Welcome to First Place Realty 650-2514 Sign in | Help
Balanced market is forecast by TD Bank

A TD Economics Special Report released today calls for a 5% increase in home prices in Alberta for 2008, and no major correction. Hi-lites of the report:

The main conclusion is that sales will moderate, leading to a sales-to-new listing ratio that is consistent with balanced markets and cause more moderate price growth. However, we still don’t see a major housing correction for a number of reasons.

·   First, the parallels with the U.S. experience are limited. Much of the U.S. housing excess came from an inappropriate loosening of credit conditions that did not occur in Canada. In 2007, 32% of mortgage origination was subprime loans (i.e. to high risk borrowers) compared to an estimated 5% in Canada. Loans with no documentation for income, jobs or assets became common in the United States, while such practice was rare in Canada. Interest-only mortgages became popular in the U.S., but in Canada were less than 5% of mortgage originations.

·   Second, the similarities with the last Canadian housing bubble in 1989 are also limited. Affordability in 1989 deteriorated to 39% of personal income. Much of the new home building was done without the presales of today, and this led to a significant supply overhang in 1989 that is very unlikely to occur in the current market. The pace of home price appreciation, after removing inflation, was significantly greater in the past. And, the housing fundamentals today are far superior, with lower unemployment and interest rates – although income growth was comparable.

·   Third, and this is critical, both the latest U.S. housing bubble and the Canadian bubble of 1989 were pricked when the central bank tightened monetary policy significantly, causing speculators to scramble for the doors. However, the debate at the moment in Canada is how low rates will go – not how high they will climb. The weakness in the U.S. economy is coming at a time when the high-flying Canadian dollar is keeping inflation at check. This gives the Bank scope to lower rates.

Posted: Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:08 PM by Bob Truman

Comments

No bubble here said:

This certainly illustrates the difference between the U.S. situation and Canada.

# April 10, 2008 9:44 PM

depresso said:

How can you have a "balanced market" and a 5% increase in home prices when the prices are already down YOY and the trend is clearly negative?

depresso; You'll have to ask the TD Bank economists.  They make a good case in their article. Tomorrow, someone will come out with a totally contrary opinion with good evidence to support their claims.

The trend shows that prices are up since December. Lots can happen yet this year, and I don't think anyone knows for sure. Nobody's been good at predicting the direction of the volatile Calgary real estate market. -Bob

# April 10, 2008 10:10 PM

Brock said:

Funny how these TD economic specialists don't know the most basic economic rule of supply and demand.  

# April 10, 2008 11:01 PM

vinny said:

It's definitely possible.  If you take the the average SFH price at the end of Dec2007 (444769) and mulitiply by 5% you will have 467,000.  Right now we are just a tad about that figure and dropping.  So basically this report is saying the prices will remain flat from this point on.  I could be interpreting their point incorrectly but that's how I calculate it.

# April 11, 2008 10:20 AM

Carioca Canuck said:

At the end of the day it's the banks which own the real estate...."ergo" everything is OK folks....there's nothing to see here....move along....no bubble here. We are different.

# April 11, 2008 10:22 AM

Carioca Canuck said:

Doing some math this morning. My rent is $1,125. That is $13,500 per annum. A condo the same size as mine with UG parking, located in the west end of downtown Calgary costs $475K +/-.

My rent is 3% of the cost of that condo.......a mortgage to buy it would be 6.50% +/-......and the cost of ownership, that is, the taxes, utilities, insurance and repairs adds another 1-2% on top.

Man I am bitter......!!! I am so damn mad at myself for not seeing the light, and going out there right now and doubling or tripling my cost of shelter !!! How could I have been so foolhardy........??

# April 11, 2008 11:05 AM

Bob Truman said:

Darby Brown posted this comment at the end of the previous thread, so I've brought it forward:

It is wonderful to find a blog where there is such intelligent discussion happening (both bulls and bears!)  I also frequently read the discussions on the Stockhouse forum and get soooo tired of the inane insults that pass off as debate.  And unfortunately, we cannot talk with our friends about this housing situation, because everyone we know in our age group is up to their eyeballs in debt with their ridiculous amortizations, re-fi's, etc.  Here is our situation...

My wife and I are in our mid-30's. We have been renting in Sunnyside (inner city) for 6 years, will continue to do so, and absolutely LOVE the neighbourhood.  Now, it is true that we kind of "missed the boat" on the incredible investment opportunity in Calgary from 2002 to mid-2007, but if we had jumped into Calgary real estate with our meagre $20,000 in 2002, we would have missed out on other financial opportunities.  From January 2003 to spring 2006 I traded aggressively in stocks, and then purchased a 1/2 acre waterfront lot on one of the most beautiful lakes you could imagine in Manitoba.  The rest of our money, currently, is mostly in money markets and gold.  If we wanted to buy further into real estate, we now would have between $80,000 and $115,000 for a down payment, depending on how we drew from our investments.  I have followed the real estate market closely for several years now, and I greatly appreciate the service provided by realtors such as Bob and Mike Fotiou.  These are men of integrity and will have my business if or when we decide to buy into Calgary real estate.  I don't know how many times I have been told by other realtors that "now is the time to buy", or that "it is a buyers market" or "real estate always go up" when that clearly is not (or was not) the case.  Realtors really should be more careful that they do not insult the intelligence of their potential clients.  My wife and I are constantly monitoring our financial situation and re-assessing the realities of renting (and investing elsewhere) vs. buying.  We are also students of history when it comes to researching the markets that we are about to invest in. The inescapable reality for us is that the Calgary market is over-valued, and it could take up to 12 years to come back in line with historical norms.  (Which means poor ROI in the meantime.)

Frankly, as much as we have enjoyed living in Calgary for the last 6 years,  this CURRENT real estate market would be the last place we put our money.

# April 11, 2008 1:45 PM

Lola said:

Hi Bob,and everyone else.

Understanding how inconvenient it can be, when in the process of purchasing a resale home can a buyer walk away without facing legal ramifications from sellers.

Made offer

Mortgage approved

Conditions removed

A deposit held in trust

Lola; I can't comment on any specific situation. I can say in general that a seller can sue a buyer if they walk away from a deal. -Bob

# April 11, 2008 6:15 PM

maggie vancouverreflections said:

interesting stats all over our country. in vancouver the prices are still climbing, listings exceed a year ago and sales are decreasing. however, one must consider that we have come out of the hottest sellers market i've seen in my 27 years as a realtor, so it must moderate. that doesn't mean to say the bubble is bursting, only that we're going back to a normal market, where there is a good selection for buyers and sellers must be more realistic. i was talking to an Edmonton mergers and acquistions lawyer this morning whose opinion is that more international money will be looking to canada as a safe haven to put their money, couple with Harper's bold reduction in corporate taxation...similar to the irish model. because of this companies from all around the world will be doing business in canada and there will be many jobs available because of it. i remain caustiously bullish on vancouver's market.

