Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Postess with the Mostest posted:

And they mirror the tsx perfectly. I disagree with your investment strategy though. Divest Canada if you don't want to be exposed to the risk that RE could crash, why should investors have to guess whether/when it will or not? Divest Canada. Burn this motherfucker down.

I agree completely with your sentiment, however some people still hold TSX index etfs because of the strong aggregate gains the past 4-5 years. As the 3 levels of gov react to RE, people should be tapering down their holdings. Anything over 15% is :suicide:

stock chat: if donald wins the dji will tank, buy the dip.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 16:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 14:31

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Of course if the new insurance requirements are unreasonably strict, I assume the ~~free market~~ will step in to provide insurance.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 16:37

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

lol if you think Donald has a chance in hell of winning

Stop relying on anything but election.princeton.edu

# ? Oct 6, 2016 16:40

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Don't discount the power of white privilege being projected nationally.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 16:45

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

namaste faggots posted:

lol if you think Donald has a chance in hell of winning

Stop relying on anything but election.princeton.edu

but what if Sam Wang is wrong and trump wins 13 swing states, including ones he's down double digits, without losing a single one, all without spending money on ads, get out the vote, or anything else?? what if???

the only real excitement this election has is if trump will lose Texas because it's been a steady Hillary 330ish ev projection going on 6 months now

# ? Oct 6, 2016 16:58

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Trump peaked before the debate and has been falling since.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 17:49

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

"I haven't peaked - I haven't even begun to peak!"

# ? Oct 6, 2016 17:57

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

namaste faggots posted:

lol if you think Donald has a chance in hell of winning

Stop relying on anything but election.princeton.edu

I was actually pretty drat sure it was going to happen until that debate. Polls schmoles. My summarized thesis at the time being: the yanks are pissed off as gently caress and have lost their god damned minds.

Him doing his Hitler Rising thing with his own rallies somewhat worked, but as soon as he's set up on equal footing with an actual politician on a neutral stage, it all falls apart.

Any American with even a tiny shred of reason should see him as a dangerous clown at this point. Are there enough completely unreasonable Americans to tip the balance? I don't think so.

That said, a Hillary win is now like 90%+ priced into markets. I'd only expect a small rally after the election night proper. But a Trump win would come as an absolute blindside. Uncertainty out the wazoo...

So I've been building a much larger than usual cash position, to take advantage juuuuust in case he gets it and the market dumps.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 18:51

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

The Butcher posted:

I was actually pretty drat sure it was going to happen until that debate. Polls schmoles. My summarized thesis at the time being: the yanks are pissed off as gently caress and have lost their god damned minds.

Him doing his Hitler Rising thing with his own rallies somewhat worked, but as soon as he's set up on equal footing with an actual politician on a neutral stage, it all falls apart.

Any American with even a tiny shred of reason should see him as a dangerous clown at this point. Are there enough completely unreasonable Americans to tip the balance? I don't think so.

That said, a Hillary win is now like 90%+ priced into markets. I'd only expect a small rally after the election night proper. But a Trump win would come as an absolute blindside. Uncertainty out the wazoo...

So I've been building a much larger than usual cash position, to take advantage juuuuust in case he gets it and the market dumps.

I dropped 5 figures on the brexit dip, but this time around i got several times more. If the US goes full on crazy, buy buy buy.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 18:57

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

Risky Bisquick posted:

Don't discount the power of white privilege being projected nationally.

Obama had to contend with racism and we all knew Hillary would contend with sexism instead. Funny in a way that she also having to contend with racism.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 18:59

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

Yeah I'm down to about 25% Canada and I'd like to go lower.

I've got my equity allocation at 70% USA total market, and 30% developed international ex-US total market.

Of that international, 8.4% (of the whole fund) is Canadian.

All told that portion of a portion of a portion of the total portfolio works out somewhere under 1% Canada exposure, which I feel is about right. :smugdog:

You fuckers all (mostly) live and work here and get paid in CAD. I'd say that's plenty of exposure already.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:03

Vehementi: Jul 25, 2003; YOSPOS

Is there a correct answer to that? I go back and forth myself on whether I should have like 25% canadian equity or like 3%. Articles talk about tax breaks and whatnot. Is any of that reasonable or should everybody in the world just hold the same portfolio essentially?

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:13

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Vehementi posted:

Is there a correct answer to that? I go back and forth myself on whether I should have like 25% canadian equity or like 3%. Articles talk about tax breaks and whatnot. Is any of that reasonable or should everybody in the world just hold the same portfolio essentially?

