|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Which part of the country are they in? I'm not sure if Mike Holmes ventures out of the GTA too much. Mike Holmes use to have the best contracting website till people started buying out the companies he recommended and running them into the ground.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 17:37 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 08:44 |
|
I am going to just leave this right here.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 17:39 |
|
Are those actual hundreds, or short-form thousands?
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 17:50 |
|
Pretty sure they're actuals for 3 months, as we didn't have nearly 10M immigrants that quarter.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 17:59 |
|
I am not actually interested in Canadian real estate and furthest West (and closest to Canada) I've been is France. Yet, I keep checking this thread for general real estate bubble chat. Alright, here's my question: - The parliament in my country is about to pass a change in bankruptcy law, which should make all future mortgage debt non-recourse. The banks are throwing a tantrum, stating that it will destroy house affordability and doom poor families to homelessness forever. What's the bear consensus of non-recourse vs recourse house debt. Which is worse and why?
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 19:18 |
|
Tonton Macoute posted:The parliament in my country is about to pass a change in bankruptcy law, which should make all future mortgage debt non-recourse. The banks are throwing a tantrum, stating that it will destroy house affordability and doom poor families to homelessness forever. What's the bear consensus of non-recourse vs recourse house debt. Which is worse and why? Neither is intrinsically better or worse for bears, but a sudden shift from recourse to non-recourse could lead to a sharp reduction in credit availability (i.e. force banks to suddenly adopt more rigorous lending standards), which would tend to reduce the number of buyers who are able to proceed and thus pull prices down. However, non-recourse is very bad if you're the kind of bear who desperately wants to see new homebuyers driven out of their homes and into destitution.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 19:25 |
|
Tonton Macoute posted:I am not actually interested in Canadian real estate and furthest West (and closest to Canada) I've been is France. Yet, I keep checking this thread for general real estate bubble chat. Alright, here's my question: It's probably irrelevant. There were American states on either side of the recourse/non-recourse split which suffered very badly in the American housing collapse. Having said that, if I were running a bank, I would greatly prefer to live in a recourse jurisdiction - for the hassle reduction alone, hence the tantrums.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 19:25 |
|
DailyDumSum posted:I'm thinking of purchasing a condo in Toronto. Please point to resources where it would show me that it is a bad idea.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 19:47 |
|
DailyDumSum posted:I'm thinking of purchasing a condo in Toronto. Please point to resources where it would show me that it is a bad idea. There's sort of an interesting implicit cultural assumption about the burden of proof on this topic by the way you've phrased this. "show me why this is a bad idea" instead of "I'm going to do this for these hopefully-justifiable reasons". Just imagine someone making a similar statement in one of the various investing threads: "I'm thinking of buying a low-cost indexed US equity fund. Please point to resources where it would show me that it is a bad idea". It's basically unthinkable. Anyway, not exactly a criticism - it's just very revealing how you put that.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 19:59 |
|
melon cat posted:There is no simple, clear-cut answer to this. Who's the builder? Which part of Toronto is the condo in? How much are the maintenance fees (and what's covered under the fees)? Also, what is your likely mortgage rate and how long is the fixed rate period? What would it cost to rent a property of an equivalent standard? How big will your downpayment be and what kind of return could you realistically get on it if you invested it elsewhere?
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 20:02 |
|
LemonDrizzle posted:However, non-recourse is very bad if you're the kind of bear who desperately wants to see new homebuyers driven out of their homes and into destitution. I thought this was the only kind of bear???
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 20:44 |
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Neither is intrinsically better or worse for bears, but a sudden shift from recourse to non-recourse could lead to a sharp reduction in credit availability (i.e. force banks to suddenly adopt more rigorous lending standards), which would tend to reduce the number of buyers who are able to proceed and thus pull prices down. What a novel concept! LemonDrizzle posted:However, non-recourse is very bad if you're the kind of bear who desperately wants to see new homebuyers driven out of their homes and into destitution. How would that work? Existing homebuyers would somehow be driven out of their homes?
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 20:48 |
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Neither is intrinsically better or worse for bears, but a sudden shift from recourse to non-recourse could lead to a sharp reduction in credit availability (i.e. force banks to suddenly adopt more rigorous lending standards), which would tend to reduce the number of buyers who are able to proceed and thus pull prices down. Has this ever happened anywhere in the world? LemonDrizzle posted:However, non-recourse is very bad if you're the kind of bear who desperately wants to see new homebuyers driven out of their homes and into destitution. *raises hand* gently caress em
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 20:54 |
|
Lexicon posted:How would that work? Existing homebuyers would somehow be driven out of their homes? Cultural Imperial posted:Has this ever happened anywhere in the world?
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 21:30 |
|
DailyDumSum posted:I'm thinking of purchasing a condo in Toronto. Please point to resources where it would show me that it is a bad idea. How much money do you make? What other debts do you have?
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 23:42 |
|
Can you afford mortgage payments if the rates are higher when you renew in 5 years?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 00:57 |
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, rent, it owns. Depending the rent/buy ratio in your city even if you want to buy you're still better off renting for like 20+ years, like you come out ahead financially even if there isn't a crash. On the other hand buying high is really good since it means you can only make more money in the future.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 01:15 |
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...rticle20811140/quote:Jane and John seem to be sliding ever deeper into debt and don’t quite know what to do about it. gently caress you jane and john Scum like this deserve to burn in the impending crash.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 01:50 |
|
I usually find your vindictiveness and desire to see idiots suffer a tad off-putting, but I'm a-ok with jane and john hitting living-under-a-bridge levels of poverty due to their amazing mix of entitlement and financial ignorance. Or like just have to move into a 2br apartment in a not-great neighbourhood and live like a normal person for a few years while they re-build after a bankruptcy. Anyone who brings in 165k a year and can't live in comfort and stability really deserves no sympathy. I bet they've considered downsizing but just can't find a 4br house good enough because they just NEED 4 bedrooms. In their minds they are living at the absolute minimum levels possible. I mean do people expect them to not lease a high end new car, or their kids to share a bedroom?? They are paying about the same on their loving car lease as I am on a 2-year financing to actually own my car. But of course they need some top of the line lexus SUV because "SAFETY!". Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Sep 27, 2014 |
# ? Sep 27, 2014 02:04 |
|
lmao They are paying $786 a month to lease a late-model car.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 02:09 |
|
They also have two mortgages. But at least they're giving $250 per month of charitable donations!
