|
So strengthening lending standards is now punishing first time buyers. I wonder if we can do the mental gymnastics to craft a narrative that high strata insurance renewals are prison raping hard working equity builders of the middle class?
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
half cocaine posted:So strengthening lending standards is now punishing first time buyers. I wonder if we can do the mental gymnastics to craft a narrative that high strata insurance renewals are prison raping hard working equity builders of the middle class? When the lending standards are basically "hahaha, everyone who has a place gets to borrow money at 1.5%, but you don't get to borrow it at all because you can't afford paying more than triple that rate!", I'm not sure the sentiment is so wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Sassafras posted:When the lending standards are basically "hahaha, everyone who has a place gets to borrow money at 1.5%, but you don't get to borrow it at all because you can't afford paying more than triple that rate!", I'm not sure the sentiment is so wrong. I think I found the guy who's saying age restrictions for vapes are tyranny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
half cocaine posted:So strengthening lending standards is now punishing first time buyers. I wonder if we can do the mental gymnastics to craft a narrative that high strata insurance renewals are prison raping hard working equity builders of the middle class? The solution to hoarding in the absence of seizing wealth is lowering the barrier to entry, not strengthening it. It's significantly easier to build powerless people up than to tear established power down. Adding those sort of controls punishes first time home buyers more than people on their 14th property, which is the key point. I don't think anyone is saying that stress tests are bad, just that being too strict with them encourages accumulation of wealth at the top of the chain
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
So open question then: How do we make it harder for people to acquire their 14th property while carrying ridiculous amounts of leveraged debt without punishing single property buyers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:So open question then: How do we make it harder for people to acquire their 14th property while carrying ridiculous amounts of leveraged debt without punishing single property buyers? Keep the stress test the same for single property buyers. Add a multiplicative effect based on n# of properties over 2 to make sure their not overleveraging themselves - sayyyy if a pandemic hits and all their tenants can't pay their rent. Oh maybe make a first time home buyers program that doesn't cap out at 66% the value of a bachelor condo in the 'sauga. Slotducks fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Ok but don’t these landlords use alternative lenders that don’t apply the stress test anyway? That was what I assumed in the first place when I suggested making it harder to evade. If I’m wrong about that and these guys are borrowing from the big banks then I would be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:Ok but don’t these landlords use alternative lenders that don’t apply the stress test anyway? That was what I assumed in the first place when I suggested making it harder to evade. If I’m wrong about that and these guys are borrowing from the big banks then I would be surprised. gently caress I don't know maybe make alternative lenders follow the same rules? It's not the wild west...
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:The solution to hoarding in the absence of seizing wealth is lowering the barrier to entry, not strengthening it. It's significantly easier to build powerless people up than to tear established power down. Adding those sort of controls punishes first time home buyers more than people on their 14th property, which is the key point. Am I living in animal farm or something? Being allowed to borrow more money than I can afford is now considered empowerment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
You could stop funding subsidies to real estate developers and banks and instead just transfer the funds directly to poor people or to programs that unambiguously benefit mostly the poor, like subsidized childcare or increased funding for primary education or means tested post secondary scholarships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:gently caress I don't know maybe make alternative lenders follow the same rules? It's not the wild west... It would be interesting to see what limits you could actually put on "entity A loans something to entity B". We have usury laws that put a cap on interest rates, but that's easier than trying to capture too low an interest rate or too large a principal amount. The rule isn't "you must be able to pass this stress test to get a mortgage". The rule is "if the bank wants CMHC to insure the mortgage, they need to make sure the borrower passes the stress test". RBC is free to lend to a buyer who doesn't pass the stress test, if RBC can live without the insurance being provided by CMHC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
half cocaine posted:Am I living in animal farm or something? Being allowed to borrow more money than I can afford is now considered empowerment. please quote exactly the point where I said that I wanted to allow people to overleverage themselves empowering people isn't necessarily just letting them borrow more money
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
I now see how this thread and canpol are organized. All the free market neoliberal tesla tories post here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
sorry I didn't swing at your strawman 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
The point of the stress test is not to protect borrowers from financial ruin due to them taking on onerous mortgage payments. If that were the main effect it never would have happened--the gov't doesn't care about that. The point of the stress test is to protect the lenders from the effects of a large number of coincident defaults due to rising variable rates rendering the borrowers unable to pay. Dealing with a crash like that would be bad for banks, who the government do care about, and for ~~property values~~ accrued by people who got into the property game a while back. The government cares about me, because I have owned a home for a number of years and have a lot of Precious Equity in it that I am now supposed to borrow against to finance my lifestyle or parents' retirement or something, and because I own shares in Canadian banks. They do not care about Cold on the Cob, except to the extent that he holds RBC, because he is not an established homeowner and therefore doesn't have anything worthy of their protection. His ability to become a homeowner is only of concern to the extent that it represents liquidity for me and other landed fuckers. (as a driveby, means testing education is stupid)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Incidentally, re: Toronto Life guy, I'm not sure where twitter discussion is sourcing this, but claims are that he put up absolutely $0 on more than half of the properties he claims to own and possibly got given tiny equity stakes for "advice" from other people who actually do have money in his little real estate investment "discussion" group, which this piece effectively advertises. I'm reminded of one guy in my hometown who acted as frontman for a whole bunch of enterprises around town, claiming to own them etc, even managed to get elected to city council and such, but it eventually came out that he'd never had any equity whatsoever in the businesses anyway (when he got unceremoniously tossed aside after a falling out with the person providing all the bucks).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The point of the stress test is not to protect borrowers from financial ruin due to them taking on onerous mortgage payments. If that were the main effect it never would have happened--the gov't doesn't care about that. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/news-releases/2019/cmhc-statement-letter-standing-committee-finance-fina
