News   Dec 20, 2024
 812     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 676     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1K     0 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

US:
http://www.afire.org/newsletter/2003/rules.shtm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_in_Real_Property_Tax_Act

The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA), enacted as Subtitle C of Title XI (the "Revenue Adjustments Act of 1980") of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-499, 94 Stat. 2599, 2682 (Dec. 5, 1980), is a United States tax law that imposes income tax on foreign persons disposing of United States real property interests. Tax is imposed at regular tax rates for the type of taxpayer on the amount of gain considered recognized. Purchasers of real property interests are required to withhold tax on payment for the property. Withholding may be reduced from the standard 10% to an amount that will cover the tax liability, upon application in advance of sale to the Internal Revenue Service. FIRPTA overrides most nonrecognition provisions as well as those remaining tax treaties that provide exemption from tax for such gains.


i said HK, not UK.
China:
http://www.china-briefing.com/news/...s-on-real-estate-purchases-by-foreigners.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584504575615942546998222.html

Australia:
http://www.firb.gov.au/content/real_estate/residential.asp

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/artic...tralia-real-estate-raises-concerns-55257.aspx

I don't see how being required to pay taxes when you sell real estate is a foreign ownership restriction ... I am pretty sure that foreign investors have to pay sales taxes and land transfer taxes when they buy here, too.
 
Like the headline suggests- 45,000 total units built in 2012 in the old City of Toronto.

Is that correct? How is that possible with an average of under 20,000 annual sales in the much bigger GTA? What have I missed or is the G&M making more egregious errors?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...nes-dominate-torontos-skyline/article4592690/

I think your reference to the 20,000 annual sales for the GTA is in reference to the TERB #s? (ie the monthly reports,etc)

The TERB GTA 20,000 are resales, and wouldn't include the 45,000 new units built in the 416 in 2012.
 
41% had less than a 10% down-payment. Yikes!

That's the smart thing to do if you believe prices will climb.

If it takes 4 years to save 10% (to get a 20% downpayment) then they would need to deal with 2% per year price increases ($5,000 per year) and pay ~$13,000 per year in rent.

If they buy now instead of 4 years from now, they can save ~$14,000 (adjusted for interest and insurance).

The key is to over-pay your first 4 years of mortgage payments to get over 20% equity in your first 4 years as if you were saving for the downpayment. The result of this strategy would be 20% equity after 4 years plus you pocket the price escalation instead of someone else.

Unfortunately, I doubt very many people pay off extra principal on their mortgages.
 
...
The key is to over-pay your first 4 years of mortgage payments to get over 20% equity in your first 4 years as if you were saving for the downpayment. The result of this strategy would be 20% equity after 4 years plus you pocket the price escalation instead of someone else.

Unfortunately, I doubt very many people pay off extra principal on their mortgages.

Speaking to some mortgage specialists, I'm told very few people actually put in extra lump sum payments or increase their preset payments to a higher amount.
 
That's the smart thing to do if you believe prices will climb.

If it takes 4 years to save 10% (to get a 20% downpayment) then they would need to deal with 2% per year price increases ($5,000 per year) and pay ~$13,000 per year in rent.

If they buy now instead of 4 years from now, they can save ~$14,000 (adjusted for interest and insurance).

Minus the 2% or more for the CMHC premium.

You describe the up-side of leverage. The downside is that a small drop in prices will wipe out any equity and put them underwater. At 41%, it looks like more than a few may get a hard lesson in this soon.
 
Chris_Hull said:
Australia does NOT have sale restrictions on Pre-Construction condos, rather they believe foreign investments on pre-con will benefit Autralian people by increasing condo units suppy! Also, the definition of "foreigners" in Australian's restrictions excludes PR holders. And even if these temporary residents are allowed to buy one property for their residential purpose as well. I don't believe that every international student in Canada have bought a condo/house for themselves yet. Moreover, many rich "foreign" investors and their family members either hold Canadian citizenship or PR status, so shall our government define them "foreigners"?

we aren't discussing specifically pre-construction are we?
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articl...rns-55257.aspx
The Australian Government has now announced it will adopt a more stringent approval process so that fewer foreigners will be able to buy and acknowledging that they had pushed up residential real estate prices. Foreign buyers will have to sell when they leave the country and those who ignore the new rules face heft penalties.

