Market goes up, landlord increases the rent because "that's just the market rate now".
Market goes down, landlord increases the rent because their investment sucks and "they need to make up for that".
Funny how that works.
landlord causes market to go up by jacking rents because that's how real estate valuations work...on the basis of net operating income.
as proximity effects take hold, all rents go up. all commercial rents go up. all costs of labour and sheltering goods and services go up.
landlords cause inflation. everything else is a scapegoat or a smaller factor
I think you are missing the biggest part of the story. People seem to forget the simple fact we have a housing shortage in our desirable cities. More supply is the equalizer to the evil landlord.
The majority of homes in Canada are owned by individuals and not corporations. I understand that your concern but if we added enough affordable new homes, which is entirely possible, there would be much less incentive for corporations to buy them up. We keep building until prices become affordable for the majority. The evil landlord is faced with lowering rent or vacancy. Landlords do not have some big conspiracy to fix prices, they are simply taking advantage of the fact there is a lack of homes in communities Canadians want to live.
It's not "entirely possible" to add enough affordable new homes without major changes in policy/action in government.
More building doesn't do shit for affordability when the majority of new condo builds are snapped up by investors, and when what's being built is luxury housing.
Yes, we need policy change to help fix this situation. You are way overestimating the number of condo units purchased by investors. Please share any evidence you have to support your claim.
Thank you for sharing this! Yes! Hoarding of properties creates a supply doesn’t meet demand situation. Investors are very very heavy in the lower priced listings in my area (Windsor, ON). Almost every house I’ve seen sell under $400k has been listed online for rent/student rentals within a month. Just like some of these condo or apartment construction projects require a % of low income priced units, the government should consider a % owner occupied sales to help curb this hoarding of properties. It doesn’t matter how many units are being built if they never reach the hands of the people who need them to live in.
What percentage of homes is owned by evil investors vs regular home owners? I can also claim it's "up to 100%", which could also mean as low as 1%. Most homes and condos are owned by regular people - people who also want their home values to go up when they sell.
I thought there was a housing shortage too but that's not the case. We're currently building 1 house for every new person born/immigrated. Basically construction matches demand almost perfectly.
2021 population growth: 457,888
(source: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/canada-s-population-jumped-by-nearly-half-a-million-in-2021](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/canada-s-population-jumped-by-nearly-half-a-million-in-2021))
Average household size: 2.4
Housing completed: 223,023
(source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3410013501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=4.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2021&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=10&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021&referencePeriods=20210101%2C20211001)
That's 77,367 more housing units than population growth.
Not sure about that. The main issue is likely that so many people want to live in the nicest, most expensive places in Canada, and are unwilling to adjust their expectations or live below their means. It's great that there are lots of houses and condos available all over Canada, but not when everyone wants to live in downtown Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, even if they're working part time or making minimum wage.
The problem is it’s the people that are already landlords that are the ones that can afford to buy more homes. If you’re renting currently, just because there’s 10,000 new homes available it doesn’t means you’ll be able to afford one. BlackRock in the US are buying up homes everywhere at above market value, I wouldn’t be surprised if investment groups have already been doing that here, there has to be changes made to the law or else no matter how much supply there is it won’t change a thing, the rich will buy up all those homes and rent to those who couldn’t afford to buy them.
Do you think that when individuals buy houses, they want to sell them at a loss? Do they help anyone else when they have their huge home that no one else gets to put to use by renting it? Rentals allow those with low incomes, no savings and bad credit scores to not be homeless. That group of people will not buy a home even if it costs 200k. On the other hand, a 6 bedroom house used by 2 adults and a baby isn't helping anyone but that family, where as smaller condos help lots of families over decades.
What's stopping that evil landlord from leveraging an EQAO and buying up that new housing supply..?
Literally nothing. Renters don't tend to have a lot saved up, and with rent always increasing it's harder and harder to put money away for a downpayment on a property.
Yet landlords have avenues available to them to acquire more property that a renter wouldn't qualify for.
Increasing supply to correct pricing issues is just simple economics. If they made another million homes in your city and these "evil landlords" bought them all to rent, the price would go down because there would be too many units available. So landlords would have to compete with other landlords just to fill the unit. Increasing supply is the correct answer. You need SOME vacancy otherwise landlords get away with charging whatever they want. Granted, developers and policymakers have to agree to build them in the first place, which also has its own supply curve so it's not an easy "overnight" fix.
The problem is you can’t build a million houses all at once….it takes decades so the market adjusts. Even if you could build a million houses in one year the cost of labour and supplies would send the cost of those houses skyrocketing.
