Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by 4444

i can hack it fine, thanks - had one of the better careers of the people i know.

moved, make >50% more, live a life that is WAY more rewarding, exciting, and opens up huge opportunitites

it's not that i couldn't 'hack it' i was living a very privileged life, for saying it is 100% of my own doing/hard work, but the point is life outside of vancouver can be WAY better than life inside - if you've never lived around the world (which many don't have the ability to do), then you won't realize just how stunted life in vancouver is.

it's hilarious that you think i left because i couldn't hack it - i left because vancouver couldn't GIVE ME enough, not the other way round

It's all about perspective. Vancouver has an interesting quality of life. By returning to Vancouver, I'll be taking a pay cut, essentially, but it's way better than where I currently live right now, and definitely better than where I lived before.

[4444]

Originally Posted by Traum

People are not as stupid as you think, just as you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

If you could leave your own little elitism behind for a while and actually do some thinking, the behaviour you described above is perfectly logical.

The simple explanation is how people are generally linear thinking creatures. I won't bother to going into that because it is a really simple concept. The other slightly less obvious explanation is

1) no one can accurately foresee the future, and
2) your typical person does not have the financial means to weather the storm if their real estate property turns into a negative asset.

When #1 combines to work with #2, it means the risks of getting stuck with a negative asset that the RE property might become is too great. So what do you do when something is too risky? You don't engage in whatever that risky activity is. It is a perfectly logical move, and the simplest form of risk management.

When the RE market sentiments are negative, only big developers and/or financial groups have the financial means to take on that risk of a further depressed market. That's why they are able and willing to buy.

you have just proven my exact point.

people sell when shits falling (negative sentiment) and buy when it's rising (positive sentiment) - the definition of people being idiots. they make decisions based on sentiment, not fundamentals and logic. In the short term it can work out, as along as there's a greater fool, but in the long run it NEVER works.

and, yes, people are stupid, generally, and yes, i am as smart as i think i am. i'm not an elitist becuase i think i'm better than anyone else, all humans are made equal. But, i work fucking hard, have gone without to educate myself, and live a very simple life - i will never go on EI, I Will never expect to take CPP, i will never be a drain on the social system because i beleive these things are for the weak and lazy (unless you are disabled, in which case you need the help - the system is there for the weak - but if you're weak bc ur lazy, get off your arse and educate yourself/work harder).

It's so funny how butt hurt some people get when someone says their life is way better outside vnacouver - 'it's you're fault, you can't hack it' - no, no, granted, we're all different, so different people like different things, but vancouver is a small town, if you want bigger city experiences, opportunities, people, then vnacouver sucks.

i'll tell you right now, where i live now, very similar size, in population and geographic size - opportunities way higher here, safety, no question they are equal, healthcare... sorry to say, i think it's better here (taxes are fucking high here, though), people - an actual mix of people, not just concentration of certain races, education, very good - UBC is a better uni than they have here, i'll admit that - going out? WAY better here... natural beauty... different, there's thousands of years history and architecture and water, vs. mountains and water - the weather is the same...

the point is, vancouver isn't special, it has some pluses, has some minuses. just b/c someone is way better off elsewhere doesn't mean you have to get on your high horse and try to prove vnacouver is the dog's bollocks. when i'm old and rich, i'd consider moving back to vnacouver (partially for the tax benefits), spending up to 6 months elsewhere... but now, i'd take such a huge step back in my life to move back and be so worse off financially and socially that i'd be crazy to do so.

i'm really sorry people are getting but hurt about the fact that some people just don't like vnacouver, but to go out and spend 80% of pre tax income on an average house just to prove your love for a city is fucking retarded.

oh, and for the record, it's fucking expensive to buy a house where i live, but i rent... same reasons as in vancouver... cheaper to rent than buy, and prices are going nowhere but down... and mobility... and so many reasons not to buy.

our generation will not be a 70% of households are owned type of generation, we are not our parents, the economy is completely different, opportunities completely different, financial circumstances completely different. i may NEVER own the place i lay my head, and that's fine by me... if people think i'm crazy for that, then, well, call me crazy, but financially i can prove with dollars and cents that not buying is the thing to do in Canada and most of non-crisis Europe (outside spain, ireland, etc)

tl:dr
don't get butt hurt by my comments and feel you need to attack, provide discussion not attack 'you can't hack it' 'you're an elitist person, not as smart as you think you are' - personal anonymous attacks... something that can never make sense