Critics say the new rules do not go far enough. Opposition politicians are calling for a comprehensive study of foreign real estate investment.

‘In one sense, little has changed. Foreign residents can still purchase Australian properties and, in particular, people in Australia on temporary residence visas can still purchase existing dwellings,’ explained Immigration-law specialist David Stratton.

Foreign owned companies are also allowed to buy properties to house their Australian based staff and a developer can sell an unlimited number of dwellings, either off the plan or newly constructed, to foreigners, provided the properties are advertised locally.

In 2007/08, the main foreign buyers were from the US, Britain and the United Arab Emirates. The following year, Singapore investors topped the list, followed by the US and Britain.


I don't see how being required to pay taxes when you sell real estate is a foreign ownership restriction ... I am pretty sure that foreign investors have to pay sales taxes and land transfer taxes when they buy here, too.

FIRPTA overrides most nonrecognition provisions as well as those remaining tax treaties that provide exemption from tax for such gains

if exemptions are allowed for citizens/residents, but not allowed for foreigners then it's still a foreign ownership barrier/restriction,
although it may not be a drastic one.
 
There's a huge difference between restriction and disadvantage

if exemptions are allowed for citizens/residents, but not allowed for foreigners then it's still a foreign ownership barrier/restriction,
although it may not be a drastic one.

Giving taxation advantages to citizens (or any other specific group) is not great tax planning, and may very well distort a market. It's a HUGE jump to equate that with the 'keep the fuzzy furriners from buying all of Toronto' advocacy that started this conversation.
 
It's a HUGE jump to equate that with the 'keep the fuzzy furriners from buying all of Toronto' advocacy that started this conversation.

I never made any case that a foreigner was in some way implicitly more evil (someone else's words) nor have I made some sort of quasi-anti-foreign stance based solely upon the fact that someone is different or foreign. My argument is that someone who lives in Canada and better yet, lives in the area they invest in, has a much more immediate stake in the health of our market. If a foreign owner dumps 50 condos in a new development because he/she needs the equity for another RE purchase somewhere else, or because he needs the cash, whatever, he could care less what that will do to the local or even larger Canadian economy. He doesn't care if it contributes to a massive equity loss for thousands of Canadian homeowners (which could easily happen if this downturn becomes a snowball) = furniture store closings, restaurant closings, massive job losses and a much worse economy. It's simply a buy/sell purchase - like a stock, he has his money and his own city is non for the worse. I am making no judgement of the person or "fuzzy furriners". I would do the same if I were them....however...

A local owner who lives in and makes his money from a healthy RE market - wants decent rent, doesn't want his equity to shrink because of a glut of condos coming on the market, etc., will think twice before doing this because he understands he may be hurting his own investment for short term gain and the area and country he lives in. Maybe he'll put 10 on the market and wait because he knows it can seriously undermine everything else his life is built around. A local owner has a stake in the much larger Canadian and Torontonian economy and because he is absolutely affected by this, he will think twice.

Housing is a fundamentally different type of equity than any other that exists. A responsible government - while wanting to encourage foreign investment in many areas - should not regard housing as investments, but social assets.

And I did mean TCHC. Toronto Community Housing Corporation should start buying up depressed condos in all these new buildings and using them for social housing - would be an incredible integration into existing well-moneyed (mostly) communities and is exactly the type of mixed housing that's good for everyone. People who are worried about social housing in their brand new condo buildings should look around the world and see all the examples of places that require it (as close to home as Vancouver) in all new buildings. It's a great idea that would help lower our social costs, boost our economy and would be win win all around.
 
I never made any case that a foreigner was in some way implicitly more evil (someone else's words) nor have I made some sort of quasi-anti-foreign stance based solely upon the fact that someone is different or foreign. My argument is that someone who lives in Canada and better yet, lives in the area they invest in, has a much more immediate stake in the health of our market. If a foreign owner dumps 50 condos in a new development because he/she needs the equity for another RE purchase somewhere else, or because he needs the cash, whatever, he could care less what that will do to the local or even larger Canadian economy. He doesn't care if it contributes to a massive equity loss for thousands of Canadian homeowners (which could easily happen if this downturn becomes a snowball) = furniture store closings, restaurant closings, massive job losses and a much worse economy. It's simply a buy/sell purchase - like a stock, he has his money and his own city is non for the worse. I am making no judgement of the person or "fuzzy furriners". I would do the same if I were them....however...

