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

what people get wrong about tariffs

 The issue is simple. What percentage of the economy is dependent on tariff goods? The truth, is that the US economy is far more closed than people understand. People genuinely believe that all manufacturing has ceased to exist in the United States all given to China on the altar of woke policy the truth can be further from That statement. Only about 15% of US GDP is related to foreign trade. Of that amount, slightly more than half is from Canada in Mexico. And half of that is energy. What that means, is that about 7% of US GDP is tariff dependent. The proof in the pudding, is how little money tariff generates. People think that 30 or 50 billion is a lot it’s not in an economy that has $3 trillion. The impact on the US economy will be less visible but not absent. Inflation hasn’t occurred yet first because tests have hardly started to bite, but more importantly it’s such a small percent of the economy. Now certain things are critical. The rare earth metals from China were critical....
Post a Comment
Read more

The end of Tesla?

 it takes a special kind of idiot, to think that he can antagonize his entire customer base, and think that it will not impact his business. When Elon Musk went to work for Donald Trump, and created the doge department, he antagonized every liberal, and these people represent 90% of his client base.That’s not a brilliant move. Now Elon Musk is worth hundreds of billions of dollar, so he shouldn’t care a great deal, however, he needs to care because of several other issues. The cyber truck has been a disaster, most have had to be recalled because of defective glue, it’s not a truck, it’s not a car, it’s noisy, relatively uncomfortable, but great as a development platform. What Tesla has learned in making car manufacturing more seamless is truly amazing. The problem was that Elon Musk was so pissed with the Democrats, and with Joe Biden, in particular because of some slight, which were just plain stupid too. By the way, that he decided to support with hundreds of millions of dollar, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Demographics

 I am preparing a kind of family tree for our children so that they know where they came from.  In my family I am the only survivor, although my brother and sister died recently they were both in their seventies (a story I told already).    It was a fun process, but it provided more than that.  First, I married relatively young I was 26 when I married and nearly 30 when our first child was born.   I was looking at my ancestors.  On my mother's side, she had 6 siblings, Four died before the age of 30, two in war, and two from illnesses.  Only she and a single sister survived.   The two boys had a child each but they died in WWII, and the other sister died as an infant.   what is interesting is that every one of my mother's siblings had children in their early 20s.   I know that my mom was hardly 20 when my brother was born.    What is remarkable is that among our friends, we are the only ones to have fou...
Post a Comment
Read more