# April 11, 2008 10:52 PM

Worldclass said:

Darby Brown pretty much summed up what smart money is thinking right now.  If you are in no rush to get into a house then why buy when the prices are high?  I agree that too often real estate is a touchy subject where you can only talk about it online or with level-headed people who are comfortable with their position.  

All too often people in Calgary get offended when they hear something negative about real estate simply because they are mortgaged to the hilt and stressed out to the core!  With rising costs of living (land tax, food, gas, discretionary, healthcare) how are they going to "keep up with the Jones'"?  What is worse is if they ever were to lose their job... now don't get me wrong our economy currently has many jobs to offer, but I already know two people LAID OFF from their oil&gas jobs that now are in jobs that pay less.  People are getting forced to do more with less money and in the end something has got to give.  Home prices cannot post too big of a rise and must stay flat...otherwise we will have a grave social issue.

When doctors cannot afford to run offices in Calgary there is something wrong.  

# April 12, 2008 8:54 AM

George said:

Isn't it funny how the RBC Housing Report that came out a few weeks ago didn't get its own thread, but this one does. To refresh everyones memory -  they have put Alberta real estate "on watch" and are calling for increased levels of affordability as the year progresses.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/080314/alberta_housing_rbc.html?.v=1

George;  I did post a link to that story on March 29 on my blog, but I think they are using some old numbers that don't really apply anymore. I ran the numbers for Calgary, and a standard 2-storey has increased 4.4%(Jan-March over Oct-Dec). The report says it has decreased 4.3%.

Bungalows have increased 1.2%; the report says they've decreased 7.3%

Condos have decreased 1.9%; the report says they've decreased 5.3%

Here's a link to the full report straight from RBC: RBC report   I think they are using numbers from the end of December. If so, it's interesting to read this report and compare it to what really happened

What did the TD report base its findings on?  In a volatile market like Calgary's, these "official" reports are not worth much more than entertainment. 

George, I will be happy to let you pick the topic for the next thread. I barely have time to think, so it would be welcome. Write it up and send it over. -Bob

# April 12, 2008 3:26 PM

Warren said:

I had done all the number crunching and then accidentally hit the "back" button - so you may have to take my numbers on a bit of faith...

I read the TD report, and while it made a lot of good points - I thought it was too macro-orientated and didn't take into account the unique supply/demand situation that we have in Alberta.

At the bottom of the report, TD forecasts that resale unit sales will fall by 18.2% to around 58,400.  Last year Calgary's metropolitan area and Edmonton made up nearly 70% of Alberta's sales.  Both areas are down around 35% year over year, not the 18.2% that TD forecasts.  So for TD's forecast on demand to be correct, one of two things has to happen:

1.  The 30% of Alberta's sales NOT in Edmonton or the Calgary metropolitan area have to be up 20% year over year (highly unlikely).

or

2.  CMA and Edmonton sales have to be down only 10% for the remaining three  of the year.  Given how April is looking so far - also highly unlikely.

The real story of Calgary RE continues to be what it has been for almost the past year: unheard of levels of inventory.  Now this inventory is being coupled with sales levels not seen since the beginning of the decade.  We are at 5 months of inventory now and will likely end April with 6 or more.  There is simply no reason to pay asking price with this many homes for sale.  One seller may stand firm and not budge on the price, but that leaves 9,566 others who may be more flexible.  Sooner or later buyers will find the weak ones in the chain and cut them down.  I think this is already evident in the monthly stats and the nearly record low levels of homes selling for list price.

Interestingly, the TD report on page 2 has a graph of the different markets ("buyer's", "seller's" and "balanced") based on sales to new listing ratio.  March in Calgary was 36% and 41% for condos and SFH.  April so far is 32% and 31%.  Levels not seen since before 1998.

So I would agree with TD's forecast of flat to inflation prices - if the numbers they were using to come to that forecast were correct.  They are not.  Without sounding like a bull - while Calgary's economy is strong, incomes are high, blahblahblah - the next year to two (at least) should have some great bargains to be had.  

# April 12, 2008 4:43 PM

Carl said:

Bob, I think Darby Brown has paid you the ultimate compliment with

"It is wonderful to find a blog where there is such intelligent discussion happening (both bulls and bears!)"

I want to thank you for providing a site that maintains some decent standards. It's a pleasure to read here. You've raised the bar when it comes to real estate blogs.

Warren said "Sooner or later buyers will find the weak ones in the chain."

 I expect that's when we will see a small drop in prices, but "when" is the big question. Lots of those sellers are just kicking tires themselves, and don't really need to sell. Calgary real estate keeps everyone guessing.

# April 12, 2008 5:07 PM

Vinny (not Vinnie) said:

Hi Lola,

Can I ask how much of a deposit they walked away from or did they not lose it?

# April 12, 2008 5:16 PM

Tania Davies said:

the mrs and I were in XS cargo today. While she was browsing... I took a gander at a white board in the back.

last years sales for such and such day.. $3651. this years.. 2612 or something. Roughly, a 30% drop in sales at not exactly a high end retailer...

wonder how long it will be until houses take a 30% haircut

# April 12, 2008 9:53 PM

Lola said:

Vinnie, no one has walked away yet. As you may already know, am seriously considering jumping in and in light of falling market just exploring options and making sure I know what a point of no return would be in the entire process.

# April 13, 2008 10:02 AM

Warren said:

Lol.  Using basic projections with Mike's numbers (divide by 12, multiply by 30 - excluding the differences in sales for the different days of the week), by the end of April we will have roughly:

- 620 condo sales

- 1,380 SFH sales

Those numbers would be down 26% for condos and 34% for SFH.

Oh, and that pesky inventory thing just keeps chugging along.  But let's not talk about how condos passed the 3,000 mark yesterday.  Or that prices are universally down year over year.  No, that's not upbeat enough.  I've seen the light!  Average SFH prices of $950,000 by the end of this year (Dec 31st)!  That's my prediction.

Actually, my prediction is that we break 10,000 homes for sale by Saturday, April 26th - but that has no bearing on price, right?

# April 13, 2008 3:15 PM

Ether said:

My goodness.  My wife and I went driving around the SW looking at open houses today.  I have never seen so many open house signs.  We probably hit a 3rd of them in the few communities we were looking in.  I guess realtors were banking on the warm weather, wish we had in spades.  (Almost popped in your open house Bob in Altadore to say hi, but that one is a bit outside our range :)

Ether; There was low traffic(7 attendees) at the Altadore open house but it's priced at$1.26 million. We also have a "48-hr clause sale" on this house. Does that keep people away?

For those who don't know, a "clause sale" means there is an accepted offer on this home, but the buyer has to sell their home first. If a new buyer comes along, the original buyer has 48 hours to waive their condition.

Getting back to my question, would you put in an offer on a house that has a 48-hr clause sale? If the original buyer decides to waive the condition, you're out of luck.

