Vancouver Price Drop

Documenting Vancouver real estate price movements

The Weekly Drop Suburbs – February 25, 2013

Here are the 10 properties outside of Metro Vancouver (Vancouver West, Vancouver East, Burnaby, Richmond, North Vancouver and West Vancouver) that changed their price or were relisted under a new MLS number the previous week AND have dropped the largest percentage overall from their original asking price.

The top 4 are all from Mission


#10 ) Address:# 704 1473 JOHNSTON RD, White Rock, White Rock

July 29, 2008 F2822785 $741,900 $0 0%
December 29, 2008 F2822785 removed after 153 days
May 27, 2010 F1014907 $837,900 $0 0%
June 16, 2010 F1014907 removed after 20 days
July 06, 2010 F1018715 $798,000 $-39,900 -5%
October 01, 2010 F1018715 removed after 87 days
April 28, 2011 F1110796 $749,900 $-88,000 -11%
May 20, 2011 F1110796 $698,000 $-139,900 -17%
July 01, 2011 F1110796 $749,900 $-88,000 -11%
July 13, 2011 F1110796 removed after 76 days
September 02, 2011 F1122127 $749,000 $-88,900 -11%
October 22, 2011 F1122127 $699,000 $-138,900 -17%
November 04, 2011 F1122127 removed after 63 days
February 15, 2012 F1203760 $688,000 $-149,900 -18%
March 23, 2012 F1203760 $668,000 $-169,900 -20%
June 30, 2012 F1203760 removed after 136 days
September 07, 2012 F1222258 $628,000 $-209,900 -25%
October 15, 2012 F1222258 removed after 38 days
February 24, 2013 F1304198 $599,000 $-238,900 -29%


Current Days on Market: 671 (1.84years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 3
2012 Assessment: $632,000
2011 Assessment: $628,000
Desperation Score: 15.7

4 year old condo has basically been listed for the last 3 years – it shows 1.84 years because the break between October 1, 2010 and April 28, 2011 was slightly longer than 6 months which is what I use as the maximum length of time to discontinue a listing.  What’s new is that for the first time in these 3 years it is now listed below assessment.

White Rocks premium highrise building. Built by Bosa. High end finishing throughout. Stainless upgraded appliances, centre island, hardwood floors, air conditioning, two bedroom plan with two baths, the 04 plan is fantastic. Ocean views from the deck/bedroom and corner of the living room, overlooking the courtyard. Shows like new, corner unit, huge windows on the west & north side. Shows immaculately, the price is EXTREMELY good for this home. 33K under assessed value!!! Here is your opportunity to buy at the Miramar at a discounted price. Pets & rentals are allowed in this tower. Guest suite, storage locker & underground parking. Located in the centre of White Rock Village, walk to the mall, coffee shops, transit and the beach.

#9 ) Address:# 404 1200 PACIFIC ST, North Coquitlam, Coquitlam

May 30, 2008 V712260 $260,000 $0 0%
June 19, 2008 V712260 $247,000 $-13,000 -5%
July 09, 2008 V712260 $239,900 $-20,100 -8%
September 03, 2008 V712260 $234,000 $-26,000 -10%
September 23, 2008 V712260 removed after 116 days
January 18, 2013 V985763 $199,900 $-60,100 -23%
February 21, 2013 V985763 $185,000 $-75,000 -29%


Current Days on Market: 40 (0.11years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 40
2012 Assessment: $199,400
Desperation Score: 12.4

Spacious 1 bdrm + den in great condition. Top floor end unit was completely renovated in 2008. Laminate thru main living areas. Treed view from private deck. Kitchen has opening to dining room + huge pantry. Super Clean unit in central quiet location. 1 parking stall. Walk to Coquitlam Centre amenities, schools, Rec Centre, transit & West Coast Express. Den can easily be used as second bedroom. Easy to show.

