Today, there are 137 more SFH listings on MLS than on the 29th of March. The greatest increase in listings has been for SFH priced higher than $700k. There have been comments on the incredible number of listings with asking prices higher than $1 million. Today, there are 248 of such listings. Crazy!
There are 20 more townhomes listed today than there were on March 29. The number of condos listed is basically unchanged.
I have to pick on this one $1 million+ listings. MLS#240724. Seriously, what are these people smoking? $1049000 for this POS? Yeah right!
80 comments:
Looks to me like the wealthier people that have financial advisers and follow the economy are wanting to bail but the average joes aren't doing anything but paying the mortgage and hoping everything works out. I don't think we'll see cracks there till the economic conditions worsen. Condos are a different story they could fall off a cliff at anytime due to all the speculation involved.
The inventory below the median is still tight as FTBs continue to jump into the market stretched to the max (40 year amortization, little down payment, RRSP withdrawals, parent gifts etc.)
However, the rise in inventory over 700K is significant. Owners that need to sell are facing increased competition and if April sales are poor further price reductions will occur. This could lead to a ripple effect where prices start dropping above the median and cascade down. This would result in further drops to the median and average prices.
The MSM seems to be on an economy doom and gloom roll right now. They will add housing to the mix if things get worse over the next few months.
Only a few days until we get the VREB numbers. I am more interested in the VIREB numbers for up island because I think the downturn in SFD will start there. There is less economic diversity, forestry is in trouble and there are fewer retiree sales (see Parksville Qualicum numbers).
I wonder what the new transplants up island from back east thought of this last winter. It was pretty harsh for snowfall. They were probably expecting lotus land. Maybe the climate wasn't as advertised. Wet, Cold and lots of snow.
The agents blurb associated with the above mls listing may suggest that the buyer tear down the duplex and use the land to build an apartment or condo. Would this explain the $1,000,000 price tag?
Speaking of million dollar prices, has everyone seen the Vancouver Sun headline today about real estate myths and realities? Apparently, according to Rod Chipman, who is cited as the "expert," because he is a realtor and puts his real name on his blog, it's a myth that prices are going to fall, because, Vancouver still is producing new jobs, with "rising wages," and people are still moving to Vancouver. Wow! Those must be some seriously rising wages to cope with an average price in Vancouver of more than $900K! Especially in light of this paragraph: "Prices have already risen in the order of 100 per cent over the past five years or so in many Metro municipalities, winning the region status as having the least affordable real estate in the country. (The RBC Affordability Index measure estimated that at the end of 2007, it would take almost 80 per cent of the average Metro Vancouver household's income to cover the cost of owning the average standard two-storey home.)" But they do acknowledge that first-time buyers are just out of luck. Too bad.
In light of this amazing market, which might even last a whole two more years, according to these gurus, here's Chipman's stellar advice: "'If the numbers make sense to buy, and you can look out to the downside, buy,' is his advice, based on the assumption that over the long term, Vancouver real estate will continue to appreciate in value, though right now people should be prepared for change.
The Vancouver market has had its ups and downs over the decades, and while no one is promising that prices will keep going up in a straight line forever, the economic cards that British Columbia is holding indicate more price growth this year and next."
I'm so glad to have such remarkably analytical journalism to guide me in my attempt to make intelligent financial decisions. By the way, can anyone explain what "look out to the downside" means?
As many of you know I have been watching the detached house market under 750K in Victoria and Saanich (E&W) using PCS (which is based on MLS data). Every view days I take a screenshot of the listing page. For some time I have been seeing lots of new listings and price reductions in all price ranges. Take a look at the updated slideshow and see for yourself.
One poster stated that these reductions were just sellers "testing the market". Does anyone else have an explanation or wish to comment??
Well Roger here is some data for you concerning SFD's in the Victoria, Saanich East and Saanich West areas.
Current number of listings is 367
Number SFD's sold in last 90 days 416
Which is a 2.65 month supply
Number of NEW listings in the last 90 days - 658
Number of these NEW listings sold in the last 90 days 327
For a sales to listings ratio of 0.5. The average days on market is 27 and the median price was $574,500.
A sales to listing ratio between 0.4 to 0.6 indicates a balanced market. An inventory of less than three months indicates a short supply. Consequently, the areas you are looking at would be considered slightly in favour of sellers which may lead to an increase in prices.
The median price 90 to 180 days ago for the above areas was $546,000. Which means that prices did increase some 5.2 percent.
Thats the good (bad) news.
If one looks back one year ago for the same 90 day period the Sales to Listing ratio was 0.75 The median price was $519,000 and the days on market was 18.
If you define a declining market in terms of prices - then we are not there yet.
However, if you define a declining market by the shift in supply and demand - then we are in a decline which will show up in stagnating or declining prices in the next few months.
