I find this utterly amazing. Derk Holt, economist with ScotiaBank and pretty much the most consistent (recently anyway) "bubble talking expert" in Canada is reaching in this article today.
His premise: if the government reins in mortgage rules to slow the rapidly inflating bubble and the Competition Bureau wins versus the CREA (his argument being real estate transaction commissions will drop sharply and quickly, which I disagree with) you essentially wipe out the effects of one move with the other.
Really Derek? Isn't that just a bit of a reach of logic? I get that ultimately the buyer pays all of the commissions because without the buyer you have no money changing hands, but do you really believe that the seller "paying" less commission will lead to the buyer bidding higher for the same property? Maybe in the long term as more liquidity is created in the marketplace, but this certainly won't occur in the next 18 to 24 months--which is all the time it will take to deflate the bubble with mortgage policy changes that are very unlikely to occur anyway. Remember, we don't care about the secondary and tertiary buyers in the market, it's always the new entrant that drives the bottom of the pyramid, and this move doesn't put more money in the pockets of first time buyers.
So why would Derek Holt be so quick to rush to the defense of the CREA? Head scratcher that one, eh? (sarcasm)