|
Cultural Imperial posted:Vancouver isn't constrained by geography. It's constrained by land use policy. It is more constrained than most cities; I mean Calgary you can build out in any direction for hundreds of kilometers, in Vancouver you can kind of build north a bit, and east, but west is water and south is Not Canada.
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
HookShot posted:It is more constrained than most cities; I mean Calgary you can build out in any direction for hundreds of kilometers, in Vancouver you can kind of build north a bit, and east, but west is water and south is Not Canada. At a really primitive, level, yes, you can built out like a huge piece of birdshit that's splattered against your windshield like Calgary has. On the other hand, take a look at the drama surrounding the 60000 sqft of of floor space at the new development on the docks. In a nutshell, the developer bought the land knowing that the land was zoned for a form of light industrial use by the city of richmond who wanted to preserve the area as a wharf. The developer ignored this and built a bunch of condos with 60000 sq ft of retail space underneath, mainly because retail leases out from >$25/sq ft and light industrial leases out for like $8-$17. Let me be clear: the developer knew that they couldn't lease out their development as retail full well before they started construction but they did it anyway. This is loving bullshit and I hope Richmond stands firm, but the point I'm trying to make here is that there's tons of land (see Agricultural Land Reserve) in the GVRD where residential construction is expressly banned as a result of land use policy. I think, before you can really make an argument that construction is constrained by geography, you're going to have to prove that housing starts are being suppressed. This lovely article says no: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Metro+Vancouver+housing+starts+rally+second+half+drop+slightly+2013/9369500/story.html Read more here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/zoning-dispute-leaves-60-000-square-feet-of-space-in-steveston-vacant-1.2644302 http://www.richmond-news.com/onni-once-again-seeks-rezoning-of-steveston-waterfront-1.947236 namaste friends fucked around with this message at 22:46 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:At a really primitive, level, yes, you can built out like a huge piece of birdshit that's splattered against your windshield like Calgary has. On the other hand, take a look at the drama surrounding the 60000 sqft of of floor space at the new development on the docks. In a nutshell, the developer bought the land knowing that the land was zoned for a form of light industrial use by the city of richmond who wanted to preserve the area as a wharf. The developer ignored this and built a bunch of condos with 60000 sq ft of retail space underneath, mainly because retail leases out from >$25/sq ft and light industrial leases out for like $8-$17. Yeah, this is true for sure, I was definitely breaking it down to a really primitive level in my post, not accounting for things like you mention.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
lol thanks fidelity 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
etalian posted:lol And every now and then, lobby your municipal politicians to get rid of homes for mentally disabled children.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
quote:“People wouldn’t rent the suites if they were unaffordable, but they are renting them because it is affordable,” he said. “People are basically saying ‘I’m willing to pay those rents,’ not just paying for the space inside those four walls but paying to live in the centre of the city.’” http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=9838952 Remember guys: we're willing to put up with bullshit rents not because the alternative is homelessness, but because we're stylish and hip and find $1000+ for 256sqft to be affordable! That Ransford article is interesting, since he's the head of the BC Small Housing organization and really pushing for laneways & tumbleweed-style tiny houses to become a thing in BC.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
So my parents just bought a condo at Queen and Dovercourt. They have 9 days to retract their offer, what are some arguements I can use for either side? Also, this thread is truly depressing.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Death By The Blues posted:So my parents just bought a condo at Queen and Dovercourt. They have 9 days to retract their offer, what are some arguements I can use for either side? Also, this thread is truly depressing. A lot of us aren't saying don't buy property ever. It depends on lots of variables like: - How much debt do you need to buy this property? - How much of your *liquid* net worth is going to be eaten up by this property as a percentage? - Are your parents old? Downsizing? Are they financially secure? - What are they getting out of a condo that they aren't already getting out of their current home?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Sorry, one major point I left out. They are selling a house they have now thats selling high in the Durham region and buying the condo right now which is low because of the glut of them in Toronto. So they really are not getting into debt. Wondering if they should wait a year or two, perhaps condo prices fall even lower.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Nah, if they waited for prices to drop, odds are detached houses would drop, too, and they'd be making less in the process. This is really the ideal situation from an individual point of view. It's also what will likely cause the crash -- boomers cashing out their houses and downsizing to condos. But it sounds like your parents are doing the right thing in terms of their personal finances.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Lobok posted:And every now and then, lobby your municipal politicians to get rid of homes for mentally disabled children. Also be sure to complain about mass transit projects being a waste of money and also being a easy way to bring robbers into the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Lobok posted:And every now and then, lobby your municipal politicians to get rid of homes for mentally disabled children. Jesus, they suggest doing nice things for people and you automatically jump to the most pathological cases of people trying to protect land values? That's a bit unreasonable, don't you think?