News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

I wish these 2 well. That said, I would never do what they did. Clearly in Vancouver they have only seen an up market. Possibly they will be OK in New York as well. However, I could see Vancouver very easily dropping 25% or more.

In a way, buying the NY property diversifies their investment and reduces their risk in terms of exposure. A drop of 25% in Vancouver will only result in a drop of 13.5% of their overall asset value. Additionally, the $7000 in rental revenue (less taxes) covers all their mortgage payments with perhaps $1000 left over.

This is a very smart move, imho, though I think it'd be smarter if they'd sold their house and rented a place themselves.
 
In a way, buying the NY property diversifies their investment and reduces their risk in terms of exposure. A drop of 25% in Vancouver will only result in a drop of 13.5% of their overall asset value. Additionally, the $7000 in rental revenue (less taxes) covers all their mortgage payments with perhaps $1000 left over.

This is a very smart move, imho, though I think it'd be smarter if they'd sold their house and rented a place themselves.

I would disagree.
With the info we have, without knowing for sure, it sounds like the majority of their assets are real estate. That is risky.
Not sure if they have any other assets invested but if not, they have much too much real estate. Also, the fact that they have now made their mortgage non deductible since it is on their principal residence the mortgage comes from after tax dollars. Had they mortgaged the brownstone, that payment would be tax deductible. Of course, it may well have been difficult for them to get financing in the US. If interest rates go up, and if Vancouver continues its present trend of declining house values, they could find the positive cash flow situation suddenly doesn't look so good.
Anyhow, it is a risk and they may well be rewarded for taking the risk. Time will tell. The reason Suzie Ormans would not recommend this as it has a lot of downside potential. It is the type of decision to try for home runs instead of singles and doubles to get to financial stability/wealth.
 
Spectres of "market timing" failure are used to dissuade people from selling. No-one was talking about "market timing" when real estate was appreciating above its long term rate of under 1% above inflation.

But ultimately market timing studies refer to financial markets, not real estate markets. A lot of people made a lot of money riding the real estate cycle during its upward cycle, and a lot of people will make a lot of money during its downwards cycle. Its not "market timing".
It's market timing. And it's often worse in real estate because it might actually be your primary home. There are not only huge transaction costs, there is the incredible hassle factor.

Basically, these people have to have the market drop by at least 15% just to break even.
 
It's market timing. And it's often worse in real estate because it might actually be your primary home. There are not only huge transaction costs, there is the incredible hassle factor.

Basically, these people have to have the market drop by at least 15% just to break even.

Hmmm... we sold our house to capture the 15-year rise, not to sell at the 'exact top' and then buy again 15% lower (although we'd love to have that happen, of course.) As in stocks, 'selling early' (if that's the case) captures your gains and allows you to be liquid when the next opportunity arises. If that opportunity is 5-10 years down the road, so be it. You can rent in-between, or buy a cheaper house if you are dead-set on ownership, so that you reduce/liquidate your leverage and don't have your mortgage multiplying your percentage loss.

Real estate market timing is a decades-long cycle, not even close to a bond/stock cycle. Check out the start of this thread -- those folks weren't wrong, but they were years early. And early can sometimes just be another form of wrong, I guess...
 
hi everyone,
I wanted to share a really good Toronto-centric rent-vs-buy spreadsheet that allows you to run various scenarios with expected appreciation over the coming years. It isn't mine, but was shared by someone commenting in the National Post. It's very useful in my opinion, and could add clarity to our discussions when evaluating what comes out on top when a forumer gives an example investment.

http://www.holypotato.net/?p=1073
 
Moody's Reviews Six Canadian Banks, Could Downgrade

Rating agency Moody’s Investors Service is reviewing the long-term ratings of six Canadian banks and cautioning the public that the financial institutions could be downgraded.

The six affected institutions are Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Caisse Centrale Desjardins, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

More Related to this Story
•SUBSCRIBERS ONLY The pain in Spain is driving Canadian bank stocks

•RBC among nine subpoenaed in Libor probe

•Banking Ally Financial's self-mocking ads a funny money withdrawal
For sale sign outside of building Getty Images
Watch
Video: What would a housing slowdown mean for Canada's banks?

Investor Clinic
Video: Investor Clinic: Can’t decide which bank to buy? Consider a financial ETF

video
Video: 12 year old delivers scathing critique of Canadian banks

Royal Bank of Canada is noticeably absent from the list; however, Moody’s already downgraded the bank two notches earlier this year.

The rating agency is now reviewing the other banks because they “face challenges not fully captured in their current ratings,” including concerns about consumer debt levels, housing prices, macro-economic risks and the weight of their capital markets divisions within their business mix.

Even if some of the banks are downgraded, Moody’s said the change is “expected to generally be no more than one notch lower than today.”

Earlier this year Moody’s downgraded a slew of global financial institutions, and RBC was the only Canadian bank affected. At that time, its debt rating fell to Aa3 from Aa1.

