Consider reallocating from real estate to other reliable investments like stock, crypto or precious metals . Severe recessions offer market buying opportunities with caution, as volatility can yield short-term trading prospects. Not financial advice, but it may be wise to invest, as cash isn't ideal in this period.

It's often true that people underestimate the importance of financial advisors until they feel the negative effects of emotional decision-making. I remember a few summers ago, after a tough divorce, when I needed a boost for my struggling business. I researched and found a licensed advisor who diligently helped grow my reserves despite inflation. Consequently, my reserves increased from $275k to around $750k.

nice! once you hit a big milestone, the next comes easier.. who is your advisor please, if you don't mind me asking?

Well, there are a few out there who know what they are doing. I tried a few in the past years, but I’ve been with Melissa Terri Swayne for the last five years or so, and her returns have been pretty much amazing.

I just looked her up on the internet and found her webpage with her credentials. I wrote her a outlining my financial objectives and planned a call with her.

True, tho

First, your profit margin Need to control Racism, sexisn , classism , snobbery Perception of renters

seconded

Sure, we need more of these sinister geniuses who conveniently emit majority of the blame that lies on the Chinese speculators and their dirty foreign money. You look at him and it's obvious why he does that. Great video production skills though.

@@enzovirk I’m not 100 percent bro but I’m pretty sure he is Korean not Chinese either way your issue with the world is not with this guy. This guy makes great community content, and seems geared towards making Vancouver a better city. Can you say that? Goof

Exactly. Corporate money and cashflowing a group of people into perpetual renters. The path to wealth is building equity.

Problem with that analysis is the wealthy also own a bunch of condos, so it's not necessarily the 99% building equity but rather racking up debt.

@@person-yu8cu not true. Home ownership rate is over 60% so when prices rise 60% of households benefit from more wealth. Important thing is to keep the wealth as distributed as possible

@@grildcheez1504 The housing prices are several times household income and of course there's interest. So it's not really wealth, just debt and they may lose when the bubble collapses. Many people can't afford a down payment, but could afford a lower rent if more rentals were available.

@@person-yu8cu This is not new. Housing prices in many cities are many multiples of income. If house prices collapse no one will be building homes because the material and labor cost to build a home still stays the same so the only thing that would happen is new homes won't get built if people can't finance them. And this comparison to 30 years ago is fake. Vancouver was not a world class city then. Canada was not a sought after place for immigration. Vancouver specials were 2000 sqft budget homes if you compare any neighbourhood or home in 1980 to 2021. Condos never had washers/dryers, gyms, fire code, swimming pools, sprinkler, etc in them, houses didn't have 4 kitchens and 7 washrooms. Neighbourhoods weren't getting rezoned for higher density driving up land cost. It's all fake propoganda news by the government and developers to drum up more tax sops and taxes to fund themselves. People didn't have youtube/tik tok software with shopify stock options making bank with tyecnhlogy leverage www.cbc.ca/news/business/lumber-prices-covid-19-cost-of-housing-1.5973416 www.vantechjournal.com/p/vancouver-unicorns All these newly minted vancovuer millionaire employees can buy million dollar homes easy with their equity. No probem

The housing crisis is global, but you're going from good to bad whereas Canadian big cities are going from bad to worse. The solution is the same everywhere though: more housing (and not in the distant suburbs either).

@@tristanridley1601 is the solution more housing? Vancouver is a great example of a city that built more and more. Unfortunately all of it gold sold ot foreign investors. And the same problem stays.

​​@@tristanridley1601cities like berlin went from good to bad all the way back when we sold all the public housing for "austerity" which we are now trying to buy back for 10-20x the price. Absolute joke of a government

Don't forget it's Canadian dollars though. But still... it's extremely expensive.

+

All because of those criminal negative interest rates.

Berlin sold a lot of public housing to investors for "austerity", thats what f-ed us over

You are people willing to pay ridiculous rents and house prices because of the lack of supply. The US alone is lacking 5 million housing units in high demand areas. In the South, In the West and in North East from DC to Boston.

@@paxundpeace9970 Everything is overbuilt in America. Way too much excess supply.

There's another solution available to the Provincial governments, too: take back zoning control. They have the ability to do this and, honestly, I think it's time they did. The future of cities can't be decided by the silver hairs that don't want anything to change when everything always changes.

If you are an investor and see that government has a history of screwing the type of investment you are considering over, you don't invest. Whether that means the original developers will not undertake the project will only be seen in real life. Once trust is lost, it will be hard to regain.

@@gfair2 Provincial governments should not handle zoning, that an over extension of their responsibility.

@@IkeOkerekeNews It isn't actually. Provinces have previously had zoning duties and have the ability to reclaim them from cities. With a city like Surrey overtaking Vancouver in population it's very clear either Metro Vancouver wants to turn Vancouver proper into an enclave for the wealthy waterfront class, or the City is grossly mis-managing its land and needs to have its privilege of zoning duties revoked.

