News   Nov 05, 2024
 405     1 
News   Nov 05, 2024
 1.5K     2 
News   Nov 05, 2024
 570     0 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

Great Canadian job numbers (50K+) and not so bad out of the US either (200K+). Also, US housing now in full recovery mode. Canadian interest rate still extremely low. Banks in full interest rate war. All points to a great spring housing market. Garth Turner's worst nightmare; the sky isn't falling.

Btw.... Loving the new Blackberry Z10, best phone on the market (as of today...tech changes fast). I called $6.50 low on the stock last year and now I'm making my next prediction.......$24 by the end of this year.

Not sure how much of an impact having a steady unemployment rate will have on the real estate market. It's still a bit too early to call a "great spring housing market" after such a terrible February. Let's wait to see if it was a part of trend, first.

RE: BB

Nice call on the low. I, too, think the stock is a bit undervalued. A lot will depend on U.S. sales. Then again, I didn't think AAPL would tank like it has, either. Stock prices are shrouded in a type of voodoo logic I can't get a hold on. I think I'll keep my RRSPs tied to the index.
 
Not sure how much of an impact having a steady unemployment rate will have on the real estate market. It's still a bit too early to call a "great spring housing market" after such a terrible February. Let's wait to see if it was a part of trend, first.

RE: BB

Nice call on the low. I, too, think the stock is a bit undervalued. A lot will depend on U.S. sales. Then again, I didn't think AAPL would tank like it has, either. Stock prices are shrouded in a type of voodoo logic I can't get a hold on. I think I'll keep my RRSPs tied to the index.

Smart. Studies show active management underperforms between 60-80% of the time. Also, where you choose to put your money accounts for 80% of the return with the last 20% coming from choices historically. So if you decide to be in stocks in the TSX, that decision will account for 80% of the return.

Now, if we could all choose "home runs" or play the Apples/ Blackberry and be prepared for 100% volatility up/down, and prepared to loose the principal, or significant amounts of principal, this would not apply.

Human nature being what it is in my experience dwells on what might have been "had I bought Apple at $150" and not done it vs. dismissing that I did not buy at $700 Apple and it is now closer to $450.
 
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/03/08/is-this-couples-financial-vision-an-impossible-dream/

Ugh. A late 20s couple, 90% of assets in 2 condos, which are 90% mortgaged.

I agree with you daveto. Of course, real estate only goes up....or it better because talk about rolling the dice. They either hit it out of the park or will lose the investment. Just sad. The real tragedy is that if prices do go up, they will talk about how smart they are. If they go down, they will cry a storm up and how unfair to them and the taxpayer...read you and me should bail them out. This is naked greed and not much better than going to the casino and betting on red with the roulette wheel.
 
I agree with you daveto. Of course, real estate only goes up....or it better because talk about rolling the dice. They either hit it out of the park or will lose the investment. Just sad. The real tragedy is that if prices do go up, they will talk about how smart they are. If they go down, they will cry a storm up and how unfair to them and the taxpayer...read you and me should bail them out. This is naked greed and not much better than going to the casino and betting on red with the roulette wheel.

I know this is the bubble thread, guys, but these two have many other fantasy (or at least 'have not done the math') issues that have little or nothing to do with their real estate investments. They'll be fine... until the first kid arrives and reality hits.
 
RRR,
Really, they will be fine. They have about 5% down.
Anything happens at all:
1) Kids
2) Job loss
3) Rental goes unrented
4)Prices drop say 10%
5) Illness/Injury

When I read this I agree with you RRR however that they have so many fantasies here. Talk about wanting it all. I note they also still have a student loan of $27K. I guess if one of the above things happen they just declare bankrupcy and leave the taxpayer holding for their frivolity. This is what is inherently wrong here. Once you take such large risks, you may as well go "all in" and hope for the home run. Because if anything goes wrong, you are bankrupt anyhow. So why not chance going bankrupt to become a multi millionaire. They should buy 10 more properties and mortgage them at 90 to 95%. If they are right, they will accomplish what they want. If they are wrong and properties drop 10%, they will be bankrupt anyhow, so why stop at 2 properties? Or am I missing the point?
 