#8 ) Address:# 209 5224 204TH ST, Langley City, Langley

June 29, 2007 F2716871 $169,900 $0 0%
July 30, 2007 F2716871 removed after 31 days
February 28, 2009 F2903942 $169,900 $0 0%
July 23, 2009 F2903942 $160,000 $-9,900 -6%
November 01, 2009 F2903942 removed after 246 days
October 01, 2011 F1124532 $159,000 $-10,900 -6%
December 25, 2011 F1124532 removed after 85 days
January 19, 2013 F1301184 $129,700 $-40,200 -24%
February 22, 2013 F1301184 $119,900 $-50,000 -29%


Current Days on Market: 39 (0.11years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 39
2012 Assessment: $139,200
Desperation Score: 13.8

Listed $50K and 30% below 2007 prices and this is after the building restoration although these owners can’t cough up the remaining amount needed to pain and fix the floors.  Can anyone provide input on what “Schedule “A” & “C”” is?

Southwynd Court – Restored building envelope on this 2 bedroom corner unit with easterly view of Mt Baker and Portage Park – Nicomekl Parkland with nature trails . Great loc. within walking distance to all amenities. Needs paint and flooring. Rentals allowed – no dogs. Schedule “A” & “C” to accompany all offers.

#7 ) Address:12958 COULTHARD RD, Panorama Ridge, Surrey

May 05, 2009 F2906473 $1,898,000 $0 0%
October 31, 2009 F2906473 removed after 179 days
February 06, 2010 F1003379 $1,628,000 $-270,000 -14%
April 19, 2010 F1003379 removed after 72 days
April 22, 2010 F1010773 $1,425,000 $-473,000 -25%
June 26, 2010 F1010773 $1,375,000 $-523,000 -28%
July 29, 2010 F1010773 removed after 98 days
October 19, 2010 F1025971 $1,275,000 $-623,000 -33%
January 21, 2011 F1025971 $1,450,000 $-448,000 -24%
February 27, 2011 F1025971 removed after 131 days
April 07, 2011 F1109040 $1,888,000 $-10,000 -1%
July 23, 2011 F1109040 $1,698,000 $-200,000 -11%
September 21, 2011 F1109040 $1,578,000 $-320,000 -17%
October 14, 2011 F1109040 removed after 190 days
November 11, 2011 F1127590 $2,180,000 $0 0%
March 02, 2012 F1127590 $1,998,000 $-182,000 -8%
May 05, 2012 F1127590 removed after 176 days
May 09, 2012 F1212060 $1,880,000 $-300,000 -14%
August 01, 2012 F1212060 removed after 84 days
August 04, 2012 F1220026 $1,780,000 $-400,000 -18%
September 08, 2012 F1220026 $1,688,000 $-492,000 -23%
December 09, 2012 F1220026 removed after 127 days
January 19, 2013 F1301213 $1,588,000 $-592,000 -27%
February 19, 2013 F1301213 $1,498,000 $-682,000 -31%


Current Days on Market: 1394 (3.82years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 39
2012 Assessment: $1,377,000
2011 Assessment: $1,237,000
Desperation Score: 31.2

Listed for almost 4 years and I also remember seeing this one on the craigslist rentals for a long time.  Apparently it has rented now at $6500/month which is actually pretty surprising since that puts it at a 230 x monthly rent multiplier which isn’t that terrible compared to most of the offerings out there in this price range.  Still listed above assessment.  Owner is offering “Vendor take back mgt possible short term.”

Spectacularly built private Georgian brick mansion located in exclusive Panorama Ridge with water & mountain views. Everything is high end in this home. Exotic Rosewood & Brazilian Cherry wide plank flooring compliment high ceilings with beautiful crown molding. Elegant double staircases create easy access from the main floor in this stunning open concept home. Large gourmet kitchen, perfect for entertaining + wok kitchen with quality appliances. Your guests enjoy their own private access. Driveway has been prewired for entrance gates. Make this luxurious house your home with a true half acre for your family to enjoy. Rented at $6500 per month, negotiable to stay on after sale. Vendor take back mgt possible short term.

