|
Dreylad posted:File this one under 'not surprising but explains a lot:' Well, that's disgusting.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:File this one under 'not surprising but explains a lot:' Eh, it could be worse. BC has no limits or restrictions on campaign funding at all. It'll be fun to see if the Vancouver municipal elections this year can beat the previous record for most (developer) funding in Canadian history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
So now that the northern gateway has been approved, it probably proves everyone who invested in Kitimat right. I hope for the love of god that these people understand how lucky they got and cash in. e: that said, I can't wait until the first tanker runs aground. gently caress every single one of you shitheads who supported this
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
THC posted:
I always figured these have something to do with money laundering. Like, what kind of people have $500k lying around and are willing to buy any house sight unseen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:So now that the northern gateway has been approved, it probably proves everyone who invested in Kitimat right. I hope for the love of god that these people understand how lucky they got and cash in. Approved is not built though. It seems to me the obstacles and opposition will be legendary. But yeah - if it gets done - that's looking like a profitable purchase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
ductonius posted:I always figured these have something to do with money laundering. Like, what kind of people have $500k lying around and are willing to buy any house sight unseen. People often connect real estate with laundering, but I don't get the mechanics. Don't you still need to 'explain' where the money came from, even if you used it to buy real estate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:People often connect real estate with laundering, but I don't get the mechanics. Don't you still need to 'explain' where the money came from, even if you used it to buy real estate? A family friend works for a high street bank in coquitlam. She says that they have to report any amount of cash over 10k if it gets deposited. I don't really understand how money can be laundered in a house purchase unless you built it yourself with cash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:A family friend works for a high street bank in coquitlam. She says that they have to report any amount of cash over 10k if it gets deposited. I don't really understand how money can be laundered in a house purchase unless you built it yourself with cash. Chinese people run special informal remittances networks that would avoid this. You give your money to some Ah Q in Canada, and he lets his connection in China know to release some agreed-upon amount of cash to your family members in China. The money doesn't need to travel back to China because Chinese people sending money to Canada will give money to that guy in China, and the local Ah Q will disburse your Canadian dollars to their family.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RBC_Canada/status/479076596314161152quote:RBC Canada gently caress this loving country
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
on the left posted:Chinese people run special informal remittances networks that would avoid this. You give your money to some Ah Q in Canada, and he lets his connection in China know to release some agreed-upon amount of cash to your family members in China. The money doesn't need to travel back to China because Chinese people sending money to Canada will give money to that guy in China, and the local Ah Q will disburse your Canadian dollars to their family. this is literally a hawala isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:People often connect real estate with laundering, but I don't get the mechanics. Don't you still need to 'explain' where the money came from, even if you used it to buy real estate? If you're laundering money in real estate you probably don't have to do much explaining, because the schemes I've heard of are very complicated and have people involved at every step of the purchase process to hide or otherwise manipulate aspects of the transaction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:this is literally a hawala isn't it? Yes, that's what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, that's what it is. Which, if I recall, is completely outlawed due to 9/11, at least in the US. I can't wait until someone starts trying to crack down on these networks. e: lol http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/publications/brochure/05-2010/1-eng.asp
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
ductonius posted:I always figured these have something to do with money laundering. Like, what kind of people have $500k lying around and are willing to buy any house sight unseen. Cultural Imperial posted:https://twitter.com/RBC_Canada/status/479076596314161152
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Which, if I recall, is completely outlawed due to 9/11, at least in the US. I can't wait until someone starts trying to crack down on these networks. Something that is popular in Hong Kong is getting around these regulations using pawn shops. Go in, buy something expensive with cash, and then sell it back almost immediately after for clean money. Buy a watch from your friend for 100k, then fly to HK with the watch and sell it back to his friend for 90k, deposited in a Hong Kong bank via wire transfer at the pawn shop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Wasn't there just recently a whole bunch of complaining about the fact there aren't enough long-term mortgages in Canada? As far as I can tell, they're talking about the length of the mortgage, not the amortization. As long as we allow mortgages with a 30-year amortization, I don't see any particular issue with allowing a 30-year term. In fact, it's probably safer than a shorter-term mortgage with the same amortization, and 20% down seems like enough, assuming people are borrowing within their means. Beyond that, mortgages are just financial instruments. There are bonds with 100-year maturities, it doesn't mean that they're being bought so that the buyer can reap all the rewards in 