What’s Up WIth The Abbey Lofts?
Remember back in 2011 when I wrote about the Foundry Lofts at 1100 Lansdowne Avenue, comparing to Alcatraz? Remember the fallout thereafter?
It seems as though any time I write anything negative about a building or an area, residents decide that opinion has no place on the Internet, and that a corresponding legal action would be celebrated worldwide.
In any event, I want to discuss 384 Sunnyside Avenue, and try to determine why this building doesn’t sell well.
On paper, this should be one of the most sought-after lofts in the city.
It’s a converted church, so units are full of unique features, from exposed brick, to stained-glass, to timber beams.
It’s in Roncesvalles, which is an awesome neighbourhood.
And it’s only 24-units, so the basic tenets of supply and demand would tell us that these units are exceptionally rare.
But all the while, I continuously see units in this building hit the market, and then sit.
Why?
There’s a unit currently listed for sale that has been on the market for 20 days. It has previously been listed five times for 41, 30, 20, 20, 20, and 29 days respectively dating back to June of 2018.
In between these listings, another unit sold after only 9 days on the market.
Previous to that, another unit sold after only 8 days on the market.
But then we have another unit listed for 33, 61, and 54 days before it finally sold.
The listing history in this building is very, very odd. This is the very definition of “hit or miss.”
Here’s a photo of the last listing I mentioned, which was on the market three times:
This might seem familiar to those of you that read my blog post last week on square footage, and of course, you can see how I mentally filed this away under, “How come these units don’t sell very well?”
You would think that a unit with all this original character and charm would do well, but it didn’t. And price was only part of the issue.
I’ve come to the conclusion that some of the units are absolutely gorgeous, and others suffer from design flaws that are bound to be present in any conversion.
I was in a listing up for lease last year that was so dark, and with so few windows and natural light, that it was a “no” within about ten seconds of walking in. Have a look at the living space:
There’s one small skylight above the TV area, and then to the right of that skylight, above the beam, there is what looks like another window, but that’s actually natural light coming from the second floor. Then the two stained-glass windows behind the dining room are poorly-placed, since they’re basically cut in half by the level separating the 2nd and 3rd floor of the building. Those windows don’t open, and you can’t see through the glass. So in the end, you can’t go outside, or even see outside.
“I would never live in a condo where I don’t have a glimpse of the outside world,” my client told me.
And I realized that I think this is the only condo I’ve ever been in without an actual window you could see through. It was like a solid box.
This is a bad example of a unit in the building, but there are plenty of good ones.
This building is actually one of my favourite hard lofts in the city, and it remains my favourite church conversion. I love the location of 660 Pape Ave, but for character – I would choose the Abbey Lofts.
It’s just odd how well some units do, and how poorly do others.
–
Land For A Loonie?
If you didn’t hear about this already, you’re clearly not in tune with real estate in New Brunswick!
What do you think would happen if a town, say, somewhere in North America, was offering land for $1.00?
Do you think most people would assume there’s a catch?
Would anybody bother inquiring?
It reminds me of that old joke…
A man is reading the newspaper, and sees an ad for a Ferrari for $2.00.
He mulls it over, and finally figures he has nothing to lose, so calls the number, and sets up an appointment to view the car.
He arrives, sees the car is for real, meets the seller and sees that she is for real, and offers $2.00 for the car.
The seller accepts.
So the man asks the woman who just sold the car, “I have to ask, how come you’re actually selling me this Ferrari for two bucks?”
The woman responds, “Well, last week my husband called me and said that he had run away with his secretary, and that he was never coming back. He said he needed money, so I was to sell the car, and send him the cash. And that’s what I’m doing.”
Right??? 🙂
Well in McAdam, New Brunswick, population 1,225, plots of land really, truly are for sale for $1.00 each.
And guess what? They received over 600 inquiries!
Sixteen plots of land, ranging in size from 7,100 square feet to just under 12,000 square feet, are up for sale in efforts to boost the town’s population. The town has selected a handful of applicants already, primarily retirees and families.
