Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[MR_BIGGS]

Originally Posted by Kirito

It doesn't have to be stocks, index investing is quite safe. I think most of us are passive investors so the stock market might not be the best.

Canadian Couch Potato ? Your complete guide to index investing

I recommend that website for anyone interested in passive investing. Just follow what it says and you are almost guaranteed to see you a better return than what the current RE market would give you at todays prices.

Also everyone should keep in mind right now the stock market is at a all time high right now which means it's only going to go down from here.

+1.

I set up TD e-series funds a few years ago for my RRSP.

Anything you don't know, research. There's very knowledgeable people in this thread. Ask questions, research, read books.

[iEatClams]

Interesting article from Australia in which the government rejected a foreign house buyer.

In Australia, they do have foreign restrictions on home buying (at least for new houses anyways).

I have family in sydney and apparently they do have statistics on foreign (chinese) buyers and it does affect the market apparently. What they did was restricted them to buy only new houses so that they still can take investments and the money coming in, and thus still drive demand for construction etc. but they dont allow them to buy "used" houses.

I think Canada should do the same personally.

The Abbott government has refused to allow a foreigner to buy a house in Sydney in what some experts say could be a new direction in government policy.

The knockback comes as Prime Minister Tony Abbott leads a large delegation to North Asia to show Australia is "open for business" when it comes to investment and trade.

The purchase of the established four-bedroom house in Strathfield by Zhixiong Hua was rejected by Treasury under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act as "contrary to the national interest".

It is understood the purchase was screened by Treasury, under the foreign investment review process, and the buyer declined to provide further information when it was sought.

In 2012/13, a total of $51.9 billion of foreign investment in real estate was approved, including $5.42 billion in existing residential property.

But no proposal has been rejected in the national interest since 2011/12, according to the Foreign Investment Review Board's annual reports.

Parliamentary secretary to the treasurer Steven Ciobo would not comment on the specific case but said the rules applied equally to all potential investors and the government expected compliance.

"There is absolutely no change in policy," Mr Ciobo told AAP from Washington on Wednesday.

Foreign investors can purchase new but not second-hand property, unless other factors applied such as the property no longer had any economic life, he said.

Queensland University of Technology business expert Mark McGovern said the decision was unusual.

He thinks the government should inform the market about whether it is a change of policy or this case is an exception.

Alan Moran, from the Institute of Public Affairs, was unaware of any precedent.

"We want to encourage immigration of entrepreneurial sorts of people, including from China, and this sends a bad message," Dr Moran said.

However, Real Estate Institute of NSW president Malcolm Gunning backed up Mr Ciobo's position.

"If you are a foreign national and not resident, this is urban land not permitted for purchase," Mr Gunning said.

"We think this is exactly what should happen under the rules."

He said it appeared the buyer had been badly advised.

Mr Gunning said foreign buyers should be encouraged to buy new properties because this had a flow-on effect for jobs and investment. Existing older homes should be left to local buyers.

It appeared the Abbott government was toughening up in this policy area, he said.

"There's a little bit of political heat as far as this is concerned."

Mr Hockey last month referred the issue of foreign investment in residential real estate to parliament's economics committee.

Committee chairwoman Kelly O'Dwyer said at the time there had been concerns that foreign investment in Australian real estate is causing a distortion in the market and making housing less accessible and affordable.

The house, on a 902 square metre block, is listed as having sold for $1.8 million on March 22.

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/na...-1226879182714

[Carl Johnson]

Don't really think this kind of policy will work from an economic and political perspective. The bigger worry for Vancouver high-end market is what is actually happening in China with the on-going liquidity crunch in the property sector. Home sales and prices are starting to slide in many second-tier cities. A lot of Chinese don't really touch the Shanghai stock market because they know it is rigged, but they have tons of money in real estate because it is considered "safe" as it is a physical asset you can touch and feel.

So with house prices sliding and financing extremely tight at the moment it will be interesting to see if these Chinese buyers of the last couple years will turn to seller once they feel Vancouver real estate market is not living up the expectation they had hoped for.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by 4444

there's a reason flaherty just left - he's not stupid and sees writing on the wall.

touche. although I don't think you were meaning his own writing on the wall

RIP Flaherty

[Carl Johnson]

Housing correction would damage Canada's economy, says BMO report

By Julian Beltrame, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - A sudden and sharp correction in the housing market could have a devastating impact on the Canadian economy overall, enough to trigger another recession, says a new Bank of Montreal report.

