Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Oct 14 Market Update

MLS numbers update courtesy of the VREB via Marko Juras. These numbers are for the Victoria Real Estate Board's reporting area, including Sooke, Shawnigan Lake and the Gulf Islands.


Oct 2014Oct
 2013
Wk 1Wk 2Wk 3Wk 4
Unconditional Sales83
230


512
New Listings178393

979
Active Listings41004060

4322
Sales to New Listings
47%
59%

52%
Sales Projection--661


Months of Inventory
8.4



Per Marko's request.  We're still (almost) the weakest market in the country for the past 7 years.  Edged out Edmonton in the last couple months but I suspect when September numbers are out we will be in last place.


141 comments:

dasmo said...

This does not look like a setup for a crash in Victoria....

Supernova said...

If we have a revision to the mean in the big dogs - TO, Van, Calgary - don't you think such an event would have knock-on effects in secondary and tertiary markets like Victoria and the like? Thinking of broader effects on the economy and emotions. Or do you think that we would cruise by unaffected? Honest question.

Just Jack said...

What would you expect a setup for a crash to look like?

Say the Sword of Damoclase is hanging over your head by a string. Are you expecting the string to snap and the sword to crash down upon you.

Or would you think the string would start to unravel with the weaker threads snapping until the weight of the Sword snaps the few remaining threads.

What I'm seeing is the latter. Weakness in the semi-rural neighbourhoods and condominiums. Yet these weak hoods and types of properties are being supported by inner city house prices. Where a few buyers are still enthusiastic about real estate and have the means to finance irrational purchases.



I suspect that as we see the difference between these hoods and properties to get wider there will be a shift in demand from the inner core house market. There comes a time when prospective purchasers will consider saving a quarter million dollars is worth more than cutting 30 minutes off a daily commute.

Just Jack said...

How are these irrational purchases getting financing?

There have been massive changes in
lending over the last decade. What has happened is that only 2 appraisal companies now do the majority of all home appraisals in Canada. A home owner no longer has a choice of who can appraise their property.

Nationwide Appraisals and Solidify heavily influence the marketplace by selecting what appraisal firm gets the banking business. These two appraisal management firms through their policies make it nearly impossible for a mortgage appraisal to be done in a competent manner.

Personally, I would refuse to pay for a mortgage appraisal these days. The appraisals are not worth the paper they are emailed on.

patriotz said...

Great graph in the style of The Tim at Seattle Bubble. Thanks Leo, I wish Teranet themselves would do this.

SJ said...

@Supernova
My guess is we remain flat for another 6 years if TO&Van finally correct. Or Tim Ayres could be correct in that it would put upward pressure on Victoria since our shacks are half their prices.

Looking forward, Ayres anticipates more people in larger markets – Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and to some extent the prairie cities – selling their homes and moving west. “I think it’s only a matter of time before we see some of them (coming to the Island.)

Just Jack said...

So which one is Tim?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wc-AQJ2MYo

Marko said...

Market is just too lethargic right now to see any kind of upward price pressure in Victoria. I think we'll see at least another 3 years of flat.

The big markets have to cool off in my opinion. I can't see TO, Van, Calgary continuing to appreciate while Victoria stays flat.

dasmo said...

It's just that everywhere is getting more pricy including the US which is now approaching its previous highs. Using your sooke theory, it's more affordable to live here than Vancouver. Now even more so than last year, or the year before. Sell your condo there, buy a house here.... If this continues without a crash (which gets less and less likely as time goes on) then I would expect to see a climb in prices here. Still, I don't see this happening anytime soon...

caveat emptor said...

Supernova

My guess. If the big centres "crash" then I think we all go down together. In particular if the Vancouver market has a hard landing it is hard to see Victoria being unscathed.

That said I could see a period of weakness/stagnation in the big markets having only modest or even positive effects on Victoria.

patriotz said...

including the US which is now approaching its previous highs.

Latest Case Shiller 20 is 173 is which is 16% down from the peak of 206 in 2006. The bust itself was 35% from peak which means it is a little more than half way back to the peak in nominal terms, a lot less in real terms.

"Approaching" is one of those nice words that doesn't have to mean more than "nominally increasing".

dasmo said...

The Case Shiller 20 is up 29.3% since 2012. I would call that "approaching" not just regular ol nominally increasing...

Leo S said...

Approaching means getting close in common language. If I say I am approaching the summit of Everest you imagine me near the top, not halfway there.

dasmo said...

It is getting closer... Which is the definition of approaching. I guess I'm a glass is half full kinda guy...

caveat emptor said...

Canada 5 and 10 year bond yields now down to near the lows of 2012 and 2013. So we won't be seeing any near term rise in mortgage rates.

Mind you this isn't really good news. It's people waking up to how weak the global economy still is

Introvert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Introvert said...

Further to caveat emptor's post, here are two relevant excerpts from an Upshot article this morning:

The signals are unambiguous. From the United States to Western Europe to Japan, long-term interest rates are falling.

We can gauge how much investors in the bond market expect prices to rise in the years ahead based on the difference in prices between regular bonds and those indexed to inflation. And that measure over the last few months has been pointing to a sharp drop in inflation expectations.

Somewhere info is whimpering softly in a corner.

dasmo said...

Just need 1 year and 4 months more...I might do another 4 year. Unless I can get a ten year at 2.99%....

info said...

Teranet's September numbers for Victoria show that Victoria's price decline continues, despite historically low (emergency) interest rates.

Year-over-year: prices in Victoria are down -0.5%.

Month-over-month: prices in Victoria are down -1.8%.

Based on Teranet's numbers, house prices in most other Canadian markets are higher than in September 2013. However, Victoria's housing market is so weak that prices have fallen year-over-year, despite the heavy stimulus that continues to be applied to Canada's housing market.

Greater Victoria's population is too small for a methodology based on repeat sales to work effectively. A repeat sales methodology works much better in a city the size of Calgary, for example. Victoria's extremely slow sales since 2010 have made things even worse.

Teranet revised Victoria's index in 2012, which is interesting. Apparently, Victoria's index was working properly in the opinion of the bankers at Teranet as long as prices were rising, but when prices began to fall in Victoria Teranet felt that index changes were necessary.

Teranet's results should be looked at with the above information in mind. Having said that, I don't totally disregard their numbers.

info said...

Brookfield's September numbers also show that prices have fallen (year-over-year) in Victoria.

Year-over-year: prices are down -1.24%

Month-over-month: prices are down

Year-to-date: prices are down

(link)

Again, this is happening while interest rates are at historically low (emergency) levels.

If rock-bottom rates can't stop Victoria's price decline, what will?

Prices in Victoria have fallen significantly even while Canada's household debt-to-income ratio has continued to rise.

In the US, house prices didn't fall much until the household debt-to-income ration began to decline. The same thing will happen in Canada.

As prices fall across the rest of Canada, Victorians will take note and this will have a negative effect on prices in Victoria. As national housing bubbles deflate, there is, typically, a time when prices fall in unison across the entire country. This will happen in Canada as well.

Prices in Victoria have a long way to fall before a bottom will be reached.

The good news for bears is the head start that Victoria has in comparison to the rest of Canada.

dasmo said...

It's more likely that we will continue on a flat trajectory for a while more as the rest of the country flattens out....interest rates will probably drop even more this winter... Also, the present stock volatility will have a tendency for people to convert to the capital preservation stronghold of RE...

Just Jack said...

I don't think falling prices would initially be "good news" for Bears. Falling prices would also mean a failing economy with more bankruptcies, foreclosures, business failures, loss of employment, high vacancy rates, loss of population and higher taxes.

The problem is that while home prices may become significantly less, there likely will be much fewer people financially able to buy.

Be careful for what you wish for. The job that may become unnecessary may be yours.

Jack and Cate said...

Since this blog is becoming a bit more unbalanced lately in the way of reporting (at some points stating personal views and statements as fact) what is really going on in real estate I believe this quote should be inserted into this update....

"First (our fav), houses. This week CREA did its latest stats-pumping thing, saying real estate sales across the country last month were up a whopping 10.6% over last year, with prices ahead more than 5%. But there are two stories, not one. People are still horny for houses in delusional little hormonal pools, including Calgary (of course – at least for now), Vancouver and Toronto.

And because prices have been increasing in these places as mortgage rates fade (Calgary up over 10%, Toronto plus 8%), sales have been robust. When folks see rising prices they equate it to a good investment. It’s illogical, .....

Hence, buyers in those cities are paying the highest prices on record for houses, which is never a good idea unless you’re convinced they will go higher still. And they are. Sadly.

Meanwhile in 60% of all local markets across Canada, sales are down. You know where – this blog has laid that out for you in recent weeks, talking about the funk that has settled over places like Halifax and Regina. And in at least half of those cities, prices are lower now than they were a year ago.

......It’s not so much about the markets, as it is about human behaviour. Most people have no confidence in their own judgment, and are massively influenced by what their co-workers, friends or off-colour relatives have to say. If enough people tell them something’s a good (or bad) deal, they end up thinking that way, too.

This is what bubbles, manias and deflation are made of."


For what it is worth a bit more balance might be in order looking ahead. Flat prices, not likely, big crash, not likely but justifying your own decisions by stating it as fact or true on a blog....just priceless

Leo S said...

For what it is worth a bit more balance might be in order looking ahead. Flat prices, not likely, big crash, not likely but justifying your own decisions by stating it as fact or true on a blog....just priceless

What are you referring to?

Marko said...

Looking at the Teranet Index Since 2008 I can't understand how people still listen to what Garth has to say about real estate, let alone to quote him. He by far has to be the most consistently wrong forecaster on both interest rates and real estate in Canada. He predicted Victoria would drop 30%, it didn't, okay not too bad, but markets like Toronto that are up 45%! Probably a lot of people got burned listening to his gospel, but that's okay their well balance portfolios are doing just fine this week :)

Marko said...

Again, this is happening while interest rates are at historically low (emergency) levels.

If rock-bottom rates can't stop Victoria's price decline, what will?


People paying down their mortgages at these rates? One of my investment condo mortgages has dropped a decent chunk on the low 2s variable in three years. More than half of each payment is going towards principal. If I was using the positive cash flow to pay down the principal it would be going down even quicker. (Only reason I am not doing this is interest is tax deductible; therefore, from the investment properties any extra cash flow I'll throw at the principal residence mortgage).

patriotz said...

People paying down their mortgages at these rates?

Prices are determined by those who are buying and selling, not those who aren't.

In particular, price declines are the result of not enough entry level buyers to support prices. You seem to allude to the theory that price declines are the result of owners not being able to pay their mortgages. Evidence says they aren't.

dasmo said...

It is a fact that prices have been flat as long as I have been expressing my opinion that they will be..rates also went down as I said they would. I'm pretty good at trusting myself.... I mean I hang out here and I still bought.... I'm not the only one either. I think the folks here are pretty good at thinking for themselves....as noted by no one really agreeing with anyone else ;-)

Leo S said...

Despite there being no crash personally I think it worked out pretty well here for the last 6ish years as someone looking to buy. Many places are cheaper to rent than buy and while we waited prices declined somewhat. That strategy would have been a failure in just about every other major market in Canada over the same time period.

Also easy to forget just how expensive Victoria was in 2008. We were more expensive than Toronto for god's sake! No wonder Victoria severely underperformed the rest of the country.

Leo S said...

As for the current market, I still think the biggest risk is government intervention. Look at the Teranet of cities in Ontario in the last 6 months. Very rapid price appreciation, and the chance of CMHC clamping down is high. That could easily sideswipe our relatively stable market.

Marko said...

Prices are determined by those who are buying and selling, not those who aren't.

Individuals are probably more likely to sell if equity in their home is building faster.

caveat emptor said...

For what it is worth a bit more balance might be in order looking ahead.

Well the commenters here seem to span a range of views all the way from Victoria heading for a large decline (40% or more) through flat to some who actually think prices are primed to increase. That seems like a resonable balance.

Quoting Garth for "balance" seems like an odd choice.

Personally my opinion/prediction about the near future is flat to slight decline for Victoria SFH prices. Risks are to the downside though IMO.

caveat emptor said...