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
half cocaine posted:https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/news-releases/2019/cmhc-statement-letter-standing-committee-finance-fina which part interests you most?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:So open question then: How do we make it harder for people to acquire their 14th property while carrying ridiculous amounts of leveraged debt without punishing single property buyers? That's simple, you pass a max limit to the number of residential properties a single person can own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Flater posted:That's simple, you pass a max limit to the number of residential properties a single person can own. Virtually all of those properties will be owned by different corporations, probably with slightly different beneficial owners or trusts in order to spread tax burden across the family or partnership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Virtually all of those properties will be owned by different corporations, probably with slightly different beneficial owners or trusts in order to spread tax burden across the family or partnership. Sounds like a few laws need to change, then
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
Flater posted:Sounds like a few laws need to change, then More than a few, friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
3849 W 14th Ave Holdings Incorporated
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
I wonder if you could straight ban companies from owning residential housing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:I wonder if you could straight ban companies from owning residential housing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:I wonder if you could straight ban companies from owning residential housing. It fairly implicitly also means no company would loan you money to buy one (and also that purpose built rental doesn't exist).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
Sassafras posted:It fairly implicitly also means no company would loan you money to buy one. Yeah, if the bank can’t foreclose it loses a lot of value as collateral.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Incrementalism isn’t going to cure the sickness that plagues our approach to housing. The system is very resilient against that, and has many mutually-supporting barriers to meaningful reform. Even wealth taxes are hard to make work against determined adversaries, and the adversaries would be quite determined indeed. Nationalize all rental housing at a swing and you might get somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Literally the only people I know my age who were able to buy houses it was because of either money from their parents or an inheritance. I am really trying hard coming from a dirt poor family not to be bitter but it's hard!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Calgary house prices never dropped, they stopped climbing exponentially but still expensive af There were like 3 major layoff rounds announced this week at major employers (Suncor, Imperial, husky) but at this point the economy is so detached from reality that nobody is even talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
You have to be very lucky in some form to buy a house at any point in your life, let alone in your early 30s or whatever. It’s just that, luck, but it becomes this just-world identity element for whole generations of voting bloc and then welp, pretty hosed until they die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
half cocaine posted:I now see how this thread and canpol are organized. All the free market neoliberal tesla tories post here. lol nope
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Maybe they're over in the Canadian investing thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 00:34
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Cold on a Cob posted:So open question then: How do we make it harder for people to acquire their 14th property while carrying ridiculous amounts of leveraged debt without punishing single property buyers? If it makes you feel any better, anecdotally, the institution I work for has changed its rental property qualifications. We no longer do a rental offset and now just add the rental income to the persons earnings. So the calculation is less favorable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Sassafras posted:Incidentally, re: Toronto Life guy, I'm not sure where twitter discussion is sourcing this, but claims are that he put up absolutely $0 on more than half of the properties he claims to own and possibly got given tiny equity stakes for "advice" from other people who actually do have money in his little real estate investment "discussion" group, which this piece effectively advertises. I'm actually surprised that the article itself wasn't linked because this is very much in the spirit of the thread. https://torontolife.com/real-estate/young-investor-success/ https://twitter.com/ronmortgageguy/status/1319615064568102912 It has everything from "I was inspired by Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to borrowing from his girlfriend and parents for renos. crispyseaweed fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Oct 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
Sassafras posted:Incidentally, re: Toronto Life guy, I'm not sure where twitter discussion is sourcing this, but claims are that he put up absolutely $0 on more than half of the properties he claims to own and possibly got given tiny equity stakes for "advice" from other people who actually do have money in his little real estate investment "discussion" group, which this piece effectively advertises. The funniest thing is that this is literally the Donald Trump business model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
crispyseaweed posted:I'm actually surprised that the article itself wasn't linked because this is very much in the spirit of the thread. I guess he spent all his money on rental property so he can't afford socks or shoes. I hate people whose goal in life is 'to be rich'. What a worthless waste of an existence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 07:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So in Victoria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVOawOXxSA
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 09:25
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:So open question then: How do we make it harder for people to acquire their 14th property while carrying ridiculous amounts of leveraged debt without punishing single property buyers? Make being an amateur landlord unappealing. Make it a lousy investment and people will stick with a single house and maybe a recreational property somewhere. Ways to do this: * Make capital gains tax on secondary properties taxed at 100% the tax rate instead of 50%. * Foreign buyer + speculation taxes that make it so that having a pied a terre unappealing (NDP already did this, and we're already seeing an impact in terms of a developer pivot to purpose built rental instead of luxury condos) * Government constantly builds publicly owned market and subsidized purpose built rental regardless of market conditions until some goal vacancy rate is met. A high vacancy rate will make being a landlord unappealing, further depressing condo prices as amateur landlords abandon the idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
* raise interest rates
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 18:28
|
|