Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
AntiDepressor
Jun 3, 2011

SpannerX posted:

Oh no! What will I do with out my Mike Holmes, Property Brothers, and Love it or List it! :)

Here in Halifax I think we are slowly deflating, honestly. I've seen prices coming down in some areas, and plateaued in others. But then I don't think we have the same sort of market that T.O. and Van have. People have been leaving here for Ontario and beyond since the beginning of the country. Van will probably pop hard.

Halifax won't have a major swing downward due to the fact that the largest employer by far is the 3 levels of government (Capital Health, Universities, DoD, etc). If there was ever a major loss in that regard we'd have worse problems than a housing bubble.

It was interesting to attend some of the panels at the real estate forum in Toronto. Basically get the impression that some analysts expect the worst, some are expecting the bubble pop to be overblown (banks and such), and the major developer's attitude is "The market will bear what we tell it to. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE HOUSING MARKET CRASH BEHIND THIS CURTAIN."

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sephiroth_IRA
Mar 31, 2010
Any chance Canada would offer Visas to people willing to buy foreclosures/property if/when the bubble pops? You would think "Hey Americans! Hate paying for healthcare? Well now you don't have to just buy a house in Canada!" would be an easy sell and a simple way to get prices back up after a pop.

Guy DeBorgore
Apr 6, 1994

Catnip is the opiate of the masses
Soiled Meat

Orange_Lazarus posted:

Any chance Canada would offer Visas to people willing to buy foreclosures/property if/when the bubble pops? You would think "Hey Americans! Hate paying for healthcare? Well now you don't have to just buy a house in Canada!" would be an easy sell and a simple way to get prices back up after a pop.

We already give very preferential treatment to people like that in the immigration process. As I understand it, being willing to invest 500k+ in Canada is just about a sure ticket to entry- sometimes rich immigrants will pledge to start up small businesses just to get them to the front of the line. Maybe you could loosen the standards even further, but that runs the risk of a big public backlash if the government is seen as selling vast tracts of Toronto off to the Saudis or Chinese.

ocrumsprug
Sep 23, 2010

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Orange_Lazarus posted:

Any chance Canada would offer Visas to people willing to buy foreclosures/property if/when the bubble pops? You would think "Hey Americans! Hate paying for healthcare? Well now you don't have to just buy a house in Canada!" would be an easy sell and a simple way to get prices back up after a pop.

I would expect that this idea has roughly the same probability of occurring as it did in the USA circa 2009. That said, it is not exactly the most difficult country to immigrate to in the first place.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

Canada's visa system is famous for being one of the worst. It's a very very hard country to immigrate to. Married an australian? Get ready to wait a year or two before Canada lets them in, and expect tons of questions about your sex life and genital description pop-quizzes. It's a brutal kafka-esq nightmare even for commonwealth countries.

CAPS LOCK BROKEN
Feb 1, 2006

by Fluffdaddy

Baronjutter posted:

Canada's visa system is famous for being one of the worst. It's a very very hard country to immigrate to. Married an australian? Get ready to wait a year or two before Canada lets them in, and expect tons of questions about your sex life and genital description pop-quizzes. It's a brutal kafka-esq nightmare even for commonwealth countries.

It seemed like a pretty straightforward system with points and stuff to me. Compare/contrast to America's 26 or so different visas, each with their own peculiarities and backlog.

Simulated
Sep 28, 2001
Lowtax giveth, and Lowtax taketh away.
College Slice
I actually looked at immigrating (for giggles) and even between developed countries it is insanely difficult, unless you have a boatload of money to invest in starting a business. Even if you can prove a history of being employed with marketable skills (like software development) and have enough cash on hand (say 50,000) it doesn't matter - unless you have a job offer from a corporate sponsor you can't even apply. That goes for US to UK, Canada, etc. I think you can immigrate if you own shares or part of a business, but the required amounts differ... I'd be curious if shifting my 401k into Canadian shares would count. To come to the US with an investor visa requires like a million bucks or something, but much less if you are buying or starting a business.*

It's easier to immigrate to Germany, as a US citizen you can even arrive first, then apply for permanent residency... you just need to pass a basic German language test.

