Month: February 2016

One simple way to protect yourself agains “Shadow Flipping” in Vancouver

Oleg Articles, For Sellers, Tips

Turn on the TV or go online and you will see countless news stories about “Shadow Flipping” in Vancouver BC. It is a scary thing for some homeowners. Nobody want’s to have their property flipped for profit before the sale even completes. In some cases the “flipper” can make hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of days. So how do you protect yourself from the “shadow flipping” as a seller?

By default every Contract of Purchase and Sale has an “assignment clause” in it. The “assignment clause” is the clause investors abuse to assign/sell contracts for profit. The general rule, in the absence of wording in the contract to the contrary, is that BUYERS MAY ASSIGN their rights under the contract as long as they do not prejudice the rights of the sellers. For example, if the sellers are carrying the mortgage, they may not want the contract to be assigned to another party.

If you are concern about “shadow flipping” and want to protect yourself just add a simple clause in your Contract of Purchase and Sale. This will eliminate the assignment clause and thus eliminate the ability of anyone to assign (or sell) the contract to a third party.

Here is an example of the no assignment option clause:

 

“No Assignment Option Clause

The Buyer agrees not to assign this contract in whole or in part to any third party.”

 

That’s it! Now you can sell your property without worrying about anyone trying to flip it before the completion date. Feel free to contact me with questions about selling your property (house or a condo) in the Greater Vancouver area.

 

DISCLAIMER: Seek independent legal advice before implementing any of the idea discussed in this article.

The truth about “shadow flipping” in Vancouver

Oleg Articles, News, Opinion

 

“Shadow flipping” is the new term thrown around quiet a bit in the last two weeks. Turn on the news or go online and all you see are evil realtors taking advantage of the public, earning 10 commission on each sale and directly causing global warming.

Let’s make sense of all of this.

What is “shadow flipping”?

It’s a controversial “sales technique” used to sell the assignment of the Contract of Purchase and Sale before the completion date. Real estate agent would collect real estate commission for each assignment of the contract.

For example:

Buyer#1 “buys” a house for $2 million. Before the sale completes (all money is paid) the contract is sold to the buyer#2 for $2.3 million. The buyer#1 who sold the contract makes $300,000 (minus the real estate commissions). The original seller is left with $2 million (minus the real estate commission and expenses). And the real estate agent collects real estate commission 2 times; once for the sale of the property to the buyer#1 and once for the sale of the contact to the buyer#2.

 

 

Most news articles use similar examples, but in their examples the contract is sold (assigned) twice and the real estate agent collects 3 real estate commissions. In my opinion these examples are ridiculous. Hypothetically speaking it is possible to assign (sell) the contract unlimited number of times but selling (assigning) the same contract twice is very very rare. These examples are used to scare the public and reinforce the message, but only make things more confusing. Nevertheless, shadow flipping is wrong and scary without ridiculous examples.

Some real estate agents and savvy investors found a way to abuse the “assignment clause” in the Contract of Purchase and Sale.  In some cases the original seller doesn’t get a full value for their property. In some cases the buyer of an assignment overpays for the property. Most of the time someone in the transaction is taken advantage of. As real estate agents we have a fiduciary duty to work in our clients best interest, however we still have to follow the code of ethics. We can not put our own interest before the interest of parties involved in the transaction and the general public.

“Shadow flipping” is not a new concept. In fact a lot of “get rich quick from real estate” schemes depend on this strategy. You’ve seen the infomercials. It has been around for a long time. “Shadow flipping” is not limited to British Columbia either. Most of Canada and the US have the “assignment clause” in their Contacts of Purchase and Sale. It’s actually a beneficial clause if used right.

It is very sad to see some of my real estate colleagues participate in such shady schemes. It shines a negative light on the industry as a whole. It is not fair that a few dishonest realtors bring negative publicity to everyone. These cases should definitely  be investigated.  These responsible need to be brought to justice.

Real estate industry as a whole does not support unethical behaviour of a few.

