Check Google Page Rank

Link,Tweet, Digg, Facebook, Tumble - whatever - Raise the Rank!

Vancouver Real Estate Stats January 17-23

Total inventory for the REBGV/FVREB was 15,759, of which 6,313, or 40.06%, were over 90s.

For the REBGV the numbers were 9,861, 3,953, and 40.09%

For the FVREB the numbers were 5,898, 2,360 and 40.01%.

There were 1,335 new listings, 263 price changes and 484 sales in the REBGV, for a sell list of 36.25%.

In the FVREB the numbers were 647, 191 and 237, for a sell/list of 36.63%.

The combined numbers were 1,982, 454 and 721 and a sell/list of 36.38%.

Similar ratios in each market. Sell/list edging up, over 90s edging down. We just sold a listing in multiples, over list. I can’t see any distinct signs of a change, and expect a more or less flatline going forward, in terms of pricing.

First chart is REBGV, second is FVREB, third is combined. Numbers are courtesy of the REBGV, and while every effort is made to ensure their veracity the REBGV assumes no responsibility for the numbers or their use. Any errors are solely mine.

Rob’s Report Generator

Rob’s Report Generator

Data for File: SalesJanuary23REBGV.csv

All Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
484 $797,296.02 $776,403.95 -$20,892.07 -2.32% 60
Attached Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
260 $514,881.87 $499,643.32 -$15,238.54 -2.83% 68
Detached Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
213 $1,136,074.36 $1,108,904.31 -$27,170.05 -1.66% 50

Data for File: SalesJanuary23FVREB.csv

All Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
237 $466,876.71 $448,388.32 -$18,488.38 -3.67% 79
Attached Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
94 $281,796.06 $273,386.45 -$8,409.62 -3.36% 78
Detached Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
137 $601,066.79 $575,555.88 -$25,510.91 -3.82% 74

Data for File: SalesJanuary23REBGVFVREB.csv

All Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
721 $688,683.85 $668,581.89 -$20,101.95 -2.76% 66
Attached Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
354 $452,989.03 $439,563.81 -$13,425.21 -2.97% 71
Detached Properties
Sales Average List Price of Sales Average Sales Price Difference ($) Difference (%) DOM
350 $926,657.11 $900,136.49 -$26,520.61 -2.50% 59

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around super hero based in Vancouver, BC. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin.  My company is Coronet Realty Ltd., located at 3582 East Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V5K 2A7. I have a C-150L that I own with two other pilots, based out of Pitt Meadows. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if I can help you do anything, especially if its likely to be interesting.

21 Responses to “Vancouver Real Estate Stats January 17-23”

  1. Pearl says:

    Can you shed insight into why the Semlin property sold so fast given that sales are not super high and a lot of inventory is coming on for the season.

  2. Rob says:

    Pretty simple. Its the location that makes it desirable (close to Commercial, traffic calmed streets) and the price that generated the action.

    As I’ve been saying for some time, good listings (i.e., well-priced for their particular combination of features) continue to fly off the shelves.

    I’d disagree that “lots” of inventory is coming on, and remember, not long ago we had at least two weeks in a row with 100%+ sell/lists.

  3. 1 says:

    “lots of inventory is coming on”

    I can say that I’m noticing more fresh For Sale signs around the hood, and not a noticable amount (net of what has been there for some time) of new Sold stickers…

    Just what I’ve been seeing, anyone else noticing the same?

    That said, inventory is not high (nor are sales), MOI around 7 is pretty high, but a hot market would bring it back down below 4 and a stagnant one would see it drift up towards 10….so, only time will tell!

  4. 1 says:

    “expect a flatlining”

    for the next several months the 35 year amortization will be available (Rob, correct me if I’m mistaken, but I assume that someone who gets pre-approved with a 35yr amortization prior to the mid-March cut-off still has access to this for some period (ie. 60-90 days)??? Also, low low rates also still exist.

    Should rates tick up (as forecast) then within a few months of that, i wonder what the cumulative impact will be.

    “flatlining” with ultra-low rates and Chinese buyers seems not all that bullish to me….in fact…let’s wait and see….

  5. rob says:

    A tick upwards won’t hurt. We’ve got unbelievably low rates now. and a slight tick up will move us into the territory of really really low rates. Not everyone is 125% over-extended.

    If we see some inflation (or to be more precise, some inflation followed by inflation fighting) then we’ll see an important increase in rates, and that will impact real estate (however, RE is often a hedge against inflation, right?)

    All that said, bull vs. bear is great for stock markets, not so great for real estate markets, which, I think, is why its become a common RE term only since the widespread rise of blogs. A problem I see with that terminology is that it implies one of only two possible positions. That, in turn (and perhpas I’m reading what isn’t there, but still…) leads to statements like the one you just made:

    ““flatlining” with ultra-low rates and Chinese buyers seems not all that bullish to me…”

    Flatlining is, by definition, neither bullish nor bearish. It shouldn’t seem bullish to anyone, and it takes into account ourt low rates, our high prices, the stickiness of prices downward, and the impact of our now global economy, which Vancouver has reacted to quite differently than other places, as I’m sure most can recognize. Here’s a question to discuss, though: let’s say something goes really wrong with the Chinese economy/polity. What will that mean for Vancouver?

  6. 1 says:

    Hi Rob,

    If someone’s interest rate moves from 2.5% to 3.5%, is that a material move?

    Let’s say they have debt/mortgage of $850,000 – how much impact would this have? Not much?

    Are you aware of how a discounted cash flow model works?

    I always learn so much here, thank you!

  7. rob says:


    Let’s put it this way – if you’re over-extended now at $850,000, a 1% point increase will hurt. No question.