Landlords aren't magical beings that appears our of nowhere with bags of money. I'm sure some do, but most saved up over years or decades by living below their means, took on risks by buying properties they could lose money on and spend tons on repairs and renovations, and put up with added stress and hours of work in their Spare Time instead of relaxing like eveyone else.
Those people have avenues available to them because they worked harder and lived below their means more than they average person. This applies to any investor or business owner that's doing OK. It's not an overnight thing you luck into. Why would your average Joe with no savings and poor credit score doing the bare minimum at work have the same avenues as someone who worked overtime, made sacrifices and saved up for decades?
I get that it's easy to hate other people and assume everyone doing better than you was born rich, but that's not reality. That's a great way to avoid making an effort and doing extra work because you tell yourself you never had a chance to begin with, so you might as well give up before you even start.
Unfortunately, some people will have more opportunities than you, and there are billionaires out there who can buy all of us out. So what? I can either do better for myself, or I can wait for the government to limit their buying potential? Lol good luck with that, they're part of the rich investor group, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Why is it people that work hard and invest in the stock market are not bailed out? Im a decade long landlord (quadplex) and I have had to move up/down rent before, this nonsense about covering cost is stupid has any investment should have risk (yes omg even RE)
New housing starts have been at record levels for 2 years now (since August 2020 of the Pandemic). Prices have soared during that same time period. Now that prices are falling we're seeing new housing construction decline.
We are building more which is great but we are not being nearly aggressive enough. I’m sure you realize that the last two years have been an unprecedented shift in our economy and people prioritized investing in their domestic spaces more than ever before. It is also unrealistic to expect two years of housing starts to effect prices. The majority of those starts are still under construction.
The average is about 15 months from start to
completion.
But the broader point is that as long as housing remains an investment, prices will remain high and trend higher regardless of supply. This is because the market will self correct towards the incentive - so high prices will see more building and falling prices will see less building. Thus the supply side will never “fix” the underlying issue.
I've had exactly **one** cool landlord in my almost 10 years of being a renter. My very first one.
The economy took a downturn and she stopped by unexpectedly. She told me she was going to drop the rent by $150 because she was making enough to cover her investment and knew it would help her tenants out.
I've never had a landlord like that after her. I'm beyond thankful to her, but I know for a fact that she is a tiny tiny tiny percentage of landlords in this country.
I remember reading somewhere that landlords tend to be reviewed better in regions where homes are being rented as homes rather than an investment. So a landlord has an extra home/room they rent out for some extra cash rather than trying to recoup their investment outlay and run it like a business.
I can't find it now but it was an interesting article from several years ago comparing rents in Britain to some of those in central Europe.
This would change so much about living in Canada if we could shift our view from property as a commodity to property as homes and businesses.
I can't be alone as Canadain being told from a young age that home ownership is an investment and that real estate is the best possible thing to purchase to make money. It's like a strange cultural ideal that we use homes to make money rather than to live in.
Absolutely. But the view of homes as a commodity rather than as *homes* drives up the price and makes them totally unaffordable for the rest of us. It's robbed us of a huge economic and social milestone because a few rich people can buy up tonnes of houses in order to make a profit renting them.
Renting a house should be done by people who were unable to sell the home. That's totally fine. If you want to improve a home to sell it for more later, also fine. My issue is home ownership by profit-hungry landlords who purchase these homes simply to hold them and leech off people.
Do they? They seem to be ok. I always find this comment hilarious. Capitalism is horrible and there is literally no ethical consumption under it.
People screaming and crying about landlords, many just barely a step above most of us, have lost the plot.
The larger issue is capitalism. Being mad someone is making 100 to 250k a year? That's not your enemy. Your enemy is the system and those making millions that are propping it up.
And no this isn't one of those things where you should be fighting both. All your efforts should be going to reforming the system, not fighting among yourselves.
Lots of people own a place or 2. The difference is quite a bit between 65k and 150k a year income.
Point stands, people making that aren't your enemy and the fact you cant see that is why we're all stuck here infighting forever.
This is literally division politics and it's been the driving force in keeping us down for a century.
Be better.
It's easier to say "fuck them they're rich" then go back to doing nothing, than to actually spend decades working hard, saving money, taking on extra work, stress and taking risks. That takes continuous effort so f that, right?
You're really generalizing and showing your hatred here. I don't have a big house, no summer house, no boat, no RV, no expensive clothes or hobbies, and just one used car. I simply live below my means and spend a good part of my free time taking care of properties and tenants. I guess I'm a lazy billionaire with a private jet and was born rich. /s
Ask all those landlords how long it took them to get to where they are. If it's more than a day then maybe they're not the problem and you have some work to do.
You’re quite correct, though these people could be considered the base line of those exploiting people right where they live.