#6 ) Address:# 205 B 2020 LONDON LN, Whistler, Whistler/Pemberton

March 09, 2012 V919666 $84,900 $0 0%
May 04, 2012 V919666 $69,900 $-15,000 -18%
September 13, 2012 V919666 $59,900 $-25,000 -29%
February 20, 2013 V919666 $57,900 $-27,000 -32%


Current Days on Market: 355 (0.97years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 355
2012 Assessment: $62,825
2011 Assessment: $75,000
Desperation Score: 22.1

The assessment recently took a 16% plunge

Talk about a contemporary design in a fantastic location! Evolution checks all the boxes when you’re seeking a modern suite which offers great owner usage. You have access to all the amenities you could want, from a movie theatre and games room to hot tubs and pool with a view. Whether you’re spending quality time with the family or entertaining friends, everyone’s sure to have a great time.

#5 ) Address:1403 CRYSTAL CREEK DR, Anmore, Port Moody

November 21, 2007 V678447 $1,999,000 $0 0%
September 10, 2008 V678447 $1,899,000 $-100,000 -5%
March 05, 2009 V678447 $1,699,000 $-300,000 -15%
October 14, 2009 V678447 removed after 693 days
October 17, 2009 V793488 $1,688,000 $-311,000 -16%
December 15, 2009 V793488 $1,798,000 $-201,000 -10%
May 01, 2010 V793488 removed after 196 days
May 07, 2010 V828315 $1,850,000 $-149,000 -7%
July 03, 2010 V828315 removed after 57 days
July 10, 2010 V841142 $1,925,000 $-74,000 -4%
September 15, 2010 V841142 removed after 67 days
December 01, 2010 V859904 $1,825,000 $-174,000 -9%
March 01, 2011 V859904 $1,725,000 $-274,000 -14%
June 20, 2011 V859904 removed after 201 days
August 12, 2011 V904611 $1,688,000 $-311,000 -16%
October 24, 2011 V904611 removed after 73 days
August 18, 2012 V967006 $1,675,000 $-324,000 -16%
September 18, 2012 V967006 $1,607,900 $-391,100 -20%
October 17, 2012 V967006 $1,540,900 $-458,100 -23%
January 04, 2013 V967006 $1,399,900 $-599,100 -30%
February 16, 2013 V967006 removed after 182 days
February 21, 2013 V991737 $1,343,900 $-655,100 -33%


Current Days on Market: 193 (0.53years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 6
2012 Assessment: $1,709,000
Desperation Score: 24.7

“Court order sale, new home”.  We’re going to be seeing lots of these in Anmore since almost nothing has been selling in the $1 million and up range for the last 18 months+.  Now listed over 20% below assessment

Court order sale, new home, 3 level home, located in area of estate homes. Bright and spacious high quality throughout. Hardwood floors, spacious kitchen with centre island, granite counters, high quality tiles, 2 story living room with designer fireplace, high efficiency furnace, 4 bedrooms, huge master bedroom with luxury ensuite and dressing room. Separate level media room partially finished basement, 3 car garage, 2 huge sundecks one with fireplace. Great street appeal call today for a private viewing. Square footage and room sizes are approximate. Buyers to verify if important.

#4 ) Address:# 219 7436 STAVE LAKE ST, Mission BC, Mission

March 19, 2008 F2807245 $132,900 $0 0%
April 20, 2008 F2807245 $129,800 $-3,100 -2%
May 06, 2008 F2807245 $124,900 $-8,000 -6%
May 29, 2008 F2807245 removed after 71 days
February 20, 2013 F1303915 $84,900 $-48,000 -36%

No Picture

Current Days on Market: 7 (0.02years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 7
2012 Assessment: $88,500
Desperation Score: 4.5

Spacious 1 bedroom, south facing apartment with a nice open outlook and a balcony across the front. Very affordable accommodation close to the West Coast Express and shopping in downtown Mission. Some updates have been done. Have a look. Pets are allowed with restrictions and for you investors, rentals are also allowed. See more pictures on website.

