News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2.1K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.5K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 764     0 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

Riverdale Rink Rat said:
http://resourceinvestingnews.com/28174-canada-tsx-invest.html

I don't disagree with your bubble assessment on condos, but your foreign ownership meme is flat-out wrong. Currently, 40% or so of TSX trading is 'foreign', and I'm sure every stockbroker in the city would like that to be upped substantially if it meant a corresponding rise in volume and revenue. Don't fear the foreigner - fear anyone buying overpriced assets to flip.
Click to expand...

40% of ownership isn't a big deal. What we're talking about in Toronto over the last 2-3 years is 80% foreign ownership. Besides that, you missed the main point I made, and that is that housing should not be treated like equities because they are fundamentally different. Housing is more like a natural resource - and you can see how much oversight there is when it comes to foreign ownership of that. There is no incentive for a foreign owner to dump any excess RE investments should they start to lose money or should they just decide that they need the money back home. When they do this they affect our local economy greatly. Selling an equity for the exact same reasons causes....nothing except a possible drop in share price - that can be offset by thousands of other transactions and is meaningless unless another person who owns that share also has to sell it.

There is a reason Japan, Australia, the UK, France, etc. all collect data on foreign RE purchases. If the TCHC and the government had its head on straight, it would be ready to go on a buying spree in a couple of years. It could cut the waiting list for social housing in half by purchasing all the distressed and lower value properties, create instant integration of lower income into higher income, and stop a huge glut from seriously hurting the country's GDP.
 
^ ^ ^

i think you meant CMHC, not TCHC.

considering almost every other nation has limits on foreign ownership (ie. USA, HK, China, Australia), it's dumbfounding why Canada doesn't.
 
neubilder said:
My use of the term slumlord is with respect to landlords, not tenants, and it refers to the nature of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, not the cost of the housing. Slumlords exploit individuals that have few choices and do the bare minimum to keep the rent rolling in. "If you don't like it some other poor sucker will take it" is the general attitude of a slumlord, whether it's a property management company or an individual. Slumlords and nightmare tenants go hand in hand because it is a mutually contemptuous relationship.

It is possible to provide lower income housing without being a 'slumlord'. I owned and rented out a large house (that I designed and built) for years that was very affordable and also a great place to live. People were excited to live there - I never had to look for tenants because once good tenants were in there they would find friends to replace themselves. Six years without a vacancy. Even if the rent is cheap, if the accommodations are clean, uplifting, have good light, decent ceiling heights, are properly maintained, and offer a level of dignity to the tenants, then the term slumlord doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

^commendable & exemplary. Unfortunately the model for affordable housing doesn't often approach the level of detail and care that you obviously invested in your asset which no doubt provided you with an excellent return on your efforts.
 
simuls said:
40% of ownership isn't a big deal. What we're talking about in Toronto over the last 2-3 years is 80% foreign ownership.
Click to expand...

I guess it's possible that there are some condo projects with 80% foreign ownership (although that sounds really, really high -- 80 out of every 100 units in a building?) there is NO WAY that Toronto real estate or even condos have been anywhere near that kind of number.

simuls said:
Besides that, you missed the main point I made, and that is that housing should not be treated like equities because they are fundamentally different. Housing is more like a natural resource - and you can see how much oversight there is when it comes to foreign ownership of that. There is no incentive for a foreign owner to [not] dump any excess RE investments should they start to lose money or should they just decide that they need the money back home. When they do this they affect our local economy greatly. Selling an equity for the exact same reasons causes....nothing except a possible drop in share price - that can be offset by thousands of other transactions and is meaningless unless another person who owns that share also has to sell it.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss your argument, I fundamentally disagree with it (it will not surprise you that I disagree with your point on foreign ownership of natural resources or telecommunications or banks or anything else, at the same time). I have no issue with regulating an industry, but I do have an issue with the idea that a foreign owner would be any more or less 'evil' than a Torontonian. A speculator is a speculator. Nationality has nothing to do with it. IIRC, there's been a lot of crass Canadians but no foreign companies accused of letting Heritage homes rot rather than fixing them up.


simuls said:
There is a reason Japan, Australia, the UK, France, etc. all collect data on foreign RE purchases. If the TCHC and the government had its head on straight, it would be ready to go on a buying spree in a couple of years. It could cut the waiting list for social housing in half by purchasing all the distressed and lower value properties, create instant integration of lower income into higher income, and stop a huge glut from seriously hurting the country's GDP.
Click to expand...

The only reason any of those countries cited collect data on foreign ownership would be for taxes. If they collect it for any other reason, they're not casting themselves in a very good light.

As for TCHC, if the crash comes to pass as you expect, why wouldn't lower income families take advantage themselves? I bet they will!
 
A bungalow with 36x124ft lot on my parents street in Humber Summit sold for 96% of list, 550K'ish. I thought they asked too much, its 70s style with dark wood paneling in the basement, original kitchens, original exterior, it needs a lot of work to look up-to-date. It took almost a month to sell, but they found someone... A house a few doors down sold for 500K'ish 10 years ago, but interior/exterior were completely redone with stone facade etc, that one looked nice. Prices are pretty flat there unless you're an original owners from 20 or 30 years ago, then you're up at least 400K.