[4444]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

It's all about perspective. Vancouver has an interesting quality of life. By returning to Vancouver, I'll be taking a pay cut, essentially, but it's way better than where I currently live right now, and definitely better than where I lived before.

with all due respect, you're moving from manitoba.

i'd kill myself if i had to live anywhere but vancouver in canada. vancouver is beautiful, it's the only place to 'live' in canada, no doubt about it (i'm not a fan of toronto for a multitude of reasons, one being the weather), but i'm fortunate enough to be able to move to many different countries without restriction.

certainly vancouver vs. other cdn cities - not even a contest

[4444]

Originally Posted by Z3guy

^ I agree, I travel allot for work as well and imo for overall balance in life, it is hard to beat Vancouver. There is a reason Vancouver is overpriced!!

just a quick question. what happened between 1998 and now in vancouver.

to me, not much has changed, vnacouver is still the same safe, beautiful, good education hub it was in 1998 (i moved to van in 1998)

in 1998 prices for property were fucking low, stupid low compared to today. so what happened outside of interest rates going down, down, and down and ease of mortgages getting higher and higher? (i.e. the fundamentals that form the basis for ppl like me saying we're way overpriced)

if vancouver is as it was before, then saying 'that's why vancouver is overpriced' doesn't make logical sense, unless something happened to change vancouver as a place to live. and no, china is not it - in the 90's loads of HK residents came over prior to the 1997 handover, so the china and HK effect, for simplicity purposes, roughly equate

this is a serious question, not an attack (as everyone seems butt hurt if i even question vancovuer as a place)

[4444]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

Do you think any "movement" of interest rate will occur?

if i may, here's a thought on interest rates going up.

i was always thinking they'll go up in step with the US.

The US is slowly, but surely recovering. The fed is committed to tapering. QE is ending, and after that ends, the next tick is for interest rates to go up. If people don't understand the tools used in QE/at the disposal of the fed, i strongly recommend you learning, it's really important to know how the economy works.

i figured canada would follow suit, but then, over the last year, as commodities tanked (this trend won't change for a long time now - lower commodity prices are probably here to stay, relative to 2010-2012 levels)... unfortunately, outside of commodities and real estate, canada has become a service economy - our manufacturing is gone, dead, never to return, all thanks to terrible policy decisions that created an at par US/Cdn $.

with a strong currency (partially drive by demand for our commodities), manufcaturers were killed, as most manufactured product goes to the US, however many inputs are in US $ - hopefully you can get why manufacturing either went to asia, or to a degree, south - the currency risk was just that, too much risk.

the average idiot loved a US/Cdn dollar at par, they can go shopping for cheaper, however, now we are returning to normal life, US/Cdn quickly up to 1.12, likely up to 1.20-1.30 long term (potentially more if the cdn economy is as ugly as i think it is), and the reason is, is lack of demand for Cdn currency.

Canada cannot raise rates, if they did, it would kill an already stagnant economy (higher rates decrease economic activity), but on the other hand, low rates are keeping a bloated real estate market bloated... but we know the market already knows that canada can't raise rates, as reflected by the quick rise to 1.12 in the US/Cdn - the market knows the US will decrease liquidity and raise rates, but that canada, if anything, will have to start stimulating the economy with funds / no raised rates (they can't really cut much more).

so, with that, i don't think we'll see a net decrease in liquidity until beyond 2015 in canada - it's already begun in the US.

how people can be so confident in housing is beyond me - but what this will do is keep housing bloated a little longer, not seeing prices rise, but not seeing an 'event' to burst the bubble.

also just know there's another problem coming to canada. as the dollar weakens more and more, inputs increase in price - things will get more expensive (fuel, goods, etc) - inflation - but with the economy stagnant, pay won't keep up with inflation, so you will get poorer in real terms.

this is one of the worst situations to be in. there's a reason flaherty just left - he's not stupid and sees writing on the wall.

of course, this is an overall view, some people will make loads of money in this time, some people will grow their career hugely, but in general terms, the economic conditions in canada are quite poor and fraught with risk.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by 4444

just a quick question. what happened between 1998 and now in vancouver.

to me, not much has changed, vnacouver is still the same safe, beautiful, good education hub it was in 1998 (i moved to van in 1998)

in 1998 prices for property were fucking low, stupid low compared to today. so what happened outside of interest rates going down, down, and down and ease of mortgages getting higher and higher? (i.e. the fundamentals that form the basis for ppl like me saying we're way overpriced)

if vancouver is as it was before, then saying 'that's why vancouver is overpriced' doesn't make logical sense, unless something happened to change vancouver as a place to live. and no, china is not it - in the 90's loads of HK residents came over prior to the 1997 handover, so the china and HK effect, for simplicity purposes, roughly equate

this is a serious question, not an attack (as everyone seems butt hurt if i even question vancovuer as a place)

It's not just Vancouver though, prices have gone up and stayed up across Canada. I moved here in 1989, my parents sold our house in Regina for around $45,000 at that time. A house here in the suburbs at that time was around $100,000 I remember my dad saying that is absolutely ridiculous no way I'm spending a hundred grand on a home.

