News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.1K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.5K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 760     0 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

Gentlemen: I don't need you to finger an individual, but 'the grapevine' is not helpful. Did you hear it from a drunk at the end of the bar, or a real estate agent, or a mortgage broker? IMHO, this is an almost unbelievably complex restriction to put into place except as a guide when a new mortgage application is being processed. So -- is it a government edict? One of the regulators (I'm assuming OSFI)? Or an individual bank that has tightened guidelines?

My brother is in real estate in Calgary. He currently has 3 or 4 buildings, plus an industrial site south of town. If he goes to a mortgage broker for a fifth mortgage, I'd be hard pressed to say they would even know (unless he discloses) about the other properties as each is its own corporation for investment purposes. This smells to me like a rumour with no foundation, no disrespect intended.

Fair enough. My source is a mortgage broker. But I didn't get the details that Tricky posted (5 mortgages, $2 million max). It was more of a general statement that there will be some new rules possibly limiting the number of mortgages. As I pointed out, I also question some of this stuff ... individuals, corps?
My intent was not to confuse anybody. Just found it interesting myself that somebody else heard a similar story.
 
StatsCan Stats 2001-2011
Toronto CMA Population Increase 19%
Toronto CMA Dwelling Increase 24%

City of Toronto Population Increase 5%
City of Toronto Dwelling Increase 14%

Toronto CMA(non City of TO) Population Increase 33%
Toronto CMA(non City of TO) Dwelling Increase 33%

ps. Toronto CMA is a subset of GTA (approx 90%)


2011 Census: Population and Dwelling Counts - City of Toronto shows that the number of occupied private dwellings in City of Toronto grew from 979,330 in 2006 to 1,047,877 in 2011. That is, the increase is 7%, not 14%.

Further, the population of City of Toronto increases 111,779, at 4.5%, with the average people per new dwelling slightly less than 2, which can probably be explained by the fact that most new dwellings are condo types and thus are occupied with less residents.
 
Last edited:
2011 Census: Population and Dwelling Counts - City of Toronto shows that the number of occupied private dwellings in City of Toronto grew from 979,330 in 2006 to 1,047,877 in 2011. That is, the increase is 7%, not 14%.

Further, the population of City of Toronto increases 111,779, at 4.5%, with the average people per new dwelling slightly less than 2, which can probably be explained by the fact that most new dwellings are condo types and thus are occupied with less residents.

My stats are 2001-2011. You have quoted 2006-2011

Also my stats quoted "dwellings". You have quoted "dwellings occupied by usual residents" (ie a subset of dwellings that excludes basement apartments that enter through house, etc). Note the difference between the two as per footnotes #2 vs#3 at the bottom of the following link
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...earchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=3520005

In looking at the change in "dwellings occupied by usual residents", the increase 2001-2011 is 11.1% (see page 6 of your link, ie 1.048m/0.943m)

My stats are correct. City of Toronto dwellings increased by 14.5% from 2001 to 2011, compared to a 5.4% increase in population during the same 10 years. Using the alternate measure of dwellings (not quoted in my original post) dwellings increased by 11.1% during that 10 years. I agree that the latter (11.1%) is a more accurate measure for the purpose of discussion of new construction.
 
Last edited:
^^^
My question gentlemen is: going forward should we accept 11.1% as the future growth because that would lend much more support to all the condos in downtown T.O. and under construction. However, I have to believe that if 70% of the population already owns that we have to be hitting a bit of a wall for end users to buy. That to me suggests they would rent but I am not sure there are all that many people with that good jobs that they can afford the Toronto downtown rents at present levels.
On the other hand, from the National Post:

From the National Post today: http://business.financialpost.com/2...et-on-the-rise-across-canada/?__lsa=ee48-39ef

Portion of condo apartments in rental market on the rise across Canada

Garry Marr | Dec 13, 2012 7:04 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 13, 2012 8:02 PM ET
More from Garry Marr | @DustyWallet
National Post files
National Post files In Toronto

Condominiums continue to have a major impact on the apartment market across the country as more and more people buy them as investments and rent them out, says a new report.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. released data Thursday for October 2012 which shows that in 10 of the 11 markets surveyed, the percentage of condos being rented out continued to rise, with as much of 30.4% of the stock in Calgary’s market now being used as rental apartments.

In Toronto, easily the largest condo market in the country, 22.6% of that housing is now rental apartments.

It is the secondary market that is providing and has provided most of the new rental supply for the last 30 years

That massive build-out of condominium towers has all but saved the apartment sector from a vacancy problem as landlords have cut back on so-called purpose-built apartments constructed exclusively for rental, said the head of a major industry group.

“We would be in deep trouble,” says John Dickie, president of the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, about where the market would be without the condo sector. “It is the secondary market that is providing and has provided most of the new rental supply for the last 30 years.”

The CFAA says the percentage of new housing made up of traditional apartment buildings was as high as 30% in the 1960s but has shrunk to below 10% recently. Renewed demand for income-oriented property from the real estate investment trust sector has helped fuel some construction, said Mr. Dickie.
Advertisement

“There is more than before because of the demand for rental properties by REITs,” he said. Canadian investors looking for consistent yield have turned to publicly traded REITS which are up about 75% over the last three years in terms of total return and currently yield about 5%.