They don’t want developers to build, and/or flip; they want residents who will add to their community and economy.
It seems this once-proud railway town has fallen on hard times, and instead of licking their wounds and lamenting their misfortune, the folks in McAdam decided to get creative, and actually do something about their problem.
What a novel idea!
It might work, and it might not. Hey, it’s only sixteen plots of land, after all.
But the story itself sure got the town publicity! And you know what they say about publicity.
Read the full story HERE.
–
Diminishing Returns?
What’s four times fifty?
It’s two hundred, right?
But what if it wasn’t?
What if we could find a way to really, truly prove that two plus two isn’t four?
A colleague asked me to help price a condo the other day, and address the massive discrepancy between the $1.4M she felt the property was worth, and the $1.7M the sellers sought.
She gave me the rundown of the property, and one thing really stood out for me: the condominium came with four owned parking spaces.
Four! Who in the world needs four spaces?
You might ask, “Need, or want?” and that’s exactly the theme here.
I told her, “Those parking spaces are worth about $75,000,” and she said, “No, they’re actually about $50,000 each.”
I told her, “No, what I meant was that in total, they’re worth about $75,000.” She paused, and looked at me a little confused.
“Nobody out there wants four parking spaces,” I explained. “I mean, they would want them, if they were free. But nobody wants to pay $200,000 for all four parking spaces. It’s not worth it to them.”
Then we started to talk about “cost” versus “value.”
If these folks purchased four parking spaces in pre-construction for $50,000 each, it does NOT mean that when they go to sell the condo in five years, the spaces are worth a sum of $200,000. In fact, because every unit in the building has a parking space, and many owners already have two, you might figure that spaces #3 and #4, in the context of this particular condo sale, are worth exactly zero.
Worth zero? Really?
Yeah, I’d argue as much.
On paper they’re worth $50,000. Just like when you buy stock for $50 per share, and hang on to it. When the stock hits $20, you haven’t lost anything, at least not yet. We call this a “paper loss,” since the loss isn’t realized.
The same is true for these extra parking spaces, in a building where there is no need, and no demand.
So for the seller to suggest that their extra three parking spaces add another $150,000 to the value of the condo simply confuses “cost” with “value.”
The agent I was chatting with went on to explain, “They put $200,000 in custom upgrades into the unit,” and once again, I said that what they paid doesn’t necessarily equate dollar-for-dollar into value. I’d like to think that it does, but without having seen “custom upgrades” in a building with an average age well into the 60’s, I would hazard a guess that these might not be everybody’s taste…
–
Video Killed The Radio (Blog?) Star
As I alluded to above, I’m always amazed at how some people in society view the cans and cant’s of life, especially when it comes to sharing thoughts and opinions.
I filmed a video of a unit I owned in 150 Sudbury Ave almost a decade ago, and that video remains in the annals of the World Wide Web for anybody to see.
In the video, I lambasted the developer, Urbancorp, as a prelude to several more years of critiques, before they finally declared bankruptcy, further justifying everything I had ever said about them.
That video, I would like to think, helped dozens of buyers avoid not only the pitfalls and risks associated with buying from Urbancorp, but also buying in pre-construction in general. Many people make money in pre-construction, but many people get burned beyond recognition. “A fool and their money are soon parted,” and developers prey on stupid pre-con buyers.
I recently received a page from my office to call John So-And-So, with the reference “your blog.” This could mean a lot of different things, as I’ve learned over the years! Sometimes, it’s a new client. Sometimes, it’s a sales call. And sometimes, it’s a complaint. This story involves one of those times.
I called the man back, and he was cordial. He told me that he lived at 150 Sudbury Avenue, and that he had recently stumbled upon my video. We chatted briefly about the video, the teachings, and the history of the developer, and sensing that he wanted to get to a point, I simply asked, “What is it that I can do for you?”
He said, “I’d like for you to take that video off YouTube.”
I told him politely, “I’m not going to do that, just so you know. But I’m willing to have a conversation with you about why you’re making this request, if you’d like.”