"but that's okay their well balance portfolios are doing just fine this week :)"

Garth also seemed to advocate against holding ANY allocation to government bonds or bullion. While I don't believe a young person should hold much of either asset class, a small allocation is a valuable portfolio stabilizer even though it might lower your expected returns from a 100% equity allocation.

I've even been holding a small cash allocation for the last 2 years. Not for the returns which are effectively zero, but for the option value of doing something better with it in the future. So far that has been painful as the market has continued higher, but if the market continues down another 10% or more it will have been worth it.

dasmo said...

I've taken profits as of late and am holding cash. Going to take some new positions in stages to follow the market down.

JD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JD said...

You went to cash at a bad time - TSX is up over 200 points this morning!

dasmo said...

Not really, bought some Netflix this morning at 25% off! I'm not too much into Canadian equities matter of fact I bought more Rogers sugar yesterday... Still holding though as I watch Tesla...

CS said...

@Just Jack

I don't think falling prices would initially be "good news" for Bears. Falling prices would also mean a failing economy with more bankruptcies, foreclosures, business failures, loss of employment, high vacancy rates, loss of population and higher taxes.

Or perhaps the continuing sluggish economy at home and stagnation in the US and Europe is what's driving prices up, for what else is there to invest in. Stocks aren't doing so well and bond yields, after tax, are less than inflation.

But a booming economy would draw cash into the stock market and drive up interest rates — both negative for housing.

CS said...

@Dasmo

bought some Netflix this morning at 25% off! ... I bought more Rogers sugar yesterday... Still holding though as I watch Tesla...

NFLX has a P/E of 95 after a 25% drop in price. TSLA has a good product but pays no dividends and is down almost 25% from its high, and Rogers pay a high dividend based on the sale of an more or less toxic product with many substitutes, including glucose from wood!

All of which seems to support the idea that RE is not, currently, such a bad investment. At least you can make personal use of it.

Introvert said...

I suspect that as we see the difference between these hoods and properties to get wider there will be a shift in demand from the inner core house market. There comes a time when prospective purchasers will consider saving a quarter million dollars is worth more than cutting 30 minutes off a daily commute.

I don't think shifts in demand between the core and the extremities are that fluid. Choosing to live in the West Shore vs. the core is not a coin flip for most buyers the way that, say, choosing to live in Fernwood vs. Fairfield would be.

Basically, my contention is that the core will never cease to be more in demand than the West Shore and beyond.

And this is true for almost all cities: the core neighbourhoods--those in and relatively near downtown--are always pricier than the outlying ones. It's as close to an immutable fact of real estate as there is.

patriotz said...

Choosing to live in the West Shore vs. the core is not a coin flip for most buyers the way that, say, choosing to live in Fernwood vs. Fairfield would be.

No, but choosing between Place A and Place B a few km closer is. Now integrate these increments from Sooke to downtown and what do you get?

dasmo said...

I'm willing to bet everyone on this blog has Rogers sugar in their kitchen....mine is the organic one... 8% is a damn fine dividend and they are at their 52 week low... I'll probably sell Netfix close to their release of crouching tiger hidden dragon 2... Tesla is a long play. I like EM's style. He is willing to disrupt the industry to make real change...

totoro victoria said...

"No, but choosing between Place A and Place B a few km closer is. Now integrate these increments from Sooke to downtown and what do you get?"

Not too far. There are only 2000 sales in Victoria per year and only a small portion are first time/entry level buyers.

Leo S said...

I'm willing to bet everyone on this blog has Rogers sugar in their kitchen

Just think if they could sell everyone two bags to keep in their kitchen!

Just Jack said...

Are you measuring demand by price or by number of sales?

The "immutable fact" about real estate is that there are many factors that influence market value. Location is just one of the many. That's why Gordon Head prices are higher than Esquimalt, despite being closer to the downtown core.

Just Jack said...

I think the factors that influence value are amplified by the cost of money. Someone may decide to pay a hundred thousand more to live in Oak Bay versus Fernwood because it's only around $400 a month difference. If that difference went to $800, then I believe there would be a shift from Oak Bay to Fernwood. From Fernwood to Langford. From Langford to Sooke. And so on.

dasmo said...

"Just think if they could sell everyone two bags to keep in their kitchen!"... and your point is?

dasmo said...

Arguably Gordon head prices are higher because of location. You are talking about just proximity to downtown...

patriotz said...

There are only 2000 sales in Victoria per year and only a small portion are first time/entry level buyers.

What makes you think it's about entry level buyers? Every buyer has a location preference.

CS said...

@ Introvert

my contention is that the core will never cease to be more in demand than the West Shore and beyond.

Most of the economy is consumer spending, therefore, most of the income and jobs are where the people are. If the West Shore grows faster than downtown, property values relative to downtown should increase???

dasmo said...

The West Shore will grow faster. It has the capacity to. Fairfield on Oak bay will barely grow but their values will increase because they are well established neighbourhoods that are not growing fast. Shit, have you seen some of the debacles in Langford? How about a strip mall surrounding a tiny SFH street? or a giant block of condos pressed right up against your back yard?

Just Jack said...

Now that the League property at Colwood Corners has been bought for 17.5 million, the commercial/residential development becomes very economically feasible. Tens of millions were lost by the initial investors but their loss is a gain for someone else. The lower land cost conceivably could really cut down the price of building a condo. A new 2 bedroom condo might be marketed for under $200K. Compare that to Victoria at 350K. You're almost half the way to being mortgage free right from the beginning.

Could this development rival downtown Victoria????

Downtown Victoria looks pretty crusty these days. Middle income families aren't going to be spending their paycheques there. They'll spend their money in their community.

Maybe Colwood will be the new "Downtown" and Victoria will become just another Downtown Eastside. It has happened before in cities such as Nanaimo. The old city is just bypassed.

dasmo said...

^that location doesn't have the bones...
A long strip of strip malls does not make a downtown core...

Leo S said...

"Just think if they could sell everyone two bags to keep in their kitchen!"... and your point is?

Excellent breakout potential.

dasmo said...

It's for the reliable 8% dividend and stability, not it's break out potential... You know... a diversified portfolio....

totoro victoria said...

"What makes you think it's about entry level buyers? Every buyer has a location preference."

Yes, and preferences are somewhat predictable and follow a hierarchy at this point.

