Toronto Loft Conversions

We know classic brick and beam lofts! From warehouses to factories to churches, Laurin and Natalie want to help you find your perfect new loft. More »

Modern Toronto Lofts

Not just converted lofts, we can help you find the latest cool and modern space. There are tons of new urban spaces across the city. More »

Unique Toronto Homes

Not just lofts, we can also help you find that perfect house. From the latest architectural marvel to a piece of Toronto\'s Victorian past, the best and most creative spaces abound. More »

Condos in Toronto

We started off selling mainly condos, helping first time buyers get a foothold in the Toronto real estate market. Now working with investors and helping empty nesters find that perfect luxury suite. More »

Toronto Real Estate

For all of your Toronto real estate needs, contact the Jeffrey Team. Laurin and Natalie are dedicated to helping you find that perfect and unique new home to call your own. More »

 

Search Results for: toronto housing market forecast 2011

Realtors blame Flaherty as slump deepens

Tara Perkins – Globe and Mail

The mar­ket for home sales is chill­ing fur­ther after months of decline – and it’s putting Finance Min­is­ter Jim Fla­herty on the hot seat.

New data show sales dete­ri­o­rat­ing in Novem­ber, and the asso­ci­a­tion that rep­re­sents Cana­dian real­tors says sales will fall, not rise, this year and next.

Mr. Fla­herty, who sought to cool the mar­ket this sum­mer by tight­en­ing mort­gage insur­ance rules, says his actions are only one part of the story and that Cana­di­ans are vol­un­tar­ily curb­ing their appetites for mort­gage debt.

The stricter rules that took effect in July included cut­ting the max­i­mum length of an insured mort­gage to 25 years from 30, a move that indus­try play­ers say knocked a num­ber of poten­tial first-time buy­ers out of the mar­ket or pushed them into lower-priced homes. In addi­tion to the rule changes, Mr. Fla­herty and Bank of Canada Gov­er­nor Mark Car­ney have been try­ing to talk down the mar­ket by warn­ing Cana­di­ans about the per­ils of tak­ing out large loans while inter­est rates are low. Their fear has been that too many bor­row­ers were tak­ing on exces­sive mort­gage debt that would be unaf­ford­able if rates were to rise. Parts of the mar­ket were get­ting frothy so, to mit­i­gate the risks of a hous­ing down­turn they’ve sought to slowly take some steam out of the mar­ket and steer it toward a soft landing.

While econ­o­mists say that so far it appears to be work­ing, a num­ber of real estate pro­fes­sion­als and orga­ni­za­tions argue that the changes went too far and pose a threat to the economy.

Com­ment: Oh now that is just silly. There is no threat to the econ­omy. It just weeds out those on the cusp, serv­ing only to make our real estate mar­ket stronger.

On Mon­day the Cana­dian Real Estate Asso­ci­a­tion reported that sales over the Mul­ti­ple List­ing Ser­vice fell 1.7% from Octo­ber to Novem­ber, with activ­ity com­ing in 11.9% lower than last November.

As a result it has cut its fore­casts for this year and next, which it had just revised down­ward in Sep­tem­ber, say­ing “lower than pro­jected third-quarter sales have down­graded the prospects for activ­ity this year in almost every province.” And the asso­ci­a­tion made it clear that, as far as it can see, there is only one rea­son for the cooling.

Com­ment: There is a direct cor­re­la­tion. Sales vol­ume fell in each of the months fol­low­ing the new mort­gage rules. In the first half of the year, each month saw a lit­tle increase over the same month on 2011. After the new rules, every­thing changed. Like some­one flipped a switch. So yeah, there is one big main rea­son for the sales drop.

Inter­est rates have remained low and the eco­nomic back­drop has remained sup­port­ive for hous­ing activ­ity, so that should leave lit­tle doubt that recent changes to mort­gage reg­u­la­tions are respon­si­ble for hav­ing cooled activ­ity,” CREA chief econ­o­mist Gre­gory Klump stated in a press release.

Com­ment: When only one thing changes…

But Mr. Fla­herty, when asked about that asser­tion dur­ing a press con­fer­ence in Meech Lake, Que., where he was meet­ing with provin­cial finance min­is­ters, said “the cause and effect is not that simple.”

Com­ment: Yes, it is.

I cer­tainly believe that the steps we took to tighten the mort­gage insur­ance rules had some effect,” he said. “The Office of the Super­in­ten­dent of Finan­cial Insti­tu­tions tight­ened guide­lines as well. And I think there’s an increas­ing aware­ness among the Cana­dian pub­lic that exces­sive debt is unwise in a time of his­tor­i­cally low inter­est rates.”