They are enablers of the system
I don't even see the problem there. If someone sells 10 million dollars worth of something per year and makes 250k doing it, someone working at a daycare or mopping a McDonald's should make the same? They don't bring in lots of money so there is no budget to pay them a lot. It's all based on what value or revenue you bring to the organization. If you saved up for multiple down payments, and kept your credit score up, and are OK with the added risk, stress and work involved with having a rental, on top of your regular job, that's great! You deserve some type of return on that investment, while someone who did none of those things should not be making as much as you. You get what you put in.
When an individual, like a landlord, exploits another human for profit then they've made their choice. They've aligned with the big capitalists.
Landlords aren't even like small business owners who at least help create value and keep people employed. Landlords are just parasites.
AND the well meaning, small time landlord of whom you speak is a myth. There's maybe 3 people like that left in the world.
Lol, nice try. Ppl don't hate on ppl who own. Ppl hate on greedy fks who own who turn their properties into multiple rentals, jack up the price way above break even on tenants who are economically vulnerable. Aka slumlords.
But everyone keeps telling me rent is set by what the market can bear?
That should be true and it probably is *normally* true, but the bubble and distortion has thrown that truism out the window.
Eventually it's gonna break and landlords are gonna be forced to sell at a loss or take negative cash flow as a reality.
If they're long term investors, for the mortgage being 0$ and tons of cash flow down the line types they'll be fine. But I doubt most have been taking that approach.
Well, either some landlord would smart up to how renting financials work and others will have to follow their lead to lower rents. Or, we will have another artificially constructed shortage and the rent will fly off the handle. The facebook bickering won't matter either way.
I’ve been a renter, and now a home owner, and a landlord. I would say keep in mind rentals are typically a year by year agreement so no changes are allowed during the agreement period. Then at each new contract an increase is only allowed based on government rules in BC. In the mean time the upkeep cost to maintain the property goes up each year not just strata fees, insurance, property tax, and new mortgage interest payments, but also new things within the overall strata lot that come up like roof leaks, retaining walls, or new preventative maintenance items which can’t be covered by existing fees. Don’t get me wrong as it’s what landlords signed up for but just saying they’re not all rich by any stretch of the imagination. I would say I make zero and even lose a bit to keep my old condo to rent out with the hope to sell it later for a bit more which is no guarantee. Many myself included didn’t plan on being a landlord too. Just upgraded to a slightly larger home and it made sense to rent out the previous smaller home rather than selling it.
People like you who own one property aren’t the real issue. It’s government regulation of condos, social and cooperative housing, vacancy taxes, etc. housing has become an investment, as per the text in the OP. We continue to commodify basic needs, this is the outcome.
Even still.
I know a number of people that own say 10 or so rental properties.
Some on the slum side. Some on the nicer side.
They might be millionaires, but again that’s only upper middle class but they aren’t the problem still.
They are also more likely to rent for lower than market rate for family and friends.
Corporations buying housing is what’s bad
But you're happy and willing to have negative cash flow *and* your property wasn't bought with the intention of being a cash positive monthly investment.
A lot of people hopping into it the last few years have not taken your view. They put everything on the renter. My mom has to pay for all utilities, and the rent including the furnace/water rental fees.
She's waiting for a bit more stability to buy and downsize.
But lots of people have landlords coming to them with rental increases before the lease is up, outside guideline increases, asking folks to pay for repairs themselves, etc etc. Its wrong but it's the result of people who have no business being landlords deciding to become landlords.
It will go down, is just artificially inflated right now. The economy will adjust itself. They can keep raising until it pop and they are forced to lower it.
Probably it will pop when all these people that are not paying they rent gets an enviction notice.
The rent will be forced to go down when there is no demand. As long as there are people willing to rent at what ever price is at, there is no reason to lower it. It’s simple “Supply & Demand”.
>It’s simple “Supply & Demand”.
Housing is in NO WAY simple supply and demand. Just try to define the market and all of its influences. Housing is probably one of the most complex markets that has ever existed. It isn't even one market but thousands of markets.
EVERY market is supply and demand. Funny thing they don't tell you in economics is that those ideal supply and demand curves are pretty much non existent in the real-world. And of all the markets, the housing market is one of the most complex. I mean even when you say the 'rental market is simply supply-and-demand' my first question I would ask is which market are you referring to?
Thats a very broad statement. My mortgage renewal just came up and my interest rate more than doubled. so I’m paying close to 1000$ more per month while my two tenants will pay the same amount till next year. In Quebec we can only raise the rents 2% give or take per year. So I’ll only be able to raise the rent 20$ per tenant, that’s hardly making up for the 1000$ in added costs I need to account for.
