News   Jul 08, 2024
 114     0 
News   Jul 08, 2024
 644     3 
News   Jul 08, 2024
 473     0 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

TREB historical sale prices are here. I have a 1953 number, but these numbers start at 1966. 1996 is the bottom of the trough after 1980s, and the lowest average price since 1987. For 1996 and 2011, I've put in brackets the ratio vs. 1953 numbers.

1953 average price $14424
1953 CPI 14.0

1996 average price $198150 (13.7X)
1996 CPI 88.9 (6.4X)

2011 average price $465412 (32.3X)
2011 CPI 119.9 (8.2X)

Most here would likely argue that 2011 represents an overvaluation of home prices. However, I would also argue that 1996 represents an undervaluation of home prices, vs. the general trend curve.

Either way though, you can see that home price increases in Toronto far outpace inflation, even when you're talking the bottom of the trough in 1996.

But since the underlying trend for the past three decades has been characterized by home price appreciation in excess of wage growth, what you're saying is you expect the general trend of people continuing to devote a greater and greater percentage of their income to housing the natural state of things.

One might wonder -- and I do -- at what point do these affordability levels reach a floor, where incomes simply can not sustain further appreciation relative to income. House price appreciation cannot indefinitely outpace inflation. The math doesn't work. So to affirm that we can expect a return to that underlying trend on an indefinite timescale is something which would strike me as a dangerous assumption.

If you use a 30-year trend line, then it appears that the mid-90s price appreciation was "below trend". But if you look at a 60-year trend line, then it appears the whole last 30 years are on a parabolic slope. On an income-to-price basis, it's downright insane.

The only thing which can possibly account for the disparity between income growth and the asset appreciation is the availability of credit. So if you want to hold the underlying price appreciation trend constant across time, then you also have to hold the trend that credit will keep becoming cheaper over time, too. And at some point, credit will become so cheap that banks will start paying people to borrow money at negative rates.

I think you see where I'm going with this; I wouldn't count on your long-term underlying trend.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Price increases cannot outpace wage increases indefinitely. What's very important to note though is that what has happened to prices in the last several years is not unprecedented. To a large extent, it just reflects historical norms.

However, if price increases continue to outpace wage increases, something has to give. And what will give are price increases. The point I'm trying to make here though is that if this is all that there is to the situation, there is no evidence here for a price bubble. Prices increase until there is too much resistance and then they will slow, and eventually may parallel wage increases.

However, as you mentioned, there is more too it, and that is the availability of cheap credit. When cheap credit is no longer cheap, prices will no longer rise as they have. However, that too is not a recipe for a bubble bursting, unless rates suddenly spike to 8% or something. If interest rates gradually rise, I think we'll see price increases gradually slow, and then disappear.
 
I agree. Price increases cannot outpace wage increases indefinitely. What's very important to note though is that what has happened to prices in the last several years is not unprecedented. To a large extent, it just reflects historical norms.

However, if price increases continue to outpace wage increases, something has to give. And what will give are price increases. The point I'm trying to make here though is that if this is all that there is to the situation, there is no evidence here for a price bubble. Prices increase until there is too much resistance and then they will slow, and eventually may parallel wage increases.

However, as you mentioned, there is more too it, and that is the availability of cheap credit. When cheap credit is no longer cheap, prices will no longer rise as they have. However, that too is not a recipe for a bubble bursting, unless rates suddenly spike to 8% or something. If interest rates gradually rise, I think we'll see price increases gradually slow, and then disappear.

Yes. But this is the battle of economic analogies, here. I can drop a whole bunch of figures that point to a bubble based on historical comparisons. On a more local basis, the price-to-rent ratio is today, far higher than it was in Toronto's last major bubble in the late 1980s. And if more than 50% of the condo buyers in the city are investors, meaning that the majority are subleased, then why are prices appreciating far faster than rent? It makes no economic sense.

And it's not just appreciating faster than rent -- my stats only go back to 1977 here -- but my current read puts the ratios at all time highs.

