Incredible sellers market continues in Victoria
Another month another all time sales record smashed in Victoria. Sales are up 37% over last November, which is not quite as dramatic as the 60% increase in October. However last November was already only 17% shy of the record, so at 795 sales for the month it’s another all time high for the time of year.
It’s important to remember that this is no longer pent up demand from the shutdowns in the spring. That was exhausted around the start of October, but what has taken its place is new demand generated by a large surge in out of town buyers (mostly from the lower mainland) and new buyers brought out by record low interest rates.
Single family sales dropped quite a bit from October, but it’s not likely due to lack of demand. The proportion of detached properties going for over the asking price hit a new high in November, indicating that sales were constrained more by a lack of supply than demand.
Inventory in the entire market keeps trending downward as well, primarily due to an extreme shortage of single family listings. As of today there are only 404 active single family listings in the region, and 259 of those are over a million dollars. Although the situation for condos is not as dire, overall inventory is still trending down. We usually see a large dropoff in new listings in December, so don’t expect this to improve until next spring.
Looking to pricing, the strong upward trend in detached prices continues, while condos and townhouses remain comparatively flat. However that may be about to change.
Condo market set for price increases?
Last month I mentioned the condo market had strengthened substantially, and if you’re in the market for a condo it’s worth paying very close attention to this to determine if it’s better to buy in now, or wait to see how the market looks in the spring. I am not about to put up any predictions about condo prices, but here’s a few things you may want to consider.
Just like with detached properties, months of inventory is usually a good measure of market balance, and an indicator as to future price movements. In general, prices go up when months of inventory is low, and prices start to decline when months of inventory is above 7 or 8. Of course the market is prone to economic shocks and regulatory tinkering so the relationship is noisy, but it’s clearly demonstrated by our historical market performance.
Why is the chart above only using data up to before the introduction of the mortgage stress test in 2018? Because after the mortgage stress test was introduced, things get a little weird in the market. Despite low to very low months of inventory, prices mostly stopped rising as expected after the mortgage stress test was introduced.
And indeed that situation continues right now. Despite a small uptick in November, months of inventory for condos remain clearly in sellers market territory, while prices remain stable.
My theory is that the mortgage stress test was a bigger shock to the condo market than the detached market. In 2018, nearly a quarter of buyers disappeared overnight as they could no longer qualify for a condo, and it took nearly two years for the market to digest that shock and for condo prices to start increasing again. Then COVID hit and again it was a bigger shock to condos than to single family homes. With the rental market weaker, investors added to supply while condo buyers were more likely to be hit by job losses while for other owners preferences shifted to bigger spaces and work from home made short commutes less important. All that weakened the condo market relative to detached properties.
But in the end, market conditions are market conditions, and with some 3 months of inventory like we have now, we have normally seen price increases of 5-15%, not price declines.
Federal Economic Update
The federal government has published the economic update laying out their plan for economic recovery after we put COVID behind us. So far the injection of tens of billions of dollars into the economy has led to a full recovery in some segments of the economy, while others are even looking overheated. In the case of housing, sales are at 121% of the pre-pandemic level, and in Victoria we’ve snapped the guage and wrapped it around entirely.
Now the government faces a problem: how to boost the recovery in still-moribund sectors without causing dangerous overvaluation in real estate? So far it doesn’t seem like there are a lot of good ideas out there. The Bank of Canada is all but promising record low rates until 2023 and is OK with a little bit higher inflation in the meantime if necessary. Meanwhile in response to months of all time record sales volume, the feds seem to think our demand needs a bit of a boost. They are re-iterating their election promise to change the first time home buyer program for expensive cities like Victoria to raise the upper limit on house price from $505,000 to $722,000 and promise it will take effect spring 2021. It’s an odd move, however the stress test remains in force and will largely neutralise any demand stimulating effects of this change.
There are also more promising moves in the economic update, such as a reminder of the $1B in Rapid Housing Initiative to build modular affordable housing, and an additional $12B in new funding for rental construction financing starting in 2021 to nearly double the lending capacity of the program. That should keep our rental construction boom going for the forseeable future.
