[RichieP]

The metric that best predicts crashes is the private-debt-to-GDP ratio, and it's growth rate. This has not been grasped by mainstream economists but is thankfully rapidly gaining credence.

Countries with worrisome private-debt-to-GDP ratios:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2...3d5596ce5a

The UK and USA have already crashed in 2008, private-debt-to-GDP is now more manageable and what most likely awaits them is "the great stagnation".

But China, Australia, S. Korea, Canada and others are vulnerable - high debt-to-GDP ratios that have been growing fast. A Chinese crash would have massive global knock-on effects, particularly to exposed economies. Australia in particular is in a massive housing bubble, high debt-to-GDP, and a lot more exposed to the Chinese economy than UK/USA. I would not buy a house in Sydney any time soon.

[Troller]

Someone told me the boss of Louis Vuitton recently said he´s expecting a crash in the next 1-3 years. And he´s buying minority positions in LVMH companies because of that.

Just googled it for the rooshers:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/15/be-carefu...h-ceo.html

5 star Hotels in Paris lost 15% occupancy rates in recent years. But still you can sell for double an hotel bought 2-3 years ago. This shit doesn´t make sense. And actually scares the property owners. There is no fundamentals to sustain a price increase. But still it exists.

My 3 cents (1 cent due to inflation) is the stocks in US are overvalued. And the main factor which deploy crisis are central banks. They create the conditions for a crash to happen. With conditions created a number of factors can determine the sparkle. And there seems to be an inversion of cycle by the FED. But I could be wrong.

From rumours of the industry I´ve been hearing the year of the crash will be 2019. This things normally take more time than expected.

[Travel Museums]

Kid twist what are you talking about? How on earth has it been proven false that the market always grows. You're obviously missing my point. I'm not talking about a little bit of stagnation that's a blip in an 80 year investment portfolio. Big picture.

There will always be ups and downs. The Great Recession, even Depression was a down. Prolonged but temporary downs, after long ups. Followed by more ups. Look at every economic measure from GDP to the total NYSE points. The market always grows. LONG TERM.

What is the only way to keep your cash worth than inflation? Invest. Equities, housing, etc.

The market is down. Your cash is more valuable. Equities are undervalued. What do you do? Buy. Invest. It's so simple.

The markets up. You're worried it's overvalued. What do you do? Invest. Oh wait I should sell and clear profit first right? Wrong. The unmanaged index still outperforms slick Rick in the long run.

The USA always recovers and grows. Our military industrial complex supported by all your tax dollars insures this. Why do you think there are only two real political parties both of whom are controlled by the same donors?

Invest $50 a week for your entire life. If you have extra cash in a recession make a big move (odds are you'll chicken out).

Whats the point of all this analysis? How is it going to change anything in 99% of people's lives. It's a farce. Are you going to retire any earlier or have anymore money?

If you're not disciplined enough to actually invest a set amount regularly the answer is no. Your manipulating yourself.

How about I don a suit. Then you can pay me to manage your money buy-sell-buy-sell and in 50 years I'll be outperformed by a broad basket. You can pay me and still pay more for newspapers and cable tv shows. Devote time to it. And for what? Most of the growth is Facebook, Amazon, a few others. Take them out and your left with boring stuff.

I'm not some bull investor. Our economic system runs on debt. It's a Ponzi scheme. But unlessyour going to invest every cent into an off grid paradise you really have no choice but to play ball. In the event of a true collapse your money will be itchy toilet paper anyway.

[Australia Sucks]

SamuelBRoberts I don't doubt your source and believe that the guy said what you claimed he did, I just happen to think he is more likely to be wrong than right, but only time will tell. The same thing applies to the boss of Louis Vuitton. Economic and market predictions are notoriously difficult even for the well connected, and yes I could easily be wrong also.

Just to make my point the famous activist investor billionaire Carl Icahn has been warning of an impending market crash (multiple times) since late 2015.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/carl-...s-mirage-1

We all know how that call turned out.

RichieP Australia, Canada, etc do have growing private debt but its not yet at the level of hyperbolic growth that typically precedes a crash. Given how much control China exerts on their economy they can kick the proverbial can a long, long way down the road. Yes there will be an eventual China crash but the Chinese government has lot's of ammunition/levers to pull so its not happening any time soon.

