Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[LiquidTurbo]

The Canadian Real Estate Bubble, 2014: 7 Reasons To Avoid It Like The Plague - YouTube

[sonick]

Originally Posted by dasani604

The concept reminds me of the Fund of Funds pushed out by the big banks here for their mutual funds. I'm not a fan of the concept yet I hope it shows more promise for ETFs than it does for mutual funds.

I haven't looked into them yet and I'm assuming you've taken a look into them Sonick. What do you think about them?

I haven't actually gone in and looked at the holdings for each, nor am I actually knowledgeable enough in finance to actually have any thoughtful insight into them, to be honest.

All I know is each fund is skewed differently to the type of portfolio somebody would want, and seems like an easy way to base a portfolio out of with options for different types of investors (growth vs conservative vs income), or to complement an existing portfolio (alternative or global markets).

Though they aren't actively managed like mutual funds (which may be a good thing with the common notion that index funds often outperform actively managed MF's), as mentioned above they have a far lower MER and can easily be traded like stocks.

[4444]

those etf's aren't bad (there are acutally better ones, a growth one, and an income one form ishares.ca under their broad equities).

the pros - easy ownership, they'll stay diversified and rebalanced
cons - you're paying an additional 0.6% on top of the other ETFs' fees, mind you, still cheaper than buying and rebalancing your own set of 10 ETFs or so.

as for mutual funds - WAY cheaper in europe, i was shocked how much cheaper they are over here, MERs of about 1.5%, with a 0.5% rebate to the owner (me) each year, so net cost is about 1%.

Add that to your IA's 1% - 2% for some of the best mutual funds, rebalanced, always analyzed by the IA's team - that'll do it for me so that all i have to do is look at my quarterly statements for 10 mins - my time is worth that extra 1% vs. doing my own research, trading, keeping on top of it all. as i get older and earn more (yes, sorry cry babies, i do earn good money), my desire to spend my spare time (which gets more and more marginally valuable) researching investments goes down and down when i know i probably won't beat very well managed money.

mind you, and this is a horrible thing - you generally (in europe at least) need money to be able to get this management. my bank wanted 100K Euro minimum to invest before you could get it managed by their IA's... the financial services industry is not nearly as mature in mainland europe as it is in the UK and north America - you guys are quite blessed with that

[JKam]

This is new.

Global interviewed someone from PIMCO (investment group) who thinks Canadian market is going to drop 30% in 2-5 years.

House price correction to ?start this year,? big-name investor warns - National | Globalnews.ca

[TouringTeg]

^^ I read that on financial post this morning although they don't mention 30%.

Pimco sees Canadian housing market falling as much as 20% | Financial Post

[Carl Johnson]

If Canada as a whole see 20% decline over 5 years where does that leave Vancouver?

[iEatClams]

I dont see it happening imho. Too many articles on a crash. Every year its the same thing and market has been relatively flat. People predicting crashes wont see it happening soon. Although i dont see it dropping 30%, i also dont see it appreciating either. Most likely market will be decreasing a few % per year or stay flat.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by iEatClams

I dont see it happening imho. Too many articles on a crash. Every year its the same thing and market has been relatively flat. People predicting crashes wont see it happening soon. Although i dont see it dropping 30%, i also dont see it appreciating either. Most likely market will be decreasing a few % per year or stay flat.
Posted via RS Mobile

The gov will do anything to prevent a bubble. If there is a bubble think about how many people are affect? Not just those that bought the unit but entire work fields is affected.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

The gov will do anything to prevent a bubble. If there is a bubble think about how many people are affect? Not just those that bought the unit but entire work fields is affected.

No, the government acts (at least supposedly) at the best interest of its people.

There was a bubble in 2008. But when US went bust, our govt actually thought that it is better to just keep it up and hope it would somehow deflate itself or just leave this shitty situation to the next govt.

But it's a very selfish decision. They couldn't afford the blame from voters that a bubble busted during their time. So they kept it going.

