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.

Antifreeze Head: Jun 6, 2005; It begins; Pillbug

Even with the taxes it is an order of magnitude more affordable than places like Toronto or Vancouver.

Yes, it is Moncton, but someone has to live there.

And frankly, if this was my house, I don't think I'd mind living in Moncton. At least for the time I spent in my house.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 17:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 13:14

VERTiG0: Jul 11, 2001; go move over bro

Antifreeze Head posted:

And frankly, if this was my house, I don't think I'd mind living in Moncton. At least for the time I spent in my house.

Looks good. But what does one do in New Brunswick other than eat lobster?

# ? Sep 10, 2014 17:31

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Yeah, that is way more affordable that anything remotely similar in those biggest cities. Of course you would be doing that on whatever it is that people in Moncton do for a living. (Building the vaults that the Irvines use to store all their government incentive money.)

The real reason why prices dropping in the prairies and the east coast matter is that it kicks the leg out from the narrative that real estate always increases. I mean sure, it is Moncton and Regina and Winnipeg now. And who really lives there anyways. Eventually though, it will be everyone outside of Vancouver and Toronto city limits and that will be impossible to ignore.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 17:33

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Anecdote time. I went for a bike ride with my Dad yesterday in the Morgan Crossing-ish area of South Surrey, and up towards 0th Ave at the USA border. The amount of development going on there is simply immense. Huge numbers of large, expensive-if-gauche-looking houses on heretofore undeveloped land. Appears to be very little in the way of actual residents yet. I remarked to my Dad: "Jesus, what do these go for? 600k or so?". His response: "More like 800-900... some over a million".

I have no idea who these are for. There is absolutely gently caress-all near by in terms of amenities. The waged, commute-to-Vancouver set can't afford them. Anyone who could afford them would be better off living in the outskirts of Vancouver. It is a mystery.

:ughh:

# ? Sep 10, 2014 17:47

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

^ I saw a bunch of similar stuff out between Chilliwack and Hope. Like, right near where Dino Park was. Just these huge walled-in subdivisions of identical houses crammed in wall-to-wall, right off the highway. :psyduck:

# ? Sep 10, 2014 18:15

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

eXXon posted:

What kind of executive earns just 33k?? That's like what an assistant manager at McDonald's makes.

That's really a sales job with a fun title.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 18:24

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Lexicon posted:

Anecdote time. I went for a bike ride with my Dad yesterday in the Morgan Crossing-ish area of South Surrey, and up towards 0th Ave at the USA border. The amount of development going on there is simply immense. Huge numbers of large, expensive-if-gauche-looking houses on heretofore undeveloped land. Appears to be very little in the way of actual residents yet. I remarked to my Dad: "Jesus, what do these go for? 600k or so?". His response: "More like 800-900... some over a million".

I have no idea who these are for. There is absolutely gently caress-all near by in terms of amenities. The waged, commute-to-Vancouver set can't afford them. Anyone who could afford them would be better off living in the outskirts of Vancouver. It is a mystery.

Canada just wants some abandoned exurb ghosts towns like the US has. I hear they're all the rage for the urban exploration set.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 18:35

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

axeil posted:

Canada just wants some abandoned exurb ghosts towns like the US has. I hear they're all the rage for the urban exploration set.

Good point! And in true Canadian fashion, they're extravagantly and unjustifiably more expensive than the American equivalent.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 18:38

Antifreeze Head: Jun 6, 2005; It begins; Pillbug

ocrumsprug posted:

I mean sure, it is Moncton and Regina and Winnipeg now. And who really lives there anyways.

I live in Winnipeg. We have the Jets again, so it feels like we're all growed up.

Anyway, there was a massive new development like that one being described that sprung up in Winnipeg's south end. The homes there are subject to the discount of being in a cheap place to live, so they're generally in the range of $350,000 to $500,000.

They're also quite close to the landfill, so when there is a decent breeze from the south west, it smells exactly like what you would expect living next to the dump to smell like.

Cul de sac after cul de sac of coral-coloured stucco homes with most of the curb-view devoted to a garage door, all with the bonus of a stench that will make your hair curl. They sell like hotcakes.

Which suits me fine since I bought a fixer-upper character home far, far away from the dump. Though the guy that lived there had a bunch of cats that would wander around his property... and die there.

