Monday, June 4, 2012

Another look at affordability

In the last post, in an effort to understand how prices could look like a bubble going up but then flatten out, I started to look at monthly payments as a first indication of affordability.  Sure enough, when looking at monthly payments we see a symmetrical steep decline after a steep rise.

Of course payments are only half the story when looking at affordability.  If incomes have risen along with mortgage payments, then we don't necessarily have a problem.  So let's dig a little deeper.  

First, the income figures.  I'm using average total family income for all family types (CANSIM 202-0401) which goes from 1976 to 2009.  There is data for only Victoria, but I'm using the BC numbers because the Victoria figures are often based on less than 200 responses, and this makes the average too volatile year to year.  They're not wildly different in any case.

For the years 2010 and 2011, I'm using the year over year change in average weekly earnings (CANSIM 281-0028) to estimate the growth in income, which has basically matched inflation.

Average mortgage lending rates are from the Bank of Canada.  Last time I assumed a constant 25 year amortization, but I wanted to take into account that lending restrictions have been eased over the years, and people are lowering their monthly payments by taking longer amortizations.  The best data on this comes from CAAMP, who list the average original amortization period by year of purchase in their Fall 2011 report.  Data is only grouped into amortization ranges, but based on that I estimate that average amortizations increased about 12% due to CMHC loosening their restrictions.  I can't find any data on average down payments, so I've assumed a fixed 20% (which is very generous, considering Genworth estimates only half that for their mortgage portfolio).

With those assumptions, let's take a look at affordability in terms of the percentage of pre-tax income an average BC family requires to purchase an average Victoria single family home.

Overall, it really doesn't look too concerning.  By crashing interest rates, the government has improved affordability quite dramatically from the high of 2008.  The levels don't really seem to be out of line with the levels of the last 35 years.  Based on that, what could happen going forward?  Let's assume that incomes will continue to match inflation, and interest rates will stay at their current levels.

Possible affordability under scenario 3.

  1. Prices start increasing again.  Interest rates are low, it's a good time to buy, affordability figures aren't that scary, the tech sector is booming, etc.  While anything is possible, that would make this correction quite unusual by being both shorter and shallower than those that have come before.
  2. Prices remain flat like a halibut.  I can certainly see the logic behind this argument given the current affordability levels, but I think it would again be a break from previous corrections.  Why would we stay at this poorer level of affordability instead of continuing to decline?
  3. Affordability corrects back to the levels of the late 90s (payments at around ~33% of income).  The "back to where we started" option.  Possible, but I like the next option better.
  4. Affordability corrects but not quite to the levels of the previous low.  There are many solid arguments to be made that as a city grows and densifies, single family detached homes will become relatively more and more expensive compared to local incomes as more people make do with townhouses and condos.  A rough look at the levels of the last 3 lows would indicate that the next one might occur at 36%.   I look at this as a best realistic case for house prices.  We haven't taken into account that down payments have shrunk substantially, and if interest rates go up all bets are off.  However in the absence of an external trigger, I think this scenario is more or less defensible based on our history.
  5. Crash.  Many things have the potential to trigger a larger correction going forward.  Interest rates, CMHC restrictions, implosion of any number of large world economies, megaquake, etc.  This is always a risk, and one could argue that the possible triggers are piling up every day.  
What would scenario 4 mean for house prices?  Something like this:


Overall it would mean a peak to trough correction of about 15% in real prices.    This is more or less the flat landing scenario.  As soon as interest rates rise even moderately, the picture changes (a 1.5% rise in rates by 2015 in the above graph would knock another $80k off prices).

Thoughts?

241 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 241 of 241
patriotz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
patriotz said...

The price drop has been predicted for at least the past five years. Hard thing to time.

Prices in Victoria have been falling for the last two years. Wake up and smell the coffee, or better, have a good strong one.

Unknown said...

patriotz -

I may not undertand you correctly but if it costs $2000/month to rent a home and $2000/month to own a home are you not ahead by owning unless prices drop and you must sell or you must refinance at a much higher rate?