The analysis by senior economist Sal Guatieri finds that even a 10 per cent correction — what many would call a soft landing — could sap as much as one percentage point from gross domestic product growth, or basically halve the current growth rate.

The findings stems from an analysis on the contribution of the brisk housing market on the Canadian economy between 2002 and 2007, when prices rose five percentage points faster than incomes.

According to the BMO, the rapid escalation in home prices and construction added 0.56 percentage points to annual growth during those six years, and "lifted household wealth, confidence and borrowing ability."

But now, with home values at or near record levels throughout the country and many economists predicting some kind of correction, the opposite scenario would unfold from a price and accompanying construction drop.

"This suggests a moderate correction could have a meaningful slowing effect," Guatieri says in a report issued Friday.

"Based on our model, a 10 per cent decline in prices and construction reduced annual growth by one percentage point, with the two channels contributing equally. Given underlying growth of just over two per cent, prices and construction would need to fall more than 20 per cent to spur a contraction."

Guatieri adds that given the record levels of household debt accumulated by families, the negative impact of a correction could even be worse than the bank's models project.

On Wednesday, Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz said while a housing correction remains a risk to the economy, the most likely outcome was for a "soft landing."

The central bank took comfort in the fact price increases had moderated and that household debt levels had stabilized — while remaining elevated — at 164 per cent of disposable income.

The BMO report does not suggest a major correction is in the offing, as some economists have predicted. In fact, it argues the opposite. Guatieri says the so-called "bubble" in housing is exaggerated and that Canada is not in the same position the U.S. found itself prior to the 2007 crash.

He notes that while the run-up in housing prior to the recent recession may have been similar in both countries, the boom was smaller in Canada and had been preceded by years of below average homebuilding, so was in part a response to pent-up demand. That was not the case south of the border.

He also points out that with the exception of Toronto, Calgary and a few other hotbeds, Canada's housing boom essentially ended in 2008. Since then, price increases have risen only moderately more than incomes.

Still, Guatieri's findings agree with the central bank's contention that housing remains a key vulnerability to the economy as a whole.

"This speaks to the need for households to manage their debt prudently," he said.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ho...190207819.html

A 10% correction in housing could halve this Canada's GDP growth is just another shameful admission we as a nation put all our eggs in one basket. Instead of investing in technology and innovation for the long-term, the policymakers and developers are way too near-sighted and built our economy on a unsustainable housing boom with cheap credit.


To debate whether it is a soft landing or hard landing is irrelevant. If you are over-leveraged even a 10 or 15% correction will wreck havoc on your personal finance. In believing conventional wisdom, I always thought housing would take a stumble with the start of interest rate increases some time in 2016. But actually checking around local MLS listings and prominent real estate agent websites on homes sold in the last few months, I think it is already underway. Again this is anecdotal evidence on my part, however, investing is part science part art. Fundamental always matter even with buyer irrationality distorting the short-term picture.

[sonick]

So by my count, TD, RBC, Scotiabank (yesterday) and now BMO above have warned of a 'soft correction'. Just CIBC left

[LiquidTurbo]

My mom is my roommate: Why young adults are deciding to stay home with their parents

[Carl Johnson]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

My mom is my roommate: Why young adults are deciding to stay home with their parents

Pretty sure her situation is not an isolated case given the employment trend for people under 30. With the amount of baby boomers retired or will be retiring in the next 5 to 10 years, it really makes you wonder how B.C. will manage its fiscal position if they can't generate adequate revenue from the young people. If the LNG boom doesn't pan out there will be haircuts across many essential services.

[Carl Johnson]

Does Chinese Land-Banking Activity Pose A Threat To The US Housing Recovery?


When we were recently trying to buy a house in a new development here in Southern California, my wife would make it a point to go by the plan developer’s sales office every few weeks. On these visits, my wife coached our three year old son to ask the developer in the most adorable way possible ‘do you please have a house for us yet, please?’ This exercise demanded meticulous planning in order to maximize post-nap-time good cheer, as well as a good deal of coaching for proper enunciation and volume. For his part in this self-promotion scheme, my son demanded and was promised bunk beds for his room in the new house. He had recently been introduced to the bunk bed concept during a tour of the development’s model home and had since become completely obsessed.