Also Australia is not in a housing bubble. The two biggest cities Sydney and Melbourne are in a housing bubble. If you look at all the other capital cities the price increases over the past 10 years have been very modest. Also the affordability metrics in other cities are still good. Besides what is to say the Sydney and Melbourne bubbles cannot keep inflating? If you compare the prices in these cities to other global cities like London, San Francisco, or New York you will see that potentially prices could run a long way higher yet.

I mean look at the foreign currency reserves of China, their increasing gold holdings and look at the level of interest rates. The interest rates could be cut a lot further if needed for stimulus and currency could be weakened a little (not too much because that would cause a trade war). That's on top of spending stimulus the government could do.

I think 2019 or 2020 will be a mid cycle slowdown/correction rather than a fully fledged crash.

[SamuelBRoberts]

(07-19-2017 09:45 PM)Australia Sucks Wrote:  

SamuelBRoberts I don't doubt your source and believe that the guy said what you claimed he did, I just happen to think he is more likely to be wrong than right, but only time will tell. The same thing applies to the boss of Louis Vuitton. Economic and market predictions are notoriously difficult even for the well connected, and yes I could easily be wrong also.

Thanks for responding in a rational and calm manner. It's appreciated.

If I could judge who was truly right here, I wouldn't be posting on this forum I would be getting blown by a supermodel on the deck of my flying yacht. But it seemed relevant and something I should pass along.

[speculator]

When I say that the economy is not cyclical, I mean that economic crises are not caused by fundamental economic reasons anymore. The first real economic recession happened in 1819 and the last one after WWII. The energy crises of 1970s, hyperinflation of 1980s, national currency failures of late 1990s, dotcom busts of 2000 and the housing crash of 2007-08 are nothing else but speculator shenanigans. These crises have nothing to do with real economic metrics. They are intentionally created artificial bubbles to transfer wealth from general population to certain conglomerates.

I was lucky to attend one of the "elite" business schools in the world and had the privilege of meeting the originators of the above-mentioned crises. My derivative trading professor invited his buddy, the CFO of Lehman Bros, to lecture us and she was boasting about 98-to-1 leverage at Lehman right before the financial crisis. This means that a mere 1 percent drop in value would have wiped all equity of the bank. I had a chance to personally ask questions to the infamous CFO of Enron, Andrew Fastow, and what I learned about these guys is that they don't give a flying fuck about anything. Current economic troubles are a result of pure negligence and/or calculated operations to reduce competition and concentrate industries.

Stock buybacks are the major driving force of the current bull market. That shenanigan has been going on for the last five years and companies bought back trillions of dollars of their own stock. Even though 2017 was less active in this regard before July, after the banks passed their stress tests they reversed the trend by buying back $93 billion of stock in a single day. This is an all time record. Read the article below.

Stock Buyback Bonanza

The price to earnings ratio adjusted for inflation and other factors is at an all time high of 27.1, higher than before the Great Depression.

[Australia Sucks]

Speculator "professional" managers have never given a stuff about the consequences of their actions. This has been the case since the invention of the joint stock company. The invention of joint stock companies goes back possibly as far as 960 A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stoc..._companies

Of course once a joint stock company becomes large enough and "professional" managers are put in charge and get paid handsomely to take risks with other people's money they are going to take stupid risks or commit fraud because they benefit from the upside scenario while dodging the fallout of the downside. This has been going on for hundreds of years and way before even 1819! Just look at the South Sea bubble which occurred in the early 1700s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company

So your claim is misleading, yes these people are greedy, selfish psychopathic fucks with immense power but it sure as hell ain't a new phenomenon!

Adam Smith incorrectly theorized that "agency costs" and misaligned incentives would ultimately cause the demise of the "joint-stock company". His prediction has so far proved incorrect, despite the many frauds and stumbles which have occurred along the way. His an article talking about Adam Smith's views on joint stock companies.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/t...oblem.html

There are many reasons why Adam Smith's prediction on this topic did not come to pass, but I don't think its relevant for me to explain them here.

As for the impact of stock buybacks I believe I covered that already in my previous posts on this thread. With the main arguments being that only a small proportion of E.P.S. growth is coming from stock buybacks and also companies that did not have any stock buybacks have outperformed (in terms of total return) the companies that did have buybacks. Yes buybacks might have an influence on the margins but it is hardly the primary driver. The primary drivers of the current bull market are record profits and low interest rates.

