|
Lexicon posted:I guess I fundamentally don't understand why the involvement of your broker altered the bank's willingness to lend given your otherwise-unchanged situation, as they don't change you as a 'risk' nor bear any of the risk. The broker doesn't necessarily go to the same bank; he knows which ones would be willing to lend to a given customer. Instead of having to call every single loan officer at every single potential lender, you hire someone who's already done that legwork, or at least has an idea of how it goes. Plus the broker'd know how to present the application to the bank, as opposed to Joe McDoodle who's just fumbling around filling out paperwork with a crayon.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:I guess I fundamentally don't understand why the involvement of your broker altered the bank's willingness to lend given your otherwise-unchanged situation, as they don't change you as a 'risk' nor bear any of the risk. Nah, this isn't a derail. I don't think it changed anything about the banks willingness to lend me money. Was changed was the willingness of the loan officer to lend me money. Or if I was to be uncharitable, get his pen out and do his job. Like seriously, ten years employment history is a requirement? I can count the number of people at my current or any previous employer, that had been employed there for 10+ years on two hands. And that would be a lot of companies as 3 years is the average length of stay. It isn't a requirement, however it did make us leave so mission accomplished. Like when the nice lady at the bank told me that they wouldn't issue me a credit card, since I needed five years employment history despite six months prior I could have gotten a handful of them as a student. Surprisingly, the mail-in credit card application that was sitting on her desk had no such concerns. The mortgage broker just bypasses the banks front desk staff, and that would be worthwhile even if you had to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Nah, this isn't a derail. I believe you - but this seems absolutely bonkers! File it under 'lol banks' I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I believe you - but this seems absolutely bonkers! I think you're vastly underestimating the value of market knowledge and existing business relationships. It's not like shopping for plane tickets on Expedia; the market is a lot more opaque and there are people at many points with the power to just nix your whole file because they've got a bad gut feeling. If the market was 100% rational, open and transparent, we wouldn't need brokers. But that's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I think you're vastly underestimating the value of market knowledge and existing business relationships. It's not like shopping for plane tickets on Expedia; the market is a lot more opaque and there are people at many points with the power to just nix your whole file because they've got a bad gut feeling. Yeah, fair point. That's probably my error - in my mind it should be like shopping for plane tickets on Expedia (but with less room for preferences to creep in, as airlines are different but money is not - blah blah blah). As I said - I have zero practical experience with this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do the basement regulations apply to walk-out levels? Here, it seems like a lot of houses are built on hills, so the "basement" might be a normal floor with a door into the back yard, but underground at one end, and they are often smaller than upper floors in height and area. Houses without those tend to have a proper basement, fully underground, but as often as not they tend to be fully finished and usually a normal, usable part of the home. I can't imagine not counting basement rooms in a property listing, unless there's a massive disconnect between Alberta and other parts of the country on house design. Really, I have no idea. We don't really have hills on the prairies, so it doesn't come up much. Here's a house in Canmore that sheds some light on the subject. Under the "Building" section, it says the house is 1302 sq ft, which is probably all they're legally allowed to say it is. However, it seems to have a full basement and in the description you can see that the listing agent says it has over 2600 square feet. That would be the real usable/livable space, but there's probably some rule preventing that extra 13-hundred sq ft from being listed in the "Building" area. But it does seem that the basement bedrooms and bathrooms are counted for the property descriptions here. And on this point I must correct an earlier statement I made which was based on what other people have told me rather than actually me going to look into what the building code actually says. There isn't anything stopping a home owner from qualifying a basement bedroom as a bedroom for the purpose of counting in the house's totals, it just has to conform to certain standards. At the very least it needs to have a door of a minimum width, a ceiling a minimum height, electricity and (generally speaking) a window that most adults would find large enough to escape through in case of a fire. A basement (or any) bedroom can ignore the need of window big enough to fit through if it has a door to the outside or a sprinkler system, but neither of those things are exceedingly common in stand alone homes. Knowing that, I can see why the rule of thumb around here is that basement rooms aren't considered as bedrooms. Most