We are at a point of no return. With so much cheap money, inflation is coming. (or worse, deflation) So is higher interest rate. The govt did not prevent the bubble from busting or deflated it somehow, it just gave it a bit more juice so it stayed inflated.

Unless Canada actually find some miraculous way to bump our income level rapidly, the RE is coming to the tripping point.

US, on the other hand, at least had the gut to just let it happen. Remember, they bailed out financial institutions to avoid financial instability. But they did not choose to fund the bubble as we did in Canada. (lowering CMHC requirement, bumping CMHC limits... etc) I don't even know what Canadians are going to do with CMHC insuring an amount WAY over what Canadian are capable of repaying. (CMHC's liability alone is about 1/3 of Canada's GDP)

[z3german]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

Spoiler!

The Canadian Real Estate Bubble, 2014: 7 Reasons To Avoid It Like The Plague - YouTube

Great video!

For point 1, in the real world example of myself.

Sent an offer in for an apt., got declined and was told "no point sending another offer if its lower than $(Asking price - X). Found out the price she bought it at, and did the math for the percentage. Turns out her counter offer to me is a whopping 22% increase from where she bought it at.

So back to point 1. For a 2 br+2 bath apt., isn't 22% really unreasonable especially when she only bought it 5 years ago (Will double check)? Or am I going to find that for most Richmond apts.?

Edit: Did more research, turns own for apts. in the past 5 years there was a ~11% increase in price. So I think how it works is that she is asking ~+10% profit vs the 22% i said above. Correct me if im wrong!

[Carl Johnson]

Originally Posted by iEatClams

I dont see it happening imho. Too many articles on a crash. Every year its the same thing and market has been relatively flat. People predicting crashes wont see it happening soon. Although i dont see it dropping 30%, i also dont see it appreciating either. Most likely market will be decreasing a few % per year or stay flat.
Posted via RS Mobile

Pimco did not predict a crash in their call. Just a 20% price correction over 5 years which is pretty mild. It's funny how quick people think RE price always go up forgetting what had just happened in U.S. back in 2006. We might have simply just delayed it. At the end of the day, Pimco prediction don't mean jack to me. I ain't touching Van RE based on my own DD. Why would I lock myself in a gargantuan mortgage for the next 25 years in a city that hardly pays a respectable wage. Best city on Planet Earth? F that.

[MR_BIGGS]

Originally Posted by Carl Johnson

Canadian mutual funds have the highest MER in developed countries and deferred sales charge (back-end fees). You are better off in an ETF or low cost index fund.

The e-series from TD are good low cost index funds if you want to use a couch potato strategy.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by z3german

Great video!

For point 1, in the real world example of myself.

Sent an offer in for an apt., got declined and was told "no point sending another offer if its lower than $(Asking price - X). Found out the price she bought it at, and did the math for the percentage. Turns out her counter offer to me is a whopping 22% increase from where she bought it at.

So back to point 1. For a 2 br+2 bath apt., isn't 22% really unreasonable especially when she only bought it 5 years ago (Will double check)? Or am I going to find that for most Richmond apts.?

Edit: Did more research, turns own for apts. in the past 5 years there was a ~11% increase in price. So I think how it works is that she is asking ~+10% profit vs the 22% i said above. Correct me if im wrong!

why are people trying to sell their houses this way??? it blows my mind

prices should be based on Comparables and competing listings. that means, what recent sales have sold for in the area.

it doesn't matter if I purchase my condo for 400K 3 years ago and I want to make 10% profit so I list it as 440K. if other similar units are selling for 400K, or if my neighbours have their units listed for 390 or 400, there's no way I'm going to get 440 for my condo.


I know a lot of realtors, and they do know that some of their clients are in this situation.

They bought it 3-4 years ago for 5-10% down, and now they are in a negative or zero equity position due to the fact that the price of their condos have either depreciated slightly or the prices stayed the same. That means they are selling at a price that's the same or less than what they paid for 3-4 years ago.

theres lots of supply of condos with so many being built so I think the condo market will be the first to start seeing decreases.

