This morning I spent some time not only having a good breakfast, learning a few interesting points from CMHC and their research. More geared towards the Fraser Valley.
Here's some interesting points that I was able to quickly write down. They are in point form and some may just seem random. I tried to write down what I beleived were the most important!
-Fraser Valley market is in a balanced market, while Chilliwack is in a buyers market
-Vancouver average house price is $1.182m while the Fraser Valley is at $623k.
-With the twinning of the Port Mann more people are to settle in the Fraser Valley. Easier access to Vancouver and surrounding areas which will keep the Fraser Valley, more so Surrey and Langley as a hot spot
-House prices are predicted to go up 5% in 2011 and 3% in 2012 in the Fraser Valley
-Rates are to remain favourable
-CMHC predicts the variable to have a very modest increase of maybe up to .50% in 2011 and 2012
-$123B in housing starts are registered
-Inter provincial population growth is expected to be about 8-9000 people. Which international is expected to be around 50-55,000 for 2011-2012. In the Fraser Valley approximately 11,000 of those will come while the others spread around the GVRD. Surrey is still expecting about 1,000 people a month, as it is right now, to come.
-Business bankruptcies do not have huge numbers like they did in the 90's which is a great sign
-The population age between 65-74 years old is growing fast and more demand for smaller homes will be needed
-Full time employment is down. Abbotsford's unemployment was one of the highest recently at just over 10%, while in the last month it has come down
And here's something that I really didn't know about in regards to your CMHC insured mortgage if you are making lump sum payments. You can actually ask for that money back from the lender in one lump sum or over a period of time. The returned amount has to be the lesser of the original amount or 90% of the homes value.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Why the banks are ran solely as a business
People say to me a lot 'oh I'm ok, I don't need your services, I've been dealing with my bank for 30+ years. They'll do what I need'
I hear this often and I have one good story that hits a little too close to me and some past clients.
I know of an older dear couple that the wife had just passed away and the husband needed to get out a $30k unsecured line of credit. Not that he needed the money. It was that all his investments were tied into GIC's (which is not good)
His bank, with which he's had a relationship for 30+ years, turned to him and said "sorry the max we can do without securing against your home is $20k" This wasn't enough for him. A funeral now a days is pretty darn expensive.
So he complained a little, told them he had more than enough in his GIC's to cover it etc.
They let him leave saying we'll look into doing something and will call you back in a couple days.
Finally they did and this is what they did for him. 2 line of credits of $15k each. One at Prime +.50% and one at Prime +3.5%. Secured against his GIC's.
They would NOT give him a full $30k, with a good rate, unsecured. I think this is wrong as he's been such a huge supporter of this bank for so many years.
The moral of this story is, no matter how long you've been with your financial institution, it does not necessarily matter. Not to say this is the case all the time, I just hear about it a lot. Using an independent whomever mortgage, insurance, investment, adviser is always the way to go as we are unbiased and do not use just one lenders products.
Remember the banks are in it to make a profit. This is their sole drive.
I hear this often and I have one good story that hits a little too close to me and some past clients.
I know of an older dear couple that the wife had just passed away and the husband needed to get out a $30k unsecured line of credit. Not that he needed the money. It was that all his investments were tied into GIC's (which is not good)
His bank, with which he's had a relationship for 30+ years, turned to him and said "sorry the max we can do without securing against your home is $20k" This wasn't enough for him. A funeral now a days is pretty darn expensive.
So he complained a little, told them he had more than enough in his GIC's to cover it etc.
They let him leave saying we'll look into doing something and will call you back in a couple days.
Finally they did and this is what they did for him. 2 line of credits of $15k each. One at Prime +.50% and one at Prime +3.5%. Secured against his GIC's.
They would NOT give him a full $30k, with a good rate, unsecured. I think this is wrong as he's been such a huge supporter of this bank for so many years.
The moral of this story is, no matter how long you've been with your financial institution, it does not necessarily matter. Not to say this is the case all the time, I just hear about it a lot. Using an independent whomever mortgage, insurance, investment, adviser is always the way to go as we are unbiased and do not use just one lenders products.
Remember the banks are in it to make a profit. This is their sole drive.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Great quote - Follow up to, 'not about lowest rate'
I was sent this quote today and it ties in so perfectly to previous posts about how it's not about the lowest rate out there, it's about the best product that suites your needs and not the lenders needs.
Here's the most recent post http://gitersos.blogspot.com/2011/05/its-not-always-about-lowest-rate-follow.html
"It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little.
When you pay too much, you lose a little money...that is all.
When you pay too little you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot...it cannot be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder it is well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better.
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell for a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only, are this man's lawful prey"
JOHN RUSKIN (1819-1900)
Here's the most recent post http://gitersos.blogspot.com/2011/05/its-not-always-about-lowest-rate-follow.html
"It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little.
When you pay too much, you lose a little money...that is all.
When you pay too little you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot...it cannot be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder it is well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better.
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell for a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only, are this man's lawful prey"
JOHN RUSKIN (1819-1900)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)