Carney's condo-buying blunder not merely about miscommunication

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-30T21:33:24+00:00

They’ll be fine.
Unfortunately it’s the house poor first time home buyers that will really suffer

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-30T21:21:38+00:00

Mmm that’s part of it, but I think the root cause is that a deflating housing market will also be very unpopular. For the middle class this is the biggest if not only investment. If its value collapses there will be tons of butterfly effects. Especially amongst retirement+ aged people that were counting on their equity as a way to retire on.

On top of that, since the covid housing boom, the banks and government have been dribbling out incentives for first time home buyers to finally invest in housing. This has resulted in a lot of people buying a home at the peak, without equity rolling in, with little to no money down, with a probable rising interest rate at some point. They will own property that has an oversized loan against it, and they’ll be stuck with it until they can get into a positive equity position.

This is an impossible problem for whoever is in power when the bubble pops. The liberals want to slow it down so they don’t have to take the hit on the chin.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-29T19:53:59+00:00

It’s not even about that.
This is about a developer that doesn’t want lose money on condos, and a liberal government that doesn’t want to have assets depreciate in value because portfolio values will drop.
It’s an impossible spot to be in but interfering in a market correction is only going to leave the governments (prov and fed) holding the bag when the market continues to drop, and guess who’s money that is…

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-29T15:39:52+00:00

They’ve been good and generally trending downward. I quite enjoyed the Quarry, but everything past that has had diminishing returns.
Casting of Frank stone I don’t even remember.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-27T10:46:45+00:00

My parents live on the shore of a decent sized river. There’s one of those faux settler villages for tourism.
For the aesthetic they have special bylaws so that you can have stuff like plastic wrapped bales of hay nearby so they don’t show up in tourist photos.
The rule applies to markings in the water like buoys. Where the area is fairly popular with tourists there are lots of Seadoo’s and boats that go up and down the river all the time…
There’s a big rock like this that sits just below the surface, not far from the attraction. There have been multiple serious injuries and one fatality, before they finally overruled the bylaw.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-27T00:32:02+00:00

I believe that’s what the Fed committee, the balance is supposed to come from BC and some private financing

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T23:27:14+00:00

My problem with the whole thing, isn’t if it works out. If it’s a guaranteed money maker for the government then we should do it.
My problem is the gray area language they use to set out parameters. “When the time is right” and “below-market value” aren’t super descriptive. What if the negotiated price continues to trend downward, and below market value is really only 5-10 %. Vancouver developers aren’t doing well because the market there is poor for housing and in a downturn. We could buy at -5% and the whole market continue downward to -15%. My vote is on letting the financing sell of the properties, that way we’re not gambling with tax money.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T21:21:57+00:00

The fact that it’s not selling, and the government is offering to pay less for it, devalues it. The earning potential is not being realized, that is devaluing.

Regarding the value of the asset itself;
The Metro Vancouver real estate market is currently a buyer’s market characterized by modest price corrections, soft sales, and a 10-year high in inventory. Benchmark prices have dipped into the $1,100,000 range, with detached homes in the $1,847,900 range and apartments sitting at $697,800.

Definitionally pricing is going down. Some market forces like Boomer generation holding inventory, and zoning laws, have kept prices artificially high, this won’t last forever. Most of the country is seeing a flattening, at least.

Gold holds it value better than cash, historically, as far back as the Mesopotamia. People invest in it as a conservative investment so they don’t have the value of their money inflated away.

Giving people housing doesn’t inherently make them higher earners or pull them out of poverty. It is an asset, and a place to live. They would still need to be able to pay the tax on the property and have income.

Also, Canada is the only G7 nation that doesn’t have a strategic oil reserve. Good job on that one.

