|
dethslayer666 posted:But of course real estate agents have a much better idea of what's going on in the housing market than the banks do It's a reputable occupation similar to used car salesmen.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:You piqued my interest and I just had to look this up. You did not disappoint. What. The. gently caress. Is. This. poo poo. nothing like living in a steel garage for $370,000
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
AKA articles written to make greedy agents and banks richer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Like.. the loving opening paragraph is just a list of every home-ownership falsehood out there. The entire tone of the article reads like a cheesy sales pitch. How is that an article and not one of those ads-that-looks-like-an-article things papers sometimes have? I guess since that distinction is long gone? I expected the final line to end with a encouragement to buy timeshares in Florida.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Rime posted:Assuming D-Wave or General Fusion doesn't turn Burnaby into a crater, of course. Maybe instead the experiments will open the door to a parallel universe which has good Vancouver?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:The spreadsheet is valuable not because it helps you predict the actual outcome (you can plug in all sorts of far more pessimistic numbers in it and still come out ahead), but to see what a huge difference fiddling with numbers can make. You're right on the money when you say it's about volatility. That's exactly the point - people are putting a third of the money they don't even have yet into this single, actually really quite risky investment. It's a even worse asset due to the complete lack liquidity unlike a stock investment where you can sell underperforming stocks or even cash out of portion of nice stocks if you need money in a pinch. The only people who have a belief in their home being a great investment are people who actually believe biased rent vs. buy articles.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Rime posted:Not that amazing, Blair was pretty big on sucking the private enterprise cock and serving up public services on a silver platter. Yeah he made a great reflection in many ways to all the geniuses in the Bush administration.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:Because gently caress the suburbs and gently caress all the suburbanites who think their godawful wasteful lifestyles should be subsidized and the true costs externalized. If you want to live in suburbia, then pay the price of living in suburbia. And making life easier for cars is never a long term solution since it just encourages people to live farther and father away like in the US. Eventually the "upgrades" fall apart since the convenience of the car eventually encourages traffic jams and hellish commutes due to capacity being chewed up. There's a good reason why sensible urban plan focus on mass transit, biking and walking while punishing car use.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've still never heard why a Vienna model couldn't work here or anywhere not Vienna. Because Vienna had the advantage of owning a quarter of the rentable real-estate directly and also have a controlling stake in another quarter of privately run companies that still follow strict instructions from the city. So it basically the city has control or at least indirectly influences of 50% of the entire real estate market. It's sort of tough to switch down the road once a majority of the housing is in the hands of private companies short of doing a crazy nationalization plan. So pretty much Vienna had the advantage of buying up a majority of stock and leveraging with a tightly controlled private sector the rest of the housing assets in a plan that started in the 1920s. It's a really attractive model especially given the vast improvement vs. horrible US style public housing since you have real free market competition and brilliant building designs to win over the city approval.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's seems like it's something cities should be getting into more of. Specially poorer cities that have already had their local marketed devastated, good time for the city to jump in and start socializing that poo poo. Yeah it's not something that happened overnight, more like years and years of carefully buying up property and also working with private rental companies to provide quality housing at a reasonable price. It's a good example of shared costs and a tamed free market providing something better for the end user. It's also neat how in the Vienna model you can inherit a good rental deal from your parents and are also allowed to upgrade your housing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:I make substantially less than the average doctor in Alberta since I work at a homeless clinic, and when I got the mortgage for my house the bank told me I would be approved for $1.4 million. Which would be on top of the $140K I still owed on my condo. I politely told them that was loving insane and proceeded to get a house that my wife and I could afford. I think a substantial part of the housing bubble is that the banks are still WAY too eager to lend enormous amounts of money to people for very little down. Yeah it was one of the main factor the 2009 recession since banks through all risk vs reward analysis out the window in their pursuit keeping the loan machine going.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Bleu posted:Better to just link right to his blog post, so you can see the diagrams, too. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/worthwhile-canadian-comparison/ Looks like Canada even beat the price inflation vs the US compared to the 1970 reference point. I guess having a better regulated systems just makes the bubble length of time longer before reaching the crash and burn turnover point?