Federal Government & Politics II

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I'm curious what will happen in the next 10 years as Boomers hit 65-85 years old and become unable to care for SFHs or move to assisted living facilities or retire elsewhere? They'll either be cashing out and/or handing off real-estate or liquidity (if they sell) to their children (maybe). Either way, this should increase supply and drop prices a bit, no? Not saying that's a SOLUTION, but... you can't take it with you.

So far, Boomers seem inclined to hold on to their homes as long as possible, in part due to a lack good alternatives. If anything, I would have thought that inherited wealth might tend to increase prices.

Edit: Remains to be seen whether the Boomers will mimic the previous generation - it seems to take a crowbar to get elderly seniors out of their houses and into seniors apartments/assisted living.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I'm curious what will happen in the next 10 years as Boomers hit 65-85 years old and become unable to care for SFHs or move to assisted living facilities or retire elsewhere? They'll either be cashing out and/or handing off real-estate or liquidity (if they sell) to their children (maybe). Either way, this should increase supply and drop prices a bit, no? Not saying that's a SOLUTION, but... you can't take it with you.

Boomers seem much more likely to stay in their SFH than previous generations. They will leave them eventually, but the peak of the baby boom was in the late 50s, so I would expect we are 15-20 years away from a large-scale boomer exodus of SFH. My boomer parents and their boomer friends and boomer siblings are all in SFH. Most of my grandparents' (greatest) generation friends and relatives had moved into condos or similar accommodation by that age.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

So far, Boomers seem inclined to hold on to their homes as long as possible, in part due to a lack good alternatives. If anything, I would have thought that inherited wealth might tend to increase prices.

It's hard to say... on one hand, you have buyers with a (potential) windfall of inherited cash. That said, many of those "children" already are part-way through a mortgage on a house... On the other, the largest generation gradually disappearing and having to hand off their physical holdings. Which will be the stronger vector on the market?

Edit: Remains to be seen whether the Boomers will mimic the previous generation - it seems to take a crowbar to get elderly seniors out of their houses and into seniors apartments/assisted living.

I've seen a lot of houses in our market from THAT generation that have had to be basically gutted before becoming liveable again.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I'm curious what will happen in the next 10 years as Boomers hit 65-85 years old and become unable to care for SFHs or move to assisted living facilities or retire elsewhere? They'll either be cashing out and/or handing off real-estate or liquidity (if they sell) to their children (maybe). Either way, this should increase supply and drop prices a bit, no? Not saying that's a SOLUTION, but... you can't take it with you.

Boomers who may have considered offloading their SFH for nice retirement communes saw what COVID did to those facilities and would rather pay for help / modify SFH homes to stay...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Nashe

It's hard to say... on one hand, you have buyers with a (potential) windfall of inherited cash. That said, many of those "children" already are part-way through a mortgage on a house... On the other, the largest generation gradually disappearing and having to hand off their physical holdings. Which will be the stronger vector on the market?

I've seen a lot of houses in our market from THAT generation that have had to be basically gutted before becoming liveable again.

Of course, today's renovation thing was not a thing for that generation - in most cases, you bought what you could afford and lived with it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nashe

Which will be the stronger vector on the market?

The yearly intake of FNSs, by far. (And they'll all prefer a roof over their heads, I suspect.)

What's "nice" (from a real estate investment PoV) is that Canada is stuck needing fresh meat to fuel the Scheme at this point; how can you possibly hope to pay for all the old people's entitled goodies if you let the workers/retirees ratio shrink? We are forced to import tons of people per year now -- even PM Poilievre will have to continue with the program. And these people will all need places to live.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Harper faced a government that had been in power for over a decade. He didn’t need to have charisma, just a pulse. Carney would be taking over a party that has been in power for almost a decade, he needs charisma.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Running in 2029 after PP has been in power for four years (dealing with the mess created by Trudeau) seems like a lot better odds than trying to run on Trudeau’s record in 2025. As I said last week, the window for a switcheroo was last year.

Yes but odds are they give the Liberal leader two chances which means whoever is leader now gets the 2029 crack. If you are Carney the highest odds of being PM (non interim) are probably being leader now. If you are Fraser or someone younger the math changes.

I will grant you the odds aren't super high for anyone 60+ in 2025 being a Liberal Prime Minister. But 1 in 4 maybe taking over now and winning either miracle 2025 or 2029? Wheras getting another shot at even leader seems very unlikely. I guess piling up cash in the private sector from 60-65 is another option setting up generational wealth that many are obsesseed with due to the hunger games we have set up in this country on housing.

[lio45]

I think there's a good chance the Canadian electorate will be too stupid to remember by 2029 that the shitty state of affairs the country is in by then is STILL mostly the fault of the damage caused 2020-2025 by Team Red, so the chances of getting a Liberal PM back in office in the 2029 election are pretty high, IMO.

The two ingredients it requires:

1) PP proves unable to do magic, so we generally continue on our current shitty trajectory despite the CPC's efforts to reverse some of JT's worst damage;

2) The electorate doesn't like the state of the country in 2029 so its reaction is to vote out whoever happens to be in charge at the time.



... so, pretty likely that both will prove true, IMO.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes but odds are they give the Liberal leader two chances which means whoever is leader now gets the 2029 crack. If you are Carney the highest odds of being PM (non interim) are probably being leader now. If you are Fraser or someone younger the math changes.

I will grant you the odds aren't super high for anyone 60+ in 2025 being a Liberal Prime Minister. But 1 in 4 maybe taking over now and winning either miracle 2025 or 2029? Wheras getting another shot at even leader seems very unlikely. I guess piling up cash in the private sector from 60-65 is another option setting up generational wealth that many are obsesseed with due to the hunger games we have set up in this country on housing.

