The Decline of Vancouver.

The stock markets have long term average gain of around 7-8% per year, which means a doubling of market indices in about 9-10 years. So by the measure of the markets, a doubling of property value in 15 years means it's a fairly poor investment.

The stock markets have long term average gain of around 7-8% per year, which means a doubling of market indices in about 9-10 years. So by the measure of the markets, a doubling of property value in 15 years means it's a fairly poor investment.

yeah putting all that money into the stock market is a good idea, as long as you're ok with living in a van for 10 plus years.

…as long as you're ok with living in a van for 10 plus years.

Livin' in a van isn't so bad,
as long as you still have money for fuel to keep movin'

"I'm totally cool with living on a street block where we're the only people living there full time"
- No-one ever

yeah putting all that money into the stock market is a good idea, as long as you're ok with living in a van for 10 plus years.

You're missing the point. The point being that doubling in value every 10 years is normal in most markets, be they capital markets or real estate. Doubling in 15 years is actually a slower than normal rise in price.

"I'm totally cool with living on a street block where we're the only people living there full time"
- No-one ever

Thats why my wife, kids and i left the west side. It was becoming a total ghost town. No people, no families, no kids.

In the 2.5 years we lived in our place, if i stand on the street corner and turn around, i could count 8 houses that were demolished, rebuilt as McMansions and (most) now sit empty. The house we were in is going down this summer. Within a 2-3 block radius it was dozens of houses.

In like 1981 the WSJ featured an article on the Vancouver real estate market and at that time stated real estate in Vancouver was like a casino.

Funny, my landlord at the time, an MD, had bought three properties on west fifth with investors and had flipped them all except the one I were living in when the market crashed he took a bath boo fucking hoo and eventually sold our house for a lose he thought he was going to retire to Birch Bay had a house in the 15hun block of Grant wonder whatever became of his sorry speculating ass?

ha ha……….

You're missing the point. The point being that doubling in value every 10 years is normal in most markets, be they capital markets or real estate. Doubling in 15 years is actually a slower than normal rise in price.

you missed the sarcasm?

here's an interesting page i found while poking about the interwebz, it compares median income to average home price.

“By the way, I think Vancouver is a great place but it is in a major bubble. A lot of hot money from outside has inflated values. Patterns like this are short-term just like Japanese buying in California during a previous bubble. These bubbles will burst because any housing market is going to be supported over the long-term by local households and what they can afford."

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/canada-housing-bubble-ripe-for-popping-vancouver-housing-bubble-2012-pop-real-estate-canada/

ps - the aricle is from 2012

The stock markets have long term average gain of around 7-8% per year, which means a doubling of market indices in about 9-10 years. So by the measure of the markets, a doubling of property value in 15 years means it's a fairly poor investment.

RE values typically come nowhere near doubling every 15 years. Nor should they.

Equites represent a share in business' that operate with the intent to grow profits, enter new markets, etc, etc. For them to double every decade makes sense, new opportunities, new valuations.

It seems silly to suggest that RE should double every 10 years when the corresponding factors that contribute to increased values are not in place - wage growth.

Not seeing a doubling in values there either.

So … you agree that treating RE as an investment is silly, then?

So … you agree that treating RE as an investment is silly, then?

It seems like people really dont like agreeing with this concept. Jeepers.

So … you agree that treating RE as an investment is silly, then?

i dunno, some smart guy on the other page said that a doubling in value of real estate in 10 years is normal. isn't that a good investment?

The point being that doubling in value every 10 years is normal in most markets, be they capital markets or real estate.

:P

So … you agree that treating RE as an investment is silly, then?

Is this a riddle?

You stated that it took RE 15 years to double, making a it a poor return compared to equities. You also stated that its normal for assets to double every 10 years.

Am I to deduct from all this that there is nothing to talk about because RE returns are actually lagging those of other assets?

Or..?