Siobhan
interesting List of all the Myths and Truths about real estate in BC. Even has it in a pfd. and audio.
http://tinyurl.com/4wcxo8
The ONLY way to sell a house is by dropping the price by at least five figures. One tiny 2 bed/2 bath in Broadmead sold by doing just that, but the sale could yet fall through. It is getting harder and harder to get a mortgage, and I'm seeing tons of "sold" properties back on the market after sales fell through. Banks are really tightening credit.
A lot of properties are just falling off the market unsold, and their owners will either give up or the properties will show up later with yet another realtor looking for yet another greater fool.
My best friend, re agent, is very depressed because both his sales collapsed this week. Even worse for him, one of them was a "chain reaction" sale which killed about three deals at once. Also, at least half the listings in my neighborhood are on their second listing, second agent. Some of them are on a third. Wealthy area, most houses listing for more than a million, and just sitting...
Siobhan
Thanks a lot for the stats. It made for interesting reading and shows things are still motoring along in those areas.
What do you make of all the price reductions in my post?
Inventory has been rising in the over 700K SFDs since January. What do you see happening in this area of the market?
It is getting harder and harder to get a mortgage, and I'm seeing tons of "sold" properties back on the market after sales fell through.
Bullshit. The "SOLD" sign only goes up when the conditions-including financing--come off.
The economic situation in the U.S. is much worse than most of us think.
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2008/04/24/its-so-much-worse-than-you-think.aspx
Good think that up here in Victoria we're "invincible" to what happens to the world economy [end snark].
Currently, 13.5% of American homeowners owe more on their house than it is worth.
If they actually hit a recession, that figure is projected to jump to 39%.
Thanks to glitches in the law, in the U.S. it is very easy to walk away from a home if you are underwater on it (owe more than it is worth). Sure, people carry a black mark on their credit for a few years, but for a huge percentage it is worth the huge savings...
Would this explain the $1,000,000 price tag
Obviously this property is land value only. Whether the land is worth a mil is another issue.
By the way, can anyone explain what "look out to the downside" means?
Sounds like code language for "you're going to lose money".
Thanks to glitches in the law, in the U.S. it is very easy to walk away from a home if you are underwater on it (owe more than it is worth)
It's not a glitch in the law, it's the intent of the law. In no-recourse states (not all of them BTW) money loaned for the purchase of a house cannot be recovered from the buyer - the lender can only foreclose the property.
The intent of the law is to pretect people from being suckered into paying more for a house than it's worth, by making it impossible to recover the excess from the buyer. Worked pretty well until the lenders stopped lending their own money and turned to OPM.
Oh, about MLS#240724.... it's a POS duplex being sold as a tear down, right on a corner lot that someone apparently thinks would be a great place for a high rise condo.
They didn't get the memo about being about eight years too late.
"Sitting Pretty" said:
"Bullshit. The 'SOLD' sign only goes up when the conditions-including financing--come off."
Who the hell is talking about 'Sold' signs, Douchebag? I'm talking about properties being yanked off the MLS and then showing up again a week or two later with the realtor claiming "the deal fell through."
All over the place. Go argue with them and THEIR claims; I just report what I see on the MLS.
Good Lord, no wonder people hate you.
"Sitting Pretty" said:
"Bullshit. The 'SOLD' sign only goes up when the conditions-including financing--come off."
What a moron! Maybe its time to go back to being "hubbies" cheer leading bimbo.
>>has everyone seen the Vancouver
>> Sun headline today about real
>> estate myths and realities?
>> Apparently, according to Rod
>> Chipman, who is cited as
>> the "expert," because he is a
>> realtor and puts his real name
>> on his blog, it's a myth that
>> prices are going to fall
It's also a myth that the Vancouver Sun is useful for anything other than toilet training a dog or lining a birdcage.
When the "journalists" at the Vancouver Sun realized that the Canucks weren't even going to the playoffs this year, there was likely a great sadness that swept over their offices. Why? That would mean they actually would have to be put to WORK, and headlines for their covers other than "THE CANUCKS WIN!" & "THE CANUCKS LOSE!".
Sheesh. For the Vancouver Sun to have published a story three years ago that says prices will never come down would have been stupid on its own.
But for the Vancouver Sun to publish such a story today, in the midst of a decline in U.S. house prices that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, is idiotic beyond belief.
Ah well, glad they're not getting one more red cent of MY money.
Roger Said:
"Inventory has been rising in the over 700K SFDs since January. What do you see happening in this area of the market?'
What I think this increasing inventory of 700K and greater is showing is that Victoria does have a price ceiling.
I think that we have to always keep in mind that Victorian's incomes are not high. The typical monthly mortgage payment is between $2,000 to $3,000 say $2,500 per month. The difference has to be made up by a large down payment or increasing your income by buying a home with a suite.
This means that the two types of properties in the single family home market that will correct first.
One of these is the 700K and more homes; and the other is the 2 bedroom starter home without a suite.
Interesting, is that both the high and low end house markets have a commonality. In both cases the majority of value is situated in the most volatile component of real estate which is the land value.
If you want to watch where the SFD market starts to crack - then it will be in properties that have the majority of value in the land. For example: one-storey (without suites)starter homes and both water front and acreage properties.