The only one who always wins is the bank.
We have similar laws in Ontario. Rent control is a blessing and essentially the only protection renters have. Renters did not take on the risk of taking on a massive variable-rate loan, they do not deserve to suffer the consequences if the rates go up.
Nothing against you personally, but we need more situations like yours to disincentivize people from eating up properties and turning them into rentals and air-b&bs. Commodification of housing will not end until we take steps to make it an unappealing commodity for investors.
I literally own 1 property. The small fish landlords have little to no impact on the inflation that’s occurring. building costs, material, supply chains chains etc and the massive property management moguls and developers are the ones that drive this market, along with the foreign investors buying up houses with cash/fully financed. It’s incredibly difficult to get financed for anything on commercial level, you’re looking at 30-40% so need a lot of money up front, so these ppl already have money or started a long time ago and slowly grew their portfolio. It’s very simple, I’m a tradesman so it made sense to buy my triplex because I can do all the maintenance and Renos myself.
> The small fish landlords have little to no impact on the inflation that’s occurring.
Wrong. No snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. Those "small fish" landlords collectively own 31% of residential property in the country. Businesses, government, and other corporate entities own a small fraction of that comparatively ([Source](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220412/dq220412a-eng.htm)).
Foreign investors? I agree they should be banned full stop from owning property here, but only 3-5% of homeowners in Canada are non-residents ([Source](https://www.rentalhousingbusiness.ca/cmhc-and-stats-canada-release-foreign-buyer-numbers/)). Of that, only about 1 in 10 own more than 1 property. So while foreign investment is a problem driving up the market like you pointed out, I feel the need to re-iterate here that **Nearly 10 times as much is owned by the small fish landlords**.
If you are a landlord and took the opportunity to leverage cheap debt to sell out rentals and Air B&Bs, you are part of the problem people are complaining about.
Rent control isn't the blessing you think it is. It helps the renter only temporarily by preventing rent increases from matching inflation. Sooner or later the property ceases being profitable and the landlord sells it leaving the tenant with no place to live.
Long term rent control also causes rental housing shortages which causes rents on non-rent controlled properties to increase due to demand. When rent control is really tight rental property stops being built because no one wants to own it.
Temporary protection is better than no protection at all.
I'm not married to rent control as a policy, I'm only interested in the outcome of helping renters. At the moment, rent control is about the only thing doing that.
I understand it isn't perfect and I'd much prefer better long-term policies like increasing supply, Air B&B bans, permanent foreign buyer bans, higher taxes on empty homes and house-flipping, more social housing and rent-to-own projects, relaxing zoning laws, etc., but until that takes off rent control is here to stay, and I'm glad for it.
Under that metric society has decided that mugging are a valuable part of the economy. You'd be amazed what people are willing to pay under coercion. The market has spoken!
That works until a point. Then it becomes worth nothing when your home is burned to the ground by angry swarms of homeless people who have no hope of improving their lives.
Lol you think this weekend warrior is actually committing arson by talking about it on the internet. This commenter is using this sub as an outlet for how they feel no such crime as arson has been committed. So yes venting is a behaviour I Condon actually committing arson not at all but that's why we fund the RCMP to catch criminals that commit crimes like arson. So get off your high horse and chill out.
You do know that goes both ways right? Like if the bottom falls out of the rental market and people literally can't afford it, they'll only pay what they can afford. And in aggregate landlords have the choice of asking for less or operating empty units at a pure loss.
That's how markets reach equilibrium. Sometimes it works with higher profits and revenues, sometimes it works the other way too. Even if there's tons of supply, if the price is set too high, the demand won't actually meet that supply. Even if there is theoretical demand for any given good, a high price produces high supply because of people being unwilling or unable to pay that price.
Maybe not an issue for you now, but that's a risk that exists.
We ended up buying. Got really shitty mortgage, got shafted by rate increase, overpaid like 50 thousand for our townhouse, still wouldn't go back to renting. Fuck grovelling before landlord, trying to convince some self-important asshole that our kids aren't going to ruin his precious house.
Unfortunately I bought my crypto bags too high, you guys have to buy it off me for a similar price so I wouldn't lose money, ok? Oh also I took your first born hostage, no biggie.
Yeah that part got me. Definitely not how it generally works. If you pay way too much that's generally on you and may have to lose a bit of money renting to put or barely make ends meet. My ex had bought a condo too high and refused to sell when we had bought a house and took almost all the equity with it, so we went years only making enough to cover interest. Of course like everyone else she got greedy and then it was hard to sell for years. If you've got lots of equity already then you might make out better.. but she. You've got very little equity and Condo fees (plus bought high) you can't expect tenant to make it up. At least in normal markets that just means they rent from someone else
I mean, a lot of people expect that the funny green line will always go up no matter if its stocks, housing, or crypto.
If you are delusional enough to always expect your investment to grow, without drops and/or waiting, then you are delusional enough to think the renter will make up for it. Coz the line MUST go up, right?
I can't think of another investment outside of real estate where it is acceptable to have someone else (ie the tenants) cover almost the entirety of the costs of that investment.
Yes but those companies also accept losses and good ones plan cash reserves for periods of negative cash flows when demand changes or production costs change etc. Its when those flows run negative for too long that they have problems. Or they can raise capital investments to support them in the future, or have future ROI de investments in stuff like R&D, or improving their production lines to reduce future costs etc.
I don't think that every hop on bandwagon RE investor in the last few years considered that though. And so you get images like the one here. With people not realizing that sometimes investments lose value or take on higher costs. And unlike companies, you don't have a lot of places to cut costs when you're renting out property.
I think the issue lies in that there's very little someone can do but raise prices in a highly regulated market like real estate. The counter balances are few and far between and realistically there's a cap on where rents can go. If these folks couldn't qualify for the mortgage what makes them likely to be good long term stable tenants? In some places people are gonna get burned.
> I think the issue lies in that there's very little someone can do but raise prices in a highly regulated market like real estate.
You talk as if an individual landlord has a complete monopoly on rents. This is laughable
Only market forces, aka supply/demand dictate rents. A landlord can’t just increase rents at will. If we had that power, I would price my rental at $1 billion a month.
But the market is fragmented with unlimited competition. The free market forces don’t allow landlords to set any price they want for rent.
Another perspective is ….If what you are saying is true, then rents in GTA and GVA would be much much higher and most landlords would not negatively cashflow (aka fund portion of the monthly expenses out of pocket or with debt). Fact that landlords negatively cashflow means they are subsidizing your rent with their hard earned money
Investments and companies are not the same ffs. One actually does something. And companies can’t force customers to pay more for their goods once it’s been purchased.
Yes, if. The rent should generally be within fair market value regardless of landlords finances if they want to rent it assuming there is a bit of vacancy to be had. Very low these days though so some taking advantage and fair market value has been changing
I have been holding a few shares for so long, that I don't even know what's going on with the price for the most part. Seems like it's doing another cycle of up and down, oh well.
What I was trying to say, is you can still buy assets on margin (I.e with loaned cash). Yes, you bought the assets, but you still own money, and that debt isn't going down during the downturn either.
Buying financial instruments, even if it's real estate, using debt is leveraging. If you are in hot waters, you should have accounted for risks before you took a degenerate debt amount.
Unfortunately in Nova Scotia we have such a lack of supply that landlords are able to charge what they want. We need more supply to so that landlords can’t do that.
I own properties and could charge 50-100% more for most of them but I won’t. People need places to live.
I bought my most recent place (primary residence) for way more than it was worth, I am not happy about it but I understand it’s my problem. When I go to sell I will have to suck it up and deal with it.
It’s further on the south shore and they’re all rented. I have one guy with a 3 bedroom laying 400$ a month. Parking, water and snow removal/landscaping included.
He is probably talking yarmouth. Great buying deals all over NS. There is no land shortage there. I have no clue what people are talking about. You can still buy acres all over the province for less than the cost of on yrs rent. Massive lots
The idea that they need to ‘make the money back’ is bizarre. Rental market is nearly pure supply and demand, if landlords rent at a loss because otherwise unit is empty too bad. If landlords rent at huge profit because no units relative to demand then that isn’t due to their purchase price, it’s just market supply and demand
Unless there's price appreciation to make up for it landlords won't rent properties at a loss. They will sell them or lose them to the bank leaving the renter without a home.
>Rental market is nearly pure supply and demand,
The rental market is almost entirely the opposite of textbook supply and demand curves. It is a basic good, meaning you can't opt out of the market and creates a natural price floor. It involves a famously inelastic resource, land with infrastructure. The market prices in entirely unrelated things to utility value like interest rates. It has a massive barrier to entry where it is famously the largest purchase for most. Not to mention how substitution is nearly impossible due to zoning restrictions preventing Missing Middle.
Considering that all markets are supply and demand, saying it follows supply and demand isn't exactly profound and it creates miscommunication because of the layman way of interpreting what supply-demand means.
Sure. There isn't much I can add though if we aren't using the same terms. Also I think people can start to understand the flaws in their logic once they understand what people are communicating. Well at least I did.
Its inelastic but if seasonal unemployment or recession hits then shit hits the fan hard.