Many people, not all, but many, would prefer the core to Langford.

Many, but not all, would prefer Fairfield to Esquimalt.

Over the long-term these preferences might change, but I think we are talking more than 20 years.

For now, most buyers are not on a 1-2 km outward march. They buy at the top of what they can afford in the core when possible. Those that can afford the core generally choose this unless they are looking for rural.

If they can't afford this and buy in Langford/Thetis instead maybe they will stay if they have kids and gradually the "desirable" areas will change and march to the outskirts. Maybe.

CS said...

It's for the reliable 8% dividend

Why not Seadrill at 16% and a PE of 2.79 (according to Google)?

CS said...

@Dasmo

Oak bay will barely grow but their values will increase because they are well established neighbourhoods that are not growing fast...

"barely growing:" That's the problem. No industrial parks or tech centers in Oak Bay or Fairfield. The local economy is heavily dependent on government, hospitals, and the university all of which are subject to budget restraint. Meantime much of the retail sector has gone West or Uptown.

patriotz said...

Yes, and preferences are somewhat predictable and follow a hierarchy at this point.

That's what I was saying essentially. If prices drop dramatically in (e.g) Sooke, the outcome will be a chain reaction all the way to the core to maintain this hierarchy.

This is what happened in most western US markets in the recent bust. The outskirts fell first.

Not necessarily the same % all the way in. But assuming that Oak Bay will not be affected because potential buyers there aren't interested in Sooke misses the big picture.

dasmo said...

Seadrill looks very interesting! Not on my radar since I have no knowledge of it and thus it's not part of my general method of investing. It looks like it's worth researching this for sure. With oil going down there are some opportunities....and I do use oil after all...

Marko said...

"barely growing:" That's the problem. No industrial parks or tech centers in Oak Bay or Fairfield. The local economy is heavily dependent on government, hospitals, and the university all of which are subject to budget restraint. Meantime much of the retail sector has gone West or Uptown.

A big shot in an industrial park in Langford is probably more likely to buy a house in the Uplands than in Langford? I wouldn't limit Oak Bay buyers to those working within 5 km of Oak Bay.

caveat emptor said...

^patriotz
agreed - a sustained fall in prices in the outskirts should eventually make it's way to the core.

Sooke may well be an acceptable substitute for someone looking at Metchosin, Metchosin might substitute for Langford, Langford for View Royal. View Royal for Saanich, Saanich for Fairfield, Fairfield for South Oak Bay.

The smaller and further outlying the "outskirt" the smaller the impact. Can't see a "crash" in Port Renfrew dragging Victoria down!

Then there are secular changes: changes in preferences, gentrification, decline of some areas, new development, loss or gain of a major employer, local government incompetence (hello Victoria!), etc.

caveat emptor said...

City of Vic residents any thoughts on our current crop of councilors and their wanna-be replacements in the civic election?

dasmo said...

My only mandate it a wholesale replacement.... Anyone that has been is out. I haven't yet looked at the other candidates yet....

dasmo said...

@CS to answer your original question, "Why not Seadrill at 16% and a PE of 2.79?"
After some quick research I have a few reasons.

1. There are over 12 new built rigs from competitors coming online without pre existing contracts. This is expected to put downward pressure on rates and possibly limit Seadrills future contracts.
2. Day rates for drilling are falling due to Oil prices falling
3. Dividend are inconsistent
4. Dividends are expected to be cut by 50%

I have them on my watch list though. For now I like my sugar monopoly play....

dasmo said...

5. Seadrill has steadily increased its dividend, even while its fundamental performance has deteriorated. Borrowing to pay high dividends.
6. $12 billion in long-term interest bearing debt. If and when Interest rates go up....
7.Complicated corporate structure.


caveat emptor said...

16% dividend at a time when a lot of quality dividend stocks are in the 1.5 to 5% range is a big fat red flag saying dividend cut coming. It could still be a worthy investment (it's been on my watchlist for a while). Post dividend cut could be a time to buy assuming you still have some longer term faith in the fundamentals of the industry and the company.

caveat emptor said...

"My only mandate it a wholesale replacement.."

I am thinking of voting Lisa Helps for mayor. She is part of the existing council, but has voted against some of the more egregious decisions. Also in her favour is that she is not Dean Fortin* and not Ida Chong.

* I met Fortin the other day while he was campaigning. Seems like a nice man with his heart in the right place. But I think he is exactly the wrong person for the difficult task of turning around Victoria's finances over the next 5-10 years.

dasmo said...

Paying dividends by going billions into debt to do it is a huge red flag. That's the majority owners pulling money out. You don't want to be on the wrong side of that process. Still, it's now on my watch list too...

Leo S said...

16% dividend at a time when a lot of quality dividend stocks are in the 1.5 to 5% range is a big fat red flag saying dividend cut coming

More generally, any above average return has above average risk. There really is no such thing as finding overlooked gems in the market.

JD said...

For offshore drillers I rolled the dice with NE and RIG in the last hour. SeaDrill debt is a bit risky for my taste.

Just Jack said...

There is only a 39% chance of a "big shot" from Langford buying in Oak Bay. As only 12 of the last 31 sales of homes over 2 million have been in Oak Bay.

People vote with their money and the highest paid prices have been for waterfront in North Saanich.

The value for your buck just isn't in Oak Bay these days. And that's a trend that has been going on for the last decade. Sure there are some wannabees that still think Oak Bay is the best place to live, but those with money are voting for life style over pretentiousness.

CS said...

@ Marko:

A big shot in an industrial park in Langford is probably more likely to buy a house in the Uplands than in Langford? I wouldn't limit Oak Bay buyers to those working within 5 km of Oak Bay.

There's no accounting for taste, and I some might like to give their Tesla a workout between Oak Bay and Langford twice a day.

But with over 50 places West of View Royal listed in seven figures, including a five-million-dollar building site with its own lake and 115 view acres, I think quite a few big shots would chose the West side over the East side of town.

CS said...

@ Dasmo:

Paying dividends by going billions into debt to do it is a huge red flag. That's the majority owners pulling money out.

Actually, Frederiksen, the founder of Seadrill, just bought a couple of million shares on his own account.

But it's puzzling that Google and other financial sites list the P/E at 2 point something. How can that be!

