|
Lexicon posted:Hell, the UK even went so far as to import Mark Carney to run the Bank of England. Guess what Britain just got into the business of doing? A treasured Canadian practice - guaranteeing mortgages! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/help-to-buy-mortgage-guarantee-launches-today To be fair, Carney had absolutely nothing to do with that policy - it's entirely down to our wonderful Tory government. For some reason, everyone who is not part of that government thinks it's a loving insane idea in a housing market that's already grossly overheated, but Dave and Gideon aren't going to let trifling distractions like that stop them.
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
etalian posted:The UK is a interesting example of how the subsidized social housing concept eventually got replaced by a US style home ownership craze thanks to Thatcher era policies.  Lexicon posted:Have they said anything approaching sentient thought about why they want to do this? I haven't ever heard anyone express why it's apparently a good idea to allow banks to extend credit with zero downside risk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
rhazes posted:I don't want the bubble to pop, but flat prices for what, 10-15 years, while inflation and simple economic growth catch up would be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It's a personal preference of course, but the decision to select space in the suburbs at the cost of horrendous daily car journeys truly baffles me. I'd always, always want to remain central for a given price level, even if that implied raising a family in an apartment. Local parks are a perfectly suitable substitute for a yard... And someone else does all the work. Having your own private outdoor space is nice. Having the freedom to extend your property if you want more space without moving is nice. Living in a quiet area is nice. Never being able to hear anything your neighbours are doing and being able to do more or less whatever you want in your own home without having to worry about disturbing the neighbours is nice. I couldn't stomach being much more than 30 minutes out of town, but a 15-30 minute drive each way is pretty tolerable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:swedish ain't easy to learn.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
The long-term British average is a little over 4x annual household income, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Not really, it's been somewhat well-known for awhile that lots of hedge funds have or have had fairly significant short positions in the Canadian housing market.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is what housing bulls think: Unless I'm misreading that article, she could sell up today and walk away with a profit of at least several hundred thousand dollars, and will retain the option of doing so until the bubble eventually bursts. Right now she's in pretty good financial health since there's no shortage of greater fools.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Well, strictly speaking the best thing to do is to get in on the bubble early, ride it until just before the burst, sell up and take your profits, rent and ride out the crash, and use the fat stacks you made on the upward swing to buy your dream home with no mortgage when the market bottoms out. Just gotta get one of them fancy future-seeing machines to find out when exactly the peak and trough are going to occur. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I don't think Dodge or Carney *ever* made comments with respect to the housing market. That has always been the domain of the idiots in parliament. The question now is, why the gently caress is Poloz talking poo poo about it? LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Hong Kong apartments are getting discounted by 20% but no one is calling it a crash. quote:The affordability ratio, which measures the proportion a homebuyer has to pay monthly on a mortgage relative to income, stands at just over 60 percent
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That's the scary thing, it seems basically every of my parents generation retirement plan is their house value. They can't afford to save for retirement because their mortgage and general living expenses are so high. If that poo poo crashes when they are needing to retire or when they need the money from their house they are hosed. "My house value" really seems to be a huge amount of people's retirement plan and it scares the poo poo out of me. For their sake and for mine since their financial mismanagement and resulting bailout is going to most likely gently caress my chances of ever seeing a penny of my government pension. There's no problem, you just pay off your mortgage and watch your house appreciate at 5%+/yr and then when you retire you sell up and retire to some quiet little hamlet with good amenities where house price inflation hasn't yet caught up with that in [metropolitan area where you used to live]. Your retirement fund is the difference between the inflated price of your old house and the uninflated price of your new house. It's pretty much foolproof. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:A five-year fixed mortgage means that the interest rate is fixed for five years? If the amortization is 25 years, what happens after five years?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:When you subsidize something, you get more demand for it than you would have gotten sans-subsidy. It's really not complicated, yet governments at all levels everywhere continue to act as though that axiom of humanity doesn't apply. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The paste eaters at time magazine are now calling 'dis a bubble. quote:7.5% of the Canadian workforce is in the construction industry, while 7% of the Canadian economy is based on residential construction  Sounds healthy, this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I don't know where I heard this, but a great analogy is a morbidly-obese dude who ignores his doctors and consumes vast quantities of McDonalds daily, yet still keeps trucking on. It's easy to be an observer and predict, very confidently, that he'll eventually be in a world of trouble - but there's no telling when. It could be a month or ten years - some of those guys are resilient as hell. Markets can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent, yadda yadda yadda
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Adopt the British solution: impose a de facto national moratorium on new house building for a few decades and then encourage rapid population growth so that housing demand rapidly outstrips supply, establishing the bubble position as a genuine new normal rather than a doomed fever dream. Works great!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Desmond posted:Hey, check out this castle in NB that costs less than most houses in Vancouver. $700k to buy, $70k/year to maintain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
