|
Kalenn Istarion posted:You're joking right This doesn't answer the question. You proposed that there could be a speculator on each side of a futures contract. I would like to see you explain the mechanics of that. Before you say that the one person is speculating the price will rise and the other that the price will fall think about the net effect of this and how it would mechanically contribute to a bubble. mike- fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jan 29, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
James Cheng just got his poo poo pushed in by some nimbys. A loss for this gently caress face is a victory for all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:Yup, the commodity bubble around '08 was spectacular. At one point a single person or fund had purchased 80% of the worlds cocoa reserves for example, and was hoarding them to drive up the value, this is also why most chocolate quality took a massive nose-dive from which it has yet to recover. Really, i was actually wondering why chocolate seemed to taste like wax lately. Especially candy chocolate like M&Ms etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
While it was definitely a convenient excuse for manufacturers like Hershey's to cut out the most expensive ingredient in their product, that kind of decline has more to do with the relentless freefall of manufacturing standards for consumer products in the west over the past two decades than anything else. Hersheys goods have so little cocoa that they are no longer actually a chocolate product. I noticed it more in Toblerone and such, which still hasn't quite recovered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Rime posted:While it was definitely a convenient excuse for manufacturers like Hershey's to cut out the most expensive ingredient in their product, that kind of decline has more to do with the relentless freefall of manufacturing standards for consumer products in the west over the past two decades than anything else. Hersheys goods have so little cocoa that they are no longer actually a chocolate product. Come on, Hersheys was never even chocolate in the first place. You might as well quibble about the declining standards of Cheez Whiz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Bring out the guillotines imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
I'm buying guillotines futures right now actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
on the left posted:In the US, banks would blacklist condos that looked financially risky, and when that happened, the projects would completely disintegrate. Miami had some huge portion of unfinished condo buildings that were ineligible for bank loans at one point, it was a bloodbath. Wasn't this the end result of the last Vancouver property bubble in the 80s? The city had to spend millions demolishing half-complete projects whose developers had gone bankrupt, and the province is now lending out money for free to help people fix the leaking rooves on the units that did get built.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Wasn't this the end result of the last Vancouver property bubble in the 80s? The city had to spend millions demolishing half-complete projects whose developers had gone bankrupt, and the province is now lending out money for free to help people fix the leaking rooves on the units that did get built. We haven't spoken of the leaky condo crisis since 2005. It's ancient history, could never happen again even though building standards were higher back then. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Leaky whats? All I remember from the 90's were the FAST CATS. Now there's a disaster we need to remember and bring up forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
mike- posted:This doesn't answer the question. ......... Whether it would contribute to a bubble or not is irrelevant. Specs trade both sides of contracts. Believe it or not speculators may have conflicting opinions at times. I'm not sure what's unclear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2015/01/planned-changes-assets-eligible-collateral/quote:Following a regular review of the Bank’s policy in relation to Assets Eligible as Collateral under the Bank of Canada’s Standing Liquidity Facility (SLF), the Bank is planning to add certain Canadian-dollar denominated term asset-backed securities (ABS), including those backed by residential mortgages, to the list of eligible collateral, effective 31 March 2015. Eligibility will be subject to the following conditions: In other words, the BoC is going to let commercial banks borrow money from the BoC using residential mortgages as collateral. tl;dr you, dear taxpayer, are now more on the hook for someone else's mortgage
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Hahaha we're all screwed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Well, gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
If I had money to invest I'd throw them at banks right now because the BoC just gave them a license to steal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
That one bullet point with the footnote is interesting. Any securities further exposed to the dread CDOs will be rejected. "The program must not contain any actual or potential exposure to structured or synthetic products.1" "These include, but are not limited to, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), securities that are themselves backed by exposures to CDOs or similar highly structured products, securities that have direct or indirect exposures to credit-linked notes or credit default swaps, and leveraged derivative exposures. [←]"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Lol the Canadian banking system is different from the US guys, like different regulators and everything! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Just did a check of the big banks capital ratios according to their Q4/2014 reports, looks like most hover around 10%. I wonder what borrowing against mortgages will put them at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:That's pretty cozy for a family with a baby (I have two kids and lived in a similarly sized place previously). Wait until you get a toy collection and they start walking. The previous family raised 5 kids in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Pffft, banks using mortgages as collateral? C'mon guys, what could possibly go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The previous family raised 5 kids in it. Just because something's possible doesn't mean it's something to be done. Mind you, raising one kid in a 1,100 residence seems perfectly possible if not luxurious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
