Thursday, September 15, 2016

History shows racism has always been a part of Vancouver real estate


History shows racism has always been a part of Vancouver real estate

From Vancouver's founding in the 1850s to the arrival of Hong Kong immigrants in the 1980s and debates around foreign money in 2016, race has never been far from the centre of the city's real-estate industry


  • null
2 of 4
  • Chinese immigrants began settling in Vancouver in the 1850s but, after 1884, were barred from acquiring land directly from the Crown. By that time, merchants were well-established at locations along Carrall Street (pictured above in 1897) but the new laws put them at a distinct disadvantage to white land owners.JAMES MATTHEWS / VANCOUVER ARCHIVES
message was recently scribbled across an overpass in Delta. “Stop the Asian invasion,” it reads.
Last summer, in Nanaimo, a real-estate advertisement that included Chinese writing was spray-painted over with a swastika and the words Go away.
These are visible manifestations of a racism that has grown out of British Columbians’ frustration with real-estate prices that have surpassed the affordability of many long-time residents.
And according to members of Vancouver’s various Chinese and Asian communities, there are other, more numerous but less-visible examples.
In a telephone interview, Thanh Lam said she has noticed animosity toward wealthy home buyers from Mainland China in her work as a mentor for the children of new immigrants to Vancouver.
“What I see is a lot of exclusion,” she said. “People assume that they are well off when they are not. Even if they are financially sustainable or if their families are financially okay, people don’t seem to have a lot of empathy for what they are going through.”
Lam described it as no less than a feeling of “discrimination”.
“It is really easy to place the blame on foreign buyers, and it is really easy to scapegoat the Chinese community,” she said. “But there are so many different types of Chinese people here and from many different migration paths.”
Will Tao is an immigration lawyer based in downtown Vancouver. On the phone from Shaoxing, China, where he happened to be visiting family, Tao delivered a list of anecdotes he’s heard from clients and friends. For example, he began, a young Chinese man he knows who drives a sports car repeatedly gets pulled over by police despite never exceeding the speed limit.
“I’ve had Chinese colleagues who are real-estate agents; they feel like they have to actively work hard to try and convince clients that they are not one of them [selling to foreign buyers],” Tao continued. “The first thing they have to say is, ‘I don’t deal in that; I don’t deal with Chinese clients. I am not that kind of practitioner’.
“I think that they have to justify that, as a Canadian citizen born here, is a sign that there is racial tension,” he said.

“The first moment where Chinese were unwanted”

In British Columbia, issues of land and race have intersected many times before.
Patricia Roy is a professor of history at the University of Victoria and the author of The Oriental Question: Consolidating a White Man's Province, 1914-41.  In a telephone interview, she explained that in the 1860s and 1870s, as white people settled what is today B.C., they began confining First Nations people to reserves.
The overwhelming majority of the remaining land belonged to the Crown, she told theStraight. Individuals could acquire land from the government by outright purchase, by leasing for such purposes as cattle ranching, or by "preemption", which allowed settlers to receive large tracts of land from the Crown for only nominal fees.
But by 1884, Roy continued, the arrival of thousands of Chinese workers building the Canadian Pacific Railway led to a growing anti-Chinese sentiment among the white ruling class. In turn, the provincial government enacted legislation denying Chinese people the right to buy, lease, or preempt Crown lands.
“White people could acquire land from the government at little or no cost,” Roy said. “Chinese people could not acquire land directly from the government…However, they could buy land from private owners.”
A two-tier system was set in law, and those rules remained in effect until after the Second World War.
“The Chinese were discriminated at every turn,” Roy concluded.
In the early 1900s, real estate was already a booming industry for Vancouver. According to a paper by UBC professor David Ley, in 1911 there was one real-estate agent for every 150 residents. “It was difficult to avoid the realtors,” reads a passage of that paper that might remind today’s homeowners of mailboxes stuffed with pamphlets inquiring if they’re ready to sell.
A white-dominated press was already making an issue of Chinese-immigrant spending on real estate. But in a twist of irony, the complaint was that they were not investing enough in housing, as a 1907 cartoon published in the Saturday Sunset depicts.

A cartoon published in a Vancouver newspaper in 1907 illustrated white residents’ unhappiness with how they perceived the living conditions of Chinese Canadians.
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Henry Yu, a UBC professor of history and expert in Chinese Canadian studies, places tensions in today’s real-estate industry in this context of earlier conversations around the same issues.
“From a historian’s point of view, this goes right back to the founding of Vancouver and to the founding of British Columbia,” he said. “Who could preempt Crown land? Who could take this free land? Only people from Europe. And so, right away, began this idea that only migrants coming from certain places are reaping the benefits of colonial land acquisition.
“That was one of the privileges of white supremacy,” Yu added. “That was the first moment where Chinese were unwanted.”