@@gfair2 If provinces once had the ability do create zoning codes, but have ultimately devolved them to municipalities, I suspect that there must be a deeper reason for this occurrence, likely the growing micromanagement needed to implement zoning policies by provinces, and the introduction of democratic governance within these municipal entities and related bureaucracies. Nowadays, the norm is for local institutions to handle the development and implementation of zoning. Zoning is primarily a local issue, and besides some small interventions from provincial and federal government, should be handle by local governments.

What's not to understand ? Who wouldn't want a house? Renting puts you at the mercy of landlords slumlords, racist, $$$grubbers and neighbors you didn't know . A life renter id love small ( not tiny ) home .

When I was renting my rent went up by at least 100$ every year at a minimum with no maintenance or upgrades. And paying rent never stops. Now I will pay the same amount every year until I only need to pay property tax. They have to build or buy the property and pay many people to manage them and they still need to pull in a profit. Owning your own is a better deal here where I live. I don't think most people need a landlord. Renting is good for some things though. Like if you've moved to a new place and want to live there and explore for a year before buying, or if you're attending a university and will move away soon. Or a temporary job.

Could I ask you why you came from Europe (as they have great middle-level housing)? Also want to ask how it compares to living back home.

You don't own anything until you make that last mortgage payment, until then, the bank owns you. All you own is the bills for maintenance and upkeep of the property and the taxes.

@@BoggWeasel Hardly, what you own is the value increase and equity in your place. Also, kicking out someone who has a mortgage on a property is quite a bit harder and more expensive than someone who is renting - at least in quite a few countries. This also grants security.

@@dinokknd It's still not yours until the final payment, you may have certain "property rights"... still not your land. "Whoever owns the debt owns you".

@@BoggWeasel I do not see your point. The equity is yours. The bank only owns the amount that you owe. Assuming you somehow default on your payments, it'll get sold, and the value above the amount you owe is yours. This is also not in the banks interest, as you paying off your mortgage in financially more profitable for them long term.

@@dinokknd Assuming you've been in the home long enough to develop the equity...it takes a long time time to get over that red line....meantime, anything can happen. Nearly 50% of Americans are only one or two missed paycheck from financial disaster. Your mortgage can be sold from under you and traded with a subsequent increase in repayments as the new owner can increase the interest payments, all without your permission. Banks are being far too liberal with loans, driving up prices as it creates a housing shortage and people are buying into overpriced properties they can't really afford... Signing on the dotted line for a mortgage doesn't make you safely housed or rich. Most homes are a sinkhole of expenses with property upkeep and will not be a comfortable economic fit for the owner until after at least the first 10 years...

Incorrect

Actually, it's more complicated. Mortgages are either flexible rate or fixed. If flexible, the owner is at risk of rates going up. If fixed, the terms are typically 3 or 5 years. Not longer. So by the time 20 years have gone by you have probably had to renew 4 to 6 times already, each time facing interest rate risk.

This seems like an indictment on the entire rental system. What if landlording was just illegal? (I know, it's a utopian idea so better to just join the upper class if at all possible and buy property.)

Still a fixed rate is expensive and considering higher interest rate then in the last few years. Ownership can be expensive. Mortgage rates went up in part 1000 Dollar a month.

If rent is increasing, likely property taxes have increased so they'd also increase the monthly payment on a house

@@jusunglee6673 This is assuming landlords would try to pass the costs onto the renters, rather than sell their properties? Honestly it would take a research paper to make any strong claims about the effects of a policy like this, but these are some of my thoughts. Some places have laws about allowable rent increases, but outside of those places you would probably see a small increase. It would depend a lot on rental supply and renter behaviours (willingness to share space to cut individual costs, etc.) as well as how long the landlords can afford to sit on empty properties. It would also depend on what level a taxation policy like this is enacted (municipal, provincial/state, or federally). The more people and housing included in the policy, and the less likely it would be to result in significant rent increases. However, if a taxation policy like this were enacted it is also likely that some amount of these privately owned rental properties will be placed on the market. The likely effect of this is a moderate decrease in housing prices, but again it depends a lot on local conditions, behaviours, and what level it is enacted at. From my observations in my city, it is likely that a lot of the older (more affordable for first-time home buyers) properties would be purchased to tear down for infills. So I would be very surprised to see it have any significant effect on housing prices in the desirable inner-city neighbourhoods but could have a large local effect in decreasing suburban housing prices.

One of the other items that doesn't get talked about enough is the repurposing of housing stock for SMB offices. Lawyers and Doctors and accountants and architects often buy larger older homes (Mainly because older homes were larger) and convert them to corporate offices. Once that happens, they almost never are returned to use as accommodations. Here in Toronto in the Downtown core, I suspect as much as 10 - 15% of all Victorian homes are owned by corporations who are using them as office space. This removes them from the housing space entirely and contributes to the supply/Demand imbalance.

You're just changing who's being the landlord without addressing the problem of housing being an appreciating asset. Having homeowners even more invested in housing does not de-commodify it.

@@bopete3204 If fewer singular entities own multiple units of housing, there should be more housing for individuals to own as primary residences. People tend to hang on to primary residences much longer than people hang on to investment properties. This should reduce property sales/turnover and slow down property price growth.

