October 9, 2012

Yesterday’s Dreams, Yesterday’s Economy

The Province reports on Vancouver Canada. “Greg Jeanine is one of hundreds of Metro Vancouver property owners frustrated by futile attempts to sell their condos, townhouses and homes in a market where sales and prices have slumped. His two-bedroom condo in East Vancouver on Eton Street, priced around $300,000, has been on the market for three months. September sales were 41.6 per cent below the 10-year September average of 2,597, according to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. Sutton Centre realtor Leonardo Difrancesco said it’s ’shocking’ Jeanine can’t make the sale. ‘The condo is really aggressively priced,’ he said.”

“‘There are lots of showings,’ said Jeanine, 31, who wants to buy a larger townhome for his family. ‘People are just afraid to make a commitment to buy. They’re nervous because people in the news say pricings are going down,’ he said.”

“Pauline Kendall owns three houses and a condominium but she couldn’t get financing this summer when she tried to add to her real estate holdings. The East Vancouver resident says the federal government’s new mortgage rules have complicated financing for self-employed people such as herself and for first-time buyers. ‘I was a little bit shocked,’ says Kendall, 62, who put in an offer on a home she had her eye on in July but had to pull back when the only option was expensive refinancing of the home in which she lives.”

“Kendall sees it as the ‘federal government trying to protect us from ourselves.’ ‘It’s interesting times to have four properties in East Vancouver and not having a bank interested [in financing a purchase],’ said Kendall, who works as general contractor and as a landlord for her properties. Her homes ‘average out’ to be worth $1 million each and the condo is worth close to $500,000. ‘Now, no matter what we own, how much equity we have, we just don’t fit under the new rules,’ she said.”

The Seattle Times in Washington. “Carrie and Eric Ahlstrom decided to rent when they moved to Seattle two years ago — and who could blame them? They’d bought a condo in Chicago in early 2007, just before the crash, and gotten burned. A couple of weeks ago, however, the Ahlstroms started looking seriously for a house to buy. They had done the math and decided the time was right. ‘We wanted to feel like the housing market had reached bottom, so we wouldn’t overpay,’ says Carrie.”

“Last weekend they signed a contract to buy a four-bedroom house in Northeast Seattle’s Bryant neighborhood. How long do they plan to stay there? ‘At a minimum, five to 10 years,’ Carrie says. ‘Potentially longer.’”

“They still own the Chicago condo they bought in 2007. She and Eric, a Microsoft program manager, rented out the condo — at a loss — when they moved to Seattle. ‘We can’t get rid of it,’ says Carrie.”

The Billings Gazette in Montana. “Her name’s not on the deed, but this was Deanna McAtee’s home for three years. There are nine rock fireplaces in the log mansion, so many that both of the his-and-hers bathrooms in the master suite each have one. So, of course, does the master bedroom, where the curtains on the windows are made of leather.”

“More than 100 artisans and craftsmen were employed during its construction a decade ago. The largest and most elaborate chandelier, in the sunken great room, cost more than a lot of entire homes do – $375,000. There are five bedrooms and seven bathrooms in its 14,000 square feet of living space. That figure doesn’t include three pantries or any of the closet space that adds another 3,000. A six-car garage in the lower level – and, in case that’s not enough, another four-car garage on the main floor – help bring the total under-roof square footage to 21,000.”

“And that doesn’t count the 2,800-square-foot, three-bedroom, two-bath guest house, also made of logs, just across the creek that runs through the property’s 73 acres. ‘Honestly, it’s a lonely place with one old lady walking around in it,’ says McAtee, who was its caretaker. ‘It needs a wonderful family.’”

“McAtee says the attorney-owner of the home, who has had it for sale for more than two years, recently switched the listing to United Country for its ability to market the property worldwide. The typical potential high-end buyer, she says, will have done their homework on what is likely to serve as a second, third or even fourth home for them. The $38,000 in annual property taxes won’t faze someone who can afford a $10.5 million home, McAtee says.”

“The log mansion was built in 2002 by an Atlanta businessman and his wife, who are friends of McAtee’s. When they had to sell in 2008, McAtee, a former mortgage broker, arranged for a business associate of hers to buy it. The new owner, an Omaha, Neb., attorney, already owns multiple homes, and purchased this one as an investment, she says. ‘He hasn’t spent more than 10 to 12 days in it in four years,’ according to McAtee.”

High Country News. “The trouble with dream houses — the dream homes on the dream streets of big-city real estate tours, or tucked among canyons near resort areas like Sun Valley, Idaho — is that dreams tend to change over time.”