I would never move back to this area from my downtown condo, it's very poorly served by TTC, but there are a lot of schools around. York Uni/future Black Creek TTC station are 15 minutes away by car.
 
Last edited:
cdr108 said:
^ ^ ^

i think you meant CMHC, not TCHC.

considering almost every other nation has limits on foreign ownership (ie. USA, HK, China, Australia), it's dumbfounding why Canada doesn't.
Click to expand...

Neither the UK or the US have any restrictions on foreign ownership or real estate. I do not believe Australia does, either. But I am 100% confident the US and UK do not.

Don't make things up.
 
brockm said:
Neither the UK or the US have any restrictions on foreign ownership or real estate. I do not believe Australia does, either. But I am 100% confident the US and UK do not.

Don't make things up.
Click to expand...

Australia does have restrictions
 
brockm said:
Neither the UK or the US have any restrictions on foreign ownership or real estate. I do not believe Australia does, either. But I am 100% confident the US and UK do not.

Don't make things up.
Click to expand...

US:
http://www.afire.org/newsletter/2003/rules.shtm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_in_Real_Property_Tax_Act

The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA), enacted as Subtitle C of Title XI (the "Revenue Adjustments Act of 1980") of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-499, 94 Stat. 2599, 2682 (Dec. 5, 1980), is a United States tax law that imposes income tax on foreign persons disposing of United States real property interests. Tax is imposed at regular tax rates for the type of taxpayer on the amount of gain considered recognized. Purchasers of real property interests are required to withhold tax on payment for the property. Withholding may be reduced from the standard 10% to an amount that will cover the tax liability, upon application in advance of sale to the Internal Revenue Service. FIRPTA overrides most nonrecognition provisions as well as those remaining tax treaties that provide exemption from tax for such gains.


i said HK, not UK.
China:
http://www.china-briefing.com/news/...s-on-real-estate-purchases-by-foreigners.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584504575615942546998222.html

Australia:
http://www.firb.gov.au/content/real_estate/residential.asp

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/artic...tralia-real-estate-raises-concerns-55257.aspx
 
CN Tower said:
Like the headline suggests- 45,000 total units built in 2012 in the old City of Toronto.

Is that correct? How is that possible with an average of under 20,000 annual sales in the much bigger GTA? What have I missed or is the G&M making more egregious errors?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...nes-dominate-torontos-skyline/article4592690/
Click to expand...


i think the text indicates it's the Toronto Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA) which includes the outer GTA like Vaughan, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Brampton, etc
 
cdr108 said:
US:
http://www.afire.org/newsletter/2003/rules.shtm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_in_Real_Property_Tax_Act

The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA), enacted as Subtitle C of Title XI (the "Revenue Adjustments Act of 1980") of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-499, 94 Stat. 2599, 2682 (Dec. 5, 1980), is a United States tax law that imposes income tax on foreign persons disposing of United States real property interests. Tax is imposed at regular tax rates for the type of taxpayer on the amount of gain considered recognized. Purchasers of real property interests are required to withhold tax on payment for the property. Withholding may be reduced from the standard 10% to an amount that will cover the tax liability, upon application in advance of sale to the Internal Revenue Service. FIRPTA overrides most nonrecognition provisions as well as those remaining tax treaties that provide exemption from tax for such gains.


i said HK, not UK.
China:
http://www.china-briefing.com/news/...s-on-real-estate-purchases-by-foreigners.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584504575615942546998222.html

Australia:
http://www.firb.gov.au/content/real_estate/residential.asp

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/artic...tralia-real-estate-raises-concerns-55257.aspx
Click to expand...

Australia does NOT have sale restrictions on Pre-Construction condos, rather they believe foreign investments on pre-con will benefit Autralian people by increasing condo units suppy! Also, the definition of "foreigners" in Australian's restrictions excludes PR holders. And even if these temporary residents are allowed to buy one property for their residential purpose as well. I don't believe that every international student in Canada have bought a condo/house for themselves yet. Moreover, many rich "foreign" investors and their family members either hold Canadian citizenship or PR status, so shall our government define them "foreigners"?

http://www.firb.gov.au/content/real_estate/residential/plan_individual.asp

"NEW DWELLINGS

New dwellings acquired ‘off the plan’ (before construction commences or during the construction phase) or after construction is complete are normally approved where the dwellings:

have not previously been sold (that is, they are purchased from the developer); and
have not been occupied for more than 12 months.
There are no restrictions on the number of such dwellings in a new development which may be sold to foreign persons, provided that the developer markets the dwellings locally as well as overseas (that is, the dwellings cannot be marketed exclusively overseas).

This category includes dwellings that are part of extensively refurbished buildings where the building's use has undergone a change from non-residential (for example, office or warehouse) to residential. It does not include established residential real estate that has been refurbished or renovated.

A property purchased under this category may be rented out, sold to Australian interests or other eligible purchasers, or retained for the foreign investor's own use. Once the property has been purchased, it is second-hand real estate and is subject to the restrictions applying to that category."
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top