EdmontonRealEstateMarketUpdate
Here is our update on the Edmonton real estate market. (Previous week’s number are in brackets). For the past 7 days:
New Listings: 455 (521, 373, 394)
# Sales: 243 (241, 228, 205)
Ratio: 53% (46%, 61%, 52%)
# Price Changes: 160 (140, 146, 137)
# Expired/Off Market Listings: 59 (188, 191, 109)
Net loss/gain in listings this week: 153 (92, -46, 80)
Active single family home listings: 2065 (1970, 1823, 1820)
Active condo listings: 1549 (1467, 1398, 1439)
Homes 4-week running average: $402k ($393k, $394, $396k)
Condos 4-week running average: $238k ($233k, $229k, $235k)
Inventory jumped up a little this week, but there is still plenty of demand out there – well priced and marketed listings are going pending quickly. There are plenty of deals falling apart on financing though, seems to be a little tougher to get buyers approved in the current market. This fresh dump of snow could slow things down a bit – we’ve had a few out of towners cancel for this weekend.
Real Estate Listings and Sales
Real Estate Prices
Have a great weekend!
About Sara MacLennan
Sara MacLennan is the Director of Marketing at Liv Real Estate and a licensed Real Estate Associate. The bulk of Sara’s experience and wealth of expertise lies in on-line technology and marketing both for agents and consumers. Sara is the former National Director for Interactive Marketing for Coldwell Banker Canada where she was responsible for an extensive training program traveling to offices across the country training agents and brokers on marketing and technology. Find Sara on Twitter @edmontonblogger.
Client Testimonial for Nathan Mol 
Client Testimonial for Travis Dochuk
Client Testimonial for Beverley Hasinoff
Client Testimonial for Beverley Hasinoff
Client Testimonial for Richard Widynowski
Client Testimonial for Bill Bhamra
Client Testimonial for Mira Wannous
Client Testimonial for Beverley Hasinoff
Client Testimonial for Richard Widynowski
Client Testimonial for Justin Tazi
Client Testimonial for Sheldon Johnston
Client Testimonial for Bill Bhamra
Client Testimonial for Tracy Vipond
Client Testimonial for Justin Tazi
Client Testimonial for Nathan Mol 
Client Testimonial for Bill Bhamra
I can never understand how bad weather can cause sales to slow.
I mean… if you need to buy a house, wouldn’t you continue looking even if it’s cold outside? People are strange.
Well I know I would, if I for some reason “had” to buy a house.
I suppose for many potential buyers, it would be more of an optional decision, at least to postpone the process by a week or two.
People rarely “need” to buy a house. If they dont own they are usually renting somewhere.
Why would you go look at houses under 10 feet of snow when you can wait a month and actually get a better feel for the property?
You cant even tell how nice a yard is, or even how good of condition the roof is in under 10 feet of snow.
Good points.
What I don’t understand is how deals are falling apart because of financing. Isn’t it pretty well standard policy to be pre-approved before you start looking to buy? Most of the realtors I know need the client to be pre-approved before they start showing them properties.
Prequalification is pretty easy over the phone….its when people have to start proving what they have is where it gets sticky….
And people still are looking at things that are beyond their means. They don’t do a self check themselves on how can they possibly afford a $500k mortgage with a $70k income.They just blindly trust what the banker tells them on the phone they qualify for and there they go shopping..
Why were the February sales so bad.. I was looking at the last 5 year and comparing with 2009 the sales were down 30%, 2010- 2.5%, 2011 – 16% and versus 2012 8%?
Its called a correction….its happening every were in the country.
January sales the same.. except versus 2010.
link to edmontonjournal.com
Maybe this has something to do
with the Edmonton real eatate roller coaster often staying in the dips longer than other places?
I will not spend a second more than I need to in this winter wonderland
once work is no longer needed. Will also encourage the kids to have a
look around at options.
I travel to Denver alot…now there is a modern town close to the mountains with decent and still some winter weather.
This part of the world positively stinks at this time of year compared to so much of the world.
I know I know jobs blah blah blah…..
Financing can fall through when the bank’s appraiser does not agree with the price a buyer is willing to pay for a property, even if that price is within the pre-approved limit .
