News   Dec 20, 2024
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 778     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.4K     0 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

^ I think many of us have made this observation as well. That said, it's not like a complete fire sale where condos are being sold off at half the market value. Good units are still desirable and will go for close to market value. To me, that's a fairly neutral market and a healthy one for condos since there is competition...and choice for the buyer. I'm interested to see how the spring market picks up on the condo front.

On the single family home side of things, I'm also noticing many more houses being listed and not selling, leading to the listing being de-listed. It seems that there are a good number of SFH owners who don't really need to sell but are merely trying to test the waters to see if there are any buyers before the new year swings around. I could almost bet that many de-listed homes will re-list again in the spring at the same or slightly higher asking price.
 
From the Globe and Mail Web site:

Accuracy of Canada’s housing data under scrutiny Add to ...

TARA PERKINS - REAL ESTATE REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Oct. 27 2013, 6:04 PM EDT

Last updated Sunday, Oct. 27 2013, 7:05 PM EDT





Canada’s surprisingly strong real estate market is leading to heightened scrutiny of the data used to assess sales.

The main source of information about residential sales and prices is the Canadian Real Estate Association, which represents more than 100,000 real estate agents across the country. On or around the 15th day of each month, after obtaining and working with numbers from local real estate boards, CREA releases information about the previous month’s sales levels.

The numbers are getting more attention amid debate about just how inflated the market may be. Nearly all economists agreed that house prices were too high when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stepped in and tightened mortgage insurance rules in July, 2012. Sales dropped, diminishing talk of any potential bubble as the market slumped for nearly a year. In recent months, it has bounced back, and topped economists’ expectations.

It appears that the number of houses changing hands this year will exceed last year’s total. But most experts say the strength is unlikely to last long, and the market should cool a bit as higher mortgage rates trickle through the system.

As people try to make sense of the market’s twists and turns, some are raising questions about the accuracy of CREA’s statistics. One of the main critics is former Member of Parliament and blogger Garth Turner, who has recently been calling CREA’s numbers into question on his blog. He alleged, among other things, that the numbers are being distorted by real estate agents listing one house with two or three local real estate boards (so more buyers will see the listing).

Mr. Turner’s skepticism caught the attention of other analysts. “I must confess that it was a blog by Garth Turner that kind of raised that issue,” said Douglas Porter, Bank of Montreal’s chief economist. “I found it fascinating.”

“You do have to look at [the numbers] through the lens of where they’re coming from but just like any other economic data, I don’t think any single number should be treated as the final gospel,” Mr. Porter said. “There is a margin for error around every economic statistic, and we take it with a grain of salt, but I think the CREA numbers do a good job of capturing the trend.”

CREA chief economist Gregory Klump said that just because a listing appears more than once online, does not mean it is included more than once in the statistics. “The fact is, Realtor.ca is not the basis on which we do our statistics,” he said, referring to CREA’s website. “Just because something is duplicately listed on Realtor.ca doesn’t mean that it’s duplicately counted in sales and in active listings.”

Mr. Porter noted that unless dual listings were a new or growing issue, there would not likely be a great impact on comparisons, such as how this September’s house sales compared with last September’s. “We’re just trying to get a sense of whether the market is strengthening or weakening or stable,” he said.

Questions have also been raised about revisions local real estate boards make to their numbers, which are not immediately captured in CREA’s national statistics. For example, the Toronto Real Estate Board counts a sale when an unconditional offer is accepted or when non-title conditions are removed, rather than when the sale closes, Mr. Klump said in an e-mail. If a deal later falls through, the board revises its numbers for the month in question.

CREA does not revise its numbers each month, but rather on a schedule that it says minimizes distortions to comparisons. “It may be argued that TREB’s methodology produces a more accurate picture of history once all revisions have been incorporated, and it may also be argued that CREA’s methodology produces more historically comparable statistics for the current month being reported on,” Mr. Klump said.

Confusion has also arisen from seasonal adjustments CREA makes to its monthly data, which Mr. Klump noted it does using methods from Statistics Canada.