Resorting to exploitation of toddler adorability may not have marked our proudest moments as parents, but we felt it was a necessary evil if we were going to be awarded the good fortune of being one of the lucky few allowed to actually buy one of the new homes. With little to no inventory on the market, buying from a new development seemed to be our best shot at finding a home. However, the development we liked was nearly sold out, with ‘hundreds’ on the waiting list to buy one of the few remaining lots. Furthermore, despite having the required minimum down payment and good credit, as conventional buyers, we were at a clear disadvantage from the reported large numbers of all-cash buyers from China.

We felt the odds were against us, and so we were pleasantly surprised when, a few weeks later, we received a call from the sales office offering us the house. To even get on the call list, we had to be formally approved by the builder’s lender, which involved weeks of work to compile a three-inch binder of deeply personal information which we then faxed into bank underwriting oblivion. The waiting list rule was simple, if you get the call and are offered a house, you have to say yes or no immediately, no hanging up and double checking with your spouse. Are you in or out? We were in.

Despite the excitement that followed, the experience left a number of lingering questions in my mind. Were there really that many all-cash, Chinese buyers? What is the scale of these purchases? Does this activity pose any risks to the housing recovery in California or more broadly? Is there a potential for systematic financial risk? And most baffling, why are people buying high-end properties in high-end markets often just to leave them vacant? How does it possibly make sense for large numbers of people to save in such an inefficient manner?

The motivation for purchasing by Chinese buyers appears to be driven by a need to ‘park’ cash in an appreciable asset. Buying land in high quality property markets is akin to keeping savings in a bank, thus ‘land-banking’ is a term often used to describe the activity. As I began to speak with other investors around the world, what began as a curious look into housing price technicals in the California market turned into a quest to understand the dynamics of ‘land-banking’ globally and, ultimately, to an up-close examination of the underbelly of China’s high net worth investment industry.

From China with Cash

Official statistics are hard to find and most of the information on this issue is anecdotal. “The street they started on first, the one across from you, all of them were bought by cash buyers from China” said our landscaper. Since moving in, it appears our neighbors to the right and left, both Chinese owners, are conspicuously absent most of the time. We have jokingly speculated that one of the primary reasons we were lucky enough to get the house, is that they needed to be sure at least some of the buyers would actually live in the neighborhood.

Beyond the anecdotes however, there is a growing body of evidence that points to large-scale property buying by Chinese buyers in recent years focused on high end global property markets including Australia, Hong Kong, Vancouver, London, California, New York, etc. In Q3 of 2012 for example, up to 43% of purchasers of luxury homes in Hong Kong were made by mainland Chinese buyers. In Australia, the proportion of foreign buyers more than doubled from 5% in 2011 to more than 12.5% in the latter part of 2013. The buying can be quite concentrated, with property developers in Sydney reporting that upwards of 85 to 90% of buyers of new properties are mainland Chinese. The US, and particularly California, have also attracted these buyers. According to a 2012 CBRE report, Chinese nationals invested over $9 billion during the year in US real estate, second only to the Canadians as foreign investors. According to Zillow, Chinese property purchases in the US rose to $11 billion last year.

The investment activity has often provided a welcomed boon to local economies, improving the tax base and supporting property prices. However, this activity has also led to concerns of overheating in certain markets. For example, in Hong Kong, whose proximity to the mainland has helped make it a favorite target for mainland Chinese investors, property prices have doubled from 2007 levels . By 2013, Hong Kong cap rates, a measure for return on capital for property investment, had fallen to around half those seen in other active, high-end markets like Los Angeles, New York, and London. The Hong Kong government has reacted to the influx of demand by imposing new restrictions and increasing taxes for foreign property buyers.

Elsewhere, coveted neighborhoods from Sydney, Australia to Irvine, California have experienced price increases of some 15 to 27% in recent years. In Australia, a political backlash of sorts has developed, driven by those who now feel priced out of the local market as well as those who fear a more systematic risk element may be developing. In the US, $11 billion in Chinese investor flows is not sufficient to move the entire market, but the neighborhoods where Chinese investor demand has been concentrated have seen significant price increases. Fitch recently issued a report warning that the 15 to 25% price increases on California coasts seemed overvalued up to 20%, with all-cash purchases accounting for more than 50% of purchases in some areas.