He proceeded to tell me that he owned a unit in that building, on that floor, and wanted to sell. He said that in multiple YouTube searches, this video, or links to it, had come up. He felt that the video could have a negative affect on the value, and/or marketability of his unit.
I said, “I don’t follow.”
He explained his situation again, and I interjected and said, “I understand what you’re saying, but why do you think I need to, or should take this video down?”
He said, “Because a prospective buyer could see it, and decide not to buy my unit.”
“But what about the hundreds of people who watched the video over the last decade and learned from it?” I asked. “What about all the people who learned that developers aren’t your best friend, or that Urbancorp were awful developers, or that pre-construction ‘investing’ isn’t as simple as it sounds, and comes with all kinds of risks?” I asked again.
That’s when he said, “You don’t live there anymore. You can’t have that video up now that you don’t live there.”
I told him that I never lived there, and he said, “I meant you don’t own there anymore.”
I sighed, and wondered why people think the world revolves around them.
He grasped at one last straw, making some weak attempt at a legal argument, and I told him that I had to take another call, but to keep in touch if he had any questions about the building, or if there was anything I could help him with.
I don’t understand people out there. He didn’t just want me to remove this video, he really, truly felt that it was unjust.
Every year, thousands of movies are made in Hollywood, and thousands of critics give their reviews, and opinions.
Food columnists dine out at restaurants, and write about their salads.
And nobody threatens to sue them for expressing their opinion.
But if I wrote that I don’t like a certain building, people send letters to my brokerage.
My inner old man is shaking his fist at an imaginary hooligan skateboarding by…
–
Let It Snow!
Do you remember what real estate was like before DocuSign?
On the night of the huge snowstorm a couple of weeks ago, I was working on an offer for a buyer-client, who asked, “Do you think maybe this snowstorm might render a few buyers unable to present offers?”
At first, my ears piqued up, as I thought of previous snowstorm-related-deals, and smiled at the prospect of another.
But then I remembered that we were in 2019. And I remembered that we had this novel thing called “DocuSign.”
As amazing as DocuSign is, and as many hours as it has saved us Realtors, for a moment I felt a sense of loss. Because never again will I be on the receiving end of an amazing deal because I was able to trek through the snow and present an offer to a seller who’s scheduled “Offer Night” was brutalized by the weather.
The last time this happened was on Cranbrooke in March of 2016. You guys know who you are!
–
The TREB numbers are out on Wednesday.
Any predictions for January?
I have a prediction for you – the media will make the story about sales plummeting, when all the while, the true story is lack of inventory, and sales dropping is merely a by-product of the true issue.
You’ll see!
Appraiser
at 6:32 am
TREB data for January just released:
Sales up 0.6% year over year.
Prices up 1.7%.
That’s 8 months in a row that prices are higher than the year before.
Chris
at 9:11 am
TREB Market Watch January, 2017:
Average Price – $770,745
Sales – 5,188
Active Listings – 5,034
Average DOM – 19
TREB Market Watch January, 2019:
Average Price – $748,328
Sales – 4,009
Active Listings – 11,962
Average DOM – 33
Appraiser
at 11:59 am
Market Watch Reports: A broader perspective.
January average prices: 2014 = $526,965, 2015 = $552,925, 2016 = $631,092.
2019 prices are 16% above 2016!
2017 was an anomaly.
Get over it.
Chris
at 12:11 pm
S&P500 up 46% from 2016, not including dividends. Even the TSX is up 23% over that time frame.
Wait, let me try to predict your reply:
“…but, but, but…you can’t live in a stock portfolio!!!!”
Appraiser
at 1:43 pm
Note to self…when losing debate – change subject.
Chris
at 1:50 pm
You already do this frequently. Like when you were unable to form a coherent response, so resorted to talking about mullets for some reason.
https://torontorealtyblog.com/blog/top-five-blog-posts-of-2018/#comment-97189
And what debate would that be? I simply showed where January 2019 data stands in relation to January 2017. You brought up returns from 2016 to 2019.