Com­ment: Yet debt lev­els are not falling.

OSFI, the nation’s bank­ing reg­u­la­tor, released mort­gage guide­lines this sum­mer that push lenders to be more cau­tious in areas such as credit checks and appraisals. It also capped the amount that an indi­vid­ual can bor­row on a home equity line of credit at 65% of the home’s value. The big banks were required to fol­low those guide­lines as of the start of November.

CREA now expects resales of exist­ing homes to come in at 456,300 units this year, down 0.5% from last year and nearly 1% below the 10-year aver­age. In Sep­tem­ber, it said it expected resales to rise by 1.9% this year to 466,900 units, a fig­ure that it had already revised down.

CREA now expects 447,400 sales next year, down 2% from this year. In Sep­tem­ber it had esti­mated 457,800 units – again, a fig­ure that it had already cut.

The con­tin­u­a­tion of mod­er­ate eco­nomic, job, and income growth will tem­per the impact of recent mort­gage rule changes, which are not expected to dampen activ­ity much more than has already been felt until inter­est rates are expected to begin ris­ing in late 2013,” the asso­ci­a­tion stated in its new forecast.

Com­ment: But ris­ing inter­est rates sig­nal a strong econ­omy, mean­ing there are jobs and money.

The slow­down is begin­ning to show up in prices, which have lost their momen­tum. The national aver­age price of houses that sold in Novem­ber was 0.8% lower than a year ago. The MLS Home Price Index, which seeks to account for changes in the type of houses sold, rose by 3.5%, its small­est increase since May, 2011.

Sales have con­tracted in eight of the past 11 months, Toronto-Dominion Bank senior econ­o­mist Sonya Gulati said in a note.

The slow­down is most notice­able in Toronto, Mon­treal and Van­cou­ver, she added, say­ing those cities “are more vul­ner­a­ble to expe­ri­ence a greater-than-average hous­ing adjustment.”

Com­ment: Van­cou­ver fell more than 30%, a rather seri­ous drop. Toronto saw sales fall only 4%.

Nation­wide, TD expects mar­ket con­di­tions to sta­bi­lize early next year “as tighter mort­gage rules loosen their grip on mar­ket trends and low inter­est rates lure home­own­ers back into the market.”

Com­ment: And those on the edge save up more to be able to get past those new mort­gage rules. This is only a tem­po­rary slump, things will pick up again in the spring.

—————————————————————————————————–
Con­tact the Jef­frey Team for more infor­ma­tion – 416−388−1960

Lau­rin & Natalie Jef­frey are Toronto Real­tors with Cen­tury 21 Regal Realty.
They did not write these arti­cles, they just repro­duce them here for peo­ple
who are inter­ested in Toronto real estate. They do not work for any builders.

—————————————————————————————————–


Incom­ing search terms
  • mark car­ney warn real estate
  • mark car­ney toronto real estate prediction
  • fla­herty com­ments 2013 on real estate market
  • For Mike Harris’s forgotten legacy, look up

    Garry Marr – Finan­cial Post

    Say hello to the man who deserves credit for all the con­do­mini­ums that have sprung up all across the city over the last decade. He’s well known to you, missed by some, still hated by oth­ers. He’s Mike Har­ris, the for­mer Pre­mier of Ontario — and the leader who removed many of the shack­les from the province’s once-tightly-controlled rental apart­ment market.

    Look around Toronto — and Ontario’s other urban cen­tres, for that mat­ter — and you see cranes every­where, build­ing con­do­mini­ums. There are still plenty of investors lined up to buy those units and rent them out, cre­at­ing a new, de facto apart­ment market.

    The siz­zle may have lately cooled from the condo sales scene: research firm Urba­na­tion Inc. reported that sales num­bers in Toronto were off 30% in the third quar­ter of this year, com­pared to the pre­vi­ous three months, with prices remain­ing flat.

    Com­ment: Yet those same num­bers were higher than the long term aver­age. Every­one for­gets that 2011 was a record year, even com­ing down from that makes 2012 the 4th best year ever.

    But still, by the time the year’s over, the Canada Mort­gage and Hous­ing Corp. fore­casts that Ontario will have 37,500 multi-family units it didn’t have before.

    Mr. Har­ris may not have cre­ated the low inter­est rates that have helped drive so many condo sales, but his rent-control reforms have made it eas­ier for home­buy­ers to make a busi­ness case for condo ownership.