#3 ) Address:# 308 33669 2ND AV, Mission BC, Mission

May 05, 2007 F2711082 $199,900 $0 0%
June 05, 2007 F2711082 removed after 31 days
June 04, 2008 F2816731 $232,500 $0 0%
July 08, 2008 F2816731 $227,900 $-4,600 -2%
July 24, 2008 F2816731 $222,000 $-10,500 -5%
September 15, 2008 F2816731 $219,900 $-12,600 -5%
November 29, 2008 F2816731 removed after 178 days
July 08, 2009 F2914945 $217,500 $-15,000 -6%
September 22, 2009 F2914945 $214,500 $-18,000 -8%
November 18, 2009 F2914945 $209,500 $-23,000 -10%
January 14, 2010 F2914945 $207,500 $-25,000 -11%
May 30, 2010 F2914945 removed after 326 days
April 15, 2011 F1109821 $199,000 $-33,500 -14%
September 13, 2011 F1109821 $194,499 $-38,001 -16%
September 28, 2011 F1109821 removed after 166 days
October 01, 2012 F1224330 $189,900 $-42,600 -18%
November 01, 2012 F1224330 $179,900 $-52,600 -23%
December 06, 2012 F1224330 $159,900 $-72,600 -31%
February 08, 2013 F1224330 removed after 130 days
February 24, 2013 F1304218 $144,900 $-87,600 -38%


Current Days on Market: 149 (0.41years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 3
2012 Assessment: $186,700
Desperation Score: 21.7

Now listed over 20% below assessment

Top floor at Heritage Park Lane! Bright two bedroom and two bathroom with almost 1100 sqft. Corner condo with two balconies and nice vaulted ceiling in living room offering lots of natural light. Insuite laundry with storage plus spaciousentry. Bring your kids and pets (2 dogs or 2 cats – max 18″ height). Five rentals allowed (currently full). Call for more info. * PREC – Personal Real Estate Corporation

#2 ) Address:32645 RICHARDS AV, Mission BC, Mission

July 22, 2010 F1019955 $824,900 $0 0%
August 25, 2010 F1019955 $749,000 $-75,900 -9%
September 21, 2010 F1019955 $699,000 $-125,900 -15%
November 06, 2010 F1019955 $649,900 $-175,000 -21%
January 25, 2011 F1019955 $599,900 $-225,000 -27%
May 03, 2011 F1019955 $629,900 $-195,000 -24%
June 22, 2011 F1019955 removed after 335 days
April 09, 2012 F1208602 $629,000 $-195,900 -24%
June 28, 2012 F1208602 $585,000 $-239,900 -29%
August 31, 2012 F1208602 removed after 144 days
September 15, 2012 F1222988 $549,900 $-275,000 -33%
January 18, 2013 F1222988 removed after 125 days
January 20, 2013 F1301374 $499,000 $-325,900 -40%
February 22, 2013 F1301374 $489,000 $-335,900 -41%


Current Days on Market: 324 (0.89years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 38
2012 Assessment: $581,000
Desperation Score: 18.9

Marginally “BETTER THAN HOT CHOCOLATE WITH WHIPPED CREAM” and only five hundred thousand times as expensive!

BETTER THAN HOT CHOCOLATE WITH WHIPPED CREAM is this 7.84 potentially-subdividable south-facing acres in a popular area! An open & bright property, the split-entry home is set well back from the road. There’s a carport, storage shed, and across the creek over a land bridge and past the pond is a large pole barn with half mezz. The barn is suitable for critters, or to finish into a workshop. The fair condition home has been partially renovated on the main, with fresh paint, new laminate flooring and other touches. Three bedrooms up, bright kitchen and dining area, access to the sundeck. The living room has a floor to ceiling brick-backed wood burning fireplace. The recroom down has the same, except with a wood burning insert for wood stove effect. Just needs flooring and a few other touches down. Roughed in bath, bedroom, den, laundry, recroom and more. If you have your own Realtor please view with them, but otherwise give us a call. * PREC – Personal Real Estate Corporation

