News   Jun 28, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 485     1 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

Daveto,
I agree full heartedly with your post. I appreciate Desmo's post. It is rationale and thought out but truly simply is an attempt to explain that it is different this time or different here.
I am one of the old guard I guess referred to in Desmo's post.

Desmo, your professor's quote is my favourite expression and I use it often. I state however: Individuals fail to see the forest through the trees.

The reality is that the real driver as Daveto points out has been the secular bull bond market which is now over. As many of us have posted and as Daveto eludes to;
fundamentals of real estate investing (and any investing) cannot be ignored forever. Prices can't outstrip incomes forever. Rents cannot be so low as to make investments non economic forever and have "investors" relying on soley capital appreciation for a return. This isn't hugely different than the Nasaq bubble with tech stocks that weren't making any money trading at huge multiples but would make money "in the future" to borrow another example of a bubble.

I don't think Dave or I am saying everything is an absolute bubble, we are just saying that history has a way of repeating itself and every once in a while, someone wants to suggest that they can reinvent the wheel, or this case, why previous "economic theory" is "different this time".

That said, welcome to the forum. We look forward to hearing your insights. And of course, we respect that you may disagree with our posts.
 
Desmo, thanks for your post. While I appreciate the thought you have put into your rationale, if I can borrow a sentence from your post, I think this argument doesn't hold water if one "... stops looking at trees, and starts looking at forests".

The simple fact is the the money hasn't come back to Toronto, nor to anywhere else in Canada. Incomes have gone up by 10% over a decade when house prices have doubled (in real terms).

If one ignores the forest of many "special" trees which make us different, and look at the big picture, then it is clear that something has to give. At present price-to-income is 5-to-1 nationwide (long term average is 3 to 3.5-to-1). Similarly, rental cap rates are in the 2-3% net range before inflation.

Prices have risen to their current level because of a generational bull market in bonds, which has brought rates down from the highs of the 1980s to the lowest point in history (and thus the cheapest mortgages). At the same time over the past 10 year, the role of the CMHC has been dramatically increased through much more accommodative (and politically popular, ahem) guidelines on amounts eligible for insurance, and through much greater use of securitization. All of the above has served as an accelerant to the marketplace. As we have now exhausted our cupboard of accelerants, it should be pretty clear what happens next.

Once again, I really do appreciate the thought you put into your post. But you're basically saying "It's different here", and history has shown that is the last gasp of a bubble marketplace. My 2 cents.l

Daveto, interested, you both raise excellent points, and prove I am no more than a casual real estate guy!

There is no question that eventually, the disparity between what people earn, and what people spend, will come crashing together. In the US, we have seen the dramatic effects of this, and you are both correct in demonstrating that the same issues are creeping, or rather stomping, into Canada. This is compounded by the unavoidable increase in interest rates that will happen in the next 6-12 months. Further, interested, your point; "Rents cannot be so low as to make investments non economic forever and have "investors" relying on soley capital appreciation for a return", is entirely true. There is no point in even debating your points about the bond market, becuase those are absokutely true too. One issue I have with your numbers though Daveto, is that it seems they are nation wide averages. Unless I am wrong in assuming that, most of their value is therefore mitigated when discussing a single location in the financial heart of Canada. When one averages over a broad enough group, all value in those numbers is lost.

I do not, however, believe the market is headed to a major correction. the basis is that I am not under the assumption that rents will continue to stay flat. Im in an industry where I can see the vast amount of investment in Canadian interests, whether they be financial or resource-based in nature. While it is somewhat easy to disregard the argument as a "im different" line of reasoning, the demand Canada will sustain for its resources will fuel securities, corporate mergers and further investment of which we are already seeing. THis is a unique position in North America right now. These changes will bring in new capital, encourage employment growth and will increase demand for rentals. Im sure you are both much more aware of the cycles in real estate than I can ever be, and can see that once rent starts increasing, with suatained growth, property values will increase as well. I do not think that the fiscal policy tightening that will undoubtedly occur will be of such proportion that it will "burst" the alleged bubble. THere is simply too much worldwide growth that must be fueled. The fiscal tightenign that will occur will have a shorter term impact on the market leading to what I believe will be a time of stagnation. But beyond that I see growth, and further price increases.

The income/housing cost disparity Canadians are facing are pretty daunting, of that there is no question. However, I just see too much fundamental strength in the economy over the next decade, increasing further past that, for the housing market to implode. Add to that the enormous amount of foriegn investment into the downtown core from China, Isreal, London, ect.... I am not, however, impervious to your reasoning, and I am going to look closer into other jurisdictions to see comparables. It may be difficult since Canada is uniquely positioned relative to the other developed nations going forward (perhaps with the exception of Australia).

