Is It Time To Blame Investors For High Housing Prices?

Investing

8 minute read

December 4, 2023

Here’s a new one: why don’t we “blame” the current housing prices on the natural forces of supply and demand in a free market?

Meh.

What fun would that be?

We need a scapegoat!  A so-called boogeyman.

In fact, we’ve always needed one…

It’s been eight years – June 10th, 2015, to be exact, since I wrote a blog post here on TRB called “The Blame Game”

Eight years ago, I offered the following culprits that could be responsible for high housing prices.

1) The government.
2) CMHC
3) The Bank of Canada
4) Lenders
5) Realtors
6) Society
7) Buyers
8) The Free Market

Wow, this was so, so long ago.

Not only that, the average home price coming into that year was $566,611.

Don’t shoot the messenger, but it was $1,189,736 last year.

Indeed, eight years ago!  And yet not long after I wrote “The Blame Game” and named those eight sources for blame, society found a new culprit and one that remained an evil-doer for quite some time:

Foreign buyers.

This culprit was a fan-favourite for years, off-and-on.  And while we did find a few sexy targets for our frustration and real estate envy (AirBnB comes to mind…), the scorn for foreign buyers didn’t die down enough to avoid a “Foreign Buyer’s Ban” for two full years – a campaign promise by a government seeking office!

Yes, blame.

It’s been a regular theme in the real estate market and thus it’s been a regular theme on TRB.  So much so, in fact, that I was going to skip Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments from October whereby he blamed high housing prices on investors.

As I said: I was going to.

But then last week, I saw this article in the Toronto Star:

“Investors Now Own More Than 50% Of Toronto’s New Condos – And Experts Say They’re Driving Up Housing Prices For Everyone”
The Toronto Star
December 2nd, 2023

(sigh)

I couldn’t leave this topic unexplored.

Not only that, my dad paid me a visit on Sunday (after I had written the intro to today’s post…) and said a couple of things that made me want to pen this topic even more.

What did the soon-to-be 77-year-old oracle have to say?

Well, two things of note, but ironically, two things that sort of contradicted each other.

On the topics of Doug Ford, the Greenbelt, Bonnie Crombie, home prices, home security, the employment market, interest rates, and a host of other things all jumbled into one (and that was just in the foyer upon arrival! 😂), he said:

“I never heard of this ‘the government needs to build housing’ stuff before recently.  Not when I was a kid in the 50’s and 60’s, not when I was a young businessman in the 70’s and 80’s, and not even a couple decades ago.”

But then moments later, after I said that I didn’t care how housing was built, so long we got shovels in the ground, he said:

“Did you see The Star this weekend?  Half of all condos are owned by investors?  That’s not natural.  The system is broken.  There’s something wrong here.”

Perhaps those two statements don’t directly contradict one another, but once you dig into our “housing crisis” a little, you soon see that you simply can’t have it both ways.

The Toronto Star article from this weekend was a classic tale of woe, always beginning with somebody who puts their name on the affordability crisis, just to make it seem more real:

From the article:

Jaqueline Belardi doesn’t know if she’ll ever be able to afford a home even though she earns a good salary. Belardi and her partner make a combined income of more than $180,000, but saving up enough money for a down payment feels out of reach.

“We can’t just borrow $50,000 from our parents,” she said. “That seems like the only way younger people are able to buy property these days.”

There are a lot of assumptions, unknowns, and grey areas in these stories.

What is a “good salary,” for example, but also how much is a down payment.

Then there’s this:

“We think maybe we’ll just rent here forever, but then you’re at the whim of your landlord,” she said. “You see some landlords own 10 properties and here we are with a good income unable to buy an apartment. People deserve to buy a home if they want to.”

Define “deserve.”  And do so in less than a seventy-page thesis.

First though, define “whim of your landord.”  As we have explained many times here on TRB, the Landlord & Tenant Act, combined with the Landlord & Tenant Board, has made the province of Ontario a haven for tenants, and an absolute nightmare for landlords.

But the protagonist of this story isn’t wrong about the fundamentals of our market: Toronto is expensive, it’s become more expensive, and it’s becoming truly unaffordable for many.

However, the comment, “people deserve to buy a home if they want to” doesn’t detail the more important parts.

What house?  How much?  How big?  A red-brick Georgian tudor in Rosedale?  Or a condo in Ajax from which one may commute?

When?  What age?  In what market?  And for how much?

I don’t have the answer to the Toronto housing crisis, but I sure am willing to poke holes in the rhetoric.