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is... you would think the major developed countries would allow free migration but I presume it has something to do with the awful US healthcare system and lack of safety net, meaning tons of poor or sick people would flee if they could.


* Probably no incentive to change anything because rich people can immigrate freely simply by dumping a million bucks into a business, allowing them to skip all the rules and lines. This applies to the UK, Canada, various EU countries, and the USA.

Simulated fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 18, 2013

bring back old gbs
Feb 28, 2007

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Ender.uNF posted:

Probably no incentive to change anything because rich people can __________ freely simply by dumping a million bucks into ___________, allowing them to skip all the rules and lines. This applies to the whole world.

This post works best as a mad libs.

unlimited shrimp
Aug 30, 2008
I'm mostly concerned about all the people on 4% variable rate mortgages, who will have to fork out a couple hundred bucks every month if our interest rates return to historical norms. There are lots of houses here in Southern Ontario where their valuation just does not reflect the fundamentals in any way -- $400,000 townhouses sandwiched between two highways and a Pearson International flyover. Even a 1% increase on a $350,000 is killer.

JawKnee
Mar 24, 2007





You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line
Edited out. That teach me to just look for the CANADA tag in my favorites again.

JawKnee fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Feb 19, 2013

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

Did he mention housing bubbles at all??

JawKnee
Mar 24, 2007





You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

Baronjutter posted:

Did he mention housing bubbles at all??

Well poo poo. Wrong thread entirely.

vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Cultural Imperial posted:

To prevent Canada's economy from going the way of the rest of the world(remember we were in the throes of the financial crisis) the bank of Canada reduced interest rates. Additionally, lending standards were loosened by Flaherty and thus people who could nominally, not afford to buy a house, suddenly could.

Uhh what? Mortgage rules just got much more stringent over the past few years. Amortization was reduced to 25 years over the past 3ish years. Thats huge. You can't blame the federal CPC for housing at all.


Edit: Very significantly. Like a huge reduction.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/06/21/flaherty-mortgage-cmhc.html

vincentpricesboner fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 19, 2013

ocrumsprug
Sep 23, 2010

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

zapplez posted:

Uhh what? Mortgage rules just got much more stringent over the past few years. Amortization was reduced to 25 years over the past 3ish years. Thats huge. You can't blame the federal CPC for housing at all.


Edit: Very significantly. Like a huge reduction.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/06/21/flaherty-mortgage-cmhc.html

And all that change did was put it back to basically where it was in 2006, which is when 0 down/40 year mortgages were introduced. The CPC gets to wear this bubble proudly, as they most certainly are responsible for it.

namaste friends
Sep 18, 2004

by Smythe

zapplez posted:

Uhh what? Mortgage rules just got much more stringent over the past few years. Amortization was reduced to 25 years over the past 3ish years. Thats huge. You can't blame the federal CPC for housing at all.


Edit: Very significantly. Like a huge reduction.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/06/21/flaherty-mortgage-cmhc.html

You should Google when those revisions came into effect.

jet sanchEz
Oct 24, 2001

Lousy Manipulative Dog

ocrumsprug posted:

And all that change did was put it back to basically where it was in 2006, which is when 0 down/40 year mortgages were introduced. The CPC gets to wear this bubble proudly, as they most certainly are responsible for it.

And the whole reason for having stringent rules regarding lending was the Toronto housing crash of 1988/1989, basically what we saw in America from 2005 to 2008 but on a smaller scale. Were it not for those rules, instated by the Liberals in the early '90s, we would have been right alongside America, lending to people who cannot afford to pay, etc. The Canadian banks were begging the federal government to loosen up the rules but not until the CPC was elected did it happen.

Chlorine
Aug 27, 2004

Wow, look at that!
Last page had some Lethbian chat. I bought my house just before I graduated before the craziness hit this city. For comparison to where we were compared to where we are;

I paid 235K for a 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom house on a corner lot with a double garage and a covered deck. It was walking distance to the University (and what used to be called The Duke) This was less than 10 years ago.

