115
Bank of Canada raises interest rate as inflation projected to worsen (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

OTTAWA — OTTAWA - The Bank of Canada raised its policy interest rate by 25 basis points to 2.5 per cent. It’s the first hike since July 2023. The central bank wants to control inflation by reducing the risk that high fuel prices could spill over and seep into the overall economy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I do admire your optimism, but a couple knits to pick.

  1. Real estate in Canada has been a growth industry since we decided that 0 or near-0 interest rates were the way of the land. That's why we've been in a housing crisis for 20 years.

  2. Assume you're right and Anthropic and OpenAI both go bankrupt. Microsoft has its own AI. Nvidia has its own. Canada's government just bought into Cohere. Google has its own. Apple will have its own if it doesn't already. Amazon has its own. Assuming the AI bubble pops, maybe one or two of the big boys fail. What more than likely happens instead or also is the survivors get a lot bigger than they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    I didn't address your point about housing. You're right that low interest rates have exacerbated the problem, but the bigger upstream causes are more that:

    1. It's political suicide to run on a platform of reducing housing prices. People who vote are, disproportionately, homeowners who don't want numbers to go down.
    2. The missing middle. We're building the wrong kind of housing, and zoning bylaws are preventing unit densification where people want to live.
    3. The lack of non-market-rate housing options. Affordable housing options have a disproportionate effect on housing costs. Canada hasn't invested in, basically, any affordable housing since the 70s, and we have some of the lowest non-market-housing rates in the developed world.
    4. Housing being held as investments first, and housing second.

    To be affordable, housing needs to drop 50%. Interest rates being low contribute, on the margin, but don't account for that big of a difference. You'll notice that housing prices barely dropped at all, and even continued to rise in some areas, when rates skyrocketed 4 years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    It’s political suicide to run on a platform of reducing housing prices. People who vote are, disproportionately, homeowners who don’t want numbers to go down.

    It's never actually been done, so we don't know that. Even Singh didn't run on reducing housing prices last year.

    The missing middle. We’re building the wrong kind of housing, and zoning bylaws are preventing unit densification where people want to live.

    Speaking as someone who currently rents an apartment, if I can ever get to a point where I can own something, I sure as hell don't want to own one. The only thing worse than renting your individual unit is owning your individual unit and fighting with the other individual owners about maintaining the common areas.

    The lack of non-market-rate housing options. Affordable housing options have a disproportionate effect on housing costs. Canada hasn’t invested in, basically, any affordable housing since the 70s, and we have some of the lowest non-market-housing rates in the developed world.

    And the non-market housing that does exist is in such disrepair that you couldn't pay me to live in it. Because in this country, non-market housing means controlled by the government, and that's a political football.

    Housing being held as investments first, and housing second.

    Which is why I said it's a growth industry. They bought low. They're not about to sell lower.

    To be affordable, housing needs to drop 50%. Interest rates being low contribute, on the margin, but don’t account for that big of a difference. You’ll notice that housing prices barely dropped at all, and even continued to rise in some areas, when rates skyrocketed 4 years ago.

    Canada's population also skyrocketed 4 years ago, and only stopped skyrocketting (at least, as much) in the last year or so. There were two different demand levers being pulled. BoC pulled theirs to reduce, GoC pulled theirs to increase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    What more than likely happens instead or also is the survivors get a lot bigger than they are.

    No. No, they won't. They're all losing money hand-over-fist. And they're all circularly invested with each other. Microsoft owns OpenAI, and OpenAI uses Microsoft compute which they pay for with ownership. Microsoft valuation is inflated because of OpenAI, and when the bubble bursts, they're going to lose a lot of money.

    If you're interested in economics/finance, I suggest reading about the circular cashflows and investment in the AI space.

    To make it even worse, they're effectively lying in their accounting, claiming the compute they're giving away as a "marketing expense" instead of operating costs, while booking the value as revenue. The profit : cost ratio is even worse than headline numbers suggest. They are burning through multiples of all of their revenue on operating costs, before they even start to pay for expansion.

    In other words, it's fucked.

    Sure, AI is here to stay—small to midsize models are already trained and cheap to run. But it's also not going to make significant profit for anyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    Like I said. I admire your optimism. But I think you need to fact-check yourself. Microsoft owns at most 27% of OpenAI. And Microsoft is currently working on its own internal AI (MAI). Even in the unlikely event that OpenAI goes bankrupt, Microsoft and its own AI products will be just fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    I know that, yes. But it's relevant to my point: AI costs more to train and run than its value. That Microsoft, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX and hundreds of smaller players are all losing money at the same game just makes the problem worse.

    There is no path to profitability for AI.

    The cashflows needed to pay back investment to date is already impossible, and it's scheduled to accelerate.

    And Microsoft being tied to OpenAI is largely about continuing their "growth story" to justify their valuation. The "value" of their ownership stake, even as huge as it is, is largely irrelevant; once the house comes tumbling down, it's going to be a very long path to recovery for anyone involved in AI. They will write off many billions and be responsible for many times that in evaluated paper wealth.

    Google, Meta, and Microsoft will all be fine, eventually. They have enough stable revenue streams outside of AI to weather the storm, most likely (I'm not sure how leveraged they are, but with string cashflows, I imagine they'll survive.)

    Musk's pile of companies are dicey. OpenAI and Anthropic won't meaningfully exist in 5 years.

    So, I'm pretty confident that a variable rate mortgage is the right choice right now. But even if you aren't as doom and gloom, it seems pretty clear that signing a 5-year fixed right now is unlikely to be a good idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Like I said, I admire your optimism.

    And signing a 5-year fixed is almost always a good idea. Remember when Tif said rates would be low for a long time? I'd have absolutely signed fixed then. The odds are greater my financial situation improves in 5 years than in 1. I like knowing what I'll be paying in October of next year. Variable means I don't even know what I'm paying in January of next year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    AFAIK, variable interest rate mortgages only require payment increases if rates rise high enough to no longer cover interest payments.

    Anyway, I hope you're right. As confident as I am in a pending financial disaster, it would be great for everyone if that doesn't happen!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    AFAIK, variable interest rate mortgages only require payment increases if rates rise high enough to no longer cover interest payments.

    You're close. You're thinking Fixed-Rate variable. And the flip side of that is if you hit your trigger rate and your payments increase, they won't decrease again until you renew. So when interest rates go up, you're watching the BoC to see by how much and then doing the math - either that, or you're surprised when your mortgage payment increases. But when interest rates go down, you're basically on a fixed mortgage.

    The other one is Adjustable-Rate variable, and that one follows the interest rate up and down more closely. BoC raises, your payments rise. BoC drops, your payments drop.

    Neither is long-term better than a fixed mortgage, which is why that's what 60-70% of mortgages in Canada are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent