Real Estate Talks

yah well Vancouver is closer to tulipmania than it is to tracking inflation.  Make all the justifications you want but at the end of the day, it's a market used to park money at the top end of the market (plain and simple).  Seriously, what industry does this city have other than a network of realtors, mortgage brokers, plumbers, drywallers, electricians?  

don't underestimate tourism and it's effects on real estate prices. Works pretty well for Paris, Manhattan, Rome etc.

Oh yeah, tourism is a big driver of home prices 
Check out Las Vegas, I've heard that they get a few tourists there from time to time. 
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/las_vegas.html

What about the lemonade stand down the street - surely that must be driving home prices up.  It's hilarious to see what reasons people will reach for to justify our stupid prices.  LOL.  

yah well Vancouver is closer to tulipmania than it is to tracking inflation.  Make all the justifications you want but at the end of the day, it's a market used to park money at the top end of the market (plain and simple).  Seriously, what industry does this city have other than a network of realtors, mortgage brokers, plumbers, drywallers, electricians?  

don't underestimate tourism and it's effects on real estate prices. Works pretty well for Paris, Manhattan, Rome etc.

When others are leasing your place, the types of money coming in are the same. There are so many high paying jobs it isnt funny.  Especially in the medical field.  However, entitled people that everyone should be able to buy, not rent a cheap house.  The most happen part of them all is that nobody is forcing anyone to stay. LOL

It's called "denial". 

Labelling is communicated as flatulence

Rental income or rental revenue?  Big difference.
But in all seriousness, there is no money in Vancouver outside of RE.  Everyone can pretend about a friend they know about that has a decent job but in reality, your nursing grad will never own a detached home in Vancouver.  If that's the city you want to live in, no problem.
Either way it makes no difference to me.  Vancouver is a dull city for the most part - unlucky for me, I have roots in the city so moving is not a viable option.

In this context I was referring to Income = Revenue not Net Income or Profit, but if you want to talk about that, no it won't be a million, but it will be significant in terms of bottom line profits.  Either way I bought my first property 10 years ago, when most on this forum were warning of the massive bubble in Vancouver and the inevitable crash that was coming any second.  Since than I have been able to accumulate several properties, by saving, investing, and turning my properties from a liability into a revenue generating asset.  All this with a good but not great salary, I was making far less than a nurses salary through my twenties, but was still able to save up for a down payment on a detached house in Vancouver.

nursing grad will never own a detached home in Vancouver

That's a pretty broad assumption that isn't true, most young people will need to start with a small place and work their way up, but that has always been true.  She could easily get to the point of owning a detached home in Vancouver if she saves and invests wisely. 

  Vancouver is a dull city for the most part - unlucky for me, I have roots in the city so moving is not a viable option

What does that have to do with anything, Vancouver has more activities available than pretty much any other city in the world, I guess it depends on what you want to do with your life.  Most would say you are incredibly lucky to have roots in this city.  1st world problems

You also appear to have either forgotten or failed to understand the lessons from history which I have previously posted, so here is part of the New York Times commentary on the Eichholtz study on long-term house prices versus inflation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0

Interesting Article, thanks for that.  Were you and Pieter childhood friends??  Sorry couldn't resist!!

The excerpt below is probably a more telling summary of this particular study of ultra long term house prices.  I also think there is a bit of cherry picking when it comes to explanations of housing prices, using inflation adjusted numbers in comparison to nominal prices over certain periods.  The study shows that we are in an extremely great period of time when it comes to housing prices on a global basis.  When will that end, March 2016? A decade from now? A century?  Will it take a World War, a plaque, or some other disaster (earthquake anyone)?  The Plague (14% of the population of Amsterdam died) coupled with the collapse of the tulip market resulted in a 36% drop in real estate values.  Therefore I would suggest a 15% tax on foreigners, especially when we are opening the floodgates for immigration maybe won't be the catalyst for a long term reversal of our real estate bull market.

Beyond that, probably few homeowners in 2006 are worrying about how much the value of their homes will have increased by 2206 or 2406. It's 2 or 5 or 10 years down the road that matters, and neither Shiller nor Eichholtz is willing to go out on the limb of making definitive short-term predictions. The value of studying a really long term housing market would seem to be less in revealing the how and when of downturns as in underscoring their inevitability. Really bad stuff happens, and when it does, there is often a collapse in real estate.

Also an interesting article on Inflation  http://www.retirementinvestingtoday.com ... ation.html 

This shows quite a difference in inflation numbers before and after the decoupling of the USD to Gold.  After 1933 inflation has averaged 3.7% ... Your article about Holland showed over 350 years through plaques, tulip crashes, wars, invasions and more wars, housing beat inflation, and that doesn't include the global housing boom, where that old house tripled in value over 22 years (and since article is from 2006, I'm going to guess is has probably nearly tripled again since 2006).   An investment that beats inflation over 350 years ain't bad, coupled with leverage through the use of debt to magnify your gains and where inflation works to your advantage.  This sure beats socking away your money under the proverbial mattress over the long term.

this chart demonstrates a point that government will always choose to inflate debt away at the expense of savers if given the chance. They could not do this under the gold standard. 

Last point, we are headed for 8 Billion people on earth by 2025 and the lower mainland ...

The population of the Lower Mainland was up 9.2 percent from the 2006 census. This is among the highest growth rates in the continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Mainland#Population
hmmm that might have an effect on our housing market

Rental income or rental revenue?  Big difference.
But in all seriousness, there is no money in Vancouver outside of RE.  Everyone can pretend about a friend they know about that has a decent job but in reality, your nursing grad will never own a detached home in Vancouver.  If that's the city you want to live in, no problem.
Either way it makes no difference to me.  Vancouver is a dull city for the most part - unlucky for me, I have roots in the city so moving is not a viable option.

In this context I was referring to Income = Revenue not Net Income or Profit, but if you want to talk about that, no it won't be a million, but it will be significant in terms of bottom line profits.  Either way I bought my first property 10 years ago, when most on this forum were warning of the massive bubble in Vancouver and the inevitable crash that was coming any second.  Since than I have been able to accumulate several properties, by saving, investing, and turning my properties from a liability into a revenue generating asset.  All this with a good but not great salary, I was making far less than a nurses salary through my twenties, but was still able to save up for a down payment on a detached house in Vancouver.

nursing grad will never own a detached home in Vancouver

That's a pretty broad assumption that isn't true, most young people will need to start with a small place and work their way up, but that has always been true.  She could easily get to the point of owning a detached home in Vancouver if she saves and invests wisely. 

  Vancouver is a dull city for the most part - unlucky for me, I have roots in the city so moving is not a viable option

What does that have to do with anything, Vancouver has more activities available than pretty much any other city in the world, I guess it depends on what you want to do with your life.  Most would say you are incredibly lucky to have roots in this city.  1st world problems

$1M in rental revenue or rental income ... either way impressive, especially in 10 years.  I would say that you were extremely risky in your strategy to achieve this but that is what the expression "fortune favors the bold" is for.
With respect to a nurse owning a home.  I think the paradigm has changed in the last 3 years.  If someone is chasing a home in Vancouver, saving is not an option as the annual appreciation eats away at any savings you have.  You save maybe $10K to $20K a year and the home has gone up in value by $50K to $100K to, if the last 6 months are any indicator, $400K.  It's a lost cause.

$1M in rental revenue or rental income ... either way impressive, especially in 10 years.  I would say that you were extremely risky in your strategy to achieve this but that is what the expression "fortune favors the bold" is for.

Not Extremely Risky, some calculated risks yes, I had the chance to buy a million dollar rental property with positive cash flow, but didn't do it back in 08-09.  That would have been extremely risky, but would have paid off in spades.  I actually took a fairly conservative approach.  But much better than leaving my money in a bank where I am guaranteed to lose against inflation every month, and much less volatility than putting all my money into the stock market.  Actually I made a significant mistake from a pure investment standpoint, by buying a condo in Whistler.  It has been underwater for years, but at the end of the day, its been consistently bringing in revenues and has given me a chance to enjoy Whistler at the same time and now things have turned around in Whistler and its likely back to even and revenues are up by 20% or more these days.  Meanwhile I have paid off a significant amount of the debt, with other people's money, leaving me with decent equity in the place.

With respect to a nurse owning a home.  I think the paradigm has changed in the last 3 years.  If someone is chasing a home in Vancouver, saving is not an option as the annual appreciation eats away at any savings you have.  You save maybe $10K to $20K a year and the home has gone up in value by $50K to $100K to, if the last 6 months are any indicator, $400K.  It's a lost cause.

Maybe so but why would a 20 something single female want to buy a detached home in Vancouver?  Maintenance headache...a condo is a much better investment for a young person without all the responsibilities that come with a detached house.

$1M in rental revenue or rental income ... either way impressive, especially in 10 years.  I would say that you were extremely risky in your strategy to achieve this but that is what the expression "fortune favors the bold" is for.

Not Extremely Risky, some calculated risks yes, I had the chance to buy a million dollar rental property with positive cash flow, but didn't do it back in 08-09.  That would have been extremely risky, but would have paid off in spades.  I actually took a fairly conservative approach.  But much better than leaving my money in a bank where I am guaranteed to lose against inflation every month, and much less volatility than putting all my money into the stock market.  Actually I made a significant mistake from a pure investment standpoint, by buying a condo in Whistler.  It has been underwater for years, but at the end of the day, its been consistently bringing in revenues and has given me a chance to enjoy Whistler at the same time and now things have turned around in Whistler and its likely back to even and revenues are up by 20% or more these days.  Meanwhile I have paid off a significant amount of the debt, with other people's money, leaving me with decent equity in the place.

With respect to a nurse owning a home.  I think the paradigm has changed in the last 3 years.  If someone is chasing a home in Vancouver, saving is not an option as the annual appreciation eats away at any savings you have.  You save maybe $10K to $20K a year and the home has gone up in value by $50K to $100K to, if the last 6 months are any indicator, $400K.  It's a lost cause.

Maybe so but why would a 20 something single female want to buy a detached home in Vancouver?  Maintenance headache...a condo is a much better investment for a young person without all the responsibilities that come with a detached house.

The thing is, its not well known among the renters that its all about saving and living with your means. As well, the prevailing thinking is that because you were born here, you're entitled to a detached home with a lawn, 2.2 kids, and a dog named spot.  It would be sacrilege to raise kids in a condo for most. lol

You also appear to have either forgotten or failed to understand the lessons from history which I have previously posted, so here is part of the New York Times commentary on the Eichholtz study on long-term house prices versus inflation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0

Interesting Article, thanks for that.  Were you and Pieter childhood friends??  Sorry couldn't resist!!

The excerpt below is probably a more telling summary of this particular study of ultra long term house prices.  I also think there is a bit of cherry picking when it comes to explanations of housing prices, using inflation adjusted numbers in comparison to nominal prices over certain periods.  The study shows that we are in an extremely great period of time when it comes to housing prices on a global basis.  When will that end, March 2016? A decade from now? A century?  Will it take a World War, a plaque, or some other disaster (earthquake anyone)?  The Plague (14% of the population of Amsterdam died) coupled with the collapse of the tulip market resulted in a 36% drop in real estate values.  Therefore I would suggest a 15% tax on foreigners, especially when we are opening the floodgates for immigration maybe won't be the catalyst for a long term reversal of our real estate bull market.

Beyond that, probably few homeowners in 2006 are worrying about how much the value of their homes will have increased by 2206 or 2406. It's 2 or 5 or 10 years down the road that matters, and neither Shiller nor Eichholtz is willing to go out on the limb of making definitive short-term predictions. The value of studying a really long term housing market would seem to be less in revealing the how and when of downturns as in underscoring their inevitability. Really bad stuff happens, and when it does, there is often a collapse in real estate.

Also an interesting article on Inflation  http://www.retirementinvestingtoday.com ... ation.html 

This shows quite a difference in inflation numbers before and after the decoupling of the USD to Gold.  After 1933 inflation has averaged 3.7% ... Your article about Holland showed over 350 years through plaques, tulip crashes, wars, invasions and more wars, housing beat inflation, and that doesn't include the global housing boom, where that old house tripled in value over 22 years (and since article is from 2006, I'm going to guess is has probably nearly tripled again since 2006).   An investment that beats inflation over 350 years ain't bad, coupled with leverage through the use of debt to magnify your gains and where inflation works to your advantage.  This sure beats socking away your money under the proverbial mattress over the long term.

this chart demonstrates a point that government will always choose to inflate debt away at the expense of savers if given the chance. They could not do this under the gold standard. 