Hearing it costs MORE for a house half the size is crazy. Lethbridge used to be the poor, dusty, badlands south of Calgary.

ocrumsprug
Sep 23, 2010

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

jet sanchEz posted:

And the whole reason for having stringent rules regarding lending was the Toronto housing crash of 1988/1989, basically what we saw in America from 2005 to 2008 but on a smaller scale. Were it not for those rules, instated by the Liberals in the early '90s, we would have been right alongside America, lending to people who cannot afford to pay, etc. The Canadian banks were begging the federal government to loosen up the rules but not until the CPC was elected did it happen.

It is a bit muddled in Vancouver as you could easily argue that the housing bubble here, started to inflate at least as early as 2002. Unfortunately when the CPC came to power and changed the rules it took an already ridiculous housing market here and goosed it into low orbit.

The rest of Canada is a bit late to the party*, but here is the hell we have been living with for a decade in lotus land.



* presumably

Excelsiortothemax
Sep 9, 2006
I wonder what a graph of median wages looks like. Bet it doesn't compete with that growth.

unlimited shrimp
Aug 30, 2008
Neither does population growth. Population has only grown by 10% since 2000 but the housing prices have more than doubled :downs:

I don't understand how anyone can look at the Vancouver market, see that the fundamentals simply do not support current prices, and then claim that this isn't a bubble.

e:
Looks like median household income in Metro Vancouver increased by 26.6% between 2001 & 2011. Overall inflation is around 2% per year during that period.

unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Feb 20, 2013

Mrs. Wynand
Nov 23, 2002

DLT 4EVA
So what exactly has caused the initial rise in prices in Vancouver anyway then? Was it just availability of credit? If so, why Vancouver? Or at least, why Vancouver so loving hard? Are the same credit terms not also available in Toronto and Montreal and so forth? AFAIK, Vancouver housing prices have gone up a full order of magnitude higher then any of those places.



Also, is there any way to guess what the market might actually settle on assuming a bust does happen? For example, if we just look at rises in immigration and income or whatever the gently caress real estate economists normally look at to predict the cost of housing when they aren't getting loopy from the optimism fumes.


Also the second, someone said earlier that if the wheels come off the economy rental prices may end up moving after all - but it wasn't clear which way. Well, first off, what would we realistically be talking about there? I am imagining a lot of people who planned on retired based on their real estate holdings are now hosed and banks getting stingy with loans (for housing or anything else) which means jobs down and generaly desperation up, but I'm not sure exactly what happens to the rental market... Possibly more people giving up on selling and instead putting houses up for rent (does that even affect rentals that much?) and way more people looking to rent instead of dreaming of ownership but also not being able to pay nearly as much, sooo... well I'm not sure - that's basically what I'm asking.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

The vancouver bubble was started because it's the best place on earth so naturally everyone wants to be here, hong kong found out and they bought EVERYTHING because it's the best place on earth. Everyone from the rest of canada also keeps buying it because it's the best place on earth. Because it's the best place on earth it's not actually a bubble but simply the price of living in such an amazing world-famous top tier city.

Simulated
Sep 28, 2001
Lowtax giveth, and Lowtax taketh away.
College Slice
Houses are an investment; they aren't making any more land :v:

I have no experience being a landlord but why not take out a 3/4 million loan and make the house into two apartments. I can make 300/month positive cash flow! :v:

Etc, etc.


In a way they are correct... But the market can remain depressed for years and you can end up taking a massive bath, having it sit unoccupied, and so on for years until it recovers.

Mrs. Wynand
Nov 23, 2002

DLT 4EVA
Right, well, thanks, but I already get that sort of explanation around around my in-laws' christmas table.

Can we see these sort of small-landlord rentals go up roughly in step with the rise in prices? (i've not heard of this) Is the splitting of single family homes into 5 lovely rentals a contributing cause to the rise in prices or simply a response to the rise in prices? (the latter seems far more plausible) Are people actually leaving so many apartments vacant while trying forever to sell them for a gazillion times their price? (a study from 2-3 years ago found this to be the case in less then 8% of apartments in downtown)

I will accept that Vancouver probably started out with a slight advantage in its supply of rich idiots but it is surely not composed primarily of them, and we must also wonder why this all happened now and not before and not in many other places.