“There was the post-war dream of a single-family house on a single lot in the tidy green suburbs, which produced the lookalike starter homes of the ‘40s and ‘50s. Fifty years later, there were the luxurious, big-box houses overlooking the Snake River in the Lewiston, Idaho, hills, and the mega-mansions on Red Mountain outside Aspen, Colo., the culmination of individual housing dreams that morphed into something bigger, and much more extravagant.”

“I think about this when I hear that the housing market is beginning to rebound. My own notion, however, is that the housing market will never rebound to its most recent form, but instead will fumble along while builders, architects, developers, futurists and ordinary people living in the current economy figure out what the next housing dream should be. Or whether there should be one at all.”

“Though it is a long shot that may never gain wide acceptance, some are encouraging the idea that renting a house without the drag of an ownership represents freedom. This has gained in popularity because it offers families the chance to move quickly when family or job arrangements change. Just a few decades ago, in fact, renting a place was the norm for many working people.”

“What does this all mean for people living in my rural county of eastern Oregon, as well as for our larger economy? It means that many of the pricey dream houses of the past are for sale. These are the big houses used mainly for family gatherings during summer weekends or for just a couple of weeks, leaving the place empty for months with maybe a watchful caretaker employed or living in the cabin next door.”

“The consolation, it seems to me, is that some of us lucky people have chosen to live modestly in small towns that still have hardware and grocery stores, doctors, barbers and gas stations. It gives us a sense of self-sufficiency and completeness.”

“It doesn’t matter if the next generation of housing is single-family, co-op, apartment or condo-style. What we have learned is that living in suburbia, with its boxlike castles built all too close to a flammable forest, or owning a third and fourth vacation home on the shores of a remote lake, are yesterday’s dreams, yesterday’s economy.”




RSS feed

27 Comments »

Comment by Pimp Watch
2012-10-09 06:44:42

“Pauline Kendall owns three houses and a condominium but she couldn’t get financing this summer when she tried to add to her real estate holdings. The East Vancouver resident says the federal government’s new mortgage rules have complicated financing for self-employed people such as herself and for first-time buyers. ‘I was a little bit shocked,’ says Kendall, 62, who put in an offer on a home she had her eye on in July but had to pull back when the only option was expensive refinancing of the home in which she lives.”

“Kendall sees it as the ‘federal government trying to protect us from ourselves.’ ‘It’s interesting times to have four properties in East Vancouver and not having a bank interested [in financing a purchase],’ said Kendall, who works as general contractor and as a landlord for her properties. Her homes ‘average out’ to be worth $1 million each and the condo is worth close to $500,000. ‘Now, no matter what we own, how much equity we have, we just don’t fit under the new rules,’ she said.”

What does that even mean? “real estate holdings”? Let me guess….. they’re all empty, i.e she’s a flipper. It’s gone flop now. Pauline is the bagholder.

And this broad actually believes the Canadian govt wants to protect her from herself? LMAO. It was her and her govt. that led her into the mess that she will never recover from financially.

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-10-09 07:07:21

‘It’s interesting times to have four properties in East Vancouver and not having a bank interested [in financing a purchase]‘

Maybe it’s the terms she doesn’t like, not a lenders lack of interest:

‘the only option was expensive refinancing of the home in which she lives’

Back to the article:

‘although Kendall wasn’t applying for a CMHC-backed loan the rule changes have had a “trickle-down” effect to other major lenders, who are tightening their requirements for mortgages - which was the roadblock she faced. Particularly hard hit by CMHC loan qualifications are self-employed people such as landlords, says mortgage broker Garth Ellis.’

‘Rental income of $1,000 per month can pay for a mortgage worth around $200,000, according to Ellis. But to the CMHC, the value of that rent is only enough to qualify for a mortgage of about $34,000. ‘Rental income has been basically rendered useless,’ said Ellis.’

‘Prior to the changes in July, lenders were likely to look more favourably on rental income as a criteria for a loan. Now many of them are using the CMHC criteria.’

So why are lenders pulling back? There’s no weakness in lending, right?

‘Canada avoided many of the mistakes that the U.S. made in its housing market. Banking regulations and lending standards have been much tighter, and that has prevented prices from getting completely out of control.’

Then this: ‘Canada’s sub-prime mortgage industry is growing and there are $500-billion in high-risk mortgages in the Canadian housing market. That is nearly 50% of the market.’