In this market, we're seeing lots of these situations where someone wants to buy a house but is stymied because they can't sell theirs. -Bob

# April 13, 2008 3:44 PM

Vinny (not Vinnie) said:

Hi Bob,

That is a very good question.  I personally wouldn't put in an offer on a house that has the 48 hr clause.  My reasoning is that I don't think I can bargain as well as the seller might not feel the need to accept an offer in my favor.  Now I could be totally wrong but that's just how I feel.

Vinny; There is some truth to what you say. For a seller to accept an offer with a 48-hr clause, it generally has to be a pretty attractive offer. -Bob

My wife and I went to look at open houses today in Coventry Hills.  We hit probably 15 in 3 hours.  They were everywhere.  It's sure easier to look when you know you don't have the pressure to sell anymore (the owners take possession of our house this Friday).

# April 13, 2008 8:45 PM

Warren said:

For all the "Albertans have it better than anywhere else in Canada" crowd, here's an interesting read:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2008/04/13/ontario-outpaces-alberta.aspx

According to BMO economists, while Albertans are getting paid more, Ontarians are actually getting richer.  The effects of that 5%+ inflation we've had out here for the last couple of years.

Employment is higher in Alberta, but those who have a job in Ontario are reaping the benefits.

The whole BMO report is an interesting read - they release a very good weekly market summary every Friday.

# April 13, 2008 9:10 PM

Ether said:

I like to go in with as clean as an offer as possible to enhance my bargaining position as much as possible.  I will probably ask for a home inspection, due to quality concerns of builders in the city, but nothing else.

That being said, in this market, I would probably put in an offer with a home with a 48 clause sale if I really liked the property.  If nothing else, it forces the buyers hand to decide one way or the other.  The chances of the buyer moving their property within the 48 hours is fairly low, and its then up to him/her to decide how many mortgages they want to hold.

Even though we saw 2 properties that we liked yesterday, we won't put any offer in on any property until ours moves.  I'm not keen on having two mortgages.  And we've had two showings in the 9 days our house has been on the market.  Most realtors at open houses yesterday congratulated how much interest that was, considering how slow things are. -shrug-

# April 14, 2008 6:22 AM

Mike said:

April 12-13th, we did 20 open houses, NW and SW. Mainly inner-city.

What a great weekend weather-wise. WARM, sunny and man I can't wait till summer weather. Great weekend to be living in Calgary, why can't it be warm like this all the time?

2 interesting things of note this week:

Times-are-a-changin'; the Calgary ship is taking on water; last month wasn't like this!

Where was everyone (ie. buyers). We saw 3 other couples out in 20 open homes! And it's not like we were looking at very expensive homes for inner-city stuff (430k-$999, mostly in the $600k range). Even the realtors were commenting (quite openly) there was not very many people out. Some didn't get more than 3 couples through.

Desperation and deception. Realtors at the open houses were visibly getting desperate and pushy to make any offer "Any offer, We need to sell, MUST sell, offer anything, so what do you want to buy this home for, we are very motivated" were very often used lines.

Deception. What's with the Realtor code of ethics now a days? Say anything in the ad to get people to come in? Waterfront in Brentwood?, City views (does houses all around you count if your downtown?), 3 bedrooms (seriously, does a 5x8 CLOSET count?!), facing confederation park (well, the other house does and our house is 3 doors down), fully renovated (but you don't get ANY appliances, just the holes where they go?!), recently renovated (is that green/yellow shag carpet from the 60's count?), great location (except for that 20x50' hole beside you with the 60' pile of dirt LEANING against your fence and garage), we have an offer, did you want to make one (great line, never know if it's untrue but 3 houses mentioned in last week are STILL not pending)... Deception, lies, embellishments!

We did encounter 1 48-hour clause on a Lower Mount Royal $999k home. They mentioned if we wanted to put in one... ya, right. Great way to scare away ANY other buyers.

Mike

# April 14, 2008 9:57 AM

Jimmy Varga said:

Lola, they can also sue you for damages and that would be dependant on what they lost as a result of what the buyer lost in having to resell the house, if anything.

Also, you could be responsible for the sellers legal costs.

But the seller may be able to re-sell the house at a good price with no consequence to you except for the lost deposit.

# April 14, 2008 10:18 AM

Mike said:

Carioca Canuck - Doing some math this morning. My rent is $1,125. That is $13,500 per annum. A condo the same size as mine with UG parking, located in the west end of downtown Calgary costs $475K +/-.

Actually, there are some great reno'd Sunalta condos for $168k on 11/12th Ave. Walk by them all the time. Sign is still up for sale by condo corp only.

You pay 6.50% -/+ mortgage? Shop around girl: 4.55 at ING, 5 yrs, variable (we know rates will go down now): http://www.ingdirect.ca/en/landingpage/unmortgage/index.html?sid=346908;&pid=25939303;&aid=197738209;&cid=25675068

Should be easy enough to put down 20% on $168k, then you have a $134,400 mortgage, 30yr @ 4.55% (or less) = $681.58 monthly. You of course won't live there for 30 years, but it's a start.

Add the $250 condo fee (inc Util and parking), plus property tax $50 and you got $981.58 = $11,178.98 per year.

So your losing $2,500 a year, plus equity, plus credit/asset building, plus any gain in resale value. Even if you paid the same, you'd still lose all the pluses.

If you are indeed paying $1,125 for rent, you can qualify for $202,245 in a ING 5yr var, 4.55% mortgage.

Looks like you are paying too much! I'd be a bitter renter too if I was in your shoes!!

I paid $425/mo in Kensington for a large 1 bed condo with parking (plus util) a few years ago. Most expensive I paid was $725 (plus util) for a WHOLE 3 bedroom (1960's) house + garage in the inner-city in 2004. That is the problem with being a renter, you can't control the rent increases. Sure move, but you'll never find rent like the above examples again. $1,125 rent for a condo? Thats Nutz. Where has rent gone!? (shaking head) Guess it will only keep going up from here.

Mike

# April 14, 2008 10:27 AM

Bob Truman said:

A home in Elbow Park was sold today for $3,755,000.  That's the highest price paid this year. It was on the market for only 20 days. The top price in 2007 was $3,700,000.

# April 14, 2008 2:43 PM

Warren said:

Not to defend Carioca, but a quick scan of Sunalta on MLS shows that the cheapest condo in Sunalta is $189,500.  There are only four for less than $200k, and none of them have underground parking.  Their sizes range from 493 sq ft to a whopping 611 square feet.  Basically, I wouldn't wish them on my worst enemy, lol.

And none of them are in "downtown" (where Carioca has repeatedly said his condo is located).  If you're going to look at Sunalta, why not look at Scarboro or Shaganappi?

Here's a much more realistic comparison @ $284,900:

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?PropertyID=6810114

But that's a whopping 538 square feet.  Here's a much more livable example @ $354,900:

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?PropertyID=6758712

Incidentally, I have a friend in that same building with a very similar unit who is paying $1,200/month.  The condo fees alone are $444/month!!!

Carioca has made this argument numerous times before and the economics are quite sound, even if his unit may or may not be worth quite what he estimates.  For my friend; $1,200 less the condo fees and property taxes would leave you paying about $650 a month towards principle and interest.  A $355,000 mortgage @ 4.5% over 25 years would be $1,965 a month.  That's over $1,300 difference my friend would be losing every month, before the likely loss in resale value.  As I said the economics are quite sound.

By the way, is anyone actually planning to live in 5 West??  Man, there are a lot of listings, lol.

# April 14, 2008 6:50 PM

Warren said:

I've been looking a lot closer at my neighborhood lately, because I've been wondering about the whole average and median prices thing.

There are three houses for sale in my cul de sac.

1 - City Assessment:  $520,000

   Current MLS    :  $439,000

2 - City Assessment:  $503,000

   Current MLS    :  $465,000

3 - City Assessment:  $565,000

   Current MLS    :  $584,900

The first one has been on the market since last fall (and is on the third price reduction).  The second and third listings are new on the market this month.  I reference the city assessment because my neighbor sold last spring for 97% of this year's city assessment.  So while we may look at the assessments and say now that they're ridiculously high - at the tail end of last year's fever I think they were pretty accurate.

So although the prices seem to be steady, I know my neighborhood out in the 'burbs is getting hit pretty hard.  I actually think that the house I live in is probably worth less now than when I moved in (summer '06).

Incidentally, in regards to the rent/buy discussion - my house is assessed at $508,000 and I rent for $1,750.  Anyone can feel free to run the economics on that if they like.

# April 14, 2008 7:24 PM

Judy J said:

Bob said...'What did the TD report base its findings on?  In a volatile market like Calgary's, these "official" reports are not worth much more than entertainment.'

It's always amazed me at how slow these reports come out. Are these organizations so cumbersome that they can't get a report out within a week, rather than three months? By the time we see them, they're practically irrelevant.

Just another reason to thank you Bob for up-to-date stats and comments. 

# April 15, 2008 7:52 AM

Erik said:

One very important fact that many seem to overlook in their oversimplified 'supply/demand' analysis is that the basic model is intended to explain the sales of  goods (i.e. generate business revenues) to consumers.  Housing sales neither follow the model on the supply side (unless people 'need' to sell their homes to generate their ongoing business revenues, which is untrue) nor the demand side (due to things like the pressure exerted by being a basic requirement for living).  Housing may go up, it may go down, but it can not be lumped in with consumer widgets if your goal is to perform an intelligent analysis of the situation.

The good news about this is it can be used to comfort both sides of this debate (owners/investors and renters/potential buyers) with the fact that most of the information they read is knee-jerk reaction, heavily influenced by emotion rather than a frank objective analysis.  This applies to both the extreme bull and bear views.

One thing that I have pondered about the current real estate situation is how would the Calgarians of today react to the same situation that presented itself in the 1980's.  Most people rely on history being a great predictor of future events, but I wonder if the mentality of today and the availability of information would have changed the events of the recent past.  

Would the increased greed/materialism/influence of the world economy change the outcome?

Erik; Excellent thoughts. I have a friend who often pontificates about his lost opportunities. He wishes he would have bought a couple houses in the early eighties when they were selling for one dollar(and assume the mortgage). I then ask him to put himself back in time and examine all the relevant issues: Could you get a renter in those days? Could you afford to make three mortgage payments? In the depths of the crisis, who knew when we would come out of it? Would you be willing to take that risk? -Bob

# April 15, 2008 11:03 AM

Bob Truman said:

Conference Board of Canada deputy chief economist Paul Darby said extraordinarily strong commodity prices have insulated Canada's economy from the worst effects of the U.S. slowdown and weakness in Canadian manufacturing brought on by a strong Canadian dollar. That analysis was somewhat echoed in a paper released Monday by CIBC World Markets Inc.

Darby noted Canada's positive exposure to commodities, low inflation, strong consumer and government spending, robust federal and provincial government finances, firm job creation and disposable income growth, along with healthy housing start levels and general real estate market, as well as little exposure to unstable mortgage backed securities, leave it in good stead.

See full story in the Calgary Herald Canada stands out with moderate growth

# April 15, 2008 11:42 AM

John said:

"Alberta is doing even better than most people thought . . . and we expect Alberta to remain quite strong," CIBC World Markets chief economist Jeff Rubin told the Herald.

Read here : Alberta sidesteps economic anxiety

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=b5102caa-51db-453d-b5d0-4b9127ecd8c6

# April 15, 2008 12:27 PM

Mike said:

Warren said: "MLS shows that the cheapest condo in Sunalta is $189,500"

I specificly mentioned that it "Sign is still up for sale by condo corp only", thus you won't find it on the MLS. There still are other ways to sell than the MLS. And there are NO condos in Scarboro, I know, as I own a home there. If you want to rent, there are 2 places, 1 at 3,800/mo and the other at $4,900/mo.

Renting is never the answer, unless you are in a falling market. Rent 5 years for $3,800 month = $228,000.00. That's for a $700k home. Do you think a $700k home will go down $228k to $472k in 5 years in a premium location? In fact, the $3800/mo rent will increase by inflation each year, so you could be paying $4250+ in 5 years. No one can control rent, but you can control a fixed mortgage cost.

Plus, I'll never go back to being a renter (knock on wood) was raised in a rented condo thanks. My parents still rent after 40 years (same condo). Their rent is $1250/mo, in 1968 they could have purchased a home for $30k in TO. How many homes would they own now? The longer you rent, the more you lose. All the proof, sadly, is right there.

Mike

# April 15, 2008 2:53 PM

Vladimir Levin said:

I've been monitoring moderately priced (200k-300k) condo prices in a few neighbourhoods in Calgary over the last few months. You can definitely see the weaker condos dropping in price significantly. I imagine the less desirable types of properties are dropping first, but if conditions don't improve, I see that propagating upward into the higher priced properties. On the very high end, I think that's a very different market so maybe those very high end homes will keep the average prices up. It's hard to say what will happen, but I can't see prices for <500k homes going up in Calgary from here to the end of the year.

# April 15, 2008 8:08 PM

Chopper said:

In the CIBC story that John posted it says: "There almost seems to be distinct economies between Alberta and the rest of North America, really," notes Calgary Economic Development chief economist Adam Legge.

I've been saying it for a long time that Alberta is different. Nice to see some people jumping on the bandwagon!

# April 15, 2008 9:05 PM

Warren said:

Mike:

Sorry, I didn't know there are no condos in Scarboro (I don't know any of the south part of the city).  The point I was trying to express though is Carioca does not say he lives in Sunalta, he says he lives downtown.  I'm sure that rents in Sunalta are dramatically less than what Carioca pays - just like the sale prices are dramatically less.  You have to compare apples to apples, as the saying goes.

Mike wrote:

"The longer you rent, the more you lose. All the proof, sadly, is right there."

