Calgary Real Estate predictions?

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by fotze

Another death knell for the Western Canada gas industry. Should see the layoffs coming in drives now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...1-million.html

Why do you think this will equate to layoffs?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Danijam

Why do you think this will equate to layoffs?

Texans are more likely to operate their assets from home office instead of hiring people in Calgary than the Koreans.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Texans are more likely to operate their assets from home office instead of hiring people in Calgary than the Koreans.

So, that would mean increased jobs. The Koreans bought out assets from the Texans.

[macker]

Originally Posted by fotze

Another death knell for the Western Canada gas industry. Should see the layoffs coming in drives now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...1-million.html

http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/fcst.pdf
There will actually be job growth in Alberta next year and RBC estimates 37,000 new jobs next year. Alberta to lead Canada in this area.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

Our office is seeing sales pick up.
If a property is priced right and is in a popular area, it is gone.

I bought in Sept in a neighbourhood with very little movement (average less than 2 a month since May; and I still think I overpayed) where the house we bought was 120 DOM and we hacked the list price quite significantly. We bid on one other house where the sellers weren't interested in moving at all on price (house is listed at the price they paid in 2007, yeah good luck getting that back) and it's still for sale. They delisted it and relisted and it's coming on 290 DOM. The house next door listed at market value, sold in two days; so did two other houses in the neighbourhood in the last two months. There's 5 or 6 (out of 10ish) listings that have been on market for 100+ days, all massively overpriced. Guess they're not interested in selling.

The lesson: list competitively and your house will sell. Overprice, and you're wasting your, your realtor's, and any prospective buyers' time.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by billybob123

I bought in Sept in a neighbourhood with very little movement (average less than 2 a month since May; and I still think I overpayed) where the house we bought was 120 DOM and we hacked the list price quite significantly. We bid on one other house where the sellers weren't interested in moving at all on price (house is listed at the price they paid in 2007, yeah good luck getting that back) and it's still for sale. They delisted it and relisted and it's coming on 290 DOM. The house next door listed at market value, sold in two days; so did two other houses in the neighbourhood in the last two months. There's 5 or 6 (out of 10ish) listings that have been on market for 100+ days, all massively overpriced. Guess they're not interested in selling.

The lesson: list competitively and your house will sell. Overprice, and you're wasting your, your realtor's, and any prospective buyers' time.

mayland heights?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So, that would mean increased jobs. The Koreans bought out assets from the Texans.

I know. I was refuting the idea that this would cost jobs. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by fotze

I was being facetious.

These companies with huge pockets are readying their wangs to pump NEBC full of money juice.

If only you'd used this: Then I would have known.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

A lot of times that was with US lenders who were not doing business in Canada anymore, and wanted their money back.

This is true as well as some other lenders that were Canadian, but also closing up shop. I think Xceed was in that group?

[chemgear]

"Debt problem? There is no debt problem . . . oh THAT debt problem. Don't look at us, the government has to stop us from lending to people that can't control themselves.

Can I interest anybody in some more rope to hang themselves with?"



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1839794/

[mykalberta]

It is the governments issue. Its not up to banks to get Canadians to borrow less.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by chemgear

"Debt problem? There is no debt problem . . . oh THAT debt problem. Don't look at us, the government has to stop us from lending to people that can't control themselves.

Can I interest anybody in some more rope to hang themselves with?"



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1839794/

The banks are just businesses trying to make as much profit as possible. They're not going to screw themselves over by trying to fix something that the government should be regulating. I mean, if one bank decides to do it and others don't follow suit, then all of a sudden they give the competitive advantage to their competitors. What they should be doing (and have been doing) is sound the alarm bells so that the government can address the issue. Honestly, I don't find the banks at any fault.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Danijam

If only you'd used this: Then I would have known.

Yup.

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by chemgear

"Debt problem? There is no debt problem . . . oh THAT debt problem. Don't look at us, the government has to stop us from lending to people that can't control themselves.

Can I interest anybody in some more rope to hang themselves with?"



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1839794/

But is this strategy going to work out well for the banks? Seems like a pretty short term way of thinking. Maybe the people who make these decisions are on the verge of retirement, so they want their big bonuses now and don't care what happens in the long term.

[fundmark19]

Record cash at oil rights auctions. equaling labour shortage in the oil fields. Are we going to see a mini boom here with more people coming to town? http://www.calgaryherald.com/technol...406/story.html

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Danijam

But is this strategy going to work out well for the banks? Seems like a pretty short term way of thinking. Maybe the people who make these decisions are on the verge of retirement, so they want their big bonuses now and don't care what happens in the long term.

Not really, what Clark was explaining is that in the ultra competative world of banking no one who starts the process of being tighter on lending would be there long term as they would be carved up short term by the other banks. From their point of view they have to be competative on lending in the short term and not be the one bank that fails long term before the government bails out the banking system.

Traditionally I was deeply ideologically right wing, rugged individualism and what have you. I always thought that if everyone looked out for #1, the net effect would be the invisable hand that drives the economy. Well the last few years have highlighted to me that that theory works very well, but only in instances where the vast majority are actually competent in their struggles to look out for #1. Turns out that too many people are idiots and incapable of making financial decisions for their own benefit. Therefore the government seriously has to handcuff their ability to shoot themselves in the foot, because when everyone does it en masse at the same time it cripples even the people that made the right moves. Bring on 10% down and 25 years!

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Bring on 10% down and 25 years!

Alright, joking aside and back to the numbers.

This would be VERY interesting. Going from 35 years to 25 is basically what, another 15% drop in prices - everything else being equal? But I would suggest that downpayments from 5% to 10% would massacre sales numbers. Well, maybe not massacre but it would cut them pretty severely . . . unless of course banks continue to the 0% down - 5% cash back business.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Turns out that too many people are idiots and incapable of making financial decisions

Oh, and totally agree! :P

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I always thought that if everyone looked out for #1, the net effect would be the invisable hand that drives the economy. Well the last few years have highlighted to me that that theory works very well, but only in instances where the vast majority are actually competent in their struggles to look out for #1. Turns out that too many people are idiots and incapable of making financial decisions for their own benefit. Therefore the government seriously has to handcuff their ability to shoot themselves in the foot, because when everyone does it en masse at the same time it cripples even the people that made the right moves. Bring on 10% down and 25 years!

People have been looking out for #1 right now without a care for what their situation will be in the future. Now if you're at the point where banks are turning you down for loans, you're in serious trouble.
Thanks for the point of clarity on competition. Yes, that makes perfect sense. And of course I just jumped to the personal greed of higher ups. I'm too jaded...

[V]

Originally Posted by chemgear

This would be VERY interesting. Going from 35 years to 25 is basically what, another 15% drop in prices - everything else being equal?

Can you substantiate this with anything?

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Alright, joking aside and back to the numbers.

This would be VERY interesting. Going from 35 years to 25 is basically what, another 15% drop in prices - everything else being equal? But I would suggest that downpayments from 5% to 10% would massacre sales numbers. Well, maybe not massacre but it would cut them pretty severely . . . unless of course banks continue to the 0% down - 5% cash back business.

EDIT:



Oh, and totally agree! :P

I dont agree it would hurt 1st time buyers. Most people can meet 10% fown based on equity in their 1st home, etc when they sell it.