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Presumably they operate in the same sort of way as pawnbrokers - they can take anything because they're going to offer 50% or less of its market value. They don't say "sight unseen", just "we'll take any house." Doesn't have to be anything to do with money laundering, just a bunch of slimy bastards with a bit of ready cash and a willingness to exploit the desperate. These are amortization rates. This is a terrible idea to make housing 'affordable'. Motherfuckers will still have to renew every 5 years or less. We're not getting american style 30 year fixed rate mortgages any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:These are amortization rates. This is a terrible idea to make housing 'affordable'. Motherfuckers will still have to renew every 5 years or less. We're not getting american style 30 year fixed rate mortgages any time soon. Do you have any evidence of that? The Twitter conversation only ever discusses length (which is, admittedly, ambiguous), never amortization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
wow holy poo poo these mortgages really are for 30 years. gently caress me
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Wasn't there just recently a whole bunch of complaining about the fact there aren't enough long-term mortgages in Canada? As far as I can tell, they're talking about the length of the mortgage, not the amortization. As long as we allow mortgages with a 30-year amortization, I don't see any particular issue with allowing a 30-year term. In fact, it's probably safer than a shorter-term mortgage with the same amortization, and 20% down seems like enough, assuming people are borrowing within their means. A big problem is that the math behind mortgages means that the monthly payment can never be lower than the interest accrued in one month, no matter how long the mortgage. Thus, you are only lengthening the pain, without meaningfully improving affordability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It sure seems that way. I'd cover my rear end this way also (remembering, of course, that the central purpose of any organization, however altruistic, is to perpetuate its own existence indefinitely). It's not really damaging to this statement, but this is somewhat hampered by the (relatively) recent concept of people high up in the executive chain being far more interested in their own personal gains than the company they might not be working for in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:wow holy poo poo these mortgages really are for 30 years. gently caress me To be fair, most don't have any prepayment penalties
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:To be fair, most don't have any prepayment penalties Well, yeah. Who would get a 30-year mortgage without the option to get out of it without a massive penalty? Cultural Imperial, what is your idea of the ideal mortgage length? You don't want people to treat property ownership as a short-term investment (I can agree with that to some degree), but apparently having a plan to keep a property for 25 or 30 years is too much, in your opinion. What's the magic number? Or are you simply opposed to the ownership of property in any form, for any reason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Property is theft, Comrade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Pre payment penalties on mortgages longer than 5 years are illegal under the bank act. That's why there aren't really any mortgages with rates fixed for more than 5 years - it's essentially an interest rate put option for the borrower. If you got a 30 year fixed mortgage and 5 years on rates are lower, you refinance at the lower rate. If they are higher then you just keep your fixed rate. The banks would have to charge a hefty premium to cover this risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, yeah. Who would get a 30-year mortgage without the option to get out of it without a massive penalty? I think I suffered a head injury a few years ago, I seriously can't detect sarcasm in this thread anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
For those of you who have people you care about who are hell bent on pride of ownership, show them this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Pre payment penalties on mortgages longer than 5 years are illegal under the bank act. That's why there aren't really any mortgages with rates fixed for more than 5 years - it's essentially an interest rate put option for the borrower. If you got a 30 year fixed mortgage and 5 years on rates are lower, you refinance at the lower rate. If they are higher then you just keep your fixed rate. The banks would have to charge a hefty premium to cover this risk. Yes, there are longer-term mortgages, and, yes, the banks charge a premium for them. It's still a massively, massively safer option for the borrower, but the disadvantage is it might cost you a lot of money. At least you know how much it will cost you, instead of possibly getting rear end-hosed by interest rate increases down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, yeah. Who would get a 30-year mortgage without the option to get out of it without a massive penalty? No, it's not at all. As I've said before in this thread, I'd love to see a heavy tax imposed on 'investment property' and the abolition of the capital gains tax exemption on primary residential properties. I've also mentioned several times in this thread that I'm not against home ownership. I'm against financial profligacy. ie, I don't want to bail your stupid rear end out while you live high on the loving hog like a motherfucker baller leasing out beemers and poo poo, like every loving vancouverite does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:For those of you who have people you care about who are hell bent on pride of ownership, show them this. It seems fairly likely that governments will continue the zero interest rate policies barring a massive shock to the financial system. If there's a huge shock, expect major changes anyways, so go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:For those of you who have people you care about who are hell bent on pride of ownership, show them this. What on God's green earth does the spectre of increasing interest rates have