When do you think the Vancouver housing bubble will explode and come crashing down ?

[mpt]

5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Look above and beyond housing prices.

 

The bigger issue is personal debt including mortgages.  People purchase beyond their means due to low interest rates and lending.  They then continue to not act their wage and leverage that equity to buy cars go on trips and rack up enormous debt levels.  $1.68 for debt per every $1.00 of income on average per household in Canada

 

They weigh assets against debt to marginalize potential loss but never factor in the potential loss of equity in the event property values or homes depreciate faster than they can control.

 

We're close to that perfect storm in regards to collapse.

 

people consume, cannot control themselves, live beyond their means, housing prices drop, they lose that equity and are now unable to pay off debt in the same way or fund their lifestyle.  Then a potential rate increase comes up and 

 

Boom

 

Ya we're seeing hundreds of thousands claiming bankruptcy

 

CMHC as an insurer cannot possibly cope with that kind of potential loss without failure.

Oh for sure, if interest rates go up even 1% a lot of people are going to be in trouble.

[MaxVerstappen33]

3 hours ago, Realtor Rod said:

CMHC has been around 70 years, but as hippy pointed out, anything can happen.

Fanny and Freddie were around for 70 years too.

 

And what Hippy pointed out is not a fair comparison. CMHC is guaranteed to go bankrupt.

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, LolClarkson said:

Fanny and Freddie were around for 70 years too.

 

And what Hippy pointed out is not a fair comparison. CMHC is guaranteed to go bankrupt.

Actually it is a fair comparison in that regard.

 

the difference is, while the government in the US allowed the biggest (non political fund contributing banks) to fail, they bailed everyone out.  But they were private enterprise.

 

CMHC is not a private enterprise, it is a government or public one and as such it would be us taxpayers openly paying for others stupidity for the rest of the world to laugh at

[MaxVerstappen33]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Actually it is a fair comparison in that regard.

 

the difference is, while the government in the US allowed the biggest (non political fund contributing banks) to fail, they bailed everyone out.  But they were private enterprise.

 

CMHC is not a private enterprise, it is a government or public one and as such it would be us taxpayers openly paying for others stupidity for the rest of the world to laugh at

Fanny and Freddie were created by congress. They are managed like a corporation but they are government sponsored.

 

I do not see how CMHC can mathematically stay solvent if what happened in the rest of the world in 2008, happens in Canada. Which makes the comparison to the Loungo trade quite a bit different

[Realtor Rod]

1 hour ago, LolClarkson said:

Fanny and Freddie were created by congress. They are managed like a corporation but they are government sponsored.

 

I do not see how CMHC can mathematically stay solvent if what happened in the rest of the world in 2008, happens in Canada. Which makes the comparison to the Loungo trade quite a bit different

2008 did happen here, the reason we didnt go belly up is because mortgages in canada are funded for housing, in the US they used their money for boats, cars, clothes, trips. 

 

Are you saying CMHC doesnt work? I have seen it in action and it is a last resort. If it gets as bad as you say it will you will see lenders forgive, refi etc and the feds will do their part as well. They dont want to see anything crumble as well.

[The Vancouver Connection]

This thread is so dumb.

 

"There's a crash coming!" 

 

"No there's not!"

 

Fact of the matter is prices will dip but there won't be a crash. Like the others saying the 30% gains from prior and adjusting back to flat of 2014/2015 is not a crash, that's where prices will be.

[-DLC-]

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/a-mortgage-monster/

 

Quote

David LePoidevin isn’t the first person to suggest Canada’s roaring housing market is headed for a U.S.-style crash. But he is a rare breed of money manager for daring to point a finger at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the country’s biggest mortgage insurer. In a fall 2009 note to his clients, LePoidevin questioned what was underpinning the country’s skyrocketing home prices, aside from rock-bottom interest rates. “The stock market was sure not providing huge capital gains to the masses,” he wrote. “Did the banks all of a sudden open up the lending spigots? In fact banks have actually reduced the number of their mortgages held from the peak of third quarter of 2008. The smoking gun is the CMHC and its securitization policies.”

