In the US, the most standard "fixed rate" mortgage has the rate fixed for 30 years. A mortgage where the rate changes before loan maturity would be called an "adjustable rate mortgage" ("arm" for short).
Aren't we only talking about a difference in term length then? i.e. it's more common for the term length to equal the amortization length in the U.S.? In Canada even the amortization/maturity can't be greater than 25 years. And terms are commonly 5 years.
Exactly. In a US 30 year mortgage, it is reasonable to expect a borrower to pay it off. In a 5 year mortgage, you will typically refinance after 5 years (unless you hit the jackpot in the interim).
Prices aren't down 20-30% - you're referring to average sales price. Big difference. It's been attributed to the sales mix (people opting for condos/townhomes)
Sorry. Your info doesn't match the same reality I live in. As the parent said, sales went down (don't know about mix). Prices for detached homes have not. We were seriously putting offers in March and got outbid for INSANE sums. e.g. 720K offer in Milton .. property went for 100K over. In Mississauga, homes listed for 850K went for 950K-1million. I am looking at data now and it has slowed but not gone down yet.
Real estate is local. I've seen multiple listing in the Toronto area, SFH, that haven't sold and are delisting at 20-30% below comparables from 3 months ago.
Unless I'm reading the reports wrong, according to the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) the average price of a detached housed in the "416" (Toronto) area in July 2017 was $1,304,288. In August it was $1,191,052.
So that means a -8.7% change from July to August alone.
Numbers for recent months - Detached houses in "416" area code:
August: $1,191,052
July: $1,304,288
June: $1,386,524
May: $1,503,868
April: $1,578,542
Yeah, I get that - I was responding to a comment above about the "sales mix" between detached, townhouses, and condos. The data I referenced directly contradicts the assertions made above that the price declines were due to shifts in the "sales mix" between those three types of homes. Sure, you could argue that the prices declines were shifts within the detached housing market, but I haven't seen anyone provide data on that.
"From the market's peak in April this year, the average price for detached homes in the GTA has fallen 19.6 per cent to $968,494 in August from $1,205,262 in April, bringing the average detached home price back below $1,000,000 in the region."
It is also worth noting that there was exceptionally abnormal growth[1] early in the year. The average price for July only brought it back to trend. It will be interesting to see what August numbers bring.
Most peoples "social circle" is very, very small. Think about the number of eligible women (or men) within your circle - it can probably be counted on 2 hands. Are you sure you want to limit your selection of something as important as a forever partner?
Network, not circle. The term 'social circle' isn't really well defined, so I'll define it as "people with whom you have social interaction with on a regular or semi-regular basis". A social network is anyone they are connected to, and them to them, etc. Your social network is much larger than a social circle. Think six degrees of kevin bacon.
In order to dramatically grow a social network you might only need to make friends with 1 person who is outside your normal social network. For example, if you joined a gym and made friends with one person whom you then played squash with every week, and that person is otherwise unconnected to anyone else you know, now there is at least a plausible chance to meet any of the people in their social network. I'm no expert here, but surely someone at Facebook can give an example of how adding a new friend who isn't in your normal group of friends can drastically increase your connections.
If you can use this social network effectively, you have (I think) a much better chance of finding a lifetime partner than using a dating site, both because of how difficult it is to identify an appealing personality online, and because social network connections are (I think) much better paths to a potential match.
My first response here was to explain in this circumstance a person with "strong social skills" would have a number large groups they interacted with. For example religious groups, exercise groups, charity groups, etc.. All of which could provide a handful of potential mates through casual encounters. So easily a few dozen opportunities given a reasonable sized city.
But... that really implies there is something wrong with people who don't have the time, or inclination to involve themselves in such activities, or simply aren't the kind of people who can successfully get a date from a casual encounter (heck I've known people who get get dates from 30 second interactions in the grocery store) like this.
So, while I'm far from an expert on this, I suspect this is just more of our modern sickness. The idea that not only does a person have to fit a long list of criteria to be eligible, but they also have to have honed their social skills to the point of being able to woo someone into a date with just a casual encounter. And frankly, the people I know who could accomplish this were also some of the "worst" people I knew (lets start with the idea that they were completely unreliable lairs).
So, I return to the idea that traditional human society weren't these huge cities, but rather smaller villages where it was possible to have such a limited pool as to generally grow up with your spouse, and be aware that a large part of bringing up children/etc was spending time on those lower rungs of the ladder working out issues. To keep going with the idea that someday in the future it would be possible to climb back up those stairs to happiness. But this also means that such modern conveniences as birth control are actually harmful to society because its possible for a couple to fall into/out of love without the traditional responsibility of raising the children that were the result of a few weeks of biological romance (and lets face it the lusty rutting of 20 somethings is little more than biology having its way).
I dunno. I jumped from school to the military, then out of the military into the workforce. I've had spiritual adventures and travel adventures.
I am somebody who knows what I want and why I want it. And I've found that the best path to getting those things is usually the one you're already on, you just have to make slight course corrections.
But why do you find it so hard to empathize with people who look at their lives in a different way? What's with going around calling people irrational instead of just different than you?
He is making a generalization. Apple makes about 80% of the market's profits with their phones. They sell a ton and bank on it. The other companies either don't sell a lot, or like Samsung, they sell a ton but barely make a profit.
Depends on the quarter. Last year there was a quarter where Apple ended up with over 100% profit share because, in aggregate, everyone else lost money.
The US, Japan and the EU are all printing absurd amounts of money. That "stimulus" needs to go somewhere, and right now it's going to every single asset class.
The central banks wanted inflation, but they got some perverted form, where wages and prices remain stagnant, and only stocks/real estate/etc have had their prices increase.
Depending on how idealistic/cynical you are, a new feudal dystopia of renters vs rent seekers, a bloody revolution, or just a gradual increase of consumer inflation to match.
I mean, as a sorry Java jockey, I make around $5,000 per month. I frequent Reddit, a news aggregator with comments. Reddit is worth $1,700,000,000 dollars, according to the latest funding round.
Hint: Governments have more perceived control than actual control.
It's seriously disappointing, but if the claims by people crying out about "Chinese money" are correct, 15% was never going to be enough. If your concern as an individual is your currency losing 50% of it's value over night [likely worse case for these individuals], then a 15% tax, even in a bubble market starts to look like a good deal.
Which they are, but in the case that you need to get to your 'asset' Vancouver is a hell of a lot closer so it's a preferable option. As someone who regularly commutes to the other side of the world, i feel like what I'm saying probably sounds odd if you don't...but i suspect this is a major factor.
Part of that is that the Government relaxed the rules, e.g. allowing students and foreign workers to purchase real-estate without paying the tax. So the markets do work.
The government and their developer pals were counting on the tax not making a huge difference. And when prices started moving down they immediately relaxed it to counteract that. At least that's one way this story can be told.
There were already loopholes where foreigners could avoid the tax through local corporations or have relatives buy for them.
...
"You can lock in for about 5 years"
what?