The high yield is partly due to sanctions on Russia, where Seadrill has contracted half a dozen drill ships to Rosneft, the present implications of which deal remain unclear. A month or two ago, the yield was less than 10%.

CS said...

@ Leo S

There really is no such thing as finding overlooked gems in the market.

That is the logical inference of the efficient market hypothesis.

But there's no doubt some stocks that are "overlooked" turn out to be gems.

Tesla, for example, which I bought not long ago for $34 and sold a couple of months later for $77 only to see it go to $277!

(I have picked stinkers too, but I only mention my winners.)

CS said...

@ Just Jack

Sure there are some wannabees that still think Oak Bay is the best place to live

For those who work in town, professors, hospital administrators, assistant deputy ministers, etc., and the local trades and professional people, it really is the best place to live. But as incomes in the area have not be rising fast, prices in OB and the rest of the core have been flat.

Tren said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tren said...

Mark

CS said...

There is only a 39% chance of a "big shot" from Langford buying in Oak Bay. As only 12 of the last 31 sales of homes over 2 million have been in Oak Bay.

That's assuming all sales over 2 million were to big shots from Langford, which is a slightly improbably assumption.

dasmo said...

Ya, I was going to buy buy Netflix at 90 and thought it was too much. A few weeks later house of cards came out... So, it's just that it's easier to see the gems after they have been polished...

Marko said...

What are the odds that individuals living in North Saanich mansions actually work in North Saanich?

My point is looking at a micro employment situation in Oak Bay is not a good gauge of the Oak Bay real estate market.

You probably have people living in Oak Bay working at the airport/ferries and you probably have individuals living in North Saanich with a law or doctor's office in or close to Oak Bay.

Just Jack said...

It's tough to distinguish between the big shots and the medium shots so I just went with the "money shots"

CS said...

My point is looking at a micro employment situation in Oak Bay is not a good gauge of the Oak Bay real estate market.

I don't know about micro employment in Oak Bay, but most of my Oak Bay neighbours either work in the core did before they retired.

That's not truly representative statistic, but it seems to make sense. Why would someone working in North Saanich commute from Oak Bay when you can get much more house for your money in North Saanich.

Living in a mouldering pile in Oak Bay or Fairfield seems to make sense chiefly in terms of avoided commuting costs, though it's true those parts of town have their charm. I specially love the smell of Oak Bay's storm drains in the fall, a mix of hydrogen sulfide and other emanantions of putrifying crud.

CS said...

So, it's just that it's easier to see the gems after they have been polished...

But once it's polished, is it still a gem? TSLA, for example, sure sparkled in September when it reached 286, but it's been downhill ever since and is now off 21%.

Marko said...

Why would someone working in North Saanich commute from Oak Bay when you can get much more house for your money in North Saanich

Probably the same reason why people prefer Oak Bay over Oaklands even though Oaklands is much more convenient in terms of both walkability and drivability to various places.

Just Jack said...

I think you're falling into a trap when comparing Oak Bay say to Oaklands. Your assumption is that since prices are higher in Oak Bay, then more people prefer Oak Bay over Oaklands.

Yet if a plumber or owner of a Septic tank company were to park their trucks in front of their house in the Uplands, then that neighborhood would loose its prestige quickly. And the first neighbor to complain would end up wearing a toilet seat as a head ornament. Would a plumber be comfortable with a neighbor who is a divorce attorney? Not when he sees his wife talking to him.

It isn't about price its about people. A plumber likely makes more money than a university professor these days. But you're not going to find them as neighbors. We are social animals that clump together with others that have similar interests.

A roofer or a plumber would be a social outcast in Uplands. The same for a political science professor in Esquimalt.

dasmo said...

And that is another big part of location...

Jack and Cate said...

Marko said...

Looking at the Teranet Index Since 2008 I can't understand how people still listen to what Garth has to say about real estate,.....
--------------

I guess Marko it is because he has a bigger world picture than you and a lot more credentials behind his comments and research. Other than that he has no vested interest, like yourself, in pumping or dumping on real estate.

By the way have you seen the latest offering by HSBC in the UK? shoul dhave all the realtors just drooling waiting for it here.....



Not going to end well...

Leo S said...

I guess Marko it is because he has a bigger world picture than you and a lot more credentials behind his comments and research.

And yet that doesn't make him any less wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I think Garth is an interestingn counterpoint to the endless real estate cheerleading in this country, but he certainly has not got the timing right. The basic message not to put all your eggs in the real estate basket remains a solid one of course

Just Jack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
totoro victoria said...

"I guess Marko it is because he has a bigger world picture than you and a lot more credentials behind his comments and research. Other than that he has no vested interest, like yourself, in pumping or dumping on real estate."

As far as "credentials" go, for me, the proof is in the result

I have reviewed Marko's comments for a number of years and I've never found them hyperbolic in favour of buying. Even on this thread you can see he is pointing to flat.

Mr. Turner sells investment products and his books through his blog. He does have a vested interest and he has been completely wrong for many many years.

I do agree his photos and comments are entertaining.

I dislike that he also attacks anyone who disagrees with him. My view is that this comment from Ben Rabidoux's site sums up Garth's arguments.

"1. Get out of real estate, invest in the markets. If you own, don't pay off your mortgage but invest instead.
2. Laugh at anyone that suggests safe investments like GICs.
3. Laugh at anyone that suggests passive investment strategies like Couch Potato.
4. Laugh at anyone that suggests investing yourself ("you'll lose everything")
5. Encourage everyone to get an advisor, but make sure they are fee based
6. When people ask about where to find an advisor, he suggests you email him personally.
7. Well my brother emailed him once and asked for fee based advisors in Vancouver. Garth says he doesn't know anyone (laughable) and suggests himself as an advisor."

http://garthturnergreaterfraud.blogspot.ca/2012/12/garth-turner-real-estate-prophet.html

dasmo said...

What naivety... Garth has a vested interest in his brand. Of which he is doing a great job of promoting. Case in point the hate blog above! If you don't know what TVP is then look it up... He is gambling that a significant downturn happens. Then he will be the go to guy for interviews, his books will pop, the talk show host offers will roll in.....

Marko said...

Garth's credentials?