In contrast, the "Gordon Head Box" with a basement suite may be the last to show in a market correction.
Siobhan
Head for the glacier... crisis in Canada.
That sound you hear are millions of real estate pigeons coming home to roost.
Anon,
Those pigeons will probably get lost on their way to Vancouver Island.
Stages of denial in Victoria:
1. The housing market bust won't happen in Canada. We're different - no subprime here!!
2. Yea, its slowing down in Ontario but BC is insulated from things down east. We have a strong economy and we are the best place on earth
3. Vancouver may be dropping off but it can't happen in Victoria. We are special and everyone wants to move here.
4. Sure parts of Victoria have dropped in value but (pick an area i.e. Oak Bay) is a unique part of town and will survive any downturn.
5. Hmm... Yes prices seem to be dropping but my street is the prettiest and just the other day my neighboor said a guy down the street sold for top dollar.
6. My house is special compared to all the other crummy houses in town and I know it's holding its value.
"Inventory has been rising in the over 700K SFDs since January. What do you see happening in this area of the market?'
Maybe the smart money has (finally) gotten the message?
The ONLY way to sell a house is by dropping the price by at least five figures.
Beats six figures, which is what it will take by the end of next year.
All California markets are well past this point, and they have a lot farther to fall yet.
From today's Vancouver Sun: "Commercial banks reluctant to pass on interest rate cuts"
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=df2e10d4-4454-42e7-a968-721e89136a69
Tick, tick, tick.
because they know the writing is on the wall with real inflation hitting everyones wallet and rates will have to go up and house prices will tank back down to reality.
Just like the speculators drying up knowing there is no more easy money,the fact that the bottom is in for interest rates and will be heading up by year end will send panic thru the RE industry.
"Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney later noted that the commercial banks were facing higher funding costs, suggesting that as a result they may not pass on all of any further cuts by the central bank, or may even raise some rates, which in turn would lessen the economic stimulus coming from the central bank rate reductions."
To any prospective first-time buyer who isn't paying attention:
1) The Bank of Canada lowered it's interest rate.
2) The banks didn't lower mortgage rates.
add those two facts together and you get:
3) The banks conclude that the economic risk of borrowing money to buy real estate is increasing.
Ignore what the banks say about the health of Canadian real estate. Listen instead to what they are saying with their checkbooks.
Are you ready to bet against the banks, with your financial future in the balance? Are you in such a rush that you must buy now when even the real estate bulls tell you that the market has flattened, meaning that waiting costs you nothing?
Wait. See. There has never been, in my adult lifetime, a better time to do nothing. Your patience will be rewarded.
Olives said:
The realtor posting on KIV, Doug Sunray, has now stated twice that it is ALWAYS (his emphasis) better to buy than to rent.
Unbelievable!
The Cdn. government has a rent vs. buy calculator here (http://tinyurl.com/yr6jmz)
However. I went looking around and I may have found the rent vs. buy calculator this agent uses. Here is the link
(http://tinyurl.com/4jnnya)
I hope you find this REALTOR® calculator useful on KIV.
Roger (and Patriotz)
>>I admire your patience in
>>explaining consumption and
>>assets. The fact that most
>>people live in their home may
>>make it difficult for some to
>>grasp these concepts.
Wow, what an impressive attempt at being condescending (why don't you put a "sneer" button on your keyboard?). However, those silly attempts aside, the truth is that you are simply ignoring my point time and again.
1)The point is *NOT* the GOVERNMENT-MADE definitions that makes up what today's CPI includes as per the government of the day's whim.
You act as if the fact that rent is included in the calculation of CPI instead of real estate prices is some hard-set "rule of nature" that has been decreed from the gods and set in stone.
In fact, it was not so long ago that many western governments included home price fluctuations in their calculation of inflation. AND, if you bother googling the topic, you'll see that some economists today argue that home prices fluctuations should again be included in the CPI.
Some economists have postulated that the exclusion of housing price fluctuations from the CPI was a political act intended to massage the numbers to look better.
Most economists admit that BOTH systems (both the "rent-equivalent", and the inclusion of home price fluctuations) result in errors and bias in the reporting of inflation.
So, I would hope you see once and for all that this is not about believing naively everything that today's government says should be included in the CPI, is exactly the way it should be (and sneering your grief when others are not lemmings and don't buy into every detail of how today's government wants to define inflation.
Recently, even the Governor of the Bank of England said he wanted house prices included in inflation figures. Excuse me while I laugh as you peer down your nose at the Governor of the Bank of England for expressing the self-same thing that I have been arguing here.
"[The Governor of the Bank of England] told Radio 4's Money Box programme that he wished the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) – the measure that tracks the cost of goods and services – did include house prices, as the previous official measure, the Retail Price Index (RPI), used to.
He said: 'Some of these issues are controversial. I wish it did include housing, but it doesn't - at least at present. Maybe one day it will [again].'
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=422580&in_page_id=2
(2)
Of *COURSE* I understand, as you keep pointing out, why it doesn't make sense to buy something when you can rent it for less.