0 comments
 
CREA chief economist Gregory Klump said that just because a listing appears more than once online, does not mean it is included more than once in the statistics. “The fact is, Realtor.ca is not the basis on which we do our statistics,†he said, referring to CREA’s website. “Just because something is duplicately listed on Realtor.ca doesn’t mean that it’s duplicately counted in sales and in active listings.â€

I'd be really curious to know what is the basis of CREA's stats.

Doesn't the Terranet index put these debate to rest?

Unfortunately the infamous Darth Mortgage Turner possesses an equally bias agenda in this race and should not be taken at face value either.
 
I'd be really curious to know what is the basis of CREA's stats.

Doesn't the Terranet index put these debate to rest?

Unfortunately the infamous Darth Mortgage Turner possesses an equally bias agenda in this race and should not be taken at face value either.

Another interesting article in the globe and mail pointed out to home ownership (currently at 70%). And that examples of high home ownership are actually not signs of a healthy market (Greece/Spain have 90%+, germany is closer to 45%)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...rship-with-financial-success/article14987890/

It's slightly counter intuitive, but I guess it could explain 'sunk' capital that is not invested in the economy to produce goods, or as the article pointed out, immobility of the employment market? That being said, if home ownership is as high as 70%, does that mean prices are not low enough and have more room to grow? interesting dynamics to consider
 
It's slightly counter intuitive, but I guess it could explain 'sunk' capital that is not invested in the economy to produce goods, or as the article pointed out, immobility of the employment market? That being said, if home ownership is as high as 70%, does that mean prices are not low enough and have more room to grow? interesting dynamics to consider

Yep, the problem with home ownership is the illiquid nature of it. It is difficult to recapitalize your finances if most of your assets and debs are rolled up into a home. So when people start feeling tighter finances, they end up spending a lot less rather than readjusting their portfolio. Across an entire country, an economic downturn's affects are magnified if the home ownership average is very high because everybody ends up tightening their belts, resulting in massive loss of demand for products and services.
 
I'd be really curious to know what is the basis of CREA's stats.

Doesn't the Terranet index put these debate to rest?

Unfortunately the infamous Darth Mortgage Turner possesses an equally bias agenda in this race and should not be taken at face value either.


This evening Mr. Klump of CREA was on BNN. He basically said that the problem of double counting is mostly limited to Toronto and Nova Scotia and represents 0.8% of sales. Further, he said CREA does not rely on REALTOR site and that TREB corrects out for listings out of area and this further takes out 35% of the 0.8%.

In other words, the magnitude of any error if it exists at all is about 0.5% if I understood him correctly.

He also stated that Garth Turner has an agenda to instill fear since he has been wrong since 2008 predicting a huge price correction so now he is instead trying to state that it is manipulated data to justify his being wrong to date....
This is how I interpreted at least that interview.
 
Thanks for the post, interested. I was wondering what magnitude we are talking about here with these "double counted" listings. My instinct had already told me it'd be a really insignificant amount.
 
Thanks for the post, interested. I was wondering what magnitude we are talking about here with these "double counted" listings. My instinct had already told me it'd be a really insignificant amount.

James, just one other thing. It may well be insignificant or it might not be quite as insignificant as one thinks for the following reason.

While he said a 0.8 and 0.5% error, it is not clear to me whether it was 0.8% of the total of CREA or just TREB and Nova Scotia.

By this I mean if say Toronto and Nova Scotia accounted for 10% of all the listings/sales of CREA; and if the 0.8 and 0.5% was referring to all of CREA, then that would mean that Toronto and Nova Scotia would be out 8 and 5% respectively. If it was referring to a 0.8 and 0.5% error for just Toronto and Nova Scotia, then I agree it probably is insignificant based on his numbers and assuming Garth Turner's remarks suggesting other shaninigans is baseless(Mr. Turner was quoted initially on the the BNN report and seemed to suggest this...at least that was my interpretation).

I suspect if there are further inaccuracies, they may well come out later.
 