1. He has a masters degree in arts from UWO and I have a master degree from UBC, but that doesn't mean I know what I am talking about.

2. Outcast politician.

3. Authored a number of books, such as this gem in 2002:

The Strategy: A Homeowner's Guide To Wealth Creation - Do Canadians have too much money tied up in residential real estate? Is this dangerous? Garth Turner thinks so - and in The Strategy, he will tell you why. But, he also tells us not to despair - that there is a way to turn non-performing home equity into a dynamic and growing retirement fund. It is a strategy millions of middle-class Canadian investors must discover and employ if they are going to avoid a retirement crisis that will envelop the country after the year 2011.

Now as to his "research," what kind of research has one incorrectly predict the largest market in the country (Toronto) 8 years in a row?

Flipping a coin at the beginning of every year would have been much more advantageous in predictive outcomes.

Garth is an amazing writer and I'll admit once in a while I'll venture over to his blog for some entertainment, but that's about it. I don't need him to tell me to max out my TSFAs and as far as his real estate predictions I stopped paying attention more than 6 years ago.

Eventually something will take down the market and its always just around the corner. It certainly hasn't been higher interest rates, 35 year amortizations, 30 year amortizations, 25 year amortizations, unemployment, lack of first time buyers, etc., etc.

Now it's the threat of a further CMHC clam down.

Marko said...

^ clamp

kabloona said...

Jack and Cate:

Thanks for posting the link to HSBC's sub one percent mortgage offering...

Funny how wherever Carney goes, ludicrously low mortgage rates inevitably follow....

:-)

Marko said...

He is gambling that a significant downturn happens. Then he will be the go to guy for interviews, his books will pop, the talk show host offers will roll in.....

Really good point. If Toronto dropped 20% he would be the go to guy even though he would still be net wrong.

Just Jack said...

One should avoid forecasting unless you're speaking to an audience that is definitively one sided. Then make your forecast agree with the consensus of the audience.

Otherwise make sure any forecast is obscure that it can be interpreted by each side to their own advantage. A course in Astrology writing would be of great advantage. As people who follow forecasters also believe in Astrology, magic and ghosts.

So don't feel bad if your forecast turns out wrong as it is only the dim witted of the world who actually believed you could see into the future.

CS said...

Funny how wherever Carney goes, ludicrously low mortgage rates inevitably follow....


They have an election in Britain next year, as do we. If I were forecasting a fall in RE, I'd say it won't happen until after those elections.

CS said...

1. Get out of real estate, invest in the markets. If you own, don't pay off your mortgage but invest instead.

This should have worked OK since 1990 or since 2000. Maybe the total return was no better than on RE, but it must have been close.

2. Laugh at anyone that suggests safe investments like GICs.

Not unreasonable as it has turned out these last few years.

3. Laugh at anyone that suggests passive investment strategies like Couch Potato.

Yeah, well what to expect from a financial adviser.

patriotz said...

HSBC’s 0.99 per cent loan is available from Monday, provided borrowers have a 40 per cent deposit or equity in the property.

The cost is linked to the bank’s standard variable rate (SVR) of 3.94 per cent. It is effectively a 2.95 per cent “discount” from that rate, lasting for two years. After that, borrowers will need to remortgage or their costs will rise.


Oh. I wonder what the break fee is.

Bears a strong resemblance to the ARM or "exploding" mortgage of US bubble days.

info said...

Yearly Single-Family Detached Home Sales
. . . . . . . . . Greater Victoria. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .(Compared to 28-year average). . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1986...*****************************
1990...************************
1992...************************************
1995...*********
2002...***********************
2003...***********************
2007...*********************
2008...********
2009...*****************
2010...******
2011...****
2012...**
2013...**
28 yr.
avg…..********************
--------------------------------------------------------
……..-35%. . . . . . . . .0%. . . . . . . . .+35%

This chart compares single family home sales of various years to Victoria’s 28-year average, which was 4513 sales (population adjusted for fair comparisons to other years).

* 2014’s total may be slightly ahead of 2010’s total, which was 27.5% below Victoria’s long-term average.
* 2007’s total was about 2.5% higher than the long-term average, and can, therefore, be used as a close approximation for Victoria’s long-term average.

Even without population adjustment, sales in recent years have been the lowest since 1986.

* 2012 - had the lowest total since 1986
* 2013 - second lowest total
* 2011 - third lowest total

(source: the local board’s website)

Using 2013’s sales as a basis for comparison (for current sales) is misleading (for obvious reasons). It is only fair to compare recent sales to Victoria’s long-term average.

Clearly, single family home sales in 2014 have been well below Victoria’s long-term average.

As long as single family home sales remain well below Victoria’s long-term average, Victoria’s current downward price trend (since 2010) will continue.

If historically low (emergency level) interest rates can’t push sales close to Victoria’s long-term average, what will?

(Population stats for Greater Victoria are available from 1986 to present.)

info said...

. . . . . . .Price Increase/Decrease. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . Since June 2008 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+40%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x. . .
+38%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+36%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+34%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+32%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+30%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+28%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+26%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+24%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+22%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+20%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+18%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+16%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+14%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+12%. . . . . . . . . .x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+10%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+8%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+6%. . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+4%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+2%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..0%. . . .x *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 2%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 4%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 6%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------
. . . . . . .June . . . June. . . . . . . . . .Sept.
. . . . . . .2008. . . .2010 . . . . . . . . . 2014

(source: Brookfield’s index)

Prices in Victoria are currently 6% lower than they were in June 2008. In contrast, prices in Hamilton have increased by 40% over the same period of time.

There are many near-peak (first-time) buyers in Victoria (since 2008) with underwater mortgages. Many of these underwater mortgage holders have been eliminated as move-up buyers which has contributed to Victoria’s slow sales since 2010.

Several of those 2008 buyers would have, temporarily, felt rich as prices increased until 2010 and probably took out HELOC’s (as many Canadians have). This would have added more debt to their mortgages, making their current mortgage situations worse now that prices have moved below the level at which they bought.

Most of the 2010-12 buyers, for example, would have probably taken out 30-year mortgages and paid off almost none of the principal in the 2 to 4 years of owning their mortgages.