Your mortgage payment is partly principal payment so the actual cost is less than $2000/month - it is $1300/month ($700/month principal repayment).

If you have rental income in your home of $1000 after tax ect, month your out of pocket costs are $300/month. That saves you $1700/month over renting - $1000 in direct monthly savings that you could put into a different investment.

We have not even factored in the tax exempt capital gains for any gains to your principal residence.

For me, I plan to own for 10 years and have a 10 year mortgage. Not sure how any other investment could match a primary residence with a suite if you are prepared to stay put.

You have the power of leverage, the ability to add income through a suite and significant tax advantages. In addition, you would usually have to otherwise pay the mortgage amount in rent.

The only other factor is the lost opportunity costs on your down payment, depending how big it is. Even with this factored in I don't see how another type of investment could match the return if you control for risk by choosing a home considering the big ticket maintenance issues and area, low rates, long term on the mortgage, and rental suite.

Unknown said...

I have been following the market in and near Oak Bay pretty closely for the past two years.

There are definitely more properties on the market. Prices; however, are not down much. Really desirable properties (south facing back yard, suite, well maintained, renovated) don't seem to be down at all from two years ago.

I'm not sure that the same can be said for other areas though. I understand that Sooke is down somewhat and I know that recreational property is down.

patriotz said...

I may not undertand you correctly but if it costs $2000/month to rent a home and $2000/month to own a home

Then you are breaking even. And by cost I mean economic cost - excluding principal payments but including opportunity cost (which equals the mortgage rate) on all principal payments including the down payment.

We have not even factored in the tax exempt capital gains for any gains to your principal residence.

You don't know what you will be able to sell the house for X years out so you can't make any assumptions about gains. Just rental value and expenses. And making assumptions about interest rates can be tricky.

For me, I plan to own for 10 years and have a 10 year mortgage.

And then what? What happens to the numbers if mortgage rates have gone up to, say, 6%?

Not sure how any other investment could match a primary residence with a suite if you are prepared to stay put.

If prices fall, buying later beats buying now. Staying put doesn't affect that. The guy who buys lower is always ahead.

As I've said before, if renting doesn't work for you, buy versus rent will have different parameters than for me, as owning gets you something you can't get from renting. But renting works for me so it's just about the money.

Leo S said...

I would expect that if low interest rates continue there will not be a significant drop in prices, nor a significant gain, in the coming year.

Sounds about right. If affordability symmetrically returns to 36% of income (scenario 4) by 2015, then the nominal price for an average SFH will be $580,000. A 17% correction in real prices, but only 7.5% in nominal prices.

Unknown said...

Don't have time right now to write it all out but, if you wait two years, prices drop 20% and your interest rate is 6% and you put 20% down in both scenarios - you will be better off in ten years by approx $30,000 to have waited for the drop.

Of course, you are overall better off by $225 000 (now) - $255,000 (if prices drop in two years 20% and interest rates are 6% and you buy the same place) to have bought even if prices are no higher than they are today in ten years.

Of course, the 20% drop and 6% mortgage rate in two years are just speculation.

Only thing I'm sure about is 3.84 at 10 years at today's price.

For $225,000 in principal payments the known variables are worth it to me - even if there is no appreciation. Heck, I'd be better off even if there was further depreciation cause $225,000 gives a lot of room. Just think if there was tax free appreciation!

The person who waits is not always better off because interest rates and price are not a sure bet as to how they will go. If you have a big down payment ie. more than 50% - might be better to wait.

Mindset said...

Only thing I'm sure about is 3.84 at 10 years at today's price

Money is cheap right now and a 10 year lock-in at todays rates is unheard of. On the flip-side, 10 years is an extremely long commitment for most. It's hard to see that far out in life.

A few questions: How much does it cost to break out of the mortgage? Can you get equity back out? Is this in a corporation to protect you personally?

With a 10 year lock-in, I'm guessing it is also important to consider the odds of:
- A major repair over 10 years?
- Getting bad renters?
- Having vacant periods?
- Having to sell?
- The hours of work involved in managing the property and what you are paying youself for this work?

