.5 for most of us is a blip on the radar , personally I hold very minimal debt and it will change nothing at my house .
For quite a few folks .5 will tighten the belt .
It will change zero in housing supply since the folks that want in, will get in and lately with no inventory everyone wants in
New Zealand increased it's prime rate and it's one of the few markets in the world that mirrors Canada as far as Real estate price increase (north of 20%). They also introduced few other fiscal sticks to curtail speculation within the market. Too early to tell, but the 3 months since, the demand is starting dip and the month over month prices are coming down. BoC is well aware of this as well as other trends and policies that are being introduced around the world in Sweden/Norway/Aus/NZ.
The reason that the rate is kept at .25 is to make sure that the liquidity is available to the main street rather than real estate. I foresee some RE related polices are in the works or coming soon to "control" and guide the market to sane level.
I know it's hard to think rationally when the sky is falling but I have been in the market for a while (development & capital) so have some ideas about it (Far from some guy with a crystal ball). Most people have forgot the stress test they introduced in 2017which pretty much stagnated the market till the pandemic showed up. I remember people who put down 100k to buy houses in Markham new dev, trying to offload the contract for free or just walking away (late 2018). So outliers aside, the market will smooth out soon enough hopefully, cause no one in their right mind wants a fundamental market ripping through at 20%+ a year.
As for the general sentiment of this thread, if you can afford the monthly don't look at the price. There were and are two historical things to hedge your bet against inflation. Gold & RE. If you got into Gold when the RE was stagnant in Canada (tail end of 2017), you're looking at an increase of 50% on gold. Now that Gold is sideways since 2020 and RE is on the run, all that "safe" money is in land. These things happen; do the contrarian thing and hope for the best as that's all you can do. Don't believe in hedge funds, there is no algorithmic way, it's mostly all heuristic when it comes to this ****. You can't predict this **** man, and as long as you can service your loans if things go south, you're ahead of the game.
A proverb that my grandma told me that always brings a chuckle to me: "When man says, I'm buying land, the land laughs"
And some millennial or whatever buzz label they have this yr will also cash out . My grandpa was not a boomer, sold his farm and lived like a God , like 50 yrs ago . Tale as old as time , get over it
And some millennial or whatever buzz label they have this yr will also cash out . My grandpa was not a boomer, sold his farm and lived like a God , like 50 yrs ago . Tale as old as time , get over it
Well he doesn’t HAVE to do anything. And simply because a house sells for $2M that new guy may have a mortgage of 500k or less. I know plenty of people that did that.
Also….not all sales of homes are investments. Many aren’t.
I understand your point….but if it comes down to me choosing between my house price going up and it tanking so someone can afford it….I’ll choose option A every single time.
And I’ll guarantee 100% that every single person that complains about housing price will side with me the second they take possession.
Well he doesn’t HAVE to do anything. And simply because a house sells for $2M that new guy may have a mortgage of 500k or less. I know plenty of people that did that.
Also….not all sales of homes are investments. Many aren’t.
I understand your point….but if it comes down to me choosing between my house price going up and it tanking so someone can afford it….I’ll choose option A every single time.
And I’ll guarantee 100% that every single person that complains about housing price will side with me the second they take possession.
Even if house prices "tank", that is a 30% drop and has a minimal effect on affordability. Realistically, if people panic and sell at that point, it will be investers buying three houses instead of two. First time buyers are screwed without a giant external cash injection.
Even if house prices "tank", that is a 30% drop and has a minimal effect on affordability. Realistically, if people panic and sell at that point, it will be investers buying three houses instead of two. First time buyers are screwed without a giant external cash injection.
We bought for just shy of $1M about 2.5 years ago. Today I can very easily sell for 1.5M...maybe 1.6-1.65 depending on market today.
So even a 30% drop...I'm still up 200k.
And all the people hoping for a crash so they can buy in...good luck with that. Investors will snap up everything in sight before you even know it's on the market. I knew one guy that told me the housing crash in the 80s-90s (whenever it was) was the best thing that happened to him. He bought 20-30 properties, and lived very well off the rentals (and selling sometimes if a property was underperforming).
That scares me a bit , the Developement companies that claim " we will buy up thousands of homes and create affordable housing" sure ..... you will charge whatever the market will bare , because that's how it works.... once all the government grants and tax exemptions run out.
That scares me a bit , the Developement companies that claim " we will buy up thousands of homes and create affordable housing" sure ..... you will charge whatever the market will bare , because that's how it works.... once all the government grants and tax exemptions run out.