As mainstream economic commentary in Canada goes, it was damning stuff. And it provided ammunition to critics who argue the Crown corporation’s policies have inflated a housing bubble. The CMHC is arguably the most influential player in Canada’s $1-trillion housing market. Its main function is to provide mortgage insurance for prospective homeowners who put less than 20 per cent down on their houses, protecting the banks in the event of defaults. The CMHC also helps to spread risk by finding investors to buy CMHC-insured mortgages that have been pooled together into so-called mortgage-backed securities. All of this is guaranteed by the government.

Almost immediately, LePoidevin’s bosses at National Bank leapt to the CMHC’s defence. In a letter to an Ottawa newspaper that had referred to the commentary, co-chief executive Ricardo Pascoe said the Vancouver portfolio manager’s views were “personal” and “do not reflect the views of National Bank Financial Group.” When reached by Maclean’s, LePoidevin declined to talk about the public rebuke or the CMHC in general. A National Bank spokesperson justified its actions, saying the company “felt that the commentary was treading on social and political issues.”

The apparent unwillingness of the country’s sixth-largest bank to challenge the CMHC is curious given the role similar U.S. institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—quasi-government agencies that securitized mortgages—played in the U.S. housing crash. But it’s far from unusual. Several other critics, including economists, realtors, lawyers and analysts contacted by Maclean’s, say they have also been the target of attack. One bank economist who once publicly raised fears about a housing bubble says he didn’t dare openly criticize the CMHC because of the agency’s reputation for snuffing out dissent—an allegation the CMHC denies. The economist spoke on the condition his name not be used.

 

 

 

Even worse, the public knows next to nothing about what lurks inside the CMHC’s books, aside from the smattering of details it releases in its annual report. And, unlike every other major insurance provider in the country, the CMHC doesn’t answer to Canada’s top financial services regulator. It falls under an amalgam of government acts and departments, including Finance and Human Resources, while also working with the Bank of Canada. Yet on specific decisions that dramatically loosened mortgage lending rules last decade, CMHC officials have testified they did so on their own with the approval and oversight of the CMHC’s board of directors—a board that includes a political consultant, real estate developers, a small-town lawyer and even the owner of a plumbing company—though not one single economist or recognizable financial services professional.

It all raises troubling questions about the agency, its oversight and, ultimately, the health of the country’s frothy housing market, a key driver of the Canadian economy. And, as LePoidevin found out the hard way, asking hard questions seldom yields satisfactory answers.

Since taxpayers, through the CMHC, and not the banks are ultimately on the hook in the event of a housing crash, a growing chorus of critics has been calling for more transparency and oversight, if not outright reform. Stephen Jarislowsky, a billionaire Montreal investor, says home prices are likely overvalued by as much as 20 per cent in some Canadian markets thanks to CMHC policies that encouraged banks to lend far too much money to people to whom they shouldn’t have. The core problem, he argues, is that promoting home ownership makes for good politics in Canada, if not always sound economic policy.

“The CMHC is influenced by the political process, just like [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] were in the United States,” says Jarislowsky. He notes the average debt-to-income ratio of Canadian households recently surpassed that of the U.S. for the first time in 12 years. “The political folks are guaranteeing mortgages that the banks might never have made if they had to keep them on their own books,” he says.

At the end of 2009, the CMHC insured roughly $473 billion worth of mortgages (it expected that figure to rise to $519 billion last year, though updated figures haven’t been released), which is nearly the entire mortgage insurance market in the country. The CMHC also assists the financial sector by buying pooled mortgages and reselling them to investors as bonds, giving banks and other institutions an immediate source of cash that they can re-lend. As of 2009, the CMHC had securitized $300 billion worth of mortgages. So critical is this function that Ottawa relied on the agency to prop up the country’s big banks during the financial crisis, giving the CMHC permission to buy $66 billion worth of mortgages.