If historically-low (emergency level) interest rates can’t stop Victoria’s price decline, what will?


Ben said...

"My view is that this comment from Ben Rabidoux's site"

WHOA! This is Ben. I can assure you and all the readers here that I am in no way associated with that site.

totoro victoria said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
totoro victoria said...

Found it.

Should be this site quoted:

http://www.theeconomicanalyst.com/content/more-bit-disappointed-garth-turner

Which is yours but is no longer in service. The comment was on this site.

Leo S said...

My view is that this comment from Ben Rabidoux's site sums up Garth's arguments.

That was me actually :)

Once I figured that out I pretty much stopped reading Garth.

Ben said...

Understood. I read the comment to mean that this is my site:

http://garthturnergreaterfraud.blogspot.ca/2012/12/garth-turner-real-estate-prophet.html

Just wanted to be clear that I'm in no way associated with that site. Glad that's clarified.
-b

Leo S said...

Although I did learn that GICs were no good so agreed with Garth on that one.

The DP said...

Info - after seeing your unchanging comments for the past 2 years or so, I have two comments:

1 - "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" JM Keynes (or in this case, the housing market's so-called irrational exuberance could most likely outlast your desire to keep renting). Like, it should be obvious by now that in the various communities that make up Canadian real estate markets, it's not about price/income ratios any more. There are trends, and momentum, and emotions, and fear, and the broader economy, and investors, and so on.

2 - You're probably not trying to purchase the whole housing market; just one house (or a very small number of them). Thus, what the market is doing on average is not that important, given that we're seeing small month-to-month fluctuations. Statisticians would say that you're way too focused on the mean, and not enough on the variance.

patriotz said...

it's not about price/income ratios any more. There are trends, and momentum, and emotions, and fear, and the broader economy, and investors, and so on.

Gotcha, it's a "new paradigm". I suppose this "new paradigm" starts today, since price/income has been falling in Victoria since 2008.

Marko said...

Info is hoping by posting the same comments over and over again she will drive buyers on the fence reading this blog out of the Victoria market causing a correction. Why else would the exact same argument be posted 100s of times? The regulars on the blog are familiar with it.

However; it has the opposite effect. You lose credibility by posting the same thing over and over again.

dasmo said...

It's good for SEO though...

JD said...

Info said:
If historically-low (emergency level) interest rates can’t stop Victoria’s price decline, what will?

Answer: Higher interest rates?
Would it not be the ultimate surprise if wages and inflation started rising from here, pulling up interest rates and Victoria house prices? T’is what usually happens.

Over this period, totaling 365 months, there were 156 instances where the five-year residential mortgage rate increased over the prior month, and in 97 of these cases, house prices increased two months later. That means that 62% of the time, increasing mortgage rates corresponded with higher pricing.

Just Jack said...

It isn't a new paradigm. Price income ratios have never been a primary method of valuing residential real estate. And never have they been used to compare one time period to another or used to infer that a marketplace is "overvalued".

"Direct capitalization is simple, straightforward and can be applied without an in-depth knowledge of the mathematics of finance. Ease of computation can make direct capitalization deceptively attractive; appraisers should always remember that subject properties and comparable (from which rates or multipliers are derived) must be similar or adjusted for differences. There also must be a consistent pattern in the market-derived overall capitalization rates or multipliers"

-REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT (2003) by The UBC Real Estate Division page 23.8

The price income ratios are NOT fundamentals of real estate. The fundamentals of real estate are:
-SOCIAL
-ECONOMIC
-POLITICAL
-GEOGRAPHICAL

Or to try to put it more simply. A home is not bought on its ability to generate income. So why would there be a DIRECT relationship between rent or income to the price a person will buy a home? There is likely an INDIRECT or fuzzy relationship for most homes, but that would certainly NOT make price income a "fundamental" of real estate.

How do I turn the "rant" button off on my PC?

patriotz said...

Would it not be the ultimate surprise if wages and inflation started rising from here, pulling up interest rates and Victoria house prices? T’is what usually happens.

You mean what usually happened. The 60's and 70's are not economic and demographic models for future scenarios.

patriotz said...

A home is not bought on its ability to generate income.

That's what investment properties are bought for (more precisely, income and capital gains).

If net demand from investors goes down, prices have to go down, because they will have to sell to renters who are unable or unwilling to buy at current prices.

dasmo said...

Wow! Mediterranean day today!

Just Jack said...

But house prices don't have to go down if demand for home occupation doesn't decrease even when demand by investors decreases.

If you buy in a building that doesn't allow rentals that doesn't mean prices are significantly lower than a building that permits rentals. In some cases, the opposite actually occurs.

Some people buy homes to rent. But they are the minority. The housing market is dominated by those wanting a home to live in. You won't find investors buying acreage or waterfront based on their rental values. Since it doesn't make economic sense relative to the annual return.

Investors want to maximize their returns while minimizing their costs.

A home owner generally wants the best place she can afford.

The two are not synonymous.

JD said...

patiotz said:
You mean what usually happened. The 60's and 70's are not economic and demographic models for future scenarios.

The article is referring to the 80's until now period...not the 60's and 70's. You should consider reading it. It's only one page and explains why prices usually go up as interest rates do.

patriotz said...

The article is referring to the 80's until now period...

The 80's until now have seen the biggest decline in interest rates in history. Any rises in rates have just been brief blips. I don't see how you can get a correlation between rising rates and rising prices out of that.

JD said...

brief blips? There have been numerous 1-2-3 year periods where interest rates steadily rose since 1980. He even considered the ones where they rose significantly. His data is indeed sound. He mentions how it is challenging to people with the widely held belief.

So, even in cases where rates rose dramatically, the odds were still better than 50% that they coincided with rising house prices.

JD said...

This line sums up why it happens.

While it certainly is true that higher rates increase borrowing costs, this generally happens in periods with rising incomes, higher levels of employment and increasing consumer confidence.

Jack and Cate said...

Marko how come you fail to see the forest for the trees. we can all post ups and downs of any markets. It is called cherry picking, sort of like these:

Building permits fall, trend showing

Home sales slow

Canadian home sales fall

BC sees housing start decling

Your biase is getting pretty big. There are always two sides to all stories and I along with a few others here like to keep it a level information field, not a sales pitch.