“No Asiatic, Negro or Indian”

From Vancouver’s founding in the late 1800s, legacies of racist land policies remained with the city, and debates tinged by xenophobia have been repeated.
In 2014, the National Post unearthed a collection of documents that illustrate how land titles were used to exclude minorities from specific properties and areas of the city.
“No Asiatic, Negro or Indian shall have the right or be allowed to own, become tenant of or occupy any part of [the property],” reads the title for a piece of residential land in South Vancouver.
A property title for a parcel of land in Victoria that’s dated 1952 similarly forbids transfer of the property to “anyone other than members of the Caucasian race”.
Such covenants are still included in property titles today, though an amendment to the B.C. Land Title Act renders them void. As they make clear, other visible minorities have been discriminated against alongside Chinese Canadians.
Kai Nagata recounted how his great-grandfather, Kumazo Nagata, travelled from Japan to B.C.’s Mayne Island in 1900. In September 1907, he was in Vancouver when anti-Asian racism that had been building throughout the Pacific Northwest boiled over into riots.
“My great-grandfather ran back to the Powell Street neighbourhood, where the Japanese community was centered,” Nagata, a writer and former journalist, told the Straight. “The mob arrives, the police are totally ineffective, and there is a street battle on Powell Street where the Japanese workers and the Caucasian mob got into it pretty good.”
The riot continued for three days and left many Chinese and Japanese properties badly damaged.

During the Second World War, Japanese Canadians saw the government confiscate and auction their property while they were held in internment camps. Vancouver resident Kai Nagata’s grandfather was held at Hastings Park (pictured above) before he was transferred to a long-term facility.
PUBLIC ARCHIVES OF CANADA

Four decades later, after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour, Kumazo’s son and Kai’s grandfather, John Nagata, was removed from his family’s home on Mayne Island and confined at Hastings Park as part of the government's program of placing Japanese Canadians in internment camps.
Upon the Second World War’s conclusion, John and his family were allowed to leave the internment system, Nagata said. But by then, their property had long since been auctioned off.
“My analysis of the internment story is economic as well,” Nagata said. “It was an attack on anybody with Japanese heritage. And the response of the government was to seize the land.”
Much later, the Nagata’s received monetary compensation, but only a fraction of what their property was actually worth.
“My family has an interesting relationship on Mayne Island with the descendants of one of the families that obtained some of that land at auction,” Nagata said. “The Campbell Bay Music Festival takes place on a farm property that, at one time, was owned by my family. My grandfather is the guy who cleared that land.”
Today, Nagata said he sees his great-grandfather Kumazo’s third and fourth-generation Canadian descendants caught up in similar issues.
“My grandmother has been told to go back to China,” he said. “I think that we are treading over some very familiar ground if we choose to make this debate about how people look and what language they speak.”

A conversation Vancouver has had before

To understand how familiar today’s more heated rhetoric around Vancouver real estate feels to residents with long memories, one only has to watch a few minutes of a 1989 segment produced by BCTV, the network that became Global News.
The year before, the provincial government had sold the former site of Expo 86—a massive tract of land encircling the east end of False Creek—to Hong Kong developer Li Ka-shing for $340 million. Residential real-estate prices had skyrocketed more than 40 percent in recent years.
“The calm and serenity of Vancouver is nothing short of an illusion these days,” says a narrator near the beginning of the program.

Concerns for foreign money in Vancouver real estate that aired in a 1989 segment produced by BCTV will sound familiar to people paying attention to today’s conversations about the same issue.
GLOBAL NEWS