You should hold global cap exclude your country since your job, house, life, health are all tied to that one already.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:26

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

jesus gently caress you guys just get a robo-advisor

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:32

Vehementi: Jul 25, 2003; YOSPOS

namaste faggots posted:

jesus gently caress you guys just get a robo-advisor

My friend's robo advisor has him in 10% RE, 15 Canadian equity, 10% (canadian) dividend paying stocks. It's a strategic question

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:34

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Vehementi posted:

Is there a correct answer to that? I go back and forth myself on whether I should have like 25% canadian equity or like 3%. Articles talk about tax breaks and whatnot. Is any of that reasonable or should everybody in the world just hold the same portfolio essentially?

What tax breaks do you get from investing canadian besides the 50% capital gains exemption on your investment in pride of ownership?

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:38

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

namaste faggots posted:

jesus gently caress you guys just get a robo-advisor

I tried but anytime I asked him what to invest in he said that I should definitely short human life and then he would laugh that metallic vocoder laugh of his.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:41

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

namaste faggots posted:

jesus gently caress you guys just get a robo-advisor

Watching people talk about actively managing their portfolio of nothing but index funds always cracks me up. There's just so much alpha to be found by changing your US allocation to 47% instead of 42% as the ~Canadian Couch Potato~ recommends.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 19:52

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Vehementi posted:

My friend's robo advisor has him in 10% RE, 15 Canadian equity, 10% (canadian) dividend paying stocks. It's a strategic question

Then get another one. Or take another loving allocation/risk questionnaire

# ? Oct 6, 2016 20:00

Vehementi: Jul 25, 2003; YOSPOS

blah_blah posted:

Watching people talk about actively managing their portfolio of nothing but index funds always cracks me up. There's just so much alpha to be found by changing your US allocation to 47% instead of 42% as the ~Canadian Couch Potato~ recommends.

For the record I'm just trying to get to the right starting point... this is not in the context of reacting to changes 3% vs 30% allocation somewhere is an important difference

# ? Oct 6, 2016 20:05

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

blah_blah posted:

Watching people talk about actively managing their portfolio of nothing but index funds always cracks me up. There's just so much alpha to be found by changing your US allocation to 47% instead of 42% as the ~Canadian Couch Potato~ recommends.

A lot of people pay extra fees for additional exposure to Canadian equities and sectors. Many people can simplify their portfolios, reduce fees and reduce expense ratios by simply divesting Canadian poo poo while also reducing risk and volatility while also not meaningfully changing their sector allocations.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 20:09

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

blah_blah posted:

Watching people talk about actively managing their portfolio of nothing but index funds always cracks me up. There's just so much alpha to be found by changing your US allocation to 47% instead of 42% as the ~Canadian Couch Potato~ recommends.

You probably buy all your stuff at retail price too

# ? Oct 6, 2016 20:19

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

Vehementi posted:

For the record I'm just trying to get to the right starting point... this is not in the context of reacting to changes 3% vs 30% allocation somewhere is an important difference

Yeah that's entirely reasonable, I'm responding to a mixture of other posts/how this particular derail almost inevitably ends up.

Risky Bisquick posted:

You probably buy all your stuff at retail price too

I use a roboadvisor and basically buy a 50/50 mix of VT and VTI in my retirement accounts. Because I live in America all my fund options are pretty great by Canadian standards. I value time in the market and low MERs more than basically anything else and it doesn't particularly bother me that that means missing out on sporadic opportunities to BTFD.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 20:44

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

blah_blah posted:

I value time in the market and low MERs more than basically anything else and it doesn't particularly bother me that that means missing out on sporadic opportunities to BTFD.

No reason to poop on it though. As long as you are sticking to your planned allocations and using juicy opportunities to rebalance (and not just buying things willy nilly), why not try to squeeze out a few extra percent a year? Adds up over time.

And it doesn't mean going all or nothing DCA vs. only BTFD/crash. You can just keep a chunk of change on the side for opportunities, while still making regular contributions otherwise.

You've got to pay a bit more attention obviously, but if you find it entertaining and rewarding, I don't see a downside.

This is deraily though, sorry. Happy to keep discussing with folks in the Can finance thread if anyone wants to chat further.