This is a great article and I implore you all to read it, but one last section before we move on:

Around 80 per cent of pre-construction condos are sold to investors as condos have proved lucrative, appreciating by hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last 15 years, Desjardin’s Desormeaux said. Because of this, they’re now driving the type of housing stock being built in Toronto, which are not designed for families in mind.

Right.

Of course.

But when you consider how condos are built and financed in Ontario, there’s simply no other way.  This is the only way these things will actually get built.  So if investors aren’t buying them, they aren’t built, and if they aren’t built, then our housing crisis is worse.

But that doesn’t stop this type of opinion from growing like a weed:

“To Revive Canada’s Economy, Housing Prices Must Fall, Property Investors Must Take A Hit”
The Globe & Mail
October 28th, 2023

Hang on.

So we want investors to finance all new construction in Toronto but then we want them to “take a hit” as well.

From the article:

There’s probably no way around it: to revive the economy and overcome the housing crisis, property investors will need to take a hit, at least in relative terms.

The author lost me somewhere around the title of the article, but he surely would have lost just about everybody when he began to talk about “planned economies in the Soviet Bloc.”

No, seriously.  That was part of his argument.

The more I read, the less I understand.

Do we want to live in a planned economy?  No?  Okay.

So we don’t want the government to build and control all housing?  No?  Oh, alright.

So we do want the private sector to build housing?  Right.  And how is it built?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.

So why then do we get opinions like this from the highest office in the country?

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Blames Investors For ‘Commodification’ Of Housing”
Toronto.Com
October 26th, 2023

There’s the word: blame.

Right in the very middle of the headline.  Right where your eye wants to go first.

Here are the choice quotes from Mr. Trudeau:

“There are many factors that have gone into the housing crisis that people are facing right now. Whether it’s just the growth of our economy or the growth of our population. Whether it’s the success of our communities, or whether it’s under-investment by previous governments in housing over a very long time that requires us to step up in very strong ways right now,”

“But we do know that one of the factors that is challenging for so many people is the commodification of housing (and) the fact that people are using homes and houses as an investment vehicle — particularly corporations using homes as an investment vehicle — rather than families using them as a place to live, grow their lives and to build equity for their future.”

Look, we all know the game.  Politics.

He’s on the way out and he’ll do and say just about anything at this point, so this attitude comes as no surprise.

“Under-investment by previous governments in housing over a very long time” is a great way of saying, “It’s not my fault!”  And while he’s not wrong, since no government has ever invested “enough” in housing, in my opinion, it’s still a poor look.

But this just takes us right back to the start.

Who is going to build housing?

If it’s the private sector, then we can’t expect it to be bought exclusively by “families using them as a place to live, grow their lives, and to build equity for their future,” because, sadly, these aren’t the ones who can afford it.

As I wrote last week, the cost of building homes is extravagant!  Some 20-30% of the cost comes in the form of taxes, fees, levies, and monies paid to the three levels of government, and the land on which to build homes has never been higher.  Labour and materials aren’t far off their all-time highs, so who is going to buy these new homes if not investors?

If we somehow “banned” all investors tomorrow, housing starts and completions would halt.

Then what?

No, seriously, I’m asking…

I don’t need to rebut Mr. Trudeau’s comments from October because Murtaza Haider and Stephen Moranis, who are now well-known and well-read real estate analysts, did it for me in this article:

“Trudeau’s Bashing Of Real Estate Investors Shows Lack Of Understanding About Housing”
Financial Post
October 30th, 2023

I really liked the sub-title which read:

Trudeau should be the lead cheerleader in attracting investments to the housing sector, not the enemy

But not everybody sees it that way.

From the article:

Trudeau believes housing has been commodified by investors and corporations that use “homes as an investment vehicle — rather than families using them as a place to live, grow their lives and build equity for their future.”

The prime minister’s comments, which reflect his understanding of the housing crisis, or lack thereof, should alarm Canadians, especially those facing acute affordability challenges. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC), the federal government’s housing agency, believes 5.8 million homes must be constructed by 2030 to restore housing affordability. CMHC further estimates, rather conservatively, that this construction will require more than $1 trillion.

If it doesn’t come from investors, where will $1-trillion-plus come from in the next eight years?

Great question!

But who among us has the answer?

If the prime minister truly believes housing investors are part of the problem, Canada’s housing woes are likely to worsen, and the targets to restore affordability will certainly remain elusive. Vilifying investors is why investment in housing in this country has been lacking for decades. His comments do not help at a time when the nation desperately seeks housing investment on an unprecedented scale.