 

$7-million mansion in Vancouver is now a tear down

Oleg Articles, News, Opinion

I was reading the news today and came across this article: The $6-million Vancouver mansion, complete with indoor pool and media centre, that’s just another tear down

Basically, Vancouver home owner has filed an application for a demolition permit for his luxury multi-million-dollar home located in Vancouver’s upscale Shaughnessy neighbourhood. The home has 7,200 square feet of living space, indoor swimming pool and a media centre. According to BC Assessments the property is worth $7.44 million today. It was purchased back in 2013 for just over $6 million.

The owner is technically not doing anything wrong. So why did this matter get so much media attention?

Vancouver is a known “green city” and tearing down a perfectly good home seems like a waste of resources. The house is not even 20 years old.

Vancouver council woman Adriane Carr plans to voice her disapproval over the application. “It’s just criminal that it should be torn down,” Carr told CTV Vancouver. “It’s an expensive home, it’s a big home, and the fact that it could be torn down and replaced, it goes against everything the city is trying to do to be the greenest city.”

We can understand both points of view. On one hand it doesn’t make sense to “waste” resources, but on the other hand private individuals can do what they want with their money. Forbidding someone to build a new home because their “old” one is a “perfectly good home” is the same as forbidding someone to buy a new television because their old one is a perfectly good television.  It is up to all of us as people to control our resources consumption.

As long as the new proposed house complies with all city by-laws and regulations, I don’t see any problem for the owner to obtain the demolition and development permits for his/her project.

$2.4 million 86-year-old Point Grey house. Is it worth it?

Oleg Articles, News, Opinion, Statistics

Last week an 86-year-old “rundown” house was listed for sale. The 4453 W 14th Street house has 2,000 square feet of living space and is located in Point Grey neighbourhood in Vancouver Westside. What’s so special about this property? The price tag of $2,398,000!

This property instantly received a lot of media attention and community outrage. Some online polls even popped up asking people  how much they would pay for this house? “Less than $500,000” is the most popular answer, followed by “you couldn’t pay me to live here” in a second place.

The house is sitting on “standard” Vancouver 33 by 122 plot. 2014 assessment value came in at $1,759,800 almost all of the value is in the land. The house is walking distance to Lord Byng Secondary and Queen Elizabeth Elementary.

So why does it have such a high listing price? 

Clearly, the house itself has little to no value. It’s the land in this prestigious Vancouver neighbourhood that dictates the listing price. 33×122 plot (also know as the Vancouver Special) is not very big. You can build almost 3,000 square foot home with a garage on it.

So is it worth $2.4 million price tag? 

In my opinion it is not. Some real estate professionals will disagree with me on this one. That’s totally fine.

There are many ways to calculate the value of the property. I based my evaluation on compatible currently active properties  on the market as well as the recently sold comparable properties. Also, I looked at the investment value of building a new home in the neighbourhood.

If I were to base my evaluation only on similar properties in the neighbourhood and their selling prices, the price tag of $2.4 million dollars would make sense. If I were a listing agent I would price it at a similar price point. There are a few examples of houses around the same age with the same lot sizes selling for $2.3-$2.4 million dollars in the Point Grey neighbourhood. Which leads me to believe that this house will sell for the asking price or maybe even for more than the asking price.

So why do I say it is not worth the price tag of $2.4 million? 

This house needs to be torn-down and a new house should be build in its place. In the current market, new houses in the neighbourhood (with 33X122 lots) are selling for around $3.1-$3.3 million. It will cost around $650,000-$700,000 to build the new house. If you account for taxes and extra expenses associated with the buying, building and selling process, this house does not make for a very good investment.

I think the buyer of this property is going to be an investor. He or she will justify paying the premium price by betting on future appreciation of the neighbourhood, which is completely fine. More and more real estate developers in Vancouver bet on the future appreciation as land prices in Greater Vancouver continue to rise.

This property could be a good investment if market continues to go up over the next 12 months at the same rate. Any experienced developer will tell you that the investment property has to make sense at the current market value. And NOT solely depend on the future appreciation.

Here is a graph of the real estate prices of detached (resell) houses in Point Grey neighbourhood over the last 5 years.

DISCLAIMER: This article represent my opinion only.  Do your own independent research before making any real estate related decisions.