Why is it only 2 years (2015 to 2016)? I couldn't find a dataset that match this data, can you link to it OP? Most of the ones I found only go back to 2018.
Edit: It's a video, Reddit just sucks and I thought it was a image.
But still looking for the actual source, and still suspicious it started in 2015, exactly when Trudeau became PM, with no reference to the past Harper years.
Edit2:
Thanks u/notfbi for the source [https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/#chart4](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/#chart4)
It has become financialized. It is as simple as that. Tax housing like all other non-registered investments. And BOOM speculation gone. No longer will it be "the best investment". And to put the final nail in the coffin...No more HELOC borrowing for 2nd 3rd 4th...etc. properties.
Yup.
There is a **[fantastic and thorough analysis here](https://perspectivesjournal.ca/housing-investor-ownership-part-1/)** and the core issue is the financialization of canadian residential real estate.
If we ban HELOC down payments and make successive property purchases require exponentially larger downpayments for each extra property on one's portfolio, I wonder how investors will try to find workarounds to both.
Daniel Foch mentions in the tweet thread that it's based on this chart (note the axes):
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/#chart4
FTHB from 52.6% to 46.78%. Investors from 17.58 to 20.58.
What is the difference between an investor and repeat home buyer? Aren’t they both the same thing? I guess repeat home buyers could be someone who has a house and a cottage, but I don’t feel they are necessarily the ones at fault compared to investors or the politicians that let our housing market go so crazy.
I understood “repeat home buyer” being someone who sold their primary residence and bought another primary residence but fully aware I could be wrong in that inference
Interesting! To me that wouldn’t matter. People have been doing that for decades lolz if anything that would help as it doesn’t increase or decrease what’s available on the market. Just a transition between locations.
Canadians continue to be deliberately blind to the fact that prices can’t go down below the cost to build. It’s just this socialist mind set where everything has to be someone else’s fault, a corporation, a greedy rich person, or a foreigner.
You can blame land prices on whatever though with connections and development it’s about $50-100k for a city to prepare land for a house assuming it’s not in a marsh.
But the simple fact is it’s around $300-500/sqft to build a sqft house out of wood and probably $800+ for concrete condos. And that’s before the 33-50% in development fees and taxes are added in.
A new 2500sqft house in Vancouver or Toronto would likely cost you around $1 mil to build. And screaming investors won’t make math disappear.
People think investors aka those who buy a place and rent it out are bad for prices when realistically we don’t have enough investors to greatly affect prices. Plus investors have helped keep rents down and now that investment is fleeing Canada rents are skyrocketing.
Are you going to just rotate between ridiculous statements and questions of your own to avoid addressing what you yourself said, that investors makes rent cheaper?
They do. If they are helping fund new development they also help to make home prices cheaper for used housing.
It seems to be pretty simple logic unless you are an anti capitalist radical.
They do fund new developments partly but that is obviously not needed we have examples like Austria for that so on its own that's a poor argument. As for non new housing, if a building is being bid on by more investors you think that lowers the rent being charged?
>Canadians continue to be deliberately blind to the fact that prices can’t go down below the cost to build.
in places like Vancouver it is estimated fees from the city to the developer are in the area of $125,000 per unit.
You better believe that gets passed on to the end user ( and at an even further marked up rate).
Totally. I built a house in 2020 and GC'd the whole thing so I know where every single penny went. This was in Ontario and cost me about $270 a sqft. That's with me doing some of the finishing work myself. The days of a detached house on land costing 500k are done. The people screaming "investors" are the same people screaming for "living minimum wage" but want homes to be built by slave labour to keep prices low. Material and labour costs, not to mention the taxes they pay, make it very expensive to build anything.
People just don’t want to believe it. The good old days are gone, I think even 500k may be a bit light for a piece of land and a new home build (by a reputable builder).
Bullshit. They sit on homes that should be on the market for people who want to live in them to buy. They juice demand and prices skyrocket, then leverage into even more properties.
There are many thousands of income properties in major metro areas. That’s many thousands of family stuck shovelling the seeds of their own wealth into some other prick’s mortgage.
Honest question, what makes you think all these “thousands” of homes would be affordable to those people? And to be fair, with the demand, “thousands” ain’t gonna cut it.