Great Canadian job numbers (50K+) and not so bad out of the US either (200K+). Also, US housing now in full recovery mode. Canadian interest rate still extremely low. Banks in full interest rate war. All points to a great spring housing market. Garth Turner's worst nightmare; the sky isn't falling.


the numbers aren't that great if you look at the data.
Employment increased among people aged 55 and over in February, while it was little changed among youths and people aged 25 to 54.

It's the latter demographic that are most susceptible in a housing market as they have little equity and larger debts compared to the former group.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130308/dq130308a-eng.htm
 
I guess if one of the above things happen they just declare bankrupcy and leave the taxpayer holding for their frivolity. This is what is inherently wrong here. Once you take such large risks, you may as well go "all in" and hope for the home run.

It's not really their job to ensure that their creditors don't take a loss. If they're getting the loans legally (not hiding their finances), then it's their risk to take. Late 20's gives lots of time to recover financially; it's the right age for a risk.

Obviously I would prefer that government and banks I hold shares of not expose themselves to risk in their gamble.

I had thought CMHC no longer insured second properties with less than 20% down? From the looks of it, a single person can still buy an second property with a 5% down if it is owner occuppied (like a cottage) which means a couple could pick up 4 that way provided they are all occuppied by the owner or a relative.
 
Last edited:
It's not really their job to ensure that their creditors don't take a loss. If they're getting the loans legally (not hiding their finances), then it's their risk to take. Late 20's gives lots of time to recover financially; it's the right age for a risk.

Obviously I would prefer that government and banks I hold shares of not expose themselves to risk in their gamble.

I had thought CMHC no longer insured investment properties with less than 20% down? From the looks of it, it's a much higher rate too (2.75% versus 1% for owner occuppied with 20% downpayment).

I could not disagree more rbt. They have student loans not being paid off and are gambling "with the house's money" using the money they should be paying back on a loan to further in debt themselves with a downpayment for a rental property.
That was my point. If you are going to be in a risky situation, then why not go for the absolute home run. I am upset that our stupid banks/government/CMHC would allow this. I would say all parties here are being irresponsible and I guarantee that the loan officer in the bank or the CMHC if it was their own money would not take this risk.
I fail to see how someone should be in a position to buy a rental property with amount of the equity that was effectively mostly made by not paying their student loan. This is a problem. The right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing with regards to the institutions or playing fast and furious with the taxpayers/shareholder's money.
Yes, risk should be taken when young and when you can recover....but reasonable risk. Not based on minimal down owing money (95%) on your principal residence, something like 85-90% (I don't recall exactly without looking again at the numbers) on the rental. A student loan of $27K.
I find this irresponsible myself all around. Essentially, how I want to get rich quick and if I fail, others lose their shirts for my folly as well (others being the banks, CMHC, and the taxpayers). Not responsible or acting in a fiduciary manner in my opinion.
 
New report from TD Bank anticipates flat home prices for the next 10 years.

Link: http://business.financialpost.com/2...-remain-flat-for-10-years-td/?__lsa=16e6-7fc5

House prices to remain flat for 10 years: TD

Julian Beltrame, Canadian Press | 13/03/11 | Last Updated: 13/03/11 1:14 PM ET

OTTAWA — Canada’s real estate bonanza of the past decade has come to end and the long-term trend as one of the most profitable places to invest is also not encouraging, a new research paper from the TD Bank argues.

The “special report” from one of Canada’s largest banks makes the case that gains in housing prices have been exceptionally strong over the last 10 years, even when accounting for a sharp drop during the 2008-09 recession. But now is the time for a bit of a payback.

The report does not predict a collapse in house prices as some analysts have suggested. In fact, it sees prices rebounding after a few years of a correction to as high as eight per cent.

However, the longer term trend is for home price gains to average about two per cent over the next 10 years — flat once inflation is taken into account, says TD chief economist Craig Alexander.

“I do not think we have a housing bubble in Canada,” said Alexander. “We have had abnormal strength in the market during a period of low interest rates and when rates go up over the next three years, you will get a cooling and weaker prices, but not a permanent shock and not a sharp correction.”