I believe the 27.1 times p.e. you are quoting is a Schiller p.e. (current price versus average of last ten years earnings). The p.e. based on trailing twelve months earnings is much lower. Yes, the stock market is overvalued but I think it will remain overvalued given that corporate earnings continue to march higher and interest rates continue to remain low (albeit rising from a low base). Typically a catalyst is needed to cause a market crash as overvaluation by itself is rarely enough to cause a crash. I just don't see a catalyst on the short-term horizon that is powerful enough to cause a crash.

[Australia Sucks]

The S&P500 hit another all time new high this week. By the end of next week we will have a pretty good idea of the current earnings season reports for U.S. companies. By all accounts American companies generally will likely be posting higher earnings. Watch this space.

Weakness in housing starts in the U.S.A. (less new houses being built then expected) should continue to push house prices higher there.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/us-housi...-2017.html

The above article talks about the recent slowdown in housing construction.

[HOD]

(07-16-2017 01:22 PM)crdr Wrote:  

This is pure speculation. No one on earth can predict the future.

Not true, the international banks can, i.e. IMF and the Oligarchs that control the international banking system can control the future not predict it

[BB1]

(07-31-2017 05:12 AM)HOD Wrote:  

Not true, the international banks can, i.e. IMF and the Oligarchs that control the international banking system can control the future not predict it

Read some of the books by Nassim Taleb.

[Leonard D Neubache]

If everyone posting on this thread listed by percentage the increase in the net worth of their investments by year for, say, the last ten years, then we'd soon see what was what.

Frankly I can come in here and say "I talked to a guy who talked to a guy that said a hideous new virus is going to be released for which the only cure is bananas, so buy banana futures now!" Who's to say I'm wrong?

Who can say they've walked the walk, gained the gains, and why should we listen to anyone else?

[Australia Sucks]

Leonard I get where you are coming from but we need to try to keep the thread objective and not turn it into a dick swinging contest. If everyone did what you suggested it would cause the thread to devolve into a bragging contest, besides people can easily lie as nobody is verifying the results, so I do not see what purpose it serves.

Also comparing increases in net worth is only part of the story because different investors take different levels of risk and have different levels of income and savings. Do you really think the guy that made 500% in less than a year from Ethereum is smarter than the guy who made 30% in the same period in the stock market? Or is he just luckier or more risk tolerant?

That said if you feel this type of information is useful to you I am happy to send you some basic financial description/details about myself or answer questions via p.m. (I don't like to give a detailed run down of my personal financial situation on a public forum).

Rather than people stating empty opinion or idle speculation they should offer analysis/predictions/opinion backed by facts as I have tried to do. The analysis/predictions might be wrong but at least there is use of facts and analysis which others can use to form their own judgements.

People need to post and discuss figures like corporate earnings, interest rates, housing affordability, manufacturing, inflation, market history of returns, etc rather than just saying stuff like "my mate who works at Goldman says the market is primed for a crash" or "the market has been going up for 8 years so it must be due for a crash". Sure, they might have a mate who works at Goldman and he might have said that but it provides little analytical value.

[Australia Sucks]

Another indicator which does not indicate trouble as of yet is margin debt in the U.S. stock market.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dsho...the-market

If you look at the graphs in the article, in the first and third graphs you will note that the increase in margin debt over the past two years has been relatively modest as opposed to the parabolic rate of increase just prior to the bursting of the tech bubble or the Global Financial Crisis. A parabolic increase typically occurs right before a major market crash. If you decide to dig into data going further back than 1995 (where the graphs start) it will still confirm this general notion.

For Australian based readers the following link shows the total returns (price change plus dividends) returns of the Australian share-market from 1900 until 2016.
http://www.marketindex.com.au/sites/defa...raphic.pdf

Only in 10 out of 116 years did the Australian share-market (All Ordinaries) post a total annual return (share price change plus dividends) that was a double digit negative figure, which shows how rare crashes actually are. Now I admit this is not comparable to a statistical coin flip/roulette wheel because obviously after a strong run the chance of a crash increases, but I still think its less likely than people seem to think. Also its noteworthy that out of 116 years, 94 years (81% of the time) the market posted a positive return.

