skip to main |
skip to sidebar
tonight due to work commitments.
Those who attended, please give us a summary of his presentation and any comments on the questions/answers afterwards.
Thanks
OK so sales have been pretty strong and inventory is going into the pre-Christmas decline and bears everywhere are growling.
Was that it? Where is the new strength coming from?
I am not sure. Maybe there has been some loosening by the banks and the economic numbers out of China have reversed the year-long decline and have started to move up and there is more optimism out of the US too with firming of housing there..
Maybe these are all playing into it.
On top of all that, we have lost Carney and the next B of C Governor may turn out to be a complete Greenspan clone pumping gas for the speculators..
Here is a small bone. We have long been compared to San Diego. We are both on the Ocean, are scenic and have both attracted a large number of Eastern retirees.
San Diego was rock solid while RE in the rest of the US fell. So solid in fact that many said it was destined to hold it's ground and not drop. But when it did budge, it sure budged...
http://www.housingviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SanDiegoChart-940x511.jpg
What should we expect from Carney's departure to London and is his reputation for 'saving Canada' from the worst of the Financial mess deserved?
He came to the B of C in October 2007 from Goldman Sachs, in the midst of the Bear Sterns collapse which ended with it's tax-payer subsidized sale to JPMorgan. A bad time to take the reigns that's for certain. Did he call for tighter scrutiny of the investment cartel? I don't recall such.
Of course Goldman Sachs has a very poor reputation for honesty which is well outlined by Matt Taibbi's excellent articles in Rolling Stones.
When Lehman collapsed and the US Federal Reserve cut rates aggressively, Carney followed along with every other Central Banker in cutting rates and setting off other speculative imbalances. One of these was our own housing bubble, which was starting to correct in 2008/2009.
House prices stopped dropping and instead took flight as a result of the lower interest rates and of the Federal Government doubling the CMHC lending capacity. Who knows which had a bigger effect, but they both added kindling to the fire. In Vancouver and Toronto, we also had the influx of Chinese money. China had embarked on it's own big program of spending to ward off a slow-down.
Much of this money found it's way into the hands of a few thousand well-connected individuals and from them into Vancouver and Toronto real estate.
Carney was pretty much silent on this build up as far as I recall. The solidity of the banks is a given once rates to depositors are near zero, and where all risky loans are pre-packaged and passed on to the tax-payer.
I do not recall Carney commenting on the huge future liability to tax-payers incurred by the ruinous actions of the CMHC.
Finally, approximately two years ago, Carney started to make comments about the growing consumer debt mountain. He kept reminding us that rates would not remain so low for much longer, but then did not really raise rates aggressively enough to put fear into borrowers. Of course he is in a bind since the rate set by the B of C is used both for businesses (which he wants to benefit from low rates) and consumers (whom he wants to exercise restraint!)
Those consumers that did follow his advice may have better balance sheets, but found themselves increasing priced out of RE by those who did not.
Finally Carney became more strident about debt and came out with out-right dire warnings, which I believe did start the process of bringing consumers to their senses, since banks certainly have shown no restraint in their lending.
I also believe his hectoring on debt also dragged Flaherty and Co. into bringing in the mortgage changes, rather belatedly, which the RE industry is still fighting aggressively.
So all-in-all I would rate him a B-. He followed the play-book of excessive easing, realised the debt-monster he helped build too late...but he did ring enough alarm bells for consumers to start thinking about their situation and he pushed the politicians into doing what they hate- pulling back speculators.
As to the 'strength' of the Canadian banks, we know that they have benefitted greatly from their near monopolistic situation, zero borrowing costs and the passing of risk onto the shoulders of tax-payers, not from prudent regulators.
And the fact we have weathered the last few years better than the US or Europe has much more to do with deficit spending and the rebound in China than the actions of a Central Banker. We are also in a situation that any slow-down in China or housing or double-dip in the US, will leave us with few bullets in the chamber.
However, his B- makes him seem like a hercules compared to the C and Ds the others like Greenspan and Bernanke and King would get.
Let us hope his successor strives for an A.
I am being sent the Greater Vancouver list/sales on a daily basis.
Paul B has been providing this information for free and reliably, for a long time on Vancouver Condo Info. I don't want to overlap his work or steal his thunder.
However if I see that his numbers are missing, I will put up what I am sent.
Remember the numbers will be different from his as they have different parameters. My numbers are for the whole GV and all categories of product.
Also there will be no overall inventory numbers for now.
Based on the REBGV stats package the following areas have negative 5 year price changes.
Overall (Composite)
Bowen Island -7.3%
Maple Ridge -3.7%
Pitt Meadow -2.3%
Squamish -2.0%
Sunshine Coast -6.6%
SFH
Bowen Island -7.3%
Maple Ridge -1.2%
Sunshine Coast -6.7%
Whistler -3.8%
Townhouse
Maple Ridge -7%
Port Moody -1.1%
Squamish -2.4%
Apartments
Burnaby East -9.2%
Burnaby North -2.2%
Coquitlam -4.7%
Maple Ridge -10.8%
Pitt Meadows -12%
Port Coquitlam -11.8%
Port Moddy -5.6%
Squamish -12.7%
Tsawwassen 2.1%
West Vancouver -8.3%
A significant portion of Vancouver Real Estate is in recession. However there are still areas with appreciation. Eg West Van SFH - which is up 20% over 5 years, but there are special reasons (see the last comment someone put up on my last post) or East Van SFH up over 30% due to forced gentrification from Van West's high prices. I think Whistler's apartment numbers must be an aberrant number.
What I see is a Mexican stand-off in much of Vancouver, with the very high priced houses still selling but at a discount.