What is the impetus for all the real estate investment if, relative to prices, cash flow potential has been falling continuously for the last 10+ years? I'm having a real problem with that. You can dance around and say its not a bubble. But if you're going to price real estate correctly, you have to find the marginal price. The marginal price in this case, is the underlying demand to shelter yourself plus some hedonic subjectivity. A market dominated by investors in a market which is seeing massive price appreciation relative to income, and even more ominously, relative to the property's cash flow sounds like a bubble to me. It meets the number one criteria: people are investing principally for the expectation of price appreciation. Not income growth. Most significantly, they're investing on that assumption in the face of the other two measures I'm discussing.

My prediction is that it is a bubble, and my conservative estimate for the overvaluation of the condo market in Toronto is about 25% -- and I expect price to fall at least that amount when the bubble bursts.

The analysts who wrote that RBC report are morons. There. I said it.
 
Last edited:
Will you place a time frame on that prediction? Remember, that prediction has been made by others for the past decade. Or at least 5-7 years.

In fact, this thread will be 3 years old in a few months.

Average prices overall in Toronto were $418460 in November 2009.
In July 2012, they were $476947, an increase of 14%.

Even if prices were to drop 25% from July 2012 levels, that'd be $357710, which is a drop of less than 15% from 2009 levels, and is just a little bit less than the 2007 average... yet people were saying the Toronto market was a bubble even then.
 
Last edited:
TREB historical sale prices are here. I have a 1953 number, but these numbers start at 1966. 1996 is the bottom of the trough after 1980s, and the lowest average price since 1987. For 1996 and 2011, I've put in brackets the ratio vs. 1953 numbers.

1953 average price $14424
1953 CPI 14.0

1996 average price $198150 (13.7X)
1996 CPI 88.9 (6.4X)

2011 average price $465412 (32.3X)
2011 CPI 119.9 (8.2X)

Whether you choose 1996 or 2011, you can see that home price increases in Toronto far outpace inflation, even when you're talking the bottom of the trough in 1996.

Interestingly, the rate of change in price from 1953 to 1996 is higher than the rate of change in price from 1996 to 2011. The former is greater than 6% per year, but the latter is less than 6%. Part of the difference may be due to inflation rates, since inflation rates in recent times have been lower than some periods in our history, but overall it works out to somewhere around the 6% range nominal. This means that the rate of increase in nominal home prices in the last 5 years (unadjusted for inflation) is actually lower than historical norms.

6%!

From the link you posted, and from the CPI data here http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/

1966-1996 1.5% net of inflation
1966-2011 2.0% net of inflation

From the link you posted
"*NOTE: Due to changes in the TREB market area over time, caution should be exercised when undertaking historic comparisons. Historic sales and price data are subject to revision."

Finally, let's not forget annual property taxes in the range of 0.75%.
 
But since the underlying trend for the past three decades has been characterized by home price appreciation in excess of wage growth, what you're saying is you expect the general trend of people continuing to devote a greater and greater percentage of their income to housing the natural state of things.

There are basically 3 essential costs in a persons monthly budget necessary for survival/earning an income: shelter, food, and transportation.

Food costs have decreased dramatically as a part of the budget since the 50's or even the 80's and that's despite people buying more complex prepared products and going out to restaurants more and larger portion sizes, rather than the raw goods and making their own meals. So, housing can take up that %age.

Transportation costs have also decreased significantly with the big expense here being the car purchase. The average age of cars is much higher than the 60's or 80's. It's a fairly linear trend with the average age of vehicles on the road gaining 1 year every decade. So you can take that vehicle purchase price and spread it over 5 to 8 years instead of over 2 to 4 years. Housing can take up that %age.

In core areas of cities like Toronto, you can go car free (take TTC instead) and put an even higher %age into housing.


The other big change is 2 incomes per household instead of 1. So, housing can (and has) taken up that %age. It's possible over the next 20 years that boomers will be in the kids spare rooms instead of at a nursing home or that kids will spend more of their initial working careers living with their parents to give a household 3 income earners instead of 2. Multi-generational family compunds are common in some parts of the world; perhaps this is what we will have to buy that 2500sqft house in the city.