 

Chris Sorensen And Jason Kirby

It’s a familiar-sounding story to American ears. “The Canadian government mortgage apparatus echoes uncannily our experiences down here with Fannie and Freddie” says Jim Grant, author of the widely read Grant’s Interest Rate Observer newsletter. “CMHC has distorted the housing market by making homes, especially ones that are on the pricier end of the spectrum, more affordable and encouraged a lot of people to get in over their heads.”

Grant and other critics argue the CMHC’s balance sheet looks strikingly similar to both Fannie and Freddie if you compare the mortgages the agency insures against its equity. Using the CMHC’s 2010 forecasts, it insures $519.1 billion in mortgages against $9.9 billion in equity, which works out to around 1.9 per cent (although the CMHC says it has another $6.7 billion in “unearned” premiums that could be used toward future claims). By comparison, in 2007, at the peak of the bubble, Fannie Mae backed up US$2.7 trillion of mortgage-backed securities with US$40 billion of capital, or 1.5 per cent equity against its overall exposure. But the CMHC says its capital levels are double what the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions requires of mortgage insurers (though the CMHC is not regulated by the OFSI). But such assurances in the absence of transparent disclosure offer limited comfort. As C.D. Howe researcher Finn Poschmann wrote in a recent report: “Parliament and the voters to whom it answers have no formal documentation of the way these exposures are calculated or managed.”

What bothers Grant is that the CMHC’s government-backed guarantees encourage banks to feel they have less to lose if loans go bad. “The risk has been shifted, rather than reduced, from the stockholders and depositors of the big Canadian banks to the Canadian taxpayer,” he says. And if house prices fall and borrowers get into trouble, the ripples would run far and wide. “A sharp break in Canadian house prices would inflict terrific damage to consumer confidence, would hurt the Canadian labour market, and ultimately produce a lot of the unpleasant results that have been America’s burden to bear since 2007.”

The CMHC argues such concerns are overblown. It points out that the Canadian mortgage system is fundamentally different than in the U.S. That’s because mortgage interest is not tax-deductible, a relatively small number of mortgages are securitized, and lenders can generally go after homeowners who don’t make their payments. The CMHC also points to Canada’s low rate of mortgage arrears, currently less than one per cent. Finally, the industry never got swept up in the subprime lending trend, the CMHC says. “We don’t have those products in Canada,” says Pierre Serré, the CMHC’s vice-president of insurance product and business development. “And if we did, CMHC certainly did not insure them.” Lending weight to the CMHC’s claims, a 2009 IMF report called Canada’s residential mortgage markets “boring but effective.”

Canadian lenders didn’t go overboard with the sorts of gimmicky mortgage products—loans with low initial “teaser” rates or so-called NINJA loans (no income, no job or assets)—that got Americans into so much trouble. But it’s not like they shied away from taking risks. For two years beginning in 2006, the CMHC offered insurance on mortgages with amortization periods of up to 40 years, nearly double the traditional 25-year period, and loans with zero down payments. The products were later reined in by Ottawa after the U.S. housing market tanked.

Don Healy/Regina Leader-Post/CP

The CMHC dove into such high-risk products largely without supervision. While the government had previously relaxed conditions for guaranteeing mortgage insurance as part of a plan to introduce more private sector competition, it was the CMHC’s management and board that ultimately made the decision to go to 40-year amortization periods. In the same way, in 2007, the CMHC introduced a program for self-employed Canadians who have difficulty documenting their earnings to nonetheless obtain mortgage insurance by “stating” their income. While the program was restricted to borrowers with good credit ratings, one mortgage broker told Maclean’s self-employed Canadians were able to get much larger mortgages than those in the same field who had documented incomes. Then, a year ago, the CMHC backtracked and significantly tightened its rules on stated-income mortgages.

“We’re allowed to operate and make decisions with regards to mortgage insurance products and policies within the [government’s] guarantee, and when we do so we advise the government of any changes,” says Peter De Barros, a spokesperson for the CMHC. Still, the move to riskier mortgage products drew the ire of then-Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, who sent a letter to CMHC chief executive Karen Kinsley in 2006 warning about the dangers of throwing fuel on a hot housing market. “A home purchaser is able to borrow at very low interest rates because you and I as taxpayers essentially guarantee that mortgage,” Dodge said during an interview earlier this year on Business News Network. “So it’s not at all unreasonable for us as taxpayers to say, ‘Look, Mr. Borrower, you’ve got to have an equity stake in this as well, so if things go really bad it’s not all on the Canadian taxpayer—part of it is on you.” (Dodge declined to be interviewed for this story.)

