News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

That's an incorrect comparison for this purposes. Rate of growth doesn't measure up to nominal growth? 1.38% percent increase to 2.5M in population is very different than 1.8% of say, 500k or even 1 million units? You probably have to look at the nomimal numbers instead

Eug, sorry, but I don't understand your objection. These rates of annual growth (housing and population) are most certainly both on the same basis.

ps. I forget to include the supporting link for the stats can increase in housing supply by 1.8% annually 2000-2006
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil125c-eng.htm
 
Last edited:
Eug, sorry, but I don't understand your objection. These rates of annual growth (housing and population) are most certainly both on the same basis.

ps. I forget to include the supporting link for the stats can increase in housing supply by 1.8% annually 2000-2006
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil125c-eng.htm

Because you can't compare % when the base numbers are vastly different. I.E.

- 1.38% annual growth in Toronto population 2007-2010. @ 2.5M that's 34,500 people (approx)

- 1.8% annual growth in Toronto housing. @ only 200k units (from link above) is only 2760 Units.

That's an average of 12.5 individuals for every additional one (1) housing unit created. Yes the times are slightly different, and yes multiple individuals can share one housing unit, but not at the rate of 12.5 to 1. So you can see where comparing % doesn't address the issue of nominal supply and demand.

T
 
Because you can't compare % when the base numbers are vastly different. I.E.

- 1.38% annual growth in Toronto population 2007-2010. @ 2.5M that's 34,500 people (approx)

- 1.8% annual growth in Toronto housing. @ only 200k units (from link above) is only 2760 Units.

That's an average of 12.5 individuals for every additional one (1) housing unit created. Yes the times are slightly different, and yes multiple individuals can share one housing unit, but not at the rate of 12.5 to 1. So you can see where comparing % doesn't address the issue of nominal supply and demand.

T

JS97, you've misunderstood the numbers and your point above is entirely wrong. However, ironically, I made a small error in the figures which I red-facedly correct below. I trust the below will clarify things?

Housing Units http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil125c-eng.htm
1,593,515 Constructed pre-2001
207,240 Constructed 2001-2006
1,801,255 Total
13% increase for 6 years (ie 207k/1.593m)
2.06% annual increase 2001-2006 (ie. 1.0206^6=1.13)
note: The figure of 1.8% I quoted was understated (too low) because I used the 1.8m as the base, instead of the proper 1.59m

Populationhttp://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm
5.436m 2007
5.741m 2010
5.6% increase for 3 years (ie 305k/5.436m)
1.83% annual increase 2007-2010 (ie 1.083^3)1.056
note: The figure of 1.38% was from applying the 5.6% increase over 4 years, not the proper 3 year

I apologise for the small corrections, but they don't change the result.

So are we all good now?
 
Last edited:
Hi George,

Welcome back.

The comparison is drawn between a market where sales were extremely vibrant for new condos, prices were rising, the bulk of the buyers were Chinese and there was a sense that prices could never fall or if they did the slowdown would be moderate and gradual.

Do you not see how one could mistake that market for Toronto or Vancouver today?

Interesting point. If you argue that Chinese investors will keep the prices go up in TO than CG and KA1 agree with you. If you argue that these same Chinese investors produced a bubble in their own country and may do the same here than CG and KA1 don't see any logic in making the comparison. Go figure....
 
The Economist posted this article a few days ago

http://www.economist.com/node/21540231

House of horrors, part 2
The bursting of the global housing bubble is only halfway through

Nov 26th 2011 | from the print edition

MANY of the world’s financial and economic woes since 2008 began with the bursting of the biggest bubble in history. Never before had house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Yet the bust has been much less widespread than the boom. Home prices tumbled by 34% in America from 2006 to their low point earlier this year; in Ireland they plunged by an even more painful 45% from their peak in 2007; and prices have fallen by around 15% in Spain and Denmark. But in most other countries they have dipped by less than 10%, as in Britain and Italy. In some countries, such as Australia, Canada and Sweden, prices wobbled but then surged to new highs. As a result, many property markets are still looking uncomfortably overvalued.


The latest update of The Economist’s global house-price indicators shows that prices are now falling in eight of the 16 countries in the table, compared with five in late 2010. (For house prices from more countries see our website). To assess the risks of a further slump, we track two measures of valuation. The first is the price-to-income ratio, a gauge of affordability. The second is the price-to-rent ratio, which is a bit like the price-to-earnings ratio used to value companies. Just as the value of a share should reflect future profits that a company is expected to earn, house prices should reflect the expected benefits from home ownership: namely the rents earned by property investors (or those saved by owner-occupiers). If both of these measures are well above their long-term average, which we have calculated since 1975 for most countries, this could signal that property is overvalued.