Look at the long term chart (pick the maximum option) of household debt to GDP in Australia:
https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/h...ebt-to-gdp
You will see from 2002 until around 2007/2008 the ratio increased from around 75% to around 110%. From 2009 until now its increased from around 105% to 125%. That is a much slower rate of increase. Usually credit growth hits frenzied levels just before a crash. We are not seeing that now. In fact over the past 12 months household debt to GDP has been flat. The fact that absolute levels of debt to GDP are higher now is merely a function of the fiat money system that we operate in.

Look at this graph (pick the max option)
https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/p...tor-credit
You will see private sector credit growth is actually currently low by historical standards. Again a low level (low percentage increases) of private sector credit growth is not what typically precedes a crash.

Look at the Australian Household savings ratio (again pick the max option for the chart)
https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/personal-savings
It has been trending down in recent years but its still nowhere near as low as it was during the tech wreck or global financial crisis indicating that perhaps households are not as confident and not engaging in the level of optimism/recklessness that you would expect to see before a major crash.

Now I could discuss all of these indicators for the U.S. market or the U.K., etc but they would paint a similar story so its not necessary.

Conclusion:
Crashes are rare. Also although debt levels are historically high (and savings rates are low) we are not seeing an exponential blow off top or extreme levels of speculation that you typically expect to see immediately prior to a major market crash.

[Kid Twist]

One of the best points AS has set forth is that usually the big crashes are in fact when everyone thinks "Things are great!" That's hardly the case right now. Ask Peter Schiff, lol

I have gone near 180 from thinking the fundamental flaws of the USA would catch up to realizing they'll be a nice correction and then another steamroll bull run, which everyone will still also claim to be skeptical of. It'll last, I agree, towards the middle of next decade if I had to guess. That also perfectly fits with the huge zenith of boomers and their sure fire social system stresses of mid 2020s.

This is where I have been convinced Martin Armstrong is right --- ECB and other world markets are in WAY bigger trouble than the US, if anyone is in fact in trouble. That just creates more momentum towards capital shifting even more out of those and ... into the US equities.

[Australia Sucks]

Currently all the bears/Cassandras like Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, etc who keep warning of a market crash a getting a lot of air time and consideration and nobody is ridiculing them. Not to mention all the China bears who get a lot of respect.

Typically by the time a crash is about to hit all the bears/cassandras will either be dead or broke or if they are still around people will be laughing at them and insulting them. Go and watch youtube videos of Peter Schiff back in 2007. He was warning about the crash on financial tv shows and guests and hosts on the shows were laughing at him, insulting him, etc Compare that to when he speaks today and you can see people actually consider his viewpoint (even if they disagree).

Very few people are strongly bullish on the market. How many people do you know of talking about a continuing/coming stock market boom?

[Australia Sucks]

Not really a space I like to play in, but for U.S. investors looking to invest in junior gold stocks there appears to be still a lot of pessimism in the sector suggesting its perhaps a good time to get in.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1440/hui-to-gold-ratio

[nomadbrah]

Interesting, all the financial analysis is out of my sphere of knowledge, but I believe it is important to look at bigger cultural macro trends, when analysing real estate.

First of all, a crash in real estate now would mean a crash in city real estate. All the rural real estate never recovered. Can't be sold. Not in a bubble.

So it's city real estate we're talking about and there are some strong drivers of demand:

- Continued singles lifestyle (double demand for apartments)
- Immigration (feeds locals into private real estate)
- Increased migration from rural to city
- Increased college education rates

And so on. All these things means a lot more people into the cities.

In most countries, the real estate people should look at is suburban houses, because these are owned by debt-ridden boomers.

When they die off en masse, what is going to happen? At the moment a lot of financial policy is done to keep a hand under these insolvent boomers. Then they die. No more bail outs.

Boomers are about 65-70 years old. They have generally aged well and will live fairly long. Lets say 80 years on average. That puts the impending melt down about 10-15 years away realistically.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(07-31-2017 12:20 PM)Australia Sucks Wrote:  

Leonard I get where you are coming from but we need to try to keep the thread objective and not turn it into a dick swinging contest. If everyone did what you suggested it would cause the thread to devolve into a bragging contest, besides people can easily lie as nobody is verifying the results, so I do not see what purpose it serves.