PM me if you need a naturally mummified cat. I have a few to spare.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 18:48

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Flintstone park you foreigner

# ? Sep 10, 2014 19:01

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Lexicon posted:

Anecdote time. I went for a bike ride with my Dad yesterday in the Morgan Crossing-ish area of South Surrey, and up towards 0th Ave at the USA border. The amount of development going on there is simply immense. Huge numbers of large, expensive-if-gauche-looking houses on heretofore undeveloped land. Appears to be very little in the way of actual residents yet. I remarked to my Dad: "Jesus, what do these go for? 600k or so?". His response: "More like 800-900... some over a million".

I have no idea who these are for. There is absolutely gently caress-all near by in terms of amenities. The waged, commute-to-Vancouver set can't afford them. Anyone who could afford them would be better off living in the outskirts of Vancouver. It is a mystery.

About a year ago I was trying to explain to my mom that the market was ridiculous. I tried to get it in her head that every single loving habitablehouse in the lower mainland was costing at least a million dollars. From white rock to loving mission.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 19:03

Blackula69: Apr 1, 2007; ＤＥＨＵＭＡＮＩＺＥＹＯＵＲＳＥＬＦ＆ＦＡＣＥＴＯＢＬＡＣＵＬＡ

I thought I would add my two cents to the thread. I live in Ottawa in an up-and-coming neighbourhood and prices are goddamn ridiculous. This tiny house just sold and they were asking $600k: http://grapevine.ca/listing/41709#.VBCT4kjLBLF

I just don't understand who is buying these homes. I'm as yuppie as they come and my girlfriend and I together couldn't afford the deposit on a half million dollar home. And this neighbourhood is still full of random lovely houses that aren't kept up and there are occasional stabbings, despite the yoga studios. Will the bank really give 26-year-olds with a combined income of like $120k a loan for this kind of place?

Ottawa seems to have extra pressure because of the size of our middle class, but it's continually shocking to me how unaffordable many of the homes on the market are.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 19:13

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Cultural Imperial posted:

About a year ago I was trying to explain to my mom that the market was ridiculous. I tried to get it in her head that every single loving habitablehouse in the lower mainland was costing at least a million dollars. From white rock to loving mission.

Yeah. And this is the real concern. People bang on about the cost of houses in Vancouver, but the reality is that it's a desirable-if-rather-bland city that will likely always be attractive to a certain subset of global elites as well as domestic pretenders. Of course it's leagues away from NYC/London, etc � not least due to the lack of actual commerce and culture that goes on � but it's probably helpful to classify it alongside Melbourne, Sydney, etc.

But this exurb poo poo, though? It's pure wealth destruction, waiting to happen.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 19:13

Monaghan: Dec 29, 2006

ocrumsprug posted:

Yeah, that is way more affordable that anything remotely similar in those biggest cities. Of course you would be doing that on whatever it is that people in Moncton do for a living. (Building the vaults that the Irvines use to store all their government incentive money.)

The real reason why prices dropping in the prairies and the east coast matter is that it kicks the leg out from the narrative that real estate always increases. I mean sure, it is Moncton and Regina and Winnipeg now. And who really lives there anyways. Eventually though, it will be everyone outside of Vancouver and Toronto city limits and that will be impossible to ignore.

I live in Regina :mad:

.

I'm a family law lawyer and it's hilarious to see how some people still haven't seemed to get that their houses aren't going to be selling for crazy amounts. It's still stupidly high, but not completely ridiculous . You should have seen the fights over splitting the value of the house during the boom times though.

and of course you still get some idiot contractors wanting to sell condos for $700,000. In loving regina of all places :allears:

Monaghan fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 10, 2014

# ? Sep 10, 2014 19:19

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

SUP RENTAILURES

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0H51OC20140910?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

quote:

TORONTO (Reuters) - Jeff Lowry and his family left a sedate housing market in Tennessee last year and moved to Canada in the midst of a housing boom, where bidding wars and soaring prices were an unpleasant reminder of his American roots.

Trading in his suburban home outside Nashville for a smaller $600,000 house in Waterdown, Ontario, about 40 miles outside of Toronto, the 39-year-old regional manager wonders if he's just bought into another bubble.

