|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/bmo-expects-strong-housing-report-despite-low-sales/article18598680/quote:The Canadian Real Estate Association will be releasing April’s housing data on Thursday, and the report is expected to show that prices are strong even though sales have been lacklustre.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 18:09 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:32 |
|
Yeah, consider that most BBB corporates need to pay more than 4% for 30-year debt, if they can even get it. Not even close to the same thing.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 20:25 |
|
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=41551.0quote:Canada’s housing boom is the single most important domestic risk to financial stability. wadin' through dis' e: for all of you wondering how to short the housing market, you want to read this e2: quote:Longer-term fixed rates were phased out in the 1960s after lenders so in other words, it was hard to make money in mortgage finance so we moved the goal posts e3: quote:The government’s role in mortgage insurance in Canada is large compared to most other lol e4: quote:Mortgage insurance rules were relaxed in the mid-2000s, making insured mortgages more This right here is all you need to understand why Canada has a housing bubble. e5: quote:While the household debt to income ratio continued to increase in 2013, it would namaste friends fucked around with this message at 01:05 on May 13, 2014 |
# ? May 13, 2014 00:46 |
|
FrozenVent posted:You can't really compare 5 years fixed to 30 years fixed, though. I'd take 4% fixed 30 over 2.99% fixed 5 any day of the week. On a side note long ultra-low fixed rates only exist in the USA since the government backs them, public underwriting of private debt ftw.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 01:44 |
|
etalian posted:On a side note long ultra-low fixed rates only exist in the USA since the government backs them, public underwriting of private debt ftw. no kidding. I didn't know that.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 01:48 |
|
etalian posted:On a side note long ultra-low fixed rates only exist in the USA since the government backs them, public underwriting of private debt ftw. It's essentially the same as CMHC, except worse.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 02:20 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:no kidding. I didn't know that. It's why other countries tend have much shorter loan terms or even floating rate type mortgages. It's more along the the lines of a indirect backing: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/07/mortgage_rate.asp The whole practice of cheap long term fixed rate home loans was started by the US FHA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-rate_mortgage
|
# ? May 13, 2014 02:34 |
|
might as well sell it with children
|
# ? May 13, 2014 06:19 |
|
Investors Group unveils 3-year mortgage at 1.99% (not a typo)
|
# ? May 13, 2014 18:57 |
|
What's the catch? It goes up to like 10% after those first years? \/ are buyers so stupid they don't understand the rate will absolutely go up, and are the brokers and bankers so dishonest they don't make that clear? I.. I guess that's a rhetorical question Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:25 on May 13, 2014 |
# ? May 13, 2014 19:15 |
|
After that term you have to get another one; if the interest rates have gone up since then, you have to finance at the new rates then. It's just like any other mortgage. What's funny is that a lot of people are going to buy houses assuming they'll keep that same rate over the life of the mortgage, and it's pretty much guaranteed to at least double before then.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 19:21 |
|
FrozenVent posted:After that term you have to get another one; if the interest rates have gone up since then, you have to finance at the new rates then. It's just like any other mortgage. Even double 1.99 is historically very low. Only our parents know what real interest rates look like, for now.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 19:31 |
|
It's a variable rate mortgage so if the prime rate goes up it also goes up. There's also other fees, and it is impossible to get out of short of selling the property.quote:If applicable, you may be responsible for legal and administrative fees or prepayment charges. Not available for renewals or internal refinances. These promotions are closed terms that are not eligible to be paid out, refinanced, early renewed or extended prior to maturity of the term (except upon the bonafide sale of the subject property). If the prime rate goes up by more than 0.60% you will have a higher rate than their fixed rate mortgage with the same terms.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 23:21 |
|
Those comments are awesome- one guy is off his meds raging about Canada being controlled by our Capitalist Overlords (only in crazy talk) and something about Isreal, and another guy is blowing off the idea of a bubble as "the sky is falling!".