This is most likely a combination of causes and conditions, but it would be nice go on more then the usual Vancouverite speculations and complaints at the pub.

shots shots shots
Sep 6, 2011

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Mr. Wynand posted:

Can we see these sort of small-landlord rentals go up roughly in step with the rise in prices? (i've not heard of this)

Isn't rental yield still pretty good in Vancouver? It seems like rents are high, which combined with low vacancy rates would make renting pretty financially viable, especially if you bought 4-5 years ago.

Edit: Some quick googling shows some selected Canadian city rental yields and those are pretty good. Vancouver isn't listed, but if the returns are anywhere near Toronto returns, it's not surprising that you'd have a lot of people from Asia buying them up. With savings rates what they are in Asia, anything over 1-2% is attractive, especially considering that doesn't even include capital appreciation, which is typically how non-professional real estate investors pick real estate.

shots shots shots fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Feb 22, 2013

jet sanchEz
Oct 24, 2001

Lousy Manipulative Dog

Mr. Wynand posted:

So what exactly has caused the initial rise in prices in Vancouver anyway then? Was it just availability of credit? If so, why Vancouver? Or at least, why Vancouver so loving hard? Are the same credit terms not also available in Toronto and Montreal and so forth? AFAIK, Vancouver housing prices have gone up a full order of magnitude higher then any of those places.

Toronto and Montreal are not bounded by the mountains, there is literally not enough land to go around in Vancouver. I realize that Montreal is an island but Montreal sprawls all over the place, as does Toronto. If you look back at property values in the US back when the poo poo started to hit the fan, prices in Manhattan actually went up. Also, Vancouver is not the best place in the world to live but that is for another thread.

JawKnee
Mar 24, 2007





You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

jet sanchEz posted:

Also, Vancouver is not the best place in the world to live but that is for another thread.

It's a joke, one of tourism BC's catchphrases that they pushed in every ad was 'best place on earth'.

unlimited shrimp
Aug 30, 2008

jet sanchEz posted:

Toronto and Montreal are not bounded by the mountains, there is literally not enough land to go around in Vancouver. I realize that Montreal is an island but Montreal sprawls all over the place, as does Toronto. If you look back at property values in the US back when the poo poo started to hit the fan, prices in Manhattan actually went up. Also, Vancouver is not the best place in the world to live but that is for another thread.
Does Vancouver have some ordinance about not building condos or apartment buildings? If a lovely bungalow is cresting $1,000,000 then maybe it's time to start tearing down the suburbs and putting up tower blocks.

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender

SpaceMost posted:

Does Vancouver have some ordinance about not building condos or apartment buildings? If a lovely bungalow is cresting $1,000,000 then maybe it's time to start tearing down the suburbs and putting up tower blocks.

The poo poo-storm that erupted when the city allowed densification along the Cambie corridor is indicative that a lot of the neighbourhoods will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

I agree however, densification is the solution for the long term.

Simulated
Sep 28, 2001
Lowtax giveth, and Lowtax taketh away.
College Slice

Mr. Wynand posted:

Right, well, thanks, but I already get that sort of explanation around around my in-laws' christmas table.

Can we see these sort of small-landlord rentals go up roughly in step with the rise in prices? (i've not heard of this) Is the splitting of single family homes into 5 lovely rentals a contributing cause to the rise in prices or simply a response to the rise in prices? (the latter seems far more plausible) Are people actually leaving so many apartments vacant while trying forever to sell them for a gazillion times their price? (a study from 2-3 years ago found this to be the case in less then 8% of apartments in downtown)

I will accept that Vancouver probably started out with a slight advantage in its supply of rich idiots but it is surely not composed primarily of them, and we must also wonder why this all happened now and not before and not in many other places.

This is most likely a combination of causes and conditions, but it would be nice go on more then the usual Vancouverite speculations and complaints at the pub.

Sorry my answer was a bit glib, but there is an element of truth to it.

Easy money enables people to buy bigger, better, or closer houses. That enables the current owners to move up a peg. The high home prices make previously unprofitable rentals into (sometimes barely) profitable ones. People pile on the bandwagon until the crash.

Eventually terrain and/or commute times put an upper bound on the amount of developable land and redevelopment by tearing down houses to make condos/apartments takes place, evening out the supply. But apartments are not a perfect substitute for a house with a yard and other things like zoning restrictions, school districts, etc affect how much land can be redeveloped either from a legal perspective or a profitability perspective. Adjustments also take a lot of time, so inertia can be a big factor.