"Obviously it is risky, and we're concerned," said Lowry. "The housing market is skyrocketing and we wonder, are we paying the top price? Will what happened in the United States happen here? I don't know. I guess it's a gamble."

Experts ranging from Fitch Ratings and Morningstar to the International Monetary Fund and economist Paul Krugman have warned about the risks of the housing boom in Canada, where the average home price has doubled in 11 years. They point to record high household debt, cheap mortgages, and overbuilding as harbingers of the kind of doom seen in the U.S. housing collapse five years ago.

"Think of me as the designated driver at a party," said Dan Werner, an equity analyst at Chicago-based investment firm Morningstar. He warned in July that a house price correction is inevitable in the next five years that could send values tumbling by as much as 30 percent.

"There is this euphoria when you are within an up housing market,� Werner said. �We fell into it that here. I don't want to say Canadians are in a party mode, but they are thinking, 'What can possibly go wrong if prices keep going up?' It's going to end badly."

Werner said the reason why a collapse is inevitable include: home prices are rising faster than personal income; low mortgage rates are unsustainable; household debt levels are at historic highs; and builders have erected so many houses that there will soon be oversupply.

Fitch said in July that Canada's housing market was about 20 percent overvalued and warned that the country's debt-to-income ratio, which at about 163 percent echoes levels seen in the United States just before its crash, will be a liability when interest rates rise.

While the pace of homebuilding has slowed slightly from a 2012 peak, prices have kept rising, with the average home price up 5.0 percent in the last year to C$401,585 ($365,243).

But Canadians, from policymakers to bank economists to homebuyers, are confident that a solid banking system, more conservative borrowing and steady demand will provide a soft landing for a market that is already slowing.

"I really think that what we're observing is a high level of self-responsibility through this," Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said in late April. "I'm comfortable that this risk is not outsized."

THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT?

Canada's housing market is similar to the U.S. market before the crash in some ways: From the heady price gains and consumer indebtedness to the view of housing as an investment rather than just a place to live.

But defenders also point to the differences. Canada has tighter lending standards and healthier banks, a small subprime market, and high fees which discourage the buying and flipping of housing for profit.

The Bank of Canada estimated that Canada's non-prime loans represented about 7 percent of outstanding mortgages in Canada in 2012, compared with an estimated pre-crisis level of about 20 percent in the United States, citing data from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Moreover, some of the mortgage products sold in the U.S. before the housing crash, such as negative amortization and interest-only mortgages, aren�t available or are very limited in Canada.

So a Canadian housing crash would look different than what was seen south of the border, but it still wouldn't be pretty.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, said a crash might begin with indebted consumers who default on their mortgages, spread to the banks facing loan losses, and then hit the federal government as its mortgage insurance agency faces huge payouts and a housing-related employment slump.

"If you're in a full-blown housing downturn, with house prices falling, high debt loads, other credit problems developing - consumer loans, auto loans - that affects consumer spending more broadly," Zandi said. "The Canadian economy is so driven by housing that if housing goes down, it is hard to see the Canadian economy growing, so it would probably be fodder for a recession."

As in the 2008 financial crisis, banks wounded by bad mortgages would rein in other lending.

"If the banks are hobbled, then they are not going to be able to lend to keep the economy moving forward," said Zandi. "Credit is the mother's milk of economic growth. Without credit, you don't get growth."

With some 7 percent of Canadian growth coming from construction, a housing slump would also exacerbate unemployment, fueling a vicious cycle of more mortgage defaults.

David Carey, the senior economist on Canada at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, said Canada's big six banks are too well capitalized and their loan portfolios too sound for them to be at risk of a bank failure, though their profits would take a hit.

They are insulated as well because mortgage insurance is required whenever a homebuyer puts less than 20 percent down on a home - and a federal agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, provides most of that insurance.

But in the event of a crash, the CMHC will suffer a big blow, which in turn will hurt sovereign debt and taxpayers.

"The federal budget is at risk because the CMHC is on the hook for loan losses," Carey said in an email. �These would reduce CMHC's profits and hence the dividends it pays to the federal government.�

The IMF in Washington and the Paris-based OECD both question Canada's government-backed mortgage insurance program. Typically, Canada's big private banks buy the insurance, charge the borrowers for the cost, and stand to get their money back if the homebuyer defaults on the mortgage.