‘Moreover, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) which insures all mortgages approved by banks, has a legal limit of $600-billion for mortgage insurance, and this limit has already been raised twice since the end of 2007.’

“If these high risk mortgages run into problems, the Canadian taxpayers are the ones on the hook for the loss of investment on what could prove to be toxic assets. In addition to the CMHC, the government also insures 90% of the portfolios of Genworth MI Capital and Canada Guarantee. When taking these corporations into account, the Canadian people have over 1T in exposure to insured mortgages.”

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/04/everything-you-need-to-know-about-canadas-housing-bubble/

Comment by In Colorado
2012-10-09 07:22:03

Then this: ‘Canada’s sub-prime mortgage industry is growing and there are $500-billion in high-risk mortgages in the Canadian housing market. That is nearly 50% of the market.’

Roh, roh, Shaggy!

50%!? Oh Canada!

2012-10-09 07:59:39

When taking these corporations into account, the Canadian people have over 1T in exposure to insured mortgages.

With a GDP of only $1.4T. That should end well.

(Incidentally, the GDP is overstated because it has all the effects of the current construction boom, etc.)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by BetterRenter
2012-10-10 02:48:42

Like with any Western country, revenue from corporate taxation has been falling. Canada’s having enough trouble funding its stellar socialized medicine. Funding a massive bank bailout in addition will break them. Stay tuned, since it’s not like they’ve made any moves otherwise BUT to need a bank bailout.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Montana
2012-10-09 09:08:14

“the federal government’s new mortgage rules have complicated financing for self-employed people such as herself ”

I never got that. Just show them your tax returns, right? Their awesome income should be right there on Schedule C.

Oh never mind.

Comment by Montana
2012-10-09 09:09:17

Oh wait, this is Canada. I guess it’s different there.

 
 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-10-09 07:30:31

‘the new owner, an Omaha, Neb., attorney, already owns multiple homes, and purchased this one as an investment, she says. ‘He hasn’t spent more than 10 to 12 days in it in four years’

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Comment by Montana
2012-10-09 09:11:23

What’s funny is the headline on the story as it appeared in the Missoulian implied that the high-end market was coming back. But all it amounted to was that Realtors were getting more inquiries, or something. LOL

 
Comment by redmondjp
2012-10-09 13:13:59

Unless you are interested in snagging that caretaker job!

One wonders how many other luxury homes are sitting empty around the country . . .

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower™
2012-10-09 08:18:32

“September sales were 41.6 per cent below the 10-year September average of 2,597, according to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver.”

Condo flippers’ worst enemy: A MSM outlet factually reporting a crash in progress.

“‘There are lots of showings,’ said Jeanine, 31, who wants to buy a larger townhome for his family. ‘People are just afraid to make a commitment to buy. They’re nervous because people in the news say pricings are going down,’ he said.”

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.

Comment by jbunniii
2012-10-09 09:23:33

pricings are going down”? Is that some kind of Canuck-speak for prices?

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower™
2012-10-09 08:24:36

“‘We wanted to feel like the housing market had reached bottom, so we wouldn’t overpay,’ says Carrie.”

How does that work? If you ‘feel’ the housing market has reached bottom, does it make prices start going up again?

Comment by Pimp Watch
2012-10-09 09:08:21

This is Exhibit A in Mass Public Delusion which we discussed yesterday. She wants to “feel” like the market has bottomed because she hasn’t the intestinal fortitude to do what is best. She’s a label chaser. Her husband? A spineless jellyfish always being swayed by whatever direction the water flows. Truly a hideous couple yet there are millions of them.

And look at the wreckage they created for themselves previously;

“They still own the Chicago condo they bought in 2007. She and Eric, a Microsoft program manager, rented out the condo — at a loss — when they moved to Seattle. ‘We can’t get rid of it,’ says Carrie.”>/i>

This is the disaster behind the thin veil of their new residence. It looks great from the outside….. just like all the others. The inside is ready to collapse. They live the life of a boozed up delusion without the booze. Again… there are millions of others just like them.

Would you trade places with these clowns?

Comment by Pimp Watch
2012-10-09 09:14:25

This is Exhibit A in Mass Public Delusion which we discussed yesterday. She wants to “feel” like the market has bottomed because she hasn’t the intestinal fortitude to do what is best. She’s a label chaser. Her husband? A spineless jellyfish always being swayed by whatever direction the water flows. Truly a hideous couple yet there are millions of them.