I don't think you can find a real answer for exactly why these cycles get started, except the already known factors of easy money, limited supply, and irrational idiots. What we do know is the is a limited supply of people with enough income (or just enough easy money) to support the massive run up in prices and when the input of first-time buyers starts drying up the whole thing ripples up the chain and crashes the market.

I suspect the trigger events tend to be some sector of the city's economy starts booming or investors buy houses at depressed prices to flip, but I've never seen any legit research on it, just economist's pet theories dressed up as such.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

Vancouver: a place with not enough condo towers.




Oh well that's just the downtown peninsula, maybe they need to add some density in the burbs, maybe pack condo towers around every transit station!





Oh I guess they've got that covered too.

But there's still tons of room. There's whole streets of mostly HOUSES and 2-3 story apartments on the peninsula. Although that's part of the charm, specially of the middle/west end area. I'm sure they could go full on hong-kong but I'm not sure it would help the situation since the prices aren't so much supply/demand based but insane bubble based.

ocrumsprug
Sep 23, 2010

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Mr. Wynand posted:

Can we see these sort of small-landlord rentals go up roughly in step with the rise in prices? (i've not heard of this) Is the splitting of single family homes into 5 lovely rentals a contributing cause to the rise in prices or simply a response to the rise in prices? (the latter seems far more plausible) Are people actually leaving so many apartments vacant while trying forever to sell them for a gazillion times their price? (a study from 2-3 years ago found this to be the case in less then 8% of apartments in downtown)

***INCOMING ANECDOTE***
A commentator at one of the local bear blogs, who has mls access, did a quick scan through occupancy codes for what is currently available for sale. I cannot find the post at the moment, but it was something north of 20% of for sale properties were currently unoccupied.

Turning big old houses into 3-5 unit apartment buildings has been a fine Vancouver tradition since the early 20th century. I suspect that it is a response to rents that have always been a bit high. What is new over the last decade is taking a lot, tearing it down and building a new 3 unit strata (front, back duplex with garden suite). This is likewise a response to rising prices. At some level you have to know when you purchase a spec property for 1.2 million, that actually getting someone to give you 1.6 million in a year is going to be tough. However, finding three different suckers to give you 700-900K for a new build is feasible.

There were honest to god, 750K basement suites for sale here in 2012.

Mrs. Wynand
Nov 23, 2002

DLT 4EVA

shots shots shots posted:

Isn't rental yield still pretty good in Vancouver? It seems like rents are high, which combined with low vacancy rates would make renting pretty financially viable, especially if you bought 4-5 years ago.

Edit: Some quick googling shows some selected Canadian city rental yields and those are pretty good. Vancouver isn't listed, but if the returns are anywhere near Toronto returns, it's not surprising that you'd have a lot of people from Asia buying them up. With savings rates what they are in Asia, anything over 1-2% is attractive, especially considering that doesn't even include capital appreciation, which is typically how non-professional real estate investors pick real estate.

I dunno about the returns being comparable to Toronto - rent is a bit lower here then the Toronto figures as far as I can tell, and my experience is mostly from around Downtown which is the most ridiculous area. I do know for sure that rent has been going up faaaar slower then prices, so I really don't think the rental yield might have poo poo all to do with anything. It's also somewhat telling that development of rental apartment buildings has pretty much stopped over the last 10 years.


If rental yields were especially high 10-15 years ago... well that might be more credible. Excess capital from Asia needing a safe place to go, combined with a recently favorable image of Vancouver as a "very livable city" (THE BEST PLACE ON EARTH) might have started a slight trend upwards that was then exaggerated by speculators. But this is just guesswork.


How many purchases from 2000 onwards were actually made with Hong-Kong money? The popular belief is "LOTS", but that is driven by no small amount of not-too-subtly racist mistrust... I've certainly never seen hard numbers backing the claim. If all we're going with is anecdotes, well my own anecdotes are that most landlords I've met are people that have lived in Vancouver for a while now - most of them are immigrants but that's because of most of Vancouver's population is immigrants.