Once a single entity has a significant percentage of single family home stock, they have the government by the balls. All they need to do it threaten to dump them all on the market at once and government will do whatever is asked of them. Many homeowners (and therefore voters) would not appreciate the bloodbath if suddenly houses available for purchase increased by an order of magnitude. Basically Core will be able to directly transfer federal and provincial money in and the underlying asset barely matters to them. Hell, they may even be affordable rent as in the background we are all subsidizing them.
Yes this is wrong, and should 100% be forbidden by the government.
Normal investors are always going to be there, but multi-billion dollar companies buying up stock of housing...no. This will totally screw over everyone.
First time buyers (inflating prices as they outbid everything)
Renters (will be able to control market rents along entire communities)
Long time owners (possibility of dumping at any time and tanking the market at their whim)
It's scary in every sense and I hope it's never allowed.
Actually preventing this is logistically complicated. If each company is only allowed three dwellings, then the monster can spin up a bunch of companies with three dwellings each. The sub companies hire the monster to manage their investment. I agree, nothing good comes of it. I guess one simple solution would be no longer allowing corporate purchases of single family homes. That has some downsides for the small investor but basically locks out the large ones.
Single entities controlling the rental market has already happened in some municipalities. Once an entity has ~10% of the market, they get to dictate prices and keep rolling the cash to increase their share.
If government wanted to protect housing stock to make it available for individuals to purchase, they could create a law where a single person can only have substantial interest in x properties. What number is x? First thought is maybe three (primary, holiday, investment/rental)? That puts MP's sixplex in a strange spot though (needs three owners?) What if you inherit a house? How long do you have to dispose of it? Maybe progressive tax is a better solution than a hard line. Yearly tax on first property of 0%, 1% on 2nd, 5% on 3rd, 10% on 4th or more? Allows people to buy one or two but makes owning many beyond that financially non-viable unless you have tons of cash to burn. That also screws up MP's sixpack as the tax would make it non-viable. He would need to convert it to fewer, larger dwellings to minimize costs. That's not a good outcome. No easy answers.
Even if house prices "tank", that is a 30% drop and has a minimal effect on affordability. Realistically, if people panic and sell at that point, it will be investers buying three houses instead of two. First time buyers are screwed without a giant external cash injection.
It's going to be hard to tank prices for the 2500sq' and down in the GTA. For that to happen supply and demand would need to meet , with almost no land for housing starts, that's not happening any time soon.
The other challenge is the incredibly high build cost for houses these days, over $300/sq' for a production cookie-cutter house or townhouse, + the cost of land (I suspect it's even higher than that thanks -- I suspect @crankcall's plywood salesmen are adding $50K to the cost of a house). Over $400/sq' for a single house build. So, if a 1700sq' basic tract house in the stix has a build cost of $500K + land + builder profit, and there is no supply of resales, how much can the family home really fall?
The last great housing price correction in the early 90s was different. There was a supply glut - thousands of homes were started without buyers, the only houses presold in those days were the ones on premium lots. Building costs were closer to $100/sq', A new 3000 sq' build in Newmarket could be had for $275K.
There are substantial lands currently locked by various levels of gov't, releasing some of that land for housing could ease the supply issue and potentially reduce the cost of new home ownership. This would excite some strong opposition, but it's worthy of a debate.
In all honesty good for him business wise. And you also have had a very bad experience with him (I remember that discussion), and also saw his YouTube video where he basically spoke about your issues IIRC.
However...he's doing it within the legal framework, and outside of being a ****** landlord (if I'm to believe REDDIT and some sources) then what's the issue?
Can you honestly tell me @george__ that if you had the means you wouldn't do the same? Hell a few pages earlier you already stated if you go to Alberta you want to buy 2 properties that would fit within your mortgage maximum level. How is that different?
Reddit is awesome, but it's also full of nothing more than whiny cry babies.
I'll restate my assumption. 100% of the people bitching and complaining about landlords are not bitching and complaining about landlords, they're butt hurt because they're NOT the landlords, and they want theirs.
EDIT (because why not):
When I went on Reddit one day and talked about my experience of not raising rents, trying to be helpful, etc etc I got downvoted to hell because I refused to LOWER rent for my tenants as my equity got built "because you are making more profit each time you renew your mortgage" or some bullcrap like that.
That place is a cesspool of butt hurt babies feeding their own echo chamber.
For a good laugh go take a look at the recent interview with FOX of that idiot mod....he / she is a joke.
Market is cooking again near Barrie. Most sales in ~6 days. Prices still going up. A nice bungalow backing onto a busy freight line went for 1.8. Probably 10 or more trains a day in your backyard. Two is the new one. One gets you a 50 yo 1000 sq ft sidesplit near Barrie.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