For an investment property in a down turning market (depreciating values), I have a hard time seeing how this is different than using 0%5-year financing to lease vehicles to rent out. Can you imagine only breaking even on a car you leased and were renting out? Common sense says payments better build a cash reserve pretty quickly in case something goes wrong (i.e. there had better be some significant positive cash flow).

Renting a car costs a heck of a lot more per month than buying one, and there are a number of good reasons for that. Why is it that leasing a car for $400/m and renting it for $400/m is not something any of us would do?

Not sure how RE is different when it is no longer appreciating in value. Either the asset values are sure to go up, or the cash flow is healthy on the plus side. Both would be nice.

From what I can tell; renting a propery is hard on resale values, rental payments don't cover financing and operational costs, and the market is trending downwards after the largest run-up in our history.

patriotz said...

if you wait two years, prices drop 20% and your interest rate is 6% and you put 20% down in both scenarios

That's a faulty assumption, because if you have, say, $100K in the bank for a down payment that's 20% on $500K but 25% on $400K.

Leo S said...

Was chatting to a mortgage advisor the other day and we got to talking about lending yourself a mortgage out of your RRSP. He figured that the magic number is about $100k or higher in RRSPs when it becomes worth the trouble.

Anyone here ever been involved in something like that?

Unknown said...

I agree Leo - $100 0000 minimum for RRSP self-directed mortgage when rates are this low. Also, shop around for fees. I'm looking at Canada Western Trust.

Unknown said...

Patriotz - you are right that there is a difference in down payment - $120 000 vs. around $100 000 so you have to factor in the projected ROI on your other $20,000 as well. Not sure how much it would end up being over eight years, maybe $6000 after taxes if you invest well?

patriotz said...

Patriotz - you are right that there is a difference in down payment - $120 000 vs. around $100 000

No the point is that there isn't a difference in down payment. You have the same amount of money for the down payment either way (actually a bit more if you leave in it the bank for a couple of years). The difference is that the same down payment is a higher % at a lower price.

Unknown said...

SCENARIO A - BUY 2012

$600 000 house with suite $1000/month net
Down payment: 20% - $120 000
Mortgage Rate - 3.9 for 10 years
Mortgage per Month - $2250.00 plus $400/month property taxes, insurance, maintenance
Amount remaining on Mortgage in 2022 - $376,000
Cost per month to own - $1650.00
Cost would have paid to rent - $ 2000 but differential removed if you can make 5% on your $120 000 down payment you are keeping

SCENARIO B - BUY 2014

House has dropped to $ 480 000 with suite $1000/month net
Down payment is $120,000
Mortgage rate - 6% for five years but we will estimate that this is the renewal rate as well
Mortgage per month is $2200 plus 400/month property taxes, insurance, maintenance
Amount remaining on the mortgage in 2022 $ 315,496
Cost per month to own $ 1600

So, if that all works out this way you are ahead $60000 by waiting.

If; however, prices drop only seventeen percent you will be $40 000 ahead.

If prices drop only ten percent and rates are 6% you will pay $300 more per month ($36,000 plus lost opportunity costs more over the term) and have approximately the same amount in equity.

So, paying less is not always better - but it could be good. It is a bit of a crap shoot. Only thing I know is that my numbers now work for me. There is only the deal of the day that is a sure thing.

I also note that my numbers shift a lot if my rental income rises - which is possible in my case. I can also deduct some of my interest costs for my home business space. There are a lot of variables to consider.

What happens in ten years? I either refinance or sell. If interest rates are 6% my payment will be the same as today. If prices are the same as today I and my renter will have paid a lot down on the principal.

Unknown said...

Mindset - the penalty for breaking the ten year mortgage I have is here:
http://www.canadianmortgagetrends.com/canadian_mortgage_trends/interest-rate-differential-ird.html
For current mortgage rate please put 3.99%, for discount please put .001

Not sure what Coast Capital is doing. Mortgage penalties differ.

This is my primary residence. I have ten year on this because I have no plans to move after this purchase.