to do with the "pride" (or other advantages) of ownership? One's an economic issue, and the other is a personal choice based on one's own values and priorities. Ownership does not even technically require a mortgage, much less a mortgage with a 5-year term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, yeah. Who would get a 30-year mortgage without the option to get out of it without a massive penalty? I kind of still read this thread because I kind of share the view that house prices will probably fall, but most of the posts here are some variant of "the only moral privatized profit/socialized cost is MY privatized profit/socialized cost" or "look at how some Chinese people are dumb assholes, the country should only allow in whites who have never been dumb or assholes ever.". This thread has pretty much convinced me to never go to Vancouver, ever, much less live there, regardless of how much houses cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
because largely the discourse about ownership vs. renting breaks down to an ephemeral 'but then you own where you live' when it's pointed out that renting is largely cheaper, and that the concept of 'losing' the money you pay for rent is nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I'm against financial profligacy. ie, I don't want to bail your stupid rear end out while you live high on the loving hog like a motherfucker baller leasing out beemers and poo poo, like every loving vancouverite does. Really? If that's the case, you certainly spend an inordinate amount of time bitching about homeowners and people who wish to buy property. I don't live in Vancouver, so I can't comment on that part of it, but you seem bitter as a motherfucker towards people who do or want to own property.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I kind of still read this thread because I kind of share the view that house prices will probably fall, but most of the posts here are some variant of "the only moral privatized profit/socialized cost is MY privatized profit/socialized cost" or "look at how some Chinese people are dumb assholes, the country should only allow in whites who have never been dumb or assholes ever.". This thread has pretty much convinced me to never go to Vancouver, ever, much less live there, regardless of how much houses cost. cool, means I'll never run the risk of running into you here, idiot
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I kind of still read this thread because I kind of share the view that house prices will probably fall, but most of the posts here are some variant of "the only moral privatized profit/socialized cost is MY privatized profit/socialized cost" or "look at how some Chinese people are dumb assholes, the country should only allow in whites who have never been dumb or assholes ever.". This thread has pretty much convinced me to never go to Vancouver, ever, much less live there, regardless of how much houses cost. And you really shouldn't. Vancouver is a nice place but the people are absolute scum. I say this as someone who grew up in Vancouver and is now living in Seattle. God, the Americans might subscribe to some loving dumb rear end politics but at least they're nice people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:because largely the discourse about ownership vs. renting breaks down to an ephemeral 'but then you own where you live' when it's pointed out that renting is largely cheaper, and that the concept of 'losing' the money you pay for rent is nonsense I have to explain to friends and family that just because you rent, doesn't mean you're homeless. I can't seem to convince the majority of my social circle of this fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:because largely the discourse about ownership vs. renting breaks down to an ephemeral 'but then you own where you live' when it's pointed out that renting is largely cheaper, and that the concept of 'losing' the money you pay for rent is nonsense It is not non-sense, and owning where you live has a number of advantages beyond an ephemeral sense of pride. To list a few: 1) You cannot be kicked out on your landlord's whim. 2) You can redecorate and renovate as you please. 3) You don't have to consider the possibility of a rent increase occurring every year. 4) You can do what you want in your own dwelling, including "owning pets" and "smoking." 5) You have greater privacy rights. I don't give a gently caress about some random sense of "pride," I like the freedom and convenience that ownership offers me. I know I've paid a premium for it, but not extremely so, and I'll probably get all of my money back when I sell, even if I don't make money on it. EDIT: Of course, not being in Vancouver or Toronto, I'm paying much less of a premium over renting, and there's less of a downside since the bubble is smaller. In that case, this thread should be called something more like "Why Toronto and Vancouver suck and I hate them," because the arguments sure as gently caress aren't equally applicable across the country. PT6A fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:1) You cannot be kicked out on your landlord's whim. luckily this isn't the case when you're renting either! quote:2) You can redecorate and renovate as you please. quote:3) You don't have to consider the possibility of a rent increase occurring every year. quote:4) You can do what you want in your own dwelling, including "owning pets" and "smoking." quote:5) You have greater privacy rights. I get the impression your 25 year old self has never rented. But I also think you're a dunce most of the time, so don't worry too much about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I kind of still read this thread because I kind of share the view that house prices will probably fall, but most of the posts here are some variant of "the only moral privatized profit/socialized cost is MY privatized profit/socialized cost" or "look at how some Chinese people are dumb assholes, the country should only allow in whites who have never been dumb or assholes ever.". This thread has pretty much convinced me to never go to Vancouver, ever, much less live there, regardless of how much houses cost. I do not suggest browsing /r/Vancouver, if you think this thread is bad. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 06:25
|
|
