News   Jul 08, 2024
 347     1 
News   Jul 08, 2024
 995     6 
News   Jul 08, 2024
 594     0 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

I think the increase in listings precedes the most recent announcement about mortgage rates. For the past month or 2 the chatter that prices have peaked and difficulties justifying PRECON and constant pronouncements by Mr. Carney and Mr. Flaherty as well as bank economists, and the constant bombardment of newspaper articles have served I think to entice those who may be sitting on the fence to move. The past 1 week news may have pushed some in the past week but I note the phenomenon has been going on for longer.
 
i was just responding to the fact majority of it being condos. since market is hot, ppl with less desirable units think they can sell quickly too and test the market. but they take longer to sell, that's why they linger on mls a lot longer and seems like there are a lot condos for sell. good units are gone within a week. i'm speaking from experience buying in the yonge-finch area and doing my research in the past 2 years
 
From the Globe:

Moody’s warns on mortgage debt
GRANT ROBERTSON
BANKING REPORTER — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jun. 25 2012, 7:59 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Jun. 26 2012, 6:15 AM EDT

The federal government’s attempt to cool the housing market “may have come too late” to prevent a harsh landing for residential real estate, Moody’s Investors Service is warning.
After Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced last week that Ottawa is tightening the rules on government-backed mortgages to keep the housing market from overheating, Moody’s said it is concerned the efforts may not be enough. High levels of household debt in Canada have left consumers with little flexibility to adapt to shifting markets, the credit rating agency said.
“The government’s moves may have come too late, owing to the buildup in consumer debt that has already occurred,” Moody’s said in a research note Monday. “Canadian consumers’ reliance on low interest rates to support high debt loads remains a risk.”
Mr. Flaherty introduced several changes which the government hopes will result in a soft landing in the housing market, rather than a hard crash. Most notably, Ottawa reduced the maximum amortization on a government-backed loan to 25 years, from 30 years; and reduced the amount consumers could borrow against their home, to 80 per cent, down from 85 per cent.
It was the fourth time in four years the government has waded into the market to tweak mortgage rules to reduce the debt appetite of Canadians, who have sent household debt levels to record levels amid historically low interest rates.
Mr. Flaherty had been saying for the past six months that the government would step in “if necessary” but Moody’s worries Ottawa may have waited too long, and that a soft landing may be difficult to engineer now.
Recent figures from Statistics Canada show the average ratio of debt-to-disposable income has climbed to 152 per cent, up from 150.6 per cent at the end of 2011.
“Previous rule changes had some effect in countering the stimulus provided by historically low interest rates but failed to stop Canadian household leverage from increasing,” Moody’s analysts William Burn and Andriy Stepanyants said in the report.
Economists have long been concerned that low interest rates, which have been kept low by the Bank of Canada to help support the economic recovery, have been enticing consumers to take on too much debt, since borrowing is cheaper than ever.
“Low interest rates are actually creating a domestic imbalance in terms of excessive household debt,” Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Craig Alexander said. “Ultimately you’re going to have to ween households off the drug of low interest rates.”
However, despite taking several steps to cool the mortgage market, Ottawa did not touch the 5-per-cent minimum down payment required on mortgages. Sources told The Globe and Mail that at least two banks suggested to Mr. Flaherty that increasing the minimum payment would help curb borrowing.
Another proposal would have seen the down payment increased for everyone but first-time buyers, so as to not make it too difficult for new entrants in the housing market. Ottawa was reluctant to change the minimum payment, fearing it would have too harsh an effect on the market, and potentially make it more subject to a crash.
Mr. Alexander agreed, noting that an increase from 5 per cent to 10 per cent would have a “dramatic impact,” though a one or two percentage point increase might be feasible. “It’s still out there as a policy option,” he said. “But I view raising the minimum down payment as the last resort if the market is out of control and you really need to slow it down quite sharply.”
Peter Aceto, CEO of ING Direct Canada said rising household debt levels in the face of persistent low interest rates were a sign that the government needed to step in. “It tends to fuel spending behaviour,” Mr. Aceto said. “So if rates are going to stay low for a while, at least we can get a little bit more conservative when we’re buying houses and make sure people have more equity in the home when they buy it.”
 
^ ^ ^

too little too late.

it would have been so much better if the gov't via CMHC didn't additionally juice the markets in the first place.

they're trying to undo the damage they started.
people have short or limited memories.
sadly, some have forgotten Flaherty et al were the ones who loosened the CMHC requirements / standards in the first place:

* March 2006 – AIG enters the Canadian mortgage insurance market
* March 2006 – CMHC: 0% down, 30 yr amortizations (Genworth anounces 35 yr amortizations)
* June 2006 – CMHC: 0% down, 35 yr amortizations, interest only payments allowed for 10 years
* November 2006 – CMHC: 0% down, 40 yr amortizations, interest only payments allowed for 10 years
* April 2007 - CMHC insurance given to borrowers with less 20% down (changed from 25 %)
* October 2007 - lowered the down-payment threshold for an investment property from 15% down to 0%
* October 2008 – CMHC: 5% down, 35 yr amortizations, investors need 5% down.
* November 2008 - government buys $75 billion in federally insured mortgage-backed securities to help keep credit markets moving
 
^ ^ ^

too little too late.

it would have been so much better if the gov't via CMHC didn't additionally juice the markets in the first place.

they're trying to undo the damage they started.
people have short or limited memories.
sadly, some have forgotten Flaherty et al were the ones who loosened the CMHC requirements / standards in the first place:

* March 2006 – AIG enters the Canadian mortgage insurance market
* March 2006 – CMHC: 0% down, 30 yr amortizations (Genworth anounces 35 yr amortizations)
* June 2006 – CMHC: 0% down, 35 yr amortizations, interest only payments allowed for 10 years
* November 2006 – CMHC: 0% down, 40 yr amortizations, interest only payments allowed for 10 years
* April 2007 - CMHC insurance given to borrowers with less 20% down (changed from 25 %)

* October 2007 - lowered the down-payment threshold for an investment property from 15% down to 0%
* October 2008 – CMHC: 5% down, 35 yr amortizations, investors need 5% down.

