Canadian Money Forum banner
1 - 20 of 93 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
When boomers were buying homes at astronomical interest rates, home prices didn't rise as they have in the low interest environment of the past few years.

Many boomers had already retired and sold their homes before the steep rise in home prices.

We never considered our homes as investments, but liabilities that provided shelter. It was considerably less costly to rent shelter.

Our investments were pension contributions, CSBs, GICs, and for some financially astute boomers equities, often in the form of mutual funds.

Young people who are overextended on their mortgages have put themselves at great risk if interest rates rise precipitously, and I don't see any way for them to avoid the ensuing financial hardship that would create.

The problem is too big for the government to save everyone.
The government needs to smarten up and allow development, and fix housing laws.
They caused this problem, the first step to fixing it is to stop causing it.

Some people are touting the NZ approach, of basically trying to get rid of government roadblocks to building housing.
Just think about that, the next big idea in fixing real estate is stopping government interference.

Also figure out how to raise interest rates << that's the hard one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
If interest rates go up here the RE market will bleed. Unlike Turkey we need to keep people paper rich and passive

Fed seem to indicate they won't raise rates. People don't protest the money printer. People like the money printer

Don't worry it's transitory. You'll be paper rich
That's the thing, most people don't understand why high inflation is bad, or even really realize it.
I've recently heard lots of complaints about inflation, but indirectly about how expensive "things are", they're talking about it in the aisles of stores.

But people notice a 10% increase in price way less than a 10% drop in property values.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
It will crush down inflation. Other matters should not be important for central bank at this point. 4% unemployment is a bottom. People are not gonna flip burgers for $12 if they can make more, by selling covered calls in the bull market. That’s something that the fed can fix.
Things need to be kept in balance. They could triple rates tomorrow and that would crush inflation, but it would also slam the breaks on the economy causing more harm. It needs to be done in a gentle way.
Unfortunately we've built a house of cards on the expectation low rates will continue for some time, so it's gonna be tough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
What were the interest rates last we had this high inflation?
My income doesn’t grow 5-6% per annum to keep up with inflation. And it is central banks main and the only job to keep inflation in check, not to please the “self made investors”.
That's not the only job.

Inflation is a key role of monetary policy, but it can't be pursued single mindedly without disasterous effects.

Plus government policy is the direct cause of inflation.
You can't simply go give a massive handout and not have an impact on inflation.

If they are too aggressive on the inflation target it will destabilize the financial system, which is also really bad.
IMO a lot of bad policy for years has led to the point where we've only got bad options, and they need to navigate between them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
Former Nutrien Ltd. CEO Chuck Magro made roughly $16.4 million, setting him up as the 11th highest paid CEO in the country.
BS.
In 2020 over 65 CEO's in the US made over $25M, Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I doubt $16.4 even gets you into the top 100.

But yes, I'd expect you'd have to pay quite a bit to get someone with his experience, being CEO of Nutrien is kind of a big deal.
He's also on the board of a number of organizations, I imagine he's an excellent pick for his new position at Corteva.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
Wikipedia:
"Nutrien is a Canadian fertilizer company based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. It is the largest producer of potash and the third largest producer of nitrogen fertilizer in the world. It has 1,500 retail stores and more than 23,100 employees. Wikipedia
Stock price: NTR (TSE) $89.32 -1.93 (-2.12%)
Jan 5, 4:00 p.m. EST - Disclaimer
CEO: Mayo Schmidt (Apr 2021–)
Headquarters: Saskatoon
Number of employees: 23,100 (2020)
Founded: January 1, 2018"
Kind of irrelevant isn't it?
Ukraniandude specifically named Chuck Magro, the CEO of Corteva Agriscience.
He didn't mention Mayo Schmidt (who isn't the CEO of Nutrien either)

Looking into it, apparently he was looking at 2020 salaries when Magro was actually the CEO of Nutrien, and was among the higher paid CEOs.

My mistake, I assumed a thread about CEO salaries in Jan 2022 would be focused on 2021 salaries.
This is what happens when people spout older facts which may be hard to find without a usable reference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
The success of a company is not a one-man show, that's why you don't even need a CEO to successfully run a company.
Yes you do. They might have a different job title, but you need one.

And when there's a CEO, since it's not a one-man show, that's why the CEO doesn't deserve a pay of a few million dollars a year.
It matters, I think choosing and guiding a company can create tremendous value.
I'm glad to pay Tim Cook an absolutely astonishing level of compensation, because under his watch Apple did well.
Maybe it's due to the rest of the team, I don't really care.

What's so special and unique about a CEO or an athlete justifying multimillions in annual salary?
Nothing, they negotiated their compensation with their employer, it's between them.
Unless you're paying the salary it isn't any of your business.

It isn't like it's your money, so you rightly don't get a vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
Why inflation can actually be good for everyday Americans and bad for rich people - CNN

Not sure how the headline identifies how inflation is bad for rich people. Also, there are a lot of assumptions around the positive results such as wage growth, appreciation of real estate etc.
A lot of the article focuses on very near term trade offs.
From the article >> "Another group getting hit are people with exposure to government bonds — think households with more than $1 million who typically invest in both equities and debt. "

The idea that the people who have a balanced asset allocation strategy are going to get hurt more by high inflation is "interesting".