    To be accu­rate, only a frac­tion of those units — about 4,800 — will be so-called purpose-built or tra­di­tional apart­ments, with the rest likely being con­dos. In the pre­vi­ous six years, the province added 128,882 apart­ments; of those, 109,214 are essen­tially con­dos. A lot of buy­ers spec­u­lat­ing on con­dos are able to do so because they know they’ll be able to recoup mar­ket rents on their invest­ment, while they wait to sell, putting loads of rental sup­ply onto the mar­ket. With­out that boom, some parts of the province would clearly still be stuck with the kind of vacancy rate we faced in the 1990s — namely, close to 0% — and a mar­ket where renters lined up for scarce suites and were forced to pay ille­gal, under-the-table “key money” to secure apartments.

    Isn’t it time Mike Har­ris got his due?

    Mr. Har­ris, who has gen­er­ally steered clear of polit­i­cal inter­views since he left office in 2002, agreed to talk to the National Post about the pres­sures that were in place in 1997 when his gov­ern­ment insti­tuted new reg­u­la­tions that allowed land­lords to free them­selves from unprof­itable reg­u­la­tory restraints in place since the mid-70s. When a ten­ant moved out, all land­lords would finally be allowed to raise rents to match pre­vail­ing mar­ket rates. On units built after 1991, Mr. Harris’s Tories erased almost all rent controls.

    The exemp­tion from rent con­trols of vacant units was a com­pro­mise solu­tion between total con­trol or total de-control,” recalls Mr. Har­ris. “It has been very suc­cess­ful at achiev­ing its first goal of allow­ing land­lords to repair exist­ing units and mov­ing them to mar­ket rents. This kept a lot of units in the rental mar­ket that oth­er­wise would have dis­ap­peared. Sec­ondly it has spurred a build­ing boom of condo units that sub­stan­tially increases the sup­ply as well.”

    He remem­bers strong pres­sure from ten­ant asso­ci­a­tions to leave con­trols alone, and from land­lord groups to elim­i­nate or wipe them out. Still, both sides agreed some­thing had to be done to improve the dete­ri­o­rat­ing rental stock, which land­lords said they couldn’t afford to do under exist­ing rent con­trol rules. The rules capped their rent to the point they could not recover cap­i­tal costs for even basic upkeep.

    Our pol­icy advi­sors felt very strongly that this new pol­icy would main­tain and enhance exist­ing sup­ply and lead to some new con­struc­tion, while pro­tect­ing exist­ing ten­ants,” said Mr. Har­ris. “We also felt that over time we would end up with enough sup­ply to have com­pet­i­tive mar­ket rents. Clearly the pol­icy, along with low inter­est rates and inten­si­fi­ca­tion poli­cies, has exceeded even our expec­ta­tions for new con­struc­tion. Given a fair oppor­tu­nity, mar­ket forces do work.”

    On some level, it’s hard to argue with Mr. Har­ris, or those who credit him, because sta­tis­tics do show a huge boom in devel­op­ment. Oth­ers will say the boom has done noth­ing for afford­able hous­ing. But Ben Myers, the vice-president of Urba­na­tion sug­gests the num­ber of peo­ple com­ing to Toronto may have actu­ally been partly dri­ven by rental avail­abil­ity: fewer con­dos might just mean fewer peo­ple mov­ing to Toronto.

    Even with the sup­ply cre­ated by the con­do­minium sec­tor, vacancy rates across Ontario were just 2.3% in April, accord­ing to CMHC. And the num­ber is actu­ally falling, despite all the new con­struc­tion. Toronto has the tight­est vacancy rate in the province at 1.5%.

    Urba­na­tion says there have been about 115,000 con­do­mini­ums apart­ments con­structed since 2003 in the Toronto area. If you take just 20% of that fig­ure — many indus­try observers esti­mate that up to 50% of con­dos end up in hands of investors, and are then rented out — it’s clear con­do­mini­ums have been a major part of the hous­ing solu­tion in the city. Being able to charge mar­ket rents has meant investors have been able to recoup some of their mort­gage, condo fees and main­te­nance costs, while they wait for their prop­erty value to appreciate.

    We’ve been build­ing 50 – 60 storey tow­ers, and with­out [the changes] maybe they would be 25–30 storey tow­ers,” says Mr. Myers, about the impact of the Har­ris reforms.

    The other key Har­ris change was to make all units con­structed after Novem­ber 1, 1991 entirely exempt from rent con­trol, other than to restrict rental rate increases to one a year.