While the cost of the mortgage insurance is an incentive for buyers to put more equity in their home, the bulk of the insurance is provided by the CMHC, which means taxpayers are on the hook for some C$600 billion in insured loans if the market collapses.

"The banks are able to make mortgage loans that if they go bad, the cost falls back to a government agency. When we talk about moral hazard, that's what we're referring to," said Carey. "This arrangement encourages more risk taking than would occur if there were no government involvement."

THE TIPPING POINT

Foreigners and Canadians alike agree on what could cause a housing collapse, namely a spike in interest rates from the record low levels that have dominated for five years, or a rise in unemployment, or both.

A Bank of Canada study has suggested that a return of real mortgage rates to the long-term average of 4 percent would cut mortgage payment affordability to the lowest level in 16 years. An interest rate hike of 2 percentage points would push 10 percent of indebted households into debt-service ratios over 40 percent, a threshold considered unaffordable.

Data on just how much mortgage debt exists - C$1.17 trillion as of April 2013 - and how much of it is vulnerable to rate increases shows that while Canadians have a lot of equity in their homes, many have borrowed against that equity and are relying on low rates to service the debt they've accumulated.

Some 59 percent, or 5.6 million, of Canadian homeowners have mortgages, and 2.2 million have home equity lines of credit, a phenomenon that echoes the habit of Americans to use their homes as cash machines in the run-up to the bust there.

Still, the average equity is estimated at 73 percent. Among the CMHC's insured portfolio - the mortgages that tend to have a higher risk profile - the average equity is 45 percent. Average home equity was about 60 percent during the U.S. housing boom, and it fell to about 38 percent by the third quarter of 2009 as the market crashed, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

While equity is relatively high, official interest rates are historically low at about 1 percent, and policymakers from the Finance Department and the Bank of Canada have warned they won't stay that way. The average mortgage rate is 3.24 percent, according to the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals, a rate that has allowed consumers to get into debt very cheaply.

Though 65 percent of Canadian mortgages have fixed interest rates, the most popular fixed mortgage product gets renewed after only five years. Canadians are so used to falling interest rates they may have forgotten that their debt burden can get heavier. Among people who renewed a mortgage from the start of 2013 to April 2014, 54 percent saw their mortgage rate fall, according to CAAMP. That won't happen much longer.

For Morningstar's Werner, the biggest risk is not only in the numbers but in the mentality of buyers in a bull market.

"If you start looking at your house as an investment class -- as something else you should be investing in rather than the stock market -- you run into the danger of being exposed to some of the excesses going on in the system," he said.

Jeff Lowry is already counting his gains as the Canadian housing market marches ever higher.

"We've only lived here eight months and the values have even gone up since then," said Lowry, marveling at how much money his neighbors are getting as they sell.

"I think I will make money here. I purchased it at C$600,000 and they are now going for C$680, C$690. If that trend continues I'll be sitting pretty in two or three years."

(1 US dollar = 1.0908 Canadian dollar)

(Editing by Amran Abocar and John Pickering)

# ? Sep 10, 2014 20:24

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Blackula69 posted:

I thought I would add my two cents to the thread. I live in Ottawa in an up-and-coming neighbourhood and prices are goddamn ridiculous. This tiny house just sold and they were asking $600k: http://grapevine.ca/listing/41709#.VBCT4kjLBLF

I just don't understand who is buying these homes. I'm as yuppie as they come and my girlfriend and I together couldn't afford the deposit on a half million dollar home. And this neighbourhood is still full of random lovely houses that aren't kept up and there are occasional stabbings, despite the yoga studios. Will the bank really give 26-year-olds with a combined income of like $120k a loan for this kind of place?

Ottawa seems to have extra pressure because of the size of our middle class, but it's continually shocking to me how unaffordable many of the homes on the market are.

That's in a two minute walk of Tunney's pasture (and a transitway stop), it's not an up-and-coming neighbourhood that's a lets pull this poo poo down and build something nice kind of neighourhood.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 20:38

Blackula69: Apr 1, 2007; ＤＥＨＵＭＡＮＩＺＥＹＯＵＲＳＥＬＦ＆ＦＡＣＥＴＯＢＬＡＣＵＬＡ

sbaldrick posted:

That's in a two minute walk of Tunney's pasture (and a transitway stop), it's not an up-and-coming neighbourhood that's a lets pull this poo poo down and build something nice kind of neighourhood.

Which makes the prices all the more strange. A lot of the houses are old and lovely or duplexes from the 1970s. Who pays $600k for a house just to knock it down? How do you turn a profit on that? It's not like it's Wellington West or anywhere super fancy, and there's a lot down the street going for $300k that hasn't sold.

I just question who is buying the houses, though, because my well-paid civil servant girlfriend and I can't even begin to afford that.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:11

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

You are obviously not buying into the new paradigm of affordability where absolute cost is irrelevant. It's time you lean in and listen to all the real estate thought leaders who have been explaining to us that only monthly payment matters in terms of affordability! So stop being a rentailure and get on board with pride of ownership.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:15

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

Blackula69 posted:

Which makes the prices all the more strange. A lot of the houses are old and lovely or duplexes from the 1970s. Who pays $600k for a house just to knock it down? How do you turn a profit on that? It's not like it's Wellington West or anywhere super fancy, and there's a lot down the street going for $300k that hasn't sold.

probably because they don't plan to be there for long

at least that's the MO in Vancouver - knock the 50k house down and put a 150k monstrosity on the much more expensive land to 'double' the value or w/e

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:17

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

$150k in construction costs gets you a Laneway house, and a tiny one at best, in Vancouver. McMansions are probably closer to $300k.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:18

Blackula69: Apr 1, 2007; ＤＥＨＵＭＡＮＩＺＥＹＯＵＲＳＥＬＦ＆ＦＡＣＥＴＯＢＬＡＣＵＬＡ

JawKnee posted:

probably because they don't plan to be there for long

at least that's the MO in Vancouver - knock the 50k house down and put a 150k monstrosity on the much more expensive land to 'double' the value or w/e

Fair enough, but doesn't Vancouver have somewhat limited space? This neighbourhood isn't very good (although it's more and more yuppie every year) and it's not like people have to live here, there are a ton of other options all across the city.

There's a fair few of those infill monstrosities (and some nice-looking ones) around but isn't there an upper limit to those? And if the buyers are flipping houses, who are they selling those to? There's a large middle class in Ottawa but civil servant salaries top out at about $95k, no fancy lawyer is going to live near the Carleton Tavern when there are much better options near the canal, in the Glebe, etc.

Our mortgage for a $600k house would be double what we pay now for a house twice the size of the one I linked, although our house needs a lot of work. I understand all the economics of the housing boom but there's a practical limit wrt salaries and housing costs. I would think $600k homes in a neighbourhood where I occasionally hear a drunk guy loudly monologuing about "eatin' that pussy" as he stumbles by would be an indicator that the limit has been reached.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:26

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

sure, im not trying to say its sensible, merely that people are doing it.

as for space in Van that's a weird issue. Vancouver proper cannot really sprawl outwards but could easily become more dense - and the pricing in Vancouver has spread to the outlying cities which can sprawl.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:31

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Vancouver has limited space until you realize that it is larger than Paris with a tenth the people in it.

~

What has been happening over the last few years in Vancouver, is that a developer will purchase a lot (lets say for $800K) and build a front-back duplex or a small strata complex on it and sell each unit for 700-800K.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:32

xerxus: Apr 24, 2010; Grimey Drawer

The typical McMansion in West Van costs ~ $200/sqft. so 3-5000 sqft = 600k to 1 million.

In the rest of the lower mainland it's around $100-150 sqft, so 300k to 750k. depending on McMansion size.

It all depends on the finishings (multiple fireplaces/kitchens? imported tiles? cabinets)

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:32

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Guys, cmon. There's nothing as major in driving this bubble than the availability of cheap credit. It's not land scarcity and it's not really foreigners.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 21:53

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

xerxus posted:

The typical McMansion in West Van costs ~ $200/sqft. so 3-5000 sqft = 600k to 1 million.\

That is way low.

e: wait, are you referring to the cost of the construction alone? In that case nevermind.

blah_blah fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Sep 10, 2014

# ? Sep 10, 2014 22:17

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

xerxus posted:

The typical McMansion in West Van costs ~ $200/sqft. so 3-5000 sqft = 600k to 1 million.

