|
Baronjutter posted:I'm totally cool with a tiny bedroom. What the hell do I do in there but sleep and get dressed?
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
It does depend if you're living with a partner. I know the simple fact of having enough room to enter and exit the bed on both sides of it, and each side having a bedside table/drawer is a nice plus for a couple on a queen size bed. When I lived by myself though, I definitely just wanted a tiny cubby hole with space for a closet and drawers. Thats essentially what I live in now till I move in with the gf in September.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:It does depend if you're living with a partner. I know the simple fact of having enough room to enter and exit the bed on both sides of it, and each side having a bedside table/drawer is a nice plus for a couple on a queen size bed. When I lived by myself though, I definitely just wanted a tiny cubby hole with space for a closet and drawers. Thats essentially what I live in now till I move in with the gf in September. Pretty much this. Also I keep my bookshelves in the bedroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Wow you guys sure like the fine life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Mexplosivo posted:Wow you guys sure like the fine life. Not bumping my knees on the wall when getting out of bed, is how I know I'm middle class in Vancouver. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
SHUT UP PLEBES. STOP COMPLAINING AND BE GRATEFUL YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LAY YOUR EYES UPON THE BEST PLACE ON EARTH
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Flaherty out. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/finance-minister-jim-flaherty-resigns-from-cabinet/article17549674/ He'll show up as a 'senior advisor' at a law firm or Vice / Deputy Chair at a bank. His job description will be a euphemism for 'Provides access, but totally not in a way which violates lobbying laws'. See Kevin Lynch at BMO for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:He'll show up as a 'senior advisor' at a law firm or Vice / Deputy Chair at a bank. His job description will be a euphemism for 'Provides access, but totally not in a way which violates lobbying laws'. See Kevin Lynch at BMO for example. Nah. Chairman of a lobbying firm.. That's how Tories roll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Rhobot Mk. II posted:Nah. Chairman of a lobbying firm.. That's how Tories roll. Same hat, different head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cam-good/vancouver-real-estate-millennials_b_4958982.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business&ir=Canada%20Business Gentle Millenials, Cam "fake Asian buyers" good says you should buy a 300k shitbox in the dtes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cam-good/vancouver-real-estate-millennials_b_4958982.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business&ir=Canada%20Business I'm so sick of this fucker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cam-good/vancouver-real-estate-millennials_b_4958982.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business&ir=Canada%20Business lol Of course, the picture those numbers painted isn't all rosy. A full 18 per cent of our respondents have no savings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
http://m.scmp.com/news/china/article/1453230/chinese-welcome-canadas-new-investor-visa-stricter-rules-apply The new immigration/pedophile minister says immigration program was being flouted by mainlanders. Doubles down. Btw, he says he thinks mainlanders had no impact on Canada's housing market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Everything has an impact, but I don't see how mainland Chinese investors are market-movers in Vancouver-area housing. There are too few of them, and there's too much cheap money to be had, for anything other than the "prices will always go up in the best place on earth" mentality to be the actual driving force behind the bubble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Everything has an impact, but I don't see how mainland Chinese investors are market-movers in Vancouver-area housing. There are too few of them, and there's too much cheap money to be had, for anything other than the "prices will always go up in the best place on earth" mentality to be the actual driving force behind the bubble. I agree mostly, but they clearly dominate the top part of the market (West Van and so on). Certain people like to deny this, but it's inconsistent with reality. I mean, hell, Vancouver doctors and so on can't even afford that real estate - not even close. The money being used for that is exogenous. Of course, millionaire Chinese mainlanders are not the reason a crap condo on East Broadway costs 400k. Blame the BPOEers for that one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenRabidoux/status/447152267961867584quote:RUH ROH: "A major player in mortgage syndication field recently entered financial difficulties with at least two projects in foreclosure" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker/status/446841040520351744quote:Inflation adjusted returns, 1928-2013:
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
From today's Globe and Mailquote:Even the innumerate become Stephen Hawking when thoughts turn to real estate. Which they do, inevitably, if you’re within sight of middle age. The corners of the mind once given over to daydreams of sex are now filled with high-efficiency furnaces and creeping rootballs and double-, no, triple-glazed windows. Is the housing column usually this melodramatic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
The one problem with this analysis is that there isn't vast infrastructure, including government guarantee schemes and tax incentives, to let you lever yourself 20x to buy stocks. No wonder people think housing wins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:The one problem with this analysis is that there isn't vast infrastructure, including government guarantee schemes and tax incentives, to let you lever yourself 20x to buy stocks. I understand the gist of what you're saying, but there are 100's of billions of dollars in margin on the major western exchanges, it's definitely possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
There are also futures and options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I understand the gist of what you're saying, but there are 100's of billions of dollars in margin on the major western exchanges, it's definitely possible. Not to Joe Canuck with $15000 in his pocket and shaky employment there isn't. But we'll happily let him get a $300,000 mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
On the other side of the coin here folks, you can't live in your stocks. Let's not all turn into robots in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:On the other side of the coin here folks, you can't live in your stocks. No, but you can live in the rental accommodations paid for by their dividends  For the record, in no way am I claiming to never buy real estate ever. Just pointing out the uneven comparison of these 'investment returns'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:On the other side of the coin here folks, you can't live in your stocks. Thanks bro I just spit cereal all over my phone
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:On the other side of the coin here folks, you can't live in your stocks. In a lot of situations, buying a house still doesn't make sense if you compare it to renting. And most of the people that are going to default on their houses didn't just buy it to have a place to live.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
