Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Should foreign ownership of Canadian real estate be restricted ?

Thomas Beyer

0
REIN Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
13,881
I am usually a free market kind a guy. Let the market dictate prices and let $s flow freely. I appreciate the fact that governments set rules in this marketplace to foster growth, keep people safe, keep the environment clean and to ensure fair competition. Therefore, generally speaking, as a free market guy: the less rules, the better. The less government meddling, the better !



This question has crept up lately, triggered by three events: my visit to Toronto in late March with its crazy downtown condo overbuilding, watching desirable Vancouver properties snapped up by non-Canadians,with prices in the $3M range for old homes on a 50x130 foot lot, and thirdly when watching a condo conversion project with unreasonably high prices being sold to Asian investors in Malasia, Singapore and HongKong: "Should foreign ownership of Canadian real estate be restricted" ?



Switzerland does it. Australia does it. Austria does it. China does it. Even capitalistic HongKong does it. The US and Canada do not.



http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/13/to-tame-torontos-housing-bubble-ban-foreign-buying/ written by Dianne Francis, a pro-market Financial Post writer weighs in with a solid YES.



On the one hand restrictions reduce capital inflow, thus reduce demand and thus, lower prices and create less jobs.



One the other hand, no restrictions push many people, especially younger folks, out of the housing market while many houses or condos sit vacant, but are benefiting baby boomers wanting to cash out.



I think a sound middle ground has to be sought, and the debate should certainly happen in earnest !



Perhaps along the lines of the Australian policy which restricts ownership by temporary workers and foreign owners - or perhaps more liberal, like Switzerland, one per beneficial party tops but not as an investment, only as a 2nd home.



Canada is not the land anymore that needs huge amounts of foreign money to build condo towers. Enough local money and demand is available. Canada is big enough. Many metro markets are desirable, and thus people will come here: GTA, Vancouver, Alberta, even Winnipeg, Montreal or Halifax.



Will house or condo prices in Vancouver or GTA - the two regions where most of Canada's surplus condos are located - be affected by this policy: yes, to some degree but it will be manageable. it is sad to see 1/2 to 3/4 of certain downtown towers in the dark or with their shades down while young people or the less wealthy are pushed to the suburbs.



An interim step could be to increase the property tax by factor two to three for foreign owner investor condos/homes - with 1/3 going to city, 1/3 to province and 1/3 to the federal government.



The the next question is: what properties would be restricted ? Farmland is already restricted in AB, SK and PEI to my knowledge. What about shopping centers, trailer parks or office towers ? condos or houses only ? Or just in some areas, or only a certain number per buyer ? One ? Two ? 23 ?



What do you think ?
 

scoopert2000

0
Registered
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
10
They have done that very thing in PEI with farm land. Non Islanders are limited to how much they can own. Keeps big corporations from being able to control to much farmland and the price of produce(potatoes) by default. It also keeps land prices stable and allows small farms to stay in business.



As for residential pptys I'm not sure if its a good idea or not, most markets of interest are large enough to handle it with some bumps along the way. Trying to regulate I fear might do more long term harm than good. However your idea of increased taxes may hold some merit.
 

RedlineBrett

0
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,289
[quote user=ThomasBeyer] "Should foreign ownership of Canadian real estate be restricted" ?



Switzerland does it. Australia does it. Austria does it. China does it. Even capitalistic HongKong does it. The US and Canada do not.


[quote user=ThomasBeyer]The the next question is: what properties would be restricted ? Farmland is already restricted in AB, SK and PEI to my knowledge. What about shopping centers, trailer parks or office towers ? condos or houses only ?


I'm not as concerned with the smaller deals - individual residential properties. Non residents face stricter financing guidelines and withholding tax issues.



I think the greater concern - one that has a definite pricing effect - is the seed capital that goes in to building these residential towers. I suspect a lot of if is corporate level investment in great big hunks of money, so it can't be treated with a property/transactional approach. It's like if the NRs were buying stock in private or public companies. Are there stricter guidelines for foreign investment there? I'm not sure.