A local owner who lives in and makes his money from a healthy RE market - wants decent rent, doesn't want his equity to shrink because of a glut of condos coming on the market, etc., will think twice before doing this because he understands he may be hurting his own investment for short term gain and the area and country he lives in. Maybe he'll put 10 on the market and wait because he knows it can seriously undermine everything else his life is built around. A local owner has a stake in the much larger Canadian and Torontonian economy and because he is absolutely affected by this, he will think twice.

Housing is a fundamentally different type of equity than any other that exists. A responsible government - while wanting to encourage foreign investment in many areas - should not regard housing as investments, but social assets.

And I did mean TCHC. Toronto Community Housing Corporation should start buying up depressed condos in all these new buildings and using them for social housing - would be an incredible integration into existing well-moneyed (mostly) communities and is exactly the type of mixed housing that's good for everyone. People who are worried about social housing in their brand new condo buildings should look around the world and see all the examples of places that require it (as close to home as Vancouver) in all new buildings. It's a great idea that would help lower our social costs, boost our economy and would be win win all around.

I think you're muddling your own argument by conflating Canadian speculators or landlords with owner-occupied housing (and you go further down that path by bringing TCHC into the equation.) Sure, you can make the case that owner-occupied housing is 'better' or 'more stable', but it's got zero to do with the nationality of the speculator/landlord/owner and everything to do with their attitude towards their property. And, yes, you advocated restrictions on foreigners, not speculators. Not that I can see how THAT would work, either...
 
Hey guys,

Just back in the country after 3 weeks and gleaning the thread.

Will put in my 2 cents. I believe the market is slowing far faster related to condos than most people realize or acknowledge. This reminds me of the US and the denial of the trend. The guava site as pointed out shows a pointed drop off. Prices at the high end as has been pointed out has been stagnating for at least a year and there are some good deals now and more to come in my view. If you have to sell, it is definitely a buyer's market and one will have take considerably less than the developer's asking prices if there is still property in the developer's inventory. The high end just precedes the mid market which will follow in short order and then it will work its way down the "food chain".

Rents are up as more people stay on the sidelines. However, with the excess product (since developers will continue to overbuild and create supply due to the time lag between sale and construction/completion), rents will once again drop. I expect this in the next few months for mid; mid-luxury and luxury product.

Bottom line....my read is the market will be in a consolidation phase for the next 2-3 years if not 5 years or longer. I would be surprised if we see any significant escalation at all from today's prices. Again, I am talking condos, not SFH's.

I agree with the posters who said that any purchase of new from 2010 will likely be under water for the next few years.

Higher end likely from 2008 onwards.

Regarding foreign ownership....I concur that local investors have more of a vested interest here and foreign investors with no attachment here will pull their capital in search of better investments/markets....presently I would say that would be in the US.


Again, just my views.
 
Two articles from the Star - is it beginning?

Our household debt at U.S. bubble levels

Canadian households are even more vulnerable to a housing market shock than previously believed, Statistics Canada data shows.
LUCAS OLENIUK/TORONTO STAR
By Dana Flavelle | Mon Oct 15 2012
• Recommend (0)
Canadian households are even more vulnerable to a shock in the housing market than previously thought, a major revision to the national balance sheets by Statistics Canada has revealed.
Household credit market debt to disposable income — a key measure of household debt — hit 163 per cent in Canada in the second quarter, well above the previous 152 per cent figure, the revision found.
That’s the same level it had reached just before the housing bubble burst in the United States and the United Kingdom, economists warned Monday.
The new figure shows Canadian households are more vulnerable to a correction in the housing market than previously believed, TD bank economist Diana Petramala said in a report to clients.
The revised figures came out the same day a separate report showed housing sales in Canada plunged 15.1 per cent in September over a year ago. The price of an average home rose a moderate 1.1 per cent, the Canadian Real Estate Association reported.
Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, who has repeatedly raised the alarm about higher household debt levels, said it’s too early to tell if recent changes in federal lending rules are helping curb Canadians’ appetite for debt.
Ottawa has on four occasions — including as recently as this summer —raised the bar for consumers trying to get mortgages.
“The sum of those actions is still having an impact on the adjustment in housing finance,” Carney said at a press conference Monday after delivering a speech on Vancouver Island. “I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on one data point.”
The central bank would have more to say on the topic in about 10 days when it releases its monetary policy report, Carney said.
On a more encouraging note, Canadian households are worth slightly more than previously thought, gaining $7,900 for a total of $190,800 on average, the revised data showed. Also, the rate at which household debt is rising has been slowing since 2010.
Household debt levels remain the number one domestic risk to the Canadian economy, said David Onyett-Jeffries, an economist with RBC Economics.
However, he said, Canadians hold fewer high-risk mortgages and have more equity in their homes than Americans had at the time the housing bubble burst south of the border.
“We don’t anticipate any sort of crashing in the housing market. We view some moderation. But that’s to be expected,” Onyett Jeffries said.
But other economists said they’re worried about younger homeowners.
“I’m more concerned about the newer crop of homeowners that have little equity in their property. If there’s a correction, their equity goes up in a puff of smoke and they’re underwater,” said David Madani, economist with Capital Economics.
While federal regulators have recently tightened up the rules governing bank mortgages, Madani said some provincially regulated “non-prime” lenders are seeing their business pick up.
The newly revised StatsCan data show household debt to income ratios have been rising faster than previously reported, he added. So it’s not just the higher level but the steeper trajectory that’s a concern, he said.
Statistics Canada revised the data to bring it more in line with proposed new international accounting standards.
The data gives a purer picture of household debt levels by removing non-profit institutions from the category, the agency said. Household disposable income was redefined as was household credit market debt.
 