The problem is that relying on that relationship..as the main way of prices getting back into balance has HUGE flaws, the most obvious of which it may sometimes take decades for home prices to get in line with rental equivalents. Take again, the case of Vancouver's prices. You can call the buyers in Vancouver "FOOLS!" every day until your face turns blue, but after about 20 years of waiting for prices to come to to their rental equivalents you'd probably be a bit weary of that.
Also, we *cannot* be sure if we are waiting for rental prices to slowly rise (at the snail's pace the government allows) to meet their purchase-price equivalents, or if we are waiting for the purchase-price equivalents to go down to meet the rental prices. In the case of the former, it makes sense to buy sooner rather than later.
In any event, I Say Again: If home prices were included in inflation measures (AS some economists argue!), real estate bubbles like the recent one would have been non-starters as interest rates would have quickly risen to combat the rising prices.
YES, I understand the arguments of the day as to why the CPI is calculated the way it is today. NO, it wasn't calculated that way a few years ago. NO, I don't have to agree with their arguments for calculating it that way, just like some economists don't!
anon 5:48 said
Wow, what an impressive attempt at being condescending (why don't you put a "sneer" button on your keyboard?).
because I said: Patriotz- I admire your patience in explaining consumption and assets. The fact that most people live in their home may make it difficult for some to grasp these concepts.
My comment was not meant to be condescending to anyone! If anyone else took offense I apologize for not phrasing my comments in a better fashion. I do not know how long you have been reading and commenting on this blog because you use anonymous when posting. Long time readers know that Patriotz has explained the relationship between rents and house prices on this blog and on HHV's blog many times.
On several previous occasions homeowners did not know or believe what was included in occupancy cost. That is why I said:
Some mistakenly believe that because they are not paying any rent that their occupancy cost is only maintenance, taxes and utilities and they neglect the value of capital. A few mistakenly say buying is always better/cheaper than renting.
My thought was that some homeowners may look at their home differently than they look at other assets because they feel they have to live somewhere. The rest of my post was to provide an automobile analogy so that we could leave housing aside for a moment.
Anon 5:48 said
However, those silly attempts aside, the truth is that you are simply ignoring my point time and again
I went back and reread the last thread and there were so many anonymous posts I could hardly separate one anon's post fom another. In your last post you said:
In any event, I Say Again: If home prices were included in inflation measures (AS some economists argue!), real estate bubbles like the recent one would have been non-starters as interest rates would have quickly risen to combat the rising prices.
I agree with you.
Anon, it is not easy to exchange ideas and fully understand someone's point of view if they keep posting anonymously. It can lead to misunderstandings because your views and comments get mixed in with the other's comments. I hope that you will add some kind of nickname to your posts in the future. It makes things a lot friendlier.
Roger said: "...However. I went looking around and I may have found the rent vs. buy calculator this agent uses. "
LOL!
If home prices were included in inflation measures (AS some economists argue!), real estate bubbles like the recent one would have been non-starters
The problem is that RE markets in different regions have historically been uncorrelated. Even in the current bubble, much of Canada (all of Quebec and much of the rest of the east) has been unaffected, and BC, Alberta, and Toronto have all seen different degrees of overvaluation. Using monetary policy to fight the RE bubble would punish parts of the country, and sectors of the economy, that had nothing to do with it.
To give you another example, there was an RE bust in Toronto in the early 90's, while at the same time RE in Vancouver was rising strongly. Two opposite situations at the same time. During the crazy Vancouver bubble in 79-81, prices in Toronto increased far less. Monetary policy could not possibly have been targeted at both cities.
There is another reason why it makes no sense to lump in RE prices with consumer prices. Because of its large size, Ontario would be dominant, no matter where RE prices were going elsewhere.
Getting back to the global post-2001 bubble, yes that one was caused in large part by loose monetary policy in the US and elsewhere. But it's impossible to direct monetary policy at the local bubbles which historically have been the norm, and which most likely will be the norm again in the future.
There are some very effective tools available to attack RE speculation - restricting mortgage lending and taxing speculative profits - that focus on the sector involved. That makes much more sense than using monetary policy which affects the entire economy. And it should be clear that provincial and local governments can have a crucial role in fighting RE bubbles, rather than promoting them like the current regime in Victoria. Toronto recently introduced a property transfer tax which has been blamed or credited (depending on one's point of view) for bringing the RE boom to a halt there.
Sounds like a great idea to me. How about a 75% tax on the profit when someone flips a house in the first year? And decreasing percentages for each year after that and normal rates after eight years? And no tax breaks or sliding scale for anyone with more than three homes, no matter when they sold.
That would solve a ton of problems. No more real estate bubbles or flippers or speculators. Just people that wanted a home to live in for a reasonable length of time.
Such taxes are very effective in stopping RE speculation. For example:
Shanghai to Tax Real Estate Speculators
Note also tougher rules for mortgages in the above story. While in Canada CMHC has been doing the opposite.
