The following stats are compiled weekly and updated on Saturday/Sunday. See below the chart for an explanation of the data compilation. If you wish to embed any of these charts or graphs on another site please feel welcome to use them.
About these Statistics:
The numbers and chart you see above are generated from data provided by the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. Areas included for the count are: Vancouver West, Vancouver East, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, New Westminster, Richmond, North Vancouver, and West Vancouver. South of Richmond, East of Port Coquitlam (Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows), and North West of West Vancouver (Islands, Squamish, and Whistler) are not included.
Why did I choose to exclude some areas from the Weekly count? Simply because they are quite a distance from the core. I know there are a great many people who live out that way, and I do not wish to offend, but this site, and my business, is focused more on Vancouver and the immediate suburbs.
As you see, the numbers start from 2008 January. It is, as far as I can tell, impossible for me to get accurate numbers for previous weeks. Sorry. If you want to see past numbers in a chart look at the monthly reports released by the board. They will be provided on this site within the first week of any month. This information is updated weekly. The reason for that is numbers can vary dramatically during the week and Realtors are, expecting that the Board rules are followed, given a 72hour window to submit information. What happens on Monday may not become public until Wednesday. In addition, the hard-working fine folk at the REBGV may not be able to enter the data into the system for another day (they do get quite busy, quite often). For that alone, weekly provides a more accurate picture.
About the “Sold Units” number: These are the reported sales. In actual fact there may be more or fewer firm offers for that week specifically. These numbers come from the board which relies on the listing Realtor to provide such information. In other words, a reported sale may in fact be one from two or three weeks ago (rare, but it does happen).
About the colours: Green means an increase or a positive change from the previous week. Red means a decrease or a negative change from the previous week. Blue means no change at all. For example, if the Total Units has increased then the shade will be green. If Sold Units increases then the shade will be green. If Prices increase the shade will be green. The only category where this is inverted is with Months of Supply. If Months of Supply increase the shade will be red as this is a negative. It is a result of there being more units available to the sales occurring and a subsequent likelihood of it taing longer to sell a home in the future (a negative change).
Updated January 10th to break out the four stats into their own Year-over-Year displays and have added two new charts of Average Price movement (weekly and four week trend) for Attached and Detached properties in the Greater Vancouver areas outlined above.
Vancouver, BC 
Larry, were you right about that part when Vancouver real estate prices collapsed 15% between October 2008 and March 2009, only to be artificially propped up by the CMHC and BOC?
Just asking…
Larry: Why do you assume that bears NOW are bears for 15 years? Pretty ignorant thing to say. I’ve bought, sold (2008) and now im a hardcore bear.
Peter,
Timing is always an issue but yes I thought a correction could be coming and I had thought so for a year or so, once our neighbours to the south started seeing their house prices collapse I figured that could be the catalyst. Did I time it perfectly? No… was I renting for 2 years prior? Yes.. and like I’ve said several times I bought in mid summer 09. I always find it funny how people use the excuse of the BoC and CMHC, did the Fed in the US not try to prop up the market? Did govt incentives and tax credits not try to prop up the market in the US? Did it work? No.. they gave MORE stimulus than we did yet they are are 4 year lows… markets go where they are supposed to go, and the Vancouver market is within 5% up or down of it’s fair value.
markets go where they are supposed to go
This might be true if people were rational and informed. But if that were true, there would never be a bubble. But we know that bubbles happen repeatedly, so this can’t be a true statement, can it?
and the Vancouver market is within 5% up or down of it’s fair value.
Vancouver RE has gone up 143% since 2001, and we are withing 5% of fair value?!
“Vancouver RE has gone up 143% since 2001, and we are withing 5% of fair value?!”
Maybe and maybe not, but West Vancouver RE has gone up 10,000% since 60s, and what can you do about it, Crabman?
Will, thanks for your graphs, but where are those numbers? Would you put them back please?!! Me and friends love them as well.
Sorry, there was a technical error displaying them. That’s fixed.
Crabman, I always find it comical that an increase in price is an argument for overvaluation. Van RE went up 143% from 1995 to 1998, your argument worked out just great back then now that RE is 350% higher than that time of “extended valuation”. Crude oil is was doubled and people said it was overvalued, it went on to double again after that, I could write a book with similar examples, it’s an absolutely idiotic premise to look at valuation simply based on the simple fact that prices have moved higher, there must be some catalyst to move it lower and I beg you to find one.
I have a challenge for the bears. Find me one time in the history of the financial world that an asset class has collapsed within 5 years of rebounding from a low in which that asset class lost 10% or more. Also that asset class could not have rebounded over 45% in a year span during that recovering which Van RE has not done.
You might want to check what actually happened between 1995 and 1998.
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/data/HousingPrices/housing-pri-vancouver.pdf
As far as my ‘idiotic’ premise goes, it is just one of several points I have made on this blog. Price/income, price/rent, affordability, etc, etc, etc.