One Foot out The Door

So where does this capital come from and what is driving these large scale investment flows out of mainland China? The first thing to understand is that, contrary to stereotypes from 30 years ago, today there is substantial personal wealth in China. According to a report by China Merchants Bank and Bain and Company, by 2012 there were over 700,000 Chinese individuals with assets over RMB 10 million ($1.6 million) with assets per capita for these 700,000 individuals of approximately RMB 31 million ($4.98 million). Additionally, the report stated that the growth of this personal wealth has outpaced the Chinese economy in recent years, growing at an annualized rate of 28% between 2008 and 2010.

When I first started to look into this land banking activity, I assumed that the investment options to local Chinese individuals must be terrible. I hypothesized that Chinese citizens faced a dilemma common in emerging markets: if inflation is 6% or more, your local bank offers you only 1 or 2% in interest, and your currency is depreciating like a falling knife, then paying a few percent each year in taxes and expenses to own property denominated in USD might be an attractive alternative. However the Chinese Yuan has been on a continuous upward trajectory, and in fact the government had to recently intervene to halt the appreciation, which local investors had been speculating in in large numbers. Also, banks offer 3% or more deposit interest in China, not 2%. Finally, unlike many areas of the development world, Chinese inflation resembles that in the US, and is only around 2%. Thus it would appear that lack of attractive alternative investment options is not the primary reason for these investor flows to foreign property.

Answers to the questions of how this wealth has been generated and why these individuals are so eager to invest in overseas property are often intertwined. China is a largely state-directed economy. The largest companies and industries are still state controlled. As the economy has grown and these state-controlled companies have become behemoths, the politically well-connected executives running those companies have disproportionately benefitted. However, political favor tends to be rather fickle.

There have been some recent illustrative high profile situations in which wealthy and politically-connected individuals and families have experienced swift falls from grace. Seeing the turns of fortune (both political and financial) of others and anticipating this risk for themselves, some high net worth individuals appear to be moving assets into ex-China real estate as a defensive tactic. In addition, legal and regulatory uncertainty persists in China and even individuals with more conventionally secured fortunes may be motivated to move assets overseas. Laws can be ambiguous, tax laws even more so. Furthermore the political agenda can shift rapidly, along with it laws and enforcement priorities. A more poignant example is environmental laws, which can be enacted or changed at whim (pollution is also a big motivator for emigration).

This political uncertainty and legal ambiguity have led those with wealth to diversify their wealth holdings to assets outside of PRC control. In fact, around 60 percent of high net worth individuals with at least 10 million Yuan have left China or are considering it, according The China Private Wealth Report released in May by Bain and Co. In some ways it must feel like an old game of musical chairs. Before the music stops, high net worth individuals want to get as much of their lives and belongings out of China. They purchase property overseas. They send their children to study abroad, and their parents to retire. When possible, they themselves emigrate.

Those who buy together, sell together?

The combination of political, tax, judicial, and economic uncertainty, not to mention pollution, have prompted a massive migration of Chinese capital to higher-end global real estate markets. So what risks, if any, does this pose for those recipient markets? Is there any systematic risk element for financial markets broadly?

The first thing to realize is that these purchases tend to be all-cash purchases. The 2007 property bubble in the US was driven by a large number of highly leveraged (100%+LTV) buyers who lacked the ability to repay the loans. When those borrowers defaulted, the massive losses nearly collapsed the banking system. In contrast, these all-cash or mostly cash purchases seem unlikely to threaten the banking system directly as, simply put, they don’t involve any bank lending.

Secondly, at least in the US, the scale of these purchases is unlikely to lead to large-scale, systematic mispricing of real estate. According to the National Association of Realtors, Chinese buyers represent around 12% of total foreign purchases in the, second only to Canadians. However, foreign buyers represent only 6.3% of US housing purchases. Therefore, the proportion of Chinese buyers in the broader $1.08 trillion US housing market is miniscule. That said, the buying does appear to be concentrated. In Hong Kong, for example, some new apartment buildings are almost entirely owned by mainland Chinese investors. A recent lack of liquidity in the mainland forced many of these owners to try to sell at the same time , prompting price corrections of up to 20% within buildings where most of the units are owned by mainlanders. Thus the concentrated nature of buying may lead to price dislocations in some specific neighborhoods should these investors have a demand for their cash simultaneously.