I gave the specifics of my own situation - can you please calculate how much I've lost?  Home is assessed at $508,000 and I pay $1,750/month in rent.  A mortgage at 4.5% over 25 years would be $2,811 a month + taxes + insurance + maintenance (call it $3,250 for simplicity).  That's over $30,000 in my pocket PLUS the fact that the house is worth LESS now than it was when I moved in.

There are no blanket answers that "It's always better to rent" or "It's always better to buy".  In bubbles such as this one, it is frequently better to rent.  Historically, if you're staying put in one city for a while, it has made more sense to buy.

Part of the reason I'm looking to buy is exactly what Mike has been saying - rents go up, while a fixed mortgage payment does not.  It should be mentioned though that the mortgage rates that are constantly tossed around by the bulls are variable rates - not fixed (if anyone knows where to get a fixed rate for less than 5.25%ish, please let me know - I'm in the market).  Between my rent going up, my expectation of fixed rates dropping, and prices continuing to fall -my economics have swung closer to buying making sense.  But don't fault people who have had the financial smarts to rent these past couple of years.

# April 15, 2008 10:38 PM

Ali said:

Here is the link to own the condo if you have difficulty in getting money from bank. Well, this is not subprime...

http://www.pointeofview.com/specialoffers.aspx

# April 16, 2008 7:57 AM

Mike said:

Warren said: "if anyone knows where to get a fixed rate for less than 5.25%ish, please let me know - I'm in the market"

I couldn't find a 5.25% fixed (I did find a 5.29%) but I did find for you...(this might help others too)

My Mortgage Store: 5 Year Fixed 5.29% (variable one 2.74%)

http://mymortgagestore.ca/Mortgage/default.htm

Canadian Tire:  5 Yr. Fixed 5.40%

https://www.myctfs.com/Products/Mortgages/

PC: 5 year Fixed 5.45-5.54%

http://www.pcfinancial.ca/

ING: 5 Year Fixed 5.59%

http://www.ingdirect.ca/en/mortgages/index.html

ICICI Bank: 5 Year - Closed   5.75%

http://www.icicibank.ca/personal/creditservices/mortgages.htm

CIBC: CIBC Better Than Posted Mortgage 5yr Fixed 6.00%

http://www.cibc.com/ca/rates/index.html

Seems Variable is a better deal right now with rates projected to drop again soon too.

"The longer you rent, the more you lose. All the proof, sadly, is right there."

That would be in the example of my parents renting over 40 years vs buying.

Warren Said: I gave the specifics of my own situation - can you please calculate how much I've lost?

In a dropping market, your winning. In a raising market, your not, but you know that. If you rented in 1997-2008 vs buying, what did rent really cost? If the home you are renting is assessed at $508,000 today, what will it be in 10 years? Will your rent be $1,750/month in 10 years? I'm sure if a nice 500k home was purchased 10 years ago (1998), maybe its price would be around $150k or less. Thus they could have made $350k + 10 years of rent off it.

Your right though, sometimes it's better to rent, other times buy. But who can time it accurately? Is now the time to rent or the time to buy and take advantage of the deals out there? Risk = Reward, but it can = lost time of waiting for prices to go back to what you paid too if your wrong.

Mike

# April 16, 2008 8:07 AM

vinny said:

Here you go Mike 4.75 at TD. Keep in mind rates in the short term are still heading downwards but i wouldn't count on them staying down for the whole year.

https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/mortgages/numbers.jsp

# April 16, 2008 10:02 AM

vinny said:

sorry Mike. I made a mistake on that last post.  That was a variable rate.  However after this next half percent rate cut (I think next week) you will definitely see them below 5.25 as almost every bank will give you 1.3 - 1.4 % off the posted rate...and banks are usually not as competitive as some of these guys you've listed above.  

# April 16, 2008 10:06 AM

ChooChoo said:

Could we see Calgary condo listings rise to 5,000 units this year?

# April 16, 2008 10:46 AM

Outsider said:

"If the home you are renting is assessed at $508,000 today, what will it be in 10 years? Will your rent be $1,750/month in 10 years? I'm sure if a nice 500k home was purchased 10 years ago (1998), maybe its price would be around $150k or less. Thus they could have made $350k + 10 years of rent off it."

Just interested in the Math - How much would an average person make in 1998? How much rent would you pay for a one-bed room apartment then? What was the mortgage rate in 1998?

# April 16, 2008 11:25 AM

Warren said:

Outsider:

Average 5 year mortgage rate in 1998 was between 6.73% and 7.32% according to the BoC:

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/pdf/annual_page52_page53.pdf

According to statscan, median Albertan household income in 1998 was $51,388.  In 2005, it was $71,000.  If we assume a fairly high rate of 5%/year growth since 2005, it would be around $82,000 in 2008 - a 60% growth in 10 years.

My googling skills can't find any reliable data for historical rents unfortunately.

# April 16, 2008 1:09 PM

Vinnie said:

I think the two biggest factors that will determine this year R/E market are the interest rate and the unemployment rate. From what I can see, companies are still struggling finding people to fill all their vacancies so I would assume the unemployment rate in AB would be low for the next little while. Given the state of the economy, the interest rate will have to go down to support the economy from collapsing. Manufacturing sector (a.k.a the East) is taking a beating and I don't see rosy picture there which means more influx of people moving West. It would be tough to see a major correction in Calgary based on the fundamentals.

Again, as I said before, there are alot of buyers out there and they're sitting on the fence hoping that the prices will come down.

# April 16, 2008 5:28 PM

John said:

I have been reading this blog for a while and quite enjoy it.

I have one comment regarding the buy vs. rent argument.  

It is often argued that renting can be cheaper than owning a home; ie. that a monthly rent payment can be cheaper than a mortgage payment (and other associated home ownership costs)and that the savings add up over time.

I would admit that the numbers show that renting can be cheaper than buying at certain points in time.

However, I also see statements similar to "Renting is $1000 per month cheaper and I saved about $35,000 over 3 years by renting."

Id ask the question, "What did you do with that $35,000?"  Did you save it and invest it?  Did you spend it on trips and luxury items?  Or did it just get spent?

When we bought our first home our mortgage payment was significantly larger than our last rent payment.  Our lifestyle didnt change significantly but we realized that we had been spending a lot of money on wasteful things that we could easily do without.

My point is that after 25 years, you will own your home. If your renting, you will continue to have to make monthly rent payments in order to have a place to live.  If youve been wise and invested your monthly savings (from renting vs. buying) then you could have a significant nest egg.  If you didn't, then you have to continue paying rent.  Are you going to enjoy the fact that your rent payment is less than a mortgage payment at this point?

# April 16, 2008 5:45 PM

Warren said:

Vinnie wrote:

"Again, as I said before, there are alot of buyers out there and they're sitting on the fence hoping that the prices will come down."

While I am a potential buyer waiting for prices to fall - I think that I am a minority.  At the end of the day, SFH prices are still down over $30,000 from last summer's peak.  They were down over $60,000 in December.  There was no rush of buyers.  Condo sales this month look like they're going to be slightly higher than March - even though prices are essentially flat (average) to higher (median).  I certainly agree with your logic (lower prices should enable more people to buy), but I just don't know if the numbers are supporting that.  But if the market was logical, we'd all have nothing to talk about, lol.