don't seem to have a window that would cut if the there was a fire. Comparing several properties in Winnipeg with basement bedrooms included in what the listing says are the house has leads to a disconnect with what the city's assessment department says are present. Some of those disagreements could be explained by the assessment not reflecting recent renovations or having more historic inaccuracies, though I think the far more likely explanation is listing agents being exceptionally liberal in their application of the label "bedroom". tl; dr: Basements: square footage no; bedrooms: technically yes, but some aren't even if the seller claims they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Yeah, fair point. That's probably my error - in my mind it should be like shopping for plane tickets on Expedia (but with less room for preferences to creep in, as airlines are different but money is not - blah blah blah). The money is the same, the terms are different. Plus the bank is also shopping for customers. Air Canada doesn't give a poo poo if you or your broke deadbeat cousin is booking a flight. The bank cares, and they can afford to be selective in who they lend money to. FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
pacerhimself posted:I think I'll stay away from anything near Burrows: Of the neighbourhoods I listed, none were all that close to Burrows. The house on Alfred is, and I wouldn't want to live there either, but someone does. And in defence of Burrows, there is at least someone there who wants to turn things around. There's a crudely painted sign nailed to a tree that threatens to post photos to Facebook of cars that stop to pick up hookers. Of all places, I'm surprised that you're having trouble finding something in or near Transcona that's affordable. There's a nice looking place on Leola right now for $180,000. It's been on the market for ten days, so while it won't be available when you move back, it's not like they're disappearing within hours of being listed. You might find the City of Winnipeg's property sales book of use as you do your research as it tells you the sales price of every property sold between January 1, 2010 and April 1, 2012. If you go with an agent, they can set you up with some program called Keystone Matrix which looks pretty crappy but with it they can send you as much property history as they happen to have (back to late 80s or early 90s) on whatever you might be thinking of buying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
So seeing that 2.99% thing in the thread last week reminded me of something I'd like to confirm. So, are basically all Canadian mortgages the equivalent to what one call an ARM in the US? The loan amortizes over 15, 25, 30 years or whatever, but your rate resets after five it looks like? Are they tied to LIBOR, or governement bonds or something? Those were responsible for lots of the trouble down here. Unsophisticated borrowers were shown teaser rates that didn't even cover principal, could barely afford those minimal payments, and were told they could refi when the rate was due to reset. Of course once the asset lost any value or underwriting standards were tightened up they'd never qualify. So does everyone refi every couple years up there or what? I can't see that going over well if either general interest rates go up or prices correct. Heaven forbid both happen together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
A traditional mortgage in Canada is usually 25 years amortization, renewed every 5 years at prevailing rates at the time. You can get longer periods between renewals (up to 10 years) but you'll obviously pay a rate penalty above the 5 year for it. You can get fixed or variable rate. Rates change primarily when the overnight rate the Fed offers the banks changes, but to be honest the bond market has just as big an impact on rates, just like in the US. Certainly there are loads of people who have leveraged into amounts they can squeak by on at current rate (say 3-4%) and are in for a massive loving surprise when they need to renew. I have read studies that show even a 1-1.5% change in rates would put many home-owners into trouble. Additionally there is a little regarded clause in most mortgages issued in the last 5 years or so that says that at the time of renewal if the bank feels your home is worth less than what you owe on it, you must write a cheque to cover the difference or face default. This is a situation people may find themselves in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:
Thanks for the resources, and yeah the Burrows thing was more about the house on Alfred. I know there are people who care to rehab a neighborhood, but I've dealt with enough break-ins living in Phoenix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
I know this is only vaguely related, but many of the posters here sound like they're from GVA so I'm going to throw this in: We currently live in the downtown but I'm about to interview for a job in Surrey. We've not really looked at the Surrey / Burnaby area much - is there anything to watch out for housing-wise there? If I got the job we'd probably want to move a bit closer. We'd be renting rather than buying. Know the crime rate is higher in the northwest part of Surrey but other than that not much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