#1 ) Address:# LT.3 SWARD RD, Mission BC, Mission

July 17, 2009 F2908175 $299,000 $0 0%
October 31, 2009 F2908175 $269,000 $-30,000 -10%
September 01, 2010 F2908175 removed after 411 days
March 10, 2012 F1206134 $299,900 $0 0%
April 28, 2012 F1206134 $250,000 $-49,900 -17%
June 04, 2012 F1206134 removed after 86 days
June 06, 2012 F1214691 $249,000 $-50,900 -17%
June 21, 2012 F1214691 $234,000 $-65,900 -22%
July 07, 2012 F1214691 $226,500 $-73,400 -24%
July 26, 2012 F1214691 $214,900 $-85,000 -28%
August 11, 2012 F1214691 $201,900 $-98,000 -33%
August 28, 2012 F1214691 $189,900 $-110,000 -37%
September 22, 2012 F1214691 $185,900 $-114,000 -38%
October 16, 2012 F1214691 $179,900 $-120,000 -40%
November 03, 2012 F1214691 $169,900 $-130,000 -43%
November 15, 2012 F1214691 $154,900 $-145,000 -48%
December 04, 2012 F1214691 $146,000 $-153,900 -51%
January 01, 2013 F1214691 $137,000 $-162,900 -54%
January 09, 2013 F1214691 $132,000 $-167,900 -56%
January 23, 2013 F1214691 $121,000 $-178,900 -60%
February 07, 2013 F1214691 $111,000 $-188,900 -63%
February 21, 2013 F1214691 $108,000 $-191,900 -64%


Current Days on Market: 354 (0.97years)
Current ‘Official’ Days on Market: 266
2012 Assessment: No Assessment
Desperation Score: 90.3

“wet at the bottom, then rises steeply up” now has 5 price drops so far this year and 17 in under a year

8.17 ACRES at the north end of Hatzic Lake. Access off the end of a dead-end street. Neighborhood has a park and boat launch. Not subdividable. No driveway, property begins at the end of the street. It is wet at the bottom, then rises steeply up the mountain. * PREC – Personal Real Estate Corporation


35 responses to “The Weekly Drop Suburbs – February 25, 2013

  1. Diane I February 26, 2013 at 11:09 am

    Schedule A’s, as explained by a real estate law blog:

    Where a Lender has obtained an “Order for Conduct of Sale” the Lender’s Realtor will be required to attached a Schedule “A” to any proposed Contract of Purchase and Sale which generally states the following terms and conditions:
    1. Court Approval of the Offer is required After Subject Removal
    2. Court will have full discretion, the lender will not advocate for the buyer
    3. Other Offers May be Entertained
    4. Title Transfer by Vesting Order of Court
    5. Lender makes no Warranties as to: Title, Condition of Premises, Environmental Condition

    • Andrew February 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm

      Woah, woah… number 5 removes any warranties for condition of premises, etc. OK, I get it. But wait, no warranty as to TITLE?! As in, you can’t be sure title is clear? WTF? Taken at face value that means you can’t rely on them being the only lender with claim. It’s a wonder any court-ordered sale every completes with a condition like that.

  2. Diane I February 26, 2013 at 11:13 am

    Schedule C’s remove any liability surrounding illegal activity in the home. So this was probably a grow op

    • Natalie February 26, 2013 at 11:29 am

      Foreclosures are a bit risky in the sense that what you see may not be what you get. If there were appliances when you walked through the listing, they are not necessarily going to be there when you take possession. If there is someone living in the home when you see it, and until you take possession, it is not guaranteed the home will be in “substantially the same condition as when viewed” when you get the keys. The bank makes no warranties or guarantees and these are just two examples of the kind of risk you take when purchasing one.

      RE; Schedule C: The absence of floors and need for paint points to that as well. This further devalues the home because financing is usually difficult to impossible through the normal channels, unless remediated with paper work to show this. Most often, unremediated homes will need cash buyers.

  3. groundhog February 26, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    #10….Betting they wished they sold 3 years ago. Glut of new condos in White Rock. New tower just about completed. I looked at renting in the Miramar towers and thought they already looked a bit dated. The landlord was a Realtor and said he owned 3 in those towers, was asking way to much for rent when we looked. I’ve heard rumors of lots of drugs and prostitution in those twin towers as well. Needless to say, wouldn’t recommend buying.

    • Tyler February 27, 2013 at 12:00 am

      Also there is a new boss development another two towers being planned for that mall in front of the Mirarmar so their “ocean views” will be blocked once construction of these towers begin. Makes sense to wait to buy in the newer buildings with a better view than the mirarmar…..Let’s see the price drop another 10% once construction begins.