    Ontario is now has some of the light­est rent con­trols out­side of the five provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Sco­tia and New­found­land — that have none at all.

    The fact that it’s dif­fi­cult to quan­tify the pre­cise impact of the rental con­trol changes may be one rea­son the Tories do not get more credit for the effects on the mar­ket. But the other issue is that, even today, they remain con­tro­ver­sial in some corners.

    It’s just such a sen­si­tive issue,” said one econ­o­mist who did not want to be iden­ti­fied. “It’s been a huge, huge advan­tage. The impact has been sig­nif­i­cant. It’s hard to iso­late the number.”

    Toronto devel­oper and bro­ker Brad Lamb says with­out these con­dos units, mar­ket con­di­tions would prob­a­bly be worse than they were in the 1990s. “There has been no rental stock really built for 40 years, it’s all condo,” he says. “There is an absolute short­age of sup­ply. We’d be [in trou­ble] with­out con­dos. There would be peo­ple on the street break­ing win­dows because they had no place to live. It allows for semi-affordable units.”

    That’s one pos­si­ble caveat to the condo phe­nom­e­non: crit­ics claim it does lit­tle for low income dwellers. Some would say that’s addressed by a trickle-down effect: as peo­ple in cheaper, older build­ings move on to newer con­dos, they cre­ate vacan­cies on the lower end of the market.

    Michael Shap­cott, direc­tor of hous­ing and inno­va­tion at the Welles­ley Insti­tute, a left-leaning non-profit group, notes that 87,000 house­holds are on the wait­ing list for afford­able hous­ing in Toronto. He argues that, if there were a trickle-down effect, units in older build­ings would be filled by those peo­ple. Instead when older units do open up, the rents are raised out of reach of lower income tenants.

    But Vince Bres­cia, pres­i­dent of the Fed­er­a­tion of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario, says rent con­trol actu­ally makes thing worse for low income fam­i­lies, because ten­ants are reluc­tant to move out of their apart­ments know­ing they’re being mas­sively sub­si­dized by their land­lord, keep­ing turnover low and sup­ply tight. All the new sup­ply has kept the rental mar­ket more afford­able, because every time a new unit is built, it means a fresh vacancy in the exist­ing mar­ket. “That’s where you get afford­abil­ity,” says Mr. Bres­cia. “That cre­ates afford­abil­ity at the lower end of the market.”

    Mr. Bres­cia says it’s impor­tant to rec­og­nize that the Tory rule changes also helped boost the sup­ply of purpose-built apart­ments. In the years that for­mer NDP pre­mier Bob Rae ran Ontario, fewer than 1,000 purpose-built apart­ment units were added to the mar­ket every year. That jumped to between 4,000 to 5,000 annu­ally after the Tories’ rule changes.

    There is no ques­tion it’s had an impact. We would have less purpose-built and prob­a­bly less con­dos, but it’s not black and white and you can’t put a numeric value on it,” said Mr. Bres­cia. “We would have had a lot of con­dos built any­way, but not as much. So, yeah, [Mr. Har­ris] can [take some credit].”

    Give the last word to Mr. Har­ris about whether his changes to rent con­trol have been ben­e­fi­cial to the mar­ket and he notes that even his polit­i­cal oppo­nents have evi­dently seen no rea­son to go back to the old days of tying up the rental mar­ket with rent-control rules.

    The fact that there has been no move­ment from any polit­i­cal party to change the exemp­tion over the last 10 years is a tes­ta­ment to the bal­ance that was achieved,” he says. “And clearly the main­tain­ing of sup­ply and the new con­struc­tion have allowed mar­ket forces to keep rents sub­stan­tially lower than oth­er­wise would have been the case.”

    —————————————————————————————————–
    Con­tact the Jef­frey Team for more infor­ma­tion – 416−388−1960

    Lau­rin & Natalie Jef­frey are Toronto Real­tors with Cen­tury 21 Regal Realty.
    They did not write these arti­cles, they just repro­duce them here for peo­ple
    who are inter­ested in Toronto real estate. They do not work for any builders.