I think inflating away debt sounds like it helps poor more. But if you want to inflate away your $20k in CC & car loan debt, while I "inflate away" my mortgage and real estate value... I'm cool with that.

That VISA/Mastercard stock that skims off a small percentage of every transaction... darn looks like their profit will inflate as well.

High inflation hurts everyone, and when you hurt everyone, the poor tend to get the worst of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
I am not sure if you are purposely ignoring the facts of this woman's experience or you just have a limited attention span. If you read her bio you can see that in addition to her BA in Journalism she has 5 years at CNN she and 9 years at the Wall Street Journal. I think 14+ years in a profession should give someone credibility, Just because you may disagree with this particular article does not mean she is not credible.
Based on the incredibly poor quality of the content, I do not find her to be credible on financial matters.
The "facts" cited aren't referenced, and they're also silly in application.
The actual argument/premise of the article isn't true, and the case to support it is laughably bad.

The writing itself however is excellent, it's just the factual content that is lacking.

I don't think anyone was denying that she's a good writer, but to suggest she is a credible or competent authority on anything financial is interesting. I don't think anyone competent in finance who was concerned about their reputation would have submitted such a poor article in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
While that may be true, the solution is a bit more complex. They're already building lots of small condos, but not enough family-sized homes. We need more 3-bedroom townhomes and detached homes, but we don't want more McMansions. There should be more supply of detached homes from 1500-2000 sqft, but builders aren't interested because it's not profitable to buy land and put a small house on it. The cost of land is the biggest problem right now. We need a way to acquire land cheaply. This is where various levels of government could be more involved. They could provide land cheaply to developers, but in return there would be set limits for lot size, house size and price per square foot.
The problem is if the city is only going to give you permits to build 20 homes, are you going to build 20 mid priced homes, or 20 of the most expensive and profitable beats you can?

Zoning laws already exist that control all that, typically even requirements for "affordable units".
But again as long as they limit how much you can build, they're going to maximize what they can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
Why not expend the cities limits and issue 200,000 permits for 150 square meters houses? It certainly doesn’t look like Toronto and Vancouver one big megapolis. Plenty of room between and around them.
Why expand city limits?
That's kind of irrelevant to the problem.

If they're not letting people in Markham build, do you think renaming Markham Toronto will suddenly change their mind?

Here in London we have lots of land, the city says no. In the surrounding communities, they say no too.
Heck they wanted to replace half a dozen houses with student rentals with an apartment building, way more units, and even more affordable units than the handful of houses they were replacing, city said no.

The problem is that it simply doesn't make sense to spend months or years fighting the cities/townships to let them build. Even if they eventually win, they've lost a lot of time and energy.

That's one of the reasons I don't invest in residential real estate, my time and money is better spent elsewhere.
Really, why tie up money building housing and dealing with all that trouble?

The residential real estate I AM invested in is in the US, where the governments are more likely to allow development. That's capital flight in action.
I want to build housing for Canadians, but the government said no. Okay fine, I'll go build for housing for Americans then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
The law should be changed, it should be mandated on federal level to issue permits in five business days. The program of issuing hundreds of thousands permits should by created. Make houses abundant, and dirty cheap. This will further remove the speculators aka investors from the market.
No for many reasons
1. It's provincial jurisdiction. How would federalizing it make it better?
2. The current targets for 5-30 days is completely reasonable. Remember permitting means checking a LOT of things.
  • When I applied for commercial Reno permits, I was approved in hours.
  • My residential reno permit was approved while I waited.
3. The system should be expanded, but part of it is that they're short staffed etc.

I think the BS/political reasons to say no should be shot down.

FYI, I live in a spec home, speculative builds are how I found a property to quickly and easily move to my location.
I think investors and speculators add liquidity and make the market run better.

Heck, when they build a new subdivision, with thousands of houses, who do you think does that?
Investors and speculators, it isn't like the city goes and puts in new streets and infrastructure hoping that someone shows up and builds houses there. It's all built by investors and speculators. I don't want the goverment spending tax dollars speculating on real estate.

Why do you think government should take on this role?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
Because other way seems inefficient. We don’t have abundant and cheap house. Invite building companies from China and Turkey, if local contractors can’t make it fast and cheap. There’s a way if there is a will. You can build millions of houses on the belt from the USA border to 40 degree north.
No, my question was specifically why you wanted to ban private real estate investors and have the government become the real estate speculators instead?
The idea that the government will be more efficient at real estate investing than the private sector seems absurd to me.


We could have abundant cheap housing, if the government let us.

The single biggest problem with housing is that when someone asks "may I build a house here", the government says "no".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,534 Posts
While I agree there is an element of this type of donor-driven corruption in Canadian politics, I think it is minuscule compared to the mess the American's have to deal with.

The biggest effect is probably the more classist affinity of the rich educated party elites for their rich educated friends that run the businesses. If you wanted to throw stones at THAT system, you'd be voting for the NDP or Green's -- the outsiders with no school chums on the boards of directors.
That's actually the problem with the NDP.
Nothing about making it better for lower or middle class, just trying to make it worse for the rich.

Heck many of their policy proposals simply make it worse for EVERYONE, which I guess is one way to "punish the rich"
 
1 - 20 of 93 Posts
Top