      • groundhog February 27, 2013 at 2:52 pm

        I heard that got cancelled in 2008/2009 due to financing, although Bosa still owns the lands. Haven’t heard an update for a long time on that.

  4. Natalie February 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Top 4 from Mission are also all foreclosures.

    • Seeking knowledge... February 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm

      Hi Natalie. Read most of your posts. Thanks for all your insight. You’ve restored for me a little bit of faith in RE people.

    • Ford Prefect February 26, 2013 at 8:12 pm

      I only discovered a few months ago that MLS listings rarely disclose foreclosure. You have to search separately and it appears expensively to find them. I find the failure to disclose foreclosure on MLS very odd.

      • bailinginbc February 26, 2013 at 10:49 pm

        I’ve noticed the same thing. I have a pet realtor that feeds me all the court ordered and foreclosures in town. Very few of them mention their status in the listing. The only reason for this that I can think of is that the real estate agents don’t want the general public to know the real state of the market (present company excluded) 🙂

      • Natalie February 27, 2013 at 12:03 am

        lol…nah. Speaking from my own experience with recent foreclosure listings, it was a mandate from the lawyer that I not use the word “foreclsoure” in any advertising material. I imagine this isn’t just my experience. I am not sure exactly why this is, maybe a privacy act issue, but it isn’t an issue we can skirt around, nor would we want to. The process for buying a foreclsoure isn’t one that suits all people.

      • Silver February 27, 2013 at 12:32 am

        Just bought one…
        bank took $90K+loss…
        but was familiar with the court process. And as stated had cash to back the purchase… so only needed schedule A.
        If you are not familiar with them.. go to the BC Supreme court. find the “Masters list” and watch for a few days. there were about 30 foreclosure cases… with variations the day we were there.
        The rules are different… the court operates under a Master, not a judge. The masters word is final. There can be additional bids put in at court after you set a date. You get one chance to change your bid. top bid wins.
        If you do change your bid do it to the “Original” document. It does hold weight in a close bid, because you are the “Originating Bid” and the paper shows that.
        But it feels like a blackjack table. No cards up other than the original bid.
        We outbid by $1500.00 dam close..5% diff.
        Remember… its a type of public auction where the Court via the “Master” is required to get the best value for the bankrupt party’s.


      • Natalie February 27, 2013 at 8:14 am

        Silver: I have to just add a caution, there is no standard way of handling these foreclsoures by the court. You may only have once chance at a offer, no opportunity to change it. If the owner shows up, he may get the courts to allow him additional time to clear his mortgage and no one goes home with the winning offer. These are just two of many scenarios that can happen in court. The courts have the power to handle it as they see fit.

      • bailinginbc February 27, 2013 at 8:44 am

        Guess this timely report answers our question as to who is trying to pull the wool over the general public’s eyes.

      • Ford Prefect February 27, 2013 at 10:30 am

        Thanks bailinginbc (for National Post link). I find the omission of foreclosure information from the “Mis-Leading Listing Service” somewhat fraudulent for the reasons listed in both the responses from Diane I and Natalie. Buying a foreclosed property is totally different from purchasing a non-foreclosed property. Briefly there are no “subject tos” – the offer must be unconditional, cash and is adjudicated by the court. It can be tossed, competing bids can be entertained in court and so on. Thus to even consider purchasing a property listed on MLS and not knowing it is foreclosed is in my opinion very mis-leading to the purchaser.

      • Natalie February 27, 2013 at 10:45 am

        Exactly, Ford Perfect. We can not hide that information when someone is writing an offer. The way I read that article is that they don’t want it publiushed prior to someone showing an interest in the property. It discloses motivatation of the seller. I unbderstand that, but as soon as someone shows an interest, there is no way around telling them. I don’t see it, anyway. After all, if I am representing a buyer who has sold their home and has to work with the dates on their sales contract, they are likely not going to want top write on a foreclsoure unless thay can wade through the time it takes to get to court and have a back up plan incase they don’t get the property. They have to work within a time frame.