BTW bears, don’t bother looking, because it’s never happened… Sometimes I wonder why it’s so easy to make money in the stock market, then I listen to the arguments of Van RE bears and assume they must be on the other side of my equity trades which makes it just too easy.
Never happened?
http://www.online-stock-trading-guide.com/1929-1932-stock-chart.html
Larry said:
“Van RE went up 143% from 1995 to 1998,”
Larry’s credibilty maybe falling faster than sales in Vancouver are plummetting (Aug./10 sales are the 2nd lowest in the alst decade, continuing same trend in June, July, 2010).
Here are the facts – home prices in Vancouver during 1995 and 1998 actually FELL over 15% (nominally), and over 20% in real terms, just in those 3 years:
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/data/HousingPrices/housing-pri-vancouver.pdf
And this happend right after high unaffordability reached in 1994/95(as per RBC Affordability report) of about 70% of pre-tax income required to service 75% mortgage on average house price (vs. over 80% today). We are siginificantly more unaffordable (using same measurement) today. See graph for Vancouver on page 4:
http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf
Larry how about the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Bottomed in 2002 and bottomed lower in 2008. http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI
That took all of about 30 secoonds to find.
Now I challange you to find me any asset class in history that has gone up as much as Vancouver realestate in the past 10 years and not come back down.
Rog, are you unable to read simple English? “I have a challenge for the bears. Find me one time in the history of the financial world that an asset class has collapsed within 5 years of rebounding from a low in which that asset class lost 10% or more. Also that asset class could not have rebounded over 45% in a year span during that recovering which Van RE has not done.” What part of 5 years didn’t you understand? 2002-2008 is how many years? Also during that time the market DOUBLED. You can nitpick all you want, I was wrong with the 1995-1998 prices but my argument is just as valid using the correct dates. From 1985-1994 RE doubled, I guess we were overextended then right, yet we’ve more than doubled since then. Permabears are comical.
Larry – when you look at the historical data CORRECTLY (as you did after admitting your mistake)you will see your point is wrong: exactly the point we have been trying to make is correct, historically – 1985- 1994, prices sky-rocketed (causing very high unaffordability), and then this was followed by significant price declines from 1995.
Thanks for fixing the stats, Will. It’s a good thing we had such a strong sales/list ratio. Otherwise the bears will be all over you ‘claiming’ that you are hiding the numbers because they are ‘bad’. =)
What strong numbers going into September. I have a feeling we’ll have even better numbers going into the Fall.
@Rog, Don’t ask Larry to find any asset class in history that has gone up as much as Vancouver real estate in the past 10 years and not come back down…
He’ll tell you “West Vancouver Real Estate”…
Hi Larry. Well, I don’t want to be rude, but isn’t it a little naive to assume if something didn’t happen in the past it will not happen in the future? With that being said, what is the point of this challenge? Even you are right about the past, it doesn’t mean you are right this time. Agree?
Larry is not right about the past, I gave him an example. Predictably, he ignored it.
Here it is again:
http://www.online-stock-trading-guide.com/1929-1932-stock-chart.html
But there is not much sense trying to reason with Larry. He bought in the “bull trap”, and now he has stopped listening to reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stages_of_a_bubble.png
Sell list ratio in the high 70′s
- Inventory steadily marching downward.
-Mortgage rates falling.
Does this indicate a seller’s market approaching?
Hi Jim, 4 weeks in July attached sales 188+177+…=689 units, while Aug. 4 weeks attached sales is 120+179+…=640 units, 49 units less or 7%…Dec. 2010 would yield 444 sales if we less 49 sales every months; not a good sign. I have a feeling that listing aren’t selling. So I think prices need to come down 10% to sell.
Ang, sure that’s possible, but I try to put all the odds in my favour but no I don’t have a crystal ball.
Jim, statistics and facts won’t convince the bears, concrete evidence is not sufficient for them, only anectodal based predictions. Inventory went down this week, MOI went down this week, sales upticked this week, mortgage rates falling, prices right around all time highs, what an awful market, the bears were right.
Ang, sure that’s possible, but I try to put all the odds in my favour but no I don’t have a crystal ball.
Jim, statistics and facts won’t convince the bears, concrete evidence is not sufficient for them, only anecdotal based predictions. Inventory went down this week, MOI went down this week, sales upticked this week, mortgage rates falling, prices right around all time highs, what an awful market, the bears were right.
Sales for Aug./2010 for all Greater Vancouver are at near decades LOWS , continuing trend set in June and July – the only June, July, Aug. worse in the last 10 years was the credit crisis meltdown summer of 2008.
Larry, from your experience w/ financial markets, how sustainable are high prices when demand (sales volume) is at or near 10 year lows?
Projection for Aug/10 sales (based on sales to Aug.27) = 2,192
This would be:
1. 2nd worst sales for Aug./10 in last decade (only credit crisis summar of 2009 was worse).