Mrs. Wynand
Nov 23, 2002

DLT 4EVA

Ender.uNF posted:

I suspect the trigger events tend to be some sector of the city's economy starts booming or investors buy houses at depressed prices to flip, but I've never seen any legit research on it, just economist's pet theories dressed up as such.

There must be some figures that can point out probable "speculative buyers". Vacant units of course, but also maybe also rental properties that just change hands a lot. If we see relatively sudden rises in these starting in the 2000s, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that this is basically what is to blame (together with cheap money).

Mrs. Wynand
Nov 23, 2002

DLT 4EVA
It really would be great to know what the vacant unit figures are city-wide just because that would give us a better picture of what the post-collapse market would look like.

I do agree that all the properly urban areas are already pretty dense - so unless that figure is significant then prices will probably still be quite high (just not astronomically so).

There is lots more land that isn't that dense (the middle of the triangle formed by broadway, grandville and marine for example), but I don't think it can actually be made more dense without transit. Really, I think the only hope for this city no matter how you turn it is more transit. There is just no other way to grow, not within nor without in the suburbs.

Of course the recent political inclinations have instead been to spend all transportation budgets on that loving bridge I hate it so much, so now all skytrain expansion plans have been pushed back and they are still faffing around deciding on streetcars. But it's ok because we're going to have an influx of commuters over that loving bridge god I hate it who will now be able to get stall at the grandview exit 50% faster then before, will completely gridlock the distribution and then park their cars up in Burnaby or something because nobody seems to have noticed that you also need to increase the capacity of everything after that loving bridge loving gently caress to actually get anything out of it. But hey, you need another $1.3B to finish it? Sure, why the gently caress not, we'll just close some bike lane programs worth several HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars.

THAT loving BRIDGE

312
Nov 7, 2012
I give terrible advice in E/N and post nothing worth anybody's time.

i might be a social cripple irl

Mr. Wynand posted:

So what exactly has caused the initial rise in prices in Vancouver anyway then? Was it just availability of credit? If so, why Vancouver? Or at least, why Vancouver so loving hard? Are the same credit terms not also available in Toronto and Montreal and so forth? AFAIK, Vancouver housing prices have gone up a full order of magnitude higher then any of those places.




The largest part is the cheap money. Why Vancouver in particular? Well I don't know Canada all that well, but in the US it heated up the most (and crashed the hardest) in places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and so on.... cities that weren't really built up all that much prior to the boom, had lots of room for growth and were considered highly undervauled. Mostly places that could handle a lot of sprawl. If I had to guess it was probably harder to put more people into Toronto, but I could be way off.

E: on the other hand, as someone already mentioned- maybe there is no exact reason, but Vancouver took off first, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy that you could make the most money speculating there.

312 fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Feb 23, 2013

312
Nov 7, 2012
I give terrible advice in E/N and post nothing worth anybody's time.

i might be a social cripple irl
Possibly relevant:





e: im not really sure if I'm seeing a very concrete explaination for why say Miami exploded and dallas stayed level (it's not on this graph, but miami was actually the worse crash in the US)

312 fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Feb 23, 2013

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender
Didn't Texas suffer the least when the banks started to implode? I seem to recall that their laws allowed them to weather the storm far better than the rest of the states save for one of the Dakotas. It doesn't explain Florida though.

312
Nov 7, 2012
I give terrible advice in E/N and post nothing worth anybody's time.

i might be a social cripple irl
But they didn't really have a crash so there wasn't anything to weather. I'm not sure if there's laws that prevented it from occurring in the first place or what though, it's a bit odd.

Anyway what is really interesting to me is how we were told other countries (Australia in particular, but to a lesser extent canada) 'handled' the mortgage crisis, but it seems it just happened in the US first. Though, for the most part money fleeing into housing from dot com stocks was the reason for the US bubble in the first place, so I wouldn't be surprised that the money rebubbled elsewhere after it fled US housing.

312 fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Feb 23, 2013

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

jet sanchEz
Oct 24, 2001

Lousy Manipulative Dog
Yeah, the Canadian banks stuck to the story that they were not bailed out but it came to light in 2012 that they had been bailed out, to the tune of $114 billion. I believe the rationale behind not making it publicly known was so as not to create a panic but, yeah, our banks hosed up just as bad as the American ones.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply