|
peter banana posted:I can't believe MLS doesn't include days on market and price adjustments. What a crock of poo poo. I've ranted many times about this: all this vast investment in housing, huge taxpayer liabilities, blah blah blah - and it's the most dysfunctional, information-asymmetric market you can possibly imagine.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 16:46 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:37 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:If anyone remembered the tech boom there wouldn't be a housing boom. But stocks can go down to zero, you see, and houses can't! (I have had almost literally those words said to me.)
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 17:29 |
|
tagesschau posted:But stocks can go down to zero, you see, and houses can't! (I have had almost literally those words said to me.) Such a statement betrays a vast ignorance of what a stock actually is (as well as a vast ignorance about the experience of Detroit, MI).
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 17:33 |
|
peter banana posted:I can't believe MLS doesn't include days on market and price adjustments. What a crock of poo poo. I thought it did but only realtors could see
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 19:15 |
|
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014...eowners/380188/ Interesting little article and infographics on renters vs owners, at least in the US. There really is a big political aspect to our urban forms and financial regulations. It's a known fact that low density areas of high home ownership skew conservative, and dense areas of rentals skew progressive. Things like transit, bike lanes, or any spending that isn't on highways and suburbia are going to be strongly resisted by conservative politicians because it both upsets their base, but it also transforms the physical environment in a way which can actually change voter habits. That's something important to remember, that the massive subsidies, planning laws, and generally everything we do to encourage suburbia and home-ownership is absolutely essential for conservative politicians to maintain relevance and their voter base. Of course all parties do it because we're so loving addicted to this poo poo, but it's an existential matter for conservative political "culture" to keep this pattern of development and ownership going. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Sep 22, 2014 |
# ? Sep 22, 2014 19:18 |
|
It's also essential to propping up sectors of the economy that we've come to depend on so heavily. Construction, FIRE, automobiles, home improvement, non-durable consumer products, and lots of general services are all indirectly subsidized by pumping money into suburban subsidies. Subsidizing suburbia was and remains one of the absolute key Keynesian policies of the post-WW2 USA and Canada.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 19:51 |
|
http://beautifulemptyhomes.tumblr.com/ I'm laughing pretty hard at work just thinking about some Chinese kleptocrat's parachute home in Dunbar being filled to the brim with greasy summer-punk squatters.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 20:23 |
|
And that's why we'll never have any sort of squatting protections here. Security companies would have a field day though if every single empty house and even condo had to have some weekly or daily squatter check up. I mean it might even break the finances for some of them and they'd be forced to sell! The tragedy. I'd love some massive 2nd home tax. Or even just a loving "your 2nd home doesn't get all the insane subsidies that your primary home does".
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 20:31 |
|
^ If they can't even be arsed to find tenants, I don't imagine a rent-a-cop doing a weekly check-around will break the bank.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 21:38 |
|
Lexicon posted:^ If they can't even be arsed to find tenants, I don't imagine a rent-a-cop doing a weekly check-around will break the bank. What would be a simple and fair way to make empty 2nd homes and poo poo less prevalent ?
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 21:56 |
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Mar 16, 2019 |
# ? Sep 22, 2014 22:03 |
|
Baronjutter posted:What would be a simple and fair way to make empty 2nd homes and poo poo less prevalent ?
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 22:08 |
|
I think it's very very hard to get people past that concept. Most people have this idea that you buy a house, say for 500,000 and then you spend 20 years or so paying that down and those monthly payments are just a bit higher than renting, and then you'll one day be done and then no rent ever again. That's really attractive. Pay rent for life and come away with nothing, or pay slightly higher rent for 20 years and have an asset worth more than you paid for at the end that you can sell and retire on? You'd be a loving idiot to do otherwise. Yeah markets go up and down but you'll always make a little profit after you sell because prices always go up. Transaction costs, property taxes, upkeep, unexpected repairs? Those are all minor incidentals not worth worrying about. I've had people even tell me "I don't even expect to make a profit selling my house later, but at least I can sell it and get my equity. With renting you come away with nothing." It's a very simple and seductive form of financial illiteracy, and our society does nothing to educate or correct it, in fact there's billions spent on maintaining this ignorance.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 22:09 |
|
Baronjutter posted:I've had people even tell me "I don't even expect to make a profit selling my house later, but at least I can sell it and get my equity. With renting you come away with nothing." It's a very simple and seductive form of financial illiteracy, and our society does nothing to educate or correct it, in fact there's billions spent on maintaining this ignorance. There's also the issue of maintenance and depreciation, which these people always hand wave. If a sinkhole appears right behind the place I'm renting and the house is no longer safe for habitation, I move. If the city condemns your house because it's in a landslide zone or whatnot... Yep. Happy retirement.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 22:50 |
|
Baronjutter posted:I think it's very very hard to get people past that concept. Most people have this idea that you buy a house, say for 500,000 and then you spend 20 years or so paying that down and those monthly payments are just a bit higher than renting, and then you'll one day be done and then no rent ever again. That's really attractive. Pay rent for life and come away with nothing, or pay slightly higher rent for 20 years and have an asset worth more than you paid for at the end that you can sell and retire on? You'd be a loving idiot to do otherwise. Yeah markets go up and down but you'll always make a little profit after you sell because prices always go up. Transaction costs, property taxes, upkeep, unexpected repairs? Those are all minor incidentals not worth worrying about. Yeah, Plus the whole downpayment thing and also sinking all your eggs in one basket hoping the house will have positive equity in the future after taking into account extra costs like home repairs/maintenance. For the downpayment alone you basically locked in money now instead of letting it grow over time through things such stock/bond dividend returns.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2014 23:02 |
|
It's hilarious to see the whole renter vs. owner argument come up even in my own family. My sister and her brother-in-law recently got married and as a result ended up with something like $30,000 in gift money to put a downpayment on a home. Based on assumptions from conversing with the two, they probably have $12,000 or so available prior to that (if they're lucky), and they're assuming with their $42,000 in savings that they'll have enough money to buy a home somewhere in Surrey. Their expectation is to get a 3-bedroom, bi-level home is going to be pretty interesting once they get told that their $80,000 combined income will barely get them a tiny shack. Meanwhile I get accosted by them and other family members when my girlfriend and I (who have a combined income more than 1.5 that and soon possibly more) talk about not buying for a few years just because the market is bonkers and is due for a nasty correction. Like I wouldn't mind owning my own home but I've gotten by for the past decade on renting and it has yet to fail me. For my sister and brother-in-law, it appears to be that they have the mentality that they're nothing until they own the place.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 00:06 |
|
My friend was just telling me her dad has like 50k with her name on it for when she wants to buy, but she doesn't want to buy right now. He keeps mentioning the grant, but it only applies to buying a home. Just trying to help her start building equity. My parents, who have nothing to give, were almost ready to re-mortgage their house to give me a lump sum so we can try to buy something. Boomers think their kids are going to die on the streets if they don't own a home asap.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 00:25 |
|
Just got a quote for a plumbing job that'll set me back a cool $750. Good thing I bought a house instead of throwing my money away renting! edit: why not give her the 50k to invest until she's ready to buy? Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Sep 23, 2014 |
# ? Sep 23, 2014 00:32 |
|
That's what I told her. Take the money, put it in an e-series mutual fund and enjoy that ~%7 each year. But he's already got the money in mutual funds anyways so it's growing for her. So really not so bad. But seriously the 1/3 rule really keeps finances in order. If more than 1/3 is going to housing you've hosed up, downside. Rght now in our apartment we're paying 30% so we're actually a tiny be below. But people I know who make less or just a tiny bit more are jumping all over vancouver-area condos and poo poo now
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 00:50 |
|
Baronjutter posted:My friend was just telling me her dad has like 50k with her name on it for when she wants to buy, but she doesn't want to buy right now. He keeps mentioning the grant, but it only applies to buying a home. Just trying to help her start building equity. I'd take the $50,000 and invest it into my RRSP and then let it go from there. Is she in her 20s? He'd be crazy to not let her do that.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 00:51 |
|
I wish I was a better quantity surveyor or estimator or what ever. I often look at lots in the city and design houses for them that to me would be a "dream house" and they all come out wayyy higher than I could ever afford. I'm not designing anything huge, mostly under 1200sqft.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 00:54 |
|
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-22/irrational-exuberance-down-under quote:Lindsay David's new book on Australia deserves a medical disclaimer: Reading this will greatly raise your blood pressure. It's uncanny when you compare to .