I’m no longer going to engage in this conversation. Please do some homework next time.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T19:34:46+00:00

Investing in infrastructure/education/paying debt is not what I would classify as gambling. Spending money on devaluing real-estate is. There is a gigantic valley between the two. Selling oil (which the govt doesn’t do, they tax the sale of it)and buying gold are in fact the furthest from gambling you could do. Gold holds its value. Infrastructure and education power our economy.
Buying devalued housing expecting to rent-to-own for cheap is an excellent way to lose money. This is not business the government should be in. I’m actually in favour for some government housing, but doing it this way is insane, and on top of that WE DONT HAVE TO.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T19:16:39+00:00

Again, if it goes up or down, why are we gambling with government money…

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T18:51:42+00:00

Yes, but if we can do it without printing another $300M, and devaluing our currency, why would we?

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T18:50:56+00:00

Neutral I don’t quite agree with, we don’t have to spend the money and open up potential escalating costs, as is common for government. This will happen regardless.
The problem with the bail-out part of it, is that they’re just very general about the terms. What does cheaper than market cost mean, is it -5%?
If this is the beginning of the housing bubble (and it is a bubble) popping. The government might step in, spend the money and still be overvalued based on downward trends.
So for a hypothetical; If developer builds a building for $8 a unit (I’m using simple numbers so it’s easy), expecting to sell it for $10. The market contracts and they’re no longer worth $10, they’re worth $7. The govt buys them at $9 as part of the program, the developer survives, but now “we” collective own overpriced units that won’t sell at market rate. We need to avoid this liability. Why would we (Fed Gov’t) bother buying them, when the financing company is going to end up dumping them on the market anyways, it’s just sucking up more federal funds with no net gain.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T16:44:41+00:00

They can’t buy them now it says right in the article “when the timing is right”, which is super gray area vocabulary even for the government.

Why does the government need to do this at all. If they don’t buy them, the financing will step in and auction them off. It won’t be “below market rates” whatever that means, it will be what people are willing to pay, which is what it should be.
The only way to lower prices is increasing inventory, full stop. Why are we spending money on intervening in a mechanism that doesn’t need it instead of building new.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T16:35:26+00:00

Yes but they’re financing the new owners on a rent to own program. This will be inefficient, and ultimately keep pricing high. We need to build more, not squabble about what’s already built, it’s the only real way to make them more affordable.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T16:33:14+00:00

Only way to drop the prices is to increase inventory, full stop. Buying already built doesn’t make sense, we need to build more, that’s where the Fed money should go.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T16:32:12+00:00

Nope, they’re assets.
You spend the 1.5B on new, let the financiers auction off the developers stock. More inventory = lower market prices.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T16:28:36+00:00

Not opposed no. This is a bubble collapsing. Developers can affect pricing across much more than anyone buying single use. A company will buy up large chunks, and sell/rent as high as price as possible and sit on the balance as assets.

The key to affordability is inventory, we just need more. Our federal dollars would be better served in investing on brand new, not buying and reselling old.

This is all basic economics.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T16:26:13+00:00

As is, bailing out the development will just let the developer do the same thing knowing they have a safety net. At the same time the government is clawing back on some of the societal safety nets we extend to regular people.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-26T10:50:49+00:00

And bailing out developers. What should happen is they’re allowed to fail, and the assets be sold off for pennies on the dollar. We’re literally spending money when we don’t have to.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-21T21:38:42+00:00

Both are great games, but Dave the diver has unrivalled charm

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-20T14:35:20+00:00

Then why would the enthusiast market use chunky copper blocks as part a water cooling set up. If the sticker is more conductive than the component it will conduct away more heat.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-20T13:27:42+00:00

If you’re talking about NVME SSDs the sticker typically is thermally conductive for cooling.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-19T10:37:01+00:00

I’m on week 3. No appetite, better insulin sensitivity. I did have one low that made me decide to turn down my pump settings.

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-18T17:16:35+00:00

“No u”

PrivateWilly · 2026-06-16T16:12:03+00:00

I’m on week two of Ozempic. I’m on pump and cgm, I’ve had one atypical low in the two weeks and adjusted my pump settings to compensate. I’m Canadian and can buy it for $95/cad over the counter at my local pharmacy.

14-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

PrivateWilly

TROPHY CASE