Marko said...

Sure, call me bias for predicting a flat market? Take a look at my 2013 predictions and take a look at my 2014 predictions (both available on this blog) and then take a look at the results.

Monday, October 20, 2014 8:00am

MTD October
2014 2013
Net Unconditional Sales: 356 512
New Listings: 556 979
Active Listings: 3,988 4,322

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

dasmo said...

@ JD, That article is simply looking at those stats in extreme isolation and presenting them to best represent what he is selling (mortgages). It is manipulation at it's best. Please, It's called TVP...Thinly Veiled Promotion. Garth is an expert at it Even you state that the best summary has nothing to do with rates and everything to do with other things. If we have an economic boom, prices will probably go up allowing rates to go up to try to control over inflation. If interest rates shoot up and there is no economic boom or wage gain to coincide then I would probably grow hair and claws and my eyes would shift from one side of my face to both. I think the only possibility of this happening is if for some reason the present trajectory that's happening in the big cities accelerates and it starts to accelerate faster in the states, and more and more companies start borrowing more to pay higher dividends and buy back stocks that this somehow triggers the gov to apply some sort of emergency braking.
I feel pretty safe I'll remain a halibut...

Introvert said...

Your biase is getting pretty big. There are always two sides to all stories and I along with a few others here like to keep it a level information field, not a sales pitch.

Newsflash: everyone is biased.

I think most will agree that Marko isn't sales-pitchy at all.

There are always two sides to a story? Yeah, and Marko is offering his side, which may oppose yours. Try to deal with it.

JD said...

OK dasmo, let's entertain that the Canadian data is somehow a conspiratorial TVP. Then how about the USofA? Same TVP?

I took every case from 1976 through the present in which mortgage rates rose by one percentage point or more. I then looked at the FHFA’s Home Price Index for that period. It turns out that in every case, home prices rose(emphasis added) over the period in which mortgage interest rates are rising.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/billconerly/files/2012/12/Home-Price-Table.jpg

Interest rates on mortgages, bonds, and other long-term debt are not set by the whims of fairies. They are determined by two factors: inflation expectations and economic growth, which combine to set the supply and demand for credit. Mortgage rates only rise when people feel good about buying houses: inflation is pushing up home prices, and more people have jobs. The higher demand for housing pushes home prices up despite the higher mortgage rates.

The full article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2012/12/18/when-mortgage-rates-rise-will-home-prices-fall/

dasmo said...

You missed my point JD. Data is data. It's what you do with it. TVP is hardly conspiracy... these articles are written to promote not report....

dasmo said...

The important takeaway from the article is "it’s incomplete logic." Which I agree with. The same concept applies to saying that prices will go up if rates go up. "it’s incomplete logic."

caveat emptor said...

by posting the same comments over and over again she will drive buyers on the fence reading this blog out of the Victoria market causing a correction.

Sounds like a forlorn hope! I don't think HHV blog has the power to move markets. Some good education and thought-provoking posts for regular readers and posters though.

JD said...

Sure dasmo, however one can always objectively crosscheck the referenced data to draw their own conclusion.
My only point was that rates and prices, more often than not, rise in unison - much to the surprise of the masses. A long period of historical data shows that statement to be correct. The “incomplete logic” you speak of is with the majority who believe that prices must fall when rates go up.

dasmo said...

^also true. I'm just an non partisan skeptic....

patriotz said...

There have been numerous 1-2-3 year periods where interest rates steadily rose since 1980.

House prices lag changes in interest rates. Looking at such a brief period tells you little. Also, any upward changes in mortgage rates since the peak in 1981 have been small in terms of the base rate - e.g. from 12% to 13%.

Going forward we're not looking at upward blips in a secular decline in interest rates, but a secular increase.

Just Jack said...

Because of 90 and 180 day rate guarantees from the lenders it isn't a clear relationship between house prices and changing real estate prices.

Personally, I think prices will become more sensitive to interest changes as prospective purchasers stretch to get approved for a mortgage. It's kinda like stress testing the market. Announce a raise in interest rates and watch what happens.

JD said...

Looking at such a brief period tells you little.

I wouldn’t call their research using 35 years for Canada, & 38 years for the USA brief periods.

Also, any upward changes in mortgage rates since the peak in 1981 have been small in terms of the base rate - e.g. from 12% to 13%.

ahhhh, take the most recent nearly doubling in the base rate during the year 2013! What happened - prices soared in both Canada and USA.

Going forward we're not looking at upward blips in a secular decline in interest rates, but a secular increase.

The secular increasing periods where rates went, from today’s near-zero levels of for example the mid-40’s, to the high teens by 1980, demonstrate an even greater correlation between rising rates and prices.

JD said...

To expand on the 2013 example I referred to, take a look at this and tell me what prices did shortly after rates rose.

http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/files/2014/01/canada-bond-yield-us-bond-yield.png

Jack and Cate said...

Introvert says..."There are always two sides to a story? Yeah, and Marko is offering his side, which may oppose yours. Try to deal with it."
---------------------

Marko has a friend....touchy touchy. Guess the "other opinion" doesn't wash. Grow a thicker skin.

Just Jack said...

Time to take a look at some of the better deals this month.

Starting with a townhouse on leased First Nation's Land off Admirals Road. 1,200 square feet within biking distance of downtown sold for $125,000. This same unit sold back in 2005 at $131,000

Another Ugly Betty condo along Mckenzie. 840 square feet, tennis courts, indoor pool and fitness centre. $123,000 and change. Bought for $186K in 2008.

Half built home on a postage size lot in Langford at $272K. Almost 1,600 square feet of contemporary style house.

An Estate Sale of a basement entry home with 1,400 square feet on each floor situated on a half acre in Saanichton. Kids said SELL and it did for $380K

A Beach Drive condo with almost 1,150 square feet across the street from the Marina. NO AGE RESTRICTIONS!!!! $221,500 Bought a year ago for $295K.

A 910 square foot lake front cabin on 2.43 Acres along Kemp Lake in Sooke. Your very own Golden Pond at $225,000

Of course there were also some Bozo the clown sales worthy of merit. But I'll let those buyers find out for themselves how much they over paid.

info said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
info said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Curly Fry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.