The government is also proposing levying the GST on AirBnB accomodation which should further dent that market, and introducing a national foreign ownership tax over the next year, however details are still outstanding on how that will be implemented. The foreign ownership tax won’t likely affect us much since we’re ahead of the feds on that one and have already implemented the foreign buyers tax, vacancy tax, and now the beneficial ownership registry all of which make parking wealth in real estate more difficult for non-citizens in BC.
For now then, the economy rockets along powered by hundreds of billions in stimulus fuel. Employment is much better than it could have been with some 27% of all private sector employees supported by wage subsidies. If we can make it across to the other side and interest rates remain low then the whole thing is quite affordable, and in fact may be (as the Liberals say) a once in a generation opportunity to make strategic investments at zero or negative real interest rates. If not.. well we’ll see.
New post: https://househuntvictoria.ca/2020/12/07/1981-anatomy-of-victorias-housing-crash/
Radon is on my radar!
The Canadian Cancer Society conducted a radon-testing project in the communities of Colwood, Gordon Head, and Nanaimo in 2016:
https://www.cancer.ca/~/media/cancer.ca/BCY/prevention%20and%20screening/be%20aware/RadonTesting_InfoSheet_VIR_July2016.pdf?la=en
However, I can’t seem to find the results of the study. I’ve sent off an e-mail.
Also, your article linked to a 2012 cross-Canada study which found that South Vancouver Island radon levels don’t seem to be super worrisome, thankfully:
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/ewh-semt/alt_formats/pdf/radiation/radon/survey-sondage-eng.pdf
Just one more thing to worry about in our homes while we are all spending so much more time in them.
https://www.healthing.ca/diseases-and-conditions/cancer/lung-cancer/should-we-be-testing-our-homes-for-radon?fbclid=IwAR0KqF3hZhPlyZ7u2SkejkuZQlaTR3iMRKXxUSeStcyiEjhB7g5YHrd0tV0
Introvert was talking about “the vast majority of people”, i.e. the dumb money. The smart money was buying.
And do keep in mind that there had been years of double digit unemployment, so some smart people may not have had the money.
Introvert: Relax, the good news is that in just a few more years you will be in diapers again.
Introvert- You’re dead wrong about what was going on in 1985. People were buying, renovating and flipping homes all the time. I was there, if you were able, buying a house, renovating it and flipping it after living in it for more than a year was tax free profit. It was a no brainer.
But so have dual income families and a ton of other factors.
In the beginning we needed a tenant to make the numbers work. Today, we don’t need a tenant but love having one for the extra income and because the situation is just so nice for both parties — our tenant has been with us going on nine years.
So glad we didn’t delay purchasing just because we needed to rent the basement at the start. One day, we’ll take the suite back and — poof! — gain 1,100 square feet of living space without lifting a finger.
And, like Marko said, the versatility of having a suite in an emergency is fantastic. Plus, suites are a net-positive when it comes time to sell.
There wouldn’t be such a big premium (265k) for that nicer house if it couldn’t be supported with the additional revenue source. Suites have become so prevalent they’ve carried all SFH prices higher.
Could be three generations of the same family living under one roof.
Issue I see is a $1.15 million home with a suite is typically a lot nicer (even if you factor in you can’t use the suite) than a 850k without a suite. Often better build, bigger lot, better location, etc. If you have $2 million than year a $2.3 million dollar home with a suite isn’t going to make a difference but in the 700 to 1300k market I would spring for a suite, personally. Then just get rid of the tenant when you can afford it if you hate renting that much.
Nice thing about having a suite is you don’t have to rent it but can be useful in a financial emergency or a family emergency (move in a parent or adult child, etc.).
That is completely different than saying that the majority of families can’t afford a home, period, without having a suite in the house.
If you’re of working age and in danger of sinking without tenants in your home paying rent, the home is too expensive. Which, in one sense is neither here nor there, but the issue is how widespread that phenomenon is now.
Over and out.
Good to know. I was in diapers in 1985.
Sounds pretty judgmental, especially given the rise in home prices and lack of affordable rentals plus low vacancy rate.
If you have a pension you might not have to think about income streams, but if you are part of the 47% of Canadians who do not have an employer pension a rental suite can be a very good strategy to allow for aging in place.
I still think it is. Renting a suit in your home is completely contrary the intended purpose of a SFH. The fact that the practice has become widespread here as a means to make ends meet doesn’t really change anything. I think the definition “SFH” in itself kind of makes the point.