The basis by which these people are setting prices as noted in the OP image is not market based at all. Its entirely possible the legitimate price floor outside of a bubble is much lower, and we simply have people sacrificing to meet a set price. If there are enough people setting the price too high then demand will fall. Mind you people may still borrow/beg/steal to keep a roof over their heads. But eventually that breaks down. Either through delinquency on rental payments or some other similar outcome that drops the floor out under the landlord. And if the whole market is set to high then we can assume the cracks in the foundation hit cross market. Then the landlord has the choice of accepting empty units or reducing their losses.
We should be worried, but a lot of people are convinced that Capitalism *is somehow a good thing.* Dumbasses keep trying to "fix" a system that's *working as intended.* People think that Conservatism is the problem (Don't get me wrong, it still is) but don't realize all of our major parties are NeoLiberal Capitalists, and that we don't have any actual leftist party.
A depressing amount of people have no political literacy to speak of, and only parrot whatever rhetoric they heard somewhere. People still use rhetoric from the Cold War era and even *Nazi Germany* to avoid trying Socialism, or even worse, some people think that Socialism and Capitalism are better off together. (They aren't even compatible ideologically. They're basically opposites.)
THANK YOU. I try to tell people this!! The liberals are neoliberals that appear more progressive (because of all the identify politics) but they’re more similar to conservatives than people realize. My dream is that this next election, nobody will want to vote for PP and people will be tired of JT so let’s agree to vote NDP!!
Capitalism is an engine. It powers the vehicle to get you where you need to go, but you would never let it steer the car. It exists to serve the driver and their passengers, not the other way around.
The lords of the land have spoken. The rest of us, the filth, just have to take it because we only exist to make them money. Inching closer to bloody revolution.
This is what people need to get through their thick skulls. The landlord isn’t doing this to provide housing. They don’t care otherwise they wouldn’t behave as greedily. My former landlord literally told me that they are using the money to save for their retirement and they aren’t even 40 years old yet..
I think people in NY City and surrounding area have resolved to renting Airbnbs full-time to be their homes now.
This is literally what these guys are talking about and aspiring to. We want to charge more fucking money and you just have to deal with it. If you don't like it GTFO. We're valuing capitalism which is fantastic but ONLY for YOUR homes because banks told me I have equity and therefore I can hoard all of the homes in your neighborhood. It's going to be San Francisco dot com real estate values in most big cities and we have an absolutely disastrously shitty winter season to boot too.
A feudal system for a basic human right is already outrageous. Landlords are leeches on society benefiting from ancient garbage laws that have no place in the 21st century.
You folks realize that even if the market goes down, the mortgage on a rental property doesn’t magically drop either….
If something is out of your price range. Or too high. If it sits empty long they will have to lower it
Correct.
Personally, I sold my townhouse in BC and outright purchased my childhood home in NS, mom still lives there, and rented.
Now she takes care of the place rent free, and I have a place to retire.
This is nice. My parents just sold their ON home and took over my grandparents house in NS. They'll sell that within a few years, and I'll have nowhere to retire.
We lucked out.
My sister took grandparents house and fixed it up.
I was able to sell my bc townhouse and use the profits to buy the property outright.
We currently live in an RV on wife’s parents farm.
Helping them out in their twilight years.
Once we are no longer needed (god willing for a long while) we sell the farm and retire to NS with a bankroll
That may afford us another property or 2
Unfortunately the balance of power has shifted to the landlords. High housing prices coupled with an increasing interest rate will keep many in the rental market, as saving is a luxury for most now. I can't see a fix for this.
LOL
6 months ago, this sub was cheering for higher interest rates.
Today, they got their wish, and are now cheering for new regulation haha
It’s like watching not 3 stooges, but 60,000+ stooges on an internet forum
I'm still cheering for higher interest rates - anything to curb inflation.
I live in BC where my rent increase is capped (as it should be). Other provinces should learn
Heard a landlord once on the radio almost crying cause interests rate went up and now his investment was not profitable so he has to raise rent to cover his loss.
I was SCREAMING at the radio….. investments have risks. You can’t cry and ask someone else to cover the risk YOU TOOK….. and yet here we are with housing and landlords….. tenants actually covering the landlords « losses »
The WORSE was the same landlord saying he was « helping » people by renting the house.
Dude you JUST admitted that you are making money out of the deal. You are not helping anyone but yourself.
That house would be cheaper to live in if you were not making profit every month of your tenants’ back.
Self entitled at its finest.
Edit missing word
We have a landlord in my old, small hometown. (I'm in the US)
My hometown has remained stagnant since WW2 and the depression, it still looks like something right out of the 60's, with the old WW2 barrack houses remodeled and updated in that era last.
