The web is quite large and hiding inventory could happen quite easily? And you have the gall to describe other’s comments as pathetic? ROFLMAO.

The MLS is not designed to provide an accurate account of inventory. Saying that the MLS is designed to capture inventory demonstrates that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The MLS is a system that allows Realtors to cooperate with each other on the basis of set rules and standardized contracts while not violating competition law. It is a vast improvement to the alternative. If you have any experience trading in a non-MLS environment you recognize the advantage to both Realtor and consumer immediately. If you really think the MLS is not advantageous to both buyer and seller you’re simply ill-informed. The advantages are obvious. Take away the MLS and imagine what you’d see. That image is why the MLS was developed.

Confusing all properties for sale with total MLS inventory is another foolish assumption that seems widely made. MLS inventory can be verified by anyone wanting to do the legwork. Every individual listing can be downloaded. If you buy into the concept that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, you can just do the math. And yes, the MLS totals are advertised on the web, and yes, you can drill down to each individual MLS property on the web.

In order to publicise lower than actual inventory the Board would have to hold a certain amount of listings off the system. Each listing has at least three parties greatly interested in seeing the listing publicised (no publicity, no sale, no money). The Board has to either ignore them over-rule them, or involve them in the conspiracy. Who here thinks a sales agent, the broker or the seller wants their listing kept off the system? Where’s the profit? Does anyone seriously think that the Board can get the broker, the agent and the seller to all simultaneously agree to take one for the team?

Coco:

“The only way to prove several properties are listed under one MLS number is for someone to visit a new development and report how many properties are actually for sale under that one MLS number”.

That would prove that a seller of multiple properties was not listing all the properties he had for sale on MLS. We know that happens already, but we don’t know to what degree. There’s really no need to prove it happens, therefore, but it would be useful to know how much it happens.

It wouldn’t prove that MLS numbers don’t accurately reflect what’s listed on MLS.

In other words, if someone says “Not everything for sale is on MLS”, I agree, and don’t think it needs to be proven. But when someone says “The Board hides the real numbers because they don’t want people to know what’s really going on” I think that, in the absence of truth, the accusers should at least provide a credible scenario, aside from “It could be done really easily”.

Jesse:

“If you think things will be more affordable, the only way things become more affordable is by incomes rising, mortgage rates dropping (SIGNIFICANTLY), or prices dropping”.

The other things we’ve seen is mortgage terms changing significantly (longer ams, more insurance) and people settling for less (why buy a house when you can live in a condo, or better yet, a green garage?). Its hard to imagine more mortgage changes, aside from cheaper insurance rates, but I suspect that more density will be used to address affordability somewhat (I know, we really aren’t making something more affordable when we sell you less and charge more per sq. foot, but we’ve seen it happen, no?)

“Um…wait a second, how do you hide inventory when you advertise it on the web?”

Reminder, the web is quite large and hiding inventory could happen easily. How about searching every site on the web, create a spreadsheet that will add all Lower Mainland places for sale and then what do you have? An accurate account for inventory right! But isn’t that what the MLS system is suppossed to capture?

The MLS system is for the benefit of the realtor and not the buyer. Really, you do not need a realtor to buy or sell….

* I stopped by an RE office in Kits to use a phone book. Wasn’t much going on. I asked the fellow “So, how’s the market?” He said that this was the quietest it had been in the last 7 yrs.

* I noted a project under construction on 8th one block west of Granville. 4 stories of concrete so far, looked like it would be a 15-20 story building. Sign said “sold out” So, if they’ve really sold all of the units, that’s about 60 folks holding the bag–it looks like its over a year to move-in date. What options do the buyers have if the value goes down 10% in the meantime? Time will tell…

* My lawyer mentioned that a number of long-time investors were selling their property. Also, she and her partner had stopped looking for something to buy (they’d been looking for 3 yrs) simply because there wasn’t anything available on the market. I suggested she wait another couple years, and enjoy those annual trips to Hawaii on the difference between rent and mortgage payments. She laughed, but indicated she was tired of renting.

* My Realtor mentioned that the market had cooled considerably in terms of buyers.

Again,
Whybuywhenucanrent?

The new carbon tax will offset deficit until it is revenue neutral.

The new carbon tax will offset deficit until it is not revenue neutral.

One month down, one month up is not a progressive trend. I would give it about another 4-5 months if you really want to see what the trend is.

It can be easy to complicate things. Affordability is close the worst in the 30 years since such a stat was measured. Either things will remain historically unaffordable or they will not.

If you think things will be more affordable, the only way things become more affordable is by incomes rising, mortgage rates dropping (SIGNIFICANTLY), or prices dropping.

As for incomes rising, a lot of jobs are government and union based with 3% per year increases on average and you’re fooling yourself if you think the government will increase wages beyond this anytime soon. Other wages are increasing faster than this but these are the jobs that are destroyed in downturns. Food for thought.