I have a five year term on my other property that is being converted to a rental. I am considering whether it is worth the penalty to transfer to a ten year mortgage. I probably want to keep it for ten years because it is cash flow positive and I can store my boat there and have half the back yard for raised gardens and a mini-orchard which is a quality of life factor for me.

I am putting my Okanagan property into a ten year mortgage as it makes money and I want to keep it to go to in retirement. Ten years is an okay commitment for me. If I had to pay the penalty I would.

I don't know about the buy/lease analogy. Are you counting principal repayment? Are you factoring in a ten year window that would allow for a full real estate cycle?

As far as bad renters, could happen but has not with me yet. I am at all of my properties regularly.

I plan to buy one more property with an RRSP mortgage in the Okanagan. Term won't matter as much because interest comes back to me. As long as it is cash flow positive I am okay to hold.

After that, I'm done :)

dasmo said...

"Why is it that leasing a car for $400/m and renting it for $400/m is not something any of us would do? "
because a car does this

and a house does this

Unknown said...

With a 10 year lock-in, I'm guessing it is also important to consider the odds of:
- A major repair over 10 years? Yes, control for this up front through inspections and questions.
- Getting bad renters? Yes, but control for this by interviewing and using reference checks.
- Having vacant periods? Yes, build in ten percent. Buy in the right areas.
- Having to sell? Well, can't help you except you can move somewhere cheaper and rent out your place if you have to. Don't buy now if your marriage is shaky.
- The hours of work involved in managing the property and what you are paying youself for this work? My partner is handy and my parents live in the Okanagan and I pay them to manage my property. I enjoy managing. As far as paying for managing, if your property is in good shape it is mostly about turnover. Get leases.

Leo S said...

I agree Leo - $100 0000 minimum for RRSP self-directed mortgage when rates are this low. Also, shop around for fees. I'm looking at Canada Western Trust.

Interesting. Please give us an update on how it goes for you.

Unknown said...

Leo - we won't be ready to buy until next year with the self-directed RRSP. You should know that it takes up to two months to transfer into self-directed if you don't already have self-directed set up - so you have to plan for it. To qualify for the mortgage requires more paperwork than a regular mortgage - banks don't make enough from them to want to encourage them IMHO - more money is made from RRSP investment fees.

There is a link here to a review of the self-directed RRSP mortgage:

http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/holding-a-mortgage-within-an-rrsp.htm

Reader comments are useful.

You can have a first or second mortgage as a self directed RRSP mortgage but you have to have CMHC insurance.

My plan is to put the minimum I have to down and hold the rest in a self-directed mortgage. If I have to pay CMHC fees I would prefer to put more into my RRSPs and get the tax deduction instead and increase my mortgage amount.

You and your spouse can combine your RRSPs into one mortgage.

Here is a link to the CWT qualification criteria:

http://www.cwt.ca/iris/mortgage_broker/default.htm

Mindset said...

Dasmo said - a car does this

The USA housing market just did This

From 2006 onwards you saying the USA average home price doesn't look more like a car depreciation curve than the RE curve you posted?

My point was that if the prices are going down, you need some serious positive cash flow to offset the risk. I used a car as an example, because its the second biggest purchase most people make.

I'll admit it's not a perfect example, but the analogy is sound. You shouldn't rent something that depreciates and could cost you a bunch of maintenance just to break even month over month. That's not a good investment.

Mindset said...

Thanks for all of the info Totoro. You are a fantastic resource for everyone here. Keep up the great posts and providing all the great information.

An RRSP mortgage sounds intriguing. I'm guessing that like a corporate asset, you can't live in it though?

dasmo said...

In ten years your car is worth 20% of what you paid for it pretty much guaranteed. Even in your graph mindset, after ten years the house held it's value. (mind you we live in Canada so that graph is not relevant here). A car is a true waste of money...a house is not. A car is a true depreciating asset. A house depreciates as well but the land it sits on does not...Plus a house does not depreciate at the same rate and can keep its value through maintenance. A car does not...

Unknown said...