Heres a question though, in cities that have similar characteristics to Toronto (for example NY or many others), what are the specific income changes relative to property increases, and how do they correlate to bubble bursts?
 
Daveto,
I agree full heartedly with your post. I appreciate Desmo's post. It is rationale and thought out but truly simply is an attempt to explain that it is different this time or different here.
I am one of the old guard I guess referred to in Desmo's post.

Desmo, your professor's quote is my favourite expression and I use it often. I state however: Individuals fail to see the forest through the trees.

The reality is that the real driver as Daveto points out has been the secular bull bond market which is now over. As many of us have posted and as Daveto eludes to;
fundamentals of real estate investing (and any investing) cannot be ignored forever. Prices can't outstrip incomes forever. Rents cannot be so low as to make investments non economic forever and have "investors" relying on soley capital appreciation for a return. This isn't hugely different than the Nasaq bubble with tech stocks that weren't making any money trading at huge multiples but would make money "in the future" to borrow another example of a bubble.

I don't think Dave or I am saying everything is an absolute bubble, we are just saying that history has a way of repeating itself and every once in a while, someone wants to suggest that they can reinvent the wheel, or this case, why previous "economic theory" is "different this time".

That said, welcome to the forum. We look forward to hearing your insights. And of course, we respect that you may disagree with our posts.

I love that variation of the saying as well!

As I said, it would be foolish to ignore the points both you and Daveto make, and to fully address those concerns I will have to spend some time (of which I have none!) investigating them further, if only to come to the same conclusion as the two of you!

I do have some optimism in stocks right now (the terror filled reaction to the nuclear problems in japan that, in part, led to the recent drop, is almost ludicrous, as more than a few of my nuclear engineering friends have told me. and yes, I happen to have more than a few of those firends, strangely) and as I believe you had said earlier in this thread, this bodes well for at least the high end of the market.

As an aside, there are some great value based deals in stocks right now after the recent drop, as some investors have already realized. Apple stock at 330 yesterday was nearly a steal, although that wont be apparent to most until late summer.
 
Desmo, if you read the link that KA1posted to don campbell: http://www.donrcampbell.com/a-canadian-real-estate-market-doesnt-exist-in-2011-so-dont-be-fooled
He makes the point that TO is large enough that it is multiple markets unto itself. He states that Scarborough and the Beaches will go up.

For a few of us, we are most concerned about the downtown TO market and the condo market in particular and to extrapolate, if the overall market in TO will be to underperform, and Scarborough and the Beaches will go up, it suggests that the core may well be in the areas that underperform.

In your post you refer to the foreign investment: This will be of 2 kinds: 1) investment real estate to rent out (and hopefully not just to speculate and dump when ready at a profit) and 2) to live. TO has seen a wealth of high end product recently and perhaps that appeals to wealthy foreigners but this surely has to be a limited market. The question is at what point does the tipping point occur. As for TO mid range product, I won't dwell but you have heard daveto, myself and many others say we cannot understand the fundamentals of rentals of $500-800/sq.ft. condos unless there are significant rent increases. I just don't see that happening unless this is going to change drastically from the past 10 years and if the rent increases occur, then there will be more built to hold the rents.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out but don campbell in the article does point out that normal metrics are off due to massive government medling, rent controls, and HST etc. in the Ontario and the TO market in particular ( city land transfer tax). This makes reasonable normal economic rationale difficult to apply and distorts what should really be occuring in the market, whether that be positive or negative to the market.
 
Last edited:
KA1 and interested: thanks for your posts re: investment in florida.

Desmo: welcome to this thread.

Canadian comparative advantages (4 F's, etc.) are good indicators of long term potential of our economy. This should not be confused with currently distorted r/e fundamentals, coupled with huge amout of leverage, which will lead to our r/e adjustment. 4 F's were there couple of years ago when our r/e prices went down by almost 15% in the span of six months ... only to recover after gov't intervention. Overall, I agree that Canadian outlook is fairly positive in the long run. However, in the shorter run we will have r/e correction and it will be painfull for those fully leveraged!
 
Just to clarify my position: r/e prices went down in 2008 fairly fast. Not sure what would happen without gov't intervention. At that time Canada had food, timber and fuel, right? So how come this happened if there's direct correlation between r/e
prices and 3/4 Fs?
 
Resources are, however, an extremely local phenomenon. Yes, Yellowknife and Fort Mac both have exceedingly high house prices, but that is due to lack of supply and remoteness as much as anything else. They're also very hit and miss, Calgary and Edmonton both peaked 3 years ago and are down substantially- 15% or more from peak, and much more for condos - even though their affordability never dropped below Toronto's. Closer to Toronto, the price of nickel is at record highs yet house prices are still shockingly affordable in Sudbury (although, I have relatives up there that are shocked by what houses are worth now. You know, there's almost nothing for less than 100k nowadays). Saskatoon is itself as much housing shortage in a city that has grown at under 1% a year for decades, and never anticipated becoming a boomtown as the boom itself.