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Ahem, so - when the bubble crashes, what happens? Housing starts and occupancy are roughly the same short of an oversupply of condos in the downtown core, so builders will make houses still. (I am actually more familiar with BILD, having worked with their chair for a while, and I don't see any reason to doubt they'll still keep building out the GTHA in the event of a condo crash.) There will be a short term market shock from the condo bubble bursting, and it might drag down prices a bit. However, we're not really afraid of any kind of runaway bullshit like the Americans are we? The economy won't take as much of a hit, people will still make mortgage payments, CHMC will remain solvent, they're not overleveraged with crazy mortgage derivatives.. The other issue is the inflated prices of housing tends to encourage bad things such as equity lines of credit, in Krugman's graphs you can see the debt ratio creeping up over time. I guess the main Canadian hope is it will be more of a controlled disaster with a bubble deflation rather bursting unlike the USA/2009 domino effect.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I think the global context any putative housing bubble pop happens in matters as much as the structure of the debt here in Canada, doesn't it? If it happens in the midst of (or as a result of) a global slowdown that involves a Chinese debt crisis and a decrease in demand for oil, the consequences are likely to be more dire than if it somehow happens as a result of endogenous factors in the context of strong demand for Canadian goods. Either way is there even such a thing as a gradual bubble crash? The bubble process always seem to blow in a spectacular fashion such as in the classic tulip story or ol' time stock exchange bubble in England when people bought shares based on a New World nutty gold venture.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:You are correct in your assumptions, a crash is never exactly gradual and the dynamics of the market are to blame: when for example property prices first get stuck, then begin to stall, investors will begin to leave the game for another, which will quickly begin to deflate demand which is artificially high due to said investors being on the market in the first place. In the case of property bubble there's also all the collateral damage since the home equity honey money suddenly being yanked out of the system and banks realizing they suddenly have lots of loan payments stalling at the same time. I guess all the Canadian system accomplished was just stretching out the bubble time period, looking at the 200+ home price index vs. 1970 it's basically a bubble despite somewhat wise regulation. The current Canada home ownership rate is currently 70% which means it even surpassed the US by another metric and will make the bubble crash even more impressive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:You are correct in your assumptions, a crash is never exactly gradual and the dynamics of the market are to blame: when for example property prices first get stuck, then begin to stall, investors will begin to leave the game for another, which will quickly begin to deflate demand which is artificially high due to said investors being on the market in the first place. Yeah lots of articles talk about the hope of a "soft land" gradual correction over time but doesn't seem possible when the bubble has inflated prices above 200% vs. 1970 baseline. I imagine some places taking advantage of the big energy export boom such as Calgary will fare better but markets such as Vancouver will see some really impressive corrections. The Vancouver crackhouse or mansion website was brilliant. It's pretty much the sad US situation again
etalian fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:
Yeah I image there's hope that the stricter leveraging ratios/better rainy day equity would lead to a slow deflation rather than a big crash but from things such as increasing debt ratios/Inflated home prices it looks like the US situation many ways. There's also the commodity market risk as well since the big energy exports are another big factor sustaining the bubble. etalian fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:If you catch a bubble fast enough, and like all things dirty; the bubble is identified, then the bubble usually self deflates. When bubbles get too big, then often times monetary easing is unable to slow down the speculation, that leads to a blowout (often an earnings miss that creates a resonance cascade like 1987 or 1999). For all other times, bubbles are pretty normal things, much like a pot of soup that just simmers along so long as the system is still liquid and there is still confidence in your experiment (soup or market structure, take your pick of analogy). The big problem with real estate bubbles is the obvious cure of jacking up interest rates will bring on a decent recession bump and on the political side no one wants responsibility for wrecking something good. Especially since there are many parties happy in the bubble from real estate developers to the whole financial sector. Also for the Canadian housing bubble it's not just about nice interset rates and other things to encourage home ownership. A good amount of process is driven by big China bringing in hard cash through Canadian energy exports/big capital investments, it's similar to how Australia "survived" the 2009 crisis much better than many other places.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:Genuinely curious, is there a better rent vs. buy calculator than the NYT one? When I play around with it, even with very, very conservative numbers I can get the break-even point to be around 5 years. The Rent vs. Buy equation assumes stable equity appreciation, pretty amusing to see people desperate to buy a overpriced condo even after seeing the USA real estate crash horror stories. From measurements such as home ownership and price inflation the bubble has even surpassed the US numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:"Renting is just throwing money away" is a piece of conventional wisdom so stupid that it is barely worth responding to. It's like saying 'beer before liquor, never been sicker' and then making the largest purchase of your life based on that. Yeah plus due to math the first few years of a mortgage are mainly interest payments so money is being "thrown away" on interest payments. Condo fees can also balloon out of control over time adding even more monthly cost.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