Leo - I just read your original post in detail.

I have looked at all the scenarios. I would not put my money on an affordability correction without a trigger. Interest rates are just too low right now.

If interest rates rise 1.5%, which I expect will happen one of these years, I do think you will see a drop in house prices.

I think your affordability theory is quite good, but I'm not sure that percentage of income on mortgage payments cannot rise more. The world is changing.

My grandparents never thought about a suite in their home (they lived here - in Oak Bay - which was much more affordable then relative to income as they were not that well off). My parents did not either. Many people my age do have a suite or will buy in outlying areas for a lower price.

Here is the history on that:

The 'affordability' aspect of this formulation of the housing problem has its roots in 19th
century studies of household budgets and in the commonly used turn-of-the-century
expression 'one week's pay for one month's rent'. During this century a housing
expenditure-to-income ratio began to be used by mortgage lenders and, in recent decades,
as part of the selection criteria by private sector landlords in North America (Feins & White,
1977; Gliderbloom, 1985; Lane, 1977). Through the decades the housing expenditure-toincome
'rule of thumb' deemed to be an appropriate indicator of ability to pay gradually
shifted upward. In Canada, for example, a 20 per cent rule lasted until the 1950s when
somehow a 25 per cent rule came into use, only to be replaced in the 1980s by a 30 per
cent 'rule of thumb' (Bacher, 1993; Hulchanski, 1994b).

http://www.urbancenter.utoronto.ca/pdfs/researchassociates/Hulchanski_Concept-H-Affd_H.pdf

SJ said...

Dasmo said
A house depreciates as well but the land it sits on does not

Except
when
it
does
depreciate

Leo S said...

I have looked at all the scenarios. I would not put my money on an affordability correction without a trigger.

The affordability correction has largely happened already. We peaked at 51.8% in 2008, and if we look at 2012 mid-year numbers we are below 40%.
My correction is only another 3-4% from here.

I'm not sure that percentage of income on mortgage payments cannot rise more.

They certainly can, but past patterns do suggest that when we have a large runup, we have a large correction. So yes, we could immediately swing up to poorer affordability again, but it would be quite atypical after only 4 years of decline.

My grandparents never thought about a suite in their home

This is why I don't think we're correcting back to the levels of the 90s, 80s, or 70s. Notice that each low was higher than the last. This is my scenario 4, which would indicate a bottom at ~36% of income.

Good info about the history of what we consider "ok" as far as affordability goes. The issue is certainly more complex, as prices for some things go up while others go down.

If we draw a trend line of affordability, it indicates we're below it but corrections always overshoot.

Marko said...

Monday, June 11, 2012 8:00am

MTD June
2012 2011
Net Unconditional Sales: 193 618
New Listings: 441 1,465
Active Listings: 4,765 5,050

Please Note
Left Column: stats so far this month
Right Column: stats for the entire month from last year

Marko said...

SFH Average MTD = 555k!
Condo Average MTD = 345k

patriotz said...

What happens in ten years? I either refinance or sell. If interest rates are 6% my payment will be the same as today.

If prices have gone down and interest rates have gone up:

If you refinance at the 10 year point to keep the payment the same that means you're going to be making payments for an extra decade.

If you sell at the 10 year point you take away far less cash than the guy who bought at the lower price because you have far less equity.

The guy who waits for a price drop to buy always comes out ahead.

Unknown said...

Patriotz -

Those numbers show that if I buy now in 10 years owe I would owe $376 000. Mortgage at 6% I would raise the payments by $400/month if I was on a twenty year renewal term - no extra ten years.

If get the place for 20% less at 6%in two years, in 2022 your mortgage will be $315,000 your mortgage will be $40.00 more per month if you refinance at the same rate for a twenty year renewal term.

Of course, the only sure thing is today's rate at today's price at today's amortization and interest rate.

Maybe prices will drop 20% if rates are 6% - maybe they won't drop 20%, maybe rates won't rise that much. Hard to predict.