    —————————————————————————————————–


    Incom­ing search terms
  • are there rent con­trols on toronto condos
  • res­i­den­tial condo rental pol­icy vs invest­ment in toronto
  • mike har­ris sell­ing out
  • Canada Housing Slump

    Flaherty’s New Mort­gage Rules A Scape­goat For A Much Big­ger Problem

    Daniel Tencer – Huff­in­g­ton Post

    This sum­mer, Prime Min­is­ter Stephen Harper and Finance Min­is­ter Jim Fla­herty took a reg­u­la­tory ham­mer to Canada’s hous­ing mar­kets, caus­ing condo sales to plum­met in Toronto, and sink­ing Van­cou­ver house prices by jaw-dropping margins.

    Com­ment: No, Van­cou­ver only dropped 0.8% accord­ing to Ter­anet. And that had noth­ing to do with mort­gage rules, they have been drop­ping by almost a third over the past cou­ple of years. And all Toronto real estate sales have slowed, by an aver­age of 14% lower in each of the 4 months fol­low­ing the new mort­gage rules. Exactly in the mid­dle of the 11% to 17% of buy­ers who would not qual­ify under the new rules, accord­ing to CAAMP. Amaz­ing how much those num­bers mesh and how exact the tim­ing of the sales drop was.

    Or so the finance and real estate indus­tries would have you believe.

    Com­ment: Or the actual data, the facts. They get in the way of so many great argu­ments, I know…

    To hear Canada’s banks, indus­try groups and even the Con­fer­ence Board tell it, the slow­down that descended on many Cana­dian hous­ing mar­kets over the sum­mer is the fault of the strict new mort­gage rules Fla­herty put into place this past June.

    Com­ment: Actu­ally the new rules came into effect in July… you didn’t even get the tim­ing right. And yet we went from 1.5% fewer sales in July to 12.5% fewer in August to 21% fewer in Sep­tem­ber. May had 11% more sales than in 2011. What changed from May to Sep­tem­ber – oh right, new mort­gage rules that dis­qual­ify up to 17% of home buy­ers. All num­bers for Toronto, I am not com­ment­ing on national figures.

    To the sur­prise of no one, fol­low­ing the intro­duc­tion of the most recent rule changes, sales activ­ity ratch­eted down,” said Gre­gory Klump, chief econ­o­mist at the Cana­dian Real Estate Asso­ci­a­tion, in announc­ing a 15.1% year-on-year decline in home sales for September.

    Com­ment: And they were down 8.9% in August, after being up up 3.3% in July. So changed almost 20% and went from ris­ing sales vol­ume to neg­a­tive sales vol­ume with new mort­gage changes right in the mid­dle. Vol­ume up 3.3% in the month of changes, down 8.9% in the month fol­low­ing. And we want to say that the new mort­gage rules were not the cause?

    The Toronto Real Estate Board chimed in: “Some house­holds have put their home pur­chase plans on hold in response to the higher cost of home own­er­ship brought about by the recent changes to mort­gage lend­ing guidelines.”

    Com­ment: Of course they did. If they can’t buy now, most peo­ple wait and save up a larger down pay­ment. Watch, spring is going to be crazy as all those who put their plans on hold come out and start buy­ing again.

    The indus­try has good rea­son to main­tain this nar­ra­tive. For one, it makes it seem like falling sales vol­umes and prices are all “part of the plan,” noth­ing to worry about. (Not true.) And it also deflects uncom­fort­able ques­tions about the role of real estate devel­op­ers, agents, banks and indus­try groups in cre­at­ing the inflated house prices Canada has seen in recent years.

    Com­ment: No one ever said it was part of any plan, only that the new mort­gage rules had an effect on sales vol­ume. And the only peo­ple who cre­ate prices are the 200,000 buy­ers and sell­ers involved in the 100,000 Toronto trans­ac­tions in 2011. Buy­ers are the ones will­ing to pay the prices, sell­ers are the ones demand­ing them. Devel­op­ers are respon­si­ble for maybe 15% of the mar­ket, so they cer­tainly can­not push prices too high. And when they sell 90% of a project, obvi­ously the 100s of buy­ers do not think the prices are inflated. They are buy­ing the units, they are pay­ing the prices. So who is to blame there? Who is to blame when 14 trendy fam­i­lies get in an all out bid­ding fist fight for a house near the lat­est Toronto Life “hot neigh­bour­hood” and bid it from $599,000 to $843,000? Is it my fault, as a real estate agent, or the fault of the buy­ers who HAD TO HAVE that house? Do you blame the seller, know­ing they have a valu­able prop­erty, squeez­ing every last penny out of it? You would too, you all know you would.

    The media are happy to go along with it, because it offers a neat and sim­ple expla­na­tion for why Canada’s decade-long hous­ing boom is com­ing to a halt. The only prob­lem is, this isn’t what’s happening.

