|
Franks Happy Place posted:He's the Toronto Bob Rennie. Very very successful at his bullshit craft He has years of real estate sales experiences unlike that clown Robert Shiller.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 05:59 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:54 |
|
ocrumsprug posted:The other day Global had another segment polishing our housing situation in Vancouver. It can't be a mortgage, but afaik there's nothing that says a bank or credit union can't make you an unsecured loan against your income for whatever reason they want. Key is that it wouldn't have priority on the house over the mortgage insurer.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 06:24 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The condo King just flipped his poo poo. Time to show the little priest what carcosa looks like huh? Wait a minute, wait a minute: Brad J. Lamb posted:I will tell you of a very smart young graduate, one of my nephews...He became a shift manager during those years of high school. He managed to save $40,000 over 6 years of part-time work...My brother co-signed the mortgage...When he graduates after 4 years, he will have paid off $30,000 of the mortgage and this house will be worth $40,000 more than he paid for it. He will graduate at 24 years old with a degree and $105,000 in his pocket, and he lived rent free! That is a smart kid. That isn't a smart kid, that's a kid who's being heavily subsidized by his parents. Who was covering his living expenses during high school and college? Tuition? What about property taxes and upkeep? It only says his tenants' rent covers the mortgage. eXXon posted:I'm not good with math, should I buy a house because it sounds like you only have to pay a 5% down payment and the rest is free?? It's tough to call whether he's full of poo poo and knows it or completely ignorant.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 06:52 |
etalian posted:Things like the light rail plan fell apart since the GOP actively sabotaged it such as diverting funds originally intended for mass transit into building more highways around the city. Are those the ones that are also toll roads? I'm looking forward to going back to Austin for a few days in a couple of weeks but drat, it is a terrible town to get around in.
|
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 07:21 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 10:23 |
|
Lexicon posted:Austin is a place which I'm very bullish about over the next decade or two. And with American price:rent and price:income ratios generally sane Nothing to be bullish about that area at all. Or anywhere really in the US IMO. Yea its the Canadian Housing Bubble thread but I keep seeing comments along the lines of 'wow sucks to be Canada right now but the US is fine!' and the latter part of that statement just isn't true. Unfortunately right now US housing on average is more expensive on a monthly payment basis than it was during the peak of the US bubble. IMO the US bubble never had a chance to finish popping and has been largely reinflated though I expect it start popping again soon if it hasn't already.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 16:18 |
|
Having 60-70% of your net worth tied up in a single not especially liquid asset is the very epitome of sound financial planning and wealth management IMO. [/quote] I'm also not sure how ROI on housing is tax free...
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 16:32 |
|
FrozenVent posted:
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 16:56 |
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Wuut? Household income is only like $53k while houses are around $300k. That is over 5 and half times the local income! The mediocre to crap infrastructure means that the cost of living will continue to go up quite a bit making it a significantly more expensive place to live in the future too. Where is the income + job growth going to come from to make those numbers even out? Yeah, fair point, but I guess I'm speaking relatively. 5.5x price:income with a stupidly low locked-in interest rate for 25 years and mortgage interest deductibility puts it vastly, vastly ahead of the calculus in any Canadian city. And that's without even factoring in the stupidly lower cost of living in the USA.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 17:06 |
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:If you don't count the taxes it's tax-free. Sure you pay property taxes every year and in most places a land transfer tax and also a realtor's commission, but you're not paying income tax on the "profit" if its your primary residence, so that's sort of tax-free, I guess. You pay property and land transfer, realtor fees, yearly upkeep and the occasional improvement, plus the interest on your mortgage. Those are all "taxes" that you must pay to make any "tax free" profit on a home. Saltin fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 2, 2014 |
# ? Apr 2, 2014 17:09 |
|
Lexicon posted:stupidly low locked-in interest rate for 25 years and mortgage interest deductibility puts it vastly, vastly ahead of the calculus in any Canadian city. And that's without even factoring in the stupidly lower cost of living in the USA. FWIW I think the Canadian bubble sounds worse than the US bubble does right now. Maybe even back in the US circa 2006-7. But the situation is pretty bad all around. Glasshouses and all of that.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 17:25 |
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Stupid low rates on a far too high principal still leave you with a too expensive mortgage payment that results in foreclosure. The mortgage interest deduction is peanuts even at the start of the mortgage and it only goes down from there as interest is paid down. Are you sure you factored in the cost of healthcare into the CoL vs US? IIRC they pay around a little more than half of what we do for healthcare with way less hassle involved. Good point on deductibility and you're right about healthcare (it's nuanced though - depends on what your career is and to what extent you can assume coverage as part of your compensation). I just know that the average family cannot afford the average home in most Canadian cities. However bad it may be in most American cities - it's not as bad as up here.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 17:34 |