“The REITs have been buying out the apartment stock and are hungry to buy more. As the REITs are buying up the apartment stock, it becomes potentially more attractive to build them,” Mr. Dickie said.

Not attractive enough to outpace condos and his group is calling for tax deferral for apartment building owners on any capital gains if they sell a building and buy another one.

While critics decry overbuilding in the condo sector, CMHC data shows a relatively tight vacancy rate. The vacancy rate in the Toronto condo market was 1.2% in October 2012, up from 1.1% a year earlier. For traditional apartments that vacancy rate was 1.7% in October 2012 up from 1.4% a year earlier.

Condo apartments are being scooped up in most of the 11 major markets surveyed with Ottawa having the highest vacancy rate at 3.2% in October 2012 up from 1.4% a year earlier. Calgary had the sharpest drop as the vacancy rate for condo apartments hit 2.1% in October 2012, down from 5.7% a year earlier.

CMHC won’t comment on the impact the condo market might be having on traditional apartments but the vacancy rate in that sector jumped to 2.6% from 2.2% during the period studied for the 35 major centres studied. During the same period rents jumped 2.2% for a two-bedroom unit in a traditional building.

The Crown Corp. did say people over the age of 25 likely helped boost the condo market which is described as “typically a high end substitute” for traditional apartments. Full-time employment for those older than 25 jumped 2.2% during the period helping to boost condo demand.

“Older households are generally more affluent than younger adult households,” CMHC noted in its report.

Meanwhile that 25 and under group, the ones more likely to be in cheaper existing apartment stock, saw their employment numbers go down over the last year.

“Students and young workers typically rent first and then go to home ownership. When you have lower employment, it impacts household formation,” says Mathieu Laberge, deputy chief economist with CMHC.
 
My stats are 2001-2011. You have quoted 2006-2011

You are right as I did not realise the difference of periods.

My explanation for the discrepancy between the population increase and dwelling increase stands. That is,
the discrepancy can probably be explained by the fact that most new dwellings are condo types and thus are occupied with less residents.
 
You are right as I did not realise the difference of periods.

My explanation for the discrepancy between the population increase and dwelling increase stands. That is,
the discrepancy can probably be explained by the fact that most new dwellings are condo types and thus are occupied with less residents.

In the interests of clarify, a summary:

1. BofCanada says that the City of Toronto Condo market has been overbuilding.
2. UrbanNation attempts to refute this, quoting stats for the Toronto CMA, all dwellings.
3. I note the difference in the stat basis between #1 & #2, and reference the StatsCanada stats showing 14.5% increase in all dwellings, vs 5.4% increase in population, 2001-2011.
4. Steve_TO, refutes #3, quoting stats 2006-2011, and for dwellings with independent entrances.
5. I correct the timeframe in #4, and concede that the 11.1% increase for the dwellings with indy entrances is more relevent.

Steve, your conclusion above (as quoted) confirms the statements made by the BoC which began this whole discussion.

Leaving that aside, if I can paraphrase, you're suggesting that while the # of dwellings has increased, this has not resulted in overbuilding because these are smaller units. (ie condos). This moves the discussion from # of dwellings to # of square feet of the dwellings.

If the average size of all units built in the last 10 years, was 50% the average size of the units prior, then I agree with your conclusion. However, I think that is unlikely.

I would agree that the units built in the last 10 years are smaller on average then prior. But the question is how much smaller on average? Anything higher than 50% of the size of previous units, would indicate overbuilding relative to population growth.

My conclusion is that the small size (ie mostly condos built) would indeed explain a part of the 11.1% vs 5.4%. But not all.
 
^^^
Dave I would like to ask a question about these statements and their conclusions.


"Leaving that aside, if I can paraphrase, you're suggesting that while the # of dwellings has increased, this has not resulted in overbuilding because these are smaller units. (ie condos). This moves the discussion from # of dwellings to # of square feet of the dwellings.

If the average size of all units built in the last 10 years, was 50% the average size of the units prior, then I agree with your conclusion. However, I think that is unlikely.

I would agree that the units built in the last 10 years are smaller on average then prior. But the question is how much smaller on average? Anything higher than 50% of the size of previous units, would indicate overbuilding relative to population growth."


Dave, I am not sure that I follow this interpretation of steve_to's data since I am not sure that the conversion from # of dwellings to # of square feet is "linear" as the extrapolation suggests to me. Could you please clarify this for me since I think the division of the family unit into more and more people living alone,(due to more divorce, singles living alone, more woman buying property on their own who would have lived with room mates or at home, delaying of marriage and having children )could in fact shift the number of people needing lodging, increasing it more than a simple factor of 1 when comparing # of dwellings to # of square feet.

I am not sure however to steve_to's point that this is enough of a factor to explain all the change as you suggest and further, these factors contributing to more household formation may in fact reverse in the future.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat:

Yes, I do believe the CMHC’s exposure is less than its cap since they must by law reflect the in-force based on outstanding mortgage balances. The expected claims is or should be reflective of recuperated costs less expenses.

