � to build very high density.

BC Housing then insisted that all of the existing residents had to move out, offering them spots in other social housing.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 02:33

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hong Kong apartments are getting discounted by 20% but no one is calling it a crash.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/hong-kong-home-discounts-rise-with-14-drop-forecast-mortgages.html

quote:

Hong Kong Home Discounts Rise With �14 Drop Forecast: Mortgages
By Kelvin Wong - Jan 2, 2014
Hong Kong dwellings from one-bedroom apartments to 5,000 square-foot (465 square-meter) houses are on offer at discounts of as much as 20 percent as developers brace for a plunge in prices, which have more than doubled since 2009.

Builders, including the city�s two biggest, Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. (16) and Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (1), offered about 1,000 housing units in December, after selling 1,114, the most since March, in November, according to estimates from Centaline Property Agency Ltd. New home sales in 2014 will almost double to 15,000 from an estimated 8,500 in 2013, the lowest since data were first collected in 1996, said Wong Leung-sing, an associate research director at the city�s biggest closely held realtor.

�Earlier this year, developers wanted to hold on to the units as they expected they could sell them for more in the future,� said Patrick Chau, director of residential development and investment at property broker Savills Plc (SVS) in Hong Kong. �Obviously, they don�t see that�ll be the case anymore.�

Analysts at Barclays Plc, UBS AG and Jefferies Group LLC are predicting that prices will drop by as much as 30 percent by 2016 amid an increase in the supply of properties and after the government introduced measures to curb price growth such as higher stamp duties and down payment requirements. Li Ka-shing, who controls Cheung Kong, said he is slowing land acquisitions because values are too high, and the central bank has repeatedly warned the property market is still in danger of overheating.

Sales Slowed

The Hang Seng Properties Index, which tracks the city�s nine biggest builders, fell 9.2 percent in 2013, compared with a 2.9 percent increase in the benchmark Hang Seng Index. The property index fell 2.3 percent at the noon trading break in Hong Kong today.

Buyers have backed away since the government imposed its toughest price curbs yet in February. About 46,000 homes changed hands in the city in the first 11 months of 2013, down from 78,000 deals over the same period a year earlier, according to Land Registry data.

That hasn�t dented prices. They rose 2.8 percent in 2013 even as policy makers in February doubled stamp duties on all property transactions above HK$2 million ($258,000) to as much as 8.5 percent. In October 2012, it slapped a 15 percent extra tax on home purchases by all non-Hong Kong residents.

Given the penalties, developers are now offering sweeteners to entice buyers. At The Avenue, an apartment complex co-developed by Sino Land Co., Hopewell Holdings Ltd. and the government about 1.5 kilometers (0.93 miles) from the city�s financial district, apartments were sold at an average of HK$20,000 a square foot after the discounts were applied, said Joseph Tsang, Hong Kong-based managing director at broker Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.

Offering Discounts

The developers have sold all of the more than 900 units they put on the market at the development in Wan Chai, a residential and commercial area, since sales began in November, according to transaction records posted on the project�s website.

�Before the curbs, this project could�ve easily sold for HK$25,000 per square foot,� said Tsang of Chicago-based Jones Lang LaSalle. �Many people would be attracted to buy because they think it�s a good price, but the market is a long way from getting heated again.�

Builders New World Development Ltd. and Wheelock & Co. sold 576 units at The Austin, a luxury apartment project in the Kowloon West district between October and November at a discount of as much as 20.5 percent, according to its website. Sun Hung Kai, the city�s second-biggest developer by market value, sold about 300 units at The Cullinan, a luxury high-rise in the same area, with discounts of about 20 percent, according to the website.

Unusual Development

�This is quite unusual,� said Centaline�s Wong. �Normally developers would have their sales plan mapped out quite evenly over the course of the year, but the curbs in February really threw them off. So now they�re trying to accelerate sales to make up numbers.�

Calls to developers about sales records were referred to the projects� websites. The Hong Kong government requires developers to post transaction records of new units on the Internet within 24 hours of them being sold.

Record-low mortgage rates, a shortage of new supply and an influx of mainland Chinese buyers have propelled prices above levels reached in 1997, which marked the start of the city�s last major property crash. The former British colony is the most expensive city to buy a home, according to a Savills survey published in September that included New York, London and Tokyo.

The affordability ratio, which measures the proportion a homebuyer has to pay monthly on a mortgage relative to income, stands at just over 60 percent, close to a 14-year high, according to calculations by London-based property broker Knight Frank LLP.

Asset Bubble

Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and other government officials have repeatedly warned of an asset bubble and said the government won�t withdraw the measures until there is a steady supply of new housing. Norman Chan, the head of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, said Nov. 15 the city�s property market is still in danger of overheating.

�The few months after the last measures have been a period of adjustment for both buyers and sellers,� said Ricky Poon, Hong Kong-based director of residential sales at Colliers International. �Developers now realize they can�t be as aggressive as before and have adjusted accordingly.�

Hong Kong home prices will fall at least 30 percent by the end of 2015 as income growth stalls and supply increases, Barclays�s Hong Kong-based analysts Paul Louie and Zita Qin wrote in an Oct. 28 report, following predictions of a 25 percent decline by UBS�s Eva Lee. Venant Chiang, an analyst at Jefferies, said in a Dec. 3 report he expects prices to fall 20 percent in 2014.

Developers are also rushing sales of luxury properties, which have been hit hardest by the government curbs because many buyers were wealthy mainland Chinese who now face the extra 15 percent tax, while tighter mortgage rules imposed by the central bank raised down-payment requirements for more expensive homes.

Victoria Peak

Prices of luxury homes, or those valued at more than HK$10 million, have fallen about 6 percent this year, while those selling for less have been little changed, according to property broker Cushman & Wakefield Inc.

Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., a unit of Cheung Kong, the city�s biggest developer, has sold three houses with areas of over 5,700 square feet each in the upmarket Victoria Peak area since November for a combined HK$1.8 billion, according to its website. The other four houses in the project have also been put up for sale.

�The luxury market has been quiet for a while, but the developers see what�s been going on with sales in the mass market lately so they want to test the water,� said Thomas Lam, Hong Kong-based director of research at Knight Frank.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kelvin Wong in Hong Kong at kwong40@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andreea Papuc at apapuc1@bloomberg.net

# ? Jan 3, 2014 09:40

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Cultural Imperial posted:

Hong Kong apartments are getting discounted by 20% but no one is calling it a crash.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/hong-kong-home-discounts-rise-with-14-drop-forecast-mortgages.html

quote:

The affordability ratio, which measures the proportion a homebuyer has to pay monthly on a mortgage relative to income, stands at just over 60 percent

Sounds healthy and sustainable to me! Top investment opportunity IMO.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 09:42

Sassafras: Dec 24, 2004; by Athanatos

Sassafras fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jan 19, 2014

# ? Jan 3, 2014 11:22

OhYeah: Jan 20, 2007; 1. Currently the most prevalent form of decision-making in the western world

2. While you are correct in saying that the society owns

3. You have not for a second demonstrated here why

4. I love the way that you equate "state" with "bureaucracy". Is that how you really feel about the state

LemonDrizzle posted:

Sounds healthy and sustainable to me! Top investment opportunity IMO.

http://www.wired.com/design/2013/08/unbelievable-photographs-of-hong-kongs-crazy-high-rises/

Imagine getting 20% off of that. The steal of the century!

# ? Jan 3, 2014 13:09

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Those are discounts, not a crash. You'd be a fool not to buy something on sale.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 17:37

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Sassafras posted:

2013 Assessment values available for all BC properties at http://evaluebc.bcassessment.ca/

It seems that my Vancouver-area condo, which I have previously estimated to be cashflow negative to the tune of ~2000/mo for the owner, has (again) dropped by slightly more than 100% of my full year's rent.

Thanks landlady I've never met!

$2000 holy loving poo poo

# ? Jan 3, 2014 20:20

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Sassafras posted:

2013 Assessment values available for all BC properties at http://evaluebc.bcassessment.ca/

It seems that my Vancouver-area condo, which I have previously estimated to be cashflow negative to the tune of ~2000/mo for the owner, has (again) dropped by slightly more than 100% of my full year's rent.

Thanks landlady I've never met!

Wow. Don't share your exact address, but could you provide something comparable to lookup? Curious what the nature of the building is.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 20:23

Squibbles: Aug 24, 2000; Mwaha ha HA ha!

Cool, the house I'm renting in south Coquitlam has dropped in value by almost $40k

$639,000 down to $602,000

If this keeps up in a few years maybe I'll be able to afford to buy it.

Of course that might not be a smart idea given that the value of the house on the property has now fallen to just over $50k

# ? Jan 3, 2014 20:59

jet sanchEz: Oct 24, 2001; Lousy Manipulative Dog

Sassafras posted:

2013 Assessment values available for all BC properties at http://evaluebc.bcassessment.ca/

It seems that my Vancouver-area condo, which I have previously estimated to be cashflow negative to the tune of ~2000/mo for the owner, has (again) dropped by slightly more than 100% of my full year's rent.

Thanks landlady I've never met!

Crazy. Is there anything similar to this for Toronto or Ontario as a whole?

# ? Jan 3, 2014 21:06

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Where are you seeing the change from last years assessment?

e: VVV thank you

Oh wow, ~8.5% drop for my place which would definitely be more than a years worth of rent or even mortgage payments. I wonder how long until Global reports on that instead of how much Chip Wilson's mansion is worth?

ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jan 3, 2014

# ? Jan 3, 2014 21:24

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

The place we had to move out of sold for $1.3 mill. The house was worth about $50k of that.

I couldn't find the place we're living now, but the surrounding properties are valued between $1.5m and $2m each, again with house values well under $100k. This is along a major street slated for condos, though, so I guess that factors into the value? I would have thought the constant and massive traffic would lower property values, but I guess it's all down to the value as a development opportunity.

ocrumsprug posted:

Where are you seeing the change from last years assessment?

When you select the property and click the "more info" button.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 21:30

Fuzzy Mammal: Aug 15, 2001; Lipstick Apathy

The property (with a new house, :sigh:

) where I grew up went from 1.85 to 1.98 M. So, it still depends on the neighbourhood I guess.

E:
lol guess the neighbours just put up a monstrosity too:

pre:

Total Land:	 $1,077,000	Prev. Total Land:	 $1,037,000
Total Building:	 $967,000	Prev. Total Building:	 $14,100

Fuzzy Mammal fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jan 3, 2014

# ? Jan 3, 2014 22:59

HookShot: Dec 26, 2005

The place I'm renting in Whistler has gone up by $40,000 :psyduck:

I can pretty much guarantee you there isn't a single property in Whistler (barring renovations, obviously) that has risen in value the last year. Every month on MLS you can find properties going for cheaper and cheaper.

Also there's one apartment in this building that's for sale, they're trying to sell for a million dollars, it's valued at $750,000

HookShot fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jan 4, 2014

# ? Jan 4, 2014 01:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 00:03

ductonius: Apr 9, 2007; I heard there's a cream for that...

The place I'm renting has stayed at exactly $370,000 from last year to this, which is a 2-3% fall when you account for inflation. Also, given mortgage rates etc, my rent would have to be upwards of $3000/mo to make it worth buying and I'm currently paying less than half of that. So, all in all, saved $18,000 in PIT and $11,000 in monetary depreciation by renting.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 02:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1517 »