www.theglobeandmail.com
I agree. How convenient for the banks and insurers that the same rule didn't apply to them in 2008.
Bailout was relatively minor last time around and was to largely shield the cdn banks from the Lehman/Wamu collapse.
Governments shouldn’t have also bailed out the banks and insurers in 08. I would say a great deal of society’s problems today, and in particular the economic problems plaguing most advanced economies, was that moral hazard and the implicit guarantee that was created such that global feds and treasuries stand ready to bail out all financial institutions as soon as any hiccup occurs.
The claim is over exagerrated on homeowners forming a bloc. Bank of Canada said that only 1/3rd of canadians have a mortgage. Based on the number we can calculate what % is in danger territory. These houseowners split across geogrpahy and ethnicity forming or voting as a bloc is extremely remote.
The continued success of the Doug Ford PCs and the federal Liberals, both of whom would have been turfed by now in any other advanced democracy with a rational electorate over economic mismanagement, ballooning immigration and population growth matching the most underdeveloped nations in the world, blatant corruption, and presiding over the sharpest decline of living standards among the G7 and the OECD over the past decade, disproves this assertion. The NIMBY vote delivered for Carney, and it delivered for Ford.
This is a red-herring. Mortgage amounts don’t matter as much as HELOCs do, which isn’t nearly as heavily regulated by OSFI as mortgages are. Your typical 905 boomer can have 40k remaining on a 150k mortgage, but an outstanding HELOC that is multiples of that. A home price collapse would absolutely devastate this person, and it is in their best interest to preserve or keep housing scarce so prices can continue to rise, and the real value of the HELOC debt degrades over time.
Trump tarriff factor played a big role in Liberals winning the election among other things. While housing is one of the issue, there are other factors at play here and there wont be a critical mass of homebuyers that fall into the bucket you are mentioning.
This is nothing more than pundit sensationalism re: Trump tariffs. Conservatives still got the highest vote share of the parties and handily won the popular vote, but because of our parliamentary system, the liberals have a built in voter efficiency advantage. Switching out Trudeau was the main winning move. That is backed by the evidence. Despite historic and unprecedented demographic change, neither of the major parties, including the so-called "conservative" one, despite a populist anti-immigration backlash across the west, campaigned on restricting immigration. This bolsters my assertion, given homeowner voting blocs prioritize home values even at the cost of social cohesion. In much of the rest of the developed west, you don't really see this outside of Australia as most of the population hasn't enjoyed unprecedented booms in the values of their homes.
This is a meaningless number on a relative basis, given our smaller economy and smaller population as compared to most peer countries. What matters is debt-to-GDP and per-capita debt ratios, and those are at historic levels. This is from 2018 as the 2024 numbers are not out yet from Statscan:
betterdwelling.com
That is quite a stunning view, and before the debt driven and QE growth that has caused housing to double since the pandemic, unlocking even more HELOC borrowing space on homes while real wages have remained relatively flat for most quintiles since. In short, we're likely to see HELOC debt levels relative to GDP reach even above 15% when the most recent numbers come out, and on a per-capita basis, that would put our HELOC debt at the highest of the advanced economies. When your housing debt levels are higher, on a per-capita basis, then every other advanced economy including the 9 with larger and more diversified economies, then that speaks to the government policies that continuously stabilize the housing sector at the cost of everything else a well-run, diversified, 21st century economy requires (Immigration of low-skill workers, low productivity growth from excess TFW labor supply, demand-side housing policy creating an effective floor for prices such as FHSA, ballooning of international students creating a floor for rents, etc).
This is a strawman. I never claimed the system is unstable or prone to collapse, on the contrary, as long as the government continues to pursue policies that drive housing prices and the implicit understanding is there that the government will bailout the sector if things get bad enough, there won't be a collapse. That requires a voting bloc, the one I've been citing, who are willing to sacrifice everything else such as a highly productive economy, social cohesion, low crime, stable demographics just to keep the housing market pumping. That's a choice, and while most other electorates in the advanced economies are making another choice, we've clearly as an electorate decided where our priorities should be.
The point made regarding troubled homeowners as a voting bloc will determine the govt is the fundamental point I disagree with. There is not enough critical mass to sway the elevtion one way or another. Other points you are making, most of them are open to interpretation based on other variables.This is nothing more than pundit sensationalism re: Trump tariffs. Conservatives still got the highest vote share of the parties and handily won the popular vote, but because of our parliamentary system, the liberals have a built in voter efficiency advantage. Switching out Trudeau was the main winning move. That is backed by the evidence. Despite historic and unprecedented demographic change, neither of the major parties, including the so-called "conservative" one, despite a populist anti-immigration backlash across the west, campaigned on restricting immigration. This bolsters my assertion, given homeowner voting blocs prioritize home values even at the cost of social cohesion. In much of the rest of the developed west, you don't really see this outside of Australia as most of the population hasn't enjoyed unprecedented booms in the values of their homes.
This is a meaningless number on a relative basis, given our smaller economy and smaller population as compared to most peer countries. What matters is debt-to-GDP and per-capita debt ratios, and those are at historic levels. This is from 2018 as the 2024 numbers are not out yet from Statscan:
Canada’s HELOC Problem Is One of The Biggest Risks For Real Estate - Better Dwelling
Canadian real estate owners received a windfall of equity over the past decade. Rather than selling for a profit, many are turning to home equity lines of credit (HELOC) to reap the rewards. The popular form of debt allows owners to borrow equity in their home, and pay it back like a second...
That is quite a stunning view, and before the debt driven and QE growth that has caused housing to double since the pandemic, unlocking even more HELOC borrowing space on homes while real wages have remained relatively flat for most quintiles since. In short, we're likely to see HELOC debt levels relative to GDP reach even above 15% when the most recent numbers come out, and on a per-capita basis, that would put our HELOC debt at the highest of the advanced economies. When your housing debt levels are higher, on a per-capita basis, then every other advanced economy including the 9 with larger and more diversified economies, then that speaks to the government policies that continuously stabilize the housing sector at the cost of everything else a well-run, diversified, 21st century economy requires (Immigration of low-skill workers, low productivity growth from excess TFW labor supply, demand-side housing policy creating an effective floor for prices such as FHSA, ballooning of international students creating a floor for rents, etc).
This is a strawman. I never claimed the system is unstable or prone to collapse, on the contrary, as long as the government continues to pursue policies that drive housing prices and the implicit understanding is there that the government will bailout the sector if things get bad enough, there won't be a collapse. That requires a voting bloc, the one I've been citing, who are willing to sacrifice everything else such as a highly productive economy, social cohesion, low crime, stable demographics just to keep the housing market pumping. That's a choice, and while most other electorates in the advanced economies are making another choice, we've clearly as an electorate decided where our priorities should be.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but all of the evidence and data simply aligns more with my view than yours.
www.hilltimes.com
Simply put, NIMBYism is real, and my assertion is NIMBY pressures become more extreme as housing values in a particular nation have ballooned relative to the OECD mean. This is why you see conservative parties struggle to reign in migration in countries where housing has transformed into a major component of national GDP. Countries like the UK, Australia, and ours. And it’s why you don’t see this political reality in countries that don’t, such as the United Stares, Germany, France, etc. where migration and addressing broader economic challenges are the major concerns of the day. It’s also why these countries have obliterated their long-ruling incumbents, but Australia and Canada have not. The difference is not “enlightenment” or a magical resistance to populism the average Canadian and Australian somehow possess. The difference is a highly motivated bloc that’s been doing exceptionally well for themselves in one of the worst performing economies of the G7 over the past decade. This is not a conspiracy theory. It’s simply saying people, at the end of the day, know where their bread is buttered and will vote accordingly.
Hit the nail on the head. My dad was a 905 boomer. Had $46K in mortgage and $225K in an LOC against the property when he passed away. Canadians have some of the highest consumer debt on the planet. And most of that is tied up in housing.
Given this I find it quite amazing how many new build condo developments I'm still seeing in Etobicoke.
Once the gears are in motion for a big development and financing is secured most projects will still get built. Many put up now would have been started (the process) 5-7 years ago.
www.blogto.com
Yeah, I remember along the lake when you had John Duck's Tavern next to the Palace Pier and a bunch of motels. That was about it.The forest of condo towers along the Gardiner continues its march westward.
Massive 13-Tower Community Proposed at Kipling and Queensway | UrbanToronto
Figtree Holdings has submitted plans for a redevelopment of Kipling-Queensway Mall at 1255 The Queensway in Etobicoke, proposing 13 towers rising up to 65 storeys. The community would also deliver new parks, retail, and a possibly an elementary school.urbantoronto.ca
Toronto Cineplex theatres could be demolished and replaced by 10 huge towers
A sprawling Cineplex theatre complex in Etobicoke could soon be torn down to make way for a huge new development that would boast towers as tall as 4…
2025 Canadian federal election - Wikipedia https://share.google/kMyJHtSftCCvO8aR2This is nothing more than pundit sensationalism re: Trump tariffs. Conservatives still got the highest vote share of the parties and handily won the popular vote, but because of our parliamentary system, the liberals have a built in voter efficiency advantage. Switching out Trudeau was the main winning move. That is backed by the evidence. Despite historic and unprecedented demographic change, neither of the major parties, including the so-called "conservative" one, despite a populist anti-immigration backlash across the west, campaigned on restricting immigration. This bolsters my assertion, given homeowner voting blocs prioritize home values even at the cost of social cohesion. In much of the rest of the developed west, you don't really see this outside of Australia as most of the population hasn't enjoyed unprecedented booms in the values of their homes.
This is a meaningless number on a relative basis, given our smaller economy and smaller population as compared to most peer countries. What matters is debt-to-GDP and per-capita debt ratios, and those are at historic levels. This is from 2018 as the 2024 numbers are not out yet from Statscan:
Canada’s HELOC Problem Is One of The Biggest Risks For Real Estate - Better Dwelling
Canadian real estate owners received a windfall of equity over the past decade. Rather than selling for a profit, many are turning to home equity lines of credit (HELOC) to reap the rewards. The popular form of debt allows owners to borrow equity in their home, and pay it back like a second...
That is quite a stunning view, and before the debt driven and QE growth that has caused housing to double since the pandemic, unlocking even more HELOC borrowing space on homes while real wages have remained relatively flat for most quintiles since. In short, we're likely to see HELOC debt levels relative to GDP reach even above 15% when the most recent numbers come out, and on a per-capita basis, that would put our HELOC debt at the highest of the advanced economies. When your housing debt levels are higher, on a per-capita basis, then every other advanced economy including the 9 with larger and more diversified economies, then that speaks to the government policies that continuously stabilize the housing sector at the cost of everything else a well-run, diversified, 21st century economy requires (Immigration of low-skill workers, low productivity growth from excess TFW labor supply, demand-side housing policy creating an effective floor for prices such as FHSA, ballooning of international students creating a floor for rents, etc).
This is a strawman. I never claimed the system is unstable or prone to collapse, on the contrary, as long as the government continues to pursue policies that drive housing prices and the implicit understanding is there that the government will bailout the sector if things get bad enough, there won't be a collapse. That requires a voting bloc, the one I've been citing, who are willing to sacrifice everything else such as a highly productive economy, social cohesion, low crime, stable demographics just to keep the housing market pumping. That's a choice, and while most other electorates in the advanced economies are making another choice, we've clearly as an electorate decided where our priorities should be.