People may act like they know it all about markets when they buy a house, but the reality is on some level they're aware they don't know much about investment. Housing is largely a common market, especially within a region, so if I buy this house or that house or the other house I can reasonably expect a similar return no matter which one I get. Investing in stocks requires diversifying your assets, doing some prep work and keeping track of things in a way most people are unwilling or unable to do. It might not be the smart choice, especially right now, but when you combine that with the ability to leverage your money much more on a house, plus the emotional and practical reasons people buy houses, it's understandable that people make these choices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:People may act like they know it all about markets when they buy a house, but the reality is on some level they're aware they don't know much about investment. Housing is largely a common market, especially within a region, so if I buy this house or that house or the other house I can reasonably expect a similar return no matter which one I get. Investing in stocks requires diversifying your assets, doing some prep work and keeping track of things in a way most people are unwilling or unable to do. It might not be the smart choice, especially right now, but when you combine that with the ability to leverage your money much more on a house, plus the emotional and practical reasons people buy houses, it's understandable that people make these choices. This is very accurate. A family member, who already owns a house (in Victoria) recently came into an inheritance and asked me for my opinion on whether they should buy a rental property. I wrote down a sound, but comprehensible list of reasons why it was a bad idea, including the poor rental income returns relative to the capital invested, the indivisibility and illiquidity of the asset, the high transaction costs, the limited potential for capital gains given the stretched price:income figures, the poor geographical and asset diversification, etc, etc. I also came up with an alternative investment strategy involving stock indexes, REITs, preferred shares, GIC laddering, etc, and explained how it was arguably far less risky due to the diversification and liquidity, and had better potential returns. He basically ignored what I said (didn't challenge or question me, or ask for more particulars) - he's set on doing it regardless, and was basically just seeking validation from me. He's ploughing ahead with the rental condo purchase. Welp. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Lexicon : lol loving people
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:No, but you can live in the rental accommodations paid for by their dividends It pretty much what economist Robert Shiller of shiller housing index fame recommends given all the downsides of "investing" in real estate. Something like a balanced stock portfolio is a better investment due to better liquity and also how you can easily hedge your bets by purchasing different types of investments such as bonds, stocks, commodity ETFs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
etalian posted:Something like a balanced stock portfolio is a better investment due to better liquity and also how you can easily hedge your bets by purchasing different types of investments such as bonds, stocks, commodity ETFs. And, of course, if you have a really good feeling about the real estate market, you can buy stocks in companies that stand to benefit from a hot market, instead of tying up a whole bunch of your assets (and likely going into debt) to have a giant, illiquid thing that you need to upkeep and pay taxes on every year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
According to Robert Shiller it's actually no return or even negative especially when you take into account all the hidden costs of home ownership plus how housing construction costs decrease over time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Lexicon : lol The worst part is: it'll probably work out fine, he'll get the rental income, pay the taxes and recurring costs, have it for years, and get some amount of capital back that seems reasonable in realtor-math terms, and then conclude he's the financial genius and I'm a moron (being totally unaware of the opportunity cost and the risk incurred). Sigh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:The worst part is: it'll probably work out fine, he'll get the rental income, pay the taxes and recurring costs, have it for years, and get some amount of capital back that seems reasonable in realtor-math terms, and then conclude he's the financial genius and I'm a moron (being totally unaware of the opportunity cost and the risk incurred). Sigh. Pretty much the biggest risk with the real estate "investment" is putting all the eggs in one basket not to mention having no easy liquidity for the investment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
etalian posted:Pretty much the biggest risk with the real estate "investment" is putting all the eggs in one basket not to mention having no easy liquidity for the investment. Agreed. But for most people, that point simply doesn't even enter their brain, and if it ever does, it's quickly rejected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:The worst part is: it'll probably work out fine, he'll get the rental income, pay the taxes and recurring costs, have it for years, and get some amount of capital back that seems reasonable in realtor-math terms, and then conclude he's the financial genius and I'm a moron (being totally unaware of the opportunity cost and the risk incurred). Sigh. Maybe four years ago, but I think we're on the cusp of a generational butt-plundering in terms of real estate values, so I think bankruptcy and/or shirtlesness are a more likely outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Agreed. But for most people, that point simply doesn't even enter their brain, and if it ever does, it's quickly rejected. Yeah the whole housing is the best investment is too ingrained despite all the contrary evidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Maybe four years ago, but I think we're on the cusp of a generational butt-plundering in terms of real estate values, so I think bankruptcy and/or shirtlesness are a more likely outcome. You know, I agree with this logic. But I also felt this way 3 years ago, and nothing has changed. In the absence of any exogenous shock, maybe Canada is just a place doomed to have expensive real estate always, thanks to cultural and policy influence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Not bumping my knees on the wall when getting out of bed, is how I know I'm middle class in Vancouver. Out of curiosity, what is the sort of "average" size for a 2-bedroom apartment in the city? We are a family of three and we just moved in December to a new apartment, which is a bit bigger than our last one, we're at 91 sqm now and it feels just right. Not too cramped, not too big, plus we have a separate kitchen which is nice. I do know that a lot of new development projects here tend to keep the 2-bedroom apartment size around 70 sqm rather than 90, I was wondering if it was the same in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
OhYeah posted:Out of curiosity, what is the sort of "average" size for a 2-bedroom apartment in the city? We are a family of three and we just moved in December to a new apartment, which is a bit bigger than our last one, we're at 91 sqm now and it feels just right. Not too cramped, not too big, plus we have a separate kitchen which is nice. I do know that a lot of new development projects here tend to keep the 2-bedroom apartment size around 70 sqm rather than 90, I was wondering if it was the same in Canada. 65 Square Meters is the Average for a 2 Bedroom apartment, can go +/- 10m for basement suites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 16:34
|
|
