Not Another Vancouver Real Estate Post!


Pretty soon when you look up “Vancouver Bear”, you just might find my face on the Oxford dictionary.

Nah, I shouldn’t flatter myself. There are plenty more unpopular Vancouverites in the city claiming the podium; one being Mohican from Langley Financial Planning. Mohican found this hilarious gem on MLS.

MLS®: V643849 $529,000
mls

House on a quiet street. 1/2 block East of Nanaimo. 3 bedrooms up & 3 bedrooms down. New paint on main. Low basement ceiling. Tenanted at @ $1,050/month. Hold and build later. Needs notice to show.

$1,050 a month is quite pathetic when you consider that’s only $12,600 a year, or a 2.38% rent yield, which is barely above inflation.

We’re not done yet. The rent yield is before expenses, which include property tax, water and sewer tax, home insurance and maintenance. All taxes combined should amount to more than $3,000 per year. We ought to set Tax Freedom day on Mar 31st, when all rents collected up to this point are funneled to the government.

Needless to say, the “earning” yield is much lower than 2.38% after expenses, but we’ll be generous and dock only a quarter off to make 1.78%

The recommendation from the seller is to either “hold or build later”, but neither options are sensible. Who would want to hold for a 1.78% yielding property with a scant growth prospect? (In BC, landlords are restricted up to ~4.2% rent increases each year.) Might I add the 5-year mortgage rate is up - again - to 5.79%? Borrowing 5.79% to buy a slow-growth property yielding 1.78% is ludicrous. Some people belittle renters because “rents are money out the window”, but so is paying mortgage interests, taxes and insurance.

The second option of building later will cost dearly. I know a couple of friends who paid a vicinity of $250,000 to build a home in Vancouver due to labour shortage and higher material costs. Add the construction cost to this purchase price, and you’re a proud owner of an $800,000 Vancouver special. Now you really must push the throttle to earn your 5.79% interests back, or $3,860/month. Remember, the interests aren’t the only expense. Tag along another $250 of taxes, insurance and maintenance to round up the figure to $4,110/month.

Wouldn’t it be funny if I get a spanking from the seller? The things I do for my readers.

 

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

I’ve been following the real estate market in BC for 3 years and I still don’t understand it.
According to your post, and I totally agree with you, it makes no sense whatsoever to buy this property.
The problem is that this is definitely not the only one like that and it will probably sell within 6 months. What are people thinking when they buy such property?

Its even worse then you calculate. According to John Reed, its a well established figure that you’ll typically pay 45% of a MARKET VALUE rent for expenses (including the cost of management either in $ if you hire someone or in time if you do it yourself).

From this perspective, a property paying $1050 rent / month would have a cashflow of $577.50 after expenses. This would indicate that at an interest rate of 5.79 the most you should pay is $119,689.11 (577.5*12/0.0579).

At this price, assuming you could somehow get the 5.79% rate with 0% down you’d be paying the principle portion of the mortgage yourself (the tenant would JUST be covering expenses and mortgage interest).

$530K is quite a joke from an investment perspective (and pretty nutty even from a speculator/gambler perspective)

What a beauty for half a million :)

When do we hear a pop! in the market?

I would bet that the $1050/month is for the basement 3bdr. only. You would be hard pressed to find a complete house to rent for less than 1500 in Vancouver or Victoria.

Thanks for the comments. I find this ad funny since most sellers put their best foot forward. Personally, I wouldn’t advertize the rental rate.

Heck, they could rent those 6 bedrooms out at $400 each, increase the yield and be a big part of the solution for our need for affordable housing…

Seriously, that’s what is happening with dumps like that in Britain now as the cost of housing is so expensive. You could get 50-65 pound per week for a room in a house like that, say $55. So that would give the equivalent of $40k of income/year in Britain in a place like Bristol.

I paid $65 pound per week, and the tent pays the taxes, which was culture shock, and then there is the TV tax and untilities. By the time utilities and everything else they dinged you for, and a an exchange of 2.3, it worked out to about $900/month for a room only big enough for a single bed…

It’s happening in Vancouver. Our lending practice hasn’t changed, but affordability index had risen to 70%.

How is that possible? Well, people are buying smaller places: townhouses and condos. Some townhouses in Coquitlam are approaching half a million.

Great blog, btw, Deborah. I’m shocked that I haven’t had the pleasure earlier.

Ok, if I knew how to do one of those “link back” thingys, I’d do it, but instead I’ll just tell u that I referenced this post in my post at: http://www.four-pillars.ca/2007/07/24/house-wars/

Mike

[…] their boomer parents. I think those house buyers should consider the value of renting according to Financial Jungle. Ok, it’s a different city but the logic still […]