Critics say that, given what happened in the U.S., it’s irresponsible to not have someone watching over the CMHC. “They are the only major financial institution in Canada not regulated by OSFI,” says Ian Lee, an assistant professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business and a former bank manager. “Housing is so huge and the consequences are just so large. It’s not like they’re deciding what to do about the price of ballpoint pens.”

So how much risk have taxpayers been exposed to? The CMHC doesn’t reveal specific data about the credit exposure that it has taken on, other than to say it is manageable and in line with internal guidelines. As for the question of whether the CMHC’s policies could contribute to a housing crash, the agency says there’s no reason for Canadians to lose sleep. It says more than half of CMHC-insured mortgages have a loan-to-value ratio of less than 80 per cent based on the value of the original loan, and that the average equity in a CMHC-insured property is 45 per cent. “The mortgages are getting paid down—as a matter of fact, we see that about half of our folks made extra payments, more than just the minimum required principal payments,” says Serré, adding that rising home prices have also helped improve the debt picture.

But such aggregate figures don’t necessarily provide an accurate snapshot of how homeowners are faring, according to Poschmann at C.D. Howe. Important questions remain unanswered—like what is the geographic breakdown of its mortgages? Of those people with lower equity in their homes, what is the size of their mortgages? What classes of loans are they? What are their terms? “You can’t come up with an independent assessment of exposures based on the information they publish,” says Poschmann. “You can manage risks better with oversight and daylight, but right now we have pretty opaque books.”

While the CMHC says it has a sophisticated automated system to check creditworthiness of borrowers and property values, its biggest private sector competitor (which also has its mortgage insurance guaranteed by taxpayers, albeit only up to 90 per cent) nevertheless suggested during a 2007 hearing of the Senate banking committee that more than a third of all mortgages insured by the CMHC could be considered risky. Winsor Macdonell, the vice-president and general counsel of Genworth Financial, told the committee he assumed the CMHC’s portfolio looks similar to Genworth’s given that both provide mortgage insurance for the entire Canadian market. “When I talked about our portfolio, 36 per cent are people with low or poor credit,” he said. “Those are the people who are at risk.” Genworth declined to talk to Maclean’s for this story.

Serré declined to comment directly on Macdonell’s remarks. “I’m not exactly sure what low or poor credit is,” he says. “But I want to make clear that our mandate is not to get people into home ownership, our mandate is to provide the housing of choice. The last thing we want, as a government insurer, is to get people in a position where they can’t manage their debt.” For the sake of Canada and its fragile economic recovery, let’s hope he’s right.

 

 

[peaches5]

It will never be affordable.

[Realtor Rod]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/a-mortgage-monster/

 

 

The government (federal) has been proactively making changes since the trouble in 2008. Where was this guy and his cape pre-2008?

 

• The maximum amortization period has been reduced to 25 years from 40 years.
• Home buyers must have a down payment of at least five per cent of the home purchase price and starting February 15, 2016, home buyers must add  a further 10 per cent to their down payment for the portion of the house price between $500,000 and $999,999. For non-owner occupied properties, a minimum down payment of at least 20 per cent is mandatory.
• Canadians can now borrow to a maximum of 80 per cent of the value of their homes when refinancing, a drop from 95 per cent.

• Limiting the maximum gross debt service (GDS) ratio to 39 per cent and the maximum total debt service (TDS) ratio to 44 per cent.

  These two important ratios are used when calculating a person’s ability to pay down debt. GDS is the share of a borrower’s gross household income needed to pay for home-related expenses, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and heating expenses. TDS is the share of a borrower’s gross income needed to pay for all debts, including those relating to home ownership.
• Government-backed mortgage insurance is available only for homes with a purchase price of less than $1 million. Borrowers buying homes at or above this amount will need a down payment of at least 20 per cent if their financing is from a federally-regulated financial institution.