Last point, we are headed for 8 Billion people on earth by 2025 and the lower mainland ...

The population of the Lower Mainland was up 9.2 percent from the 2006 census. This is among the highest growth rates in the continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Mainland#Population
hmmm that might have an effect on our housing market

Perhaps you didn't read this part:

"This sort of thing isn't surprising to Shiller, who says he believes that the notion that real estate is a terrific investment comes in part from the long-term nature of most purchases. You know that your grandmother paid $15,000 for her house in 1951, and it's now worth $250,000. That sounds grand, but most of the increase is simply matching inflation. An analysis Shiller made of home prices in the U.S. going back to 1890 showed an average annual increase of a meager 0.4 percent. By way of contrast, Jeremy J. Siegel of the Wharton School of Business has calculated that over a 200-year period, the stock market had an average annual real rate of return of 6.8 percent. It's only in recent years, Shiller says, that huge increases in real-estate prices have become the norm and that people have come to expect them."

It's also worth noting that if the Amsterdam study had used a slightly earlier or slightly later start point it could have shown that home prices did not keep up with inflation, but I'm happy to concede that generally home prices tend to roughly track inflation over the "long-term" whilst frequently underperforming or outperforming inflation over the "short-term". Currently we are seeing outperformance but "short-term" remains undefined. Perhaps the Crash Tax will provide the definition, the next few months should tell us.

You also appear to have either forgotten or failed to understand the lessons from history which I have previously posted, so here is part of the New York Times commentary on the Eichholtz study on long-term house prices versus inflation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0

Interesting Article, thanks for that.  Were you and Pieter childhood friends??  Sorry couldn't resist!!

The excerpt below is probably a more telling summary of this particular study of ultra long term house prices.  I also think there is a bit of cherry picking when it comes to explanations of housing prices, using inflation adjusted numbers in comparison to nominal prices over certain periods.  The study shows that we are in an extremely great period of time when it comes to housing prices on a global basis.  When will that end, March 2016? A decade from now? A century?  Will it take a World War, a plaque, or some other disaster (earthquake anyone)?  The Plague (14% of the population of Amsterdam died) coupled with the collapse of the tulip market resulted in a 36% drop in real estate values.  Therefore I would suggest a 15% tax on foreigners, especially when we are opening the floodgates for immigration maybe won't be the catalyst for a long term reversal of our real estate bull market.

Beyond that, probably few homeowners in 2006 are worrying about how much the value of their homes will have increased by 2206 or 2406. It's 2 or 5 or 10 years down the road that matters, and neither Shiller nor Eichholtz is willing to go out on the limb of making definitive short-term predictions. The value of studying a really long term housing market would seem to be less in revealing the how and when of downturns as in underscoring their inevitability. Really bad stuff happens, and when it does, there is often a collapse in real estate.

Also an interesting article on Inflation  http://www.retirementinvestingtoday.com ... ation.html 

This shows quite a difference in inflation numbers before and after the decoupling of the USD to Gold.  After 1933 inflation has averaged 3.7% ... Your article about Holland showed over 350 years through plaques, tulip crashes, wars, invasions and more wars, housing beat inflation, and that doesn't include the global housing boom, where that old house tripled in value over 22 years (and since article is from 2006, I'm going to guess is has probably nearly tripled again since 2006).   An investment that beats inflation over 350 years ain't bad, coupled with leverage through the use of debt to magnify your gains and where inflation works to your advantage.  This sure beats socking away your money under the proverbial mattress over the long term.

this chart demonstrates a point that government will always choose to inflate debt away at the expense of savers if given the chance. They could not do this under the gold standard. 

Last point, we are headed for 8 Billion people on earth by 2025 and the lower mainland ...