    Com­ment: What? The media paints real estate agents as the devil, slightly below lawyers and used car sales­men. We are all in in for the money (isn’t that why we all go to work?), we are push­ing prices up, etc. How about the banks and their low rates? Oh wait, that comes indi­rectly from the Bank of Canada – do we blame them? Oh wait, low rates mean slow econ­omy, a result of the Euro woes – do we blame Greece or Spain? Wait, how about bash­ing all those ter­ri­ble immi­grants, all those hor­ri­ble peo­ple who want to escape their home coun­tries to come to Canada – they all need a place to live. Shall we blame them for want­ing to live in our won­der­ful coun­try? Let’s put the blame where it is due!

    First the back­ground: Fla­herty tight­ened the rules for mort­gages for the fourth time in as many years this past June, reduc­ing the max­i­mum length of a mort­gage insured by the CMHC to 25 years from 30, effec­tively mak­ing that the max­i­mum amor­ti­za­tion period for most Cana­di­ans who take out mort­gages. He also reduced the max­i­mum amount you can bor­row against the value of your house to 80% from 85%. These changes, like the pre­vi­ous ones, were aimed at ensur­ing that Canada’s ris­ing home prices weren’t due to irre­spon­si­ble lend­ing and borrowing.

    The be sure, this will have a cool­ing effect on the hous­ing mar­ket. There are prospec­tive home buy­ers who just can’t afford the extra $140 per month, on aver­age, that the shorter mort­gage peri­ods rep­re­sent. Some home­buy­ers have just been priced out of the mar­ket. But can that alone explain the 70-per-cent drop in condo sales in Toronto, or the nine-per-cent drop in house prices in Vancouver?

    Com­ment: Actu­ally, if we take the aver­age semi-detached in Toronto priced at $583,117 the change with 5% down on a 3.09% mort­gage is about $294, $374 on the aver­age detached house. It is cer­tainly not $140. And for those stretched to buy, an extra $100 a week is not chump change. Not if you have kids and could be spend­ing $1,500/month on day­care. And that mort­gage on the detached house is $3,817. Add in util­i­ties, prop­erty tax, car pay­ments and oh… food… and it is a lot of money per month. That extra can mean a lot. And it obvi­ously did mean a lot, as sales vol­ume fell as soon as the new rules came into effect.

    Highly unlikely. TD Bank fore­cast the impact of the mort­gage rule changes on the hous­ing mar­ket and found it would amount to a three% decrease in house prices — far less than what Van­cou­ver, for one, has already seen. Not to men­tion, we’ve had three pre­vi­ous rounds of mort­gage rule tight­en­ing since 2008, and none of them tipped the mar­ket down­ward. Clearly, some­thing else is hap­pen­ing here.

    Com­ment: No, the three pre­vi­ous rule changes did not really affect peo­ple. This one did. Pre­vi­ous changes affect for­eign investors and re-financers mainly. The amor­ti­za­tion changes from 40 years to 35 to 30 did not do too much.

    The hous­ing market’s fun­da­men­tals aren’t look­ing good. Stand­ing in the way is that pesky basic law of eco­nom­ics — sup­ply and demand. In some Cana­dian mar­kets, those two things have become entirely detached from one another.

    Com­ment: Except Toronto where we have 100,000 peo­ple mov­ing here every year with only 25,000 new hous­ing units being cre­ated. Even con­ser­v­a­tive esti­mates of 30,000 new house­holds being cre­ated (I think it is closer to 50,000) still have us shy by at 5,000 hous­ing units. Add to that divorcees need­ing two homes now, chil­dren mov­ing out of the parental home, uni­ver­sity grads, etc. and there is a steady and press­ing demand here in Toronto. That is why 170+ condo devel­op­ments can sell 80–90% so easily.

    As the CEOs of both BMO and RBC have attested, Canada’s real estate mar­ket is sim­ply over­built — par­tic­u­larly in Toronto, where condo con­struc­tion has grown so thor­oughly out of hand that there are now twice as many high-rises going up there as there are in New York City.

    Com­ment: And yet they are all being bought, with 20–25% cash down. The demand is there, that is why there is the sup­ply. There are no new rental build­ings being built, con­dos are the new rental mar­ket. And our vacancy rate is 1.4% which is incred­i­bly low – which means bid­ding wars on rentals now. I have heard of 45 peo­ple show­ing up for a mass show­ing of a sim­ple one-bedroom loft. That, my friend, is what we call demand.