Years ago, when we bought a house for our daughter, the bank appraisal came back 20K below the price we had offered for the house.
That is easy to fix – provided you can make up the difference with an additional down-payment, which we did.
However, if you have already factored your maximum down-payment into your offer, the financing may fall apart.
And now the goverment is meddling with the business of a private lender:
link to cbc.ca
Is it really legal for the government to tell a lender that it’s not happy they are lending at a low rate?!?
I saw the same article earlier today on MSN and am trying to wrap my head around how Manulife is withdrawing the rate because the government says it won’t be tolerated. Is there something going on between the government and lenders that we don’t know about?
I work in banking and my boss mentioned this to us earlier this week before it hit the news. The general perception seems to be Manulife simply did not want to piss off the Feds. They would rather cooperate with this request, and eat a few bps on their mortgage rate, rather than risk getting the book thrown at them later for various other issues.
I find this behavior troubling as well. However, I can’t say I’m surprised, given the extent the government has already intervened in the mortgage market over the past decade. I am pleased this behaviour is readily exposed by the media though.
When the government bears all the risk with that loan you bet your ass they have a say.
I suppose the central bank can refuse to lend to Manulife if they are unhappy but that is also supposedly independent of government.
If the government is unhappy with too much debt they can tighten the regulations on how much a bank can lend or how much mortgage you can qualify for but telling a bank they are not happy with a rate is just plain out of the books IMO. On the other hand nothing that this government (or the PC government of Alberta) does surprises me anymore..
And here I was thinking the Conservative Party was pro “free market”.
It looks like they’re all socialists. They’re certainly not looking out for the interests of the average Joe.
Not to change the subject but:
I am going to double post this here, and in the update from Friday beacause it really pisses me off. Anyway, I am opening up my mail this morning and guess what?
There is a well qualified buyer seriously interested in purchasing my house and willing to pay top market value!!!
Well, at least according to:
[comment edited]
I am outing him here, and I guess I should report it to the governing body since it is illegal. I looked on [comment edited] web page and he looks like a nice enough guy, though his associate brokers might be on co-op placements from a grade 12 business program.
So what do you folks think….shall I call in an official complaint about [comment edited]?
I got one in the mail a few weeks ago from him also. I just about called and said make me an offer, cause I kind of feel like cashing in. Something told me from the lack of any fancy marketing graphics or glossy paper printing in the notice, there was fish for supper.
The mail out campaign was a cheapy for sure.
I’ve heard his name on tacky radio ads a while back , so he must be legit and it does have a certain ring to it.
As far as complaining goes Mr.Gadget, go ahead. What comes around goes around. I’d say, put that energy somewhere else, and let the wind take care of the leaves.
Although from what I read, I would expect nothing less from you.
I like the “wind taking care of the leaves” thing Greg, though I kind of get the impression that you finish with a bit of a snide to your post.
Do you find fault in being honourable and expecting others to be as well?
Thanks – was feeling poetic.
I’m in favor of honor. I wasn’t altogether praising Ed either, by the way. He will clearly tarnish his own reputation all on his own by practicing as he does.
Complaining constantly and getting all riled up about dumb things you can’t control, just for the point of getting riled up about dumb things you can’t control, could possible cause an aneurism, y’now?
Not to support Ed in any way, but – with Sara mentioning a shortage of good properties in certain price ranges, perhaps he does have people who want to live in the area and he is trying to see if he can get a homeowner that was sitting on the fence interested in listing.
Or he could send these letters out all the time……….
My opinion is that people need to educate themselves. If they fall for these marketing ploys, it will be a good learning experience for them.
The government IS looking out after you.
They most certainly can direct the banks rates as it is the the government backed CMHC (you, the tax payer) that is on the hook for covering any morgage loan defaults to the banks. The banks assume zero risk-hence the race to the bottom interest rates to wrestle for the dwindling pool of first time buyers.
We do not need a Canadian version of the US housing crash.
Get educated on this subject.
Meggie,
It is you who I’m afraid needs to get educated on this subject.
The government sets the overnight bank rates. But there is where their authority stops. It is illegal for the government to tell a bank what interest rate it may charge its clients for a mortgage.
That is, unless you live in a communist country.