        The foreclosure properties I have worked with lately that have requested I not put the foreclosure info in advertising have not been CMHC insured. That has been the bank’s directive.

        As a Realtor, I will know looking at the listing if it is a court irdered sale or not. Our board requires that info. The Quebec board (and all other boards from mine) may do things differently. Bottom line is that I will know whether I am the listing Realtor or working for a buyer. My buyer will know before seeing a foreclosure home as if they can’t work with the process, there is no need to waste their time. Iwould think it would be the same for most local Realtors, however, we are all independant contractors.

      • Ray February 27, 2013 at 1:44 pm

        The CMHC is getting things in order for when home prices collapse and they are forced to sell properties that are backed by government insurance. They are trying to limit their losses by hiding the fact that the property you are buying is actually in foreclosure. If the buyer knows they are not dealing with a homeowner but rather an investor they will most certainly low-ball the offer — the buyer knows they have to sell. I’ve long predicted that the rot in this industry will show once prices flatline and turn south. First we had misrepresentation of buyers (MAC), next we had misrepresentation of photos on MLS ($38 million home artist renderings), now we have misrepresentation on foreclosure listings. Hold on to your hats people, this will get very ugly. Do *not* buy any homes.

      • Natalie February 27, 2013 at 1:55 pm

        Ford Perfect and Balingininbc: Here’s what I “think”…waiting on confirmation as I have not dealt with a CMHC property in a while. When a home is in foreclosure, the bank has “Conduct of Sale” but the property is still in the owners name. The sale is handled through the courts and is different in the ways we mentioned previously and more. When a home is listed through CMHC, I believe the ownership has been transfered to CMHC and will not be handled in court. That being the case, it would not be noted as a “court ordered sale” on our MLS data (which is just for realtor’s eyes anyway). We do not have a “part of foreclosure” option on our data entry for my board. CMHC would treat and be treated as any other home owner. Offers would be handled the same as a traditional residential property is handled. You would be able to rely on the dates etc. and once accepted, you would have it tied up until you remove your subjects. I don’t believe any “schedules” are attached to amend the contract of purchase and sale as they are in a foreclosure sale. Now, I think most prudent Realtors should be able to discover a home listed in CMHC’s name was a previous foreclosure and thus have that fact disclosed. Any home with CMHC as an owner would kind of be a red flag, I’d think 🙂 At any rate, a listing history should be able to help determine that. If not, a local realtor often has information on a property just because that’s their area of expertise.

      • Ford Prefect February 27, 2013 at 2:43 pm

        Natalie: it has been many years since I have done foreclosure work, but I doubt that CMHC would have title to a property. As I recall to get title requires an order absolute and such an order is rare – time consuming and very expensive. You are right though about conduct of sale orders – these are the norm. I suspect CMHC and the banks simply do not want it to be readily apparent that the market has gone south, if indeed it has.

        In my area, the Comox Valley, there are around 850 properties for sale on MLS. I have found at least 40 foreclosed properties, but the lists are “spotty” and not updated. It would not surprise me if as many as 10% of the properties are in foreclosure, but without extensive work it is impossible to know. I do know that some of the most expensive properties in the valley are in foreclosure but this fact is definitely not shown on MLS.

      • Ray February 27, 2013 at 3:11 pm

        Cmon Ford, stop telling the anecdotal truth about 10% foreclosures. On this site we only believe the published statistics of 0.32021331% foreclosures total.

      • Natalie February 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm

        Ford Perfect: I am interested in the answer to this as well, especially after that Financial Post listing I read from Bailinginbc. I have sent my question to our Real Estate Council for confirmation. I happened upon a new listing today that is listed with CMHC being the registered owner. There is no Schedule A, no notice of it being a court ordered sale. This was a foreclosure property listed last year with no sale on record through the MLS. If I am incorrect in that CMHC is not the registered owner, as it states on the listing, then I too want answers.

      • Ray February 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm

        Having the boards changing the MLS programming such that the “Foreclosure?” question is no longer “mandatory” to fill in — is just as dishonest as making the programming on the MLS change the Days-on-market value when you decide to change your MLS number between today and tomorrow. It’s being an enabler of manipulation. The day we extract the boards from their MLS database couldn’t come soon enough. The rot in this industry sickens me.