Based on the average of the two measures, home prices are overvalued by about 25% or more in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, New Zealand, Britain, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden (see table). Indeed, in the first four of those countries housing looks more overvalued than it was in America at the peak of its bubble. Despite their collapse, Irish home prices are still slightly above “fair†value—partly because they were incredibly overvalued at their peak, and partly because incomes and rents have fallen sharply. In contrast, homes in America, Japan and Germany are all significantly undervalued. In the late 1990s the average house price in Germany was twice that in France; now it is 20% cheaper.

This raises two questions. First, since American homes now look cheap, are prices set to rebound? Average house prices are 8% undervalued relative to rents, and 22% undervalued relative to income (see chart). Prices may have reached a floor, but this is no guarantee of an imminent bounce. In Britain and Sweden in the mid-1990s, prices undershot fair value by around 35%. Prices in Britain did not really start to rise for almost four years after they bottomed. Some 4m foreclosed homes could come onto America’s market, which may hold down prices.

The second question is whether home prices in markets that are still overvalued are likely to fall. Some economists reject our measures of overvaluation, arguing that lower interest rates justify higher prices because buyers can take out bigger mortgages. There is some truth in this, but interest rates will not always be so low. The recent jump in bond yields in some euro-area countries has raised mortgage rates for new borrowers.

And low rates need to be balanced against the fact that tighter credit conditions make it harder for homebuyers to get mortgages. The average deposit needed by a British first-time buyer is now equivalent to 90% of average annual earnings, according to Capital Economics, a consultancy. It was less than 20% in the late 1990s. Another popular argument used to justify sky-high prices in countries such as Australia and Canada is that a rising population pushes up demand. But this should raise both prices and rents, leaving their ratios unchanged.

Prices do not necessarily need to drop sharply to return to fair value. Adjustment could come through higher rents and wages. With low inflation, however, it could take a decade or more before price ratios return to their long-run average in some countries.

American prices fell sharply, even though homes were less overvalued than they were in many other countries, because high-risk mortgages and a surge in unemployment caused distressed sales. In most other countries, lenders avoided the worst excesses of subprime lending, and unemployment rose by less, so there were fewer forced sales dragging prices down. America is also unusual in having non-recourse mortgages that let borrowers walk away with no liability.

An optimist could therefore argue that our gauges overstate the extent to which house prices are overvalued, and that if markets are only a bit too expensive they can adjust gradually without a sharp fall. It is important to remember, however, that lower interest rates and rising populations were used to justify higher prices in America and Ireland before their bubbles burst so spectacularly.

Another concern is that Australia, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and Sweden all have even higher household-debt burdens in relation to income than America did at the peak of its bubble. Overvalued prices and large debts leave households vulnerable to a rise in unemployment or higher mortgage rates. A credit crunch or recession could cause house prices to tumble in many more countries.
 
The Economist posted this article a few days ago

http://www.economist.com/node/21540231

Interesting that the countries listed are also some of the most desireable places to live. Those looking for a 'crash' will be on the sidelines for a long time.
Toronto, especially the core, still has plenty of pent up demand. And with interest rates cheap in the forseable future, the 'lost decade' that many economists are predicding can potentially be a decade of low interest rates and real estate booms.

Additional factors:
lack of efficient and rapid transportation to the core (where many of the better paying jobs are), those who can afford (and there are plenty of young families that can afford plenty) will continue to drive up the price of housing here..... The only reason condos had such a good time last summer was due to their affordability index compared to Semis/detached homes.

It has also become a social trend to own property, a measure of success and stability - seems like everyone is still talking about buying, and those bearish on the market, are generally the ones waiting for the crash, so they can buy...
 
Last edited:
^^^
That sounds a lot like "it's different this time".
I do agree that the article states it could take a decade or more before price ratios return to their long run averages in some countries.

If there is a true banking credit freeze in Europe, and it spreads to the US again and possibly engulfs Canada, things however could unravel quickly.

That said, does not the article beg the question: OK, low interest and immigration allow for more demand but in the back ground of worsening economic conditions abroad and in Canada, how does one justify continued increases in prices. At the very least, would not that dictate that price escalation should decrease or halt entirely?
 
^^^
That sounds a lot like "it's different this time".
I do agree that the article states it could take a decade or more before price ratios return to their long run averages in some countries.

If there is a true banking credit freeze in Europe, and it spreads to the US again and possibly engulfs Canada, things however could unravel quickly.

That said, does not the article beg the question: OK, low interest and immigration allow for more demand but in the back ground of worsening economic conditions abroad and in Canada, how does one justify continued increases in prices. At the very least, would not that dictate that price escalation should decrease or halt entirely?

Oh, I'm not saying there is no 'bubble'. I'm simply making the point that it's not likely to burst in the next few years, at least not in the core (old city proper). And that even if there is a downturn, it won't be a 'crash' that was similiar to the South. And i'm still speaking to Toronto's market. Hamilton, Ajax, I can't say.. But Toronto, I'm fairly comfortable in being bullish. That's just my opinion, if I was 100%, i'd be a much wealthier person. lol.