Last I checked, the Canadian economy was supposed to be operating on a “free market” principle. But that seems to be ending with this kind of action.
Perhaps you would be okay with Flaherty telling Manulife that they should be charging a 50% interest rate to their mortgage clients. That would insure the economy would be even safer from defaults. And 100% interest rates would be even better!
GM
The only reason any lender in Canada can offer 2.99% to kids without savings to buy a $600,000 house is because the government backs the loan with morgage insurance. (CMHC is taxpayer funded).
That gives Flarety all the legitimacy he needs to set the rules. Any bank is free to opt out and assume the risk itself. None does.
Wsn- I reserve replies for responsible/non-sarcastic comments
Meggie,
You are clearly ignorant what the rules and regulations are. Yes, there is CMHC (which is btw not free, it’s an INSURANCE that you pay for, just like a car insurance), and yes, the government sets the rate for how much it charges banks to lend to. But under current law and regulations the government CANNOT tell a bank how much they can charge a consumer to lend to. It is illegal (and that’s why the finance minister got a wack in the parliament because of it). You simply cannot use your influence by a phone call to a bank to tell them you are unhappy with 2.89% rate. There are rules the government can change (change the rules of qualifications needed to lend mortgage to, change the duration as they did, or change CMHC rules, but dictating a rate is not part of it). So next time you write something get your facts straight beforehand.
Meggie,
Have you ever purchased a property with the aid of CMHC insurance?
No? Well, if you did you’d notice there is a very large fee associated with doing so. That’s called CHMC insurance fee. You pay it much like you do your other insurance (if you have any). It’s insurance against default.
As I said earlier, I suppose since Flaherty was able to get the interest rate bumped up, then bumping it up even more would do Canadians an even greater service! So hopefully he calls the banks and gets them to charge nothing less than 10%, making the housing market in Canada even safer! Right?
A Common Guy.
of course you pay tue premiums on the CMHC insuranse bit that no where near covers the default on the home price. That, again , is funded by the taxpayer into the government owned insurance. That ceiling had to once more be raised recently as it’s ceiling was in imminent danger of breachment. This whole house of cards could come cascading down if personal morgage debt is not brought back down from the stratosphere. Pay attention.
GM- To compare emergency interst rates of 2.99% to raising them to10% clearly indicates your emotional response and not the crux of the issue.
People who truly beleive it is in their rights to live well beyond their means at the exspense and peril of the common taxpayer have only their own interests in mind.
I hope to God you aren’t referring to the raising of the debt ceiling in the US, which would have absolutely no connection to CMHC in Canada.
Anyway, by your logic Walmart should raise its prices to stop people from buying too much merchandise and thus living beyond their means.
Essentially what Meggie is saying is that yes she agrees with you that free markets should dictate price and CMHC plays a big factor in what banks lend at so whether they change the CMHC rules to make it more strict, or whether they keep the same rules and tell the banks to not lower there rates in essence is the same thing.
Instead of telling the banks to not drop rates he could of just made CMHC insured loans more strict to raise rates.
“Potato”, “Pototo”?
No, it’s not “Potato-Potato”.
Flaherty is allowed, by law, to dictate what down payment level CMHC can allow, or how many years amortization is allowed.
He is not allowed to dictate what interest rate a bank may charge.
Again, if your name is Joseph Stalin then it’s okay to do so. Please read up on Canadian law and the Minister’s powers. You’ll be amazed.
It’s amazing you have no idea what law is, what the government can or cannot do and thing these are the same things. No wonder we have these clowns in power. Is there a problem with too much debt? probably. Is the government allowed to do anything they want (regardless of whether it is in their power or no) absolutely NOT.
BTW, why I, the responsible citizen who does not need CMHC, have to suffer at a higher rate because the government cannot put the restrictions where they should be??!
As I said, if they are unhappy with the level of debt change the rules on how much you can borrow. But dictating the rate for EVERYBODY (regardless of it is within your means or not) is just plain wrong. And if you think this is “Potato-Potato”, sorry but it just proves you are ignorant too.
GM and A common guy. you both have the facts right but I doubt that you will ever get through to Meggie.