|
# ? May 14, 2014 00:02 |
|
FrozenVent posted:After that term you have to get another one; if the interest rates have gone up since then, you have to finance at the new rates then. It's just like any other mortgage. Why is it guaranteed to double? I don't think any central bank plans on ending the free money party anytime soon.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 01:16 |
|
on the left posted:Why is it guaranteed to double? I don't think any central bank plans on ending the free money party anytime soon. In June 1994, the prime mortgage rate was 8%. You wanna laugh, look at 1981. What's the average length of a mortgage these days? It's not GUARANTEED to double, but rates can't go any lower than they are now.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 01:59 |
|
on the left posted:Why is it guaranteed to double? I don't think any central bank plans on ending the free money party anytime soon. Soon has to extend til 2039 or else these people will be straight up dicked.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 02:01 |
|
Guest2553 posted:Soon has to extend til 2039 or else these people will be straight up dicked. When I did my asset securitization class, the average life of a mortgage in the US is something like 11 years, and I am pretty sure that excludes refinancing. Of course, in the US a house is going to be a much smaller multiple of income and the mortgages were fully documented with 20% down, so maybe not a useful number for blowout markets like Vancouver/Toronto.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 02:22 |
|
Holy gently caress http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/13/vancouver-house-that-sold-for-3-million-in-one-day-now-faces-bulldozer-because-it-is-too-small/ tl;dr: A perfectly livable house sells for 3+ million in vancouver within a day of listing. New owners intend to knock it down to build a bigger house. It's alluded to that rich Chinese are to blame.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 04:12 |
|
Guest2553 posted:Holy gently caress When paying $3mm for a 1/5 acre lot, you aren't paying for the awesome construction quality, you are paying for the land. Demolishing the house and building a bigger one is a drop in the bucket compared to the price of the land.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 04:22 |
|
Guest2553 posted:Holy gently caress If you look on google maps, it's the smallest house in the neighborhood and it's a block from the UBC endowment lands. It's not surprising it's being torn down. Guest2553 posted:It's alluded to that rich Chinese are to blame. No, it pretty much says straight up that rich Chinese are to blame.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 04:31 |
|
hey come on it's not like they're building a huge empty city in ki-ti-mat-zhou
|
# ? May 14, 2014 04:38 |
|
What's the big problem with Chinese people coming to live in Canada? Isn't Canada supposed to be an open, multicultural society comprised of immigrants?
|
# ? May 14, 2014 04:40 |
|
on the left posted:What's the big problem with Chinese people coming to live in Canada? Isn't Canada supposed to be an open, multicultural society comprised of immigrants? There's nothing wrong with chinese people coming to live in Canada. It's the the worthless investment class immigrants I have a problem with. The number of immigrants we allow into Canada is a zero sum game so arguably, we're letting some shitheel money laundering nouveaux riche coolie ahead of people who might be more qualified, better educated and more interested in building a life in Canada, who will also pay more income tax over a long period of time since he/she isn't just using Canada as a parachute for when the politburo starts chopping heads.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 04:44 |
|
The real reason is that they're a convenient scapegoat when the market crashes even though there isn't a significant amount of them.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 04:46 |
|
If you think that one's crazy, we were just looking at rentals and went through a place that was listed way below market. We couldn't figure out why until we noticed it was a short-term lease. We asked the owner why the short term and they said it was because they were waiting for a construction permit. The house had an impeccable view of the city, was no more than 25 years old, and was beautifully built. I couldn't help but think it would be a terrible shame because the house as built fit really well into the contours of the surrounding developments, while the new owner's description from what I could understand was of some horrid urban castle that would look like a terrible eyesore. Even their real estate agent, who was around for the showing, was quietly showing disgust that the place was getting torn down. I got the sense that she didn't know in advance that they were buying it as a teardown. I'm the last person to say someone shouldn't do what they want with their own money and/or property, but boy was I ever depressed after leaving that house. E: Cultural Imperial posted:There's nothing wrong with chinese people coming to live in Canada. It's the the worthless investment class immigrants I have a problem with. The number of immigrants we allow into Canada is a zero sum game so arguably, we're letting some shitheel money laundering nouveaux riche coolie ahead of people who might be more qualified, better educated and more interested in building a life in Canada, who will also pay more income tax over a long period of time since he/she isn't just using Canada as a parachute for when the politburo starts chopping heads. Mostly I agree with this, but using the term coolie is horribly bigoted in many countries and is also incorrect even in a historical sense when describing wealthy immigrants. Find a better way to describe what you're talking about. Kalenn Istarion fucked around with this message at 04:51 on May 14, 2014 |
# ? May 14, 2014 04:46 |
|
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report...b+Article+Linksquote:Canada’s realtors told Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the country’s housing market is essentially balanced, as they kicked off a lobbying effort in Ottawa that saw them make appointments with more than 160 MPs.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 14:26 |
|
Appointments with 160 MPs sounds like a lot, but you have to remember that there's realtors in pretty much every ridding; most of those are probably realtors (And possibly someone from their association, although owing to the volume I doubt they were at every meeting) meeting with their MP. Shake hands, take picture, spend ten minutes shooting the poo poo, hand over the leaflet the association printed, move on. They're still scum, but as far as lobbying efforts go this one is pretty transparent.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 14:32 |
|
This new home buyer plan is awful and needs to be abolished.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 16:35 |
|
Hey, you know a great way to build equity? Take your savings. Okay, you got them? Now spend them. No need to thank me. I'm a REALTOR®.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 16:42 |
|
I used the HBP when I bought my house, not because I needed the cash, but so I could transfer cash from one RRSP account to another institution without paying any fees. gently caress the man!
