HawthorneVillager.com

Sorry I should have clarified, I wasnt referring to HVE/HV specifically with my comment, my sampling pool is scattered across canada.

Are you freakin serious that your a teacher and your asking some guy that cuts and pastes as hobby for financial advice? good god im in the wrong business...

Actually, I'd take property taxes out of that equation because they are a cost of living in any home. If you were renting instead, the landlord would roll that amount up into the rent you're paying anyway, so it's not fair to include that in your profit/loss calculation, unless you also plan to include heat, building insurance, hydro, etc as well. Make sense?
If you are investing in a property that is not your primary residence though, then I'd agree.

RCK10, don’t let people here scare you into doing something rash like sell your home and rent. Nobody here really knows what the future holds – even if there are some good points being made.

Two years ago I was selling my house, and planning on banking the equity and renting while housing melted down. My dad almost slapped me on the back of the head. He told me that you can’t predict the future, and not owning a home is always a gamble. He told me stories of friends in the 80’s who rented while they waited for housing to crash, and simply never found anything to be reasonable, and never ended up owning a damn thing. You’re an average joe, and at the end of the day all your allowed to own is your house. Everything else belongs to the government. 

And you know what? If I hadn’t listened, I’d be renting right now, and STILL waiting for housing to drop.

If I can offer advice, I would say that a 35 year amortization is insane. The bank is just taking all your money while you tread water, and you’re at a high risk of owing more than your home is worth if prices decline. You need to find a way to get that to (at least) 25 years. Pay more, or get a smaller home. Like Old School said, you don’t need to worry about retirement like the rest of us, so perhaps that’s a mitigating factor, but your still destroying wealth with a 35 year mortgage. Virtually nothing goes to the principal.

Personally, I think the government is just going to inflate their debt away, which means you (also a high debtor) could stand to benefit substantially as your mortgage principal is devalued. Or perhaps your get buried alive as interest rates go through the roof. Who knows? All you can do is work hard to own your home as soon as possible, and eventualy sleep well knowing nobody can take that away from you.

People need to appreciate how the free market works, and determine their own self interests better. Mattamy is in the business of selling houses. When you walk into their showroom, guess what? They might encourage you to buy one of their homes! I don’t understand why people think that businesses should do the ‘moral’ thing and sell things for less then you are willing to pay. If you can’t recognize they are only looking after their own interests, well…. a fool and his money are soon parted.

Ol skool/Dabill

What's your twist on October sales being the highest in over a decade?
Does not sound like your script is playing out so far...



Sales of new housing hit 4,535 units last month, up by 0.6 per cent from the same time last year according to figures released by the Building, Industry and Land Development Association on Monday. The positive figure is a major rebound from September, when sales were down by 32 per cent.

The October numbers are the best such result for the month since 2000, according to BILD.

I think this quote says it all for me:

"Affordability issues means that builders will likely have to keep building smaller units to keep first time buyers and investors interested in the market according to the CMHC."

Too me it sounds that rather than prices declining, buyers will just start to get less home for their money.

e.g. if the average new buyer can't afford a 2000 sq/ft house at $450,000 anymore (due to interest rates/economy/etc) that instead of dropping the prices by 10% to make them more affordable, they will just make the houses 200 sq/ft less and sell them for $399,990. Those with the money would still pay full price for a large home/land and eventually the market would be corrected because "new demand" would be met with smaller houses leaving a smaller market of bigger houses thus retaining their value if not increasing it.

This has been seen in the condo market for years as they got smaller and smaller making large condos much higher valued to those with money.

_________________

Looking for something to do today?
Day Trips Canada - http://www.day-trips.ca

Noo, you don't mean you didn't read/hear of these stats??

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/894950 ... n-gta?bn=1



Which is good, then I should go buy that monster 5000 sq ft home now since I can afford it because soon it will be exclusively for the rich and people with old money as I will become known as...

Ol Skool, would you do do a Roxy and quit the forum as she did when her claims on lots to be released blew up in smoke once we hit $446k? We are not yet in the spring market... and already this close to the crazy spring of 2010.

you can post all the data you want but certain people dont get it. ive read the same thing plus other market indicators yet certain people will argue till they are blue in the face against it. the cherry on the cake is someone has actually asked this guy for financial advice..

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/894950 ... n-gta?bn=1


I read that article proudowner linked earlier in the day and just wondering if someone can clarify what is meant by lowrise? Do they mean detached homes?

"Most of the bounce is due to continued strong high rise sales, with seven out of ten homes sold in October being a condo.
High rise sales were up by 27 per cent, while low rise sales were down by 32 per cent. "

Ol Skool, you can't arbitrary pick a number proclaim that is the market peak. Again this is what you said, instead of defending you have launched a flury of posts to distract from the fact:

"I am as sure that the market has peaked as the day is long."

From my knowledge, market peak is the highest point between the end of an economic expansion and the start of a contraction in a business cycle.

Will home prices be higher than $446k on average in the spring of 2011? Very possible. What I will not do is come out and say, by spring average home prices in the GTA will be $460k as sure as the day is long because I have no formula and neither should you.

All you are doing is speculating and misinforming people. If you are so good can you share the formula you used in getting $446,000 as the peak? If you don't have a logical formula (you can't) then that is just plain reckless.

And go back one year, plot your graph, what month was peak of 2009? Why is that not the all time peak?

Because May 2010 was highest for 2010 does NOT make it the market peak before a crash, don't eat your words so fast buddy. You said with ALL authority the peak is $460,000. Now you want to wait till Spring? Not so sure anymore?

Try again, all your graph gets you is the current market peak for the year, it in no way shows that a market contraction has started. If you come up with a better voodoo formula let me know, will use it to play the lotto.

ive exhausted common sense on this thread dabills, ill let others ration with old skool.

Sorry, 446k.... yes I agree, 446k IS the all time high.....FOR NOW!