The facts are that the insurance you pay on a single family home thru CMHC may not cover the default on that particular mortgage, but like all insurance it goes into a big pot and will basically cover a percentage of mortgage defaults.
Flaherty was wrong in what he did. He also contacted the BOM who ignored him, Manulife didn’t. It has been in the news that he had no right making that call whatever his intentions were.
At least the people at BMO have a backbone.
Manulife, seeing the error of its ways, should now reinstate their 2.89% mortgage offer. But something tells me they are too intertwined with the government to do so.
Sort of like Goldman Sachs and the US Fed. One and the same.
lets get real
Your best argument is to name call? (“is a prophetic ignoramus.”)
Not mature.
Not cool.
I shared on this blog (for the first time) to have a fair and respectful discussion.
There appear to be a few angry biting bloggers here how ever.
Differing opinions should be able to be shared without sarcasm, character attacks and (above all), name calling.
I assume the posters here are all adults.
Meggie… I’m sorry I’ve been negligent in my moderating today. This is definitely not cool, I’m going through the comments now. Thanks for commenting.
To Meggie (but you probably won’t understand this):
The government does have control over interest rate, in the form of central bank rate. If Flaherty thinks 2.89% is too low and 3.09% is better for the common good, he should call Mark Carney to raise the central bank rate by 0.25%. Even though central bank is supposed to be independent from the executive branch, but no one would really care about that.
When that happens, mortgage rates across board would go up by 0.25%. Canadians would borrow less and the debt level lowered. Mission accomplished.
But why wouldn’t he do that? Because the manufacturing (especially those export) would suffer. The workers are mostly in Ontario, and form the most important vote base for any party with a chance of forming a government.
In short, the choice of interfering with the rate setting of commercial banks, instead of raising central bank rate, is an act to take money out of the pockets of home buyers to subside the overpaid manufacturing sector. The end result would be a maximized vote count when the next election comes.
Well said wsn.
I believe that sums it up perfectly.
Thank you!
Just to clarify: the variable rates will change with prime but the fixed rates (like this 2.89% in discussion) are determined by bonds. So in theory they should change with each other but in reality sometimes they move in opposite directions. As I said, I don’t think changing the rate is the right way to control how much debt people are taking. You can simply change the regulations for mortgages: right now you must qualify under a 5-year fixed (even if you want to take a 2-year). They could say you must qualify for a 10-year, or the ratio of income to mortgage should be at least X or whatever. In any case, penalizing EVERYBODY to prevent those who shouldn’t get the mortgage is just unfair, dumb, and annoying!
Just to clarify:
1) Existing fixed term mortgage won’t be affected as you said. But new contracts will be affected by a rate hike. Long term bonds do have a corelation to short term rate. The effect on a 25 year bond may be very small. But a 5 year bond isn’t all that long term, so the effect will show.
2) Central banks also directly control the long term rates by buying/selling bonds. That’s the very definition of the QEs in the US. Fed bought a whole bunch of bonds to push the long term rate down.
For all of you who decided to attack Maggie on her opinion….
Few Facts….our Financial Sector is regulated, this means the goverment (through the regulatory body) can control any aspect of the industy including min and max rates.
Also, the regulatory body does impose rates . This is why other regulated business are allowed to charge a certain type ROE and WACD (ie utilities).
Without the existence of regulation and allowing the free market (in the form of monopoy/oligopoly) we’d all be done for.
What you seem to not understand is what is included in “regulations” and what is not. Fed can control the rate it lends to Banks (prime rate) but it cannot tell the banks at what rate they can or cannot lend to consumers. If you want to allow that too then first change the laws and regulations; before doing that what was done is illegal. If you don’t get this simple fact then I don’t know what to say.
The financial sector is regulated all right. I totally support such regulations. But the thing is, Canada is also supposed to be a country rule by law, not by a tyranny. Tell me since when the words of a minister is becoming “regulation” automatically?
If Flaherty feels the need to “regulate” the 2.89% rate, he should discuss the matter with Stephen Harper and then hold a MP vote on a new law forbidding anything lower than 3%. That may not be good market economics, but it’s at least legal.
Why did my comment to Meggie get deleted?
[comment truncated]
*Your comment did not meet our code of conduct. More info at: link to edmontonrealestateblog.com Sara.