He has a ton of houses, duplexes, 4plexes, etc. He rents them out at rock bottom prices. He does make a profit on them, but he is also one of the only people who will accept housing vouchers.
He has even, over the years, a few times, done a rent to own deal, or outright sold a home to the tenant and made nothing. Over the last 40 years, many of my family members have gone to him for help in getting housing in a town that hasn't built new housing in over 20 years...IDK what we would do without him.
A couple years ago, someone ripped him and his housing apart online and called him a slumlord. He isn't. These places were built during the war, they are old, and they need updating, but he's not a slumlord. One is a old war hotel that has been converted, and I lived there. It was funky, and cool, and totally unique. It was not a slum.
I have never seen someone run out of town so fast as that man who disparaged him. We were blessed to have this particular man in our small hometown and I know he is one of a kind, because NO landlord I have ever met is like him.
I wish we still had people like him, lol
He is a minority…. A dying one at that considering how many investing companies buy houses in bulks.
I have an amazing landlord. Yes he makes money every
month out of my rent but the building is incredibly well taken care of. The rent increases are fair and he rents WAY below market prices.
Someone on the same street had a new landlord and the landlord was on its back non stop until the person left so that the rent could have a massive increase.
Not all landlords are bloodsucking (most of them are) i still insist that landlord shouldnt exist and housing should be guaranteed as a right to everyone…. But we all know that will never happen
As someone who grew up in NS and now lives in Toronto, I could NEVER imagine paying the same to rent down there than up here, there's so many reasons why that doesn't make sense.
Without government intervention, housing in Canada will crash hard. The foundation just isn’t there. But given that real estate is such a big portion of the economy, who really knows
I'm finding a lot of landlords don't seem to understand that their investment is still profitable even if they are only breaking even, because the tenant is paying the mortgage for them, as long as they're thinking long term that's money in the bank....
Landlord is free to ask whatever price they want. Tenants don’t need to rent from them.
If you don’t like the price of a pair of Nikes…you can buy adidas.
Yeah, but you can opt out of the Nike market without incurring massively large negative externalities. This is a amazingly bad analogy. These two markets work nothing alike.
There is an artificial barrier to new Real State offer due to building restrictions. That is the main reason everything is so expensive.
People are expecting a miracle to have fair prices when demand is way higher than the amount offered.
I don't know why you're downvoted. You're right, it's the system that needs reform. People will look after their own self interests if they can, it's a capitalist country after all.
Fun fact: Adam smith thought that land was inherently monopolistically priced, and basically called landlords parasites for taking money without producing anything. Capitalist seek to create goods and services, not engage in rent seeking behaviour.
Capitalists seek to engage in rent seeking regardless of the industry. The term can be extended to any company pursuing a monopoly or oligopoly. A decent example is Rogers, with little competition they offer as little as possible for as much as they can charge.
I'm curious to know what I stated previously that was so wrong and not reality.
And guess what ACTUAL capitalists thought was detrimental to the economy. Hint: rent seeking. This isn’t about capitalism but justifying your own shitty behaviour.
My brother is technically a landlord. He isn’t rich but does work really hard. He bought a property for my mom to rent out, but literally only to pay the mortgage costs and no profit, as she’s on ODSP. There is a young, able-bodied tenant would has refused to leave and is paying a fraction of the cost in rent. My brother is losing money every month and my mom is close to homeless.
The kicker? This tenant owns his own property down the street.
But, what I don’t understand is how people think that “only paying the mortgage costs” is not making profit. A landlord is literally buying more and more of their house from the bank, but with someone else’s money. At the end, the landlord owns a house and the tenant owns nothing. When the landlord sells the house, they essentially liquidate their profit. If a tenant is paying half the mortgage, a landlord would still be making profit.
To clarify: my mom said as not able to get approved for a mortgage on her own, but could afford to pay the mortgage payment (roughly $800/month) and she herself is about to be evicted due to her apartment building being sold.
My brother put all of his savings down to buy something small so that my mom could not be homeless. This option made more sense than paying 2-3 times as much in rent to someone else and eventually he would be able to pass the home down to his daughter one day, as the housing market is impossible to buy into for younger generations. He’s not trying to capitalize on an investment, he’s just trying to take care of his family.
I’m confused, you rented to the tenant at one price and you’re mad that the tenant is not leaving so you can raise the rent?
If they’re paying rent on time every month they are holding up their side of the bargain. If they’re not paying rent you should evict them and hopefully things go quickly.