John:

You make an excellent point about how much of renters' "savings" are actually saved.  To be perfectly honest, the majority of renters in today's market probably can't afford to buy.

Those who can afford both, but choose to rent are probably spending some of their "savings" (it's only human nature).  That being said, it's not necessarily a bad thing - I'm a firm believer that quality of life is about more than your bank balance.

While it's hard to get an exact number (I don't seperate my savings by categories of source), I would estimate that I have saved 70% of my rental savings and spent the other 30%.  I think that I have more fiscal discipline than most people though - so I definitely agree that a lot of people would spend 100% of what they save by renting over buying.

# April 16, 2008 8:09 PM

dawson said:

John,

The financial education doesn’t come when you buy a house. You can loose that house after 4 years and be in debt for more... see our neighbors in US.

# April 16, 2008 8:55 PM

Bob Truman said:

There's a story in today's Herald that says luxury properties account for a greater portion of home sales in Calgary and surrounding area. Read the full story Downturn fails to diminish hunger for high-end homes.

The statistics in the story include acreages and towns and only go to March 31. I ran my own stats for the city of Calgary to April 16 and they show 1.74% of this year's sales have been for more than $1 million. Last year the number was 1.52%. That includes sfh and condos.

There is one town where the number of million dollar sales is astronomical. In Canmore, 11.27% of this year's sales have been for more than $1 million. Last year, the number was 8.65%. That includes sfh and condos.

# April 17, 2008 6:57 AM

Mike said:

Rent Vs. Buy.

The years we rented in Calgary is because we couldn't afford to buy (or save anything) and we were strapped for cash in 2000-03 and I even had 2 f/t jobs ($7-$7.50/hr) to bring in the rent. Ah, pre-boom times, jobs paid low and good paying jobs were hard to get. It wasn't until a better job came around late 03' ($14/hr) that we were able to save up the 10% down (that inc selling stuff). In general of the renters I know, they can't afford to even save the down payment (even if it was just $15k). Affordable doesn't mean affordable to all, unless you want homes to go down to say, $30k.

I see SFH supply is slowing down, is this normal for this time of year or did we hit the "near-high"?

MLS listing prices are indeed dropping, even if sales do not show it. I notice it everyday as I'm looking to buy now. Some realtors (or sellers) are still really out-to-lunch on asking prices thinking it's still 2006 market.

New cheapest SFH detached home in Calgary, even backs onto a park.

1981, 3bedroom, 2 story, 1087sq/ft. $239k

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=&SearchURL=%3fMode%3d0%26Page%3d1%26vs%3dResidential%26ret%3d300%26sts%3d0-0%26beds%3d0-0%26baths%3d0-0%26bt%3d1%26atsg%3d3%26aid%3d6399%252c6400%252c6401%252c6402%26MapURL%3d%253fAreaID%253d6266%26tte%3d1%26tt%3d1%252c2%26mp%3d0-300000-0%26mrt%3d0-0-4%26trt%3d2%26of%3d1%26ps%3d50%26o%3dA&Mode=0&PropertyID=6853874

...and sadly, a builder in deep water. Said "Bank forecloseure" on the listing yesterday.

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=&SearchURL=%3fMode%3d0%26Page%3d1%26vs%3dLand%26ret%3d303%26aid%3d4695%26MapURL%3d%253fAreaID%253d6399%26lsu%3d7%26mp%3d0-0-0%26mrt%3d0-0-4%26trt%3d2%26of%3d1%26ps%3d10%26o%3dA&Mode=0&PropertyID=6902008

Mike

# April 17, 2008 9:51 AM

Ether said:

I think a lot of people are waiting to buy, but only waiting for their property to sell.  I imagine that *most* that are selling are not leaving the city, although some assuredely are.  (Some may dispute this I guess, but I think its hard to considering unemployement rates and the general state of the economy).

IF that's true, then wouldn't be surprised to see a bit of a domino effect to occur in that once someone sells, that person turns around and buys right away, and the market becomes a lot more active all of a sudden.  

Maybe I am off base here, but Im a buyer simply waiting for my place to sell... and I would be surprised if there weren't a lot more like me out there.  

Ether; There are a huge number of people waiting for that first domino to fall. -Bob

# April 17, 2008 11:01 AM

vinny (not vinnie) said:

Bob, any idea what is driving this market for the high end houses?  Are people getting bargains for them or is it something else?

Vinny; People who are buying high-end homes are different from you and me. Thay have money Smile

Seriously, most of these buyers don't need big mortgages. They know what they want and are not willing to settle for less. Obviously, they have plenty of confidence in the future but if prices fall, I don't think many of them will be in danger of foreclosure.  

Yes, there are some great bargains out there, too. -Bob

# April 17, 2008 11:53 AM

Radley77 said:

I've been bearish on Calgary real estate for the past year, but am currently in the process of purchasing a place with a possession date of tommorow.  It was a property that has been on the market for a significant amount of time, with asking price reduced by $70G already, I was able to negotiate a further $65G off ask price for a total of $135G off original asking price.

The place was affordable, as in three times household income, perfect location, and a lot of features we loved.  It had a competive price per square foot compared to similar product on the market.  I think we were tracking 100+ properties at one point.

I have to say though, that the price to rent ratio is not investment-grade but satisfactory for a longterm investment horizon.

For people that are looking at the market now and still seeing it as overvalued, I'd recommend the possibility of watching for properties that fit your lifestyle needs that have been on the market for extended periods of time and then offering prices much less than the asking price.

It worked for us.

# April 17, 2008 10:31 PM

Schroedinger's Bull said:

When a decent sized 2 bedroom condo (no "spacious 542 sq ft open concept" jobbie) that I like comes onto the market within 10 minute walk from my downtown office for less than $250K, I'd probably jump in...that's a reasonably affordable 25 or 30 year am term...

I don't know what other buyers' thresholds are, but that's about where I sit...part of me really thinks condos are going to be in trouble this year and next though, so I may revise that down depending on how things go this year.  

Anybody know where to find current vacancy rates for particular buildings (i.e. Sasso/Chocolate/etc)?  I walked by Sasso tonight and I think I counted about 10 barbeques and 16 lights on in total...that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I can see Chocolate from my balcony, and I see the same 6 lights on every night...it is possible that there are only 6 occupied condos on the east side of Chocolate?

And just for general interest...250K was also my upper limit in 2006...of course, back then I was competing with Many offers (one s**thole had 90 offers!!) and an average 40K above list...so times have definitely changed for the better.  I've got my downpayment sitting in a GIC waiting for an affordable place...

I wonder how many others are like me?

# April 17, 2008 10:32 PM

Bob Truman said:

The headline in the business section of the Herald today: Calgary home sales plummet.