It's really foolish to do money stretching just buy into things such as a real estate agent trying to sell you on the new house/condo thrill. It much more important to leave within your means in terms of monthly house cost, have actual leftover money each month for savings and the fighting will be much much worse if you run into a money problem with your better half after buying a bubble property. Home ownership tends to be less in the high cost European countries such as Germany with only 40%, even though it's not consistent some of the southern EU countries have pretty high rates. Somewhat off-topic but my favorite model for non-sucking renting is the Vienna mode: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/vienna-model-public-housing-presented-by-austrian-cultural-forum_n_3054446.html It's heavily subsidized by the government but has many great features such as being able to do home improvement on the rental. The whole economic model also produce reasonably priced good looking class A quality buildings with reasonable rents, with lots of other extras such as family members being able to "inherit" the same rental terms if they so desire. etalian fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
I guess I commute from a victoria condo to vancouver isn't bad if you have the right transportation: http://www.delib.net/dblog/the-most-epic-commute-in-the-world-vancouver-to-victoria/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/owning-a-home-isnt-always-a-virtue.html?ref=business&_r=1& It's more pro to subsidize home rental such as in the Vienna model. Encouraging home ownership is basically giving people a good reason to place all the eggs in one basket, ruins labor mobility and also encourages the accumulation of debt through equity lines of credit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
It's not really home ownership more like home debtorship.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:This doesn't sound like a very ringing endorsement of his own policy, since generally both Swiss and Americans want to own houses, and yet, many more Americans than Swiss are actually able to realize their dream of house ownership. The goal of any public policy should be to maximize the standard of living of the average citizen, so how is this policy that leaves the majority of Swiss in a state of relative misery a good thing? Because looking at a home as some sort of wise investment like stocks or a handy piggy bank creates a bad mentality for people as shown by the 2009 recession. It's also not leverage for additional investment in the financial sense most people in the US used the home equity to pay for things such as vacations, college bills or even more home upgrades. Basically subsidizing home ownership through things such as the US mortgage interest deduction encourages bad long-term financial behavior which cancels out any benefit from "improving the standard of living". A better goal for a country would be something similar to the Vienna model or at the very least not encouraging a devastating boom-bust cycle in real estate. At least in the US it's another case of deja vu: http://www.jsonline.com/business/home-equity-lines-of-credit-are-starting-to-make-a-comeback-av98oq7-199691851.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/29/political_economy_of_homeownership_a_disaster_area.html Yeah something like the Vienna model makes more sense to focus on affordable housing for everyone instead of constant cycle of boom and bust speculation. Plus probably a good idea to getting rid of the incentives such as interest deduction for all the dangerous credit entanglements that result from people being able to take HELOC out on their bubble houses.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Are there any sources that can ballpark what different housing markets are about to do, as well as interest rates? For people relocating I would recommend at least renting a full-year to make sure the job pans out Ok, city quality life is good and it also gives you more time to scope out the neighborhood. Baronjutter posted:I tried with my friend in Vancouver but she's buying a condo now. She got pretty upset saying that renting is throwing away money, that it's always been her dream to own, prices keep going up so she's a fool not to buy now because if she waits she'll be priced out, and also it's not about the money it's about the piece of mind knowing you own. It's also in a lovely neighbourhood far away from jobs and friends. Most people don't realize from math perspective the first few years of home ownership is throwing away money since the principal amounts are really low for the first years of 30 year fixed loan. Plus the whole stupidity of moving into the not so nice neighborhood away from things such the job location or good local amenities just to experience the home ownership hype. etalian fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Dear Penthouse, Should I buy a house in the middle of a obvious bubble?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:Interesting article in thestar.com today about the glut of new $1m+ condos on the market in Toronto. Estimates 2yrs to work through the oversupply. Prices can only get higher.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Maybe the real solution is to just get a condo in the other Vancouver?