Fast forward to now, houses are what they are an average house in the burbs west of the fraser is probably $500,000. The same house in Regina now is probably $350,000-450,000, I know because I was thinking of possibly going back for work. This is what I don't get, we keep saying Vancouver is super inflated which it may be but keep it real housing prices are and have been inflated across Canada. Compare what you could buy a house in Calgary for 20 years ago and look where it's at now, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they've went up close to the same that homes in the lower mainland have went up over the same time period the biggest difference is homes here have always been more money. It's always been more expensive to live here and prices started going up here before they started going up back East but don't kid yourself the other Provinces caught up real quick.

I'm not going to argue how can people afford to live here because I really don't know how anyone can afford a place in Vancouver. If I didn't get into the market before it ballooned I don't think I could afford to own here either.

[4444]

^^ you have just provided the greatest argument for Vancouver not being special, as the whole country has gone up...

because of cheap money!!

had vancouver alone gone up by loads, there would have been a reason, or event to make this happen, it hasn't happened, all of canada has gone up based on federal monetary and mortgage policies. these policies will be slowly reversed, reverting to a 'normal' real house price based on income and rents. It will happen slowly so that it doesn't look like a bubble or a 'problem' (what politicians want) - but a 0% rise in your house price is actually a real 2-3% drop in prices based on inflation.

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by 4444

with all due respect, you're moving from manitoba.

i'd kill myself if i had to live anywhere but vancouver in canada. vancouver is beautiful, it's the only place to 'live' in canada, no doubt about it (i'm not a fan of toronto for a multitude of reasons, one being the weather), but i'm fortunate enough to be able to move to many different countries without restriction.

certainly vancouver vs. other cdn cities - not even a contest

Where do you live? Just curious.

I've lived in the US and Brazil, so far. Both places have pluses and minuses.

[4444]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

Where do you live? Just curious.

I've lived in the US and Brazil, so far. Both places have pluses and minuses.

mainland europe.

i've lived in canada, the UK, the states. of course, it's hard to make a blanket statement, but US > canada for living for me.

the UK... it's been too long, not sure how i feel about it

mainland europe > canada, for me.

again, this is all based on my experience, of course all the vancouver leg humpers will think i'm all wrong.

if you had to make a call right now - where would you live for the rest of your life if you could only live one of those places

[quasi]

Originally Posted by 4444

^^ you have just provided the greatest argument for Vancouver not being special, as the whole country has gone up...

because of cheap money!!

had vancouver alone gone up by loads, there would have been a reason, or event to make this happen, it hasn't happened, all of canada has gone up based on federal monetary and mortgage policies. these policies will be slowly reversed, reverting to a 'normal' real house price based on income and rents. It will happen slowly so that it doesn't look like a bubble or a 'problem' (what politicians want) - but a 0% rise in your house price is actually a real 2-3% drop in prices based on inflation.

I agree it's not that special but it will always be cost more to own here then it will anywhere else in Canada except for a few areas back east, mainly some areas of Toronto. I would say it's probably 2-3 times more expensive then most everywhere else is and in my opinion it will always be that way, that doesn't mean that the prices of real estate Canada wide won't have ebbs and flows.

[4444]

Originally Posted by quasi

I agree it's not that special but it will always be cost more to own here then it will anywhere else in Canada except for a few areas back east, mainly some areas of Toronto. I would say it's probably 2-3 times more expensive then most everywhere else is and in my opinion it will always be that way, that doesn't mean that the prices of real estate Canada wide won't have ebbs and flows.

well of course, vancouver is pretty and have livable weather, the rest of canada is my definition of hell. there should be a premium, but not a 84% of pre tax income premium!

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by 4444

mainland europe.

i've lived in canada, the UK, the states. of course, it's hard to make a blanket statement, but US > canada for living for me.

the UK... it's been too long, not sure how i feel about it

mainland europe > canada, for me.

again, this is all based on my experience, of course all the vancouver leg humpers will think i'm all wrong.

if you had to make a call right now - where would you live for the rest of your life if you could only live one of those places

Kidding me? Europe, obviously. Maybe Switzerland or Germany, but I'd have to know the language. I have friends and family in both those countries, and the quality of life is better than Canada, certainly better than Vancouver.

