Skip to main content

Canadian House Prices -- The Puff piece edition

One of Canada’s premier magazine:  Macleans (nice folks that talk about nice things – think of it as the Canadian version of Time Magazine), wrote an exposé on the Canadian housing sector.  Actually, a non-exposé, since the one hard fact disclosed in the article is that Canadians have too much debt.  [Note I don't link the article  -- its too embarrassing, use Google its called the "Canada Bubble", march ]

Although there is some discussion about how the Canadian boom in natural resources is driving demand for housing (and foreign investors are poring money into Canada), at no time does this article talk hard facts.  It’s a bit like watching U.S. TV news: “After the break, how your cat is killing you!”.  The truth of the matter is that Canada’s housing is doing very very well indeed!  In some places (Vancouver and Victoria) house price (as a percentage of median income) are in nose bleed territory (900% and 700 respectively).  In fact, there is a simple rule of thumb, if house price exceed 4 times the median income, the risk of bubble market increase dramatically.  Toronto at 520% is at risk, Montreal at 460% is on the edge, and Halifax at 360% is in the green zone.

These are hard facts, not to be found anywhere in the Macleans article.  Nor does the article mention that the Bank of Canada, OSFI and CMHC recently tightened credit rules for the more aggressive mortgages (the starting point for housing). No more 30 year, 95% mortgages!  Now the maximum is 90% with a 25 year amortization, and an interest rate reset test with higher rates.  In Canada, liars loan and non-docs loans just don’t exist.  

The Macleans article is all about fear and nothing about substance.  It presents both sides of the argument with equal standing, Robert Schiller in one corner (the guy who first alerted the world to the U.S. housing bubble), and a bunch of famous unknown each talking their books (guy at Fidelity selling his Canadian funds, and a guy in a local shop selling his foreign wares).

The reality is that for the past two years, the Canadian real estate market has been in the danger zone.  On the bright side income is rising, but house prices are rising faster.  However, change is a foot (nowhere mentioned in the article).  CMHC (Canada’s equivalent to FannyMay) increased qualification thresholds for its mortgage guarantees sector will take some time to work through the system.  Some signs that the changes are impacting the market.  New builds and permits for have been tepid for the last 2 quarters now, an indication that things are slowing.  

The other side of the equation is that Canada’s wealth is built on its materials & energy bull market, which is already a decade old, and shows some fundamental differences from the older boom bust periods.  The demand/supply drivers are fundamentally different; whereas in 2002 emerging economies accounted for 20% of oil demand, today it is 50%.  OECD economies have seen stagnant demand for energy, whereas emerging markets have seen near double digit growth.  These economies continue to grow (at high paces), demand destruction in OECD economies is more than compensated for by the growth in emerging economies.

The hard facts that Maclean avoided are: 

  • Canadian house prices are ripe for a correction as prices are growing fast than income (and are already in nose-bleed territory)
  • A 10% to 15% correction is “baked in the cake”, but it could overshoot
  • Canadian regulatory agencies are well aware of the problem, and have taken action
  • Resource bull market is not about to end – although if oil goes to $200/bbl, all bets are off.

The Macleans story was unfortunately a lazy scare-mongering puff piece that makes you wonder about the future of Canadian journalism.  BTW, if they published that what did they turn down?

Popular posts from this blog

Ok so I lied...a little (revised)

When we began looking at farming in 2013/14 as something we both wanted to do as a "second career" we invested time and money to understand what sector of farming was profitable.  A few things emerged, First, high-quality, source-proven, organic farm products consistently have much higher profit margins.  Secondly, transformation accounted for nearly 80% of total profits, and production and distribution accounted for 20% of profits: Farmers and retailers have low profit margins and the middle bits make all the money. A profitable farm operation needs to be involved in the transformation of its produce.  The low-hanging fruits: cheese and butter.  Milk, generates a profit margin of 5% to 8%, depending on milk quality.  Transformed into cheese and butter, and the profit margin rises to 40% (Taking into account all costs).  Second:  20% of a steer carcass is ground beef quality.  The price is low, because (a) a high percentage of the carcass, and (b) ground beef requires process
Post a Comment
Read more

21st century milk parlour

When we first looked at building our farm in 2018, we made a few money-saving decisions, the most important is that we purchased our milk herd from a retiring farmer and we also purchased his milking parlour equipment.  It was the right decision at the time.  The equipment dates from around 2004/05 and was perfectly serviceable, our installers replaced some tubing but otherwise, the milking parlour was in good shape.  It is a mature technology. Now, we are building a brand new milk parlour because our milking cows are moving from the old farm to the new farm.  So we are looking at brand new equipment this time because, after 20 years of daily service, the old cattle parlour's systems need to be replaced.  Fear not it will not be destroyed instead good chunks will end up on Facebook's marketplace and be sold to other farmers for spare parts or expansion of their current systems. All our cattle are chipped, nothing unusual there, we have sensors throughout the farm, and our milki
Post a Comment
Read more

So we sold surplus electricity one time last summer...(Update)

I guess that we will be buying an additional tank for our methane after all.   Over the past few months, we've had several electricity utilities/distributors which operate in our region come to the farm to "inspect our power plant facilities, to ensure they conform to their requirements".  This is entirely my fault.  Last summer we were accumulating too much methane for our tankage capacity, and so instead of selling the excess gas, that would have cost us some money, we (and I mean me) decided to produce excess electricity and sell it to the grid.  Because of all the rules and regulations, we had to specify our overall capacity and timing for the sale of electricity (our capacity is almost 200 Kw) which is a lot but more importantly, it's available 24/7, because it's gas powered.  It should be noted that the two generators are large because we burn methane and smaller generators are difficult to adapt to burn unconventional gas, plus they are advanced and can &qu
Post a Comment
Read more