The bank says tighter rules for borrowers and lenders are only part of the reason to expect prices to moderate. Other contributing factors include the aging population, modest growth in both the population and the economy and, eventually, higher interest rates.

The bank thinks the market could correct by as much as eight per cent over the next three years, but Alexander said it is possible that prices won’t fall as much as that. Some forecasters, including Capital Economists, have predicted a bigger correction is in the offing, arguing that houses in Canada may be overpriced by as much as 25%.

But Alexander says that exaggerates the problem, believing the overvaluation is closer to 10%.

The problem with the housing collapse scenario, says Alexander, is that typically a sharp correction needs a trigger in terms of a steep increase in interest rates or unemployment, both of which appear unlikely at this point.

Still, the report makes clear that the next decade for housing will be significantly weaker than the previous three.

Since 1980, home prices have climbed on average by 5.4% annually, including a spike of seven per cent a year in the last 10 years. By contrast, TD expects prices to fall in the next two or three years, rising to average annual increases of 3.5% after 2015 for an average annual gain of two per cent overall in the upcoming decade.

In terms of return on investment, real estate will not reap the bonanza of the past decade, but remains relatively attractive because profits on a primary residence are tax free, the report points out. It estimates the annual pre-tax return to be about 4.4% over the next 20 years, which is higher than expected yields on bonds but not equities.

Somewhat surprisingly, the report predicts Vancouver and Toronto, along with Victoria, Edmonton and Calgary will continue to outpace the national average in terms of home prices over the next 10 years.

Vancouver and Toronto are regarded as cities with the most inflated prices — despite recent corrections — but TD argues that the two cities will realize the biggest influx of immigrants, so demand will remain higher. The Alberta cities will do well because of both population growth and higher than average income growth.

Alexander says the two biggest factors in trend home prices are population growth and housing formation, which both favour Toronto and Vancouver.

The Canadian Press
 
Canadian house prices could fall 44% with severe economic shock: Moody’s

http://business.financialpost.com/2...severe-economic-shock-moodys/?__lsa=d157-61cb

A severe economic shock, such as the kind that hit Japan in the early 1990s and California and Nevada in 2006, could knock Canadian housing prices down by 44%, according to a formula devised by Moody’s Investors Service to rate securities linked to mortgages.

Such a decline would be driven primarily by the phenomenal upswing in Canadian home prices over the past decade, Moody’s said.

While house prices in Spain could plummet by a more severe 52%, Canada joins Spain, as well as the United Kingdom and Australia, in the ratings agency’s assessment of countries where growth in housing prices over the past 10 years has driven their values away from sustainable market fundamentals and into “overheated” territory.

“As with Australia, Spain and the U.K., we expect house prices in Canada to suffer the most due to the misalignment of current house prices with historic fundamentals,” Moody’s said.

The ratings agency released the report Monday, requesting comment on its proposed approach to analyzing the credit risk of non-insured mortgage pools.

Moody’s is the second ratings agency in as many weeks to seek input on a proposal to change the methodology used to analyze securities linked to mortgages.

Last week, London and New York-based Fitch Ratings unveiled a proposed a two-step model that reduces home prices to a “sustainable” value based on a number of factors including data provided by Canadian banks. It then further subjects the homes to a “stressed market” value decline assumption.

Fitch said Canadian home prices are overvalued by about 20%.

Ratings agencies came under harsh criticism in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 for what was perceived as a failure to predict the U.S. housing market meltdown that precipitated it.

Since then, there has been an attempt to strike a balance of thorough analysis with timely analysis, according to Grant Connor, an associate in equity research at National Bank Financial who previously worked on structured finance at Moody’s.

The model proposed by Moody’s on Monday determines house price “stress” rates by looking at variable factors such as house price and income growth over 10 years, and fixed factors such as monetary policy.

The analysis of housing prices in the event of economic shocks includes data from Finland in 1989, Japan in 1991, and Hong Kong in 1997, as well as Ireland, Nevada, and California in 2006.