The problem in democratic societies like ours is that about 2/3 of adults, and a bigger percentage of the voters, are existing homeowners who think that crazy house prices are in their best interest. Interesting that such people generally don't think about their own children, who aren't owners yet and are hurt by high prices.
So we have to wait for Mr. Market to deal with excessive RE prices, i.e. a bust, because Mr. Campbell and Mr. Harper won't.
RE bubbles, like all asset bubbles, are damaging to the broader economy (just look at the US) and the only people who benefit from them are speculators and industry insiders.
what happened to the "crown jewel"? I loved checking the listing just to see the happy realtor's smile.
No subprime in Canada? I guess that depends on how you define subprime. Today Garth's site had an interesting letter from a mortgage broker.
The introduction of the 40 year amortizations, true no money down financing and stated income programs allowing clients to fabricate their income and purchase with 5% down are truly the driving force in the market. Do I agree with these programs? No…. But these programs have seemed to become acceptable by the Bank’s and the public as the new industry standards.
But I was told real estate never goes down, and it's local and it's different here!
It's getting nasty in the good Ole USA. Luckily there is no subprime in Canada!
Article in the TC this morning:
Victoria ranked as second-best place to live
Excerpts:
Victoria ranks second overall among 154 metropolitan Canadian cities as the best place to live, according a survey published in the May issue of MoneySense magazine.
The No. 1 spot went to Ottawa, which ranked above average in most areas but excellent in nothing. "In many of Canada's fair-weather locations, real estate costs are suffocating," said Phil Froats and Ian McGugan in the accompanying article. "Is Victoria's mild climate really worth the $500,000 or more that it would take you to buy a three-bedroom bungalow there?
"To enthusiastic gardeners, perhaps. But to others, the strain of shouldering a huge mortgage simply isn't worth the stress."
The survey said the average house price in Ottawa was $250,123, for Toronto $404,070 and Victoria, $465,000. A person earning the average income for Ottawa would need 2.93 times their annual salary to cover the sticker price of a home in the nation's capital. prospective home-buyer in Victoria would need 6.64 times the average annual income to buy into the market.
A young family, concerned about their financial future, might like to consider whether the weather in Victoria is really worth it in the long term.
Roger:
>>it is not easy to exchange ideas
>> and fully understand someone's
>> point of view if they keep
>> posting anonymously.
Good point - I see how that is confusing. I'll append a name to the end of my posts, not to remove anonymity (as Sitting Pretty might have you believe) but to provide continuity in discussions.
->Percival
A person earning the average income for Ottawa would need 2.93 times their annual salary
That's a mistake, it's not the average personal income, it's the average (or more likely median) household income. As for the other cities as well.
A price/income of 3 is - gasp - normal. And people like to bash Ottawa for being out of touch with reality.
A young family, concerned about their financial future, might like to consider whether the weather in Victoria is really worth it in the long term.
That's sort of like saying they ought to consider whether buying a Rolls-Royce is worth it. They can't afford it, period.
However the rents in Victoria are certainly worth it, so nobody is really being prevented from living here. Just buying. For now.
In an earlier post I said:
A young family, concerned about their financial future, might like to consider whether the weather in Victoria is really worth it in the long term.
I think it might be interesting to look at an example to illustrate my point.
Vic and Otto work in the same office in Victoria as experienced computer programmers. Otto decides to move to Ottawa and Vic continues to live in Victoria. Both buy a 3 bedroom house for their family: Vic pays 500K in Langford and Otto buys the same type of house in Kanata (suburbs) for 350K. Both have saved 50K.
Vic gets a 25 year amortization mortgage @5.5%. The CMHC insurance will be 14.9K. Property Transfer tax is 8K. So the mortgage starts off at (500+14.9+8-50) 472.9K and monthly mortgage payments will be $2886.
Otto buys a 350K house and also gets a 5.5% mortgage with a 25 year amortization. The CMHC insurance will be 6K and the Land Transfer tax is 3.7K. So the mortgage starts off at (350+6+3.7-50) 309.7K and monthly mortgage payments will be $1891. So Otto's family has another $1000 to spend or save every month.
What happens if Otto reduces the amortization so that his mortgage payments are the same as Vic's @$2886. The amortization will be reduced to 12.5 years and he will own his house in half the time of Vic. Once Otto is mortgage free he invests the $2886 in his RRSP every month and gets a conservative 5% return. After 12.5 years his RRSP will be worth 580K and he will have had over 12K in tax refunds every year to spend or save as he sees fit.
Vic at the end of 25 years will own his house (worth more than Otto's) and will have to find extra cash to fund his RRSP and retirement. However he did not have to shovel snow and got to enjoy living on the west coast.
Vic and Otto work in the same office in Victoria as experienced computer programmers. Otto decides to move to Ottawa and Vic continues to live in Victoria.
Do you really think your fans are so stupid you have to make your example sound like a childrens fairy tale?