# ? Oct 6, 2016 21:18

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

loving FINALLY

quote:

Ottawa will attempt to close Fintrac lawyer loophole

The federal government will try to close a loophole in Canada’s anti-money laundering system that excludes lawyers from having to report suspicious transactions, Postmedia has learned.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, unlike other professionals such as bankers and real estate agents, lawyers do not have to report to Canada’s anti-money laundering agency, Fintrac. Lawyers in B.C. won that case based on a constitutional argument about solicitor-client privilege, and the argument that law societies already regulate lawyers to prevent involvement in money laundering.

But Canada faces increasing international scrutiny as concerns over money laundering in Vancouver real estate grow. In September, the Financial Action Task Force, a Paris-based intergovernmental group that makes recommendations for fighting money laundering, asked Canada to close the lawyer loophole. An agency report suggested there is a close relationship between money laundering in real estate and the services provided by lawyers, such as placing wire transfers in legal trusts and creating investment vehicles that can shield true ownership of property.

A number of sources confirmed to Postmedia that the federal government aims to bring lawyers under Fintrac’s oversight.

“The government is examining the impact and implications of the 2015 Supreme Court decision that excluded lawyers from Canada’s anti-money laundering regime and will announce next steps in due course,” Paul Duchesne of the federal Finance Department told Postmedia. “We will review (the task force) recommendations closely to ensure that Canada continues to combat money laundering … while respecting the constitutional division of powers.”

“After the Supreme Court decision, Finance Canada has been weighing next steps,” another official in Ottawa said. “You can’t appeal a Supreme Court decision. In Canada, the Supreme Court is the law of the land. But you can adjust the legislation.”

The federal government’s case will be bolstered by a Fintrac study that shows lawyers are often charged in money laundering cases. The 2015 study, obtained by Postmedia under freedom of information law, is based on Canadian court cases publicly reported from 2004 to 2014.

“The second-largest profession in the sample are lawyers, representing 15 per cent,” the report states. “Based on court documentation, lawyers convicted of money laundering were willing to exploit reporting exemptions in order to launder funds … (and use) solicitor-client privilege to enhance money-laundering services.”

Cases in the study only represent a portion of the money laundering intelligence gathered by Fintrac, the report says.

Kim Marsh, of due diligence company IPSA International, said that before the 2015 Supreme Court case, the company was asked by the federal Justice Department to do a report on money laundering risks connected to lawyers.

“I think there are some people in the legal industry that are aiding and abetting money laundering, with impunity,” said Marsh, a former RCMP organized crime unit leader. “There is no other English common law country that has given lawyers this reporting exemption. So Canada is unique. And the problem is coming to light now with the huge amount of money flowing into the property market, some of it stinky.”

Marsh said he believes Canadian law societies neither provide adequate member training on money laundering nor have the internal auditing and investigation needed to crack down on bad apples.

“To tweak the legislation to include lawyers, I welcome it,” Marsh said. “But I say ‘good luck.’ The Supreme Court of Canada is composed of lawyers.”

NDP MLA David Eby, who is a lawyer, said that his reading of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that judges believed Fintrac’s legislation granted law enforcement too much power to search the legal trusts and offices of lawyers. But the ruling left the federal government room to rewrite anti-money laundering legislation, Eby said.

For any new Fintrac legislation to pass a Supreme Court challenge, Eby believes, there likely must be evidence that law societies have failed to self-regulate.

“I hope the Law Society in B.C. is paying attention to the public mood around accountability for issues of tax evasion and money laundering in real estate, and its impacts,” Eby said. “They could look to the example of other self-regulating industries in B.C. like the real estate sector, and the importance of diligently investigating any complaints.”

David Jordan of the B.C. Law Society says the society is an effective self-regulator on money laundering.

Postmedia asked the B.C. Law Society to provide a list of citations in connection to its money laundering rules. The society has cited six lawyers since 2004 for breaking a rule of handling cash transactions of over $7,500, according to Jordan. In one of the cases, a lawyer’s office received $40,000 in cash from a client in China who wanted to immigrate to B.C. The lawyer was fined $1,000. Jordan said in addition to “no cash” rule cases, the society will investigate complaints of suspicious transactions.

The recent Financial Action Task Force report underlined money laundering vulnerabilities in Canada’s legal and real estate sectors.

“The legal profession in Canada is especially vulnerable to misuse for money laundering … due to its involvement in activities exposed to a high money laundering risk, e.g., real estate transactions,” the agency said. “The real estate sector is highly vulnerable to money laundering, including international money laundering activities, and the risk is not fully mitigated, notably because legal counsels … are not required to implement anti-money laundering.”