    And more, much more, con­struc­tion is being planned.

    In Van­cou­ver, where res­i­den­tial con­struc­tion has been some­what more restrained than in Toronto in recent years, the supply-demand dis­con­nect is reflected in prices, which have flown so high that Van­cou­ver has nearly as many houses listed for sale over $1 mil­lion as sell in the entire United States in a month. The city’s hous­ing costs ranked as the sec­ond least afford­able in the world, after Hong Kong, in a recent survey.

    Com­ment: In the US I can buy some entire towns for less than $1 mil­lion. Have you been there recently? The land is worth­less… Check out Buf­falo or Detroit or Rochester or Gary, Indi­ana. Whole swaths of the coun­try are aban­doned and derelict because it is not even worth tear­ing the build­ings down.

    Across the coun­try, house prices are now 35% higher rel­a­tive to income than has been the long-term trend through his­tory, Bank of Canada Gov­er­nor Mark Car­ney noted ear­lier this year.

    Com­ment: But the car­ry­ing costs are way lower. The aver­age price in Toronto last month was $485,000. At today’s best rate of 2.89% with 20% down the mort­gage is $2,191. Back in Novem­ber 1981 when mort­gage rates were 18.8% and house prices were only $90,203 the mort­gage pay­ment with 20% down would have been $1,470 – in 1981 dol­lars. Adjust for infla­tion (using the Bank of Canada infla­tion cal­cu­la­tor) and that mort­gage pay­ment is actu­ally be $3,508 in 2012 dol­lars. So your price-to-income ratio is moot. It is the actual monthly cost that mat­ters and monthly mort­gage costs are at a his­tor­i­cal low. Just look at the recent RBC report.

    Sim­ply put, prices are too high. Cana­di­ans aren’t earn­ing enough to jus­tify these price lev­els. And closely linked to this is the ele­phant in the room: debt.

    Com­ment: But that fact alone does not mean any­thing. Prices are high for a lot of things: houses, dia­monds and Porsches. It does not mean they have to come down. Real estate prices are higher in New York, even higher in Lon­don and even higher in Tokyo. So what?

    It has never been cheaper to take on debt in Canada. With a global finan­cial cri­sis bust­ing out all around, the Bank of Canada dropped its base inter­est rate to one% in Jan­u­ary, 2009, and it has stayed at or below that level for nearly four years now.

    Com­ment: Debt is a whole other issue, I give you that. It is the debt used to finance vaca­tions and TVs, the kind of debt with noth­ing to show for it, that is dan­ger­ous. Hous­ing debt is good debt, you have a large and tan­gi­ble and valu­able asset. A TV is worth­less the day after you buy it and a vaca­tion is just burn­ing money. And that kind of reck­less spend­ing could cer­tainly get us all in a lot of trouble.

    Some econ­o­mists argue this is an exces­sively expan­sion­ary pol­icy that has over­heated Canada’s hous­ing mar­ket. (Plenty of oth­ers would say that, given the dam­age tak­ing place in other parts of the econ­omy, those low rates were necessary.)

    All this has had an alarm­ing effect on house­hold bal­ance sheets. StatsCan recently revised its mea­sure­ment of house­hold debt to make it more in line with inter­na­tional norms, and found the debt-to-income ratio hov­er­ing at a record 163.4%, higher than the level the U.S. had when its hous­ing mar­ket began a years-long decline half a decade ago.

    Com­ment: But we can­not com­pare the new num­bers with the old num­bers since we are using dif­fer­ent meth­ods of mea­sure­ment. When we used the same mea­sur­ing stick, our cur­rent debt was around the same level as the US. Not that it mat­ters, their sit­u­a­tion was so far dif­fer­ent from ours that we might as well be com­par­ing real estate on Mars.

    That offers more of a clue to why Canada’s hous­ing mar­ket has peaked and appears to be on a down­ward tra­jec­tory. It’s basic math­e­mat­ics writ small in the finances of house­holds across the coun­try — there’s just no more breath­ing room to bor­row more money.

    Com­ment: Huh? Your made-up down­ward trend is because we have too much debt and can’t bor­row more, even though you argue that money is too easy to bor­row? What?

    Add to that the phe­nom­e­non of for­eign investors bail­ing on con­dos, at least in Toronto, and you have a pretty per­fect storm for a hous­ing slowdown.