Good luck with the skullet.
JG
at 4:50 pm
Hi Chris, we all know Appraiser will never buy any financial assets in his lifetime. Let him be.
I even don’t care about his arrogance, I just don’t want him to pusuade readers/young investors to throw their money into overpriced condos after a 30% run-up.
Intelligent investors would have bought stocks in Dec/Jan, but naive ones listen to RE pumpers.
Chris
at 5:25 pm
Ah ya, I don’t expect to convince him. I mostly just rebutt his nonsense these days so that anyone else reading can see the flaws in his logic.
Plus, it’s pretty easy, and makes for some cheap entertainment.
Mike
at 11:02 am
How is it possible that inventory is low when we have been building historically high levels of condos for the last 8 years?
Chris
at 11:09 am
I don’t know which area(s) David is referring to, but GTA-wide, inventory is above the ten-year average:
http://creastats.crea.ca/treb/images/treb_chart03_xhi-res.png
Combine that with the lowest sales volumes in a decade, and the result is MOI at its highest point since 2013.
Professional Shanker
at 1:30 pm
Chris – great pick up on the lack of inventory statement being largely false for the entire GTA.
The industry is clear and together in pushing this narrative throughout 2019 for as long as they need to. In Jan 2018 (Q1 2018) the industry argued that the low sales were linked to the introduction of the stress test which brought sales forward into late 2017. I largely agreed with this and could see the logic given the major change in the lending landscape.
But if 2019 repeats 2018 with comparably low sales, historically speaking this would not be a great sentiment/story for the market. If sales are low in 2019, 2 years removed from peak house in late 2016/early 2017, the narrative of low sales would be justified primarily either by 1) Demand side (people just aren’t buying houses at the same rate) and price decreases are potentially ahead or 2) Supply, which means price decreases are not necessarily forthcoming.
David will argue that he is speaking specifically to Toronto core, do you have the inventory stats for “prime 416” do they exist/get published?
Appraiser
at 1:46 pm
FYI 1.9 months of inventory in the 6ix.
Chris
at 1:47 pm
City of Toronto January Active Listings (with MOI in parentheses):
2012 – 5,134 (2.2)
2013 – 5,736 (2.7)
2014 – 4,871 (2.7)
2015 – 5,056 (2.4)
2016 – 4,703 (2.1)
2017 – 2,886 (1.3)
2018 – 3,460 (1.6)
2019 – 3,575 (1.9)
I would have gone further back, but TREB changed the format of the Market Watch in 2012. Inventory in the City of Toronto is low by historical standards, though above recent years, and appears to be trending upwards.
Appraiser
at 5:19 pm
And for the record, it is generally accepted that a balanced real estate market is one that has between 4-6 months of listing inventory.
Still solidly a seller’s market.
Agreed?
Chris
at 5:30 pm
Yes, I will agree with you on that one. In the 416, we are still well within Seller’s Market territory.
However, if you’ll recall, I’ve said on numerous occasions that I expect the 905 to decline significantly further than the 416. So far, this is playing out.
Additionally, while it is still low, MOI is rising in the 416. Maybe it will remain a Seller’s Market? Or maybe it is on its way to being balanced, or even a Buyer’s Market. We’ll see!
Mxyzptlk
at 8:25 pm
Well, saying “above” the ten-year average is somewhat misleading, since only two years are below the average, the reason being the abnormally low inventory in 2017, which was an anomaly, as Appraiser pointed out (wow, he got something right).
Your broader point is correct though, so I can only assume David is speaking of the 416 or the core or areas he’s active in.
Chris
at 8:36 pm
Ehh, I’d be more inclined to agree with your assessment that my comment was misleading if I had only brought up active listings. But that’s the reason I included the info on sales volumes and the resultant MOI. All the data is available through CREA if you’d like to look at it for yourself.