The “variable” analysis assesses how much current house prices have departed from “sustainable” market fundamentals. The assumption is that, in the event of a severe economic shock, expected demand that has been baked into current house prices will not materialize. In Canada, the growth in house prices over the past 10 years has ‘’far outstripped” the growth in incomes, according to Moody’s.

“Think of it like an elastic [being stretched],” explains Mr. Connor of National Bank Financial. “The snap back is going to be a lot harder.”

Moody’s also assesses the “fixed” factor, which rates how vulnerable the consumer is to economic shocks, whether there is a large oversupply of houses, how effectively monetary policy can alleviate the shock, and how dependent the economy is on the real estate sector.

Canada scores better in this area, said Mr. Connor, because the stability of the country and its monetary policy is taken into consideration. While Canada’s household debt to income ratio is very high, at 154%, Moody’s notes that savings rates are higher than in some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom.

In addition, Moody’s does not seem overly concerned about an over-supply of housing with the possible exception of the condominium market.
 
Well worth looking at TD's full report:

http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/LongRunRateOfReturnForCanadianHomePrices.pdf

Hefty equity returns projected at 5% real for the long run! Lower that to 3% real and leveraged housing looks better... ;-)

I'm confused. If the report is projecting 5% real equity returns (net of 2% inflation), why do you suggest lowering it to 3%?

Also, the report projects 7% mortgage rates, so how can leveraged housing look better?

Finally, just to clarify, the report is projecting a 10% drop in RE prices 2013-2015, followed by 7 years of 1.5% annual increases (adjusted for 2% inflation). Net gain over the next 10 years projected to be 0%.
 
I'm confused. If the report is projecting 5% real equity returns (net of 2% inflation), why do you suggest lowering it to 3%?
>> Because I think 5% real return is high.

Also, the report projects 7% mortgage rates, so how can leveraged housing look better?
>> I wasn't really counting the cost of the leverage, and yes, rates do make a difference.

Finally, just to clarify, the report is projecting a 10% drop in RE prices 2013-2015, followed by 7 years of 1.5% annual increases (adjusted for 2% inflation). Net gain over the next 10 years projected to be 0%.
>> Sure, but over 20 years, say, if you've only put 5% down, your 20:1 leverage makes you a killing.

>> But, most importantly, I was being facetious and forgot to put a smiley. Here it is: ;-)
 
Probably an anomaly, but still...

http://www.thestar.com/business/rea..._and_sells_for_almost_200000_over_asking.html

Junction Triangle fixer-upper attracts 40 offers and sells for almost $200,000 over asking
Fears of a housing bubble burst: Junction Triangle fixer upper attracts 40 bids and goes for $200,000 over asking

By: Susan Pigg Business Reporter, Published on Tue Mar 12 2013

A house in the Junction Triangle area in need of an “extreme renovation” has sold for almost $200,000 over asking price thanks to a frenzy of activity that saw 40 people register bids on the home.
Seven potential buyers pulled out at the last minute Monday night as the listing agent prepared to deliver each bid to the home’s owners for review — some with deposit cheques of $100,000. The house sold for $601,500.
“I just kept thinking, ‘I hope nobody breaks into my car,’” joked listing agent Ashley McInnis, recovering from a frantic week that saw more than 350 potential buyers tour the home and countless others call to inquire about the detached home in the up-and-coming area close to transit and the downtown.
It had been listed for $419,900 at the owners’ insistence, considerably under market value, because they were concerned it needed so much work it would turn off most buyers.
Instead, the 2,600-square-foot house, which has been operating as two crammed apartments for years, created a frenzy among buyers who are finding there is very little decent on the market right now under $800,000.
“People were doing anything they could to make their offers more palatable to the seller. Money talks. This would have been a case where it would be hard to make an offer conditional on a home inspection.”
Agents were showing up with blank offers for the house, sight unseen, right until the 3 p.m. deadline for offers Monday.
“This many offers tells me that buyers are out there, that consumer confidence in the housing market has returned,” says McInnis. “They are at the start line and just waiting for the gun to go off, but there is no product out there.”
 

Back
Top