To a large extent, the total of those 3 costs as a percentage of total household income hasn't really changed over the last 50 years. If long-term trend of food and transportation costs continue then I would expect the long-term trend of housing taking an ever increasing %age of income to continue.
 
Last edited:
Yes. But this is the battle of economic analogies, here. I can drop a whole bunch of figures that point to a bubble based on historical comparisons. On a more local basis, the price-to-rent ratio is today, far higher than it was in Toronto's last major bubble in the late 1980s. And if more than 50% of the condo buyers in the city are investors, meaning that the majority are subleased, then why are prices appreciating far faster than rent? It makes no economic sense.

And it's not just appreciating faster than rent -- my stats only go back to 1977 here -- but my current read puts the ratios at all time highs.

What is the impetus for all the real estate investment if, relative to prices, cash flow potential has been falling continuously for the last 10+ years? I'm having a real problem with that. You can dance around and say its not a bubble. But if you're going to price real estate correctly, you have to find the marginal price. The marginal price in this case, is the underlying demand to shelter yourself plus some hedonic subjectivity. A market dominated by investors in a market which is seeing massive price appreciation relative to income, and even more ominously, relative to the property's cash flow sounds like a bubble to me. It meets the number one criteria: people are investing principally for the expectation of price appreciation. Not income growth. Most significantly, they're investing on that assumption in the face of the other two measures I'm discussing.

My prediction is that it is a bubble, and my conservative estimate for the overvaluation of the condo market in Toronto is about 25% -- and I expect price to fall at least that amount when the bubble bursts.

The analysts who wrote that RBC report are morons. There. I said it.

Price to rent ratios are at all time highs because interest rates are at all time lows. On top of that investors are parking money in Canada- Toronto & Vancouver- as a safe haven. There are limits to the demand from both factors however taken together & interlaced with a region that adds 80,000 new (legal) residents per year, explains the bulk of the growth in housing prices.

In my opinion the market will pause as the oversupply is absorbed but if those factors above persist so will prices.

Brock you also underestimate the vested interest of a quasi socialist govt in perpetuating a strong housing market.
 
+ the following

From the link you posted
"*NOTE: Due to changes in the TREB market area over time, caution should be exercised when undertaking historic comparisons. Historic sales and price data are subject to revision."

Finally, let's not forget annual property taxes in the range of 0.75%.
 
I'll bite. What level of our government is 'quasi-Socialist'? And, please remember as you answer that I'm currently on walkabout in Francois Hollande's France...

Well making buying a house affordable in Canada has a social program associated with it: the CMHC. It's principle purpose is to reduce the risk of default to lenders in order to suppress interest rates. It also engages in a not insubstantial amount of primary market activity to create liquidity for that lending.

That's a little socialist, in my opinion. In that, the risk of default for several trillion dollars worth of mortgages -- yes, trillions -- is borne by ratepayers who may or may not be party to the mortgage market. I would include myself in the "may not" category. And whether or not default occurs, I pay a tax in the form of inflation, due to the monetary expansion associated with providing the liquidity to backstop all that debt.

In essence, I pay a little more for milk every year, so Joe and Jane can afford to buy their first house. So, in that sense, I'm okay with the quasi-socialist statement. =)

In turns out that a saver/investor like me, has no interest in sacrificing my buying power for the benefit of Joe and Jane to purchase property. In fact, I'm morally opposed to this system.
 
Last edited:
Hi brockm, I remember you mentioned you are currently renting some time ago. So I would presume you are renting from "Joe and Jane" who purchased the property. By CMHC making it affordable for homebuyers, then in turn I would think that would have some impact in keeping rental prices more affordable. I believe there is some relationship between home ownership cost (monthly mortgage + tax + fees) to rental cost. If rental cost greatly exceed ownership cost, renters would probably think it is wiser to own. I know I have simplified this argument by not considering many other factors, but wouldn't renters like you be benefiting in affordable rental cost thus allowing you to have more savings?
 
I believe there is some relationship between home ownership cost (monthly mortgage + tax + fees) to rental cost.

Not so much in Toronto according to many people (aka condo pushers et al.) who do not believe in the price to rent ratio.