The practice with recent Liberals and Tories was to dump them after one loss. The Stanfield/Turner days are over.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by casper

With these battery plants the Canadian feds are trying to match what the US is doing to attract some manufacturing while at the same time avoiding the borrowing that would be involved to fully match the US plan. The conservatives are obviously against even that minimum measure.

So obviously that you could provide a quote or source?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lio45

I think there's a good chance the Canadian electorate will be too stupid to remember by 2029 that the shitty state of affairs the country is in by then is STILL mostly the fault of the damage caused 2020-2025 by Team Red, so the chances of getting a Liberal PM back in office in the 2029 election are pretty high, IMO.

The two ingredients it requires:

1) PP proves unable to do magic, so we generally continue on our current shitty trajectory despite the CPC's efforts to reverse some of JT's worst damage;

2) The electorate doesn't like the state of the country in 2029 so its reaction is to vote out whoever happens to be in charge at the time.



... so, pretty likely that both will prove true, IMO.

Even if PP is the best PM ever (which does not seem likely to me), he has a hell of a hole to dig out of. More likely he will waste energy on gimmicks that won’t do much.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by casper

What I think is critical is allowing the mortgages to go out longer. Not stress testing those renewing if they shop their mortgagee around.

Yes, it is going to be a hit. But what is critical is ensuring people can stay in their homes.

You do realize that due to time value of money, extending amortization beyond 25 years does not bring down the monthly interest payments materially right? Essentially it's a financial trap that makes the mortgagor worse off.

Stress testing wise, there's plenty of lenders like credit unions that they can turn to if borrowers don't want to be stress tested at renewal. Again, the stress test is a powerful tool by OSFI to rein in systematic banking risk. If Trudeau dares to ban stress testing as you seem to be cheerleading for, then Trudeau is de-facto stripping OSFI of its regulatory powers and destroying OSFI's ability to function as an independent regulator.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Given that Canada has full recourse mortgages, it seems like the least bad of the crappy options is for the homeowner to sell while house prices are still high. Trying to extend the amortization will put a lot of people underwater when the inevitable drop in prices eventually happens.

Exactly. Since this government has full on converted housing in this country into a financial instrument, then the axioms of financial instruments apply.

In particular, there's the disposition effect and loss aversion bias, where irrational investors sell their winning positions, and keep holding on to their losing positions for dear life. I foresee real estate as an asset class that makes homeowners especially irrational.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The practice with recent Liberals and Tories was to dump them after one loss. The Stanfield/Turner days are over.

O'Toole seemed like he would have been given another chance. Granted he came close but Convoy aside he'd have had another year and been leading in the polls by then so safe. Dion also seemed like he was on track before the whole CTV Coup etc scandal.

Seems like if they avoid a total wipeout they'd get a second chance no? The Liberals don't have a good mechanism for getting rid of leaders as we see now with JT. Ignatieff is maybe the better precedent though for a Carney takeover though he did really badly. Libs still odds on favorite to be official opposition which should let the new leader survive.

All that said I agree the window has passed for a reasonable transition.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I'm curious what will happen in the next 10 years as Boomers hit 65-85 years old and become unable to care for SFHs or move to assisted living facilities or retire elsewhere? They'll either be cashing out and/or handing off real-estate or liquidity (if they sell) to their children (maybe). Either way, this should increase supply and drop prices a bit, no? Not saying that's a SOLUTION, but... you can't take it with you.

Provinces should be encouraging older people to sell by getting rid of ridiculous programs that let them defer property taxes. If you can’t afford to pay property tax you shouldn’t be living there.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even if PP is the best PM ever (which does not seem likely to me), he has a hell of a hole to dig out of. More likely he will waste energy on gimmicks that won’t do much.

I think he will decisively
1. End wokenes (mostly symbolic with marginal economic impact )
2. Make substantive regulatory changes
3. Cut benefits and cut taxes. Winners and loser net plus for productivity but marginally.
4. Cut Civil Service head count. Save some money but also have some negative economic impacts.

Bluster on everything else.
No real cuts to immigration (beyond what Liberals have already announced)
No progress on housing with gatekeeper talk etc.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Provinces should be encouraging older people to sell by getting rid of ridiculous programs that let them defer property taxes. If you can’t afford to pay property tax you shouldn’t be living there.

Oh yeah that sounds like an election winning policy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Kind of a dirty tactic though. Has a potential future party leader ever been subpoenaed by the Opposition openly stating that they want to force their views publicly. I'm not sure the CPC would like that, if the LPC did that to them.

Anything to keep the attention away from looking at the CPC and asking them what their plans are to "fix" the country.

[Marshsparrow]

Saw an interview with Pierre - I think it was Rebel or Western Standard... the guy is obsessed with Jagmeet getting a pension in January 2025... yet he himself is a career politican for 19 years and already has one... can't make this stuff up.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Saw an interview with Pierre - I think it was Rebel or Western Standard... the guy is obsessed with Jagmeet getting a pension in January 2025... yet he himself is a career politican for 19 years and already has one... can't make this stuff up.

I was wondering where the internet commenters were getting it. The whole thing is ridiculous and just bitterness they have to wait when they are up so much in the polls. Jagmeet is likely to be re-elected anyway. He also has a good private sector career to fall back on (unlike PP).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Oh yeah that sounds like an election winning policy.

And THAT is the problem -- the fact that the Venn diagram intersection of "doesn't lead to long-term catastrophe" and "doesn't lead to immediate resounding electoral defeat" is completely empty.



(BTW, that's why I'm still choosing to bet a lot of $$$ on Canadian real estate in the long run.)