These are the huge differences from the US and why we are NOT the same. In fact, the US still has substantial bad debt comparatively. More changes will come to our lending but its no where near as bad as the US. They were going in the other direction, we have been cleaning it up since 2008.

However, if you all believe the above article, I suggest you talk to your lender about securing a 10 year loan as it sounds like its all going to come crashing down. Dont go variable like I do. 

 

This article is also half a decade old already. There are better, more modern articles.

[Realtor Rod]

3 hours ago, The Vancouver Connection said:

This thread is so dumb.

 

"There's a crash coming!" 

 

"No there's not!"

 

Fact of the matter is prices will dip but there won't be a crash. Like the others saying the 30% gains from prior and adjusting back to flat of 2014/2015 is not a crash, that's where prices will be.

Sounds about right... but everyone was wrong in 2008, for about 6 months.

[Rush17]

does anyone happen to have the link that said sales were down 81% since the new tax and there was 156% increase in the Seattle market.

 

I was referring to those stats too a friend.  I was hoping to share the link can't seem to find the post.   or was that someone's post?

 

I thought it was formated like an article hard to recall. 

[MaxVerstappen33]

On 2016-09-17 at 11:43 AM, The Vancouver Connection said:

This thread is so dumb.

 

"There's a crash coming!" 

 

"No there's not!"

 

Fact of the matter is prices will dip but there won't be a crash. Like the others saying the 30% gains from prior and adjusting back to flat of 2014/2015 is not a crash, that's where prices will be.

Quote

Fact of the matter is prices will dip but there won't be a crash.

Fact of the matter is, this is the most foolhardy and ignorant post on the subject yet. If only you had 1/2 a clue about anything finance or basic economics.

 

EVERY crash starts as a dip or "correction". And then turns into a crash. Markets that do not have meaningful corrections (this one) turn into bubbles. Bubbles do not correct. They crash.

Quote

prior and adjusting back to flat of 2014/2015 is not a crash, that's where prices will be

That is what every ignoramus says in the middle of a crash. Let me tell you what is going to happen:

The initial trend change has already happened. With the usual prognostications. The market will bounce back up a little bit and trade sideways. All the Yahoo's will proclaim the all clear. Then there will be another big leg down and the process will repeat itself.

 

This is why I have to go back and administer the painful medicine after someone is proven wrong. Because they cant help but be condescending.

 

After some time has passed and ppl like this have their foot odged in their mouth, I will repost all of this. Then people will say that I am being the bully.

 

[MaxVerstappen33]

On 2016-09-17 at 11:43 AM, The Vancouver Connection said:

This thread is so dumb.

 

"There's a crash coming!" 

 

"No there's not!"

 

Fact of the matter is prices will dip but there won't be a crash. Like the others saying the 30% gains from prior and adjusting back to flat of 2014/2015 is not a crash, that's where prices will be.

The most pathetic part of this thread is the people who come on here and gloat when they aren't even aware of the recent price action. Clearly this person has no idea.

 

He says "prices will dip". His statement is in pretense. Then he says "that's where prices will be" Pretense again.

 

He is obviously completely oblivious to the recent price action. And these are the kind of people adding exclamation marks and smiley faces.

 

[clam linguine]

On 9/18/2016 at 1:58 PM, Rush17 said:

does anyone happen to have the link that said sales were down 81% since the new tax and there was 156% increase in the Seattle market.

 

I was referring to those stats too a friend.  I was hoping to share the link can't seem to find the post.   or was that someone's post?

 

I thought it was formated like an article hard to recall. 

I posted it in the BC real estate thread.  It was Chinese searches...not sales.  I see Harvey also posted an article later on.

http://www.bnn.ca/toronto-luxury-home-sales-heating-up-as-b-c-tax-diverts-foreign-buyers-sotheby-s-1.566555

 

Actually...here is the Harveys article

Seattle housing market white hot with Chinese demand as Vancouver's market freezes

Mainland China buyers seeking to invest overseas are fleeing Vancouver and flooding Seattle.

Figures prepared for Postmedia by Juwai.com, a popular website in China that connects investors with international home sellers and real estate agents, shows buying inquiries for Vancouver property from investors in Mainland China dropped 81 per cent in August after B.C.’s government introduced a Metro Vancouver offshore investor tax. Meanwhile, buying inquiries for Seattle homes on Juwai.com surged by 143 per cent in August, compared to August 2015.

Realtors in Seattle and Vancouver said the data suggests growing nervousness among Chinese investors over increasing regulation of Metro Vancouver’s market. As a result, Seattle, with a similar quality of life, better wages, and homes generally at least 50 per cent cheaper, is overtaking Vancouver as a preferred destination for Mainland China buyers.

“The shift to other cities has actually been going on for months, with buyer demand momentum shifting to other cities with similar appeal but lower entry prices,” said Dave Platter of Juwai.com. “Right now, Seattle is the No. 1 city in North America for Chinese buyer inquiries, even displacing Los Angeles.”

Juwai’s figures on cooling interest from Chinese buyers are confirmed by Metro Vancouver MLS figures that show deep sales drops in August, especially in housing types and neighbourhoods most popular with Chinese buyers. And MLS data from Vancouver realtor Steve Saretsky shows sales drops are even worse in September, with weakness spreading from sales of luxury detached homes to broader portions of the market including townhouses and condos.

“September is horrible,” Saretsky said. “The sales are on pace for historic lows for the past 10 years.”

Compared to the first 11 days of September 2015, Multiple Listing Service data analyzed by Saretsky shows sales of detached homes in September 2016 in Vancouver West are down 51 per cent, Vancouver East is down 80 per cent, Richmond is down 67 per cent, and Burnaby is down 69 per cent.

Saretsky said he believes Juwai.com figures on Vancouver buyer inquiries reflects on conversations that he and other agents are having with investors since the new tax was introduced. 

“My Chinese investor was in town, and he said ‘We can all afford the 15-per-cent tax, but it creates uncertainty,'” Saretsky said. “He said everybody in China is being told not to invest right now in Canada.” 

The sense from China buyers, Saretsky said, is that B.C. residents are “pissed off” about skyrocketing home prices driven by offshore investment, and that Canadian governments are starting to respond. 

In China, media coverage on the new Metro Vancouver tax has been widespread, Dave Platter of Juwai Limited said. While investors may be turned off by the Vancouver tax, most Chinese citizens seem to approve.

“Interestingly, most public comments left on the online news stories about the new tax are not complaints against Vancouver,” said Matthew Moore, president of the Americas for Juwai.com. “Quite the opposite, many people respect the decision to impose new taxes.

“They are coming from a situation where an apartment bought two years ago in Shanghai could be worth 75 per cent more today. So, many feel that more measures should be imposed to cool their own home markets and protect accessibility to property.”

Dean Jones, owner of Realogics Sotheby’s International Realty in Seattle, said he believes effects of the Metro Vancouver tax will accelerate already hot demand in Seattle from Mainland China buyers.

“We are seeing a rush into Seattle as the next market that matters,” Jones said. “I think for Chinese buyers it becomes like a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a group, they know they can move a market higher. It is definitely the most dominant new presence in the market.”

Jones said his company’s top sales in August were for Chinese buyers who set new prices in two Seattle neighbourhoods. They bought homes for about Canadian $6.5 million that would have cost about twice as much in comparable Vancouver neighbourhoods, Jones said. He said one of the buyers has multiple Vancouver properties. But some of his brokers are reporting that Chinese clients are dumping Vancouver property to reinvest at lower prices.

“My two big Vancouver clients are selling their assets there and coming here to do it all over again,” Seattle broker Lilli Shang said. “I have inquiries all the time from investors from China. Money is pouring in.”

Home sales in the Seattle area “continued to outpace year-ago activity,” Northwest MLS reported in early September, though across Western Washington, prices dropped slightly from early summer. MLS data shows that the Seattle neighbourhoods that have been most popular with Mainland China buyers for the past five years, according to Dean Jones, have experienced price rises from between 15 and 27 per cent in August over a year earlier. Jones said that Mainland China buyers represent 3o to 50 per cent of the market in these hot neighbourhoods, such as Bellevue. 