All in, the buying from mainland China appears to be a significant trend, driven by the desire for local high net worth individuals to diversify their growing assets to regions where there is less political uncertainty. Though I find this story rather fascinating, on balance this activity seems to represents fairly low systematic risk to the US property market. That said, specific neighborhoods which attract concentrated flows may be at risk of a price correction should these investors seek to raise cash quickly. On balance, US property investors should probably be much more concerned about the path of US interest rates as well as Congress’ plans for restructuring the US mortgage market.

Link: Does Chinese Land-Banking Activity Pose A Threat To The US Housing Recovery? - Forbes

My take on this story is that the fear of China political or economic instability is dramatically overplayed by the Chinese themselves as well as the Western media. Does China have problems with human rights, pollution, rule-of-law? Sure. But the chaotic 19th century America would make today's China look relative safe. England during the industrial revolution is even worse than Beijing or Shanghai today. This is just a transitional period in China's history. The fundamental of Chinese political system is in fact just as strong if not stronger than most Western democracies.

This is probably the most exciting time to start a business in China right now. Obviously anything outside the real estate sector. With rapid increases in living standards and incomes you got 1.3 billion consumers (almost 40x Canada population) ready to buy whatever products you believe that is going to be in demand. The naysayers of China only focus on the negatives but misses all major achievements like one of the best transportation and trade network to do commerce.

To those who moved cash oversee to live and start a new life for themselves and their families, this is complete understandable. However, to those invested in America or Canada based on the fear of some kind of collapse in China is completely irrational and those individuals will pay dearly for their mistakes. Like the article author I don't think foreign inflow pose a systemic risk to Canadian real estate on the whole, but I do believe what we have witnessed in selective markets in Canada from this hot money inflow is a short-term phenomena. The huge price increases we've seen in market like Vancouver West or West Vancouver and some other overheated market that has attracted major Chinese capital inflow over last 5 to 10 years will probably get hit the hardest once local people here realize not all wealthy and successful Chinese want to invest oversea because there are way more opportunities in China.

[Traum]

Carl,

I'd have to disagree with your assessment of Mainland China's political stability. Contrary to what you are saying above, I'd say today's Mainland China is more prone to political instability than any other period since the Tienanmen massacre in 1989. From the highest level struggles among the power brokers all the day down to the peasant-level protests and stuff, Mainland China is a pressure pot ripe for anything -- there is just no telling of how things can play out because there are so many things all happening at the same time.

Furthermore, regardless of whether the political and/or economic instability is real or perceived, the fact of the matter is, Mainland Chinese who have the means are trucking their wealth and themselves out of China, and they are buying up properties left, right, and center wherever they choose to shop, driving up prices as they go along.

[Carl Johnson]

You gonna have to give me a good example on Chinese political instability. From my vantage point the new leadership has got a good handle on the political system otherwise Xi Jinping wouldn't even dare to crackdown on corruption and all the excesses if he feels his power is weak and feeble.

Although I have to say a lot of people believe what you believe without any solid evidence, so in the short-term people will still be moving cash out of China. In the long run, I don't believe it will be the case because China is a very sustainable place to live and work. Like I said if I am starting out a new venture, I do it in China and not in low growth country like Canada.

[Traum]

The back bench power brokering is as fierce and serious as it can be right now, with Prez Xi's corruption crackdown being a catalyst of the struggle. The unofficial detainment of former politburo committee member Zhou Yongkang has been a source of unrest and undercurrent among the power struggle. The PLA has recently issued a very rare announcement of their support for Prez Xi, while ex-prez Emperor Jiang has came out for a public showing. The move is widely viewed as a means of support for his Shanghaiese gang. All of this carries significant political impact because the corruption crackdown could eventually be traced all the way up to former party chairmans, ex-premiers and people in the politburo committee -- this is something completely unprecedented as politburo committee members were practically viewed to be immune from most forms of political prosecution.