The foreign investment is another argument I see a few pages back. What we're seeing in Vancouver now is not unlike what happened there in '96. I lived there at the time and overseas buyers were flooding into the market in anticipation of the Hong Kong handover. Then, nothing happened, and a few months later a gigantic speculative Asian market bubble burst, and prices dropped 35% virtually overnight. Foreign buyers can and do drive markets, but just as much as they contribute, they can stop contributing and when they do the aftermath is shocking. Part of the reason why Vancouver has shown such dramatic appreciation in the last decade is simply that in 2001 they were at the bottom of the market; obviously the large compounding increases drove the speculative buyers ever harder until we got where we are today. An average Vancouver house sold for 550k in '96, 350 in '01, and well over 1 million today. My own parents, in the Fraser Valley about 100km east of the city, sold their house in '02. Took 15 months and they still lost 15% over 1994. That same house has since almost tripled.

The same is true in Alberta, which started from a low baseline and increased rapidly. Saskatchewan is now where Alberta was in 2005; total feeding frenzy because houses have tripled in four years.

I would not be surprised to see much of the West lose half of its real estate values, simply because current prices are not justifiable in any real way.

As you can tell, Toronto is largely free from these influences. Things have been relatively gentle here and that will probably continue, although we are likely near some sort of medium-term peak as affordability is stretched. We still don't have a huge amount of external investment and the locals are still driving the market. Until the economy improves there isn't a lot of upward momentum, though things can turn around on a dime simply because of the height we've achieved. Additionally, given the shift of economic power to the west, if things go south out there, there is a real chance the woes will percolate eastwards.
 
Resources are, however, an extremely local phenomenon. Yes, Yellowknife and Fort Mac both have exceedingly high house prices, but that is due to lack of supply and remoteness as much as anything else. They're also very hit and miss, Calgary and Edmonton both peaked 3 years ago and are down substantially- 15% or more from peak, and much more for condos - even though their affordability never dropped below Toronto's. Closer to Toronto, the price of nickel is at record highs yet house prices are still shockingly affordable in Sudbury (although, I have relatives up there that are shocked by what houses are worth now. You know, there's almost nothing for less than 100k nowadays). Saskatoon is itself as much housing shortage in a city that has grown at under 1% a year for decades, and never anticipated becoming a boomtown as the boom itself.

The foreign investment is another argument I see a few pages back. What we're seeing in Vancouver now is not unlike what happened there in '96. I lived there at the time and overseas buyers were flooding into the market in anticipation of the Hong Kong handover. Then, nothing happened, and a few months later a gigantic speculative Asian market bubble burst, and prices dropped 35% virtually overnight. Foreign buyers can and do drive markets, but just as much as they contribute, they can stop contributing and when they do the aftermath is shocking. Part of the reason why Vancouver has shown such dramatic appreciation in the last decade is simply that in 2001 they were at the bottom of the market; obviously the large compounding increases drove the speculative buyers ever harder until we got where we are today. An average Vancouver house sold for 550k in '96, 350 in '01, and well over 1 million today. My own parents, in the Fraser Valley about 100km east of the city, sold their house in '02. Took 15 months and they still lost 15% over 1994. That same house has since almost tripled.

The same is true in Alberta, which started from a low baseline and increased rapidly. Saskatchewan is now where Alberta was in 2005; total feeding frenzy because houses have tripled in four years.

I would not be surprised to see much of the West lose half of its real estate values, simply because current prices are not justifiable in any real way.

As you can tell, Toronto is largely free from these influences. Things have been relatively gentle here and that will probably continue, although we are likely near some sort of medium-term peak as affordability is stretched. We still don't have a huge amount of external investment and the locals are still driving the market. Until the economy improves there isn't a lot of upward momentum, though things can turn around on a dime simply because of the height we've achieved. Additionally, given the shift of economic power to the west, if things go south out there, there is a real chance the woes will percolate eastwards.


Great post Lafard;

I highlighted your parents experience for the younger individuals and those others who still kling to real estate as only an upward proposition.

I agree entirely with your post.
 

the article ... some points highlighted by me for emphasis:


Has the GTA condo market peaked?

The Toronto Star Real Estate:
By Tony Wong | Sun Mar 20 2011

Alfredo Romano steps up to a computer screen that looks like a giant iPad and starts tapping away.