That BoC report says that they can increase their exposure by no more than 5%
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
quote:Canada Tory lawmaker Scott Armstrong tells @CTV_PowerPlay that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy "are strong" Check out @paulvieira's Tweet: https://twitter.com/paulvieira/status/560922642707120129?s=09 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Anything beyond 1 bedroom for the adults and 1 bedroom per child is pretty ridiculous luxurious. Probably nice to have 2 bathrooms once there's more than 2 kids though. A shared kid's room is fine for 2 little kids but by their teens they are really going to want their own space, but once again they aren't going to suffer in their development for having to share a room into their teens, they'll probably just want to move out sooner. The whole idea that a family of 5 needs a massive master bedroom with his/hers bathrooms, a bedroom for every kid with 1 or .5 bathrooms per kid, an office for dad, an office for mom, a craft room, a play room, a family den, a theatre room... it's a very new idea that anyone outside the extremely rich would even imagine such a lifestyle. But I know families exactly like this, totally "middle class" parents who can't imagine it any other way. In fact they constantly complain that kids "take up so much space" and their 4,000 sqft house is always cramped and they just don't have enough storage. You go into their houses and they really are totally full and cluttered, they have so much loving stuff, useless stuff. Shipping containers worth of toys that the kids barely play with or have grown out of but refuse to consider getting rid of (because they never had to deal with the loss of property). Tons of absolutely useless nick-nacks and decorative this or that clogging up every shelf and table. Entire rooms full of various hobby related equipment and supplies because every kid needs to be enrolled in every hobby and sport imaginable that the kids are no longer interested in, and you have to hold onto them all because what if they decide to show an interest again? The parents are no better, each having a dozen hobbies and related equipment with most of it going untouched for months or years. A full entertainment system in every bedroom, plus a huge one in the den. Every child needs a little personal mound electronics and video games, sharing is out of the question. The garage is full of expensive camping equipment because the family has gone camping 2 times and they always say they'll go again. There's a canoe, there's a kayak, there's like 9 bikes somehow and tons and tons of various yard toys. Nothing can be gotten rid of because everyone has some justification that they will totally use it again some time in the future probably. They have every kitchen gadget you can imagine but cooking for a family is hard so they usually eat out, order in, or buy frozen meals. These are the same families who often bitch about just how hard it is to raise a family on only 150k a year. Not only are they spending an insane amount on their house, but they're also spending an insane amount to fill their massive house with consumer clutter. But they can't imagine it any other way, they can't imagine ever saying no to their kids, or them selves. Meanwhile there's kids growing up in apartments or small houses with no playroom, no basement rumpus room, just their tiny bedroom. They have a single toybox or designated shelf or what ever, once it gets full they have to get rid of something before they get something else. The parents actually say no to demands for products. Oh you want to take dance? Well you also wanted to take baseball and want to learn the drums? Pick one, we can't afford the lessons and equipment/instruments for both. Your want an xbox? Sorry you begged for a PS4, you don't get both. Your friend got a BMX and you want one? Well you don't ride your mountain bike, you can have the bmx after we sell your mountain bike. This idea that a family with kids needs some huge suburban McMansion is amazing realtor marketing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
If you enjoy this thread you owe it to yourself to watch Property Virgins. God drat that realtor transcends self parody. "You only want to spend 500k our of your 800k pre approval? What is wrong with you?" "They said the house was an 8 out of 10, in real estate that's pretty good." "This neighbourhood is know for... It's ever rising prices." FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Check out @paulvieira's Tweet: https://twitter.com/paulvieira/status/560922642707120129?s=09
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The previous family raised 5 kids in it. That's pretty impressive, I guess? Baronjutter posted:Anything beyond 1 bedroom for the adults and 1 bedroom per child is pretty ridiculous luxurious. Probably nice to have 2 bathrooms once there's more than 2 kids though. A shared kid's room is fine for 2 little kids but by their teens they are really going to want their own space, but once again they aren't going to suffer in their development for having to share a room into their teens, they'll probably just want to move out sooner. This right here is how to make a straw man kids. All I said is 'that might feel smallish' That said, I live in something closer to baron's caricature now and it's wonderful to not need to spit in the same sink as my wife
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