Also comparing increases in net worth is only part of the story because different investors take different levels of risk and have different levels of income and savings. Do you really think the guy that made 500% in less than a year from Ethereum is smarter than the guy who made 30% in the same period in the stock market? Or is he just luckier or more risk tolerant?
...

Did you read my post? I was very careful with my wording.

Quote:

If everyone posting on this thread listed by percentage the increase in the net worth of their investments by year for, say, the last ten years, then we'd soon see what was what.

There are a million idle speculators on the internet that can come up with a good economic rationale for anything.

Nobody should trust the advice of anybody in this field unless they have a good ten year track record behind them ("and still some skin in the game" I would hasten to add).

Most people aren't even willing to say "on the basis of these predictions I have invested $xxx,xxx". Call me a grumpy Gus if you like. I don't get my kicks out of idle market speculation. Perhaps others do. But with no skin in the game isn't it just a bit of a circle-jerk? Say what you want about people that go to the races and don't bet, but at least the horses are exciting to watch. To my mind this is like going to the races with empty pockets when the horses run at .0002 kilometers per hour.

Maybe what the RVF needs in this field is a provable and quantifiable competition where people list their investments which can be tracked over time. Like a unbiased rep system for economic nous.

[TheFinalEpic]

Historically, interest rates have not been this low, so your argument that they need to be much higher to constitute an indication of a crash is flawed. You also clearly are unaware of what is going on in the Canadian real estate market. Now, do I believe doomsday is around the corner? Couldn't care less, my strategies are over a much smaller time period. However the growing P/E of many companies is indicative of a system that is bloating.

[TheFinalEpic]

(07-19-2017 08:07 PM)Travel Museums Wrote:  

Kid twist what are you talking about? How on earth has it been proven false that the market always grows. You're obviously missing my point. I'm not talking about a little bit of stagnation that's a blip in an 80 year investment portfolio. Big picture.

There will always be ups and downs. The Great Recession, even Depression was a down. Prolonged but temporary downs, after long ups. Followed by more ups. Look at every economic measure from GDP to the total NYSE points. The market always grows. LONG TERM.

What is the only way to keep your cash worth than inflation? Invest. Equities, housing, etc.

The market is down. Your cash is more valuable. Equities are undervalued. What do you do? Buy. Invest. It's so simple.

The markets up. You're worried it's overvalued. What do you do? Invest. Oh wait I should sell and clear profit first right? Wrong. The unmanaged index still outperforms slick Rick in the long run.

The USA always recovers and grows. Our military industrial complex supported by all your tax dollars insures this. Why do you think there are only two real political parties both of whom are controlled by the same donors?

Invest $50 a week for your entire life. If you have extra cash in a recession make a big move (odds are you'll chicken out).

Whats the point of all this analysis? How is it going to change anything in 99% of people's lives. It's a farce. Are you going to retire any earlier or have anymore money?

If you're not disciplined enough to actually invest a set amount regularly the answer is no. Your manipulating yourself.

How about I don a suit. Then you can pay me to manage your money buy-sell-buy-sell and in 50 years I'll be outperformed by a broad basket. You can pay me and still pay more for newspapers and cable tv shows. Devote time to it. And for what? Most of the growth is Facebook, Amazon, a few others. Take them out and your left with boring stuff.

I'm not some bull investor. Our economic system runs on debt. It's a Ponzi scheme. But unlessyour going to invest every cent into an off grid paradise you really have no choice but to play ball. In the event of a true collapse your money will be itchy toilet paper anyway.

This is a dangerous mindset. It's why real estate crashed so hard in 07-08 because "it can only go up!"

Read a book or two on hedge funds then tell me the market can't be beat.

[Australia Sucks]

Leonard you can start a thread where people post there total investment portfolio and their buy and sell decisions live and see how it goes. It could turn out to be an interesting thread.

However it should be noted a lot of people do not like to post their whole investment portfolio on the internet apart from the usual privacy reasons. One reason people might not like to do that is because it creates competition for their ideas.

Sure if you are buying shares in Apple and you write about its not going to make any difference to the price of Apple shares, but what about if you are trying to accumulate a position over a long period of time in an illiquid micro-cap stock? 5 or 10 other guys buying into stock could push the price up before you are finished buying. What about if you are buying multiple properties over time in a small niche tightly held suburb where very few properties come onto the market?