Best thing about Europe is that many different countries and cultures are close within a day's drive or train ride. If I was offered a job there, I'd be on the next plane out.

[iEatClams]

If I had a job that allowed me to relocate to say California or France / Germany / Switzerland / Holland, I'ld take it in a heart beat as well.

IMO Vancouver has gone downhill in the last few years due the high cost of living. MSP going up, lack of quality jobs.

I have quite a bit of equity built up as I was purchased a home in early 2010 right near the trough of the housing market. But I see prices stagnating or maybe declining in the next 2-5 years and kind of want to cash out. But I would only do this if I were to move.

[Carl Johnson]

Originally Posted by 4444

if i may, here's a thought on interest rates going up.

i was always thinking they'll go up in step with the US.

The US is slowly, but surely recovering. The fed is committed to tapering. QE is ending, and after that ends, the next tick is for interest rates to go up. If people don't understand the tools used in QE/at the disposal of the fed, i strongly recommend you learning, it's really important to know how the economy works.

i figured canada would follow suit, but then, over the last year, as commodities tanked (this trend won't change for a long time now - lower commodity prices are probably here to stay, relative to 2010-2012 levels)... unfortunately, outside of commodities and real estate, canada has become a service economy - our manufacturing is gone, dead, never to return, all thanks to terrible policy decisions that created an at par US/Cdn $.

with a strong currency (partially drive by demand for our commodities), manufcaturers were killed, as most manufactured product goes to the US, however many inputs are in US $ - hopefully you can get why manufacturing either went to asia, or to a degree, south - the currency risk was just that, too much risk.

the average idiot loved a US/Cdn dollar at par, they can go shopping for cheaper, however, now we are returning to normal life, US/Cdn quickly up to 1.12, likely up to 1.20-1.30 long term (potentially more if the cdn economy is as ugly as i think it is), and the reason is, is lack of demand for Cdn currency.

Canada cannot raise rates, if they did, it would kill an already stagnant economy (higher rates decrease economic activity), but on the other hand, low rates are keeping a bloated real estate market bloated... but we know the market already knows that canada can't raise rates, as reflected by the quick rise to 1.12 in the US/Cdn - the market knows the US will decrease liquidity and raise rates, but that canada, if anything, will have to start stimulating the economy with funds / no raised rates (they can't really cut much more).

so, with that, i don't think we'll see a net decrease in liquidity until beyond 2015 in canada - it's already begun in the US.

how people can be so confident in housing is beyond me - but what this will do is keep housing bloated a little longer, not seeing prices rise, but not seeing an 'event' to burst the bubble.

also just know there's another problem coming to canada. as the dollar weakens more and more, inputs increase in price - things will get more expensive (fuel, goods, etc) - inflation - but with the economy stagnant, pay won't keep up with inflation, so you will get poorer in real terms.

this is one of the worst situations to be in. there's a reason flaherty just left - he's not stupid and sees writing on the wall.

of course, this is an overall view, some people will make loads of money in this time, some people will grow their career hugely, but in general terms, the economic conditions in canada are quite poor and fraught with risk.

unfortunately a lot of people don't think money in real terms but in nominal terms only. only when prices have go up so much then workers will demand higher wages but then it is already too late. economy will have already suffered.

inflation and inflation expectation will pick up this year for sure. gasoline was up 4.6% in January this year meanwhile in U.S. it declined 0.1%. with energy going up everything else like food will follow as well.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by iEatClams

If I had a job that allowed me to relocate to say California or France / Germany / Switzerland / Holland, I'ld take it in a heart beat as well.

IMO Vancouver has gone downhill in the last few years due the high cost of living. MSP going up, lack of quality jobs.

I have quite a bit of equity built up as I was purchased a home in early 2010 right near the trough of the housing market. But I see prices stagnating or maybe declining in the next 2-5 years and kind of want to cash out. But I would only do this if I were to move.

Let's be honest - 4444 is Caucasian, has an EU passport, and has a profession that has low barriers to entry (CA/Finance). I think most people who have these things would be seriously tempted to move to Europe.