A man with a thick Scottish accent opens the segment. “I think something is going to have to be done about all the things that they are buying up,” he says. “Maybe some kind of law being passed, because they are buying everything, aren’t they?”
A narrator offers context.
“The problem is money and who owns it,” she says. “Every year, Hong Kong investors spend $2.5 billion in Canada, most of it on real estate.”
There are more concerns from locals. Then a voice for the government argues that its authority to regulate the sale of private property is limited.
“I think that Vancouver is seen as a very solid investment at the moment,” says a representative for the city. “Those are business decisions that are made irrespective of whatever we could do.”
A 1988 letter that a Shaughnessy resident sent to city council offers a sample of the public’s reaction to that wave of immigration and investment from Hong Kong.
“We—fairly reasonable people—fear the power that the Hong Kong money wields,” it reads. “We resent the fact that because they come here with pots of money they are able to mutilate the areas they choose to settle in.
“These people come—with no concern for our past—they have not been a part of the growth and development of our beautiful city—they have not been paying taxes for years,” it continues. “They have no right to devastate the residential areas.”
A 1992 letter from another resident of the same neighbourhood complains of properties used as vehicles for investment. “Now many of the people who own homes in the area don’t live here,” it reads. “The homes are empty. These homes are investments, perhaps one of many.”
In a telephone interview, Michael Goldberg, a professor emeritus at UBC’s Sauder School of Business, recalled that the interest in foreign ownership that ballooned those years prompted him to study who, exactly, was buying Vancouver real estate in the 1980s.
Newcomers to Canada from Hong Kong were active in the market, he found. But so were buyers from the United States, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Interprovincial migration was also a “dominating” factor, he said. But, Goldberg added, all anybody wanted to talk about was money from Asia.
He said he sees the same thing happening today when, last May, for example, it wasreported that China’s Anbang Insurance Group was purchasing the Bentall Centre, a four-building complex in Vancouver’s business district. Goldberg noted that the property is surrounded by similar towers owned by German firms.
“And yet what attracted attention was when a Chinese insurance company picked up parts of Bentall Centre,” he said. “That area is owned either by Canadian pension funds or by German interests. But that’s not very deserving of a headline.”

A question of identity

Debates around the role of Chinese money in Vancouver real estate have shifted over the course of the past two years. They were once dominated by the phrase “foreign buyer”, with anecdotes about empty homes in Point Grey that served as little more than safety deposit boxes. But in March 2016, the City of Vancouver released a study that analyzed B.C. Hydro data that showed single-family and duplex homes have a vacancy rate of just one percent.
From there, debates shifted to revolve around the issue of foreign money and questions of how local residents could compete with newcomers who brought vast sums of wealth from businesses abroad.
On July 7, the provincial government released preliminary data on Metro Vancouver home sales that alluded to how difficult it could be to separate foreign money from local buyers. The province’s analysis found that for a three-week period in June, foreign buyers accounted for just 5.1 percent of homes sold across Metro Vancouver. If foreign money is playing a large role in Vancouver real estate, the study suggests, it is finding its way into the market through buyers that the government counts as domestic.
Yuen Pau Woo is a former CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and a senior fellow at both UBC and SFU. He told the Straight how he has watched the debate shift as described above, which makes him wonder if the next turn in the conversation will move to immigration.
“If it goes in that direction, we’ve got to ask ourselves, are we a country that is open to immigration or not?” Woo said. “Do we welcome newcomers or not? Do we embrace openness or not?”



Bank of England hints at another rate cut

Bank of England hints at another rate cut

Mark Carney sassyBank of England Governor Mark Carney. Reuters/Dylan Martinez
The Bank of England held interest rates steady at their record low of 0.25% on Thursday, after the first meeting of the bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) since its historic rate cut in August.
Governor Mark Carney and the other eight members of the committee decided that taking Britain's interest rate closer to zero is not the best course of action to mitigate the economic risks posed by the UK's decision to leave the EU.
Thursday marked the first Monetary Policy Committee meeting since the Bank launched its post-Brexit stimulus package on August 4.
Holding steady at 0.25% was expected. Of all the economists and forecasters Business Insider spoke to prior to the decision, not a single one saw any new policy moves on Thursday.
As well as leaving interest rates, the Bank also voted 9-0 in favour of leaving its quantitative easing (QE) programme unchanged at a total of £435 billion.
However, the Bank once again signalled that it is likely to cut interest rates again later in the year, with minutes from the meeting showing that if the UK economy's performance is in line with the bank's August projections.
"A majority of members expect to support a further cut in Bank Rate to its effective lower bound at one of the MPC’s forthcoming meetings during the course of this year," it said.
Market expectations seem to be that the bank will cut to 0.1% in November, but not much lower, especially seeing as numerous MPC members have almost entirely ruled out taking interest rates into negative territory. Carney himself effectively drew a line in the sand in August, saying: "We’re not intending to move to negative interest rates. At least, I’m not intending to move to negative interest rates."
The MPC acknowledged that in recent weeks, economic data coming out of the UK has been substantially stronger than expected, noting: "Since the August Inflation Report, a number of indicators of near-term economic activity have been somewhat stronger than expected. The Committee now expect less of a slowing in UK GDP growth in the second half of 2016." The BoE said that its latest predictions now suggest GDP growth of 0.3% in Q3 of 2016, compared to 0.1% when it released projections in August.
The Bank of England took time to pat itself on the back for the effectiveness of the measures introduced in August, saying that they'd performed their role slightly better than expected.
"The package of measures announced by the Committee at its August meeting led to a greater than anticipated boost to UK asset prices. Short and long-term market interest rates fell notably following the announcement; corporate bond spreads narrowed, and issuance was strong; and equity prices rose. Since then, some of the falls in yields have reversed, driven by somewhat stronger-than-expected UK data and a generalised rise in global yields," a release from the BoE noted.
Sterling has taken a small leg down following the announcement. Just after 1:00 p.m. BST (8:00 a.m. ET) the pound is lower by roughly 0.2% against the dollar, having been flat on the day before the decision. Here's how it looks:
Screen Shot 2016 09 15 at 13.05.41Investing.com