I've lived in Ottawa, unlike most, if not all of the people here who are pumping Ottawa, Winnipeg, etc. as superior places to live and buy RE. Ottawa is very cold and unpleasant in the eight months of winter and near-winter, very buggy in the one month of spring, and very hot and humid in the two months of summer. A lot like Winnipeg, in fact. To top it off, the geography around both cities is dull, and if you think Bear Mountain is an ugly subdivision, wait until you see Kanata.
Sorry I didn't personify my description with statements like "Otto found the winter to be long and unpleasant," but I'm sure if you read it a few times you'll be able to understand.
Hey, hey, hey!
Stop slamming Ottawa. Where else can a kid with a goofy face and the personality of a gopher find acceptance with others of his own kind.
S. Harper
Hey! Someone over on KIV wrote almost the exact same thing that Sitting Pretty wrote at 3:22pm on here. Just a wild guess but I think we may have a KIV transplant over here?
Ottawa is a great to live and to raise families. No riffraffs, no druggies, no people driving 40 year + diesel spewing shit boxes, no people using wood as primary source of heat, no raw sewage dumped into the river. And no stupid people like you. Some foreigners who live here are not true Canadians. The Canadian citizenship is a matter of convenience. Canadians embrace winter, hockey, sports, the north. Don't forget, we are in the capital of the next WINTER olympics. Don't forget, the WINTER olympics will double our RE prices here.
Ottawa is a great to live and to raise families. No riffraffs, no druggies, no people driving 40 year + diesel spewing shit boxes, no people using wood as primary source of heat, no raw sewage dumped into the river. And no stupid people like you. Some foreigners who live here are not true Canadians. The Canadian citizenship is a matter of convenience. Canadians embrace winter, hockey, sports, the north. Don't forget, we are in the capital of the next WINTER olympics. Don't forget, the WINTER olympics will double our RE prices here.
sitting pretty said:
Do you really think your fans are so stupid you have to make your example sound like a childrens fairy tale?
Would you rather I said the person in Ottawa and the person in Victoria? It was easier to use two short names for the example.
How would you have presented the example? I am always looking for constructive comments.
I've lived in Ottawa, unlike most, if not all of the people here who are pumping Ottawa, Winnipeg, etc. as superior places to live and buy RE.
I lived in Ottawa for over twenty years and it is a great place to raise a family. Lots of things to do and I did not find the weather as unpleasant as you did. The geography is far from dull - great cottage country and the autumn colours are spectacular. Sure it snows but there are a lot more sunny days in the winter than Victoria. I guess each to his own.
is it PMS time again SP ? geesh, what a cow.
The issue here is not whether Victoria has better weather or Ottawa has less riff-raff, etc, etc. These are subjective parameters.
The issue here is whether house prices in the cites are justified by local incomes and rents.
In Ottawa they are, in Victoria they're not. End of story.
From Canwest news service:
Canadian Q1 homes sales drop 6.8 per cent.
Excerpts:
Sales of existing homes fell 6.8 per cent to 117,051 units in the first quarter of 2008 compared with the previous quarter, the Canadian Real Estate Association said Tuesday.
The figures were the third consecutive quarterly decline since activity peaked in the second quarter last year.
The number of MLS residential new listings hit the highest quarterly level ever in the first quarter.
There were record quarter-over-quarter gains in new listings in Alberta and British Columbia, which offset a quarterly decline in new listings in Toronto. The CREA_report said that the MLS housing market became more balanced in every province except Saskatchewan.
Residential unit sales March 2008
(% change from March 2007)
British Columbia 7,319 (-22.4)
Prairie Provinces 7,519 (-28.2)
Alberta 5,360 (-34.3)
I'm a happy renter, saving a ton of cash and just waiting to see what will happen with the market in the next year or few years. Life is good.
SP if you are a owner, good for you. If you plan on staying in the same place for many years, you won't be affected by what the market does. So why do you come on here and spout off negative things every single time you comment?? What's interests you so much here?
Anyways, love the blog and reading the comments!
Is the VREB unstating the actual inventory?
Why do they say 3591 but the site posted in the blog entry says 4033 (down from 4091 yesterday)
New stats:
http://www.vreb.org/mls_statistics/current_statistics.html
From today's Vancouver Sun:
Prince George weakest in real estate price survey
"However, the Century 21 survey did conflict with B.C. Northern Real Estate Board statistics which showed the average Prince George house price up six per cent to $246,839 so far this year."
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=2af4d93e-89da-44b1-9cb3-6d3c22511f40&k=83164
From today's Vancouver Sun:
"B.C. median earnings sink"
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=f3bc45da-1a34-4836-829d-967c2cceb1a6&k=65123
From today's The Province:
"Who knew?
The Province
Published: Thursday, May 01, 2008
U.K. house prices fell in April from a year earlier, the first such decline since 1996, after the credit squeeze dried up finance for property purchases, Nationwide Building Society said."