Just like Vancouver, Seattle has its stories about cash buyers from China. The Seattle Times reported the most expensive residence sold in 2015 was a mansion that went for Canadian $17.5 million to an unnamed buyer who paid cash and used a numbered company. Brokers confirmed the buyer was from China, the Times reported.

To illustrate market trends, Jones points to his firm’s use of the popular Chinese messaging app WeChat. Jones said his company can see “viral” interest in Seattle real estate stories on WeChat, and his brokers also use the app to facilitate direct home sales to buyers in China.

“One of our brokers just transferred a title and received a money transfer from China on WeChat,” Jones said. “We can get around China’s Internet block and directly to buyers.”

It is not hyperbole to suggest that Chinese real estate investment rushes have “gone viral” on WeChat.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that in Shanghai some realtors are under investigation by police for using WeChat to spread false rumours of a supposed government intervention to limit credit for home purchases. The alleged rumours created a social media sensation that “sparked a home-buying frenzy in late August and led to instability in the city’s real-estate market,” WSJ reported.

Not everyone in Seattle is excited about growing crowds of Mainland China investors. Seattle real estate analyst Charles Mudede has warned that unless the city learns from Vancouver’s “real estate crisis,” Seattle will also have vacant condo towers, a housing market disconnected from local incomes and traditional laws of supply and demand, and young people forced to leave the city.

“Something totally insane and even monstrous is happening in this city,” Mudede wrote Aug. 3 in a report filed from Vancouver, titled “A City of Empty Towers.”

However, Jones argues that Seattle has a more balanced economy than Vancouver with high-paying technology industry jobs, and a new homes market that is more geared to purpose-built rental units than luxury condos aimed at offshore investors.

[The Vancouver Connection]

7 hours ago, LolClarkson said:

Fact of the matter is, this is the most foolhardy and ignorant post on the subject yet. If only you had 1/2 a clue about anything finance or basic economics.

 

EVERY crash starts as a dip or "correction". And then turns into a crash. Markets that do not have meaningful corrections (this one) turn into bubbles. Bubbles do not correct. They crash.

That is what every ignoramus says in the middle of a crash. Let me tell you what is going to happen:

The initial trend change has already happened. With the usual prognostications. The market will bounce back up a little bit and trade sideways. All the Yahoo's will proclaim the all clear. Then there will be another big leg down and the process will repeat itself.

 

This is why I have to go back and administer the painful medicine after someone is proven wrong. Because they cant help but be condescending.

 

After some time has passed and ppl like this have their foot odged in their mouth, I will repost all of this. Then people will say that I am being the bully.

 

hahahaha you're SO mad over nothing dude. I feel if someone doesn't accept your opinion or outlook you use charts and tactics to convince your answer is the only answer. 

 

I do understand basic economics and finance - in fact I have a finance degree and was in IB for awhile. 

 

I understand how crashes work - this will not be a crash. Let's look at this in a PURE relative spectrum. Let's not compare Vancouver to Japan, Hong Kong, Sydney etc.

 

The fact of the matter is Vancouver is extremely scarce in land because of the geography, we're on the coast, surrounded by mountains, elevation changes, in ability to develop on specific land types (bogs etc.) Until the zoning laws are changed - we'll be in this mess for awhile. 

 

so thanks for coming out, bud  <3

[Realtor Rod]

4 minutes ago, The Vancouver Connection said:

hahahaha you're SO mad over nothing dude. I feel if someone doesn't accept your opinion or outlook you use charts and tactics to convince your answer is the only answer. 

 

I do understand basic economics and finance - in fact I have a finance degree and was in IB for awhile. 

 

I understand how crashes work - this will not be a crash. Let's look at this in a PURE relative spectrum. Let's not compare Vancouver to Japan, Hong Kong, Sydney etc.