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

ICAHN: Herbalife should go private

ICAHN: Herbalife should go private

Carl IcahnCarl Icahn. Dealbook Conference
Carl Icahn is asking regulators for the option to up his stake in Herbalife up to 50%.
That would be a huge increase since he is currently limited to 35% of shares. Icahn said he currently owns about 20% of Herbalife's shares.
Icahn said he is asking the FTC for permission to raise his stake. He also said that Herbalife would be better off as a private company to be rid of Bill Ackman, Icahn's rival who has famously shorted the company.
Icahn made the comments at the Delivering Alpha conference hosted by CNBC and Institutional Investor on Tuesday.
Herbalife is up 2.5% in after-hours trading after falling 3% earlier during trading hours on Tuesday.
More: Hedge Funds

Investors reluctant to back Monte Paschi's cash call

Investors reluctant to back Monte Paschi's cash call

A logo of Monte dei Paschi di Siena bank is seen on the ground in Siena, Italy, November 5, 2014. REUTERS/Giampiero Sposito/File Photo A logo of Monte dei Paschi di Siena bank is seen on the ground in Siena Thomson Reuters
By Simon Jessop and Maiya Keidan
LONDON (Reuters) - Investors are reluctant to back Monte dei Paschi di Siena's bid to raise billions of euros, leading fund managers and a source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters, posing a huge challenge for a new CEO seeking to save the Italian bank.
The lender, which is expected to name a new chief executive on Wednesday, must raise up to 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) as part of an emergency rescue plan to stave off the risk of being wound down and a wider banking crisis that would send shockwaves across Europe.
But its 45-billion-euro mountain of bad loans is deterring investors from backing it in its third recapitalization in as many years, according to four leading European fund managers and the investment banking source with knowledge of the matter.
Since the private sector-backed rescue blueprint was announced in late July, hundreds of investors had been sounded out about buying stock but interest has been lukewarm, said the source.
The source added this had triggered the departure of CEO Fabrizio Viola, who agreed to make way for a new boss to come in to persuade investors to back the cash call.
Gennaro Pucci, chief investment officer at London-based investor PVE Capital, said he would not buy shares because, even if a significant proportion of its bad loans were spun off into a special vehicle - as envisaged under the plan - he feared the bank could suffer further losses from remaining soured debt.
A similarly skeptical view was expressed by the other three European fund managers who told Reuters they would not be buying Monte dei Paschi equity. They declined to be named, saying their business dealings were confidential.
Monte dei Paschi declined to comment.
The 5-billion-euro cash call, which under the original plan was to be completed by year-end but now looks set to be delayed to early 2017, is a tall order for a lender that is worth just 679 million euros on the market and has burned through 8 billion euros from two previous share issues since 2014.
The bank emerged as the worst performer in European stress tests that showed its capital would be entirely wiped out in a severe economic downturn.
Its poor financial health threatens the wider Italian banking system, the savings of thousands of retail investors and the political standing of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. A financial crisis in the euro zone's third-biggest economy would also risk creating contagion across Europe, a region already reeling from Britain's decision to leave the EU.
BONDHOLDERS
If the attempt to raise capital from investors fails, it shifts the problem back to the Italian government. But heavily-indebted Italy would struggle to help.
Under new EU rules for dealing with bank crises, any state bid to help would require penalizing the banks' bondholders - a politically sensitive issue as many ordinary Italians own such debt – before any taxpayer money can be used.
    The government is also reluctant to ask for international aid, as that too would require Monte dei Paschi's existing investors to share some losses.
Monte dei Paschi's 45 billion euros of gross problematic loans represent around 40 percent of its total loans - a higher proportion than any Italian lender.
Under its rescue blueprint, it plans to transfer around 27 billion euros of its worst loans to a special vehicle which, in turn, will seek to repackage and sell them.
Even if it succeeds in getting rid of these loans, however, it would be left with billion of euros of so-called "unlikely to pay" loans, meaning it could face further losses.
A consortium of banks led by JP Morgan and Mediobanca has made a preliminary commitment to underwrite the bid for fresh cash.
However attempts to put the bank back on its feet have been dogged by uncertainty over the outcome of an upcoming constitutional referendum in Italy, and a competing search for fresh money from healthier Italian rival UniCredit.
The head of Bank of America Merrill Lynch in Italy, Marco Morelli, is widely expected to take over as Monte dei Paschi's chief executive.
Morelli was in Frankfurt on Tuesday to meet regulators at the European Central Bank, a source familiar with the matter said.
($1 = 0.8908 euros)
(Additional reporting by Silvia Aloisi in Milan; Editing by John O'Donnell and Pravin Char)
Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2016. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