pacerhimself posted:Thanks for the resources, and yeah the Burrows thing was more about the house on Alfred. I know there are people who care to rehab a neighborhood, but I've dealt with enough break-ins living in Phoenix. How are prices in the West End or West Broadway? Those are neighbourhoods that are a bit on the rougher side now but they're real communities. I know some people who wouldn't trade them for anything, and they're not nearly as out of reach as Wolsely or River Heights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Geoid posted:How are prices in the West End or West Broadway? Those are neighbourhoods that are a bit on the rougher side now but they're real communities. I know some people who wouldn't trade them for anything, and they're not nearly as out of reach as Wolsely or River Heights. I opened this thread, saw "West End or West Broadway", with the words "a bit on the rougher side", and was incredibly confused until I saw the post above and realised you were talking Surrey, not Vancouver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Geoid posted:How are prices in the West End or West Broadway? Those are neighbourhoods that are a bit on the rougher side now but they're real communities. I know some people who wouldn't trade them for anything, and they're not nearly as out of reach as Wolsely or River Heights. Looking at MLS, the prices are actually comparable to Transcona, and I think I'd prefer Transcona overall. The bus service makes it pretty liveable for downtown work (if I can swing that...).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:I know this is only vaguely related, but many of the posters here sound like they're from GVA so I'm going to throw this in: Dude, unless you're renting a massive gently caress off house in panorama ridge, you couldn't pay me to loving live in Surrey. I grew up in Burnaby. It's going to be a lonely place for you and your partner to live of you don't have friends there. Any particular areas you had in mind?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Dude, unless you're renting a massive gently caress off house in panorama ridge, you couldn't pay me to loving live in Surrey. We're looking at renting a house, probably in the 3-4 br size range as we've got two kids and i need an in-home office/escapefromthekids room. Fairly quiet neighborhood with decent schools. We do know about Surrey being a shithole; some blog my wife found said South Surrey is much better, but it's far less dense than she's used to and pretty far removed from the downtown. Since you mentioned Panorama Ridge, I looked there just to see what it looks like. I found this: http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/rds/apa/4371903396.html; more than i really want to pay but not totally out of reach. For Burnaby I don't even know what neighborhoods to look at. We've been very focused on the downtown lifestyle and aren't from BC originally (moved 2 years ago) so it's just a blob somewhere to the southeast to me, probably like Mississauga would be to people not from Toronto. Haven't had as much luck with finding a good source online.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
pacerhimself posted:Looking at MLS, the prices are actually comparable to Transcona, and I think I'd prefer Transcona overall. The bus service makes it pretty liveable for downtown work (if I can swing that...). You want to live in Transcona and work Downtown? That's just not very Winnipeg of you. Sargent Park is also easy to get to downtown, but it does suffer from being quite far away from your people. But Polo Park is a better mall than KP, so I'd call it a draw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:We're looking at renting a house, probably in the 3-4 br size range as we've got two kids and i need an in-home office/escapefromthekids room. Fairly quiet neighborhood with decent schools. Transit in Burnaby *loving* *sucks*. Be prepared to deal with buses that run on a random schedule, every 30 loving minutes. This is unfortunate because the nice areas around Deer Lake aren't walkable. If I were you, I'd look at renting a house around Trout Lake in East Vancouver. That puts you within walking distance to Commercial Dr. skytrain station. Now I'm guessing and hoping you're going to working somewhere in Surrey near the Skytrain line and not in the middle of nowhere. From east van the skytrain to surrey is about 30 minutes. Hell, from downtown vancouver it's only about 50 minutes. The only advantage I see to moving out of downtown vancouver is you won't be surrounded by snobby assholes. e: Regarding Burnaby, what sort of amenities are you looking for? Is transit important? Have you got friends in Vancouver? I gurantee they will be too lazy to come out and visit you. Burnaby has the highest property taxes in the GVRD and thus, some of the most awesome community centers and playing fields. namaste friends fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Transit in Burnaby *loving* *sucks*. Be prepared to deal with buses that run on a random schedule, every 30 loving minutes. This is unfortunate because the nice areas around Deer Lake aren't walkable. Transit's less of an issue as I'd likely commute in a car. Yes, I know the reasons against it, but it will likely be a requirement for the job I'm looking at. I looked at trout lake; don't see much in that area at the moment. re: Burnaby, some friends, mostly downtown or North Van. We're already mostly too lazy to visit each other. This doesn't bother me that much as I talk to most of them via email or phone anyways. Kids have eaten most of my social life. I'm looking for a decent neighborhood with good schools and walking distance to shopping / malls for my wife.