w00tmonger posted:How many years are we realistically talking here before I can safely buy a house?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Except for the absurd barriers to entry (I can only sell your house for you at the pleasure of the particular real estate board in the city), the fact that they entirely control the sales data (this one is crazy - forget about Zillow Canada anytime soon), and that they are the ones generating the industry reports and are not above falsifying and/or backdating data once in a while to continually fit their "never been a better time to buy" narrative. Is there really no governmental database of housing transactions and prices in Canada?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Roncesvalles fixer-upper draws a crowd and a hefty $803,649 sale price Pffft, you say that but you simply don't get it. This guy from the comments knows what's up: quote:propertyInvestor2 hours ago Your tiny mind cannot comprehend the infallible glory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:It will be devastating because a large portion of our economy is in the housing sector. Finance jobs, labor jobs, service jobs. We have a lot more people employed in that sector than the US per capita.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Haha, 3% fixes at 95% LTV with amortization periods of 30 years+. Sounds like you got yourselves some real creditworthy borrowers out there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I think it's completely fair to look at houses like cars with 100 year lifespans. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Feb 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:So in the end after reading all of this, I'm stuck with the "live in the same house for 15+ years or you are wasting money" point and wonderign if I should just abandon the "getting a house" ship and just rent elsewhere if I'm no longer happy in my grand-parents basement. Am I reading this stuff wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
FoE posted:Maybe you guys can give me some advice. I own a 3 bedroom semi-detached in the Ottawa South Neighborhood. We bought at $212k and could probably get around $270k right now. We owe $155k on the mortgage and that's the only debt we have. We love the area, my wife has a 5 minute walk to work, and I have a 15 minute bike ride in the summer. Problem is we have a third child on the way, and he's going to want his own bedroom sometime in the next few years. How should a popping bubble change our timing on buying a new house? We aren't interested in moving too far from where we are now so I expect any price changes in either direction will hit both our house and the house we wish to be. Any sage advice?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
FoE posted:That thought had crossed my mind, but it's a lot of disruption to put little kids through. Plus all the house rentals in the area are aimed at Carleton U students Not to be a broken record here, but if your lot's big enough why not expand your existing house?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:General formula for housing costs is no more than 30% your gross (pre-tax) salary. That tends to change as your income goes up, of course, but it's a good rule to keep you from getting into trouble. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:My guess, a popping housing bubble means migrant labour goes home. City populations decrease. Rents might go down. That's not what happened in London at all (data from our office of national statistics):  That said, I don't think you can infer much about other countries' housing markets from the UK (and vice-versa) because we have an unusual attitude to housebuilding - whereas other countries build like crazy during booms, we use planning laws to prevent new building and go in for land value speculation instead. 
LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:I think that would be the "deposit", paid over time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:hooooooooly fuuuuuuuuuck Better still, he's a risk manager.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:
You will not be able to get an undergraduate degree in economics from a reputable university without covering a reasonable amount of higher mathematics. For what it's worth, the mandatory mathematical courses for a BSc in economics at LSE are mathematical methods, stats, and econometrics; you can also take a number of more advanced mathematical topics in later years if you so desire.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 01:19
|
|
That'll be a short list, post-filter.
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm totally cool with a tiny bedroom. What the hell do I do in there but sleep and get dressed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Canadians' ownership premium fetish is utterly stupid. Northern Europeans seem to manage quite nicely with being majority renters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I thought it was also the case in at least France, Switzerland the Netherlands also?  (Switzerland does also have a <50% ownership rate, but it's not part of the EU and even if you include it, its population is too small to meaningfully affect the average)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
That's a very misleading way of characterising British council housing. A lot of the stock was of quite high quality and in nice places; it isn't/wasn't all ugly towering concrete abominations full of junkies. The problem is that when Thatcher introduced her Right to Buy policy in the 80s, which gave council tenants the right to buy their council houses at a very steep discount on their market value, almost all of the nice stuff very quickly got transferred into the private sector, leaving only the worse stuff on the state's books.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:You guys are cracking me up about the glory of english council housing. On the other hand, I found this: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/the-uks-top-10-council-estates/5058819.article This discussion would probably be better suited to a new thread on historical and modern social housing around the world, but neither of those buildings/complexes are representative of the UK's (former) council houses in general. Most of the council housing stock just looks like, well, regular houses or apartment blocks. People tend to think of the big concrete projects when you talk about council housing because they're so big and visually imposing, but they were always a small part of the overall picture; most of the stock looked more like this:  Unsurprisingly, when it became available for tenants to buy at a huge discount, the stuff like ^^^ that sold with a quickness while the unmortgageable concrete monstrosities generally did not. e: for amusement value, compare the quoted market rent of £3k/mo on that listing to the £159/week that would have been charged by its former owner, the City of London corporation. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I think the chances of that are pretty low (though any Cypriot pre-2012 would probably have said the same thing).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Amos Moses posted:And that's why I'm here right. I might come off like "Hey this is my plan look" but what I'm really looking for is guidance from experienced goons who know far more than I do in this regard. 2 bedrooms in 625 square feet sounds very cramped, but at least you're not looking at a crazy income multiple there. You will probably lose money on the thing if you don't stay in it for at least several years, but you should be able to ride out a crash or period of high interest rates if you don't have any other major debts to service.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 10:23
|
|