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Nah, if they waited for prices to drop, odds are detached houses would drop, too, and they'd be making less in the process. Agreed. That said, then optimal solution is to rent for a while after collecting all that windfall. A little informed investment will yield about 15-20k annually on a million bucks. It doesn't happen very often that you can cash out a million bucks from capital appreciation. It goes a long way to spend it wisely.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Agreed. That said, then optimal solution is to rent for a while after collecting all that windfall. A little informed investment will yield about 15-20k annually on a million bucks. It doesn't happen very often that you can cash out a million bucks from capital appreciation. It goes a long way to spend it wisely. 15-20k on a million bucks isn't even beating inflation. Assuming a normal diversified portfolio they're probably looking at making 60-100k (6-10%) depending on how aggressive they are.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Its what I figured. Stupid good location for the condo and on a good floor. Hard for them to say no. Although, they aren't boomers thankfully. Thanks for all the feedback, I appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:15-20k on a million bucks isn't even beating inflation. Assuming a normal diversified portfolio they're probably looking at making 60-100k (6-10%) depending on how aggressive they are. I'm trying to set a floor. I think it's still better than sinking all this money into a risky and depreciating asset (considering the market and quality of construction), don't you? I guarantee you , most people who come across this sort of windfall don't think about how much money they'd be generating.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Nah, if they waited for prices to drop, odds are detached houses would drop, too, and they'd be making less in the process. The condo and SFH markets are pretty distinct in Toronto. To wit - condos in prime locations often spend months on the market looking for buyer today and almost never go for asking or over. A SFH in a prime location will sell in a couple of days, and usually for a big premium over asking. There is a serious oversupply issue in the Toronto condo market and it's going to crater condo prices for a good while. SFH prices may retract somewhat, but they aren't making any more of those, so supply constraints will keep the prices relatively (to condos) higher. So I'd argue that anyone wanting to make a move to a condo while selling their SFH could sell the house now, wait a few more years and do even better on condo purchase price. Cultural Imperial posted:I'm trying to set a floor. I think it's still better than sinking all this money into a risky and depreciating asset (considering the market and quality of construction), don't you? I guarantee you , most people who come across this sort of windfall don't think about how much money they'd be generating. If you have a million in cash to invest in securities, it's almost impossible to do worse than 5-6%. The type of opportunities open to that amount of money are substantially better than those available to people with little cash. With a million I would not accept anything under 50k a year. Saltin fucked around with this message at 14:51 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Saltin posted:The condo and SFH markets are pretty distinct in Toronto. To wit - condos in prime locations often spend months on the market looking for buyer today and almost never go for asking or over. A SFH in a prime location will sell in a couple of days, and usually for a big premium over asking. If condos get cheap enough relative to single-family homes, it's going to pull buyers out of the SFH market, and if people who were planning on selling their condos and using the cash to buy an SFH, it's going to mean less demand in the SFH market. And "they aren't making any more of those" is something you could have said about oceanfront homes in Florida in 2007.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:And "they aren't making any more of those" is something you could have said about oceanfront homes in Florida in 2007. Which is why the Florida beachfront condo market was obliterated and oceanfront homes merely got hosed. I know a guy who bought at least 10 oceanfront condos on the Gulf during the downturn. He said they were going for pennies on the dollar He paid 100k for a beautiful place I stayed in once that was easily worth 600k in 2007. Homes were cheap, but not to that extent. tagesschau posted:If condos get cheap enough relative to single-family homes, it's going to pull buyers out of the SFH market If you're making an argument for condo prices being relatively sustained due to them being a cheaper option to homes, I guess that's a point of view you can defend, but the truth is that condos are and always have been a cheaper option and the condo market in Toronto is well on its way to cratering. There are loads of deals to be had, but SFH prices are still loving insane. This indicates that there aren't a lot of people actively buying who are looking at both condos and houses simultaneously - they are pretty distinct markets, at least in Toronto. I'd think there are a lot of people in condos who wish they were in a house, but they can't afford it. The number of people in homes considering a condo is pretty small, mostly elderly downsizers. Hardly enough to prop up the supply that's online now. Here's something that visualizes the situation http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...3/?from=8468583 Keep in mind this insane supply is hitting the market at the same time that demand for new and existing condos is dropping rapidly - sales of new units for example, were down 50% year over year this past December. None of this stuff is happening in the SFH market in Toronto right now. I'm not arguing it won't eventually, I am arguing it won't to the same extent. Saltin fucked around with this message at 15:27 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Jesus, they suggest doing nice things for people and you automatically jump to the most pathological cases of people trying to protect land values? That's a bit unreasonable, don't you think? It's a topical reference. Call me cynical for making the link but it's not like I'm imagining this stuff. Edit: For something more than a back-and-forth about posting, here's some interesting content I read a few days ago: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/tokyo-housing-high-rise-cost-new-york-housing quote:Last month, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government released new housing data, offering an eye into the most active construction market in the developed world. quote:In 2012, builders in Tokyo’s 23 innermost wards began construction on nearly 110,000 new houses and apartments. Put into context, the numbers are astounding. England has 53 million people spread over 50,000 square miles of territory — six times the population of Tokyo’s wards and orders of magnitude more land — but on housing, England barely kept up with the much smaller area. The entire country saw just 115,000 new housing starts in 2012. quote:Tokyo is the closest thing this planet has to a city that has completely surrendered itself to market forces. And its construction numbers show it. ...And there’s no economic problem in Japan that the government doesn’t think deregulation can’t ameliorate. Building regulations are constantly being loosened to spur economic growth. quote:However, even though construction in the capital has not been the economic panacea that politicians hoped... The laws of supply and demand have worked, and prices are relatively low — Japan’s two megacities (the Tokyo and Osaka regions) are more affordable than any in the English-speaking world (including Hong Kong and Singapore), with rents in Tokyo actually falling slightly over the past decade. Lobok fucked around with this message at 15:27 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Which is why the Florida beachfront condo market was obliterated and oceanfront homes merely got hosed. Yeah, but we're still talking about homes falling in value by a third, and the bubble never got quite as big in Miami as it is in Toronto. Saltin posted:Keep in mind this insane supply is hitting the market at the same time that demand for new and existing condos is dropping rapidly - sales of new units for example, were down 50% year over year this past December. You've got the same problem with lax lending practices inflating a bubble in the SFH market; the price-to-income ratio is still laughably insane pretty much everywhere in the GTA. By my calculation, where I live, the majority of homeowners in my area could not afford to purchase their homes at anything but the current bargain-basement interest rates we have now. In the long term, there's nowhere for real-dollar prices to go but down. If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Death By The Blues posted:Its what I figured. Stupid good location for the condo and on a good floor. Hard for them to say no. Although, they aren't boomers thankfully. Do they know that neighbourhood well? It is crazy busy and loud, especially on weekend nights, the noise doesn't die down until about 4am, which I assume will be quite different than their current location in Durham. Did they buy something pre-build in that development right on the corner or have they bought something in one of the many others already built nearby? Where in Durham are they?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You've got the same problem with lax lending practices inflating a bubble in the SFH market; the price-to-income ratio is still laughably insane pretty much everywhere in the GTA. By my calculation, where I live, the majority of homeowners in my area could not afford to purchase their homes at anything but the current bargain-basement interest rates we have now. In the long term, there's nowhere for real-dollar prices to go but down. If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. I don't disagree with your assessment, we're aligned.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:Do they know that neighbourhood well? It is crazy busy and loud, especially on weekend nights, the noise doesn't die down until about 4am, which I assume will be quite different than their current location in Durham. Did they buy something pre-build in that development right on the corner or have they bought something in one of the many others already built nearby? They live in Ajax, in like a pocket of pure quietness. Not built yet, it is loud Ill give you that.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Death By The Blues posted:So my parents just bought a condo at Queen and Dovercourt. They have 9 days to retract their offer, what are some arguements I can use for either side? Also, this thread is truly depressing. My parents just bought a condo in Whistler this week, and I'm lending them money interest free! Do I win? Saltin posted:If you have a million in cash to invest in securities, it's almost impossible to do worse than 5-6%. The type of opportunities open to that amount of money are substantially better than those available to people with little cash. With a million I would not accept anything under 50k a year. Can you elaborate a bit on this? I'm pretty sure my investment plans would be the same from 50k to about 2.5M (I'd probably want to think pretty hard about various forms of tax sheltering and estate planning beyond that). Moreover I also don't think that having 1M gives you more 'opportunities' -- maybe some lovely mid-level investment advisors will try hard to get your assets under management but that's not useful. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 21:56 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:My parents just bought a condo in Whistler this week, and I'm lending them money interest free! Do I win? The quality of investment advisors are much better when you have more money. As in they're not just salesmen trying to get you to buy their lovely mutual funds.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The quality of investment advisors are much better when you have more money. As in they're not just salesmen trying to get you to buy their lovely mutual funds. I agree that they get better, but I don't think they get substantially better until you have a lot more assets under management than 1M.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:I agree that they get better, but I don't think they get substantially better until you have a lot more assets under management than 1M. The advisors don't get better, the quality of investments get better as you can afford to lock up larger and larger amounts of money for a longer time. If you can only invest 500k, you can buy some stocks. If you can invest $10 million with some other rich guys, you can pay some other rich guys to take over a company and strip its assets for you.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
on the left posted:The advisors don't get better, the quality of investments get better as you can afford to lock up larger and larger amounts of money for a longer time. If you can only invest 500k, you can buy some stocks. If you can invest $10 million with some other rich guys, you can pay some other rich guys to take over a company and strip its assets for you. I know someone who works for a personal wealth management company and they actively trade in their customers' interest. They focus mainly on oil and gas and they've done quite well for their customers during the great recession. Additionally, they run a product for AGF which is sold to institutional investors. In my experience, any shithead 'investment advisor' at a high street bank is just going to sell you some investors group tripe and gently caress off. I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just that it's taken this long for me to get over my cynicism over 'investment advisors' and if you can find a good one, they actually do a lot of work and can make you a decent amount of money.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
My parents have a financial advisor at a large personal wealth management company who only takes clients with at least 500k in liquid assets. They have a few interesting investment products in their portfolio (a hedge fund based in Vancouver, some flow-through shares in an energy company) but I'm not at all convinced that this produces any alpha relative to a balanced portfolio of low-cost ETFs. I'd certainly rather have [generic Vanguard ETFs] than the mutual fund component of their portfolio.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
What an IA at a decent shop can do that you can't do (effectively) in your Self-directed account at most places is get allocations of pre-IPO private placements. These tend to have outsized returns although can be total write-offs if said company doesn't make it public, and to invest they require qualification as an accredited investor. The accredited investor test includes soft tests for asset knowledge as well as asset and/or income tests. If you know the right people you can get in these deals without an IA, but that requires knowing the founders or having other channels to hear about them. Aside from that, IAs are like any money manager - there are good and bad, and even the good struggle to beat a relevant index. The ones with larger portfolios generally are better, as they will have clients who have either grown with them or have made people enough money that they get CEO references. Something to consider is that even if you don't necessarily meet an IAs minimum today, they will sometimes take you on if you're in a good career and they can foresee you getting it in a reasonable time as this allows them to show long-term growth in their book. You should also consider carefully how you want them to be compensated. Some are fee only (hourly) while others take a performance fee and others still get bonused by their shop or their client deal for trading volume which as you could imagine is bad for you.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:You should also consider carefully how you want them to be compensated. Some are fee only (hourly) while others take a performance fee and others still get bonused by their shop or their client deal for trading volume which as you could imagine is bad for you. The top notch guys I've known tend to take a percentage right off of the top -- obviously not a huge percentage, but enough to make a very comfortable living for themselves with the amount of money that they manage.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The top notch guys I've known tend to take a percentage right off of the top -- obviously not a huge percentage, but enough to make a very comfortable living for themselves with the amount of money that they manage. More common that they'll take something like 2&20 - 2% of AUM and 20% of gains above a performance threshold (in some cases this threshold is zero, others a benchmark) can be lower or higher percentages as well.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:More common that they'll take something like 2&20 - 2% of AUM and 20% of gains above a performance threshold (in some cases this threshold is zero, others a benchmark) can be lower or higher percentages as well. For sure -- and the more money you have, the better deal you receive. When you're talking about managing 20 million for a single account, 1% is a very nice fee.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
I'm skeptical of "mid-market" private wealth banking (<50 million). If you want help managing a portfolio of 7/low 8 figures, chances are you'd still be better off with a flat fee advisor and going with passive management/ETFs etc. You'd need a larger pot to get access to good alternative assets and investment advice.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm skeptical of "mid-market" private wealth banking (<50 million). It's the market where banks can get away with charging exorbitant fees, and the clients are not quite rich enough to have their own people to make sure they aren't getting fleeced. My grandfather used to use these type of services, but once the internet became a thing, he moved to self-management.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that advisors or access to investment advice improves in the low 7 figure range. I was replying to a post about what sort of income one could reasonably expect from a 1 million dollar investment, assuming preservation of captial was a factor. I replied that 5% would be my floor and that this is based on the quality of investments being better at higher minimum investment thresholds. Summed up, bond issues which pay 5%+ and are well rated often have six figure minimum investments. This is all I was saying. In general, I see almost no value to an advisor at all unless you're in the ballpark where you are paying someone full time, and even then, you better pay a second guy to watch the first.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
There's a giant billboard in the Ottawa airport for Soho Champaign condos. 296k for a one bedroom, but they'll throw in a free Mercedes!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:There's a giant billboard in the Ottawa airport for Soho Champaign condos. They look like a real steal compared to Vancouver. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:There's a giant billboard in the Ottawa airport for Soho Champaign condos. I saw one in Mississauga recently advertising newly built semi-detached homes starting from the mid 600s. What a steal, better get in on that!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:01
|
|