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 02:13 |
|
quote:“We still have an assortment of hand-me-down and university furniture, we don’t fly anywhere on trips, we can’t afford to do landscaping in the yard. I don’t really buy expensive clothes – I buy many things second-hand,” The state of mind of these scumbags needs to be emphasized. At least you have pride of ownership.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 02:17 |
|
Just wait until their kids get old enough to need cellphones, that 210 won't cover TV, Internet, and Telecom anymore. I guess they are the conservatives target audience with their campaign for cheaper cellphones. What's going on with the two mortgages? Is that on the same house?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 02:22 |
|
flashman posted:What's going on with the two mortgages? Is that on the same house? Yeah imagine the high home price means they needed two mortgages for one house.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 02:28 |
|
How the gently caress do these morons only have $3k in the bank? Are they eating fuckin caviar off strippers' asses for every meal of the day? edit: oh right, even with a massive income they are still spending 45% on housing+transportation. And $1,000 a month on food? Are you loving kidding me? Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Sep 27, 2014 |
# ? Sep 27, 2014 03:00 |
|
8 loving thousand 8 hundred dollars net income a month. I remember when I was living an entire year off about that much. Like holy poo poo give me 165k a year and I'd be a millionaire in short time just by not being loving retarded with my money.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 03:11 |
|
If I made 165k a year I could literally have a million in the bank after 6-7 years, maybe sooner if I was investing it all.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 03:44 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:How the gently caress do these morons only have $3k in the bank? Are they eating fuckin caviar off strippers' asses for every meal of the day? And in most cases, their savings/investment accounts had next to nothing. Until this day, I have no idea how they didn't have nervous breakdowns over their household finances. A lot of them were so far into the hole (despite having strong incomes) that nothing short of winning the lottery would pull them out of the red. melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 27, 2014 |
# ? Sep 27, 2014 03:44 |
|
The wife's new job income will be used to fund the purchase of a investment condo. There is no other possibility with that couple. e: However again, I salute them for over compensating for my lack of consumption and keeping our economy rolling. Excelsior!
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 03:45 |
|
melon cat posted:I used to manage clients with this type of income. On a daily basis, I nearly fainted when I saw what their paycheque amount was. But despite how much money they made, they always found a way to out-spend themselves. If they make $150K/year, they'll spend $300K. If they make $300K a year, they'll spend $600K. They also max the poo poo out of their HELOCs, and have multiple vehicle leases. How were they so bad at this? I can't even begin to understand how this works.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 04:01 |
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Mar 16, 2019 |
# ? Sep 27, 2014 04:14 |
|
Baronjutter posted:If I made 165k a year I could literally have a million in the bank after 6-7 years, maybe sooner if I was investing it all. Nice thought but flat out not true 165k gets taxed at approx 33% on average so you'd be left with $110,000 per year max. Even if you make modest spending assumptions of say $3,000 a month for a very frugal family of 4, with investment earnings of 6% per year after tax you'd end up with about 800,000 saved. This disregards that it would be deflated money (2% a year makes it worth <700 something today) and that spending almost inevitably rises as income increases. Easy to make a case for not buying that new computer or whatever when doing so means a real loss of ability to spend on needs but a much harder argument to make when it's 'just disposable income'. E: this is not me saying they're not dumb as gently caress and we shouldn't laugh at them, but it's not quite as simple as baronjutter's post might make it sound.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 04:21 |
|
Baronjutter posted:If I made 165k a year I could literally have a million in the bank after 6-7 years, maybe sooner if I was investing it all. There's this thing called taxes, you don't just divide by 6.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 04:39 |
|
blah_blah posted:There's this thing called taxes, you don't just divide by 6. I'd get rich flipping a house or two.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 04:54 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:How were they so bad at this? I can't even begin to understand how this works. Lots of dumb rich people don't run off a basic household budget and do lots of really impulse buys. Also credit payment creep can add up over time.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 05:00 |
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd get rich flipping a house or two. You don't need any salary to get rich house flipping!
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 05:06 |
|
triplexpac posted:So my friends saw a house on Wednesday night, put in a bid last night and bought the house. I don't think they did a home inspection... hope it all works out for them! That's usually a contingency on the offer. You know that's a thing?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 05:12 |
|
Pixelboy posted:That's usually a contingency on the offer. Offers having no subjects is pretty common in Vancouver.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 05:20 |
|
blah_blah posted:Offers having no subjects is pretty Fixed
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 05:47 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 08:44 |
|
Accounting for compound interest and a very modest 5% return (historically, returns on capital have been around 9%) with 2% inflation, if you saved 800,000 of your income over 7 years, you'd get to about $877k in your seventh, and you would most certainly have over $1,000,000 in your eighth. In just under a decade, you could have $1.3 million in equity and four years after that have just shy of $2mil (assuming you saved as consistently as you had). All figures in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation. So, no, it's not as simple as Baronjutter said, he was off by exactly one year. Conclusion: These people are batshit insane, have their priorities completely backwards and need to get their heads screwed on straight.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2014 05:52 |