"Why do they say 3591 but the site posted in the blog entry says 4033 (down from 4091 yesterday)"
Uh- the 3591 is end of march
(if your numbers are correct thats a pretty significant increase MOM)
Ahh..my mistake, I thought they had already posted the new numbers...boy is my face red
The VREB stats for April are out. Doesn't look good for people looking for a crash. That median price graph for 2008 is still comfortably above the 2007 graph on every data point for Victoria, Saanich and Langford.
Don't worry though, I'm sure Roger will be able to spin it negative!
^^ Hahha
What about the condo median prices...that's where it all begins.
Inventory is really starting to take off in Vancouver.
Charts at paulb's site
Should be interesting as roger says to see how VIREB inventroy is doing, could be a trend.
VREB stats for April are now available here
A graphical analysis of the VREB data is in a slideshow @ VREB Stats Analysis Use the Pause and Single Step Buttons instead of autoplay.
The VREB single family home data, published on their website, includes waterfront and acreage sales. When I receive the complete VREB report that has a more detailed breakdown, as used by CMHC, I will update the CMHC slideshow in the gallery.
Median and average sales numbers only tell part of the story. I will be interested to see what you folks think after you look at all the data in the slideshow.
Roger.Thanks again for all your work with the blogs and your charts. Very informative and revealing for anyone that cares to do a little brainwork to see Victoria RE reality.
SP-spin??
You look at one set of numbers still showing a YOY increase(not indicative of anything happening NOW and which in any case has been falling for months,ignoring rising inventory ,ignoring falling sales numbers, ignoring condos)and base your rude comment to Roger on that.
Who's spinning?
Ignore Sitting Pretty.
I think we will find Bitter Bull rudeness on the blogs will occur at the same rate as For Sale sign markdowns on the lawns.
Those Vancouver inventories are huge.
I spoke with some sales directors from Bayview last week at a golf tournement. You could smell the fear coming off of them.
Futura
To be fair--many bears were eyeing up the 2 consecutive average price declines in januray and febuary with glee--and I think even Roger chimed in with an official "look out below".
That along with a great deal of hew and cry about how the first 3-4 months of this year would define the shape of the inevitable crash.
So, what happens now? the stats you had been cheering on the way down, spite you by turning up -- so off to different stats we go?
Btw, I really do appreciate the charts--well put together and informative. And I do agree that the story can't be told by just one set of numbers--both bulls and bears would do well to keep that in mind.
it's called "distribution" when at a market top,this can take several months to happen just like Nortel at $100....and as VREB mentioned the sales over $1 million has effected the price spike. The last of the flock are getting fleeced as they always do at the end of a boom.
"That along with a great deal of hew and cry about how the first 3-4 months of this year would define the shape of the inevitable crash.
So, what happens now? the stats you had been cheering on the way down, spite you by turning up -- so off to different stats we go?"
If you look you will see central Victoria SFH's median prices are down from $550,00 in January to $533,000 today,is that not a downtrend ?
How about Oak Bay median in January at $840,000 now at $765,000 ? hmmm, don't look like we need any spin job when the FACTS speak loud and clear... down she goes buddy.
roger,
I look forward to your charts, as Colwood median appears to be down from January too $539,000 to $489,000. Looks like the party is over when you dig deep,no wonder those Bayviews look petrified. Bear Mountain at $299,000 ? who woulda thought.
5th biz said
To be fair--many bears were eyeing up the 2 consecutive average price declines in januray and febuary with glee--and I think even Roger chimed in with an official "look out below".
In previous posts I have stated that the VREB numbers published on their public site bounce around from month-to-month depending on the number of high end, waterfront and acreage properties that are sold that month. That is why I use 3 month (i.e. quarterly) smoothing in my graphs. I also use the VREB SFH numbers published in their comprehensive report that give average and median numbers excluding these type of properties. I do this for the same reason that CMHC uses them in their reports: they are more representative of what the average family is interested in and capable of buying. You can see last month's CMHC slides here and an analysis here
Do I believe we should look out below? You bet!! However, I said it wasn't going to happen right away and would start this summer.
That along with a great deal of hew and cry about how the first 3-4 months of this year would define the shape of the inevitable crash.
The 1st three months are defining the shape of the coming crash. Active listings have not been this high in 8 years. There were the fewer home sales in Greater Victoria in April 2008 (368) than in March 2008 (374). Compare this with April 2007 (467)and March 2007 (424).
Take a look at condos. The average and median peaked in January at 349k and 304K. They have dropped ever since and are now at 327K and 295K. In January there were 941 listings; today there are over 1000 and there were only 233 sales last month.
So, what happens now? the stats you had been cheering on the way down, spite you by turning up -- so off to different stats we go?
Nope. If you look in my gallery I published the full set of stats (VREB and CMHC based) last month and I will keep the same format this month.
BTW - I appreciated the feedback and constructive criticism in your post. This blog is a great forum for sharing ideas.
Roger--I do like the 3 month smoothing -- but I'm looking at your final slide on smoothed yoy change, and not sure what the hell I see -- and maybe that's because yoy doesn't provide much to chew on after all? or am I missing something?
