There were 269 new listings today and 205 sales, for a sell/list of 76.21%. Of the sales 25, or 12.20%, went over list. 4 of those were on the Westside. 7 were in East Van, 6 in North Van, 1 in Maple Ridge, 1 in Coquitlam, and 6 in Burnaby.
Average list price of the sales was $519,115, while the average sales price was $511,281, a difference of $7,834, meaning the average sale went for 1.62% under list price. 20 properties went for list price. One property went for 12%($74,000) under list while the highest over list was 15% ($25,000) over . Average days on market to sale was 29.
There were 10 million dollar plus properties sold with two over $2 million.
There were 91 price changes, of which 7, or 7.69%, were increases. The average original list price of price changes was $598,906; the average new price was $581,081, a difference of $17,825, meaning the average price change was -2.18%. Average days on market to price change was 43 days. 0.70% of all listings reduced their prices today.
Inventory in my target area rose to 12,009, while over 90s also climbed, reaching 2,024, or 16.85%.
The Best Real Estate Anywhere! 
Those over 90’s are “under reported” IMO. I have been watching several fake “NEW!” relists (re-listed at increasingly LOWER prices, I might add) Many over over 90’s, would REALLY be “over 180’s”.
Interesting article about rate hikes and the BC RE market in today’s Sun:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=9e0c51f3-3d41-4f44-a7c6-6a3a33812b77
Vancouver PH condo listed for $18.2 million (which is likely a new record for a vancouver condo). Purchased in 2004 for $7. Former owners include Axl Rose and Pavel Bure.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070613.BCCONDO13/TPStory/National
Snick
We wait for reasonable explanation on last Friday’s numbers. At least 125 uncounted.
They cannot use expired listings as excuse that day because it is set as low as zero.
Do you still believe the numbers?
Attached last Friday numbers
11911(Thursday inventory) + 289 (New listings) – 251 (Sales)- 0 (Expired) = 11949 not 12074
The number of expired is set as low as zero.
The difference is 125.
The only way to explain it reasonably is higher new listings (over 289) and lower sales (under 251). It will make sell/list much much lower.
June 2006 at this time, Rob’s area was averaging about 212 sales per day. June 2007 so far — about 225 sales per day. Just like last year, inventory is fairly steady. Unsold inventory still up about 32%, and over 90s up about 44%.
Looks like another repeat as far as sales go. So, (a) market is still hot, but (b) balanced market conditions (maybe even buyer’s) are on the horizon if the “repeat” continues and July and August 2007 look anything like July and August 2006.
There is a conspiracy theory going on in other blog, that a chunk of this market is re agents and their associates buying & selling to each other.
I dunno wherether it happens or not. If it happens, the winner would be the government and lawyers due to the collection of huge property transfer taxes, GST and legal services; meanwhile, the buying associates would be out a chunk of money first hand. What is the benefit then for them to do it?
tqn: I think that’s a pretty ridiculous conspiracy theory. there are easier ways to skin a cat
205 sales
total 10 million dollar properites sold
2 over 2 millions dollar:
total turnover = 519,115 x 205 = 106.4 mil
(106.4 – 8 x 1.5 – 2 x 2) mil / (205 – 10) = $463,685
Does it mean the rest are mostly condo transactions?
I dont get it if bank interest go up and the market stays up how does anyone purchase a house?they will all be million doller properties how can most of the public aford that except doctors , lawyers realestate agents and politicans?
Annonymous:
This theory has some reality. I dealt with a couple of realtors who are listing the properties, who they own. A lot of them are in Whalley area, near “Quattro” site. Many houses displays the for sale sign along “Whalley ring road” are realtor or their immediate family owned. One property that I am particularly interested in has an accepted offer for the last two months. Now, I am started to think that there is somthing else going on.
“I dont get it if bank interest go up and the market stays up how does anyone purchase a house?”
it’s a million dollar question…
Anonymous:
Lots of houses sell outside Vancouver. If I’ve got time tonight I’ll do a breakdown of houses/townhouses/apartments.
Puppo:
You’re not describing the conspiracy, though (at least I don’t think you are). The conspiracy has Realtors selling to Realtors. That’s a variation on the greater fool theory, with the variation being that you reduce the number of potential fools.
