|
Victoria is just barely on the edge of affordable, I don't want Vancouver leaking over here. What politician do I vote for who will STOP THE BOATS?
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Victoria is just barely on the edge of affordable, I don't want Vancouver leaking over here. What politician do I vote for who will STOP THE BOATS? Making hay about boats eh? Sounds like you want the BCLibs friend!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
The next recession is going to be brutal for Canada. Especially if it hits before oil rebounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I remember years ago, having to gently crush my wife's dreams of having the exact same life as her parents. You know, the "stay at home mom, own a house and a cottage with two vehicles" life. It's nice to have her family cottage to go up to every now and then, but god drat I would not want that money & time sink on my hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Re Cabin Chat My parents had a cabin on the edge of Lake Manitoba for about 10 years. It got flooded and hammered pretty bad in 2011 when the lake started flooding. Managed to sell it to an oil field pipefitter in 2014 for asking price while there was water lapping at the bottom of the dike the RM put up to prevent flooding. To call it a "fixer upper" would be putting it mildy, but apparently this guy wanted something to work on when he wasn't at job sites...I imagine he's had a lot of time to do that in the past 6 months. I do not miss that cabin, it seemed like the only point was to own a property outside of the city that also required lots of work in addition to everything you did at home, with more bugs and less amenities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:For a long time my SF salaries are amazing, Seattle salaries are almost as amazing + lower CoL and no state income tax. I still manage to save ~50% of my pre-tax income in SF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:29
|
|
plan was to head south to San Francisco for those sky high tech industry wages, but at this point the housing market there is red hot too and even overpaid brogrammers seem to be whining about the cost of living. I wonder if I've missed the window and I should have moved down five years ago.
|
EvilJoven posted:That's because it's a subtle way to say they have a little bit of wealth behind them. Depends where you are. Newfoundlanders love their cabins almost as much as they love their parents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
I keep getting facebook adds saying that Vermont Hospitals are hiring, so that's always an option if things go tits up here. But then again, unionized, so I feel moderately safe in the immediate future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Depends where you are. No. If you're from Newfoundland and have a cabin, you're fairly normal. If you're from Northern Ontario and have a camp, it's a place you own where almost nothing matches, everything's been maintained by yourself sometimes using salvaged lumber, old screen doors and stuff like that. If you have a cottage you're a piece of poo poo with too much money. I know this because I have a friend that got loving pissed at me when I referred to his family cottage as a camp. The loving place had a dishwasher and was nicer than the house I grew up in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
That's my point; in NL having a cabin isn't a sign of wealth. (Blinging out your cabin aside.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:SF salaries are amazing, Seattle salaries are almost as amazing + lower CoL and no state income tax. I still manage to save ~50% of my pre-tax income in SF. Yeah maybe I should look into it again. The salaries are super attractive. Applying to companies and doing tech interviews is hugely disruptive though, so I have to will myself into getting organized and doing it. I've applied to tech companies in the USA a few times before with varying degrees of success, but I'm pretty terrible at interviewing and I've never gotten an offer. Once a startup flew me down for an in person interview, but after 5-6 hours finally said I didn't get the job. They let me hang around for overtime food burritos tho because I think they felt bad. In retrospect it was probably a good thing that I didn't work there. Do you know at all what the salaries in Portland are like? They don't have a lot of tech companies, but it seems like more than in the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
The Duggler posted:Isn't it good for Canadians if there is a huge bubble in the hands of foreign investors? When it bursts won't Canadians benefit from the plumetting prices? When the US bubble pop really got going banks would do stuff like refuse to take delivery of homes in foreclosure or not start the foreclosure process so they could keep the bubble value of the home on their books instead of taking a hit with a REO sale at bust prices. This is how you had people living in homes "mortgage free" for a year plus, sometimes as long as 4yr, during the pop. The banks reasoned having someone live there kept the place from getting vandalized or having the previous owners trash it out the door (very common) which would've ruined resale value even further. They did all that in VERY large numbers as near as I can tell but I don't think anyone really knows exactly how many homes and former home owners were in that situation since it wasn't exactly something they wanted to advertise or admit to. As far as keeping the bottom from getting too disastrous (for the banks that is, former owners and regular folks were still screwed since they lost all the money they'd put into the house + homes never really got all that affordable as they should've had the bust been allowed to run out fully + TBTF/HARP/HAMP/etc. were all taxpayer funded and were still mostly about propping up bank balance sheets and/or slowing the bubble pop) such efforts were successful but they still didn't stop the bust from occurring. edit: \/\/\/\/\/\/I can believe it but good lord that is crazy. Really shows just how screwed the housing market is still. Gonna be interesting, in a bad way, how the market, economy, and govt. reacts after this boom pops. I'm really hoping it doesn't get much bigger. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Only if the foreign investors sell at firesale prices to locals in overwhelming numbers + the banks allow that firesale to happen. A goon in GBS posted about how his uncle was foreclosed upon in 2009. The bank never came by to kick him out and he'd been living there ever since.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
If he was saving his mortgage payments by now he should have somewhere between 70 and 130k saved. Or a big truck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Only if the foreign investors sell at firesale prices to locals in overwhelming numbers + the banks allow that firesale to happen. So I'm a little confused here. How would that translate over in Canada (hypothetically if a bubble pop)? I imagine it would definitely screw over a lot of people who were hoping to a) retire on that sweet tax free profit b) "move up the real estate investment ladder" Obviously, it doesn't do well for the bank if they're not making money but I'm struggling to see how it affects the local people on the ground floor. E: I'm not buying that the market prices will drop 40-50% like some people are saying. quaint bucket fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
You guys I found it. I have found peak yaletown:https://vancouver.craigslist.ca/van/apa/5508405525.html posted:I live next door to this unit and don't want to live beside any losers so please send your picture with your inquiry. Code for "whites only" or just a regular douche-bag? You decide! It's fun either way. e: or rapist
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:
During an economic downturn if people simply can no longer afford their $2000-3000/mo mortgage+strata+insurance payments this will absolutely happen. You have no choice but to sell and neither does anyone else. Bam. If it's global (and it will be) our beloved foreign investors are in a very similar (though more comfortable boat) - they have to start selling off their foreign assets just to maintain their lifestyle back home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:A goon in GBS posted about how his uncle was foreclosed upon in 2009. The bank never came by to kick him out and he'd been living there ever since. My old foreclosure firm has a bunch of 2007 cases where the default was 06 or earlier, and I've seen even earlier cases in court. I know some defaults from 04 still haven't finished and aren't even close to finishing. I've also seen evictions take well over 5 years if not be entirely impossible to actually do. If you're lucky and smart and in the right state, getting to live rent free for 5 years is a minimum and 15+ has happened now and then. Even better were the ones who were renting out the place the whole time and pocketing the money. I'm trying to remember the most someone has "saved" and it's at least 400k, tax free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:During an economic downturn if people simply can no longer afford their $2000-3000/mo mortgage+strata+insurance payments this will absolutely happen. You have no choice but to sell and neither does anyone else. Bam. People not affording their mortgage payment would be due to lack of employment or mortgage interest rate increasing on variables. Fixed are safe until they have to renew. The housing market taking a nose dive like that would require a glut of supply overwhelming the buyer's choice as well as the seller being highly motivated to take a huge hit just to come out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:People not affording their mortgage payment would be due to lack of employment or mortgage interest rate increasing on variables. Fixed are safe until they have to renew. Or the demand to dry up. Also, there is a fair bit of evidence that people prefer to lock in a small loss than risk a bigger one. "You have to buy now or be locked out" will be replaced with "you have to sell now or lose even more."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Eh, behavioral stuff like disposition effect indicates that people become more risk-seeking when they hold assets that fall in value. They'd rather hold on to it and pray that it goes up in value rather than recognizing the loss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:My old foreclosure firm has a bunch of 2007 cases where the default was 06 or earlier, and I've seen even earlier cases in court. I know some defaults from 04 still haven't finished and aren't even close to finishing. Wouldn't squatting come into play after a certain number of years? If a bank owns a house that someone is just chilling in for 7+ years I thought that was getting into "This is MY HOUSE now!  " territory
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Wouldn't squatting come into play after a certain number of years? If a bank owns a house that someone is just chilling in for 7+ years I thought that was getting into "This is MY HOUSE now! Not really. If there's anything even approaching an agreement that somebody can live there, adverse possession is right out. Even conceding that "yes the bank owns this house" would probably be enough. There are very few successful adverse possession claims, and those that do happen are mostly over a foot or less in boundary disputes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:43