The report pointed specifically to risks in Vancouver real estate.

“The real estate business is exposed to high risk clients, including politically exposed persons, notably from Asia, and foreign investors,” the report said. “For example, there are cases of Chinese officials laundering proceeds of crime through the real estate sector, particularly in Vancouver.”

# ? Oct 7, 2016 02:05

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Why did anyone ever think to hide money in Switzerland anyway

# ? Oct 7, 2016 02:15

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

The Butcher posted:

This is deraily though, sorry. Happy to keep discussing with folks in the Can finance thread if anyone wants to chat further.

This is the debt bubble thread. The best investment is to put everything into a downpayment on a house, and the rest into truck equity and your uncle's mortgage broker's shady private MIC. Housing can only go up!!!!

# ? Oct 7, 2016 02:45

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

My roboadvisor is Hal_2005, so far I am 100% hootsuite.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 02:46

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

My roboadvisor is Hal_2005, so far I am 100% hootsuite.

I'd move to 50% hootsuite and 50% corel just to be safe.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 04:31

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Shares are only a small part of my portfolio anyway. Vancouver Real Estate is where it's at.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 07:13

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

My roboadvisor is Hal_2005, so far I am 100% hootsuite.

It could be worse.

If we could jump back to the heady days of 1999, he would have had you 100% in Nortel.

Canada's glorious future was SO CLOSE.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 08:01

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

quote:

Mortgage fraud 'systemic' in Australia, UBS survey shows

The disturbing results come from a survey of 1,228 people who had taken out a mortgage over the past two years, conducted by investment bank UBS.

The key finding was that 28 per cent of people surveyed said their mortgage application was not totally factually accurate.

Of those who admitted misstating information, the bulk said their application was "mostly factual and accurate".

However, one-in-20 mortgage applicants admitted that their loan application was only "partially factual and accurate", while 2 per cent "would rather not say".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-07/mortgage-fraud-systemic-in-australia-ubs-survey-shows/7911978?section=business

The Butcher posted:

It could be worse.

If we could jump back to the heady days of 1999, he would have had you 100% in Nortel.

Canada's glorious future was SO CLOSE.

Trying to remember what Nortel did.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 08:52

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

pretty decent landline phone and LAN stuff that other companies quickly caught up with and then surpassed, just like what happened with RIM and handhelds.

Canada, a country full of good ideas that people used to start a company... and then just coast until someone better just blew by them.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 11:54

Maneck: Sep 11, 2011

EvilJoven posted:

pretty decent landline phone and LAN stuff that other companies quickly caught up with and then surpassed, just like what happened with RIM and handhelds.

Canada, a country full of good ideas that people used to start a company... and then just coast until someone better just blew by them.

That, but probably the bigger issue is that they were huge in the world of fiber optics. And fiber optic cables were such a great and revolutionary idea that over investment occurred. While every one who had built lines realized there was a massive oversupply and that lots of cables were being left dark, Nortel was expecting demand to continue. And then used accounting tricks (i.e. those irregularities) to avoid coming back to reality. And it wasn't just them, it was the whole industry.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 14:25

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Speaking of great derails WRT RE.

quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/nortel-bankruptcy-pension-executives-bonuses-1.3792904

Nortel executives continue drawing bonuses years after bankruptcy

Since 2009 bankruptcy, Nortel executives have collected $190M US in retention bonuses

# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:44

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Who said pensions are dead?

# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:52

Maneck: Sep 11, 2011

Risky Bisquick posted:

Speaking of great derails WRT RE.

Qualified people aren't banging down the doors to work for a zombie company. The people who they needed to keep working their for the past seven years had to be paid - and paid well enough they wouldn't jump off the sinking ship.

It does make for a good two minute of hate.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 16:42

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Wrong thread

# ? Oct 7, 2016 16:46

leftist heap: Feb 28, 2013; Fun Shoe

Maneck posted:

Qualified people aren't banging down the doors to work for a zombie company. The people who they needed to keep working their for the past seven years had to be paid - and paid well enough they wouldn't jump off the sinking ship.

It does make for a good two minute of hate.

lmao

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 14:31

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Maneck posted:

Qualified people aren't banging down the doors to work for a zombie company. The people who they needed to keep working their for the past seven years had to be paid - and paid well enough they wouldn't jump off the sinking ship.

It does make for a good two minute of hate.

Gotta pay for the best if you want the best. This is just Good Business 101.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1519 »