At the commoner's levels, the general public have grown more daring both in terms of criticizing the government and actually follow through with some sort of action. Recent demonstrations that led to police action include protests against paraxylene factory building. And let's not forget the ever serious pollution problems. Air quality in major cities are absolutely dismal, and both the central and local governments have absolutely no good measures against them in the short and medium term.

IMO, much of China's rapid growth over the past 20+ years came at the expense of pollution and the environment. At this point, if more environmentally friendly policies are adopted, the economy is going to stall. (The Guangdong factories and the export industries are already suffering heavy losses.) But if the government continues to ignore environmental costs, they are going to face some serious pollution costs as well as further protests from the public.

It is difficult to tell what kind of outcome will result from this. As far as I can see, anything from remaining with the status quo to a sudden coup displacing Prez Xi would not surprise me. The thing is, the outcome is just cloudy and uncertain, and as a general rule, people do not like uncertainty.

There have long been numerous reports that in Mainland China, the overwhelming majority of the rich and/or powerful (something like 80-90%) have either already obtained foreign passports or has started the process to do so. As the rich and the upper middle class continue to take measures to transfer their wealth out of the country, how prosperous can the country become?

Another interesting tibit of news I recently read is, because of Prez Xi's anti-corruption crackdown, the liquor market has suffered some serious losses -- something to the tune of 70%+ drops in sales or something? The recent sting operation on the prostitution industries in Dongguan has also put a major damper on the region economic activities.

For every good reason to do business in China, there is probably an equally strong reason against it. I say it'd all come down to a matter of perspective.

[Carl Johnson]

CMHC cutting back on what it covers with mortgage default insurance

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., the Crown corporation that controls the vast majority of mortgage default insurance in the country, says it plans to get out of the market for second homes and is adding restrictions for self-employed Canadians.


Effective May 30, CMHC said it will discontinue insuring second homes and will require self-employed Canadians to have third party income income validation.


The Crown corporation said the changes are being made as part of its review of its mortgage loan business. The organization has already said it is raising rates across the board May 1, a move that comes after the federal government last year appointed a new chair for CMHC and brought in a new chief executive.


“CMHC helps Canadians meet their housing needs and contributes to the stability of the housing market and finance system” said Steven Mennill, senior vice-president, insurance, in a release. “As part of the review of its mortgage loan insurance business, CMHC is evaluating its products and services to ensure they are aligned with these objectives.”


The agency said it’s the first set of changes resulting from the review of its operation. The Financial Post reported this month that Evan Siddall, a former investment banker brought in as CEO, has been asked about the possibility of a risk-based method of assessing mortgage default insurance. Sources say the new CEO has told people he doesn’t disagree with the principal of risk-based insurance.


The changes announced Friday affect a small portion of the market. CMHC said its second home and self-employed without third party income validation business account for less than 3% of CMHC’s insured business volumes in units.


“Given the limited use of these products, their discontinuation is not expected to have a material impact on the housing market,” the agency said in a release.


CMHC first introduced the program for self employed people in 2007 in response to “industry competition” which at its peak saw some U.S. players enter the market and encourage changes that created amortization lengths as long as 40 years. The government has since restricted loans to 25-year amortizations.


The second home product was introduced in 2005 and applied when purchasing an owner-occupied second home anywhere in Canada.
CMHC said it will limit the availability of homeowner mortgage loan insurance to only one property (one to four units) per borrower/co-borrower at any given time.


Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist with CIBC, said the announcement was not “a big surprise given the mandate of providing more stability. That might not be the end of it. We might see more coming from CMHC.”


Finn Poschmann, vice-president of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, said the requirement for validation seems reasonable.


“What is interesting is the question of whether the change will tend to shift risk away from CMHC and toward the private insurers. Whether that is the outcome will be determined by the private insurers’ responses,” he said, in an email.

CMHC cutting back on what it covers with mortgage default insurance | Financial Post

Great news for the Canadian housing bull. With almost 1 trillion mortgage debt, CMHC must be feeling very aplomb with their risk exposures.