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
quaint bucket posted:So I'm a little confused here. How would that translate over in Canada (hypothetically if a bubble pop)? quaint bucket posted:Obviously, it doesn't do well for the bank if they're not making money but I'm struggling to see how it affects the local people on the ground floor. If you don't see how all that wouldn't be bad to the people on ground floor I don't know what to say to you. quaint bucket posted:E: I'm not buying that the market prices will drop 40-50% like some people are saying. shrike82 posted:Eh, behavioral stuff like disposition effect indicates that people become more risk-seeking when they hold assets that fall in value. They'd rather hold on to it and pray that it goes up in value rather than recognizing the loss. You'll see poo poo tons of "knife catchers" too who buy into a falling market too early. They'll talk a good game at first, or at least one loaded with cognitive dissonance, and then tend to get very nervous and panicky after a year or 2 of continued falling home prices. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:
remember a couple pages back when a whole bunch of people posted about how they were forex geniuses because all their money is in US dollars lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Hard to say but nobody, including the banks, planned on that sort of thing happening. To my knowledge it wasn't really legal at all to do, the rules simply weren't enforced when it was inconvenient to the banks to do so. In its own way its as big of a scandal as the robo-signing one but it got less mention in the media and that didn't get much at all either BTW. I did hear something akin to people still living in it but assumed they were just waiting on the notices and/or being forcibly removed from the premise and was a small portion of what was happening. Didn't know it was a lot more widespread in that case. PC LOAD LETTER posted:Assets being priced back to reasonable levels vs wages, or below, is one of the few good things about a bubble or boom popping. If that doesn't occur + taxpayers are made to pay to keep the banks and their investors solvent then the market never gets affordable + your economy now exists (at least in part) to ensure rich people stay rich and/or get richer on your dime. Sorry if I was coming across as "don't see how this is bad/good." I just wanted to see a perspective that I'm honestly missing here. The market correcting itself to 20-30% would be amazing for myself at my current income level where I could easily pay for a home in 12 years instead of 25-30. As for the bailing out/floating the bank to keep it solvent, isn't that addressed by the new "Bail-In" process for the banks by the Liberals? Wouldn't that scare the bank into being more conservative and possibly stave off an immediate pop by restricting how much they will lend out? Or is it just a fancy way of saying the government of Canada will pay the banks to stay alive by buying their debt as shareholders like they did with GM? Correct me if I'm wrong. I just find this all so fascinating. PC LOAD LETTER posted:You'll see poo poo tons of "knife catchers" too who buy into a falling market too early. They'll talk a good game at first, or at least one loaded with cognitive dissonance, and then tend to get very nervous and panicky after a year or 2 of continued falling home prices. The only people that will come out ahead on this one are the "investors" who will be looking to rent it out right away. I know someone who owns 7 rental monster houses with multiple units (some with 4 units) and looking at an 8th. He basically runs it like a slumlord and it disgusted me. Part of me want to see him get affected by the market negatively. We held off on paying off the last debt (car loan) because we "may want to buy a house up here." I'm still not convinced yet because the market value is a little out to lunch in Prince George and I'm not 100% convinced on living here for more than 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Wouldn't squatting come into play after a certain number of years? If a bank owns a house that someone is just chilling in for 7+ years I thought that was getting into "This is MY HOUSE now! Yes but on the other hand, making too much noise actually wakes the police up: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/4-Charged-in-Squatter-Scheme-in-Foreclosed-Properties-311330191.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:Sorry if I was coming across as "don't see how this is bad/good." I just wanted to see a perspective that I'm honestly missing here. quaint bucket posted:As for the bailing out/floating the bank to keep it solvent, isn't that addressed by the new "Bail-In" process for the banks by the Liberals? Wouldn't that scare the bank into being more conservative... Or is it just a fancy way of saying the government of Canada will pay the banks to stay alive.... Yeah not many will make out on a bubble financially sound. Except for those tiny few at the top who are almost guaranteed to get rich/richer only a handful who were positioned properly by luck or because they figured out what was going on before most others will come out of it better off. quaint bucket posted:I'm not 100% convinced on living here for more than 5 years. Cultural Imperial posted:remember a couple pages back when a whole bunch of people posted about how they were forex geniuses because all their money is in US dollars The guys I was talking about are the types to buy after housing goes down a few percent and then act as if there'll be plateau for a few years before its back to up uP UP and away for housing prices therefore they're not only richer but smarter and better than you etc. Then they cry about every little thing that seems to cause prices to do down further. Anything from property taxes to the neighbor's lawn being less than perfectly manicured. The schadenfreude is amazing at that point, aged to perfection. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:During an economic downturn if people simply can no longer afford their $2000-3000/mo mortgage+strata+insurance payments this will absolutely happen. You have no choice but to sell and neither does anyone else. Bam. Foreign investors from China put a lot of effort into getting their money out of China in the first place, so I'm unsure if they'll be the first ones to bail out of Canada. Honestly I could easily imagine the opposite case, where foreign investors stay put in Canada as their new home base, and more try to extricate themselves from investments in China. Keep in mind that a recent study found that there was no issue of empty investment housing in Vancouver. People are moving here for real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Yeah it's their slush fund that is buying the houses. It's illegal money made legal. If it falls in value then that's just an acceptable risk of doing business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:I'm m not an expert on Canadian politics or banking, and it could just be that watching what has happened with the US bubble has made me super cynical, but it sure looks like the latter option to me. If banks were being scared into being more conservative you'd have already seen them start shutting down nearly all the risky loans (which means nearly all of them) which would tank sales and then shortly (for a housing market that is, you're still talking about months for this all to start) after start tanking the market. So I wasn't too far off the mark. I would like to know more about this bail in. PC LOAD LETTER posted:If you plan on living in the area for a short time then buying is generally a bad financial idea even in a non-insane housing market. In today's job market the flexibility renting allows you is pretty valuable too so it sounds to me as if you're being very sensible with your financial restraint. If you can maintain that financial restraint during the bust and have managed to keep your income up and have some savings you'll have some great opportunities to buy. Yeah, that's why I'm struggling with this because the temptation to buy is pretty drat strong. I just looked at a private sale for $340k but figured it wasn't worth it because of the work that's needed on it (I figured it's worth $310k tbqh) as well as the distance from work (on call work, I do get paid for travel time, km, and OT but the less I drive the more I like because I'm home sooner. We're looking at one house a block away from us. $169k for a heritage home on the market for 8 months now. If we were to buy that, we would be paying $700-800 less a month than our current rent. Just two problems: foundation issues ($60k quote apparently, I would double check if I'm serious about the place) and I remove the flexibility of moving anytime anywhere. Other than that, great oldish neighbourhood, directly in front of a park, and 2 mins from work. The next day, we're just gonna go on a hike and try to enjoy PG as much as we can in our time here. Who knows, we might end up staying here. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Keep in mind that a recent study found that there was no issue of empty investment housing in Vancouver. People are moving here for real. It found 12.5% of condos are unoccupied and 5% of single family homes. The study used smart meter power usage so it probably underestimates the percentages given that power useage by automatic systems or once-a-month usage (caretakers, Airbnb, etc) would make a residence appear "occupied", and any residence that didn't have electrical service (under construction or just no Hydro account) would not be counted either way. Edit: V V V V V V - Thanks for the PDF, very informative. It seems you're right about the purchased houses being lived in. ductonius fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
ductonius posted:It found 12.5% of condos are unoccupied and 5% of single family homes. The study used smart meter power usage so it probably underestimates the percentages given that power useage by automatic systems or once-a-month usage (caretakers, Airbnb, etc) would make a residence appear "occupied", and any residence that didn't have electrical service (under construction or just no Hydro account) would not be counted either way. I'm not sure where you get ~5% for single family homes. The citywide average for detached homes and duplexes was 1.2%. (Maybe you're thinking of 4.8% for city wide "all units"). Here's a PDF of the high level slides that were used in the presentation to council. The main takeaways from the report are: 1. Unoccupancy has been totally flat as prices have skyrocketed. There is no relationship between the two. The level of unoccupancy of units in 2002 was the same as it is now. With the lack of correlation in mind, it seems likely that 12.5% of unoccupied comes from a standard level of unoccupancy in condos + some additional modifier of people buying a pied a terre in Vancouver, and this has always been the case. The level of unoccupancy in condos further out in the suburbs was similarly high and flat. Given that there has been no increase in the level of unoccupancy since 2002, I don't know how to tie this to increased foreign investment or increased property speculation. Vancouver has always been bubbly and it hasn't increased since 2002? If a lot of these empty units are pied a terres, in a housing crash I could definitely see a lot of these get dumped on the market, which will drop condo prices. 