etalian fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Pretty sad how Canada followed the US mistake of encouraging home ownership instead of the more useful goal of home affordability. I'd rather be renting for a reasonable monthly cost like in the Vienna model instead of playing the "home investment" speculation game. Then there's repeating all the mistakes such as creating moral hazard by getting into the mortgage business, so when the house of cards falls apart it swallow millions of dollars in bailout assistance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:In terms of government policy how do you encourage affordability vs ownership? Off-topic but you can look up a interesting solution called the Vienna model for housing. Wouldn't work for most cities since it depends on municipal government owning vast tracts of land in the city instead of private parties. This allows the city government to cut deals with developers to expand or convert existing buildings to high quality class A rental units. So the developer gets a chance to develop nice properties for a decent return over the lease agreement while the city government is able to provide both affordable and quality housing. The Vienna model also gives the renters unique home ownership features such as being able to remodel their rental properties and also pass on the rental properties to their kids. Pretty much makes more sense from instead of going with the US speculation model which places a higher priority on the appreciation "investment" aspect of housing instead of focusing on keep the price affordable in terms of income for the area and also keep the housing inflation expenses flat over time. Also throwing out the "investment" perspective helps prevent the nasty entanglement with the beloved banking sector through government back of the private mortgage market or having the government held hostage when the bubbles explodes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Whiteycar posted:So let's assume the market correction is going to happen sometime within the next 2 years. Just look at the US 2009 real estate meltdown for a good guide of what will happen. There are some small differences such as canadian banks being a bit better in terms of rainy day funds but still is really ugly when you get the post-bubble rapid asset deflation. Just messes up the economy in so many ways from the HELOC injections into the economy suddenly drying up, rapid destruction of local government tax base and also other businesses such as construction getting trashed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Scald posted:I'm not sure Alberta is the best example here given our economy is based largely on resource extraction, when that goes to poo poo so will our housing prices but somehow I don't see the price of oil dropping anytime soon nor the tar sands being exhausted. Would require something really drastic such as the next door neighbor dramatically reducing oil dependence. In many ways the US relationship in the mess is similar to the one between China and Australia, piles of energy exports to the US market brings in piles of hard cash which helps pump things up such as the local housing market for oil metros.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:While this is impossible in most Canadian cities, from first glance this seems to be very, very possible in Halifax. Mostly because there are no actual tenants besides the big entertainment complexes/cabaret bars really left in the downtown area. I rarely like the idea of private-public partnerships but this actually seems like a very good way to take care of two problems at once. It also encourages competition since the lease agreements with the city government are really attractive to private companies and they do some really innovative design work/attractive architecture to help win the bids. The whole concept really depends on federal level subsidies but makes more sense than inadvertently helping out real estate speculation such as in the Canadian bubble.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Wait, 0% down? Does that actually mean you don't have to put a downpayment on a house to get a mortgage for it? Please tell me I'm mistaken, because that sounds totally nuts. Yup we had the same craziness in the US, even though the companies have something called PMI which adds extra cost for no money down home loans. ocrumsprug posted:As home ownership is slightly under 70% of the population you can bet that there are a lot of people that don't want 2003 house prices again. Luckily they cannot hold it back forever so their interests at some point become immaterial. ie. The American and Irish home owners probably weren't terribly keen on the last 5-6 year either. Which is another interesting note vs. the US bubble, Canada already exceeded the US peak bubble numbers for home ownership. etalian fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Coylter posted:The most amazing thing is i have a few people around me who JUST bought houses. Like the bubble doesn't even exist. Prices can only get higher!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Read back in the thread for everything people told BaronJutter to do. He eventually convinced her. Yeah people really buy into the home ownership is amazing mythos even though the whole bubble situation makes it a risky idea and in some cases people could even get less yearly cost by renting. Owning a condo can get costly over time due to things such as a gradual creep up in things such as the condo association fee.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:And my cousin just moved out there to save up $15k working at McDonald's for a few months Yeah the Wild West nature of the energy boomtowns makes the cost of living really expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Speaking of bubbles here's a article supporting another delusional mindset that drives the real estate market: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/business/economy/as-renters-move-in-and-neighborhoods-change-homeowners-grumble.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 Renters destroy a neighborhood, make sure you get a home loan in order to be a upstanding member of the local community. etalian fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 00:07
|
|