* November 2008 - government buys $75 billion in federally insured mortgage-backed securities to help keep credit markets moving

while I agree too little too late cdr....better late than never.
Yes Flaherty and his colleagues created the problem but this is not a reason to not correct it.
As far as the interest only loans, fortunately those people should have enough equity by now(due to price appreciation) to ride out the storm.
As relates to the lower down payments to 2008, same argument holds I believe.
The problem I still believe is the purchasers from 2010 onwards. Whether 2009 gets engulfed and 2008 and down the yearly train remains to be seen.
 
I think what may turn out to be a saving grace for the market (Condo) is the fact that a few recently (withing the past 8mths) launched projects may not get built. Don't want to call names but quite a few are languishing in the 20-40% sold range.

I also feel that a few that are in the pipeline to be launched will be held back; unless of course they are in a AAA location.
 
Last edited:
I think what may turn out to be a saving grace for the market (Condo) is the fact that a few recently (withing the 8mths) launched projects may not get built. Don't want to call names but quite a few are languishing in the 20-40% sold range.

I also feel that a few that are in the pipeline to be launched will be held back; unless of course they are in a AAA location.

i heard tux, 60 colbourne have received poor receptions.

i think e condos will get shelved for the $ they're asking for the product and location.
 
Yes, the one at Yonge/Eglinton is not doing very well based on Platinum VIP sales so far.

Very curious to see how 10 York will do. Location is good, Builder has excellent rep. That will be a great litmus test for the market.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the one at Yonge/Eglinton is not doing very well based on Platinum VIP sales so far.

Very curious to see how 10 York will do. Location is good, Builder has excellent rep. That will be a great litmus test for the market.

I think the mega projects may actually do OK. They are higher profile and as such appeal to the international investors more as well. Witness Massey, INDX.

I think the 20-40 storey buildings in infill locations without as much of a marketing hype dollar to be spent will have the difficulties.

I still don't think that changes the fact that buying in at these PRECON prices (even in fancy projects) is going to take a long time until people can/will recoup their investments in my view.

Do you have any feedback on 88 Scott. This was another "mega project" that I would have thought would do well?
 
Yes, the one at Yonge/Eglinton is not doing very well based on Platinum VIP sales so far.

Very curious to see how 10 York will do. Location is good, Builder has excellent rep. That will be a great litmus test for the market.

I'd heard otherwise re E, but I guess that could just be marketing bluster

What happens to the buyers (and their deposits) if a project gets shelved?
 
Last edited:
I'd heard otherwise re E, but I guess that could just be marketing bluster

What happens to the buyers (and their deposits) if a project gets shelved?


well Ric is a realtor and he's been fairly forthcoming and truthful, so i'll trust him when he says there are problems with E condos.
more than i can say about some of the other r/e agents posting on here or in the industry in general.
besides Ric, there have been lots of talk about stalling of sales with many new projects - probably a combo of high prices, small units and buyer fatigue as more than 70% of the population are owners now.

for some reason, i thought you were a r/e agent.
anyways, fwiw, if a project gets cancelled, the buyers get their deposits back.
the monies should be held in trust with the builder's lawyers.
 
Last edited:
anyways, fwiw, if a project gets cancelled, the buyers get their deposits back.
the monies should be held in trust with the builder's lawyers.

Not necessarily all of it. If anybody paid for upgrades in advance they may find that money has been lost.

Assigned agreements can also be a little bit tricky if they paid more than the deposit amount held by the developer.
 
well Ric is a realtor and he's been fairly forthcoming and truthful, so i'll trust him when he says there are problems with E condos.
more than i can say about some of the other r/e agents posting on here or in the industry in general.
besides Ric, there have been lots of talk about stalling of sales with many new projects - probably a combo of high prices, small units and buyer fatigue as more than 70% of the population are owners now.

for some reason, i thought you were a r/e agent.
anyways, fwiw, if a project gets cancelled, the buyers get their deposits back.
the monies should be held in trust with the builder's lawyers.

I have to believe that end users must look at these 300-400 sq.ft. and are asking themselves do I need to rush to market and are these units "livable" in the longer term. I think this market that was looking at these small units were scraping to get into the market. Investors don't actually think about "how livable" but either can I sell at a profit or alternatively can I rent it out.
 
anyways, fwiw, if a project gets cancelled, the buyers get their deposits back.
the monies should be held in trust with the builder's lawyers.

Not necessarily all of it. If anybody paid for upgrades in advance they may find that money has been lost since that money usually doesn't go into a trust account.

Assigned agreements can also be a little bit tricky if they paid more in advance than the deposit amount held by the developer.
 
Not necessarily all of it. If anybody paid for upgrades in advance they may find that money has been lost since that money usually doesn't go into a trust account.

Assigned agreements can also be a little bit tricky if they paid more in advance than the deposit amount held by the developer.

while true, who pays for upgrades so much in advance?
most developers don't even discuss that option with a buyer until colour selection, and by that time construction has been well underway.

afaik, most developers won't even allow assignments until a majority of units are sold, near completion and only with their permission. again, the project would be well underway and not just in sales.

now, if we get a stump of a tower, that's something completely different scenario.
 

Back
Top