Yes an ideal world we would have evidence of everybody's track record before they posted their economic/market commentary but it does not appear likely to happen. So if you want you can choose to read the opinions and analysis that people post and use your own judgement and research to determine if you think it has merit or not. That or you can choose to ignore people's opinions. The point is to be exposed to different opinions and sources/links to research you have not read before. Its not supposed to be that somebody says something and you think "right this guys a genius so whatever he says is likely to be right so I'll just blindly follow his recommendations"

In regards to my own market commentary like I said before I am happy to p.m. you details about my investments and track record if you want it. I never claimed to be a financial genius. I am just a guy who has done above average and made a bit of money from the markets over a ten year period.

TheFinalEpic Canada's housing market is admittedly a mixed bag with some cities doing well and others not so well. However the overall Canadian housing market has not collapsed yet and is still doing okay and I do not believe it will collapse in the near term. Am I not suggesting people should rush out and buy any old overpriced Canadian property on a low yield for investment. I am just saying people should not be unduly worried about a collapse in the near term.

For example if you live in Canada and own a house and have a mortgage on it, there is no need to sell your house and rent because you think the market is about to collapse. Also I think if people in Canada want to buy a home to live in they should do it (although proceed with caution and careful planning) rather than wait for a market collapse that is unlikely to come.

To me the fact that in Canada central bankers, bank economists, housing market analysts, etc all seem worried about a housing crash seems to confirm (of course when considered in conjunction with all the other evidence I talked about) that its not likely to come soon. If everybody is worried about crash its unlikely to happen because their money is not in the market. Also a market whether the housing market or the stock market can keep moving higher for a long time on falling transaction volumes. There is no reason that falling transaction volumes must cause a crash. Could Canadian house prices drop 5% sometime this year or next? Sure, but that is no reason to get your knickers in a knot.

[christpuncher]

^ Haven't you heard? Toronto housing is crashing as we speak.

http://www.lowestrates.ca/blog/homes/has...ve-dropped

New Ontario Lesberal laws that tax foreign buyers and even further tighten rental regulations. (Perhaps some real estate "investors" are starting to realize that a 4% cap rate doesn't make for a good business plan?)

Plus interest rate increases and more on the horizon, which if America keeps tightening Canada will have to follow suit no matter what.

And lastly demographics are really coming to a head. Boomers aren't retiring in the near future anymore, they are ready, now.

[Australia Sucks]

Christpuncher my view is that its more than likely a temporary correction and you may well see Toronto house prices at new record highs sometime next year. Also to put into context when you are looking at very short-term periods prices can be volatile. Prices are still higher than they were in January. Can prices drop a little lower? Sure they can.

At the very real risk of ending up with egg on my face I think you will likely see record highs (or at the very least higher prices than today) in Torronto again sometime next year.

[Australia Sucks]

Although I have some relatives in Canada I am obviously no expert on the Canadian housing market. Even if I am wrong on Toronto I still don't think the overall housing market in Canada will crash anytime soon. Besides the property market of one city crashing by itself is usually not enough to implode the economy. The overall housing market in Canada has started to drop already but not as much as Torronto and I think its likely to be a shorter term pullback before it starts heading higher again.

Here is someone with a bullish view (admittedly though its self-interest/bias)
https://www.thestar.com/business/real_es...pside.html

Here is another bullish article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nathan-daut..._22492197/

[TheFinalEpic]

(08-04-2017 10:17 AM)Australia Sucks Wrote:  

Although I have some relatives in Canada I am obviously no expert on the Canadian housing market. Even if I am wrong on Toronto I still don't think the overall housing market in Canada will crash anytime soon. Besides the property market of one city crashing by itself is usually not enough to implode the economy. The overall housing market in Canada has started to drop already but not as much as Torronto and I think its likely to be a shorter term pullback before it starts heading higher again.

Here is someone with a bullish view (admittedly though its self-interest/bias)
https://www.thestar.com/business/real_es...pside.html

Here is another bullish article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nathan-daut..._22492197/

Real estate is gaining in our percentage of GDP, and represented half of it's growth in 2016. Vancouver has cooled off significantly as normal people cannot afford housing. The Canadian market is essentially 2 cities. All other provinces are currently struggling tremendously.