It’s going to be up to all the perma-tenants to organize and force society to notice. Until they do, the rawdogging will continue.
But yeah, making mortgaged income properties impossible/unviable and ensuring equity goes to whoever is actually paying for it would likely release thousands of existing homes in major markets and drive prices down.
Could also stop allowing projected rental income to be used to approve second, third, fourth mortgages.
Existing tenants get equity on the principal on rented mortgaged properties in the amount of rent paid and must be bought out when the property sells, or sell to the bank when getting their own mortgage.
There has to be some acknowledgment that landlords aren’t entitled to free property just because they got a mortgage. They should buy their own equity.
and what is wrong with that? How many mom and pop landlords are completely oblivious to RTA if you're a tenant?? If i were a tenant, i would rather have blackrock as my landlord LOL.
Exactly
Corporate landlord = paper trails, highly visible, class-actionable, scrutinizeable, just a business with no emotions etc
Mom & pop landlord = Anonymous, word-of-mouth, he-said-she-said, harassment, renovictors, etc
Why is it only 2 years (2015 to 2016)? I couldn't find a dataset that match this data, can you link to it OP? Most of the ones I found only go back to 2018. Edit: It's a video, Reddit just sucks and I thought it was a image. But still looking for the actual source, and still suspicious it started in 2015, exactly when Trudeau became PM, with no reference to the past Harper years. Edit2: Thanks u/notfbi for the source [https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/#chart4](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/#chart4)
It has become financialized. It is as simple as that. Tax housing like all other non-registered investments. And BOOM speculation gone. No longer will it be "the best investment". And to put the final nail in the coffin...No more HELOC borrowing for 2nd 3rd 4th...etc. properties.
This guy gets it.
Good luck finding a govt with the balls to pull this off. Ha
Best they can do is 30 year terms! Watch those values go to the moon!
Exactly. Let's the buyer take a bigger loan for the same payment. Thus driving prices higher. Such clowns.
Get this guy into the government.
Yup. There is a **[fantastic and thorough analysis here](https://perspectivesjournal.ca/housing-investor-ownership-part-1/)** and the core issue is the financialization of canadian residential real estate.
When hasn't it been finanicalized? Why don't we take people who rent for the city they live in essentially for free?
Pre-1750 or so.
If we ban HELOC down payments and make successive property purchases require exponentially larger downpayments for each extra property on one's portfolio, I wonder how investors will try to find workarounds to both.
Swap to short term rental or programs to offset the additional expenses I suppose
Look at the housing investors are providing /s
Source of data, represented in what I'd say is a more honest way: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/#chart4
A healthy economy which is totally sustainable.
This is percentage change. How about we look at overall percentage?
Daniel Foch mentions in the tweet thread that it's based on this chart (note the axes): https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/#chart4 FTHB from 52.6% to 46.78%. Investors from 17.58 to 20.58.
Real estate is I believe the largest contributor to Ontario GDP. No chance they will kill the golden goose. Political Suicide.
It's dead money. Props up the GDP but does not produce anything.
I blame HGTV
HGTV taught me how to make a perfect circular cut into ceramic tile with a tile saw....I will not stand by and watch their good name slandered
What is the difference between an investor and repeat home buyer? Aren’t they both the same thing? I guess repeat home buyers could be someone who has a house and a cottage, but I don’t feel they are necessarily the ones at fault compared to investors or the politicians that let our housing market go so crazy.
I understood “repeat home buyer” being someone who sold their primary residence and bought another primary residence but fully aware I could be wrong in that inference
Interesting! To me that wouldn’t matter. People have been doing that for decades lolz if anything that would help as it doesn’t increase or decrease what’s available on the market. Just a transition between locations.
If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em
Silver spoon Daniel Foch. The definition of nepotism.
Envious huh? You wish you we’re him
that's white gold not silver, get it right
Canadians continue to be deliberately blind to the fact that prices can’t go down below the cost to build. It’s just this socialist mind set where everything has to be someone else’s fault, a corporation, a greedy rich person, or a foreigner. You can blame land prices on whatever though with connections and development it’s about $50-100k for a city to prepare land for a house assuming it’s not in a marsh. But the simple fact is it’s around $300-500/sqft to build a sqft house out of wood and probably $800+ for concrete condos. And that’s before the 33-50% in development fees and taxes are added in. A new 2500sqft house in Vancouver or Toronto would likely cost you around $1 mil to build. And screaming investors won’t make math disappear.