Trudeau could have been justified in his critique of investors if he had identified alternative funding sources. But he didn’t.

Let’s face it, housing is a commodity. Homes are bought, leased and sold. Every housing transaction involves an exchange of money. To suggest anything but is a disservice to the nation’s unmet housing needs.

True.

But logic, reason, common sense, empirical evidence, and often science are all thrown by the wayside in today’s world when feelings are more important.

It just doesn’t make any sense.  Everything is contradictory.

And while I’m not going to defend Doug Ford for what probably amounted to some shady dealings concerning the Greenbelt, I am going to suggest that I’m almost at the point of not caring if “the rich get richer” in the pursuit of building homes in Canada.  The CMHC stated last month that we’d need about $1 Trillion to “restore affordability” in Canada, or to build 744,000 houses per year!  Who is going to build this?  With what money?  Where?  When?  And how?

We’re not going to build on the Greenbelt and we’re not giving sweetheart deals to developers with track records of building.  Got it.

We don’t want investors to buy pre-construction condos.  Okay.

We do want condos to be built, even though they are financed by banks who want to see 80% of units pre-sold, usually to investors.  Okay.

We can’t afford to eliminate the 20-30% of the cost of building new houses that goes to the municipal, provincial, and federal governments.  Of course.

We have banned all foreign buyers.

We’re going to ban AirBnB’s.

We have a vacancy tax.

We have a luxury tax.

Oh, and now Housing Minister, Sean Fraser, believes: “If you are an adult working in Canada, you should be able to buy a home.”  No mention of your income, age, savings, credit, or where you want to buy, or what and for how much.

Does any of this make sense?

No?

But we’re still upset with investors, even though they’re housing millions and millions of Canadians who rent their homes?

I actually think this makes less sense now.

Either that, or I’ve simply got a case of the Mondays….

Written By David Fleming

David Fleming is the author of Toronto Realty Blog, founded in 2007. He combined his passion for writing and real estate to create a space for honest information and two-way communication in a complex and dynamic market. David is a licensed Broker and the Broker of Record for Bosley – Toronto Realty Group

Find Out More About David Read More Posts

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

11 Comments

  1. K

    at 6:43 am

    What about investors buying existing starter home housing stock (eg small bungalows, townhouses, semi-detached) and turning them into duplexes? I feel this has had the biggest impact. In the early 2000s, I bought a 3 bed 2.5 bath end unit townhouse in Ottawa on a single salary for 175K. That was my starter home. Sold in 2015 to relocate for work. At the peak in Feb 2022, it was worth approx 700K. Now around 600K. That would be impossible for me to buy now on the income I was earning at the time as a Junior hire. Even if i were dual income, it would be difficult.

  2. Sirgruper

    at 9:09 am

    My friend and his wife tried to downsize from his 3500 sq ft family home after the kids moved out to a 1600 sq ft condo. After 2 years the condo was cancelled. He then in 2017 bought again and sold and moved into rental until the building was built. He may get occupancy next year. Owners can’t for this reason buy pre construction condos (you have no idea when you will occupy it own it) and with no investors there are no condos. Maybe the government wants the system to collapse and then only the wealthiest developers can build condos on spec with their own funds or investor funds in the project and not in individual units) and buyers will buy as there are near move in ready. Land and labour will be cheaper with little competition. Then it will be only the richest developers but with the only new product in town the price will be high. Oligopolies built by government policy. Good planning.

    1. Steve

      at 10:36 am

      My perspective on pre-construction is everyone is an “investor” until the thing is actually built and they decide whether to move in or not. Of course most pre-construction horror stories involve people who didn’t think of themselves that way…

  3. Anwar

    at 10:25 am

    Sean Fraser’s comments were dangerous. He’s basically saying that everybody should own a home and those who don’t want or are unwilling to work should be provided with a home by the government. How does that incentivize people to seek employment? What does this tell the next generation of aspiring social media influencers about “real” work? And what of the 500k newcomers every year, many of whom come here without jobs?

  4. Steve

    at 10:34 am

    ““I never heard of this ‘the government needs to build housing’ stuff before recently. Not when I was a kid in the 50’s and 60’s, not when I was a young businessman in the 70’s and 80’s, and not even a couple decades ago.””

    On that timeline you didn’t hear about it because the government was actually doing it versus talking about doing it…so what was there to talk about. Victory homes? Ontario Housing Corporation? Federal Social Housing Program?