    Com­ment: WHAT? For­eign investors are not bail­ing on Toronto con­dos, there is NO evi­dence for that at all! That is pure spec­u­la­tion, I could call it a fab­ri­ca­tion or worse. There is no data on for­eign investors, none. About all we have is Tridel say­ing 5% of their buy­ers are not Cana­dian cit­i­zens and a mort­gage group say­ing they have 4% for­eign buy­ers on their books. Even if they all stop buy­ing tomor­row, which they won’t, it does not impact 95% of the condo mar­ket. So take your fake stats and… never mind, bet­ter to be polite.

    And, if any­thing, the adjust­ments to the mort­gage rules were too lit­tle, too late.

    What should hap­pen in a mar­ket like this is a re-balancing — or a cor­rec­tion, if you pre­fer. What­ever the ter­mi­nol­ogy, house prices have to come down rel­a­tive to incomes. Then and only then can they return to healthy, sta­ble lev­els of growth.

    Com­ment: No, they don’t. What about NYC where rents aver­age $3,400 a month? And real estate approaches $1,000/sf to start. Do New York­ers make twice as much as Toron­to­ni­ans? Nope… If inter­est rates rise, then we might see prices flat­ten­ing or drop­ping. A jump from 3% to 5% would push monthly costs up around $510 on the Toronto aver­age $485,000 prop­erty. That would cer­tainly hurt. Espe­cially when added to the $300 extra the amor­ti­za­tion drop caused. Add $800/month to the aver­age prop­erty over the course of a few years and you can cer­tainly see where some down­ward pres­sure would come from. Or, prices would sim­ply sta­bi­lize while vol­ume fell to more his­toric val­ues in the 50–70,000 annual trans­ac­tions range. Heck, for most of the  20 years before the 2000s we had around 30–60,000 trans­ac­tions a year. And prices rose in all but 4 of those years, regard­less of whether there were more or less sales than the year before. Prices have risen in 43 of the past 47 years (includ­ing 2012) even with mort­gage rates push­ing 20%, even when rates dou­bled from from 1978 to 1981 (10.67% to 21.46% in 48 months), prices still rose ($67,333 to $90,203). Prices rise, it is called infla­tion. Remem­ber Grampa telling you about movies for a nickel? Try explain­ing that to Cine­plex when they ask $19.95 to see Bat­man – I don’t think that logic will work on them. When I was a kid, choco­late bars were $0.43 with tax – now they are 2 for $2.22 + HST. Lis­ten to old Bill Cosby standup, back when he talks about is $19,000 Rolls Royce – which he bought new. Hous­ing prices may expe­ri­ence some minor ups and downs, but they will always rise over time.

    Our finance min­is­ter agrees with this.

    It’s bet­ter to have some soft­en­ing in the mar­ket rather than have sud­den move­ment,” Fla­herty said this sum­mer, talk­ing about the new mort­gage rules.

    But can “soft­en­ing” be achieved at this point? Or has the hous­ing mar­ket become so out of bal­ance that there’s sim­ply no way to avoid a hard land­ing? That, of course, is the big ques­tion these days.

    Com­ment: Only amongst the media, the pun­dits and the wags. Any­one who looks at the avail­able infor­ma­tion knows what is going on. None of us can pre­dict the future, but with enough data we can form an intel­li­gent opin­ion. Or, we can shout bad news from the rooftops, a lot of peo­ple pre­fer that option.

    Yet how­ever you slice it, this is one phe­nom­e­non that you can’t pin on last-minute reg­u­la­tory changes. So blame it on exces­sive debt. Blame it on over-enthusiastic real­tors, or home­buy­ers who have finally drawn a line in the sand on house prices.

    Com­ment: Yes, you can. I have proven it over and over through­out this piece.

    Just don’t blame it on Harper and Fla­herty. All they did was close the barn doors after the horses had fled, and help the chick­ens come home to roost.

    Com­ment: It is not a mat­ter of blame, it is a mat­ter of cause and effect. We can all see the effect and the cause is no less obvious.

    —————————————————————————————————–
    Con­tact the Jef­frey Team for more infor­ma­tion – 416−388−1960

    Lau­rin & Natalie Jef­frey are Toronto Real­tors with Cen­tury 21 Regal Realty.
    They did not write these arti­cles, they just repro­duce them here for peo­ple
    who are inter­ested in Toronto real estate. They do not work for any builders.

    —————————————————————————————————–


    Incom­ing search terms
  • non-conforming mort­gages canada 3 3%
  • rochester hous­ing slump
  • toronto home­buy­ers priced out
  • real­tors blame flarety for hous­ing slump
  • should I buy Toronto real estate 2013