2. 37.3% drop in sales YoY.
3. 2.8% drop in sales MoM.
You forgot to add a sarcastic comment:
“what a great market, the bulls were right”
Reasonfirst, that can’t even be debated, the bulls have been right for an extremely long time and the bears have had a grand total of 1 year in the past 10 to celebrate, but I’m sure like every other bear argument you will find a way to ignore that and claim the bears have been right for the past 20 years. To answer your question VanPro demand is one side of the equation, MOI reflects the true supply/demand and that downticked again this week. I’ve always been of the belief that supply is a MUCH more important driver in the duo than demand.
Larry. RE: your comment on MOI: not quite right .
MOI is sky-rocketing again in the FV while it bounced down this week in the REBGV numbers. The last correction in 2008 started with the outlier areas (i.e. Fraser Valley) and then into Greater Vancouver. From Rob Chipman’s comprehensive numbers:
MOI in Greater Vancouver down this week, while FV MOI is way up:
REBGV MOI = 6.62 = 15,474/(550×4.25)
FV MOI = 10.24 = (8486/(195×4.25)
http://www.robchipman.net/chipmans-blog/archives/181#comments
Larry,
Pretty desperate when you come up with a stat that “downticked again this week” as a comeback on a stat tracked over a decade.
Vanpro, why don’t you have to drag FV into the debate when people were talking about RE of Greater Vancouver?
What’s next? Las Vegas, Miami, San Diego or the drkside of moon? LOL.
Bearknowitall,
He already said it, the last correction in 2008 started with FV and then into Greater Vancouver. If that’s not a reason, I don’t know what is……?
Note, I am not saying that Vampro is definitely correct, but thinking that a crappy FV RE market won’t affect the GV RE market is simply ignorant.
SN, I don’t buy that the last correction started with FV then into GV. I thought that was a simultaneous reaction to world wide credit crisis 2008. But thanks for your explaining.
I look @ numbers in GV, that’s where I live, that’s where I care about the prices, you can guess that FV numbers could spill into GV but I go by the numbers of the market I’m looking at specifically. I haven’t looked into your analysis that the correction in ’08 started in the FV market but all I’ve heard for the past 2 years is how the correction started on Vancouver West so I don’t know which argument the bears are going with but either way the MOI in closer to the lows of 09 to the highs of 08 in GV.
There is value at looking at the FV numbers. To blindly discount them is to ignore what is happening in the fastest growing municipality in Canada (last I heard it was “fastest growing” and I cannot confirm if it still remains #1).
Prior to the run-up in prices here over the past decade Surrey was little more than a punchline. With the prices pushing beyond what the average family could afford here many looked to Surrey, Cloverdale, and Langley (as well as Maple Ridge). This was not by personal choice but by lack of any choice at all. You can see this effect every year when the school board in Vancouver talk about a lack of students (latest news is closing 12 elementary schools) while Surrey has too many and is housing them in portables.
Now Surrey has become a destination all its own and has grown up wonderfully. They have industry and commerce and many of the people who live in the FV also work in the FV. When weakness appears there it is in the lesser desirable places. I have friends and clients who have moved from Downtown to Burnaby and now reside in Cloverdale (all in a span of 5 years). They couldn’t be happier but it did take some adjustment to get out of their “Vancouver” mindset. They asked me how Cloverdale was doing since they bought and I was surprised to see (surprised since I only hear that the FV is drowning in inventory) that their neck of the woods is holding up very nicely with low inventory, quick sales, and stable prices.
It’s also difficult to talk of the FV in general when you have so many areas (and a large area it is!) such as White Rock with it’s multi-million dollar mansions, Whalley with its crack shacks and small new condos, Abbotsford with its mushroom farms, Langley with its hobby farms, and swaths of tract housing spread all over and in between. You got a real mix of housing there from the tiny new condos to the large equestrian estates, tiny land townhomes to good family homes on large-ish lots, 40 minute commutes to over an hour commutes. No doubt that if there’s to be weakness first it will be felt in the furthest areas out.
You see, most still consider the area (FV in general) to be a forced reality rather than a first choice. For these, Vancouver remains the first choice. Weakness in the FV may spill over to Vancouver but Vancouver will remain the first choice so any weakness here in Vancouver will only accelerate the weakness there.
A rising tide raises all boats, but eventually the tide rolls back out to sea. – there’s one for the bears to use.
“…over the past decade Surrey was little more than a punchline” it’s still alive and well as a punchline, justified or not!
Well I’m no voodoo rocket scientest when it comes to trend analysis. But looking at Will’s graphs it appears 2010 will end up somewhere between 2008′s crash and 2009′s boom.
As I understand it, prices were up in August on the Westside? If so supply/ demand is functioning perfectly.
Thanks Jim, great analysis.