The rest of us who are ethnic minorities and have no real desire to make money in China (for various reasons) have fewer choices. Europe is still a pretty xenophobic place (the UK notwithstanding). It's either the US, or Canada. On the rough side of 30 (and making enough money to survive), I would basically have to give up 5-7 years of my life, reinvent myself, and then jump into a market with 22 year olds who are willing to work longer hours for less money. I'm doing a degree part-time right now that's related to my profession and that's enough of a slog. I can't imagine reinventing yourself at the age of 35 just so you could maybe make another 25% in 10-15 years.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Let's be honest - 4444 is Caucasian, has an EU passport, and has a profession that has low barriers to entry (CA/Finance). I think most people who have these things would be seriously tempted to move to Europe.

The rest of us who are ethnic minorities and have no real desire to make money in China (for various reasons) have fewer choices. Europe is still a pretty xenophobic place (the UK notwithstanding). It's either the US, or Canada. On the rough side of 30 (and making enough money to survive), I would basically have to give up 5-7 years of my life, reinvent myself, and then jump into a market with 22 year olds who are willing to work longer hours for less money. I'm doing a degree part-time right now that's related to my profession and that's enough of a slog. I can't imagine reinventing yourself at the age of 35 just so you could maybe make another 25% in 10-15 years.

solid points. it's very unrealistic for me to expect to relocate to my desired locations, besides the US. I'm almost 30, and am at a decent place in my career, if I can find a job that's comparable in terms of pay, and has job security, only then would I move. There's too much risk if the job is not secure of stable at my age.

I have friends that moved to asia for work, and it's a grind out there, long hours plus the lifestyle is terrible. Most have moved back for just the clean air alone. Even though I'm asian, I cant see myself going there as I have certain western values.

But having said that, if my employer were to relocate to California tomorrow I would be ecstatic.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Let's be honest - 4444 is Caucasian, has an EU passport, and has a profession that has low barriers to entry (CA/Finance). I think most people who have these things would be seriously tempted to move to Europe.

But I think it's irrelevant to the topic (RE) and more to do with 4444's personal choice. I think many people in their late 20s/early 30s who has a decent job/saving should avoid Canadian RE, especially Van and TO like plague. Your money can do so much more elsewhere.

It doesn't matter how awesome or lame Vancouver is. I'm seeing from an investment perspective only. Comparing what one could do by investing in Vancouver RE vs. elsewhere

My wife and I make some decent money but we basically invested every cent we could save in US instead. My investment in US is about 2M gross and making an average 8% cap. The income from the investment along with our monthly contribution is quickly paying the mortgage off.

Reasoning is easy (I simplified it by not taking mortgage into calculation):
Current situation w/2M commercial property in US:
120k (RE income after tax)-40k rent=80k cash/year

Hypothetical 2M property in Van I can get 10% growth YoY:
200k profit-8k property tax-(2.2M*0.10) rough transaction cost=-28k

So, for the first year, I'd have lost 108k by owning the house in Van instead. Even if I increase the rent allowance by 10k, it's still 98k difference.

By second year, assuming the growth in Van continue at 10% while US RE has 0 growth since not selling. I'd hardly break even. (160k vs 158k in profit).

Basically one'd need Van RE to continue to grow at 10%/year for 3 years before realizing any potential profit over investing elsewhere. That is a risk I'm not willing to take as in my assumption the costs are minimized generously

[Carl Johnson]

Originally Posted by Hehe

But I think it's irrelevant to the topic (RE) and more to do with 4444's personal choice. I think many people in their late 20s/early 30s who has a decent job/saving should avoid Canadian RE, especially Van and TO like plague. Your money can do so much more elsewhere.

It doesn't matter how awesome or lame Vancouver is. I'm seeing from an investment perspective only. Comparing what one could do by investing in Vancouver RE vs. elsewhere

My wife and I make some decent money but we basically invested every cent we could save in US instead. My investment in US is about 2M gross and making an average 8% cap. The income from the investment along with our monthly contribution is quickly paying the mortgage off.

Reasoning is easy (I simplified it by not taking mortgage into calculation):
Current situation w/2M commercial property in US:
120k (RE income after tax)-40k rent=80k cash/year

Hypothetical 2M property in Van I can get 10% growth YoY:
200k profit-8k property tax-(2.2M*0.10) rough transaction cost=-28k

So, for the first year, I'd have lost 108k by owning the house in Van instead. Even if I increase the rent allowance by 10k, it's still 98k difference.

By second year, assuming the growth in Van continue at 10% while US RE has 0 growth since not selling. I'd hardly break even. (160k vs 158k in profit).