Interested:

I am not a CMHC insiderso I’m not about to make any assumptions. However, from their financials, it would appear to me that even if one were to attribute CMHC’s recapture costs or more precisely, the recoverables on the properties sold which if we assume is a mere 50% after costs, on the most current year and with no additional premiums going forward, then they would be in the red upon their paying out approximately $3 billion.

The greater apportionment of that is probably directly related to the number of households with the highest loan to value ratios at the time a severe market decline.

Even with that I cannot say they would be in the red given their year over year profits returned to the people of Canada.

The problem for any specific year though going forward and as far as I see, lies within the CMHC’s mortgage insurance for developers/builders and not within residential mortgages.

Daveto:

Your im was answered via im. In response to your post:

Redfirm:

Reinsurance is the most common form within the insurance industry for spreading risk and the gist of my post was to reflect that spread. With CMHC, it is about subrogation but it is unknown at this time if they reinsure any of their portfolio. That I expect will be answered after their 2013 OSFI audit.
 
Steve, your conclusion above (as quoted) confirms the statements made by the BoC which began this whole discussion.


I would agree that the units built in the last 10 years are smaller on average then prior. But the question is how much smaller on average? Anything higher than 50% of the size of previous units, would indicate overbuilding relative to population growth.

My conclusion is that the small size (ie mostly condos built) would indeed explain a part of the 11.1% vs 5.4%. But not all.

Yes, it indeed confirms the discrepancy based on the average number of persons per new dwelling is 2.5. But if the number of residents per new dwelling is less than two, then the discrepancy disappears simply because , according to the statistics for City of Toronto, the population increases 111,779 while the number of dwellings increases 68,547, for the last five years.

So, the question is what is the actual number of residents per new dwelling.

I believe the average is probably not very higher than 2, if it is not less than 2 because I believe (1) most new dwellings are condos and (2) the most new condos are occupied by less than 2 persons. Yes, it is just my belief, nothing concrete.
 
ST, your theory is that the pre-2006 population have essentially remained in the pre-2006 dwellings, that that the new population have all moved into the new dwellings. I would think that is unlikely. Also, just to note that once again you've quoted my 2001-2011 statistics, and then responded with 2006-2011 statistics.

Interested, your theory is that there has been demographic change in the Persons Per Unit since 2001, and as the average PPU has decreased from 2.6 to 2.5, that has required additional units above the rate of population growth. I would agree that has partially happened (ie families moving to the suburbs, singles moving downtown). However, this is ultimately a chicken or the egg question. Did PPU change because of overbuilding cause by low interest rates and the CMHC mortgage support, or did the excess construction efficiently respond to the demand from the demographic changes? I'm not sure the stats alone can answer that question, since they would probably tell the same thing in either case.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat:



Interested:

I am not a CMHC insiderso I’m not about to make any assumptions. However, from their financials, it would appear to me that even if one were to attribute CMHC’s recapture costs or more precisely, the recoverables on the properties sold which if we assume is a mere 50% after costs, on the most current year and with no additional premiums going forward, then they would be in the red upon their paying out approximately $3 billion.

The greater apportionment of that is probably directly related to the number of households with the highest loan to value ratios at the time a severe market decline.

Even with that I cannot say they would be in the red given their year over year profits returned to the people of Canada.

The problem for any specific year though going forward and as far as I see, lies within the CMHC’s mortgage insurance for developers/builders and not within residential mortgages.

[

isym, thank for that logical well thought out explanation. If we for a moment accept your assumptions: 50% recoverable and let's assume for simplicity that the default rate continues in the same distribution as the present default rate (thereby eliminating the need to compensate for the highest loan ratios) can you tell me what rate of default we require to get to the 3 billion figure? In other words, what percentage default rate compared to the less than 0.5% rate at present.

Also, I did not realize that CMHC insured developers and builders...can you expand on this somewhat and explain. Are you suggesting the banks download the builder's loans preconstruction and during construction onto CMHC?

Thank you in advance for the explanation.
 
ISYM,
yes, it would be interesting to find out if and how much is re-insured.

General question for you: it seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong here, that your position is that the whole CMHC system is fairly stable. So why are they sticking with $600 billion limit? Why not increase it now that we are almost there? I'm just trying to understand the CHMC, both good and bad sides of it. Insurance industry is not my forte...
 
ISYM,
yes, it would be interesting to find out if and how much is re-insured.

I don't think there is any reinsurance. If there was Reinsurance, it would be mentioned in their annual report. See paragraph 7 of the following commentary from the Fraser Institute:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=18256
The government should also direct CMHC to establish a reinsurance pro-gram. The term "risk management" popped up 46 times in CMHC's most recent annual report, suggesting CMHC takes risk management very seriously. But a search of "reinsurance" reveals its complete absence. Reinsurance is the most common risktransfer tool used by insurers to manage risk. Private mortgage insurers use it, as does Export Development Canada, a federal Crown corporation with a significant export credit insurance business. CMHC could use this tool to advantage, for example to reduce its exposure to the Vancouver and Toronto regions.
 

Back
Top