|
Health care costs depend on your employment though. My plan is so loving baller that I'm going straight in to see a specialist without a referral. I'm paying about twice as much over bc msp.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 18:36 |
|
If property isnt the safe way to invest in your retirement, what is? I don't trust the equity markets. Obviously investing in chartered banks isnt a good idea either because of all that bad debt theyre taking on. Im sitting on a lot of liquidity and Im too scared to touch it.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 19:55 |
|
Kraftwerk posted:If property isnt the safe way to invest in your retirement, what is? I don't trust the equity markets. Obviously investing in chartered banks isnt a good idea either because of all that bad debt theyre taking on. Im sitting on a lot of liquidity and Im too scared to touch it. You remind me of this article I read the other day. http://www.greaterfool.ca/2014/03/31/real-men-invest/
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 19:56 |
|
Kraftwerk posted:If property isnt the safe way to invest in your retirement, what is? I don't trust the equity markets. Obviously investing in chartered banks isnt a good idea either because of all that bad debt theyre taking on. Im sitting on a lot of liquidity and Im too scared to touch it. Sitting on liquidity is doing something and is an option, imo.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 20:06 |
|
Mexplosivo posted:Sitting on liquidity is doing something and is an option, imo. As long as it's in a "high"-interest savings account or a short-term bond of some kind, sure.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 20:10 |
|
Franks Happy Place posted:As long as it's in a "high"-interest savings account or a short-term bond of some kind, sure. Not if you want to maintain your purchasing power with respect to inflation.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 20:12 |
|
Lexicon posted:Not if you want to maintain your purchasing power with respect to inflation. Well my point is that if you want to stay 100% liquid because you are irrationally afraid of equities, you are better off getting 1% than 0%.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 20:19 |
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Well my point is that if you want to stay 100% liquid because you are irrationally afraid of equities, you are better off getting 1% than 0%. True. But keep in mind 'liquid' does not imply 'solely cash'. It means easily convertible to cash. You can have all your wealth in equities and still be liquid.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 20:21 |
|
Lexicon posted:True. But keep in mind 'liquid' does not imply 'solely cash'. It means easily convertible to cash. You can have all your wealth in equities and still be liquid. Kraftwerk posted:I don't trust the equity markets.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 20:23 |
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Wuut? Household income is only like $53k while houses are around $300k. That is over 5 and half times the local income! The mediocre to crap infrastructure means that the cost of living will continue to go up quite a bit making it a significantly more expensive place to live in the future too. Where is the income + job growth going to come from to make those numbers even out? Also as I pointed out the property tax rates are very high and only going to go up. Austin really never got a housing crash. The market was lagging just behind the bubble enough that when things started to look like they were going to crash nicely coincided with all the extraordinary measures which were taken to keep the economy from shattering did essentially what they were hoping would happen nationwide and kept the market stable. It wasn't exactly growing but more importantly it was not imploding. As a result there is a bit of a "oh Texas is much more prudent about property and lending so it won't get bubbles" mantra here which reminds me a lot of the Canadian situation at the moment. edit: median price chart Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 21:08 |
|
Kraftwerk posted:If property isnt the safe way to invest in your retirement, what is? I don't trust the equity markets. Obviously investing in chartered banks isnt a good idea either because of all that bad debt theyre taking on. Im sitting on a lot of liquidity and Im too scared to touch it. There's no such such as safe investment but using tricks such as diversification makes investing in other things much better than the all eggs in one basket real estate approach. Also due to the popularity of something called ETFs you don't even need to agonize over stock picking, just create a investment portfolio that matches your needs. If you want to really "invest" real estate just buy a ETF stock like Vanguards VNQ which covers lots of different US REITs and pays a 4% dividend yield. etalian fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Apr 2, 2014 |
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:01 |
|
Hey all you rentailures. Check out this spreadsheet from real life failure Rob Carrick on housing affordability. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...hboard/follows/ Brad J Lamb sez u r a failure because u rent lol
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:05 |
|
Kraftwerk posted:If property isnt the safe way to invest in your retirement, what is? I don't trust the equity markets. Obviously investing in chartered banks isnt a good idea either because of all that bad debt theyre taking on. Im sitting on a lot of liquidity and Im too scared to touch it. bitcoin
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:09 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:bitcoin the best thing would be to buy a overpriced BC condo using bitcoins
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:11 |
|
etalian posted:There's no such such as safe investment but using tricks such as diversification makes investing in other things much better than the all eggs in one basket real estate approach. I really have a hard time comprehending the position of risk averse people who are somehow okay with real estate. I mean, Jesus, all it takes is one bad neighbour or spectacularly bad city council to seriously impact your wealth. And that's without getting into the issues of indivisibility, illiquidity, and you know - the thread's premise - a massive, loving housing bubble.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:12 |