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I opened this thread, saw "West End or West Broadway", with the words "a bit on the rougher side", and was incredibly confused until I saw the post above and realised you were talking Surrey, not Vancouver. Winnipeg actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Not Canada but city data realtor real estate boosterism always cracks me up:quote:I actually think new permanent values are being set. Constricted supply in Austin is permanent, not temporary, and the buyer demand is actual real life legitimate demand from buyers who need somewhere to live, not the type of investor/flipper demand that occurred in the sand states during the sub-prime loan bubble. It is just missing the "vibrant music scene", which is Austin's equivalent to Vancouver's "picturesque mountains"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
^ Agreed in general, but I will say this: Austin is a place which I'm very bullish about over the next decade or two. And with American price:rent and price:income ratios generally sane, you probably could do a lot worse by buying there if you're planning to stay for the long haul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Austin hosed up their planning and didn't invest in transit when they should, loving Houston is beating them now. Austin has some serious issues with it's suburbs and car-dependent lifestyle that's resulted in a lot of low-density sprawl that's created a very weak and thin tax base that's going to lead to a lot of trouble. I don't know what effect this will have on housing prices, but taxes there either need to go way up to pay for their infrastructure, or their existing infrastructure will crumble, let alone having money to pay for new stuff. I know in urban planning circles Austin is viewed as a massive gently caress up and a ticking time bomb in terms of tax base/infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Austin hosed up their planning and didn't invest in transit when they should, loving Houston is beating them now. Austin has some serious issues with it's suburbs and car-dependent lifestyle that's resulted in a lot of low-density sprawl that's created a very weak and thin tax base that's going to lead to a lot of trouble. I don't know what effect this will have on housing prices, but taxes there either need to go way up to pay for their infrastructure, or their existing infrastructure will crumble, let alone having money to pay for new stuff. I know in urban planning circles Austin is viewed as a massive gently caress up and a ticking time bomb in terms of tax base/infrastructure. You're right, but you might as well replace Austin with Texas. The southern USA is a total shitshow for the most part when it comes to urbanism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Austin hosed up their planning and didn't invest in transit when they should, loving Houston is beating them now. Austin has some serious issues with it's suburbs and car-dependent lifestyle that's resulted in a lot of low-density sprawl that's created a very weak and thin tax base that's going to lead to a lot of trouble. I don't know what effect this will have on housing prices, but taxes there either need to go way up to pay for their infrastructure, or their existing infrastructure will crumble, let alone having money to pay for new stuff. I know in urban planning circles Austin is viewed as a massive gently caress up and a ticking time bomb in terms of tax base/infrastructure. Oh it is a clusterfuck for sure. However in-city property tax rates are already pushing 2.75% of value yearly and getting money from the state or federal governments just isn't happening. A house listed (and sold after a bidding war) near me for a value which would put the property tax alone at greater than 30% of 2010 census median income for the neighborhood. A key question is whether the light rail bond package passes this fall and that isn't exactly looking promising. The salaries just haven't been moving in a manner to support the price jumps. When interest rates tick up again...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Not Canada but city data realtor real estate boosterism always cracks me up: A buddy of mine is just now trying to unload his Austin home, after moving to Vancouver 5 years ago. Presumably the market has now recovered to the point where he can sell it without losing his shirt, though he had to reno first it so he may have anyways. He had an appropo anecdote about selling in that particular "low supply" market. Apparently one of the buyers looking at his home decided to not make an offer for the house as, "a house visible from the front window has a discoloured fence." Truly the mark of a sellers market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Austin hosed up their planning and didn't invest in transit when they should, loving Houston is beating them now. Austin has some serious issues with it's suburbs and car-dependent lifestyle that's resulted in a lot of low-density sprawl that's created a very weak and thin tax base that's going to lead to a lot of trouble. I don't know what effect this will have on housing prices, but taxes there either need to go way up to pay for their infrastructure, or their existing infrastructure will crumble, let alone having money to pay for new stuff. I know in urban planning circles Austin is viewed as a massive gently caress up and a ticking time bomb in terms of tax base/infrastructure. Things like the light rail plan fell apart since the GOP actively sabotaged it such as diverting funds originally intended for mass transit into building more highways around the city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