Two articles from the Star - is it beginning?

Our household debt at U.S. bubble levels

Canadian households are even more vulnerable to a housing market shock than previously believed, Statistics Canada data shows.
LUCAS OLENIUK/TORONTO STAR
By Dana Flavelle | Mon Oct 15 2012
• Recommend (0)
Canadian households are even more vulnerable to a shock in the housing market than previously thought, a major revision to the national balance sheets by Statistics Canada has revealed.
Household credit market debt to disposable income — a key measure of household debt — hit 163 per cent in Canada in the second quarter, well above the previous 152 per cent figure, the revision found.
That’s the same level it had reached just before the housing bubble burst in the United States and the United Kingdom, economists warned Monday.
The new figure shows Canadian households are more vulnerable to a correction in the housing market than previously believed, TD bank economist Diana Petramala said in a report to clients.
The revised figures came out the same day a separate report showed housing sales in Canada plunged 15.1 per cent in September over a year ago. The price of an average home rose a moderate 1.1 per cent, the Canadian Real Estate Association reported.
Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, who has repeatedly raised the alarm about higher household debt levels, said it’s too early to tell if recent changes in federal lending rules are helping curb Canadians’ appetite for debt.
Ottawa has on four occasions — including as recently as this summer —raised the bar for consumers trying to get mortgages.
“The sum of those actions is still having an impact on the adjustment in housing finance,†Carney said at a press conference Monday after delivering a speech on Vancouver Island. “I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on one data point.â€
The central bank would have more to say on the topic in about 10 days when it releases its monetary policy report, Carney said.
On a more encouraging note, Canadian households are worth slightly more than previously thought, gaining $7,900 for a total of $190,800 on average, the revised data showed. Also, the rate at which household debt is rising has been slowing since 2010.
Household debt levels remain the number one domestic risk to the Canadian economy, said David Onyett-Jeffries, an economist with RBC Economics.
However, he said, Canadians hold fewer high-risk mortgages and have more equity in their homes than Americans had at the time the housing bubble burst south of the border.
“We don’t anticipate any sort of crashing in the housing market. We view some moderation. But that’s to be expected,†Onyett Jeffries said.
But other economists said they’re worried about younger homeowners.
“I’m more concerned about the newer crop of homeowners that have little equity in their property. If there’s a correction, their equity goes up in a puff of smoke and they’re underwater,†said David Madani, economist with Capital Economics.
While federal regulators have recently tightened up the rules governing bank mortgages, Madani said some provincially regulated “non-prime†lenders are seeing their business pick up.
The newly revised StatsCan data show household debt to income ratios have been rising faster than previously reported, he added. So it’s not just the higher level but the steeper trajectory that’s a concern, he said.
Statistics Canada revised the data to bring it more in line with proposed new international accounting standards.
The data gives a purer picture of household debt levels by removing non-profit institutions from the category, the agency said. Household disposable income was redefined as was household credit market debt.
 

Back
Top