    You are hearing about it now because successive governments stopped doing it in roughly the late 80s and now there is a massive deficit in housing stock. Whether you dig out of that with public or private development is a different issue, but as you rightly point out private developers wont do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

  5. Gail

    at 12:05 pm

    David you are bang on with this article! Well said!

  6. JL

    at 12:07 pm

    I think the far more credible way of making this argument is not “investors=bad”, but whether there is a better or smarter way to approach the issue to make it more favourable to home owners over investors (e.g. through financial/tax incentives favoring one over the other, or disincentives favoring certain type of investments over others, etc).

    That is not to simply say “investors=bad guys” and need to be slammed, or “want a house=should be able to get a house”, but if as society we feel home ownership is a policy objective that we want to pursue, then there should be reasonable policy steps to take to move in that direction.

    That is, what can be done to make it more attractive for a first time buyer to buy a condo, and less attractive for an investor to do so? The condo gets bought in both cases, but policies could shift how many get purchased by each group.

  7. Bryan

    at 12:10 pm

    This seems super backwards to me.

    Do we really think that there was some sort of utopian era where housing prices weren’t going up and then suddenly a bunch of investors said “Hey, we need a piece of this completely flat market!” causing housing prices to explode? Seems a lot less likely than the alternative which is that for 30 years we have built new homes for fewer people than we have grown in population…. and that this drove housing prices up and attracted investment. Investment is certainly contributing to housing prices this point, but removing all the investors will just mean that rent skyrockets as there suddenly becomes nowhere to rent. So instead of not being able to afford to buy because the price is too high, people wont be able to buy because they are paying $9,000 a month in rent. The market is more powerful than quick fix policy. The way to decrease investment in property is to build enough of it that its value stops growing.

  8. Jimbo

    at 12:37 pm

    Reading this, I thought back to your blog post where you mentioned, your father said, “David, there are just some people you can’t compete with.” I believe it was a foreign buyer, or perhaps, it was someone with other sources of “passive” income.

    The only answers I can think of to this crises involve taking from the land owners in unfair ways to give to the public. I don’t think society is quite ready for that yet.

  9. Gallop

    at 3:43 pm

    From CMHC: “housing stock must climb to over 22 million housing units by 2030 to achieve affordability for everyone living in Canada. This translates to an additional 3.5 million new housing units beyond what will be built anyhow.”
    That’s in 7 years so 500,000 more housing units/year than projected.
    London Ont has about 250k housing units per my quick google.
    So we need the equivalent of 2 London sized cities to be built on top of what would normally be built. Every year…
    We need china style city building if you want affordability. That is the only option. Farmland and greenbelt in Ontario is completely at odds with affordability.
    Everything else is picking nits and tiny nits at that.
    I think we should just face reality. Housing will be unaffordable. We are reverting to our original species operating system:100% of our effort goes to the basics shelter, food, personal security, albeit at a much higher standard of living.
    Welcome to the consumer industrial complex. We get what we deserve. As has always been the case in this world, if you can’t make it work you’ll need to move somewhere that you can.

  10. Pam

    at 12:09 pm

    Well we really do need investment to BUILD condos and single family homes. Many investors are buying re-sales and outbidding our young families, pricing them out of the housing markets, this is not the investment we need. Our children can’t compete against billionaires.The perfect storm for this crisis, too much population growth and the wealthy investors taking away the future of our young families by buying re-sales. The greedy investors want to take away from all future middle class families, the competition pushes up prices. Look at the world wide housing crisis, investors taking over housing inventory and running up prices. They then increase rents to an unaffordable level creating renters living paycheck to paycheck. Check out how Blackrock in Europe ruined their markets. A greed machine that gobbles up everything in its path. Toronto’s Core developers on a greedy path to buy an additional 10,000.00 single family homes. They are not developers, they steal what is already built. This can be stopped by imposing a purchase tax for 15%-20% to give Canadian families a chance as the bidding prices
    would have to be reduced. The goverment perks on new condo rental builds are savings for rental builds only, not new condo builds for first time buyers. Liberals and conservatives have no plans to slow the investor takeover to help the average Canadian, both are for investors. Look at the policies around taxation that favour the rich and both goverment parties benefit as many own investment properties. We have good investors willing to build and add to housing inventory and the bad who only out bid families and take away their only wealth building asset and future. The investor take over is staggering so the young should get out there and demand a change. I am 67 and own my home, it should be your fight for your future. Being complicit will be detrimental to your future.

Pick5 is a weekly series comparing and analyzing five residential properties based on price, style, location, and neighbourhood.

Search Posts