tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post2794994652576508304..comments2024-01-05T04:31:53.418-08:00Comments on Housing Analysis: Central1: The sheen is clearly off the housing marketmohicanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06094213357140749289noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-73021524227333826462010-06-24T22:21:40.070-07:002010-06-24T22:21:40.070-07:00"While CMHC numbers may not reflect a true va...<i>"While CMHC numbers may not reflect a true vacancy rate, any change in those numbers is probably proportional to a change in vacancy in units not counted by the CMHC."</i><br /><br />Professional property management companies were citing vacancy rates between 5% and 6% last year. If we're talking relative change (not exactly sure what you mean by relative change), that's significant in % terms (i.e. 1.9% to 2.1% is about 10% change on a small segment of rental stock; 5% to 5.8% on the remaining stock is huge at the margins). <br /><br />I still think CMHC posted vacancy rates do not reflect much on the true vacancy rate of remaining stock because of the CMHC-tracked buildings' property managements' strategy: not necessarily charging as much rent as possible but ensuring stability and low vacancy.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155122147972263497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-62545680700936885642010-06-23T08:34:17.339-07:002010-06-23T08:34:17.339-07:00The real estate market in Vancouver is extremely s...The real estate market in Vancouver is extremely strong because of Asian Hot Money. Nothing to see here folks, move along:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwiihpZ_9gIUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15514401616054084755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-62996394950125966712010-06-22T23:49:29.269-07:002010-06-22T23:49:29.269-07:00Jim,
No worries.
Jesse,
As far as I'm conce...Jim,<br /><br />No worries.<br /><br />Jesse,<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned I would say as long as you compare apples to apples it makes sense. While CMHC numbers may not reflect a true vacancy rate, any change in those numbers is probably proportional to a change in vacancy in units not counted by the CMHC. <br /><br />While some are professionally managed and some are investor owned, the idea is the same. Rent it for as many months as possible for as much money as possible with the least amount of risk. That being said I know people in purpose built rentals who barely make rent some months and also know people in amature landlord units (like myself) who could pay an entire years rent right now if they wanted to. <br /><br />I really dont think the quality of renter in purpose built rental buildings is much better than those in strata buildings. If anything newer buildings would attract more affluent individuals who are probably more financially secure. <br /><br />That being said I would agree that non CMHC counted buildings do have a higher vacancy as amature landlords try to get more money to cover costs, but I think an increase in purpose built rental vacancy would have a proportional increase in vacancy in units not included in the study.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16361217381016612518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-73759107306914825622010-06-22T23:26:53.236-07:002010-06-22T23:26:53.236-07:00"CMHC rental data are a weak gauge of the ove..."CMHC rental data are a weak gauge of the overall rental market, however a small sustained change in CMHC reported vacancies in Vancouver is significant."<br /><br />Jesse,<br /><br />Actually, the point I am making is that there is minimal deterioration from Q1 2009. Good news for landlords.JimTanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13480972517925246528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-81051737915245288542010-06-22T23:23:25.305-07:002010-06-22T23:23:25.305-07:00"1.9 to 2.1 is an increase of 0.2. Kinda make..."1.9 to 2.1 is an increase of 0.2. Kinda makes me wonder about the rest of the numbers."<br /><br />David,<br /><br />Sorry. Typo error. April 2009 1.9% Fall 2009 2.1%. April 2010 2.2%.JimTanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13480972517925246528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-35402499916310419262010-06-22T18:32:13.047-07:002010-06-22T18:32:13.047-07:00Purpose built rentals in Vancouver consist of most...Purpose built rentals in Vancouver consist of mostly older stock and the methods the managers use to keep vacancies low is not what many other landlords do: they offer reasonable rents, choose their tenants carefully, but raise rents on a consistent but ongoing basis to keep up with costs. <br /><br />CMHC rental data are a weak gauge of the overall rental market, however a small sustained change in CMHC reported vacancies in Vancouver is significant. It means there are few available tenants who meet the entry criteria. Reduced tenant quality in a market with growing population is a sign of weakness.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155122147972263497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-44217279040946264982010-06-22T18:15:55.549-07:002010-06-22T18:15:55.549-07:00David,
Probably just due to rounding.David,<br /><br />Probably just due to rounding.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674598615114704610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-80534654334193020742010-06-22T17:36:24.301-07:002010-06-22T17:36:24.301-07:00Jim,
I read the first line of what you posted an...Jim, <br /><br />I read the first line of what you posted and am already highly suspect.<br /><br />"According to the CMHC rental survey April 2010, Vancouver CMA's rental vacancy increased by only 0.3% from April 2009 (1.9% to 2.1%)."<br /><br />1.9 to 2.1 is an increase of 0.2. Kinda makes me wonder about the rest of the numbers.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16361217381016612518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-9698406772806500732010-06-22T15:09:05.485-07:002010-06-22T15:09:05.485-07:00Please, the CMHC survey concerns itself only with ...Please, the CMHC survey concerns itself only with purpose-built rentals:<br /><br />"The spring survey covers apartment and row structures containing at least three rental units, and unlike the fall survey does not report information on:<br /><br /> 1. Smaller geographic zones within centres<br /> 2. Secondary rental market (rented condominium apartments, single detached, semi-detached, duplexes or accessory apartments"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2010/2010-06-15-0815.cfm" rel="nofollow">National Rental Vacancy Rate Edges Higher</a><br /><br />A 2.1% vacancy rate for purpose built rentals is high by recent norms and suggests rising vacancies in condos. And their rents have nothing to do with price support for other properties.patriotzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11154064267408955762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-52235792218740064772010-06-22T14:11:59.433-07:002010-06-22T14:11:59.433-07:00I've covered this already at RE Talk
"Go...I've covered this already at RE Talk<br /><br />"Good news for Vancouver landlords (updated)<br /><br />According to the CMHC rental survey April 2010, Vancouver CMA's rental vacancy increased by only 0.3% from April 2009 (1.9% to 2.1%). And, rent for two-bedroom (existing structures) increased by 2.9%. (2.7% April 2009) on Page 4. That means rents are still catching up to higher house prices.<br /><br />By comparison, Calgary increased by 1% (4.3% to 5.3%). Kelowna (2.8% to 3.7%) and Abbotsford (4.8% to 6.6%). Victoria 1.2% to 2.5% (?). Toronto 2.4% to 2.7%.<br /><br />The good news for Vancouver is that the vacancy rate was 2.1% in Fall 2009. So, there has been no significant deterioration in the last year, and none in the last half year. Despite the poor economy and delivery of new housing. Bad?"JimTanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13480972517925246528noreply@blogger.com