The biggest M&A deal of 2016 is happening

The biggest M&A deal of 2016 is happening

The biggest M&A deal of 2016 is here.
Monsanto has agreed to the sweetened takeover deal by the German drugmaker Bayer.
The two have agreed to a $66 billion (£49.9 billion) deal, the companies announced on Wednesday.
Bayer raised its bid to acquire Monsanto, the US agricultural seed producer, to $128 a share.
The announced acquisition, including debt, is the biggest so far in 2016. It is a substantial markup on Bayer's opening bid of $122 a share earlier this year.
Monsanto rejected that offer in May, saying "the current proposal significantly undervalues our company and also does not adequately address or provide reassurance for some of the potential financing and regulatory execution risks related to the acquisition."
Bayer in July said it had since held private talks with Monsanto and had "comprehensively addressed Monsanto's questions concerning financing and regulatory matters and is prepared to make certain commitments to regulators."
It said it was willing to pay Monsanto $1.5 billion if the deal were blocked on antitrust grounds.
Bayer also raised its bid to $125 a share, which was again knocked back. The German drugmaker said it would be prepared to offer $127.50 only in connection with a negotiated deal.
Global agrochemicals companies are racing to consolidate, partly in response to a drop in commodity prices that has hit farm incomes.

Something very unusual just happened in the markets

Something very unusual just happened in the markets

Unusual sportsDarren Staples/Reuters
In isolation, a sell-off in bonds or stocks on any given day is not that unusual. Indeed, weakness in one often leads to strength in the other.
It is unusual, however, when both bonds and stocks sell down in tandem.
That is exactly what we've seen in recent days in the US not once but twice. The US S&P 500 index has fallen by over 1% while yields on the benchmark US 10-year note have risen by 3% from its previous closing level (not nominal terms).
VERY unusual.
According to analysis from sentimenTrader, this has occurred on just 36 occasions dating back to 1962.
It's little wonder that many investors don't know what to do next. If bonds and stocks are selling off in tandem, where is there to invest? Housing, gold, cash, tinned food, and a bunker in the desert?
To uncover what may happen next, analysts at sentimenTrader have turned to the past for inspiration.
The table below from the group looks at the performance of the S&P 500 index whenever stocks and bonds have sold off sharply in the same day going back to 1962. They have specifically looked at those occasions in which the index had traded at a 52-week high at some point in the past month.
sentimenTrader stocks analysisvia Business Insider Austrlia
If history is to repeat, it suggests that recent volatility is more likely than not to herald gains for US stocks over the medium to longer term. But history is not all that needs to be considered.
According to sentimenTrader, the returns for stocks are "about in line with random." In other words, statistically insignificant.
But when it comes to the yield on the US 10-year note, history suggests not only that it tends to rise after a sell-off in stocks and bonds but also that there is a statistically significant relationship.
sentimenTrader notes analysisvia Business Insider Australia
"The gains were enough to suggest significance, so it may not have meant much for stocks, but the risk/reward for notes and bonds suggested a higher likelihood of substantially higher rates versus lower ones," it says.
A "higher likelihood of substantially higher rates versus lower ones" — that sounds like a somewhat ominous warning for financial assets that have been bid to the moon on the back of the quantitative-easing trade, reliant upon a continuation of ultra-easy monetary policy to underpin market gains.
"Every market we follow looks ugly," the group said.
"According to the data and patterns we follow, there is not a positively skewed risk/reward in any of them, except for the volatility market itself, which is hard to trade without using complicated options strategies or woefully imperfect ETFs.
"Nothing has changed in that regard, and risk remains either neutral or above average in most markets."
Read the original article on Business Insider Australia. Copyright 2016. Follow Business Insider Australia on Twitter.

728 X 90

336 x 280

300 X 250

320 X 100

300 X600