We’d never buy a home that required strangers to live in it with us…ehh hmmm a “mortgage helper” I believe is the contemporary euphemism.
Helped you a great deal if you’d saved a good sized down payment. Apart from that, I think you’re on the mark.
That’s because it was the tail end of a massive RE crash and recession. They certainly saw houses as investment vehicles five years previously.
In 1985 there was still enough purpose built rentals and renting a suite in your home was viewed a desperate move to cover unmanageable expenses. Almost 12% mortgage rates didn’t help either. Leo, I came across that chart today as well – from 1981 to 2020 can you imagine more prefect conditions for appreciating real estate? Continually dropping interest rates + a halt to PBR construction, credit expansion, big increase in immigration, airbnb, etc. And the expectation is for more of the same for the next 35? Could the current volume of demand have anything to do with expectations of past performance? It feels like there’s wide spread (perceived) knowledge that investing in real estate is a sure thing now. It can’t go down.
My sense is that, in 1985, the vast majority of people didn’t view houses as investment vehicles as is standard practice today.
If you had $78,000 in 1985, you could have bought 4 houses, rented them out and have 4 times the return plus $1,000,000-$2,000,000 in rental income over 35 years. The ability to leverage real estate investments makes it the best investment hands down.
The trend goes on longer than anyone thinks including those who say that.
And then it doesn’t.
Victoria and Vancouver real estate markets have done stunningly well. There are a couple of headwinds, though:
https://betterdwelling.com/canadas-largest-bank-says-its-putting-greater-weight-on-home-price-declines/?utm_source=Better+Dwelling+Website+Signup&utm_campaign=d6d93c09fd-fras_jan_112018-3094981_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bde8feedee-d6d93c09fd-309139209
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-hidden-foreign-ownership-helps-explain-metro-vancouvers-decoupling-of-house-prices-incomes?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Vancouver%20Sun%20Headline%20Sun%20-%20Weekdays%202020-12-04&utm_term=VS_HeadlineNew
Very interested to see what AG Eby has in mind. He gutted ICBC and now he can focus on real estate: prices have no relationship to wages and household income. The testimony at the money-laundering inquiry is giving support to the SFU peer reviewed study. I have every expectation that a similar study would support similar conclusions for Victoria and Toronto.
This may very well be the true answer [eek an open mind] that explains house price action and support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHlyHbYjbw
I expect house prices to continue to rise.
Sure, but how many people were a) able, and b) disciplined enough to invest the equivalent of house in the stock market in 1985 and then not touch it for 35 years?
Whereas, there were plenty of normal dumb-dumbs who bought a house in 1985, paid it off, and didn’t sell for upwards of 35 years.
And the shelter component of CPI does not include the price of land, because land is not a consumable. Almost all of the price changes of detached housing are in the land component. And it does include mortgage interest which has been going down. If you look at Chart 1 below you’ll see that the shelter component has only slightly outpaced all-items CPI.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/62f0014m/62f0014m2017001-eng.htm
No doubt, something like 3.7% annual real gain for single family in the last 60 years. I meant more the relative price between the different municipalities.
What Victoria lost is a Langford gain.
Six-storey development will be built to highest energy-efficiency standards — https://www.vicnews.com/news/residential-project-slated-for-mccallum-road-in-langford/
“City of Langford has given the green light for another 227 residential units on McCallum Road “
It’s based on more than just shelter metric. Many things seems to costs a lot more now specially housing, but things such as house hold appliances, electronics, and international travels are much cheaper now than the 80s.
And, if you buy $78K worth of S&P 500 Index on January of 1985 it would equal to a kool $1,687K as of December 4th of 2020.
True dat. Good thing 80%+ of the value of these garbage-y properties is in the land (location) — and that equals $800K+ sale prices.
The owners of a $95K house purchased in 1985 (according to Leo’s chart below) could have made zero updates to the property in 35 years and today an eager buyer will happily hand over $800K for it.
Gain of $595K above inflation.
Not bad at all.
Bank of Canada inflation calculator indicates $78k in 1985 is equal to$169k in 2020. Seems a bit off.
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/
” And even very dated, garbage-y properties are selling for $800K+ ”
‘
‘
‘
That sounds like the majority of homes in GH
Relative prices not that much different in 1985.