200-300 sales per day, 9,000 Realtors…even if all of the Realtors were involved, and nobody else was buying, I think they’d have to be buying and selling a couple per month.
How will it work:
Mortgage rate increase fear will probably bump June and July’s markets slightly (pre-qualifieds wanting to act before the end of the gauranteed rate period). If rates stay high I think that magnifies the problem – the effect of higher rates lags while prices rise, meaning that the higher rates we see today have to be applied to prices 60 days in the future.
Meantime, two anecdotes: on teh news last night they reported that Chilliwack outstripped Abbotsford for building permits last year (albeit marginally), and are at a 50% higher pace this year. I spoke to the building inspector in NV today, at my reno, and he said they’re about 50% higher this year in terms of building permits as well. I’m not sure how that related to the larger housing start numbers (which I recall had shown some weakness, nationally).
Anyway, higher rates and higher prices means you better bring a bigger downpayment, a higher mortgage or a raise. None of those things looks promising for rents, either.
Hohoho, BOJ, BOC, BOE, RBNZ, … are expected to hike rates soon or in fall. Really can’t wait to see how the whole commodity market and LBOs craze turn out near the end of this year. It never makes sense to me how the corporates must increase profits quarter after quarter. There is only so much cost you can cut, so many people you can layoff, so much outsourcing you can do, and so much price increase you can impose on consumers. So what happens in the end? The unions are finally talking about wage cuts with GM, Ford, and Crysler. It’s better to have a lower paying job than to have none especially in a declining economy. When credit drains and inability to create positive corporate profits are forced on Canadian (or global) market, we will see how well the housing market in Canada fare.
Companies that don’t make profits cease being companies. It doesn’t get anymore complicated than that. Commerce never stabilizes, because competition and the quest for the buck keeps everyone innovating, cost cutting and creative. If corporations are unable to create positive profits, they’ll simply cease to exist.
You’re right, however: if companies can’t be profitable, in Canada, or globally, there will be fallout.
What’s the alternative to creating profits in a competitive arena? I don’t think there is one. Anyone who thinks they can maintain lifestyle by restricting labour supply through unionization hasn’t grasped the impact of globalization. We are all becoming increasingly equal, and have to find a way to contribute. What would you rather have: A Ford or a Toyota? What about an Indian built Tata? (I cerainly remember when the idea of a Japanese car was laughable). What would you rather have in your RRSP: shares in a profitable company or shares in an unprofitable company?
If there isn’t an alternative to the current system (and we’ve never succesfully dialled in centrally planned economies, so let’s not go there), and if failure will have terrible consequences, isn’t it time we took steps to make our economy more productive? Isn’t that more in the national interest than oh, just about a billion other things?
“Anyway, higher rates and higher prices means you better bring a bigger downpayment, a higher mortgage or a raise. None of those things looks promising for rents, either.”
Ahhh, how about a “correction” ? or does this word not exist in the real estate world ?
We are at a level where rents can’t go any higher,somehow the bulls don’t seem to get that. It’s called “maxed out”, which in turn effects all parts of an economy. The way the media is playing this all out we all won the 649 this past year or at eh least we all got 100% pay raises.
ontheisle:
We’ve all (at least you and me) stated that a correction will come. The big mystery is when and by how much. Its a bit of a canard to keep saying that the possibility isn’t recognized by bulls.
I guess you can make the argument that rate hikes will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. You can argue that change always occurs at the margin. Still, a rate hike of 1% on $300,000 (from 5% to 6%) costs $175 per month. If you bought in ’05 you purchased at, say, 15% less than in ’06. If rates were the same, between ’05 and ’06 then the diff in mortgage is $255,000 in ’05 and $300,000 in ’06. Difference in payment? $261.
My point is that while a correction is coming the faith that some have in it being triggered by higher mortgage rates may be misplaced. I’m not saying it won’t come. However, the change brought about by increased rates is less than what has happened from price appreciation.
Rob said…
“My point is that while a correction is coming the faith that some have in it being triggered by higher mortgage rates may be misplaced.”
This seems to be a common statement coming from economists in this country on the heels of the recent rate increases. The one thing that bugs me is that this contradicts what they were saying 4 months ago when “historically low interest rates” were one of the only things they could come up with to explain the ever rising prices and and plummeting affordability.
It’s hard to believe that the demise of the cause will not result in the demise of the effect. But crazier things have happened.
There is an article in the Sun today that states that higher rates will have a minimal effect on house prices. The only thing that will make a difference is a large recession.
An increase from say 5% to 8% seems nominal, but how does it differ from the 12% to 18% increase of the early 80’s? (Hint: The latter would cause a little less pain)
The recent increase in rates is minor, but it’s like a death of a thousand cuts. Affordability at yesterdays rates was bad, it has just gotten a little worse especially for the FTB’s.
The same article states that the average household income for a two earner family in the GVA is about 107,000 a year.
Average household income is usually used when you want to seriously distort the real picture. The median is less sensitive to extreme scores than the average (arithmetic mean) and this makes it a better measure than the mean for highly skewed distributions.
A good illustration that I have heard before is to look at a neighbourhood that includes an NHL hockey player. His income will seriously distort the mean, but will sway the median very little. Which one offers a truer representation of reality? Why do you think benchmarked median prices are used for house values instead of averages?
Rates are rising but they think it won’t have an effect because home owners or buyers have the option to combat the rise in mortgage payments with longer (40year) mortgage amortization.
Rob, up to 20% correction in the next 3 years?
How real can this be?
On $500,000 thats $100,000 discount.
Even 10% would be good too- $50,000 discount.
If I save $50k for a year and homes drop $50k I save $100k on my purchase!
Hmmm how long would it take to pay off $100k of mortgage on a 40 year ammortization owing $400k?
Nice to see that the pathetic bears are still lurking around and praying/hoping/wishing for a correction. Looks like another solid summer market…
moneyfromasia:
The 500K that you say you have access to via a mortgage would have bought you more 6 months ago….i do remember advising you to buy a condo in a good area downtown during the winter…and you laughed! false creek north condos doing well and up almost 10% in the last 6 months…
I said it before and I’ll say it again…the olympics started this bull run and they will end it when they are done…doesn’t make rational sense but this market is psychology driven…
Now I’ve heard everything. Again. And Again.
Thanks Oracle for your response, I was looking for something with a mortgage helper. Alas Condos are a poor invest ment that way. Strata fees and all.
You know I figure SDF homes have hit a cieling and that the left over would be buyers are now looking at condos and town homes pushing their prices up too.
I will buy but it’s a matter of when. You you whatched CTV news tonight you would of seen some doom and gloom with the rates article and the pre sold problems!!!
Snick, feel free to steer the comments which ever way you like. We’d like to hear your opinion….
Vancouver market prices still have a long way to go up folks…..
Its only reached 70% of Gross pre-tax income…
http://money.canoe.ca/PersonalFinance/2007/06/15/4263532-cp.html
Jaymo:
I’m curious about your math. On $100,000 the pmt @5% is $581. At 8% its $763. Dif is $182.
Same amount, 12% pmt is $1,031. 18% is $1,466. Dif is $435.
Maybe you’re looking at it another way.
Another huge dif between now and the ’80s is the absolute level of pmt.
what do you mean by absolute level of pmt. please?
Rob (& Jaymo):
Of course 12% vs 18% gives a larger diff than 5% vs 8% *assuming $100K principal* (duh!) but don’t you need to take into account how big the principal is now versus then???
The place my parents bought back then was worth about 200K at the peak. With 25% down, that’s a $150K principal. That same place would probably sell for $1.5M now meaning the principal (assuming same % down) would be about $1.1M, ie., a factor of over 7 times higher! So in terms of absolute payment per your calcs above, a more reasonable comparison is 1.5 x $435 vs 11 x $182 which gives a ratio of about 3 times higher today. Of course this is not inflation adjusted — if income growth happens to have been 3 times during this period (I don’t have the data handy on this but this number “feels about right”), then in real terms the situation we have now is equivalent to the peak back then.
Sorry, I should be more careful with my wording at the end — it’s not that it’s “equivalent to back then”, it’s “a change from 5% to 8% now would be equivalent to a change from 12% to 18% then”.
Deb/ObserverX:
We’re talking about the same thing. Absolute level of payments in ’81/81 were huge for that time, plus interest rates were huge. Today prices are huge and interest rates are low.
Some would argue that paying 18% in ’81 was easier than paying 8% today would be, because today’s prices are so much higher. You can do the numbers to acheive a real number equivelant, but consider what inflation was like then and what it brought (legislated wage and price controls, NEP, recession, stagflation). My opinion? Its easier to get the money today. JMHO.
Deb: by absolute payment I mean that paying a lower monthly mortgage payment in ’81 at a higher rate was tougher than paying a higher payment at a lower rate today.
Dig:
You’re stretching a long bow to indulge your annoyance. Historically low rates have a big effect. Small increases in rates have a smaller effect. We’re comparing big to small. You’re equating a small increase (from super low rates to merely really low rates) with “the demise” of low rates. You’re the architect of your own annoyance.
“You’re the architect of your own annoyance.”
If I had to renew my mortgage today I would be going from a 4.35 to a 5.9. Do the math yourself, not that small an increase.
Like I said before Rob don’t get so defensive.
Dig, I’m not getting defensive. You highlighted what you think is an anomaly, and said the inconsistency bugged you. I explained why I don’t think its an anomaly, and that I think you’re looking for justification for an emotional position.
Is moving from 4.35% to 5.9% big or small? If I say its small I line up with Marie Antoinette, saying “Let them eat cake!” That said, the dif in payments is about $90 per hundred thousand/ 16% increase. Its not negligible, but I don’t think its of the same order of magnitude as 40 year lows.
Look at some math. 4.35% was about as low as you’d get (depending on term, of course). Say you were looking at a $500,000 property, and were going to get a $400,000 mortgage. Unfortunately you waited a year, and the property went up 17% and mortgages rose to 5%. Your $100,000 stayed the same, but your mortgage rose from $400,000 to $485,000. Payment for $400k @4.35% would have been $2180. $485k at 5% is $2820,$640/month dif, or $130- $160/$100,000, depending on which face value you use, or a 29% increase in payments. We saw that in 2006, right? What happened? Buyers sucked it up and bought (for better or worse, wiser or stupider).
So, all I’m saying is that I think you’re stretching when you say the rate increases we see now = the demise of one of the causes of the current asset boom. This latest bump may be the straw to break the camel’s back, and I guess that could be a valid argument.
Saying that a bump from 40 year historic lows to 35 or 30 year historic lows = the demise of low interest rates isn’t valid. We’ve had bigger affordability roadblocks thrown out and it didn’t phase buyers. The $90/$100k is only huge if everyone renewing is maxed out. That claim has been made now for a long time. Forgive me for not accepting it at face value.
BTW, @ an increase of $90/$100k, would you decide to sell? How much could I make you back off your list price? If you couldn’t sell would you stretch out the amortization? Ask the boss for a raise? Cancel the cable? Or just suck it up? (I’m seriously curious. I have a variable rate mortgage and I’m considering the same kind of options).
“We’ve had bigger affordability roadblocks thrown out and it didn’t phase buyers. ”
Bigger than the present 70% of pre-tax income?
This year we’re at 68%
according to the CBC.
Last year it was 68.2%, according to Vancouver Condo Info
News stories did actually report that affordability had gotten a little better.
I dont know what it was in ’80/’81 but……
In ’81/’82, the market doubled in one year and lost 40% the following year. Inflation was out of control. Interest rates were double digits, sometimes cresting 20%. We flipped from a strong economy to a depressed one overnight. Its really tough to draw realistic comparisons between that remarkably short time frame and its remarkable characteristics with today’s market, which has taken 5 years to accomplish similar price appreciation.
But, given your sobriquet, you can try…
BTW, that 68% today vs. 68.2% last September? Its kind of like that other news flash, right? The one that says “Recent study reveals that come October its going to rain most of the time in Vancouver”. Whaddaya figure? Real estate is here is really, really expensive. You can argue its unaffordable, but if you keep using the same arguments and people keep buying it, I think the argument needs some more work. There will be a straw to break the camel’s back. Can we identify it before it comes?