 

The fact of the matter is Vancouver is extremely scarce in land because of the geography, we're on the coast, surrounded by mountains, elevation changes, in ability to develop on specific land types (bogs etc.) Until the zoning laws are changed - we'll be in this mess for awhile. 

 

so thanks for coming out, bud  <3

I am still trying to get someone to tell me what a crash is. 

[MaxVerstappen33]

54 minutes ago, The Vancouver Connection said:

hahahaha you're SO mad over nothing dude. I feel if someone doesn't accept your opinion or outlook you use charts and tactics to convince your answer is the only answer. 

 

I do understand basic economics and finance - in fact I have a finance degree and was in IB for awhile. 

 

I understand how crashes work - this will not be a crash. Let's look at this in a PURE relative spectrum. Let's not compare Vancouver to Japan, Hong Kong, Sydney etc.

 

The fact of the matter is Vancouver is extremely scarce in land because of the geography, we're on the coast, surrounded by mountains, elevation changes, in ability to develop on specific land types (bogs etc.) Until the zoning laws are changed - we'll be in this mess for awhile. 

 

so thanks for coming out, bud  <3

Quote

hahahaha you're SO mad over nothing dude.

What do you expect ? The thread was a referendum on the next move of Van house prices. I say it will top out and start to crash within 6 months. It does just that. Then you come along and tell me how wrong I am going to be when what I predicted has already materialized.

Quote

I feel if someone doesn't accept your opinion or outlook you use charts and tactics to convince

Yeah and my charts proved me to be right as far as the next move in prices was going to be.

 

Quote

Let's look at this in a PURE relative spectrum. Let's not compare Vancouver to Japan, Hong Kong, Sydney etc.

Ohhhh this time is different. This time is different.. Yeah. Vintage bubble talk. "relative spectrum" Big words.

Quote

I understand how crashes work - this will not be a crash

You obviously don't have the slightest clue how financial bubbles and the resultant crashes work. And you've already proven it on this thread.
 

Quote

The fact of the matter is Vancouver is extremely scarce in land because of the geography, we're on the coast, surrounded by mountains, elevation changes, in ability to develop on specific land types (bogs etc.) Until the zoning laws are changed - we'll be in this mess for awhile. 

 

The kind of jabber that bubbles are made of.

 

You simply can't make the geography argument because other population centers with higher density, higher purchasing power and just as tight of zoning laws have had 15 year real estate bear markets. 

 

 

[MaxVerstappen33]

1 hour ago, Realtor Rod said:

I am still trying to get someone to tell me what a crash is. 

Look at the charts I posted in the first post. Look at the Japan real estate chart. The Nasdaq stock chart. Those are speculative bubbles and resultant crashes.

 

 

[Realtor Rod]

45 minutes ago, LolClarkson said:

Look at the charts I posted in the first post. Look at the Japan real estate chart. The Nasdaq stock chart. Those are speculative bubbles and resultant crashes.

 

 

Charts are not an explanation. They are diagrams. I have seen your charts, they are not relative. They are up and downs of lines in their simplest forms. In their most complex form they are lines from other places and things that can have contradictory images provide from other places and things eliminate their relevance. 

 

Explain in words what a crash is.

[Realtor Rod]

56 minutes ago, LolClarkson said:

What do you expect ? The thread was a referendum on the next move of Van house prices. I say it will top out and start to crash within 6 months. It does just that. Then you come along and tell me how wrong I am going to be when what I predicted has already materialized.

Yeah and my charts proved me to be right as far as the next move in prices was going to be.

 

Ohhhh this time is different. This time is different.. Yeah. Vintage bubble talk. "relative spectrum" Big words.

You obviously don't have the slightest clue how financial bubbles and the resultant crashes work. And you've already proven it on this thread.
 

The kind of jabber that bubbles are made of.

 

You simply can't make the geography argument because other population centers with higher density, higher purchasing power and just as tight of zoning laws have had 15 year real estate bear markets. 

 

 

On a side note to all your above "look at me and how right I think I am ", three offers written in the last 3 days and all three clients lost because, and wait for it, properties sold above list price. 

 

I guess the 'crash' is in full swing.