[AWDTurboLuvr]

Originally Posted by iEatClams

I dont see it happening imho. Too many articles on a crash. Every year its the same thing and market has been relatively flat. People predicting crashes wont see it happening soon. Although i dont see it dropping 30%, i also dont see it appreciating either. Most likely market will be decreasing a few % per year or stay flat.
Posted via RS Mobile

Weekly Drop Metro Vancouver Detached ? March 3, 2014 | Vancouver Price Drop

I don't know, asking prices have been coming down for the last few years and overall, most are down ~15%. It's all fine if the sellers don't need the money right away or didn't buy around 2009-2010 thinking price would keep appreciating and wanted to make a quick buck. If they did though, well, not looking that pretty.

[Carl Johnson]

Posted here for entertainment.
Source: Rich Chinese angry over cancelled Canadian immigrant program - The Globe and Mail

Rich Chinese angry over cancelled Canadian immigrant program

Nathan VanderKlippe
BEIJING — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Mar. 04 2014, 10:39 AM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 04 2014, 11:51 AM EST



41 comments


A group of angry Chinese millionaires is threatening legal action against the Canadian government after Ottawa cancelled a popular immigration program that dashed the hopes of thousands of wealthy foreigners.

The immigrant investor program offered a way to buy entrance into Canada for people with a net worth of $1.6-million who were able to lend Ottawa $800,000 interest-free for five years. Citing its “limited economic benefit,” the Conservative government said on Feb. 11 that it intends to kill the program, leaving behind the 65,000 people on an enormous backlog of applicants.

About three-quarters of those were Chinese, most of them eager for a ticket into the British Columbia Lower Mainland, with its familiar culture and access to Canadian food safety and health care.

Their hopes now dashed, a small group of those millionaires is now lashing out and demanding compensation, saying they have given up much in waiting to come to Canada – and deserve something for their pain.

They made their case from a location that hardly engendered much sympathy for their plight. On Tuesday, 10 of the applicants gathered on the 61st floor of the Beijing Park Hyatt, in one of the poshest corners of China. They are by their own admission wealthy. One of the men bought a house in Vancouver for $2-million as he waited for admission to the country. Asked if that caused him any hardship, he offered a blunt no.

Those here see the path to Canada in the kind of crass commercial terms that might make some Canadians uncomfortable.

“The applicants have submitted their applications in good faith and submitted their fees. There is a reasonable expectation that this is a business transaction, and that they will be processed,” said Victor Lum, vice-president at Well Trend United Consulting, a Beijing immigration agency that has helped to co-ordinate those speaking out against Ottawa’s decision.
Those fees, about $2,000, will probably be refunded.

But that’s “far, far from enough,” Well Trend president Larry Wang said. There is lost opportunity, the costs incurred by thousands of people and their families who put lives on hold as they waited for what seemed a sure ticket to Canada, the consultants said. The applicants “are the victims in this case,” Mr. Lum said.

They have consulted lawyers, but are waiting on Ottawa to formally cancel the program before they finalize their legal strategy. They say the program’s cancellation is a breach of contract law, and, in a letter sent to members of Parliament, “neither lawful nor ethical.”

It is not clear what their chances might be in court. Canada is a sovereign nation, and citizens of other nations have no guaranteed right to a Maple Leaf passport, nor residency in Canada.

And the immigrant investor program was fraught with problems. The Conservatives, in cancelling it, cited a statistic showing that, over 20 years, an average millionaire immigrant investor pays nearly $100,000 less in taxes than a live-in caregiver.

The Globe and Mail, in a 2011 investigation, found a striking willingness to engage in fraud by consultants working with immigrant investors to Canada. Of 22 contacted, more than 80 per cent offered to help doctor documents, including many who promised to make even past prison sentences disappear. Jason Kenney, then the immigration minister, acknowledged that “crooked consultants” were a problem for the program.

There are still ways into Canada for a wealthy immigrant, who could, for example, buy a Canadian company and then bring himself or herself in to work for it. But that is a more complicated process, with less assured results.
It may be simpler just to look elsewhere. Canada’s initial suspension (in 2012) and subsequent plan to cancel the immigrant investor program have coincided with a dramatic rise in the use of the U.S. EB-5 visa program, that country’s avenue for immigrant investors. Washington issued fewer than 2,000 such visas in 2010; last year, 8,567 EB-5 visas went out. More than 80 per cent of the applicants are Chinese.

Meanwhile, the cancellation of the Canadian program offers a window into the hope that this country continues to inspire in the rest of the world. Those on the immigrant investor wait list may be wealthy, relative even to Canadian standards, but they have also made unusual sacrifices to try to move across the Pacific.

Take Du Jun, a 54-year-old who works in information services. Soon after applying in 2010, he enrolled his child in a Canadian-curriculum school in China. Now, graduation is nearing with little hope of the family immigrating to Canada. And that curriculum is poor preparation for China’s standardized college entrance exams.

Or take Duan Wuhong, a 49-year-old mother of three. She moved to Shanghai to prepare her immigration application. She chose Canada after putting it to her children, who said it was “the best choice” over the United States, France, Britain and New Zealand. At the time, she thought that her bid to move to Canada “was the best choice and the best decision for me.” Now, she sees it as “the worst choice I’ve ever made.” She practically spits when she speaks.

Rong Bing, a 47-year-old former investment banker, has gone without work since 2009 as he waited to move to Canada, hoping that any month would bring positive news. It never came. He offers an unusually poignant argument for coming to Canada. The 1989 student protests that led to the Tiananmen massacre instilled a yearning for Western democracy and human rights that, even decades later, has lodged itself “in our hearts deeply,” he said. What he wants most is more of that.

“We are all rich businessmen. We have a rather reasonable life in China,” he said. They have the money to buy good health care and imported food. “So that is not all our pursuit for immigration,” he said. “I know Canada is a country full of freedom, justice and friendliness. That spirit is the real reason why we want to immigrate to Canada.”

[z3german]

Originally Posted by Carl Johnson

Posted here for entertainment.
Source:

Spoiler!

Rich Chinese angry over cancelled Canadian immigrant program - The Globe and Mail

Prepared for an incoming failstorm..

I say fuck them, I hate them here, they are such little cunts. I know its probably a case of a minority group of them that makes all of them look bad, but if we are talking about how many fucking mainlanders are here, that minority is fucking huge.

Their attitudes here are foreshadowed nicely here
"Or take Duan Wuhong, a 49-year-old mother of three. ... Now, she sees it as “the worst choice I’ve ever made.” She practically spits when she speaks.

[quasi]

So you think if they had a similar program in China and it was cancelled they would they entertain compensation to foreign investors or would they tell them to get fucked for asking for it?

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by Carl Johnson

Posted here for entertainment.
Source: Rich Chinese angry over cancelled Canadian immigrant program - The Globe and Mail

Is an application they submitted. It doesn't mean they will get approve 100%. I love them to bring this to court and the judge simply ask their lawyers to look up the meaning of application in a dictionary.

Man if application is a 100% garuntee I should be the CEO or Rogers now since I submitted an application for that job.

[sonick]

This is interesting: Vancouver Realtor Hunger Index - February 2014

62% of vancouver realtors made no commissions last month... Highest was 83% back in Dec of '12.

[Gululu]

-local home sales last month were 40.8 per cent higher than a year earlier
-price rose 3.2 per cent to $609,100
-price of a detached home was up 11.5 per cent to a record $1.36 million
-condos rose 6.6 per cent to $454,000.
-New listings totalled 4,700 last month


Vancouver home sales up 40 per cent from last February

[Mr.HappySilp]

Another thing is I hear people in this thread who are against buying a house keep saying the price will drop and you will lose money unlock other investment.