etalian posted:Things like the light rail plan fell apart since the GOP actively sabotaged it such as diverting funds originally intended for mass transit into building more highways around the city. Which returns to the fact that Austin isn't an oasis in Texas, it's just another lovely regular part of Texas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
The condo King just flipped his poo poo. Time to show the little priest what carcosa looks like huh? quote:Rob Carrick Is Wrong http://new.bradjlamb.ca/2014/04/rob-carrick-wrong/
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The condo King just flipped his poo poo. Time to show the little priest what carcosa looks like huh? holy lol the last line is amazing Buy mansions if you can, buy as many as you can. You’ll make more of a fortune than you have today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
quote:I read the Globe and Mail every day, and that always includes the business section. Rob Carrick is a business reporter for the Globe and Mail, but really more of an advice columnist than anything else. Generally speaking, I’m in the camp of listening to those who have achieved great things. When I get a call from a broker or money manager eager to bring me into their stewardship, the first question I always ask is, “what is your net worth?” Why would I risk any money with someone that can’t manage their own finances well enough to become wealthy? It's nice for the guy to open with a paragraph explaining why we shouldn't listen to his financial advice. The secret to the financial world is that all the pictures of golf and yachts in marketing materials represent the kind of life that financial professionals will enjoy with the opaque, high fee structure of their services. Picking the financial advisor with the flashiest car and biggest gold watch is almost guaranteed to get you a slick salesman who will sell you things against your own interests, as commissions stack waaaayy faster than prudent investments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
quote:A Toronto home buyer that bought a home in 1980 for $100,000, with $5000 down, in 2014 now has a home worth $500,000. His $5000 down payment has now risen to a $500,000 windfall. For those of you bad at math, that is 100 times more that the down payment, or a 10,000% return on invested money. I'm not good with math, should I buy a house because it sounds like you only have to pay a 5% down payment and the rest is free??
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I'm not good with math, should I buy a house because it sounds like you only have to pay a 5% down payment and the rest is free?? Buy a house if you have a time machine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
An idiot posted:There have been no new additions in these ‘big house’ neighbourhoods for 50 to 80 years. Yet the Toronto population has gone from 1.26M in 1950 to approximately 6.25M 2013, an increase of 496%. This is why ALL houses are selling with 15 offers, because there are no new houses. Large houses are even more scarce. New development in Toronto equates to high-rise condo development. Most of these buildings feature suites with an average of 700SF. Don’t worry about who will buy the big expensive houses, there will ALWAYS be a lineup. No one builds mansions anymore and house size will just continue to shrink. Buy mansions if you can, buy as many as you can. You’ll make more of a fortune than you have today. Yeah no one builds big houses anymore, other than every single family home built within 200 km of Vancouver. I am starting to think that by the time housing returns to normal that there won't be any non-3500+ sq ft monster houses left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Who is this joker anyway? He seems to get mentioned a lot. Just an overly successful realtor? I'm not sure he's doing his cause any favours, with this poorly written, absurd, ad-hominem tirade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Who is this joker anyway? He seems to get mentioned a lot. Just an overly successful realtor? He's the physical manifestation of Canada's hubris regarding housing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
The other day Global had another segment polishing our housing situation in Vancouver. http://globalnews.ca/news/1242635/vancouver-first-time-home-buyers-hoping-to-win-the-lottery-to-afford-first-home/ It is pretty amusing for a bunch of reasons, however something caught my notice at ~58s. Vancity is saying that they are now offering interest free loans for half of the amazingly onerous 5% down payment. How is that legal? I thought that they changed that last summer so that the 5% couldn't be a loan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Who is this joker anyway? He seems to get mentioned a lot. Just an overly successful realtor? Just your standard real estate industry shill
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:Who is this joker anyway? He seems to get mentioned a lot. Just an overly successful realtor? He's the Toronto Bob Rennie. Very very successful at his bullshit craft
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:57
|
|