But, I think it's a mute point... cuz I do think we reached the tipping point... and if the July trends extend into fall... well... the class of 2013 Torontonians first time homeowners are going to have selection, smaller mortgages... and what appears to be decent mortgage rates. What is so wrong with that???? :)
 
JULY/AUGUST MARKET REPORT 2012

SALES COMMENTARY:

Has the Toronto Residential Market peaked? According to Toronto Real Estate Board sales were 5.3% lower in June of this year than June of 2011. This was the first month in 2012 that sales were not higher than the same month of 2011. But what is more telling is that at the midpoint in June, sales were equal to those of midpoint June 2011. In other words, over the last half of June, sales were actually 10% lower. It seems to suggest that June 15 was the changeover date.

On the other hand, the condo market has been flat to down since the start of the year. June just put an explanation point to that trend: overall condo sales in June vs. June of last year were down 18%, 416 condo sales were also down 18%, and Downtown condos took the biggest hit – down 30%. That brings Downtown condo sales on a year-to-date basis 9% lower than for 2011.

The mid-July numbers from TREB show that residential sales were 5% higher than mid-July of 2011. Gains were all in the freehold sector while condo sales were lower by only 6%. This is better than June numbers. So is this a bounce back? My view is no.

Going forward, condo sellers need to realize that they will be fortunate to get the same prices that they would have received at the start of the year. Condo buyers should be in a position to negotiate prices – probably 5% lower – but don’t expect to see ‘fire sale’ prices. The good news for buyers is that this buying opportunity should last to the end of the year.

People always want to know how you can tell if it is a ‘sellers’ or ‘buyers’ market? For the past four years it has been a ‘sellers’ market – the sale-to-active listings ratio has been 40% and higher. A ‘balanced market is when the ratio is 25 to 35%. A ‘buyers’ market occurs when the ratio is less than 25%. For the total market, the number is still at 45% because of the demand for freehold properties and the limited supply. Not so for condos, and particularly Downtown condos where the ratio is 26% – last year at this time it was 45%! For the Etobicoke Waterfront the number is 22%. What does this mean for sellers and buyers? For the most part prices will go sideways. But with more condo listings hitting the market, this ratio could drop further.

In this Report, we tracked sales at the Voyageur Condo by Monarch at 2119 Lake Shore Blvd. on the Etobicoke Waterfront. This newer building offers numerous amenities including gym, pool, theater and 24 hr. concierge. The first unit we examined was a one bedroom plus den, at 805 sf, with parking, locker, and large balcony. It sold in May of 2012 for $335,000 or $416/sf. The same unit sold 26 months earlier for $314,000 – an increase of 6.6% over the period or 3% on an annual basis. The second unit we looked at was fully upgraded, with two bedrooms, two bath, den, two parking spots and locker. The unit was 1015 sf with a balcony of almost 200 sf. It sold in March of this year for $455,000. When you adjust for the second parking spot, the price was $428/sf. The same unit also was sold in May of 2006 for $310,000 but with only one parking spot. The increase in price was 40% over six years or 5.5% compounded annually, with most of the increase occurring in 2007 and 2008. The price increases in this condo are certainly not ‘bubble’ like but are consistent with historical real estate appreciation rates.

RENTAL COMMENTARY:

The media and the Federal Government seem to feel that it is better to rent than to own. That’s good news for investors who have long been waiting for rent increases to catch up to prices and maintenance costs. There is zero vacancy in condo units and multiple offers going over list price are quite common. There were more rentals in the Downtown Market than sales in June – 27% more in fact! Studios became more popular with an average rent of $1400 in June. The entry level for a one bedroom without parking is now $1550.The high end one bedroom units with den and parking are averaging between $1800 and $1850. Two bedroom units start at $2,000 per month without parking and the top end averages $2550. A previous Blog on rents stated that rental rates still need to move higher by another $300 per month to bring them more in line with the price/rent ratios of other major cities in North America.

http://www.remaxcondosplus.com/blog/julyaugust-market-report-2012/
 
Eh..I knew waiting to sell my condo would bite me in the butt. Should have sold last year but was advised against it. :mad:
 
Last edited:

Back
Top