The population of the Lower Mainland was up 9.2 percent from the 2006 census. This is among the highest growth rates in the continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Mainland#Population
hmmm that might have an effect on our housing market

Exactly, its pretty clear you pondered the article in detail.  In addition, only a Certified G Ball would get a property knowing it wwould take ages to increase.

Van lord wrote:

" we are headed for 8 Billion people on earth by 2025 and the lower mainland ...

The population of the Lower Mainland was up 9.2 percent from the 2006 census. This is among the highest growth rates in the continent.

It's worth noting on the chart below that the average (inflation adjusted) price of homes in the USA in 1890 was exactly the same as the average price in 2005. I'm pretty sure the USA enjoyed some population growth over that 115 year period. Of course, even though Vancouver's home prices have routinely seen big collapses, including one of up to 90%, it can never happen again because "this time it's different".

You also appear to have either forgotten or failed to understand the lessons from history which I have previously posted, so here is part of the New York Times commentary on the Eichholtz study on long-term house prices versus inflation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0

Interesting Article, thanks for that.  Were you and Pieter childhood friends??  Sorry couldn't resist!!

The excerpt below is probably a more telling summary of this particular study of ultra long term house prices.  I also think there is a bit of cherry picking when it comes to explanations of housing prices, using inflation adjusted numbers in comparison to nominal prices over certain periods.  The study shows that we are in an extremely great period of time when it comes to housing prices on a global basis.  When will that end, March 2016? A decade from now? A century?  Will it take a World War, a plaque, or some other disaster (earthquake anyone)?  The Plague (14% of the population of Amsterdam died) coupled with the collapse of the tulip market resulted in a 36% drop in real estate values.  Therefore I would suggest a 15% tax on foreigners, especially when we are opening the floodgates for immigration maybe won't be the catalyst for a long term reversal of our real estate bull market.

Beyond that, probably few homeowners in 2006 are worrying about how much the value of their homes will have increased by 2206 or 2406. It's 2 or 5 or 10 years down the road that matters, and neither Shiller nor Eichholtz is willing to go out on the limb of making definitive short-term predictions. The value of studying a really long term housing market would seem to be less in revealing the how and when of downturns as in underscoring their inevitability. Really bad stuff happens, and when it does, there is often a collapse in real estate.

Also an interesting article on Inflation  http://www.retirementinvestingtoday.com ... ation.html 

This shows quite a difference in inflation numbers before and after the decoupling of the USD to Gold.  After 1933 inflation has averaged 3.7% ... Your article about Holland showed over 350 years through plaques, tulip crashes, wars, invasions and more wars, housing beat inflation, and that doesn't include the global housing boom, where that old house tripled in value over 22 years (and since article is from 2006, I'm going to guess is has probably nearly tripled again since 2006).   An investment that beats inflation over 350 years ain't bad, coupled with leverage through the use of debt to magnify your gains and where inflation works to your advantage.  This sure beats socking away your money under the proverbial mattress over the long term.

this chart demonstrates a point that government will always choose to inflate debt away at the expense of savers if given the chance. They could not do this under the gold standard. 

Last point, we are headed for 8 Billion people on earth by 2025 and the lower mainland ...

The population of the Lower Mainland was up 9.2 percent from the 2006 census. This is among the highest growth rates in the continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Mainland#Population
hmmm that might have an effect on our housing market

Dam thats pretty exact. To make it even more funny, even the unnamed individuals said its different.   Most people aren't aware that Americans pay a lot more property and capital gains taxes.  Vancouver is a very special place.

I don't like feeding trolls but tdma just made my point when he posted this comment:

"Exactly, its pretty clear you pondered the article in detail.  In addition, only a Certified G Ball would get a property knowing it would take ages to increase."

That's why when it finally dawns on the folks who don't understand market cycles that prices are falling, the panic for the exits will start. Average prices have already been dropping but the "Benchmark" numbers have been hiding the ongoing drop. It is quite possible that the rush to the exits is already underway. Time will tell.

tdma wrote:

"Vancouver is a very special place."

Yeah, of course it is, it's "the best place on earth". 

The trick is going to be keeping everybody else thinking that.  Once they realize it's just one of many very nice small cities - look out below!