“Moody’s recognizes the strong domestic franchises and solid earnings capacity of these large Canadian banks, and they will continue to rank among the highest-rated banks globally following this review,” said David Beattie, a senior credit officer at Moody’s.

A downgrade by a credit rating agency usually means investors will demand a higher interest rate when a bank goes to raise cash by issuing bonds or other debt.

Both Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have repeatedly warned Canadians about taking on too much debt.

Earlier this month, Statistics Canada released revised data showing that household market debt has risen to 163 per cent of disposable income, well above the 152 per cent previously reported using a less focused measure.

The housing market in Canada has also shown signs of cooling.

The Canadian Real Estate Association reported last week that despite a slight recovery from August, home sales in September fell 15.1 per cent from a year ago due to tighter mortgage lending rules and an uncertain economy.

Moody’s noted that its central scenario for Canada’s economy is for growth between 2 per cent and 3per cent next year, but the downside risks have increased.

The agency noted that a weak U.S. economic recovery, the ongoing crisis in Europe and a slowdown in emerging markets all weigh on commodity prices.

“Should these risks materialize, they would have significant ramifications for the Canadian economy that would be transmitted into the banking system,” Moody’s said.

In addition, the agency said National Bank, Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia and CIBC have sizable exposure to the volatile capital markets businesses.

Moody’s said TD is also exposed to the U.S. market, while Caisse Centrale Desjardins’ concentrated franchise structure reduces its flexibility.

While Moody’s said it was reviewing the long-term ratings, the agency affirmed its short term Prime-1 ratings on the six banks.

In July, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services revised its outlook from stable to negative on seven Canadian banks over concerns about unsustainably high home prices and consumer debt levels.

The debt-rating firm revised its outlook downward on Royal Bank, TD, Scotiabank , National Bank, Laurentian Bank, Home Capital Group Inc. and Central 1 Credit Union.

The credit rater, however, reaffirmed the credit ratings on all seven banks.

S&P also affirmed its ratings and maintained stable outlooks on five other Canadian banks including CIBC and Bank of Montreal.
 
Interestingly, I was chatting with some realtors this past week and they indicated that houses that would've sold for X amount earlier this year are selling for roughly 90% of X or thereabouts today. It also seems like there are less buyers than before, making it a very different landscape for both buyers and sellers.

For buyers, they feel that the new mortgage lending rules are and will have a profound effect on the market, some of which we are seeing already. Of the individuals who are affected most by these rules really are the individuals who shouldn't have been buying in the first place. Just because one can meet the minimum requirements does not necessarily mean it is the best financial decision. The new rules are merely "assisting" those who would've otherwise stretched too thin to make that purchase.

For sellers, I'm told many are reluctantly accepting that the market is softening. Back in early 2012, even some of the realtors admitted that the sold prices of some of the properties were mind-boggling. It just didn't make sense. Of course, when we're talking about overpriced, we're talking about anywhere from 10-30% over what they should be going for. There are always exceptions but don't believe the hype online that houses are going to crash by 50%. Not going to happen in the 416. What we ARE anticipating is a 10, maybe 15% correction.
 
There are always exceptions but don't believe the hype online that houses are going to crash by 50%. Not going to happen in the 416. What we ARE anticipating is a 10, maybe 15% correction.

Only 15? But you already wrote in your post that people are getting 90% of what houses sold for earlier this year. That's a 10% decline. And people are still holding out. What happens when people start caving on prices?

It's such a speculative market that you can't really tell what the short term future will hold.
 
10-15% would mean that prices would go back to what they sold for in the fall of 2011, which is what I expect.
The spring market will be a good indicator which way the market swings.
 
10-15% would mean that prices would go back to what they sold for in the fall of 2011, which is what I expect.
The spring market will be a good indicator which way the market swings.

I like to keep things simple. Let's just track the changes in this index which so far is trending well above last year.

http://guava.ca/indicators.html

Any other indicators are subject to enormous manipulation and distortion by the parties with various vested interests. This one is really simple & straightforward. And median over average is the one to watch.
 
Another interesting tidbit from my conversations last week was that at the peak of this bull market (circa early 2012), the realtors spoke of clients who lost out in a bidding war, even though they were bidding over asking. There's been at least a few instances where the sellers decided around closing time that they overpaid for the property and subsequently tried to sell it back on the market, sometimes listing at more than what they paid! Obviously, with the market slowing down, they either couldn't find a buyer at all or they found a buyer at a reduced price. There've been a number of properties which ended up being listed for rent as a result. Some properties were purchased with the intention of it being rented out from the beginning but others were supposed to be "reno flips" which didn't pan out. Note that we are talking about single family homes in all these cases.

It didn't sound like many of these 180-degree turns were a result of anyone buying to live in, making me believe once again that those who bought as a primary residence will be largely unaffected from the current market swing. If the market goes up, great but now that this is one's residence, they wouldn't be interested in selling anyway. If the market goes down, it might hurt a little but one's probably not going to be moving any time soon and will simply ride out this slowdown wave at the end of the day.
 

Back
Top