Generally Jan 1 or 2.
Valuation date is July 1 before market really went nuts so I assume condos about flat and houses up a low single digits percent overall.
Has BC Assessment signaled what we can expect when the new figures come out in January? If not, what’s your best educated guess, Leo?
Just absolutely nothing on the market. Anything under $1M in high demand for sure.
Just took a quick look at recent and recent-ish sales in Gordon Head. Conclusion: prices are strong.
Tons of $900K-to-$1.1M sales. And even very dated, garbage-y properties are selling for $800K+ with low DOM and often a bit over asking.
@ introvert ( are you Hawk with a House?) and @ Local Fool , glad you looked at Macroeconomics. I get it….. I need to think local.
If anyone wants to get into the market, I have a very good option in Fairfield. It should be rezoned for a 4 complex SFD Detached soon.
And Leo , Thanks for all your help. I am really liking all the blog. I guess, please contact Leo if you want a really good investment opportunity in Fairfield.
One of the oldest, yet clearest shots ever taken of old Victoria. Taken nearly 160 years ago in the 1860s, only about 25 years after photos even became a thing.
With Mt Tolmie in the background, we can see the vantage point of the photographer is roughly where the Parliament buildings would be, facing northeast, and the water to the right of the James Bay bridge (Now Government Street) is where the Empress hotel is now. This particular iteration of the beautiful James Bay bridge was the first of a total of three that were built, then rebuilt to accommodate streetcars and such.
Under ground oil tank? Soil contamination is a biggie.
Do you have an environmental report? Way too many variables….asbestos, lead paint. For example, if there is lead paint with a high leachability that the hartland dump won’t take you literally need to truck it to Alberta.
So yes it could be anywhere from 25k to 75k+.
Looking more and more like the debt-deferral “cliff” is going to be a nothingburger:
https://financialpost.com/news/fp-street/debt-deferral-cliff-yet-to-cause-major-issues-bank-results-show
Thanks Marko, what I am trying to get is a rough estimate to demolish and older 1930’s two-bedroom home with a basement. The kind that is seen all over Victoria and Saanich. Is it around $25,000 $50K, 75K?
Still very unequal recovery
BC did well on job gains last month
Right, I haven’t posted in awhile. But I’m still reading Leo’s great articles and the posts here. Incredible SFH market!
Got the monthly sales data from the board back to 1980 now.
The party is not going to go on forever.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-rapidly-approaching-fiscal-crisis-isnt-driven-by-the/
Polling is different from prediction. It’s taking a sample of a population and estimating some characteristic of the whole population from it. You can soundly establish confidence limits for this. You cannot soundly establish a confidence limit for some economic prediction about the future.
Especially for those that are cash heavy.
To borrow a quote from the late Ludwig von Mises, this ruse has two, and only two, possible outcomes:
“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”
And for the veterans on the board, you know what this is:
IMHO, it look like that slow down in 8-12 months can be thrown out for now. The low interest rates is targeting high ratio mortgates or in another word insured mortgages. And, combined with the predicted BOC ultra low rate will stay till 2024, suggests that we are likely going to see a run up in housing price for the next 3 years or more.
I hope that I’m wrong, but if I’m correct then the day of reckoning will be absolutely devastating.
0.99% mortgage rate. https://www.ratespy.com/sub-1-mortgage-rates-come-to-canada-120317070
In normal times the range of possible outcomes would normally be in a narrower window. So if most estimates are very positive even the lower end of the estimates would be positive.
In uncertain times like now, the range of predictions will be much wider. So in a situation like this companies would usually base their projections on a worst case scenario.
When expected outcomes are within a narrow window, it is easier to predict using that middle of that narrow range. If the chance of house prices going up 8% is just as likely as going down 8%, I can see a company would choose the worst case scenario and prepare for that. They could continue assuming prices go up but that would mean they could really be in trouble if prices drop.
You can still derive estimates from polling experts. Statscan does this routinely. You will see things like “consensus estimate of private sector economists”. I’m sure they have an internal estimate of what probability they are assigning to this negative forecast
Anyone familiar with probability theory knows that it’s essentially meaningless to assign a probability to this kind of prediction. Properly probability can only be given for repeatable events, and the present doesn’t repeat itself in the future on a macro basis.