Basically one'd need Van RE to continue to grow at 10%/year for 3 years before realizing any potential profit over investing elsewhere. That is a risk I'm not willing to take as in my assumption the costs are minimized generously

It is 4444's personal choice but it is also an economic choice he made due to the environment we are in. If Vancouver houses were more affordable and high-paying white collar jobs are more abundant the guy might have stayed here and paid taxes that would've benefited us all. If it is just one guy then who cares. However, I think it is happening much more often than people think. Kids coming out of UBC how many of them can actually find a job in this province that pays a decent salary that can service the insane mortgage costs (rates heading higher btw). You don't need a PhD in finance or economics to see all this because it's just basic arithmetic. It doesn't add up.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by Hehe

But I think it's irrelevant to the topic (RE) and more to do with 4444's personal choice. I think many people in their late 20s/early 30s who has a decent job/saving should avoid Canadian RE, especially Van and TO like plague. Your money can do so much more elsewhere.

It doesn't matter how awesome or lame Vancouver is. I'm seeing from an investment perspective only. Comparing what one could do by investing in Vancouver RE vs. elsewhere

My wife and I make some decent money but we basically invested every cent we could save in US instead. My investment in US is about 2M gross and making an average 8% cap. The income from the investment along with our monthly contribution is quickly paying the mortgage off.

Reasoning is easy (I simplified it by not taking mortgage into calculation):
Current situation w/2M commercial property in US:
120k (RE income after tax)-40k rent=80k cash/year

Hypothetical 2M property in Van I can get 10% growth YoY:
200k profit-8k property tax-(2.2M*0.10) rough transaction cost=-28k

So, for the first year, I'd have lost 108k by owning the house in Van instead. Even if I increase the rent allowance by 10k, it's still 98k difference.

By second year, assuming the growth in Van continue at 10% while US RE has 0 growth since not selling. I'd hardly break even. (160k vs 158k in profit).

Basically one'd need Van RE to continue to grow at 10%/year for 3 years before realizing any potential profit over investing elsewhere. That is a risk I'm not willing to take as in my assumption the costs are minimized generously

Vancouver has one of the lowest if not the lowest cap rates in the world. Many Pension funds and REITs are selling their real estate holdings because the prices are soo high, with cap rates being soo low.

There's a theory somewhere that states that when cap rates are really low, it's due for a correction. Unless there is some underlying market value - like redevelopment potential, I think cap rates are stupid low and not worth the risk in Vancouver.

I agree, go to the states, many of my friends have properties in Nevada and even washington has good cap rates and is not too far away.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Hehe

But I think it's irrelevant to the topic (RE) and more to do with 4444's personal choice. I think many people in their late 20s/early 30s who has a decent job/saving should avoid Canadian RE, especially Van and TO like plague. Your money can do so much more elsewhere.

Yeah, no doubt from an investing perspective that your money can do better elsewhere. But, where do you rent? Are you and your wife mobile? What type of property are you renting? What is the difference between owning and renting the said property?

If you're not planning to stay in Vancouver in the long-term, then RE is a silly "investment". However, if you are planning to stay for a while (despite the shitty economy, low-paying jobs, etc.), what do you do, especially if you already have equity? Cash out, and rent a house? Renters have a lot of protection here in BC and there's a lot of stock, but it can be hard to find a good quality semi-detached or detached home that you can rent long-term. How many landlords sign multi-year leases for detached properties?

[4444]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Let's be honest - 4444 is Caucasian, has an EU passport, and has a profession that has low barriers to entry (CA/Finance). I think most people who have these things would be seriously tempted to move to Europe.

The rest of us who are ethnic minorities and have no real desire to make money in China (for various reasons) have fewer choices. Europe is still a pretty xenophobic place (the UK notwithstanding). It's either the US, or Canada. On the rough side of 30 (and making enough money to survive), I would basically have to give up 5-7 years of my life, reinvent myself, and then jump into a market with 22 year olds who are willing to work longer hours for less money. I'm doing a degree part-time right now that's related to my profession and that's enough of a slog. I can't imagine reinventing yourself at the age of 35 just so you could maybe make another 25% in 10-15 years.

i respect what you're saying, and you're right, i'm a caucasian european that works in finance.

having said that, thinking of my part of the office (from admin through to CFO of a multi billion dollar company), we have:

5 Asian
2 Middle Eastern
3 Caucasian

workers (either heritage or immigrant).

the world is mobile if you get the right education/skills that are both in demand and transcend borders. Having an EU passport helps, but in many countries it's not hard to get a working visa if a company wants you - i'd say that's the barrier, not your race.

I would argue that while i am blessed in my circumstance to be born in the EU and caucasian, the race card is becoming less and less of an argument.