You'll see advertisements with 'phase 1 95% sold out' very shortly after the projects are announced. This allows the developer to build momentum and secure financing for the next steps and gives retail buyers confidence that they are paying a fair price. Then, the seed investors see their return when the doors are opened as they bought in at pre-development prices and I bet they aren't individually on title... Like buying shares in a private company before an IPO. This artificially inflates the prices of units in these buildings which then has an effect on the residential consumer.



I'd rather see certain asset classes treated differently. Foreign ownership of the development companies that churn out these buildings needs to be looked at more closely, due to the ripple effect it has on the residential market.



Now, if they want to invest in non-residential commercial stuff - like say a whole huge strip of natural gas fueling stations along major transportation corridors... I'm all for it. Our government should be making it easy to invest where we need it, and harder to invest in market sectors that are a bit more fragile.
 

MaximeValmont

0
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
138
[quote user=RedlineBrett]This allows the developer to build momentum and secure financing for the next steps and gives retail buyers confidence that they are paying a fair price. Then, the seed investors see their return when the doors are opened as they bought in at pre-development prices and I bet they aren't individually on title... Like buying shares in a private company before an IPO. This artificially inflates the prices of units in these buildings which then has an effect on the residential consumer.






It's the demand that make the price rises. The seed investor has nothing to do with it... If I buy a shar in a private company and the company then go public, it has nothing to do with me.
 

JimWhitelaw

0
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
731
[quote user=RedlineBrett]Our government should be making it easy to invest where we need it, and harder to invest in market sectors that are a bit more fragile. Good insights on the institutional investing. I suspect you are correct.



The concern I have with this last statement is that government attempts at market manipulation, practically by definition, produce market inefficiencies and incorrect pricing signals. Not to mention the potential for more corruption of the political process in order to influence the selection of favoured markets. I'm not certain that the cure isn't worse than the problem.
 

MaximeValmont

0
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
138
Exactly. More government is not the solution. Specially trying to make them think about what market to invest in etc etc. The more they try to think the worst it will get.
 

bizaro86

0
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,025
[quote user=MaximeValmont] Exactly. More government is not the solution. Specially trying to make them think about what market to invest in etc etc. The more they try to think the worst it will get.





I agree with this. There might be some benefits to having the government pick and choose, but they will inevitably be overshadowed by the efficiency losses of having the gov't involved. Plus, once the gov't gets involved, they very rarely get un-involved. (The camel gets its nose in the tent...)



Regards,



Michael
 

Nir

0
REIN Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,880
Do you want RE to be more 'stock-like' or less? if more, let foreign investors buy freely. do you prefer slow more sure growth or faster riskier one per time or work put? the preference is personality related more than anything. Sincerely
 

ScottyB

0
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
5
Very interesting post Thomas and a valid point.



I am in Australia at the moment on a 457 visa (4 year working visa) and you are right there are restrictions on what i can purchase.



Basically i am allowed to purchase new only, no second hand real estate, the current influx of Oil and Gas workers into Western Australia in particular means that the New Build market is being kept alive by the new arrivals.



The concern i have is that these new gas plants are taking 5 to 6000 people to build them, once in operations only several hundred people will be need day to day.



I fear for the West Australian market, it is vastly overpriced, i see people buying in new estates with no freeway access, no trains yet and they are fighting over themselves paying top dollar to get on the housing ladder.



It cracks me up i even see Display Homes advertised for 1.5 mill with 3 to 4 year lease back deals from the developers at 6 or 7%, when you get them valued up by an independant like any sensible person should do they are lucky if they value up at 70% of the asking price!!!



I see real value in Canada hence why i joined the forum, i agree with you a middle ground is needed to ensure that foreign investors do not impact the balance of the markets having seen it first hand down here in OZ.



Once the inflow and large projects dry up it is too late, you are left with large numbers of over priced stock, poor rentals because the workforce have moved on to the next big project.



The East Coast of Australia is a perfect example of this, stock down 30-40% and sitting on the market for 300 days +
 
Top Bottom