The article wasn’t very clear on this. RBC is increasing the weight on their pessimistic outlook. OK the natural question is to what? 2% to 5% probability or 10% to 70% probability? Sort of pointless without knowing what their weighting is.
Makes sense – as Victoria gets more packed and homeless become more rampant this place will become less and less desirable – not to mention the prices. Might as well save a couple hundred thousand, move up island where you can get some land and not worry about traffic as much.
https://www.timescolonist.com/business/communities-north-of-malahat-push-for-tech-investment-1.24249579
Former landlord I disagree. On general my experience is the FIs give positive outlooks on the future of housing for the most part – likely because housing tends to go up. I think you would struggle to find many pessimistic predictions from them historically speaking. Wouldn’t it be better for RBC to have people think housing will stay strong so that people continue to have confidence in the market and keep this train running?
Definitely delinquencies will increase in 2021. We are at a crazy low rate right now.
Price declines, who knows but I doubt we are in for a multi year upswing in prices. I think market will stay strong for another 8-12 months then slow down when the economy returns to normal and people start spending more on normal things like travelling instead of dumping it all into RE.
I would take banks predictions on this with a grain of salt. I assume they are incentivized to use the most pessimistic predictions, so that they have a higher chance of outperforming their targets
Wow, that prediction sounds like it’s going to be about as accurate as CMHC’s prediction in May that prices “will decline by 9% to 18%” over the next 12 months.
Let’s not forget that in the 2009 crisis , The USA also laid out $7.2 trillion in investment and loans.
https://financialpost.com/news/economy/royal-bank-of-canada-warns-of-headwinds-after-better-than-expected-profit-2?
Canada’s biggest lender is now giving increased weight to its pessimistic economic scenario, which expects the Canadian unemployment rate will stay above 9 per cent until March 2023, and home prices will drop 8 per cent and remain depressed until late 2023, executives said on a conference call.
Doesn’t specify BC or how they are measuring price drops but interesting none the less.
If you have an environmental report, asbestos abatement paperwork, and permit to demo you can call pretty much any excavating company.
For septic I like -> https://www.westernwastewater.ca/
https://thewalrus.ca/livingrooms-how-to-save-the-middle-class/
So what you’re telling us is that you’re looking for a homewrecker?
Looking for someone to demolish a house and install a new septic system. Does anyone know of someone (s) I could call?
We’ll see what plays out over the next few months. Perhaps soaring provincial infection rates and news of vaccines on the horizon tempers the recent high out of province interest.
Agree to a certain extent Lee, but it isn’t stopping buyers that much. Oct/Nov condo sales up 62% over last year. New listings up only 34%.
People definitely prefer detached, but reality is it’s out of reach price wise for most people so condos are the only option.
The reasons for flat condo prices:
If it wasn’t for the rock-bottom interest rates… if the monthly cost to borrow $100,000 was still ~$500 instead of the current ~$415, nothing would be moving.
side note – does anyone know what happened to Patrick? I haven’t seen him comment in quite a while.
Ottawa gives households $7 for every dollar of income lost in private sector
Let the (pseudo) good times roll!
From your own article :
Either way, even if you take the whole nearly a $ trillion that the US injected into the economy, it’s still a order of magnitude difference when a country 10 times small is doing half a trillion.
Excellent article yet again! I have always found MMT to be an interesting but precarious endeavour. Ever since Japan “went out on a limb” and tried MMT the results have been mixed IMO. Did it help Japan or was it a bandaid solutition? Japan’s economy and demographics are much different to Canada’s so its tough to say how MMT affects different economies. If i remember correctly the asian economies in the early 90’s were hit particularily hard, so perhaps given Japan’s situation it made the most sense.
One last point about inflation or lack of it from the great recession found in the comments – it can take decades for inflation to take hold. We might not have seen massive and direct inflation after 2009 but I dont think we are in the clear. It is also relative due to exchange rates – if every first world country is pumping money into their economies at a relative rate – measuring inflation becomes more complicated. Between this pandemic and 2009, the agressive monetary policies will become a large tax grab on “savers”. Its not a question of “if” but “when.”
That is a good question. So far it seems as if MMT have a hand in housing demand, but it hasn’t stimulated spending on things such as automobile (global sales is expected to be 20% below 2017-2019 level.)