And to comment on some other posts, even if i were to stay in vancouver for the rest of my life, i still wouldn't buy right now. just because you have a longer term outlook, you're first mortgage is the most important one - of course prices will be a lot lower, in real terms, in the coming 5-10 years. I'd juts wait until them. Whether I'm paying rent or 99% payments going to interest on the mortgage + the risk of price decreases, i'll pay the one that's less, until I can feel confident that prices will definitely be higher in 5-10 years than they are today.

[J____]

awe man I miss vancouver, it's just such a livable city with very low stress, but the relative low opportunity to make good money kills it for young people. Funny though, when I was in van, I was dreaming for a more exciting and fast paced life, but now that I'm in china, I miss the chill and easy going life style. I guess grass is always greener on the other side

[4444]

BBC News - Did Hyman Minsky find the secret behind financial crashes?

An interesting read, definitely relevant to Canada's real estate market - I would say we're T-2 years before the Minsky moment:


"American economist Hyman Minsky, who died in 1996, grew up during the Great Depression, an event which shaped his views and set him on a crusade to explain how it happened and how a repeat could be prevented, writes Duncan Weldon.

Minsky spent his life on the margins of economics but his ideas suddenly gained currency with the 2007-08 financial crisis. To many, it seemed to offer one of the most plausible accounts of why it had happened.

His long out-of-print books were suddenly in high demand with copies changing hands for hundreds of dollars - not bad for densely written tomes with titles like Stabilizing an Unstable Economy.

Senior central bankers including current US Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen and the Bank of England's Mervyn King began quoting his insights. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman named a high profile talk about the financial crisis The Night They Re-read Minsky.

Here are five of his ideas.

Stability is destabilising
Minsky's main idea is so simple that it could fit on a T-shirt, with just three words: "Stability is destabilising."

Continue reading the main story
Find out more

Analysis: Why Minsky Matters is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 20:30 GMT, 24 March 2014

Or catch up on BBC iPlayer
Most macroeconomists work with what they call "equilibrium models" - the idea is that a modern market economy is fundamentally stable. That is not to say nothing ever changes but it grows in a steady way. To generate an economic crisis or a sudden boom some sort of external shock has to occur - whether that be a rise in oil prices, a war or the invention of the internet.

Minsky disagreed. He thought that the system itself could generate shocks through its own internal dynamics. He believed that during periods of economic stability, banks, firms and other economic agents become complacent. They assume that the good times will keep on going and begin to take ever greater risks in pursuit of profit. So the seeds of the next crisis are sown in the good time.

Three stages of debt
Minsky had a theory, the "financial instability hypothesis", arguing that lending goes through three distinct stages. He dubbed these the Hedge, the Speculative and the Ponzi stages, after financial fraudster Charles Ponzi.

Continue reading the main story
Ponzi schemes

Charles Ponzi
Similar to a pyramid scheme, an enterprise where - instead of genuine profits - funds from new investors are used to pay high returns to current investors.

Named after fraudster Charles Ponzi (1882-1949), such schemes are destined to collapse as soon as new investment tails off or significant numbers of investors simultaneously wish to withdraw funds.

In the first stage, soon after a crisis, banks and borrowers are cautious. Loans are made in modest amounts and the borrower can afford to repay both the initial principal and the interest.

As confidence rises banks begin to make loans in which the borrower can only afford to pay the interest. Usually this loan is against an asset which is rising in value. Finally, when the previous crisis is a distant memory, we reach the final stage - Ponzi finance. At this point banks make loans to firms and households that can afford to pay neither the interest nor the principal. Again this is underpinned by a belief that asset prices will rise.

The easiest way to understand is to think of a typical mortgage. Hedge finance means a normal capital repayment loan, speculative finance is more akin to an interest-only loan and then Ponzi finance is something beyond even this. It is like getting a mortgage, making no payments at all for a few years and then hoping the value of the house has gone up enough that its sale can cover the initial loan and all the missed payments. You can see that the model is a pretty good description of the kind of lending that led to the financial crisis.

Minsky moments
The "Minsky moment", a term coined by later economists, is the moment when the whole house of cards falls down. Ponzi finance is underpinned by rising asset prices and when asset prices eventually start to fall then borrowers and banks realise there is debt in the system that can never be paid off. People rush to sell assets causing an even larger fall in prices.

Wiley Coyote in "Chariots of Fur", 1994
The Minsky moment: Like the moment when the cartoon character realises they're running on thin air
It is like the moment that a cartoon character runs off a cliff. They keep on running for a while, still believing they're on solid ground. But then there's a moment of sudden realisation - the Minsky moment - when they look down and see nothing but thin air. Then they plummet to the ground, and that's the crisis and crash of 2008.