|
Lexicon posted:I really have a hard time comprehending the position of risk averse people who are somehow okay with real estate. I mean, Jesus, all it takes is one bad neighbour or spectacularly bad city council to seriously impact your wealth. And that's without getting into the issues of indivisibility, illiquidity, and you know - the thread's premise - a massive, loving housing bubble. Also the simple brilliance of investing in multiple asset classes such as bonds and equities is how they are not correlated. For example in recession times which leads to big equity panic sell-offs everyone tends to flee to safe bond investments, which conversely leads to higher bond prices. So even though the whole portfolio will take a hit, it leads to lower overall volatility. Of course people would rather buy into the home as a investment dumb view despite said investment having no liquidity or diversification. this is the investment mix I use right now:
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:18 |
|
Lexicon posted:I really have a hard time comprehending the position of risk averse people who are somehow okay with real estate. I mean, Jesus, all it takes is one bad neighbour or spectacularly bad city council to seriously impact your wealth. And that's without getting into the issues of indivisibility, illiquidity, and you know - the thread's premise - a massive, loving housing bubble. I love to see you try to live in a pile of trade tickets
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:21 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Hey all you rentailures. Check out this spreadsheet from real life failure Rob Carrick on housing affordability. I think some of Lambs cronies are on the case quote:
quote:
Yeah.. that horrible financial advice of hey maybe look at the percentage of income this is going to cost you and see how much wiggle room you have.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 00:47 |
|
etalian posted:this is the investment mix I use right now: Wealthfront? Actually that's not even a question, because I also use Wealthfront, and have almost an identical allocation (mine is a bit more risk-averse).
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 00:57 |
|
blah_blah posted:Wealthfront? Actually that's not even a question, because I also use Wealthfront, and have almost an identical allocation (mine is a bit more risk-averse). Yup, there are lots of decent services out there which offer reasonably priced investment management like Wealthfront or even Betterment if you want more bit more freedom in asset selection. Which goes to back to Robert Shiller's point about homes being a bad "investment" vs. a well diversified investment portfolio. Here's a somewhat more recent interview with him on housing: http://live.wsj.com/video/robert-sh...EA-2413646E0CC6
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 01:23 |
|
https://businessincanada.com/2014/04/02/cmhc-insurance-monoline-lenders-canada-housing-bubble/quote:Rob Carrick’s “Five things to know about Canada’s mortgage market right now” contains one tidbit that many potential homebuyers might find a bit confusing. e: FUUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOUUUU CONSERVATIVE PAARTY
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 01:40 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:https://businessincanada.com/2014/04/02/cmhc-insurance-monoline-lenders-canada-housing-bubble/ So pretty much due to public backing of private debt via the CHMC the riskier loan is actually cheaper for the foolish borrower?
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 02:34 |
|
etalian posted:So pretty much due to public backing of private debt via the CHMC the riskier loan is actually cheaper for the foolish borrower? Yes. So buy mansions.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 02:45 |
|
etalian posted:So pretty much due to public backing of private debt via the CHMC the riskier loan is actually cheaper for the foolish borrower? This is something I addressed way back when this thread first started (and even earlier in a previous Canada megathread), and has been the case for years and years now. Banks know these mortgages are garbage and their own risk model won't let them originate 'em on their own internal terms, but if you can hold a crayon long enough to sign a CMHC mortgage then it's all systems go.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 02:48 |
|
I don't know if the math works but one could hypothetically sign a mortgage at a level which gets you the monoline cmhc rate and then just use your prepayment option to buy it down to whatever level you were originally going to mortgage at.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 04:07 |
|
Franks Happy Place posted:This is something I addressed way back when this thread first started (and even earlier in a previous Canada megathread), and has been the case for years and years now. Banks know these mortgages are garbage and their own risk model won't let them originate 'em on their own internal terms, but if you can hold a crayon long enough to sign a CMHC mortgage then it's all systems go. I was shaking my head reading how even after the 2009 bubble lots of Euro counties like Netherlands or Uk decided to do even more public backing of mortgage debts since it would make home ownership cheaper.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 04:51 |
|
etalian posted:Yup, there are lots of decent services out there which offer reasonably priced investment management like Wealthfront or even Betterment if you want more bit more freedom in asset selection. Are you not based in Canada? How does one use Wealthfront if so? I've always wanted to try it - didn't realize it was possible though.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 04:56 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:54 |
|
Lexicon posted:Are you not based in Canada? How does one use Wealthfront if so? nope, not based in canada so I imagine it's only for the US right now due to tax challenge reasons.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 05:09 |