I wonder if MMT anticipates the flight to hard assets by people worried about MMT (justified or not)?
That it is.
Like most every other economic idea, it’s not truly a new theory though. MMT is basically a repackaged take on an early 20th century Marxist concept – which several subsequent circumstances, notably the stagflation of the 1970’s, undermined its core premise.
Things like UBI, helicopter money and other things labeled as “stimulative” in contemporary times have their Marxist roots here , we just don’t realize it or think of it that way at the moment. But that’s really what it is – it’s not a coincidence that increasingly collectivist ideologies such as populism have simultaneously risen in the population along with increasing interest and exploration of MMT.
As MMT invariably results in a centralization of social, economic and political power, the more interesting question is how modern, decentralized forms of currency such as blockchain will fit in to such a reality – as they are diametrically opposed to hegemonic institutions such as central banks.
(Puts on a tin foil hat)
On that last point, get ready for central banks to start issuing digital currency. While they will tout the “changing wants and needs of society” for the shift, I suspect the real reason for the shift will be to enforce monetary policy upon the citizens.
Do you mean just in 2008, or are you using 2008 as shorthand for the “2008 Financial Crisis”?
It looks like the U.S. passed a $152B stimulus package under Bush in 2008, and a $787B package under Obama in 2009.
Canada is running a $382B deficit this year, with a plan announced yesterday to spend up to $100B more on stimulus in 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_fiscal_policy_response_to_the_Great_Recession#United_States
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberals-plan-100-billion-in-new-stimulus-spending-begin-plotting/
True, but I’m betting results will be similar.
This is one of the reasons I think MMT is gaining traction: because it seems to have been better able to explain the global economy post-2008 than much of mainstream economic theory.
Difference in scale.
Canada has a bigger stimulus package this time around than the US did for 2008.
Low income individuals spend most of their income on food, housing, and transportation. If you look at all those items they have had a profound impact on people with minimal income and poor cash flows meanwhile wages in Victoria have not increased at the same pace.
You write very well in English. And I’m envious of your German.
My only consolation is that I speak a passable French, having taken French Immersion in my younger days.
Practically the same language as English. IMHO, most if not all European languages are similar/dialect of each others.
Depends on the definition. CPI you’re probably right. But if assets balloon in price then currency has effectively devalued.
Also we are spending an order of magnitude more this time around.
German. We came over in ‘88
Leider leider, aber der Vorteil ist das du heute die englische Grammatik besser beherrscht als ich.
People who worry about fiat currency are just so adorable!
What inflation? We had none in the aftermath of the ’08 financial crisis despite big stimulus spending. Betcha the same thing happens this time.
Really? What’s your first language? I never would have guessed it when talking to you.
German was my first language, too. I entered preschool not speaking English, and it was at that point my parents realized that maybe they should start speaking English at home.
Funny thing is, my parents never kept up the German and today I know almost none.
Huh, turns out it’s not an all time record. VREB says there were 892 sales in November 1989. My data doesn’t go back that far.
70% above asking price? Prices soar in cottage country — https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5817627
Way too much ̶s̶t̶i̶m̶u̶l̶u̶s̶ monopoly money.
Excellent news, the opportunity for housing price to jump 43% in the next few years.
Rest assured I will never get this one right. I’ll blame it on the fact I’m ESL.
Maybe the feds are taking a cue from the NDP’s recent historic victory in BC?
https://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2020/report-rapport/FES-EEA-eng.pdf
Very interesting and sobering article, Leo.
Fiat currency is looking more suspect by the day, now that it’s pretty clear how they are going to attempt to dig out of this mess.
I don’t think these emergency benefits are going to entirely go away – whether that’s the birth of UBI or something else. Whatever stokes inflation, I suppose.
That is a sentence fragment. The correct form of sentence is, “That sounds good to me.”
Sounds good. Let’s just get him using the correct word.
He’s actually using the present perfect which uses the past participle, also “led”.
That’s quite the statistic.
Years ago, bears here used to mock and ridicule the concept of being “priced-out” as wishful bull thinking…
Once again, the past tense of “lead” is “led.”
This information could also be used to go after unreported rental income and capital gains upon sale of the property, if applicable.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-fiscal-update-includes-tax-changes-for-netflix-stock-options-and/