Finance matters
Until fairly recently, most macroeconomists were not very interested in the finer details of the banking and financial system. They saw it as just an intermediary which moved money from savers to borrowers.

This is rather like the way most people are not very interested in the finer details of plumbing when they're having a shower. As long as the pipes are working and the water is flowing there is no need to understand the detailed workings.

2008: man walks past Evening Standard billboard: "Banks rescue: City reaction"
The 2008 crash brought wider attention to the workings of the financial system
To Minsky, banks were not just pipes but more like a pump - not just simple intermediaries moving money through the system but profit-making institutions, with an incentive to increase lending. This is part of the mechanism that makes economies unstable.

Preferring words to maths and models
Continue reading the main story
Minsky remembered

"Hy was a bigger than life kind of person, quite a character," remembers Lawrence Meyer, economist and former Federal Reserve governor, who worked with Minsky at Washington University. "He kind of loved to shock people. He took great joy in that, I think."
"He was more driven by seeing the conventional theories being a delusional thing, a Disneyworld view of the real world," says Australian economist Prof Steve Keen. "He was much more for getting your hands dirty in the real world. I think Minsky gave us the first sensible overview of capitalism ever, which had warts and all what capitalism is about."
Since World War Two, mainstream economics has become increasingly mathematical, based on formal models of how the economy works.

To model things you need to make assumptions, and critics of mainstream economics argue that as the models and maths became more and more complex, the assumptions underpinning them became more and more divorced from reality. The models became an end in themselves.

Although he trained in mathematics, Minsky preferred what economists call a narrative approach - he was about ideas expressed in words. Many of the greats from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes to Friedrich Hayek worked like this.

While maths is more precise, words might allow you to express and engage with complex ideas that are tricky to model - things like uncertainty, irrationality, and exuberance. Minsky's fans say this contributed to a view of the economy that was far more "realistic" than that of mainstream economics."

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Yeah, no doubt from an investing perspective that your money can do better elsewhere. But, where do you rent? Are you and your wife mobile? What type of property are you renting? What is the difference between owning and renting the said property?

If you're not planning to stay in Vancouver in the long-term, then RE is a silly "investment". However, if you are planning to stay for a while (despite the shitty economy, low-paying jobs, etc.), what do you do, especially if you already have equity? Cash out, and rent a house? Renters have a lot of protection here in BC and there's a lot of stock, but it can be hard to find a good quality semi-detached or detached home that you can rent long-term. How many landlords sign multi-year leases for detached properties?

I used my example to illustrate what can be done.

As a matter of fact, we are planning to move back to Van later this year (probably around Sep) in order to provide a better environment to our kid. The opportunities here are better, but then our kid is only going to grow once.

When we are back, renting is what I'm planning to do until buying makes more sense financially. See the example I used, by taking on 2M asset, the outcome on buying a house is only better at year 3 while assuming a continuos 10% YoY growth.

By investing into income-providing properties vs. buying a home, the only benefit that the latter provides is that I don't have to worry about one day the landlord suddenly want to kick me out for whatever reason. But that is a luxury I am willing to sacrifice. Because at any given point in time, if the RE stops growing 10% YoY, I'd lose more money. It is going to be a very stressful situation if you have all/most your asset in your home.

My recommendation:
If you have some decent saving/good credit... figure out a way to borrow and invest in anywhere that provides a decent cap. Especially with our loonies on its way down, I think it's very attractive (I borrowed from CDN lenders when loonie was basically at par and invested in US. My income basically increased 12% without me doing anything due to the dive this year) as long as you are calculating your income/payment accordingly. I used 1:1 when I borrowed because I figured loonie can't sustain for a long period over parity. And I could absorb up to 15% of shock based on my income.

[Z3guy]

Originally Posted by 4444

i can hack it fine, thanks - had one of the better careers of the people i know.

moved, make >50% more, live a life that is WAY more rewarding, exciting, and opens up huge opportunitites

it's not that i couldn't 'hack it' i was living a very privileged life, for saying it is 100% of my own doing/hard work, but the point is life outside of vancouver can be WAY better than life inside - if you've never lived around the world (which many don't have the ability to do), then you won't realize just how stunted life in vancouver is.

it's hilarious that you think i left because i couldn't hack it - i left because vancouver couldn't GIVE ME enough, not the other way round

you are also humble too! hahaha!