    I guess the question is (and you may know better than I, as my info is simply anecdotal)- how many people are over-extended and to what degree?

    $850,000 is a big mortgage. At 2.5% is $3800/month, and at 3.5% its $4250. Maybe not a huge jump for most people who are already paying $3800/month (yes, more than 10%, but that’s pretty close to a median wage spent just on a mortgaeg, and that’s pre-tax).

    Of course, on a $450k mortgage that jump is only about $250.

    Now, this interest rate argument isn’t new – the spectre of rising rates has long been cited as the trigger. However, we’ve seen rates jump by more than 1 point, and the crash didn’t occur. 5 yr rate in 04 hit the low 4% range. By ’07 it was around 6%. The market climbed through that period. (Those are bank rates, and apparently discount rates, but real rates got lower – I know, I’ve got one).

    So, I’m sticking with the claim that (unless you’re already over-extended) the interest rate changes we’re going to see aren’t going to do too much.

    What about discounted cash flow model are you asking me? Am I aware of how it works? Yes. Do I want to give a dissertation? No. But, at an $850k mortgage on a $1.2 million dollar house, why does discounted cash flow matter? He’s already in the soup whether he can justify the price or not, correct?

  8. 1 says:

    “already in the soup”

    more than he/she can imagine….

    think “Leaving Las Vegas”….

  9. rob says:

    So, are you agreeing with me, or what?

  10. 1 says:

    I agree. Those folks who have pushed their cashflows hardest are most at risk. As are those who’s cashflows are highly coorelated to a strong RE market.

    I guess I agree with you, Master Rob.:)

  11. Alexcanuck says:

    Any progress on your hoarder tenants? Interesting little quandary you have there. Kudos for even considering alternatives to the easy fix, but I do rather suspect they will end up not being your tenants.

  12. rob says:


    We’ve given one of them the breach letter with a twist. Breach letters are step one in one route to eviction – when a tenant breaches a reasonable material term of the agreement, you inform them that they have done so, and request that they remedy the breach within a reasonable time, failing which they will receive a notice to terminate the tenancy.

    Its pretty straightforward, except in this case eviction isn’t the first prize. The twist is that we add that we’ve tried and will continue to try to help, but the tenant must recognize the problem and accept that they need help.

    That is key because any social services seem to need the tenant’s ok before they’ll get involved.

    Of course, thinking social services will fix this is a bit of a stretch. To paraphrase Owen Wilson – what in our history together makes anyone think that the government is going to address mental illness in a meaningful way? No slight intended to those who work in the field, but its low on the priority list.

    That’s why I brought the issue up here and asked for help. I think we’re getting to a stage in our collective existence where we have to recognize that social problems aren’t the responsibility of government. I’m not going to get too deeply into the philosophy of it, but suffice to say that there is some wisdom to the old saying “if you want soemthing done right….”

  13. 1 says:

    Rob, is a real estate market trading at 9.6x’s local incomes a ‘social problem that needs to be addressed’?

    Just wondering…:-)

  14. rob says:


    No, its not, at least in my opinion, and here’s why:

    1) The “problem” you cite is that a product that isn’t, in the opinion of some, critical or necessary, has risen in value to the extent that it appears, by some measurements, to be unaffordable.

    I don’t accept your premise. Its not a problem (for the sake of argument – I’d clearly prefer cheaper real estate, but that’s a personal opinion and nothign more). Housing isn’t the same as home ownership, and the crowd that argues that renting is a good deal will tell you that you’re further ahead not owning. The idea that trading at 9 x local incomes is the same as “unaffordable” can be criticised – after all, this market has been called unaffordable while its sold record volumes. That circle doesn’t square.

    2) High real estate prices are something we, collectively, control. We don’t control our mental health. We don’t control addiction. We don’t control physical health. We don’t control family violence. We don’t control crime. (Or, let’s say, the market doesn’t really have any mechanism to control those things, unless you’re a Fraser insitute kind of guy 🙂 )

    3) The government doesn’t do a lot well. It does some things that can’t be or won’t be done by anyone else, and so while not doing those things well on an objective scale, they’re the only game in town. Other things it simply doesn’t do, even if we assume that its their province (this line of thought only works when we decide that the government is someone other than us). Bottom line, they can’t fix this problem.

    4) A social problem that needs to be addressed should fit some sort of criteria. It shouldn’t simply be that someone, somewhere, is unhappy. Mental illness effects us all negatively, not just the mentally ill. So does homelessness, or drug addiction. High real estate prices? Not bad if you’re a retiree cashing out, or if you’re trading up based on equity that’s doubled while your original mortgage fell. Its a win-lose, perhaps, but we should address social problems whose solutions are win-win.

    How’s that for off the top of my head? 🙂

  15. 1 says:

    Hi Rob,

    So it was not a problem in the US, Spain, Ireland or the UK before it blew up either I guess. As the same logic can apply.

    Rob – don’t worry, be happy.

  16. Alexcanuck says:

    It’s never a problem until it blows up! And when it does it is all the naysayers fault.

  17. 1 says:


    Exactly. But why does Rob not “get it”?

  18. Nemesis says:

    “The government doesn’t do a lot well” – Rob…

    That wasn’t always the case, Senor… 😉

    Here are two examples guaranteed to titillate red-blooded BushPilotBuckaroos everywhere…

  19. Nemesis says:

    But I think you’ll find this one more telling by far…

    Bonus points for identifying the artist, her patron – and the reason for the shot…

    Sometimes, a picture can change the world.

  20. Nemesis says:

    psst… there’s one stuck in the machinery prior to ‘more telling’…

  21. Rob says:

    1- I just said it wasn’t a social problem that needs solving.