Christopher
at 10:45 pm
I find going on house sigma useful. Find the graph with active listings, deleselect total sold and new listings, and look at ten years. You will find that condos everywhere are well below the 10 year average while detached properties have returned to normal inventory levels from the crazy low levels of 2016
Chris
at 12:12 pm
Good point, Housesigma does have some pretty good data and graphs. Although, their data seems to be saying that the City of Toronto is a balanced market as of Jan 2019, based on number of sales and active listings. Bit odd, given that MOI is still quite low at 1.9 for the 416.
Kyle
at 11:14 am
Condos being built now have already been pre-sold. They are not inventory. Actual unsold new condo inventory is at a 16 year low.
https://condo.ca/86-of-pre-construction-condo-apartments-pre-sold-unsold-inventory-of-condominums-at-a-16-year-low-over-30-new-gta-condo-projects-to-launch-this-year/
Chris
at 11:26 am
TREB numbers typically don’t include new builds. Most commonly cited monthly Market Watch is on the topic of resales. I would assume David was not referring to new construction inventory, as he specifically mentioned TREB numbers, and the Market Watch out today (which is on the topic of resales).
Kyle
at 11:29 am
I was replying to Mike.
Chris
at 11:37 am
Whose comment was presumably in reference to David’s point:
“I have a prediction for you – the media will make the story about sales plummeting, when all the while, the true story is lack of inventory, and sales dropping is merely a by-product of the true issue.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, Mike, but the comment seemed less about newly built inventory, and more about the impact of almost a decade’s worth of construction on resale inventory.
Kyle
at 11:43 am
Point is, no matter how much new construction there is, it doesn’t become inventory unless it isn’t initially sold by the developer, or unless one of the buyers puts it back on the market.
The answer to his question why don’t we see more inventory as a result of all this construction, is that almost all of the units constructed or being constructed have been bought and are no longer on the market.
Chris
at 12:17 pm
…well ya, usually when a new construction home is bought, and then subsequently sold by one of the buyers, it becomes a resale…I think most people understand that, but thanks for walking us through the process.
But David was most likely referring to resale inventory. Mike was most likely also referring to resale inventory, and the impact of a decade’s worth of construction, most of which will eventually wind up as resale inventory. Discussing new construction inventory seems a bit off topic from the metric at hand.
Kyle
at 1:42 pm
What are you even trying to argue?
I clearly answered Mike’s question, maybe you think something in my answer is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be said, but as i said i wasn’t talking to you. And now you’re trying to twist his question into, “Mike was most likely also referring to resale inventory, and the impact of a decade’s worth of construction, most of which will eventually wind up as resale inventory.” WHERE IN THE HELL DOES HE SAY ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THAT?
Chris
at 1:59 pm
Seems you accidentally hit the Caps Lock key at the end there, pal. Either that or you’re letting yourself get all worked up again.
Anyways, let me try to break it down for you.
Nobody seemed to be talking about pre-sale/new construction inventory. David claimed inventory (TREB measured, a.k.a. resale) is low, which Mike appeared to question by suggesting that there has been enough construction recently. I also posted some stats showing that, GTA-wide, inventory is up.
You, and you alone, introduced the metric of new construction inventory. Not really sure why you brought this up, given the topic at hand.
New construction inventory is a different discussion from resale inventory. While Mike did not explicitly say he was referring to resale inventory, it seems like a fairly straightforward assumption, as he was responding to David’s assertion regarding TREB’s measured inventory, which, again, is on the topic of resale, not new construction. Again, Mike, if I’m misinterpreted your comment, please feel free to correct me.
Kyle
at 2:23 pm
Let me break i down for you…
He asked about all the construction that is going on and asked how inventory can be low. I answered his question. Not sure why you are so fixated about only allowing the discussion to be about resale.
But since you seem to think we can only talk about the resale market, I clarified that regardless of whether it is new or resale, the reason you don’t see a lot of inventory is because it has all been bought (i.e who actually cares which market because the point stands either way? Other than you who keeps trying to make something out of nothing).
Which clearly left you with no point to make other than to twist his question into inferring how these will all eventually become resale. Something truly off topic.
Is your only issue that i dared stray from strictly talking about the resale market? Is this such a huge bone of contention for you? As in how dare i speak of pre-sale in response to someone asking about how come all the construction didn’t translating into inventory? Like i said when i clarified, it doesn’t matter which market.
Chris
at 2:38 pm
Nope, sorry bud. He asked about construction over the past 8 years and its current impact on inventory. Unless you think a condo completed in 2011 should be discussed under the scope of today’s pre-sale inventory?
I also never said “we can only talk about resale”. Just pointing out that it’s odd that when David is almost certainly discussing resale, and Mike is responding to David, you somehow decide to bring up pre-sale inventory. But hey, you’re free to talk about whatever your little heart desires. Just like I’m free to criticize you for it.
As to there not being a lot of inventory, well, we’ve already dealt with this in other posts. GTA-wide inventory is above the ten-year average. 416 inventory is low by historical standards but above recent years. Again, I’m talking about resale, not new construction, as this is the metric TREB reported on today, just in case you forgot.
Or, maybe you’re right; your straying from discussing exclusively the resale market is a huge bone of contention for me. How dare you!?! I’m so fired up that I’m about to start posting in all caps!
Housing Bear
at 5:58 pm
@Mike,
John Pasalis did a great job of highlighting some areas of Treb’s year in review which I think can maybe help to answer your question.
https://twitter.com/JohnPasalis/status/1093259356186071040
Basically, a survey of recent home buyers indicated that 54% of them own 2 or more properties. Of those properties, 45% are vacant. Yes a 45% vacancy rate among these buyers’ 2nd,3rd, 12th properties. 27% have zero intention of finding a renter.
Something else to consider.
A CIBC/ Urbanation report from last year found that Condo units taken possession of in 2017 (presold in 2013-2015 presumably). 48% of the units were going to investors. 44% of those investors would be cash flow negative (cant remember what size of downpayment that was based on)
The record years for condo pre con sales were 2016-early 2018. I think its safe to say that an even higher concentration of investors were buying up these units, and they were doing so at higher prices. Unfortunately the bulk of these purchases were made before the rate hikes started and b-20 came out. Hopefully they can close.
@ Kyle
At some point we were having a what came first thechicken or egg type debate. You felt housing could only correct/slow down if there was a recession. I said it didnt matter which came first, a recession would have a negative impact on housing but I also argued that a slow down in housing would lead to a recession based on how much of our GDP is tied to it………… Anyway think you will get a kick out of the last John P quote in that twitter thread above.
“Finally, 29% of respondents don’t realize that Housing is the Economy’
Chris
at 6:07 pm
Thanks for sharing that, Bear.
The number of people buying additional homes in 2018, and the percentage of investment home owners who have them vacant, is pretty staggering.
Certainly seems to support my position that we have a speculative demand problem, more than a supply problem.
Housing Bear
at 6:57 pm
No problem. And you’re right, its more proof of how many people out there are chasing capital appreciation.
Those record year pre sale units should start to hit the market this year and it looks like condo re sale volumes have been starting to decrease. Will be interesting to see how this plays out…………… especially considering how much existing supply could be sitting vacant.
Kyle
at 7:12 pm
@ Housing Bear
Unfortunately for the bears none of this is actually true.
Will Dunning replied:
“If i might… it looks like this chart has been misread. Reading the report, it seems clear that this is the number of homes *ever* owned, not the number currently owned. This matters a lot. Read this way, 48% of buyers are first-time and 52% are repeat buyers. That’s normal”
John Pasalis:
“Thanks for clarifying that! Missed that in the text “had owned””
Chris
at 7:47 pm
Bit of a leap there to claim that John Pasalis misinterpreting that one stat regarding number of homes owned now renders the other stats on investment homes left vacant or CIBC data on condo cash flows untrue.
Kyle
at 8:05 pm
It’s entirely common for over 40% of a condo to be sold to professional investors pre-launch, they get a discount for helping the Developer reach their necessary financing sales and those investors sell to end users or rent out the units at close (4-5 years later). I’m not familiar with the Urbanation/CIBC methodology but just about anyone who bought a presale condo 4-5 years ago when they were selling at sub $700 sq ft, especially if they paid a pre-launch discount is A) Seeing a positive return and/or B) not cash flow negative at today’s market rents.
Keep trying…
Chris
at 8:30 pm
Ok, just so we’re clear, your argument against the CIBC/Urbanation data is that, you don’t know the methodology, but in your esteemed opinion, they’re wrong.
And your argument against the TREB data showing that 33% of homeowner own an investment property, of which 17% are for rent but vacant, and another 28% are not rented out, is false because…they’re pathetic and wrong, and you’re outstanding and right?
Perhaps you were a wee bit premature in declaring that “none of this is actually true”.
Keep trying, Joe Mack…
Kyle
at 9:11 pm
Ah Chris, it’s adorable how you get so butt hurt when you find out the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.
Chris
at 9:19 pm
Ah, got it, no substantive rebuttal from your end.
Another weird comment though…butt hurt about the tooth fairy? Pretty odd stuff, my man…
daniel b
at 2:42 pm
well, worth further investigating the Urbanation condo investor data and methodology then. Interesting that the report lists about a quarter of the units as being cash flow negative (about 50% of 50%). You then review the section regarding how the units are financed and you see that somewhere between 25-30% of the units are financed with debt at rates higher than 6%.
So, that starts to seem like really expensive money and doesn’t correspond to the cost of mortgage debt. So then you either have to conclude one of the following (feel free to add to my list as you see fit):
– these investors are borrowing mortgage money at very high rates and are willing to just eat losses to make the capital gain
– the survey was poorly designed and the question was somehow misunderstood
– there is a decent chunk of investors who are using short term bridge financing until just prior to building registration at which point they’ll flip the unit to someone who would be cash flow neutral or positive upon conventional financing at $800 psf) and where rents in prime locations are at (<$3.50 psf), the urbanation survey results never made a lot of sense to me.
Kyle
at 11:29 am
First of all Housing Bear made no mention of the Ipsos poll. So not sure why you suggest i should have to respond to that. But at the risk of making you even more butt hurt by exposing another one of your bias confirming pieces of “evidence” for the make-belief that it is I will address the Ipsos poll result.
By the way, some advice for you. You might want to try applying even a modicum of critical thinking and sniff testing stuff before you hungrily lap it up, share it and start dishing out bear high fives. That would spare you some of the butt hurtness you feel from the embarrassing disappointment..
Ipsos asked people if they own an investment property and if so whether they rent it out. They did not specify what constitutes an investment property, where the property was located, or what the strategy was for in investing it?
– There are lots of people who own recreation properties, most would consider it a long term investment property – but the goal isn’t profit maximization.
– A principal residence could be considered an investment property to some respondents, so obviously they’re not renting it out because they live in it
– There are parents who buy their kids properties to live in and that can be a relative value investment, because it may be cheaper than paying their kids’ rent or because they plan to downsize and want to buy the place now at today’s prices, even though they don’t plan to move into it until after they retire.
All this to say, Ipsos came up with some numbers, but what those numbers actually mean for speculation, is completely unknown.
Chris
at 12:06 pm
“First of all Housing Bear made no mention of the Ipsos poll.”
Uhh…ya he did:
“John Pasalis did a great job of highlighting some areas of Treb’s year in review which I think can maybe help to answer your question.
https://twitter.com/JohnPasalis/status/1093259356186071040”
To which you replied:
“Unfortunately for the bears none of this is actually true.”
If you’d like to double check for yourself, please feel free to scroll up!
So now you’re changing your tune from claiming none of the stats are true, to well maybe the stats are true but we don’t know exactly what they mean so whatever and here’s some justifications for the numbers.
And what’s with your newfound fixation on people being “butt-hurt”? Between the all the butt talk, and the tooth fairy and catholic school-boy references, this is getting weird as shit, dude…maybe rein it in a little…
Kyle
at 1:42 pm
Just calling it like i see it, bud, dude, Joe Mack.