If you currently have cheap rent and huge down payment saved I think it is better to wait as your real gains will be much larger. If you have a small down payment, a long amortization at low rates and offsetting rental income then I think it is a good time to buy.

I don't believe the person who buys cheaper is always better off unless they have a greater than 50% down payment and prices really do drop.

For your average person who has 10-20% down and wants to be a homeowner and is okay with a suite, now is just a fine time to buy if you look carefully (imo).

The equation looks even better if you generate more income with your home by moving your office in, have homestay students, buy a duplex and have a suite... But it has to suit your comfort level.

Roger said...

totoro victoria,

You provided some detailed scenarios in your previous posts. In your examples you also need to consider the following costs:

- property transfer tax
- CMHC insurance if under 20% down
- legal fees (app.1K)

On a 600K property the buyer needs an additional 10K to pay the PTT plus legal fees. This means 131K (not 120K) as a down payment or CMHC insurance will be required.

The other consideration is how much the renter saves by delaying the purchase (rent vs. own differential). Of course this depends on how much rent they are currently paying. The additional savings and return on investment will increase the dollar amount of their down payment and will have an effect on the amount of CMHC insurance required.

Furthermore, any good analysis needs to include taxes, maintenance and utility costs. Maintenance costs are usually underestimated by most owners and can be considerable over a 10 year period especially if the property is older (roof, water heater, flooring, painting, minor renovations).

If one includes suite income buying will be a better option in many cases. But not everyone wants to be a landlord. Tenant hassles, collecting rent and living in the same building with others is not something I want to do for any reason. But for others it may be the only way they can buy given the high prices in many areas of BC.

The calculations necessary to do detailed rent vs. buy comparisons can be considerable. I have an extensive spreadsheet model which I will be posting later today.

Unknown said...

Roger - I did include maintenance/insurance/property tax. In both scenarios I picked 20% to avoid the CMHC - which is what I do in real life to.

I did not include PTT or legal because we were comparing buy now and in two years and these costs are almost the same.

I have a simple spreadsheet I use to - probably not as detailed as yours. It includes projected depreciation/appreciation/principal payment/mortgage interest/vacancy allowance/maintenance/utilities/rental income. Kind of fun to play with the numbers.

My spreadsheet does not specifically compare renting and owning as I calculate this manually. Did consider the rent and save strategy but buying was better for me.

As far as landlording - not for everyone. Life is time limited and might as well get more of what you love and less of what you don't. In our society money is only a measure to the extent that it increases happiness IMHO.

Looking forward to the spreadsheet.

Johnny-Dollar said...

Months of Inventory continues to climb in the core municipalities. We are at 4.5 months. The number of sales is equivalent to this same time last year, yet prices have slipped from a median of $618,750 to today's current price of $588,950.

Lots and lots of selection out there to choose from and you don't have to hurry to buy with half of the sales last month taking in excess of 28 days to find a buyer.

The urban condominium market is still hurting with 7 months of inventory with the typical condominium sliding from $305,000 to $275,000 with only slightly lower sales volume.

Much the same happening in the Western Communities with 6.6 months of inventory for houses with year over year prices trending down from $476,000 to $462,250.

That pretty well sums up our Spring Market. As we head into summer holidays, our attention turns to more important things than real estate and property values have historically continued to weaken until the BBQ's are put away and the kiddies are back in school.

Unknown said...

"Maintenance costs are usually underestimated by most owners and can be considerable over a 10 year period especially if the property is older (roof, water heater, flooring, painting, minor renovations)."

Roof is approx $7000 - lasts 20
Water heater approx $1000 - every 7
New oil furnace - approx $3000 - every 15-20
Flooring - usually not necessary ie. want but not must
Painting - cheap if you do it yourself like we do
Minor renovations - hopefully someone is handy
Perimeter drains - $10,000 - can be a big unexpected expense

So... don't buy a house with an old roof and get the drains inspected separately.

My last house included a condition on the sale of them paying for a new roof. I just did not want that hassle. I took possession with a brand new roof.

Water heaters are no big deal.

If you want a suite and there is not one be careful. All sorts of thing may need to be upgraded. $30,000 reserve and do your homework.