In the rest of the lower mainland it's around $100-150 sqft, so 300k to 750k. depending on McMansion size.

It all depends on the finishings (multiple fireplaces/kitchens? imported tiles? cabinets)

I'm not sure if this is a response to me? If it is I meant construction costs (which I don't know the particulars of, I was just throwing out a number)

# ? Sep 10, 2014 22:20

FrozenVent: May 1, 2009; The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

Blackula69 posted:

I just question who is buying the houses, though, because my well-paid civil servant girlfriend and I can't even begin to afford that.

You're richer than you think!

Seriously, the people buying those houses are eye deep in debt. And yes, they can get the loans - think about it from the bank's perspective, it's not like the federal government is going away anytime soon, we just had a round of cuts (lol) and civil servants never get fired, ever.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 22:59

melon cat: Jan 21, 2010; Nap Ghost

melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Mar 16, 2019

# ? Sep 11, 2014 00:11

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Perhaps this is all just a long game to bring back slavery, when the debt bubble implodes! :v:

# ? Sep 11, 2014 00:17

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

I'm not sure how CI missed this from Rabidoux tweets, but since that awful Waterloo one wasn't enough, here's Toronto's latest glitzy whiteboard infographicmercial (do these things have a name yet?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJ3TCwUh2w

# ? Sep 11, 2014 00:23

xerxus: Apr 24, 2010; Grimey Drawer

JawKnee posted:

I'm not sure if this is a response to me? If it is I meant construction costs (which I don't know the particulars of, I was just throwing out a number)

Yeah that's the construction cost as quoted by builders when my friend was looking.

# ? Sep 11, 2014 00:23

HookShot: Dec 26, 2005

Uh it's definitely possible to get a liveable house for under 1 million in Mission. They start in the $300k or so price range, and stuff that's actually kind of nice starts around $400k.

The problem with Mission is it's so far away from Vancouver (and it's Mission), but I imagine if you actually just took the WCE every day it wouldn't be too bad as you could just read/do leisurely stuff with that slightly over an hour instead of being driving.

# ? Sep 11, 2014 01:00

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

eXXon posted:

I'm not sure how CI missed this from Rabidoux tweets, but since that awful Waterloo one wasn't enough, here's Toronto's latest glitzy whiteboard infographicmercial (do these things have a name yet?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJ3TCwUh2w

We need to download and store these somewhere for introspective purposes, after the bubble bursts.

# ? Sep 11, 2014 01:36

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

eXXon posted:

I'm not sure how CI missed this from Rabidoux tweets, but since that awful Waterloo one wasn't enough, here's Toronto's latest glitzy whiteboard infographicmercial (do these things have a name yet?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJ3TCwUh2w

lol

# ? Sep 11, 2014 02:32

FrozenVent: May 1, 2009; The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

If you were able to afford five 300k condos, you could be a millionaire in three years!

-someone who can't do math

# ? Sep 11, 2014 02:45

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

FrozenVent posted:

If you were able to afford five 300k condos, you could be a millionaire in three years!

-someone who can't do math

It makes sense. You only need 75k to afford the 5% down payment, and if you flip each of them at 185k profit you'll be a millionaire. Done.

# ? Sep 11, 2014 02:50

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

# ? Sep 11, 2014 02:56

FrozenVent: May 1, 2009; The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

eXXon posted:

It makes sense. You only need 75k to afford the 5% down payment, and if you flip each of them at 185k profit you'll be a millionaire. Done.

Assuming
-the market keeps growing at the same rate,
-interest rates don't go up,
-nothing happens in your life that you can't make the mortgage payments,
-the strata fee don't go through the roof as soon as the developer steps away,
-the pre-build condos you bought actually get built

Then yes, the math works out.

Also flipping five condos for 185k each would net you only 925k, before taxes.

# ? Sep 11, 2014 02:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 13:14

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

FrozenVent posted:

Also flipping five condos for 185k each would net you only 925k, before taxes.

But you already had 75k to begin with. Also, what's taxes?

# ? Sep 11, 2014 03:03

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

«‹›1518 »