Chris
at 2:13 pm
Might want to get your eyesight checked out then, seeing as you obviously missed the part of Housing Bear’s post where he clearly brought up the TREB/Ipsos research.
Housing Bear
at 4:22 pm
Ok I might have jumped the gun on that point then. Fair enough.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if 54% or more of condos on their way are investor owned. 48% for those delivered in 2017. That’s the year pre sales were through the roof. Would be significant if 54% of all property types were investor owned but I guess that was wrong
Kyle
at 11:33 am
In other news. I am no fan of Doug Ford, but he understands real estate markets far better than Kathleen Wynne ever did.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/02/05/ford-government-considering-ways-to-speed-up-evictions.html
Kyle
at 4:23 pm
No sorry to you bud, pal, mack, buddy, Joe or whatever patronizing names you resort to when you’ve clearly lost an argument (especially funny/hypocritical from the guy who is always the very first to cry personal attack).
There is a very clear connection between “construction” and the pre-con market (hint: that’s what the “con” in pre-con actually stands for), and i explained why all that construction in the last 8 years doesn’t translate to RESALE inventory today – because it has already been purchased. If this is not what Mike meant, then i welcome him to clarify.
But clearly you have no actual argument, counter-argument or actual point to make other than to take exception at whether you deign new sales topical. If that is the sad little hill you want to die on, you go right ahead.
Chris
at 4:38 pm
“Bud” is now a personal attack, eh? I mean I wouldn’t be offended if someone called me that, but sorry if it hurt your feelings, Joe.
As to having lost the argument, nope, sorry, gotta disagree with you on that one, mack.
Yes, there’s a connection between today’s construction and the pre-con market inventory. The connection between 2011’s construction and today’s pre-con market is tenuous at best. So, when discussing resale inventory and the previous 8 years of construction, bringing up 2019’s pre-con market seems unrelated.
David was pretty clearly discussing resale inventory. Mike was almost certainly discussing resale inventory, in response to David. Myself, Shanker, Appraiser, in the comments above, are all discussing resale inventory. But you go ahead and fill your boots talking about pre-con inventory.
Cheers, buddy!
Kyle
at 7:18 pm
Nice try, but it’s about pattern and context
Your resposnse is as pathetic as the Covington Catholic school boys who say, “what? dancing is crime now?”
Chris
at 7:42 pm
What a weird reference…
But sure, we’re all wrong and pathetic, except for you. Whatever you say, pal!
Kyle
at 2:00 pm
“we’re all wrong and pathetic”
If you are referring to yourself and the Covington kids, when you say “we’re”, then yes you are pathetic, for obviously behaving like a complete hypocritical dick then trying to play it off as nothing when called out for it.
But if you are include someone else on this board when you say “we’re”, then no, it was really just meant for you.
Chris
at 2:23 pm
Seems a bit rich that you’re up in arms for being, in your view, patronizingly called buddy and pal. Meanwhile, you’re trying to make your points by getting all worked up and responding in caps, and calling me pathetic, a dick, embarrassing, butt-hurt, etc. But sure, I’m the hypocritical one…
And I thought we had moved past the topic of Catholic school boys…Why do you keep bringing them up?
Kyle
at 2:41 pm
Because you keep behaving like them.
Chris
at 2:48 pm
Right…well, I think we’re just about done here. This patronizing, pathetic, wrong, embarrassed, butt-hurt, dick, has got better things to do today!
Have a great day, Kyle buddy!
Kyle
at 2:50 pm
Glad i could help you gain a bit of self-awareness. That indeed has brightened my day.
Chris
at 2:52 pm
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
Here’s your word of the day!
Kyle
at 4:54 pm
Unfortunately you’re confused. There’s a difference between me pointing out your behaviour, and me protesting it. I’ll readily admit that i am being patronizing to you and quite frankly i don’t care if you are to me, because i am fine to take what i give.
The key difference and what makes you a hypocrite and not me, is that unlike you i never piss and moan and play the victim when on the receiving end. That however is your calling card.