I like to point out that other investment do have their ups and downs and you still have a chance of losing money. Actually let me say it even if the housing market goes down as long as you don't sell it at the low point you don't lose money. Same with investment.

Sure there are other investment that will get much better returns than buying a house, but to some people (including myself) nothing beats having a place I call home and that I actually own it. Is a sense of security knowing I won't be told to move out next month or whenever.

[xpl0sive]

^unless your house is paid for, you don't own it, the bank does. And for the first 10 years or so you're pretty much renting it from them as majority of your monthly payment goes towards interest.... As for having security knowing you don't have to move out... try not paying your mortgage for a while.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Traum]

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

^unless your house is paid for, you don't own it, the bank does. And for the first 10 years or so you're pretty much renting it from them as majority of your monthly payment goes towards interest.... As for having security knowing you don't have to move out... try not paying your mortgage for a while.
Posted via RS Mobile

You are getting into the technicalities, and that defeats the point of Mr.HappySilp's discussion. When you are renting, you can be the best tenant around -- paying rent on time, keeping the place clean, etc., but the landlord can still kick you out -- I think all they need to do is to give you an extra month's worth of stay for free? With a mortgage, as long as you keep up with the mortgage payments, the bank will happily let you stay at your house as long as you want.

When you lease a car, do you always only refer to it as "the bank's car" or "the financial institution's car"?

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

^unless your house is paid for, you don't own it, the bank does. And for the first 10 years or so you're pretty much renting it from them as majority of your monthly payment goes towards interest.... As for having security knowing you don't have to move out... try not paying your mortgage for a while.
Posted via RS Mobile

Hmm... let's see if you put it that way. Lets see what happens if you don't pay your landlord rent, your cell phone bill, your cable, your internet, your car lease.... and tell me what happens.

As long you are you paying your mortgage you get to stay vs renting even if you paid rent every money on time there is still a chance of you getting kicking out by your landlord, that's the difference when i say you get a sense of security.

I actually did an excel sheet with mortgage and rate. Since I only need to borrow about 200k for my apartment unit assuming I made monthly payment every month and add about an extra 20k at the end of each year I can have it pay off in 10years or less. So is not what you said that the first 10 years is mostly interest. But we can go on an on about this.

Button line is renting you get less control of the place you are renting and less security, you pay less every month, no need to worry about maintenance fees and you will be paying a landlord till you die or decide to purchase a home.

Owning you have more control, more security but you are paying more for maintenance fees, strata fees and once your mortgage is paid off then you don't have to worry about paying mortgage again.

Is up to your lifestyle and what you want form life. Think you are good with investing and have the funds to grow it overtime? Love to take risk and be free then maybe is renting is good. Feel unconfortable with investing, just want a stable life and willing to settle down? Maybe getting a place is better.

[xpl0sive]

Originally Posted by Traum

You are getting into the technicalities, and that defeats the point of Mr.HappySilp's discussion. When you are renting, you can be the best tenant around -- paying rent on time, keeping the place clean, etc., but the landlord can still kick you out -- I think all they need to do is to give you an extra month's worth of stay for free? With a mortgage, as long as you keep up with the mortgage payments, the bank will happily let you stay at your house as long as you want.

When you lease a car, do you always only refer to it as "the bank's car" or "the financial institution's car"?

I don't lease/finance anything, I have 0 debt at the moment. Both my cars are paid for. But yet, if I were to lease a car I wouldn't think of it as MY car.

As far as relying on a landlord for allowing me to live in their house, I'd much rather take the chance of having to move to another place rather than buy at the top of the market and take the chance of losing tens of thousands of dollars. My money is sitting in various GIC's, safely and happily earning me 3-5% return. Giving a bank $50,000 with no guaranteed return and paying them almost solely 100% interest, with very little going towards my principal for the next 10 years doesn't sound very appealing to me.