The reporter for the above story quotes statistics from my website which are now out-of-date. The new numbers for sales in April are:

Single family homes: Sales are down 29% compared to last year(story says 30%)

Condos: Sales are down 24% compared to last year(story says 28%)

# April 18, 2008 6:54 AM

Bob Truman said:

It's interesting to note that last year from March to April, sales declined by 11.3%.

This year, to April 17, sales are up over March by 6.7%.

# April 18, 2008 7:08 AM

Vinny (not Vinnie) said:

Congrats Radley.  That's basically what we intend to do as well.  We're not necessarily waiting for a blanket drop but more for an individual house to our liking to be in a motivated situation like the one you just bought.  Of course, if the overall market continues on like this it should make it even easier to do.

We currently see several out there but just haven't had time to look at them. (not to that extent)

Shroed, I agree with you on the condo market. Although we're not looking at condos with 9000 in them currently being built I can't see that helping the supply and demand curve favourably.

# April 18, 2008 8:44 AM

Vladimir Levin said:

Radley, would you be willing to share the list price with us (understandable if not)? Another question I'd be interested in: How did your purchase price compare with sales of similar houses in the neighbourhood? Finally, was there any reason besides the slow market that this place had been up for sale for such a long time?

# April 18, 2008 9:23 AM

Carol said:

Re: the article "Downturn fails to diminish hunger for high-end homes".  This is a perfect example of interpreting statistics inappropriately.  The interpretation provided is "the % of luxury home sales compared with overall sales has increased in every category".... yet when you look at the numbers - the (rounded) values are 2.3% vs. 2.2% for the SFH category (which is likely the largest in crude numbers).  Any statistician will tell you that a difference that small is probably meaningless, and produced by chance fluctuations alone.  But it depends on the crude numbers in the denominator.  I would be happy to do the calculation for any of the categories if I could get my hands on the crude numbers that these percentages are based on.  The average person reading this headline will erroneously conclude that there is large demand for homes >1M in Calgary right now.  We have been watching listings, including in that range and what we see is a lot of properties, even in the most desirable neighborhoods sitting and sitting.  Many are sitting because they are priced too high with listing prices seemingly based on last summer's peaks, but some others are dropping by 100, even 150k and still not selling.  A few that we have seen with more realistic pricing have sold a bit more quickly.  But when we go to showings/viewings a lot of realtors are really pleading for offers and some are expressing frustration that sellers haven't realized that they have to price more realistically now.  Another observation is that many of these sellers are baby boomers leaving for retirement homes in Victoria, Vancouver, Canmore etc. - so I think its a demographic thing.  The cohort slightly younger than the boomers is much smaller in sheer numbers (plus had a harder time economically and with jobs in their working lifetime) so there just aren't enough of them with the  level of income/assets to pick up these pricey properties, at least until we have another increase in in-migration of professionals/executives.

# April 18, 2008 11:14 AM

Chopper said:

Radley77 said, "I've been bearish on Calgary real estate for the past year, but am currently in the process of purchasing a place with a possession date of tommorow."

When even hard-core bears like Radley start buying homes, you know there must be a lot of others on the cusp. Congratulations,Radley!

# April 18, 2008 12:19 PM

Judy J said:

Bob...how much are sales down compared to the long term avg for April?

Judy; Comparing sales for April 1-18 to the average of the past 7 years, single family home sales are down 14% and condo sales are down 3%. -Bob

# April 18, 2008 12:45 PM

newguy said:

so , what is next.. compare this year to three years ago?? when does it end?? the market is taking a downturn and it is about time.. affordability is the main reason, if people can't afford it, they are not gonna buy it. simple.. prices have to come down to earth.. congrats radley, trust me , anyone wanting to buy these days has the ball in their court.. don't be afraid people, offer a huge cut on the price and people will sell.. it is about time the media is paying attention to the real estate situation..  Bob, if the spring fever hasn't hit yet, what do you think the summer will bring? In the real estate market is summer also a good time to buy? do usually people tend to buy in certain seasons more than others??

# April 19, 2008 1:06 AM

Justice said:

"Radley77 said, "I've been bearish on Calgary real estate for the past year, but am currently in the process of purchasing a place with a possession date of tommorow."

When even hard-core bears like Radley start buying homes, you know there must be a lot of others on the cusp. Congratulations,Radley!"

Chopper,

With all due respect you have to adequately read in between the lines to understand what Radley is trying to say.

By low balling the seller as Radley did, he brought the "crash" earlier to the seller. A reduction in price by 135k is a substantial loss. I'm assuming Radley and his partner purchased a sfh that cost anywhere from 250k-400k. That would translate loosely to a 25% loss from the highest range. That level of devaluation is what is happening in the US currently.

And for a seller to take that type of loss indicates just how desperate some of the sellers are in this market - which indicates the condition it is in. It's purely a buyer's market now.

Now just think of the after effects of Radley's deal. Surrounding properties who have been struggling to sell may have to reduce their list prices to make a sale.

What Radley did was beat crash curve to the bottom. But no one knows where the bottom will truly be.  

Radley is intelligent and wouldn't have purchased if the ecnomics didn't make sense.

He never caved in. The seller did.

Congrats Radley!

# April 19, 2008 1:27 AM

worldclass said:

Radley has done a lot of buyers a favour, especially for those who want to buy in the same neighborhood.  In other markets that contract in price, throughout history, we notice an initial fall...a slight lull that looks like a recovery...and then constant year-over-year price reduction.  Radley did indeed beat the curve and got a price now for what could be the norm in sept-dec 2008.

Will Calgary fall back to pre-2006 levels?  Or will we just fall to 2006 levels (post summer boom)?  Is a large reduction on the scale of what has happened in the hottest markets in the USA possible here in Calgary (where we were arguably the hottest market during our boom)?  What do you all think?

# April 19, 2008 7:52 AM

Chopper said:

Justice:

It sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of something. Actually, we can all read and form our own opinions. You've made a valiant effort to put a good face on an embarrassing situation for your fellow bubble bloggers. I find it ineteresting that Radley chose to announce this transaction on Bob's blog. You must be devastated.

# April 19, 2008 8:12 AM

Janice said:

Worldclass...Radley only did a favor to other buyers if the sale was recorded on MLS. Maybe it was a FSBO? And what was the original price? did you consider that it may have been overpriced by $100,000 to begin with. There's lots we don't know.

# April 19, 2008 8:21 AM

Warren said:

Chopper:

I read Justice's post this morning and thought to myself "What a well written piece."  A reduction in price by 135k (on 99% of the homes sold this year) IS a very substantial amount.  I was assuming the property was more in the $600k range - making it about a 20% decline, but I agreed with Justice, impressive none the less (congrats Radley).  As he put it "By low balling the seller as Radley did, he brought the "crash" earlier to the seller."  Seems to be fairly inescapable logic to me - why else would the seller have accepted the offer??

Anyways, after such a well written and intelligent post, you respond with...absolutely nothing of substance.  Congratulations.  Do you ever post by any other names?  Something starting with an "H"...?

Anyways, for those keeping track, after that sneaky fake of Wednesday's data - listings have surged ahead again to 9,830 in Calgary (I'm going to miss my guess of 10k by today, but it shouldn't take longer than Tuesday or Wednesday).  Sales have been stronger than I expected they would be, but pending sales have dropped down to a level not seen in a couple months (so maybe it will balance out by the end of the month).  A lot of million dollar plus homes (and condos?!) skewing the average price hard, while the medians are down 5% for condos and 3% for homes.  I'm already looking forward to the CREB's April summary - will it still be "a great time for buyers to buy a home"?

One interesting thing I came across in the numbers - total SFH listings are increasing faster than vacant SFH listings (13.2% vs 10.1% so far this month).  But vacant Condo listings are increasing slightly faster than total Condo listings (11.8% vs 11.1% so far this month).  Although I'm pretty anti-condo to start with, I really wouldn't want to be getting into a condo any time soon - I think there are some dark clouds headed for the condo market.

# April 19, 2008 11:40 AM

Warren said:

Bob wrote (way back in this thread):

"George, I will be happy to let you pick the topic for the next thread."

I'm guessing George never got back to you (since we have no new thread), so I thought I might give it a whirl.

Price Reductions - To Advertise or Not?

On March 25, Bob wrote in What's New "We're averaging 126 price reductions per day over the past week. That's as high as they were back in October when we had approximately the same inventory."

I can only assume that this trend has continued or even intensified in the month since that post (Bob would have more accurate data on this).  I've been watching the listings for a couple of months (as I'm thinking of buying this fall) and I bookmark ones that catch my eye with the list price at that time in the bookmark title.  There seems to be three schools of thought on reducing the list price:

1.  Full disclosure - Listing states that "Price reduced by $xx,xxx!"

2.  Partial disclosure - Listing states that "Price Reduced!" but no mention of by how much.

3.  No disclosure - Even though list price has went down, no mention is made in the listing.

What are people's thoughts on this?  Does advertising a list price imply weakness and desperation?  Or does advertising a price reduction establish a more solid floor to negotiating (ie: "I've already reduced the price by $xx,xxx - I can't go any lower).

Do price reductions even matter?  If a listing is overpriced by $50,000 and the price is reduced $30,000, will buyers take notice or just disregard it as still overpriced?

During the height of the boom, I heard many people argue that sellers were intentionally listing low in order to encourage bidding wars (and ultimately get a higher price than they could have with an accurate list price).  CBC National had a story last night of a flipper in Toronto who has listed his house at $1 for that exact reason - to generate interest and spark a bidding war.  Has the inverse now happened, with sellers listing high and then reducing in the hopes of sparking a frenzy?  "Price reduced $50,000!!"  does catch the eye...

Or is it all just a gimmick?  I've seen listings proudly advertise "Price Reduced!!" when it was dropped by less than 1%.  Perhaps the only true price reductions are the unadvertised ones?

What are people's thoughts?

Warren; I will post this as the next topic. It will be up momentarily. -Bob

# April 19, 2008 12:06 PM

Carol said:

Bob, in your 'what's new' piece you provide the average and median prices and then note that "prices continue to rise".  This is naturally interpreted by most people as the price on any given home has gone up and esp. by sellers as the price on _their_ home has gone up.  I believe this misinterpretation has lead many sellers to overprice when they list - which is exacerbating the supply problem and increasing days on market.  In reality price reductions are happening on many many properties - we've seen or watched on-line about 100 properties in the last 3 months and every one of them has either a) stayed the same or b) reduced its price.  The probable reason for this apparent paradox is that the _mix_ of homes selling is changing - with more move-up activity and a greater proportion of higher priced homes.  It would be very easy to test this hypothesis by adjusting the distribution for the mix of housing to make comparisons over time - these statistical tools have been available for the last century.  I can't believe that all that CREB and CMHC can manage are statistics that a 10 year old can compute.    

# April 19, 2008 4:13 PM

worldclass said:

Whoa whoa whoa.... lets not get into minor mudslinging here Chopper... Radley did not embarrass the bubble bloggers, they embarrass themselves enough with the weirdness of the uber-bulls (pierre, stormy, etc) and uber-bears (squid, jim_s,  etc.).  Lets not go back to the "our blog vs their blog" mentality of the past.  Lets not get into the "hahaha, bears suck because one of them bought so there".  We are all buyers, bulls and bears, in the end.  Just that some choose to buy at higher prices due to their own situations and assessments.

Maybe Radley chose to post here because of the same reasons others only post here... there is sanity and very little mudslinging.  Good conversation can be had.

Janice, I agree with you that Radley could have gotten a worse deal than he thought he got as the original list price may have been outrageous.   HOWEVER, judging by Radley's posts, he sounds like a guy who would do quite a bit of research into similar houses in the same neighborhood.  Incidentally, he would have known if the original price was unrealistic and thus would not have thought of the actual sale price as too good of a deal to pass up.  I give him more credit than some others on here obviously.

I must say folks, the market outlook for further price appreciation is grim.  We mustn't kid ourselves any longer, the boom is over and more "balance" is here.   Just because the boom is over there is no proof that a crash will take place however.   One of the blogs most prominent has been hurt by this downturn already, remember Al Bundy?  I hope he gets posting again because last I remember he bought some condos in Edmonton during what was the peak... market is not good for condos now.  They are the first to experience downward price pressure there.  We feel for ya Al.

I just call it as it is.  I used to be a bull, now I'm a bear, when the market turns again a few years from now I may be a bull again.  You cannot be a perma-bull or perma-bear...you must move with the market or you'll be left holding the bag.

# April 19, 2008 6:04 PM

Bob Truman said:

There are too many "unknowns" to make any accurate judgments about Radley's purchase. It would be enlightening if he would give us some more information. If it was an MLS listing, we could do some comparisons.

# April 20, 2008 7:51 AM

Vinny (not vinnie) said:

Hi Bob/Radley,

Perhaps this house of with the 135k reduction could be our specimen for the arm chair realtor case but of course that would only be if Radley is comfortable with it.

However, for a guy that does as much research as him I also don't think he would have picked a house that was overpriced by 100k and claim he got a great deal.

# April 20, 2008 11:45 AM

Matthew said:

Anyone who's actually out there pounding the pavement and has been for a couple of years knows that the suburbs are taking a beating right now.  The citywide stats don't capture it because people are spending the same money and getting a bigger house in a better neighborhood.

If you don't know what houses maxed out at in your neighborhood of interest as a comparison, the best source is the city assessments (just type in the address) which were based on market value in July 2007, right at the price peak.  Not perfect, but not that far off either.  I challenge everyone to find one house that's competitively priced in the market right now that has a list price any higher than 5% below assessed.

From my current experience, we're at -5% to -10% right now.  The best deals in the past week have broken through to as much as -18% (and sold instantly at this point)... there will be more to come.  The additional weakness due to the 10,000 condo's currently under construction esssentially guarantees it...condos are