2. The level of unoccupied homes in the west side is very low (under 2%) and totally flat. The major story going around was that foreigners were buying tons of west side homes and entire neighbourhoods were empty. This completely debunks this myth. This is what I was addressing when I said ther was "no issue of empty investment housing in Vancouver." The boring reality is that foreigners are buying west side homes and living in them. Homes with ongoing development permits weren't included in the study, which provides an explanation to why some people felt there were so many empty homes in their neighbourhood. There are tons that are in the process of being torn down. The city will have to keep an eye on the situation to see if these newly built homes are occupied. They've already said they're going to continuously update this study and monitor the situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
And the bubble is driven by Canadians with access to easy credit and no comprehension of moral hazard
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:So I wasn't too far off the mark. I would like to know more about this bail in. All that poo poo was crazy and you don't hear about it AT ALL anymore. Even at the time almost no one seemed to know anything about it since it never got much mention in the media.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
I was talking with a coworker the other day. He's having another kid and needs more space so he's selling his townhouse in Langley (Ontarians: think Ajax) and looking around for something larger. He's preapproved for a $650k mortgage but is genuinely concerned that he won't be able to find anything under that price and he'll have to rent, move further out to Abbotsford or get sketchy larger mortgage somehow. Renting is very much on the table because he thinks the market is nuts right now, but his kids are old enough that he's going to want stability soon. It is so hosed up to me that we're at the point where $650k might not be enough to buy a 3+ bedroom house 40+ km out of downtown. According to the boomers though, millenials can't get everything they want, and just gotta move further out until they afford it. Apparently this means moving so far out that you're technically no longer in Metro Vancouver and if you wanted to take public transit into downtown you have to transfer onto a different transit service.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:I was talking with a coworker the other day. He's having another kid and needs more space so he's selling his townhouse in Langley (Ontarians: think Ajax) and looking around for something larger. He's preapproved for a $650k mortgage but is genuinely concerned that he won't be able to find anything under that price and he'll have to rent, move further out to Abbotsford or get sketchy larger mortgage somehow. Renting is very much on the table because he thinks the market is nuts right now, but his kids are old enough that he's going to want stability soon. is it even possible to get from chilliwack or abbotsford to vancouver without using something like greyhound? seriously i have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
You should encourage your friend to max out his mortgage so he can buy a mcmansion in chilliwack. What do you think he makes annually anyway? 650k in mortgage is like $3000/month before strata fees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
There's a 675 sqft apt for sale in my building for $650000. Buy now or be forever priced out you dumb stoner motherfuckers
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Its supposed to shift at least some of the cost for saving a failing bank to the creditors but the devil will be in the details of implementation. Which can easily differ from what is written into law. When things get really bad, like what happened during the US housing bubble/GFC bust, regulators simply look the other way and law makers play dumb while judges largely seem to rubber stamp anything that helps the banks and scrutinize to the point of absurdity anything that helps those in foreclosure. How many bankers got prosecuted for the robo signing scandals for instance? How many homes got repossessed by the banks despite critical documentation relating to ownership being missing from MERS? How the heck did stuff like the Rocket Docket get passed off as fair and reasonable justice anyhow? All that stuff like the rocket dockets, mers, etc is smoke. What's the "humane" solution, a decade of living for free for everyone? I should probably read the various foreclosure laws in Canada but if they have anything like the USA does they're vastly too friendly to people who stop paying their mortgage. Compare this to someone who stops paying their rent and is out on the street incredibly quickly. Theres a massive favoritism to protecting "homeowners" (since they don't actually own it) over renters and this is just another example. I mean could you imagine showing up to eviction court and complaining the rent is too drat high and please judge wont you order that I can live there for half the price it's only fair
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:24
|
|