      • Natalie February 27, 2013 at 3:57 pm

        Ford Perfect: I decided to do a title search of the listing I was in question of. Ownership was transferred from the originally foreclosed on owner and title is now in the name of CMHC. There are no further pending applications listed on title and no other financial encumbrances.I have not yet heard back from the Council, but I suspect my original interpretation is correct. CMHC is the now the registered owner and the sale proceeds in the traditional manner.

      • Skook February 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm

        bailinginbc and others,

        You might want to check out Mike Fotiou’s last post @Calgary Real Estate Review. He offers his take on that Financial Post story and his own view on CMHC ownership re: foreclosure.
        Here’s the link:

      • Ford Prefect February 27, 2013 at 6:24 pm

        Natalie: I do not want to gnaw this bone to shreds. It does seem to me though that even if title has passed to CMHC that MLS should show it as being a distressed sale. Otherwise it is impossible to determine the state of the real estate market.

        In addition, as another blogger pointed out elsewhere, there is the issue of unequal market access. Some individuals are going to know which properties are listed for sale by CMHC. The rest of the public will not. This is clearly a double standard, working in favour of “those in the know”. Clearly not on open market which requires a “level playing field”.

      • bailinginbc February 27, 2013 at 11:23 pm

        I seem to recall around the blogsphere a year or so back someone was complaining that CMHC was not insuring home owners but the banks (no shit sherlock) They were talking about the bank selling the house to CMHC for a dollar then CMHC paying out the insurance money on the banks loss for the outstanding balance. Then CMHC (now the owner of the property) sells the house for what ever they can get to recoop as much of the loss as they can get. Anyone recall the details of this?

      • Natalie February 28, 2013 at 12:53 am

        Ford Perfect: I’m sorry you see this as gnawing on a bone. I simply saw this as an exchange of information. That said, if CMHC is the registered owner, it is no longer a foreclosure. It is not handled through the courts and it is available to purchase as any other traditional MLS listing. A listing realtor can not disclose the motivation to sell any owner’s property without that owners permission. No different than if I list a property tomorrow and I know that its a motivated vendor because of a divorce, a job transfer, and estate sale etc. If you are selling your property, your rights are also protected in the same fashion.

      • Ford Prefect February 28, 2013 at 11:33 am

        Natalie: I will let Garth Turner have the last word here: “CMHC is an insurer, not a loan providor. They typically do not pay out a claim until after a property is disposed of, which in reality means setlements are rare. The point is simple, that by withholding information about a listing they could deceive a buyer into paying more than an efficient market would determine. That is unethical. “— Garth – See more at:

  5. Advoc8 February 27, 2013 at 1:11 am

    Why do I find that $6500 a month rent very suspicious? That’s $78,000 a year when what I read on blogs say that houses are much cheaper even nearer to downtown.

    Does anybody know offhand what the going rates are (or am I going to have to stir out of my laziness and look up numerous blog posts)?

    • An Observer February 27, 2013 at 8:24 am

      Not sure about suspicious, just surprised since at the current list price the cap rate isn’t that bad. Another 25% off and it will actually be a pretty good return

      Also, $6500 rents in the Fraser valley are not common. I recall a newish ocean front 6000 sqft home in white rock that was asking for $6000 per month in rent about 6 months ago but it was listed for $3.5 million

  6. Natalie February 27, 2013 at 10:53 am

    Just a FYI…someone, somewhere within the pages of this wonderful blog had mentioned they would like to see a Rate your Realtor site. I read a memo today on a recommendation from CREA that such a site be added to the website. That’s all I know for now. There is a link to a webinar March 8th for the Brokers and Managers to watch. If I get a chance, I will watch it a fill you in on any more details I might learn.

    • punnoval February 28, 2013 at 8:48 am

      RE: No. 1
      If this is a foreclosure, how did someone get a mortgage for a piece of flotsam like this? Could this be a redux of the US Savings and Loan ripoff from the 80’s? If you want details, read Wm. Black’s “The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: