Bob Truman, First Place Realty

I thought this link provided a fair assessment of what to expect.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/house-price-gains-likely-to-recede/article1942385/

I just don't get it.

Here's an example at 3.75% fixed rate:

$300,000 mortgage, 35yr amortization = 1278/month

$237,000 interest paid over life

$300,000 mortgage, 30yr amortization = 1384/month

$198,000 interest paid over life

$100/month extra to save almost $40,000 in interest over the long-term... seems like a no-brainer to me. Are we that close to the wire that reducing 5 years amortization is going to kill the market?? Come on people... seriously. If we had any sense, we all would just buy what we could afford and pay it off as fast as we could to eliminate giving it to the banks. I can't believe people are worried about this. What ever happened to saving? People buy fancy cars for $50000 and Louis Vuitton handbags for $1500 but can't afford to pay an extra $100 a month? you gotta be kidding me...

You expect people to be logical and rational? I just heard on the news that Calgarians have bought out the supplies of iodine in the city. We are in no danger whatsoever, but even if we were, iodine is the wrong substance. It's potassium iodide. Read more from CTV Calgary Iodine supplements selling out -Bob

Bob - interesting breakdown on daily sales.

While these people are making money on their homes, I thought a bit of additional context could provide some more insight:

1) how much less is the average "profit" if you factor in a typical 7% / 3.5% real estate agent commission?  

2) how many of the "profitable" homes had their last sale prior to 2005?  

3) And finally, how do we know that these people didn't invest additional capital into renovations etc?  

Thanks,

TT

All valid points, but what I was really trying to do was to show how Garth is a bigger spinmeister than any real estate board. Reading his statement would give someone a totally misleading assessment of the situation.

14 were sold post-2005, of which 6 were sold at a loss. Do you think it would have provided a more accurate picture if Garth had "added some context?"

Pointing out the obvious is not necessary. Everyone reading this knows there are fees associated with selling your property. No one knows from Garth's statement whether he was telling the truth or not.

Knowing that his followers take his words at face value, is Garth providing a helpful service to his readers by hiding the facts? A more important question is: Why does he need to hide the facts? -Bob

Bob, you're absolutely right.  And don't get me wrong, I was not trying to defend Garth.  He provides zero context and will not validate his statements.  He is afraid to be proven wrong and moderates his blog to protect his cowardly heiny.  That is why I spend almost no time on his blog and regularily visit yours and Mike's.  We can't do much for his faithful followers except hope they realize for themselves that the message is spun, the facts are not facts, and Garth never will admit he is wrong.

I was one of the poor souls that frequented Garth's site, always ready for the next post.  It only took a couple months to see the authoritarian approach he applies to his "blog dogs", that he's not interested in being questioned and that his facts are full of spin.  So I took it upon myself to find a better resource and here I am.

So with that, I thank you again Bob for creating this forum.  The less we worry or talk about Garth, the better!

Bob, I love your comment about "You expect people to be logical and rational?" .  We probably all have several friends that make investing decisions that would prove quite contrary to logical and rational.  Some if it is out of emotional attachment and some are just bad habits.  Of course sometimes it's just obvious when we have the hindsight tool too.