Factors:

-Immigration and international money - These new immigrants have enormous capital, and have decided to invest longterm into homes in the surrounding 905 and 416 outskirts. They are generally not as price sensitive and don't necessary understand the market. Most are financially wealthy enough and need to park their money in tangible assets (this includes Middle easter money as much as Chinese)

-Yuppie factor - Dual income of a min 150k with 20% downpayment can get upto 700k in a mortgage right now (From where I stand, that seems to be every white collar couple on the king/queen street cars living in the sky boxes.

- Perception of low, forseeable interest rates - Central bank continues to be unshy about speculating on low interest rates

- CMHC - really shouldn't be insuring these heavily leveraged mortgages anymore, but they do, so they continue to be the 'base' of that buble/pyramid

- high dollar - provides purchasing power and is a hedge against inflation

- still pend up demand. When homes in desireble neighbourhoods continue to receive multiple offers, only 1 demand is satisfied, the ones that lost on the bid are still looking, and maybe next time, will be more willing to shell out a little more.


Yes, some of those are not very empirical, but housing, except for perhaps condo prices (measured in sq ft) have never been that emperical...
 
Last edited:
Oh, I'm not saying there is no 'bubble'. I'm simply making the point that it's not likely to burst in the next few years, at least not in the core (old city proper).
While I'm not as definite as you are on this, in many ways I agree. My point all along was mainly that those claiming for a quick and dramatic fall like the US have already been proven wrong. There might be a fall coming, but it isn't necessarily going to be a huge crash. It could be, but it doesn't have to be, and the possibility of a soft landing still exists as long as the economy doesn't take a big dive and interest rates don't go through the roof suddenly.

However, if a pullback happens, I'm not convinced Toronto is protected in any big way.

OTOH, while I don't think Toronto is necessarily protected, I do think Vancouver is a much higher risk than Toronto. I gather that it is more heavily dependent upon foreign investors, and the affordability numbers for Vancouver are way out of sync with the rest of the country.

Low interest rates making home ownership slightly more affordable, RBC says

Royal’s affordability measure for Vancouver fell slightly from the previous quarter, but remained above 90 per cent.

Toronto is next in the index at 52.1 per cent, Montreal is at 40.9, Ottawa 40.8, Calgary 37.6, and Edmonton 33.2.

“The Vancouver area market continues to be a major exception, with sky-high property values in upscale neighbourhoods making it both extremely unaffordable and the most at risk of a downward correction,” said Wright

A reading of 50 per cent means homeownership costs take up 50 per cent of a typical household’s monthly pre-tax income. The higher the rate, the higher the cost.
 
Oh, I'm not saying there is no 'bubble'. I'm simply making the point that it's not likely to burst in the next few years, at least not in the core (old city proper). And that even if there is a downturn, it won't be a 'crash' that was similiar to the South. ...

Factors:

-Yuppie factor - Dual income of a min 150k with 20% downpayment can get upto 700k in a mortgage right now (From where I stand, that seems to be every white collar couple on the king/queen street cars living in the sky boxes. ...


i believe we're in a bubble, but won't have a 'crash' similar to the US because we do not have the non-recourse mortgages, so there won't be a FLOOD of supply.

However, that leaves the over-leveraged buyer with 2 options:
1) continue paying more of their income to housing thus leaving less disposable income for consumption like food, entertainment, or savings so there will be a period and perhaps a generation of house poor individuals;
2) declare bankruptcy.


in my analysis, TO is at least 30% overpriced, so the question remains will price stagnate and wages increase to mean the historical income-to-price ratio of 3.5X, or prices drop since wages haven't increased in the past decade.


RE: 150k income with 20% downpayment can get upto 700k in a mortgage ...
a mortgage 4.7x income is a scary number for me regardless what income bracket one's in, PLUS the additional 20% dp would mean they bought up to $875K = 5.833x income ! all based on historical low rates which will have to be renewed within 5 years in the future at higher rates ... YIKES ! !



Eug said:
Royal’s affordability measure for Vancouver fell slightly from the previous quarter, but remained above 90 per cent.

Toronto is next in the index at 52.1 per cent, Montreal is at 40.9, Ottawa 40.8, Calgary 37.6, and Edmonton 33.2.

IIRC 30-40% was the maximum that banks used to follow when calculating affordability.
very scary for vancouver and TO.
 
I don't know many couples who make 150K min and have 20% down.

The yuppies that have that kind of money tend to blow most of it.
 
The Economist article states that Canada's price-to-income ratio and price-to-rent ratios are 29% and 71% above historical averages.

If those measures are relevant, then clearly either prices or incomes/rents will eventually adjust substantially.
 
IIRC 30-40% was the maximum that banks used to follow when calculating affordability.
very scary for vancouver and TO.
You're not thinking of the same thing. You still can't get a mortgage if your total debt service ratio is over the 40-45% level, regardless of where you live in Canada.

Obviously a bank isn't going to give you a mortgage if it takes 90% of your gross income just to make the monthly housing payments.

I don't know many couples who make 150K min and have 20% down.
I know tons.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top