Do you have any specific interpretations on the ups and downs depicted there? I can't help but think that if you had shown me that in 2006 I would have said--hell, the market's tanking!
VG said:
If you look you will see central Victoria SFH's median prices are down from $550,00 in January to $533,000 today,is that not a downtrend ?
How about Oak Bay median in January at $840,000 now at $765,000 ? hmmm, don't look like we need any spin job when the FACTS speak loud and clear...
Here are the stat slideshows for
Oak Bay and the City of Victoria.
Any comments folks??
5th biz said:
but I'm looking at your final slide on smoothed yoy change, and not sure what the hell I see -- and maybe that's because yoy doesn't provide much to chew on after all? or am I missing something?
The Year-over-Year (YOY) used by VREB and VIREB is not a very useful stat because there is a lot of variance from month to month due to the sample size (sales), effect of high end sales and seasonal variations. CREA and others use YOY quarterly comparisons (i.e, 2008 Q1 vs 2007 Q1).
My calculation uses a rolling quarter (3 month average). The Dec. number shown on the graph shows the YOY from 4th qtr. 2007 to 4th qtr. 2006. The March 2008 number shows Q1-08 increase over Q1-07. The April-08 number is comparing Feb, Mar, and April average with the same months last year.
Now why is it dropping recently? Because there is less gain in average and median prices on a YOY basis as the market cools off.
Roger--are you surprised at how 'cool' the market looked at the end of 2006 in this figure?
5th biz said:
Roger--are you surprised at how 'cool' the market looked at the end of 2006 in this figure?
Not sure which slideshow (VREB, CMHC, Oak Bay) and figure (YOY, YOY smoothed) you are referring to. If it is YOY there can be a lot of variation in December average and median prices due to low sales around the Xmas season. In some cases the YOY will go negative. That is why I prefer 3 month average YOY calculations.
I'm refering to the last figure of the VREB slideshow--showing the smoothed yoy.
"That median price graph for 2008 is still comfortably above the 2007 graph on every data point for Victoria, Saanich and Langford."
SP, the medians are declining since January in Victoria,Langford,Oak Bay, Esquimalt and Colwood. Get with the program, 2007 is history,this is 2008.
Doesn't suprise me when the most arrogant poster can't get past the VREB BS.
5th biz:
I hope the following answers your question. Take a look at this graph. You will note that the 3 month smoothed average sales price (black dashed line) was pretty flat from May 2006 until Feb 2007. Dec 2006 was about 520K and Dec 2005 was about 495K. Smoothed YOY in Dec. 2006 was (520-495)/495 = .05 (5%). Jan 2007 was lower @ 3%.
SP said:
"That median price graph for 2008 is still comfortably above the 2007 graph on every data point for Victoria, Saanich and Langford."
VREB does not publish any median graphs. They only publish average sales graphs for condos, townhouses and SFH. They do not publish any graphs on specific areas like Langford or Oak Bay.
They do publish median data every month for Greater Victoria and specific areas. This is the data I use and analyse in my charts.
VREB does not publish any median graphs.
I know, but believe it or not, I'm smart enough to take VREB's median data points and plot them myself!
If you are suggesting I'm misinterpreting the VREB charts, well, you are wrong.
I guess I look at the graphs for what they are: the 2008 curve sits above the 2007 curve at all corresponding monthly data points, as does the 2007 curve over 2006, etc., etc. You can rationalize all you like about March is down over February, April up over March, etc. but the fact is the numbers are higher EVERY month, year over year.
Put it this way, if the 2008 median curve remains above the 2007curve for every month in the year, will you be claiming that the market crashed in 2008?
Sitting pretty,
Nice to hear that you plot your own median price graphs.
You said: I guess I look at the graphs for what they are: the 2008 curve sits above the 2007 curve at all corresponding monthly data points, as does the 2007 curve over 2006, etc., etc.
I have not heard anyone on this blog dispute past median price YOY performance.
Put it this way, if the 2008 median curve remains above the 2007curve for every month in the year, will you be claiming that the market crashed in 2008?
No, but I don't believe that will happen and many others think the same way. I guess we'll just have to see what happens over the coming months.
You can rationalize all you like about March is down over February, April up over March, etc. but the fact is the numbers are higher EVERY month, year over year.
This statement is true for median prices but not for average sales prices as shown in this graph. Bulls and VREB didn't mention negative YOY for Greater Victoria in Aug-06, Dec-06 and Mar-07.
Predicting the future based on past performance is not considered very prudent in the investment world. Any financial adviser will tell you this is only part of the story and you should use other tools like technical analysis, recent performance and assessment of current economic conditions in order to gauge future performance.
SP - Do you think real estate should be analysed in this way or by looking only in the rear view mirror at year-over-year data??
"but the fact is the numbers are higher EVERY month, year over year."
Keep living in the past,this is 2008 and the 4 month trend is DOWN DOWN DOWN,wake up sleeping pretty.
Make a 4 month chart there princess and what do you see ? Oak Bay alone is down 9% since January and all those million dollar sales can't keep it up.
Post a Comment