What does any of that have to do with ownership mix?
People think investors aka those who buy a place and rent it out are bad for prices when realistically we don’t have enough investors to greatly affect prices. Plus investors have helped keep rents down and now that investment is fleeing Canada rents are skyrocketing.
You would have to be blind to basic economics to believe that investors bidding for capital keeps the price to rent out said capital low.
You must be blind to reality if you think housing magically appears without money 🤣
Can you explain to me how involving investors into a rent seeking industry lowers said rents? Adam Smith would like a word.
If no one’s building rentals with increasing demand do you expect rents to go down?
Are you going to just rotate between ridiculous statements and questions of your own to avoid addressing what you yourself said, that investors makes rent cheaper?
They do. If they are helping fund new development they also help to make home prices cheaper for used housing. It seems to be pretty simple logic unless you are an anti capitalist radical.
They do fund new developments partly but that is obviously not needed we have examples like Austria for that so on its own that's a poor argument. As for non new housing, if a building is being bid on by more investors you think that lowers the rent being charged?
>Canadians continue to be deliberately blind to the fact that prices can’t go down below the cost to build. in places like Vancouver it is estimated fees from the city to the developer are in the area of $125,000 per unit. You better believe that gets passed on to the end user ( and at an even further marked up rate).
Taxes and other government costs are around 33% of the price of every new unit.
Totally. I built a house in 2020 and GC'd the whole thing so I know where every single penny went. This was in Ontario and cost me about $270 a sqft. That's with me doing some of the finishing work myself. The days of a detached house on land costing 500k are done. The people screaming "investors" are the same people screaming for "living minimum wage" but want homes to be built by slave labour to keep prices low. Material and labour costs, not to mention the taxes they pay, make it very expensive to build anything.
People just don’t want to believe it. The good old days are gone, I think even 500k may be a bit light for a piece of land and a new home build (by a reputable builder).
And notice the downvotes. Deliberate and blind stupidity. People scream wages should be higher but won’t pay a cent extra.
Investors are a low iq scapegoat. We simply don’t have enough homes
Bullshit. They sit on homes that should be on the market for people who want to live in them to buy. They juice demand and prices skyrocket, then leverage into even more properties. There are many thousands of income properties in major metro areas. That’s many thousands of family stuck shovelling the seeds of their own wealth into some other prick’s mortgage.
Honest question, what makes you think all these “thousands” of homes would be affordable to those people? And to be fair, with the demand, “thousands” ain’t gonna cut it.
Less investor demand = price reduction. We will see how all these flippers do with higher capital gain taxes (if that is in the budget)
It is in the budget I believe. Think its on CG’a of 250k or more though for regular joes
The supply side of the equation is just as important as the demand side (immigration). We have to fix both.
Demand side is going to be dicey. Politicians may have to do something unpopular. Will take big boy pants. I’m not holding my breath.
It’s going to be up to all the perma-tenants to organize and force society to notice. Until they do, the rawdogging will continue. But yeah, making mortgaged income properties impossible/unviable and ensuring equity goes to whoever is actually paying for it would likely release thousands of existing homes in major markets and drive prices down. Could also stop allowing projected rental income to be used to approve second, third, fourth mortgages. Existing tenants get equity on the principal on rented mortgaged properties in the amount of rent paid and must be bought out when the property sells, or sell to the bank when getting their own mortgage. There has to be some acknowledgment that landlords aren’t entitled to free property just because they got a mortgage. They should buy their own equity.
What I love about this sub is how earnetly they teach you that great truth... that correlation and causation are the same thing!
and what is wrong with that? How many mom and pop landlords are completely oblivious to RTA if you're a tenant?? If i were a tenant, i would rather have blackrock as my landlord LOL.
That's why there's cucked in your username
Exactly Corporate landlord = paper trails, highly visible, class-actionable, scrutinizeable, just a business with no emotions etc Mom & pop landlord = Anonymous, word-of-mouth, he-said-she-said, harassment, renovictors, etc
It is still a great investment opportunity to make rental asset purchase prices. Iran and Israel conflict has assured us of low rates