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 01:13 |
|
Hum. Greater Fool was about Australia tonight also.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 01:31 |
|
Lexicon posted:Hum. Greater Fool was about Australia tonight also. An Aussie couple who are dear friend to me are looking to buy a home. I really hope they don't.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 01:48 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:An Aussie couple who are dear friend to me are looking to buy a home. I really hope they don't. With prices going up now's the perfect time to buy.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 01:49 |
|
Baronjutter posted:That's what I told her. Take the money, put it in an e-series mutual fund and enjoy that ~%7 each year. But he's already got the money in mutual funds anyways so it's growing for her. So really not so bad. I'd go one better and say that if more than 1/3 goes to Housing + Transportation, you've hosed up.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 02:19 |
|
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/22/joe-oliver-says-canada-wont-make-major-changes-to-cmhc-housing-finance/quote:“Our educated opinion is that growth in house prices in Canada will moderate,” Siddall said. “If we are wrong, and price growth remains strong or accelerates, we may need to look to macro-prudential counter-weights to avoid excesses.” Holy poo poo I had no idea they stopped insuring condos.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 02:36 |
|
No CMHC for condos?? That seems like big news, specially for Vancouver.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 02:39 |
|
I'd say it's the biggest news for Toronto.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 02:40 |
|
They canceled condo developer insurance for their financing. You still get insurance if your a sucker a buy a condo.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 03:02 |
|
ocrumsprug posted:They canceled condo developer insurance for their financing. You still get insurance if your a sucker a buy a condo. Whoaaaaa are you saying developers can take out CMHC insurance to build poo poo? what the gently caress
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 03:05 |
|
Developers can get mortgages too.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 03:11 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Whoaaaaa are you saying developers can take out CMHC insurance to build poo poo? That was one of the CMHC original missions wasn't it?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 04:23 |
|
ocrumsprug posted:That was one of the CMHC original missions wasn't it? That and to provide affordable housing until Mulroney decided to change it up.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 04:25 |
|
ocrumsprug posted:That was one of the CMHC original missions wasn't it? I knew that it was the CMHC's mission to help home buyers finance their homes but I had no idea it was part of their mission to finance developers.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 04:42 |
|
peter banana posted:I can't believe MLS doesn't include days on market and price adjustments. What a crock of poo poo. Why? Because the banks and realtors got to juking the stats by pulling houses off and then putting them back on the market over and over again which reset days on market dates. They'd also reprice/reassess the property as needed. Its one of those open secrets that everyone in the US RE biz knows about but doesn't talk about publicly or even much in private.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 05:13 |
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Dunno about the details of the Canadian market but the US market had these and it didn't, still doesn't, matter as much as you think. This is actually super common in Canada too. The real estate boards also double/triple count sales as well for their monthly stats. http://vancouverpricedrop.wordpress.com/
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 05:30 |
|
Isn't that relatively easy to defeat by using the postal address as the unique identifier for the listing? (Assuming we had a gov that wasn't in the pocket of FIRE and would make rules to benefit the public)
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 05:34 |
|
Lexicon posted:Isn't that relatively easy to defeat by using the postal address as the unique identifier for the listing? (Assuming we had a gov that wasn't in the pocket of FIRE and would make rules to benefit the public) It's their database, so who do you presume is looking to defeat the system?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 05:38 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:37 |
|
ocrumsprug posted:It's their database, so who do you presume is looking to defeat the system? You think a Realtor™ knows what a primary key is?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2014 05:43 |