“Look at this†says the developer with a wide grin. The computer is showing a floor plan of a condominium. Another tap. A simulated walk through of the unit. He taps again. The actual view from the unit pops up. “This is really cool.â€

The downtown Toronto sales centre for Romano’s Backstage condo project at Yonge St. and the Esplanade is the stuff of science fiction. The futuristic, modular design references the Museum of Modern Art with a nod to Battlestar Galactica.

Welcome to the digital showroom. Condo sales centres have evolved dramatically, where buying units seem as effortless as ordering a pair of slacks online. In North America’s most competitive condo market, it pays to stand out.

The movie set appeal isn’t likely by accident: Romano is a principal in Pinewood Studios. And in a way, that’s who the developer is trying to appeal to. Tech savvy young singles who want a downtown lifestyle.

So far the marketing seems to be working. Launched in January, the 286 unit project was more than 70 per cent sold out before it officially opened to the public.

So whatever happened to the great condo crash?

Analysts have been forecasting the demise of the Toronto condo market for more than a few years. But so far, prices have gone one way - up. This year could be the test of whether those prices will hold.

For one thing, the second quarter will see the release of an estimated 40 projects with more than 9,500 units – a record number for any quarter in the history of the city according to Toronto based research firm Urbanation Inc.

The Toronto market already had 286 projects being marketed at the end of 2010, the most in North America. Last year was also the second best year for condo sales on record.

“There is definitely going to be some competition out there,†said Ben Myers, executive vice president of Urbanation.

While developments such as Romano’s are doing well – analysts remain convinced that some kind of payback is inevitable.

A Scotiabank report says there are “emerging signs†of an oversupply of condos in the market with a higher than average stock of unsold properties, although the bank is not forecasting a major correction.

“I think in the short term there is a concern for the Toronto market, given the supply,†said Benjamin Tal, senior economist for CIBC World Markets. “But in the long run, I think condos are still attractive. They will still be attractive to baby boomers and people who want to live in urban areas.â€

Sherry Cooper, chief economist for BMO Financial Group has also said she is also concerned about the ultra high end condo market where prices are well over $1,000 per square foot. A new Ritz Carlton, Four Seasons, Trump and Shangri La hotel and condo towers are set to be completed within months of each other.

The luxury properties cannot be entirely supported by the domestic market, says Cooper.

“To be sure, foreign individuals and businesses are buying many of these units. With the trend in foreign direct investment in Canada, demand might well trend upward,†said Cooper. “But with a strong Canadian dollar, the risk is that at least some excess supply pressure is likely.â€

Jamie Johnston, one of the city’s largest condo brokers, says active listings for the downtown condo market are up by 45 per cent. More supply means downward pressure on pricing.

“So don’t look for condos to appreciate at the same rate as detached housing in prime markets.â€

One thing is for sure, says Myers: Projects that don’t hold the attention of the more crowded market this spring, will suffer.

So far, savvy marketing in central locations by some of the key players such as Romano’s Castlepoint Realty Partners, along with Sam Crignano of Cityzen Development Group and Fernbrook Homes have propelled sales by some developers. Hiring a “starchitect†also doesn’t hurt. The partners are also developing the Daniel Libeskind designed L Tower just north of their Backstage condo site.

Romano and Crignano feel that urban towers that have unique design will hold in value. But values are already at record levels.

In the fourth quarter of 2010, the asking price of new condos in the Greater Toronto Area was $530 a square foot. That means a 1,000 square foot condo would cost more than half a million dollars.

In the former city of Toronto, prices were even higher. A downtown condo asking price is going for $723 a square foot. That means a 1,000 square foot condo would cost $723,000.

Higher prices mean first time buyers are squeezed out. It also means less margin for condo investors, who have increasingly made up a bigger portion of the market. Low interest rates and tight vacancy rates for condo rentals have allowed investors to make a profit by keeping their units.

Myers says three years ago the ratio of investors in the market was estimated at about 30 per cent. Now it is likely as high as 60 per cent in many projects, he says.

“Investors are a huge component for new sales,†said Myers.


Developers will have to keep a lid on pricing if investors are expected to stay in the market. However, prices have crept up dramatically, and interest rates are expected to follow. More supply in the future could also have a negative impact on rents. In that case, investors would abandon the market. That’s one potential scenario that no one wants. But it could provide an opportunity for some home buyers to pick up devalued properties as more supply comes on stream and investors off load their condos.

But so far, the market has chugged along.

“I think we’ll be OK, as long as developers are cautious with pricing,†said Myers. “Investors stillhave to make a profit at the end of the day, and end users want to know that their investment will hold value.â€
 
In the former city of Toronto, prices were even higher. A downtown condo asking price is going for $723 a square foot. That means a 1,000 square foot condo would cost $723,000.
The articles always like to use selective reporting.

Meanwhile you can still get nice resales for close to $400 per square foot.
 

Back
Top