@@downhillupside Oh trickle-down economics. If we concentrate the assets under just a few large corporations then they will create more housing? We have seen that what happened is those profits get put into other long-term investments where they make no contribution to the street-level economy. They just juggle numbers on a spreadsheet and funnel the profits back into those financial constructs but never actually build anything or sell and physical goods and certainly are never given to lower-income people for the purposed of spending on real goods. This is where one of the purposes of government is to redistribute wealth and prevent excessive concentration of financial assets by building social housing, and providing items like a basic income to ensure everyone has enough money to have a place to live and sufficient funds across economic cycles to ensure the economy remains a stable functioning machine.

@Killer Miser But people need affordable housing NOW.

More like at least not for the next couple of hundred years.

@88wooper88 Maybe you need to ask yourself why this video has higher production values than what you normally see on KZfaq - could it be his sponsor’s agenda?

lol i cant say i expected to see you here :O keep up the good work man

Thank you!

Well put

German real estate has also become expensive.

@@zomgoose true....so called social democracies "You will own nothing and you'll be happy"....sounds a lot like communism to me

@@eutoob That's a fucking stupid way to look at things, I'm getting tired of idiots complaining about communism when that's literally capitalism at work.

@@SherrifOfNottingham But that is what communism is owning nothing and apparently being happy.

As a homeowner, I do not want prices to keep going up. My home being worth twice what it is now has no real impact unless I move to a much cheaper area. It's not like I can just sell it to realize the gains as then I'd have nowhere to live. Even worse, if I want to move to a more expensive property, the additional cost due to price growth makes it more difficult. If prices went in half tomorrow the only difference would be that I could afford to sell and buy a nicer place. The only real benefit I can imagine is that I can use the value in my home for retirement, but even that has limited impact as I'd still need somewhere to live.

@@graham1034 Thank you - folks like you suggest there is still hope.

@@graham1034 once u are old, u can sell, and plan a retirement in a rental, u will die eventually, lol. Joke aside, I understand your point, but rmemener that the rst of the "investors"are not thinking like you, there's people out there that think that this is a sport. Also, think about the impact of the rise of prices in other social classes, Vancouver pays bad and is expensive, is simple Math, Taxes are high and yet the city doesn't provide that much help for people that can't afford to buy nor rent.

@Killer Miser A fundamental understanding of democracy is that the majority rule, with minority rights protected. Read another way, democracies must steer clear of a tyranny of the majority with the well-being of the minority in view. If there are policies and market inputs that are preventing housing from correcting, and as a result is producing and entrenching a shocking level of inequality between two groups - as indeed there is - this would qualify as a breach of the above understanding. We're at risk of irreparably damaging our society - nothing less.

@@graham1034 a major problem is getting on the housing ladder in the first place. the cost of entery is getting higher and higher.

@repCanada Yes property owners are bad, so let’s rezone and crank up density, so we can make money off it. Think about what is at work in this video. This guy has been paid to manipulate you - seems like it worked.

This. One house per family and having to prove income used to purchase was generated in Canada. Problem solved. Want to generate wealth, start a business and do something useful to society.

This. Relying on a single real estate property as your main investment vehicle is incredibly risky. If you asked someone if they would consider taking out multiple times their yearly income in a margin loan to buy a well diversified stock and bond portfolio, they would nearly universally say "no, that's gambling". But that would be far less risky than putting that money into a single real estate property with unforeseeable idiosyncratic and localized risks. Here's the first part in one of Ben Felix's videos on the subject: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i9txjZd-nszDo4E.html

Well that’s another problem, with how high rents are across a number of cities and the depressed wages in Canada, the average earner doesn’t have much left to save at the end of the month, not even to build an emergency cash balance, let alone save for retirement.

i was thinking the same thing too. if the rent is affordable and extra cash can be saved, it could be invested in the securities market. many blue chip companies pay dividends. over time dividend compounding can build wealth. i think it's less risky than investing in real estate. also with real estate the cost of property taxes and big repairs can be great and also do not build equity.

People own because they want to be anchored have jobs of longevity Millenua however think ( hahaha) they won't marry or breed so rent rent rent. Truth is THEY FEAR COMMITTMENT. They fear losing their jobs.

Put down a throw rug.

Another factor (especially valid for BC) is that most of this growth is immigration. And immigration into Canada is highly biased towards net gain in money, it prioritises highly paid young professionals and international students, who pay for tuition. Sometimes you even have to bring in cash to be accepted into the country. And housing is one of the main "buckets" where this capital ends up in. While in Germany there is a lot of EU immigrants, who don't have to be high paid nor have any requirements on bringing in the capital.

Population growth is not as big as you think. As he somewhat pointed out mind set is the biggest problem. Germany still has the mindset of a house is just a place where you live and raise a family, Canada and US also use to have this mindset. Now the Canadian and US mindset is that houses are investments that you have to make money on. With that mindset people will do what it takes to keep the value to continue going higher. This shift started to take place in the late 80's early 90's and is fully entrenched now.

You never own the land. It's called property tax.

Are you crazy! Why would anyone buy if they can just rent in a coop. Why do you think they stopped building it after the 80s. :) Vancouver unfortunately is just a greater fool scheme.

But that’s communist!!! 😂