I still have no idea where this idea of needing ridiculous amounts of space for kids comes from. I grew up just fine in a 3 bedroom bungalow that at one point had 7 people living in it. You find space, privacy is still a closed door away, and frankly it helped teach me how to not be a hoarder or big spender because there just wasnt room for a bunch of crap I would use once or never at all. Just make sure the kids have the tools and they will make due with the space provided. I turned out just fine. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If you enjoy this thread you owe it to yourself to watch Property Virgins. House Hunters is probably the worst of it--the International version is generally laughable as gently caress. In one episode, this woman from London was trading her high-paying job at some bank to become a yoga instructor in Barcelona without knowing much in the way of Spanish. She wanted a house near the beach with room for a yoga studio and the ability to bake--but cannot spend more than $1,100 USD. Like, how much loving yoga is she planning to teach and who the gently caress are going to be her customers? Then there was this Australian and her Italian fiancé who were looking for a house in a village in central Italy. The entire house they were going to buy hinged on whether or not they could put up her parents from Sydney for a few nights as their wedding was a few months away. Shows like this breed this level of idiocy and both W and HGTV should be nuked from orbit for encouraging the behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
When I was in a hotel in Seattle me and some friends watched one of these shows. Some ridiculously rich fat family with fat kids were looking for a mansion in some Caribbean country that the husband was being sent to to work for a few years. Every house was some jaw-dropping tropical palace but every time they were picky as gently caress about the most insane details. A repeated theme was the mom concerned about locations for snacks because her fat kids apparently need a snack plate of some sort within 10' of them at all times. One of the houses had large instead of palatial sized kid's rooms, like they were all 11x11 with big closets instead of 15x15 with walk-in's and she said no because how could her kids possibly fit all their toys in those tiny bedrooms? What? Use a room as a play room? No her kids don't like to get their toys mixed up so they all have to be in their bedrooms. One house was perfect but didn't have a dish washer and the idea of having to get one installed was just too much for her to handle. Kalenn: I totally get that more space is generally always better, if you can afford it. I didn't mean to attack or strawman "you people". I'm just sick of so many people feeling like they just couldn't possibly make due raising 2 kids in a 3 bedroom house and they have no other option that isn't borderline child abuse but to buy a mansion. I'm just 2 people in a 2 bedroom apartment. One bedroom is my loving model train room. I know all about insanely wasteful housing/hobby spending. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:House Hunters is probably the worst of it--the International version is generally laughable as gently caress. In one episode, this woman from London was trading her high-paying job at some bank to become a yoga instructor in Barcelona without knowing much in the way of Spanish. She wanted a house near the beach with room for a yoga studio and the ability to bake--but cannot spend more than $1,100 USD. Like, how much loving yoga is she planning to teach and who the gently caress are going to be her customers? Not to defend House-Hunters overmuch, but... You're aware that that show is mega-fake, right? As in the people on it have already purchased/rented whatever home they decide to buy, and then are paid a pittance to show off their home and two other locations that the show/local realtor thought were cool? The personal narratives are incomplete/inaccurate, and the rationales for accepting/rejecting a given house generally have literally nothing to do with the real reasons anyone on that show ended up living on a particular piece of property. The show is housing porn, pure and simple, and while it definitely has a certain reality-TV appeal for a lot of folks, I've literally never met anyone who watched it who came away thinking that the people appearing on the show were all canny purchasers who were making good decisions. Usually quite the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Canada Housing Bubble: House Porn for Poors
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
LGD posted:Not to defend House-Hunters overmuch, but... Last time I watched the show (these episodes in particular), I was suffering from a cold so perhaps you're valid on the fakery part. Nonetheless, my point stands that these shows are awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Last time I watched the show (these episodes in particular), I was suffering from a cold so perhaps you're valid on the fakery part. Nonetheless, my point stands that these shows are awful. For me, the best part about the correction will be the end of these loving dipshit shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2015/01/planned-changes-assets-eligible-collateral/ and nothing was learned ever. also his/hers sinks is some bougie poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Saltin posted:For me, the best part about the correction will be the end of these loving dipshit shows. Most house porn shows these days are filmed in Canada because our bubble kept ticking along while the U.S. one collapsed. We are literally exporting documentation of national stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Y'all motherfuckers lack vision
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Most house porn shows these days are filmed in Canada because our bubble kept ticking along while the U.S. one collapsed. And no doubt the taxpayer is picking up a substantial portion of the filming tab for the privilege of exporting said national stupidity due to the various ill-conceived  Film Tax Credit™ schemes that exist!edit: the best part is, nothing about these shows is remotely culturally Canadian - you'd never know they were aside from the ludicrous valuations the showcased suburbanites are prepared to spend for McMansions!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Haven't you seen love it or list it Vancouver? It's so loving vapid jenny mccarthy called and complained. That is distinctly culturally Vancouver, if not Canadian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Haven't you seen love it or list it Vancouver? It's so loving vapid jenny mccarthy called and complained. That is distinctly culturally Vancouver, if not Canadian. I've only ever seen the ones that must be in Torontoian exurbs. Vancouver, is, as ever, a special snowflake. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:58
|
|