And look at the wreckage they created for themselves previously;

“They still own the Chicago condo they bought in 2007. She and Eric, a Microsoft program manager, rented out the condo — at a loss — when they moved to Seattle. ‘We can’t get rid of it,’ says Carrie.”

This is the disaster behind the thin veil of their new residence. It looks great from the outside….. just like all the others. The inside is ready to collapse. They live the life of a boozed up delusion without the booze. Again… there are millions of others just like them.

Would you trade places with these clowns?

(fixed)

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower™
2012-10-09 08:26:20

“The log mansion was built in 2002 by an Atlanta businessman and his wife, who are friends of McAtee’s.”

Could it be our Eddie?

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-10-09 10:57:18

If Eddie had that kind of money, why would he have wasted any time here?

Comment by Pimp Watch
2012-10-09 14:36:48

The only thing EddieTard has is a brokers license and tons of inventory for sale.

 
2012-10-09 16:56:59

There are people here with that kinda money. Not a lot but I’ve known a few. (One unfortunately passed away a few years ago.)

Ideas matter.

It’s not all p1mping and cussing out the Beard and breast-beating.

 
 
 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2012-10-09 09:07:37

I can’t wait until housing becomes housing again instead of the pathway to riches .

In my view ,people shouldn’t pay anymore than 20% of their wages toward housing. Your credit debt shouldn’t be more than 5% . I don’t think you should pay more than 7% on health care .You have to have some money toward savings monthly also .But ,inflation keeps moving the goal posts . If wages don’t keep up with inflation it makes it impossible to have a plan .

People didn’t discuss health care costs 40 years ago ,unless you were older ,because it was affordable and mostly paid by the employers .

I just don’t get how increased taxes ,increased costs ,lower wages,increased debt and less jobs are going to work ,in terms of
not being sustainable . Right now all prices should be deflating as far as I am concerned .

Comment by In Colorado
2012-10-09 11:18:26

But, but … I thought my house was supposed to “work for me”? How else can I afford that new Lexus SUV I “deserve”?

Comment by 2banana
2012-10-09 11:20:44

Liberate that Equity!

You are a fool if you don’t!

 
 
Comment by sfbubblebuyer
2012-10-09 13:43:12

I don’t know how people manage it at over 20%. Our housing costs (PITI) is about 18% of our gross, and we feel house poor. Once you take housing, taxes, childcare, 401(k) (only 6% cause we’re so strapped), utilities, and basic food budgets, we don’t have much left to ’splurge’ with. If we were childless, we could swing more, but we probably wouldn’t have bothered buying a house. And as we get more money, (raises, or refinancing to a lower rate), we just ramp up college/retirement savings because we’re already not contributing enough.

2012-10-09 16:54:45

I simply don’t understand why these numbers are bandied about in percentages of GROSS. They should be in percentages of NET.

Only NET matters.

To grossly (sic) abuse a Buffett quote, “GROSS is before taxes and other ‘bad things’ happen”. :P

Only NET matters not GROSS.

Is it below 30% of NET? I highly doubt it.

(And I consider that a high number, just for the record.)

 
Comment by BetterRenter
2012-10-10 03:06:56

sfbubblebuyer said: “Our housing costs (PITI) is about 18% of our gross”

Living in a major metropolitan area, you’re subject to a total tax rate* of 50%. So your housing cost is 36% of net income. You’re paying at least 1/3rd of your net.

Here in the “flyover”, it’s a bit easier, with 40% rates. So that would only grab 30% of your net income. It’s likely you won’t have access to a high coastal income, but that balances out with much lower housing prices.

* All taxes and fees levied at federal, state, county and municipal levels. Add ‘em up. It’s a whopper.

 
 
 
Comment by 2banana
2012-10-09 10:33:05

All,

The above articles on Canada show they are on the cliff.

Their housing bubble has popped. They just don’t realize it yet.

If oil drops, the housing bubble will fall that much faster.

All of us could write the articles we will read in the next five years.

Sellers chasing the market lower…
No one saw this coming…
I did not understand the papers I was signing…
The banks need a bailout…
Shadow industries…
I am a victim…

Comment by BetterRenter
2012-10-10 03:12:16

Occasionally I blog with Canadians, aka natives of Canuckistan. They are totally clueless. As with all bubble victims, they truly believe it’s different there in the Great White North. They believe their funding model is uncrashable… of course they never accept the hard economic truth of how the purchase price relates to incomes then relates to repayability. It’s the same delusion model that ran here in the USA, where huge purchase prices out-running incomes was never part of the consideration.

Oil money is probably much to blame.

 
 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post