[Z3guy]

[QUOTE=
Another interesting tibit of news I recently read is, because of Prez Xi's anti-corruption crackdown, the liquor market has suffered some serious losses -- something to the tune of 70%+ drops in sales or something?.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the current crackdown on "gift giving" has hurt all major international spirits players. Remy Martin has been hit the hardest in which their international fiscal yr proifts were down 45%. Even the second biggest spirits player, Pernod Ricard missed their fiscal yr profit # due to very poor Martell sales in China.

China is so influential in the Bordeaux wine futures that China is dictating the world pricing on all Bordeaux wines.....crazy!

[Y2K_o__o]

The first thing to realize is that these purchases tend to be all-cash purchases. The 2007 property bubble in the US was driven by a large number of highly leveraged (100%+LTV) buyers who lacked the ability to repay the loans. When those borrowers defaulted, the massive losses nearly collapsed the banking system. In contrast, these all-cash or mostly cash purchases seem unlikely to threaten the banking system directly as, simply put, they don’t involve any bank lending.

I partially agree with "no involvement of bank lending"

Local buyers would still have high leverage mortgage (most real estate are 5-10% down). I understand the point that cash transaction doesn't have bank lending involved, but remember the majority of the "user", like us, would have to lend 80% (assuming 20% down) from bank.

IF there is any correction around the corner, those low-downpay asset could totally be negative asset, and affect the bank ultimately.

[iEatClams]

Man, looks like my guestimate of a -1-3% decrease for 2014 in Real estate prices is off. looks like benchmark prices are increasing 1-2%, but at least average prices are decreasing.

we'll see how the later half of this year plays out.

[4444]

Originally Posted by iEatClams

Man, looks like my guestimate of a -1-3% decrease for 2014 in Real estate prices is off. looks like benchmark prices are increasing 1-2%, but at least average prices are decreasing.

we'll see how the later half of this year plays out.

do you honestly feel that you can trust any published number in canada? i know i don't. no transparency at all in real estate in this country

[xxxrsxxx]

Sort of off topic....I'm a home owner and have put my apartment up for sale. If my place gets sold, I do not have a place to stay yet. I tried googling but can't find any good ones, what are some popular/good websites to search for rental apartments?

[|<e|_]

Apartments for Rent - PadMapper Apartment Search for Oodle, Rent.com, Kijiji, and Craigslist Apartments

[Manic!]

Craigslist kijiji

[J____]

vancouver's bubble is nothing compared to shanghai. Currently looking to purchase property and a 1600sq ft new apartment goes for $1.5 million USD here in a location similar to marpole in relation to downtown. That price gets you concrete flat without any renovations. Parking spot costs an extra $60k USD to buy. Much much worse considering the average wage in shanghai is around $1000 USD a month. LOL I miss vancouver..

[4444]

Originally Posted by J____

vancouver's bubble is nothing compared to shanghai. Currently looking to purchase property and a 1600sq ft new apartment goes for $1.5 million USD here in a location similar to marpole in relation to downtown. That price gets you concrete flat without any renovations. Parking spot costs an extra $60k USD to buy. Much much worse considering the average wage in shanghai is around $1000 USD a month. LOL I miss vancouver..

apples to oranges

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by 4444

do you honestly feel that you can trust any published number in canada? i know i don't. no transparency at all in real estate in this country

lol, no, i dont have any trust at all. it's funny, the last few times i've gone out and meet strangers or acquaintances of friends, and at some point, I find out they are realtors.

Seems like there are way too many realtors these days. and to be honest, I would not trust any of those individuals with my real estate advice. they seem to soo biased and self-serving.

PS, im not saying all realtors are like that, just that there are way too many bad ones.

[Y2K_o__o]

Originally Posted by iEatClams

lol, no, i dont have any trust at all. it's funny, the last few times i've gone out and meet strangers or acquaintances of friends, and at some point, I find out they are realtors.

Seems like there are way too many realtors these days. and to be honest, I would not trust any of those individuals with my real estate advice. they seem to soo biased and self-serving.

PS, im not saying all realtors are like that, just that there are way too many bad ones.

haha never ever trust realtor advice unless they are your parents.
People will do things that favor their positions, and that's human nature.

[Carl Johnson]

to ask a real estate when to buy a house is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. garbage it, garbage out. my advice on home buying is do your own DD and leave all emotions at the door. never get into a bidding war because the winner is the biggest loser. the mantra for real estate is: location, location, location. the more suitable term should be: location, house, and price.