Thanks for the post, interested. I was wondering what magnitude we are talking about here with these "double counted" listings. My instinct had already told me it'd be a really insignificant amount.

There are far more non-MLS deals/sales than there are 'double listings'. Double listings are handled by TREB as soon as a complaint is received (it's against board rules to have two listings for one property). Once a complaint is received, TREB emails the offending broker and demands the infraction be remedied immediately, within 48 hours. Where you MIGHT get double listings is where a property might be listed for sale in the commercial section and the residential section (usually residential house with commercial zoning), but again, as I stated above, there are a lot of properties which are sold but were never listed on MLS. I've sold one property three times - no MLS. The sellers advise that if I find a buyer for a certain price, they'd be willing to sell. These are called pocket listings. These unreported sales, if reported, would send the ASP even higher, as these are usually high-end homes whose owners don't want a bunch of people traipsing through their homes. The most recent one was for $920K. This was in an area where the ASP for that month was less than $600K.

This is a much bigger issue than 'double listings' which would affect the ASP being reported.
 
Last edited:
^^^^
I would assume TOphotog that pocket listings existed in previous years and unless there has been a significant change in the numbers, then the distortion would be the same year after year and so to compare apples to apples, this would only imply that figures have been under reported to actual selling prices year after year and to correct for this year would not be a fair comparison.

In other words, the ASP ( I assume this means Actual Selling Price ) is higher than reported in 2013, but it would have also been higher in 2012, 2011, 2010 etc. ) Would I be correct with that assumption?
 
AND another scenario which happens much more often than double listings:

John and Mary Smith list their house for $1.495M, but it doesn't sell on MLS. It is then counted as an 'expired'. I have buyers for $1.4M in their neighbourhood, we can't find anything they like, I get onto the system and look for suitable properties which expired. I call up the listing agent, ask if they think those sellers would take $1.4M now. He says yes, we do a showing, we do an offer, the house sells but not on MLS. It's still showing as an expired, not a sale of $1.4M. Happens all the time these days since we have such a shortage of desirable listings.

I would suggest that double listings is the smallest factor in how the ASP can be skewed.
 
^^^^

In other words, the ASP ( I assume this means Actual Selling Price ) is higher than reported in 2013, but it would have also been higher in 2012, 2011, 2010 etc. ) Would I be correct with that assumption?

ASP - Average Selling Price, sorry. I've noticed in my business that this practice by homeowners and agents is more prevalent these days in the higher end homes than it was years ago.
 
AND another scenario which happens much more often than double listings:

John and Mary Smith list their house for $1.495M, but it doesn't sell on MLS. It is then counted as an 'expired'. I have buyers for $1.4M in their neighbourhood, we can't find anything they like, I get onto the system and look for suitable properties which expired. I call up the listing agent, ask if they think those sellers would take $1.4M now. He says yes, we do a showing, we do an offer, the house sells but not on MLS. It's still showing as an expired, not a sale of $1.4M. Happens all the time these days since we have such a shortage of desirable listings.

I would suggest that double listings is the smallest factor in how the ASP can be skewed.

Actually that might lower or raise the average price.
If something was listed at 1.5 million. Average price in the neighbourhood comparable was 1.45 million and no sale and you do a private 1.4 million, that would distort the average price up as reported and not down.

thank you for clarifying "average selling price" for me.
 
Why trust the realtors to police themselves? New govt policy should be an agency to police them and paid for specifically with their annual dues. I'd vote for that candidate.

My favorite unscrupulous realtor trick:

-house listed for $500,000. No offers, no bids. 3 months later taken off market. House relisted 3 months later at $450,000. Offers comes in first week at $440,000 and seller accepts.

-house sold in 3 days at 98% of asking!

As an industry they're at best a misleading and concealing bunch, at worst negligently misrepresenting and immoral. On an individual level I've known a handful who behave to the contrary and probably dozens who haven't.

Why let them police themselves with centibillions at stake for the Canadian taxpayer?
 

Back
Top