|
# ? May 14, 2014 17:22 |
|
Bleu posted:Hey, you know a great way to build equity? Take your savings. Okay, you got them? Now spend them. It's stupid to treat houses as an investment in this market, but really the point of any investment is to take your savings and turn them into something that will increase in value over time. Pointing out that you have to spend your savings in order to invest in something isn't a really stunning argument.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 18:25 |
|
Yeah that's making money off finance in a nutshell. Take your savings, now spend them on investments. The question is: is this a good investment or not.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 18:39 |
|
Point One: Housing isn't an investment Point Two: You have to buy investments Point Three: Don't make fun of someone telling you to invest in a house with your savings Is that a reasonable distillation of your post PT6A?
|
# ? May 14, 2014 18:46 |
|
ocrumsprug posted:Point One: Housing isn't an investment In essence, yes, but part 1 is a bit wrong. Housing is a type of investment, it's just not a very good one at this point The problem is that the REALTOR is trying to convince you to make a bad investment at this point, not that he's trying to get you to part with your savings in order to make an investment. The post I quoted was just phrased in a very awkward way.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 18:52 |
|
PT6A posted:In essence, yes, but part 1 is a bit wrong. Housing is a type of investment, it's just not a very good one at this point The problem is that the REALTOR is trying to convince you to make a bad investment at this point, not that he's trying to get you to part with your savings in order to make an investment. The post I quoted was just phrased in a very awkward way. I never thought I'd say this but I agree with PT6A. Real estate can be an investment, it's just that the vast majority of our compatriots are going at it in an absolutely stupid way. (Rental condos, what the gently caress) And the market's not good for a long term outlook right now.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 18:54 |
|
Everyone I personally know who's rich got rich investing in the real estate game, but they did this like 20-50 years ago (and mostly got lucky selling it all off during bubbles rather than slowly building equity or earning money off rent). Some of them continue to play the same game and are now losing out and getting mad and shaking their fist at "the government" for not "supporting market growth" while others have wisely gotten their investments the gently caress out of real estate and invest in other poo poo now. A lot of people know people who got rich back in the day investing in real estate and don't understand that things change, we have this ingrained cultural belief that real estate is the best and safest way to get rich.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 18:59 |
|
Furthermore, if you were really interested in investing in real estate, I think one would find REITs to be more attractive than getting saddled with a house or condo that currently generates negative income.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 19:10 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Furthermore, if you were really interested in investing in real estate, I think one would find REITs to be more attractive than getting saddled with a house or condo that currently generates negative income. House prices always go up at like inflation * 10 so even if your mortgage + maintenance costs are way above the rental income, you're winning. Not that you could be expected to understand such matters of high finance, pitiful rentailure.
|
# ? May 14, 2014 19:21 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:32 |
|
LemonDrizzle posted:House prices always go up at like inflation * 10 so even if your mortgage + maintenance costs are way above the rental income, you're winning. One might say that's absolutely economically unsustainable, and I agree! So buy now before you're priced out. Buy now before that million dollar knock-down is a billion dollar knock down by the time you retire. Although hopefully the government will step in to make sure we all have easy access to billion dollar mortgages otherwise we'd have a government that didn't value home ownership, and besides, if that billion dollar home doesn't go up in value a lot of hard working canadians trying to get rich quick will be sunk!
|
# ? May 14, 2014 19:37 |