If you control for risk in your choice of purchase and get inspection(s) this helps. The average US homeowner spends $40/month on maintenance and repairs. No idea in Canada.

Anonymous said...

Maintenance can really add up if you want your home to be enjoyable and to appreciate in value. In addition to the above you need to add the following to your budget if you are taking a long term view.

- landscaping (lawn upkeep, flowers, topsoil, mulch, weed control etc.)

- interior and exterior painting (quality paint is expensive)

- new rugs or flooring (10 year old rugs will affect enjoyment and resale)

- bathroom and kitchen remodelling (old stuff doesn't sell well and affects market value)

- driveway repairs (resurfacing, cleaning and treatments)

Many owners don't bother to do much and may only spend $40 a month. You can easily see this when you drive around different Victoria neighbourhoods. Rental houses are often the worst.

Johnny-Dollar said...

A very nice Dallas Road water view property recently sold at $963,000 or almost double its previous price some 12 years ago at $478,000 (increase of 101 percent). The house improvements contributed very nominally to the price of the property as a whole at about 19% (source BC Assessment). So its possible for a developer to knock the home down and redevelop the site probably at a profit.

The point being that this sale is mostly land value.

So, how did the market for homes that were NOT mostly land value perform during the same time period. Those prices went from $233,500 to $589,450 or 153%.

This helps to illustrate that when you are in a downward trending market, properties that are mostly land value generally come down faster in value than the average property. It's the lot value that is falling not the value of the improvements.

Which is the opposite when the market is rising, then you should be buying land. Today, its the improvements that are going to hold value and that's what you should be buying.

Two homes priced the same. One is a Gordon Head box, the other a Fernwood starter home. The Gordon Head box is the less risky purchase.

And if I were lending my own money (or a diligent banker) even though the buyers may be putting 80 percent down, I would still have the property CMHC insured because of the increased risk or cut the loan to value ratio back to 65%.

Aren't you glad I'm not a bank manager.

Mindset said...

CBC Condo Article

TD predicts 15% correction over next two to three years for Vancouver and Toronto?

Unknown said...

I think that is accurate Just Jack re. land and improvement values right now and how they work as prices rise and fall. Interesting to think about.

Johnny-Dollar said...

If your buying a property for the short term say less than 10 years, then you should be thinking of doing most of those upgrades just before you put the home on the market.

While new kitchen and bathrooms will add value to the home, they depreciate quickly and will add less and less each year they get older. An upgraded kitchen done 10 years ago will only add marginally to the value as compared to a kitchen done 3 months ago. The same for a roof, carpets, etc.

As for buying a home with a stipulation of a new roof or a new oil tank. It's a good idea and makes it easier to finance if your on a tight budget. I would probably go for an allowance of say $7,000 off the price and then go higher quality in roofing materials and roofer. But you need deeper pockets and that's not always possible.

Now, how about inheriting basement tenants from your new purchase. Do you throw them out on the street along with their cheap furnishings from the Brick or do you keep them and tell them to off their Pomeranian?

Unknown said...

maintenance can cost a lot - or you can economize - especially if you are handy. you can buy a remodelled house or budget for this accordingly.

This site is helpful for estimating costs:

http://www.costhelper.com/

Unknown said...

Just Jack - I am dealing with the tenant issue now. I strongly prefer to get them out and get my own which will allow me to repair and inspect and review the new tenants myself.

I am asking the current owner to provide vacant possession. He needs to give three months' notice and one month rent and moving costs. We'll see how it goes as he has not yet agreed.

dasmo said...

"then you should be thinking of doing most of those upgrades just before you put the home on the market."
I would recommend doing your upgrades when you first move in so you can enjoy them. Do them of the best quality you can afford the way you like it. It should then hold up over time so you will have just as much chance that your potential customer (if you sell) will see value in it. If you do nothing until you sell you never enjoy your new kitchen, you spend a bunch on one, and all your potential customers hate it and envision ripping it out anyway.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 241 of 241   Newer› Newest»