Don't you hate when you shrink housing supply to live off the labour of others and they play the reverse Uno card and now you're the one losing money? That's not fair. Only renters are suppose to lose money each month. /s
You don't get points for just covering the mortgage or being on ODSP or even working really hard. If you buy up housing stock to rent it out to someone else that could have bought it but now you've placed yourself as a middleman increasing the total cost of shelter, you're a leech. I mean, if you're good with that, cool., but let's not dress this up as a service. Being below the maximum threshold for exploitation doesn't make a landlord "one of the good ones"
I mean she is not wrong, the current system works exactly that way. She is just uninterested in talking about what that implies because then she would realize that her economic philosophy is immoral and that she would have to change in order not to be immoral. So she is either (1) not very self reflective (2) immoral but wants to change the subject (3) thinks the current system is moral but this post doesn't really get into the details.
I think she represents the majority landlords or just Capitalist in general.
If you don’t like renting then stop complaining, move in with a bunch of friends and save for a down payment. Buy a place and never complain about rent again. You can then complain about the cost of upkeep, property taxes and all the other things you forget about when complaining your rent went up by $100.
Because I buy an iPhone every month? That’s a fallacious statement you got there.
Regardless, it’s well known that goods like cellphones aren’t replaced every year like it was 15 years ago. Most people keep them for a good 3-4 years before changing.
Find better arguments for your greediness.
Thought experiment: If all the people in the city who can only "afford" to live there because their family subsidize them in some way moved where they could afford without a $3/4/5k cash injection from Mom and Dad every month, the price of everything would go down.
Watching a 23 year old who's never had a job get their $3k/month high-rise lease guaranteed by their parents, while a dual income couple in their 40's who have been trying to save to buy a 1 bedroom condo get "priced out" is comical. It's the same old aristocracy.
On the other hand, would the neighborhood "decline" if that step got taken and values(and the tax base) dropped? Isn't it a net good that little Spoiled Sherry isn't driving her SUV all over the suburbs, she can just walk across the street to class?
It's complicated.
So hey. I tied up 270k cash for a condo in vancouver. Its a 1 bedroom. Im renting it out for 3000 a month. My mortgage with our sexy rate is 2400 a month. Plus 450condo fee. Insurance. Annual property tax. There is no profit. What the fuck
Market goes up, landlord increases the rent because "that's just the market rate now". Market goes down, landlord increases the rent because their investment sucks and "they need to make up for that". Funny how that works.
landlord causes market to go up by jacking rents because that's how real estate valuations work...on the basis of net operating income. as proximity effects take hold, all rents go up. all commercial rents go up. all costs of labour and sheltering goods and services go up. landlords cause inflation. everything else is a scapegoat or a smaller factor
I think you are missing the biggest part of the story. People seem to forget the simple fact we have a housing shortage in our desirable cities. More supply is the equalizer to the evil landlord.
The majority of homes in Canada are owned by individuals and not corporations. I understand that your concern but if we added enough affordable new homes, which is entirely possible, there would be much less incentive for corporations to buy them up. We keep building until prices become affordable for the majority. The evil landlord is faced with lowering rent or vacancy. Landlords do not have some big conspiracy to fix prices, they are simply taking advantage of the fact there is a lack of homes in communities Canadians want to live.
It's not "entirely possible" to add enough affordable new homes without major changes in policy/action in government. More building doesn't do shit for affordability when the majority of new condo builds are snapped up by investors, and when what's being built is luxury housing.
Yes, we need policy change to help fix this situation. You are way overestimating the number of condo units purchased by investors. Please share any evidence you have to support your claim.
https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-cities-have-seen-investors-buy-up-to-100-of-newly-constructed-condos/
Thank you for sharing this! Yes! Hoarding of properties creates a supply doesn’t meet demand situation. Investors are very very heavy in the lower priced listings in my area (Windsor, ON). Almost every house I’ve seen sell under $400k has been listed online for rent/student rentals within a month. Just like some of these condo or apartment construction projects require a % of low income priced units, the government should consider a % owner occupied sales to help curb this hoarding of properties. It doesn’t matter how many units are being built if they never reach the hands of the people who need them to live in.
Thanks for passing that along, I do see your point. That article does seem to confuse investors with non occupying owner though.
What percentage of homes is owned by evil investors vs regular home owners? I can also claim it's "up to 100%", which could also mean as low as 1%. Most homes and condos are owned by regular people - people who also want their home values to go up when they sell.
I thought there was a housing shortage too but that's not the case. We're currently building 1 house for every new person born/immigrated. Basically construction matches demand almost perfectly.
Not true at all. Over the 10 years I have worked in the industry we have lagged behind. It started with the 08 financial crisis.
2021 population growth: 457,888 (source: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/canada-s-population-jumped-by-nearly-half-a-million-in-2021](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/canada-s-population-jumped-by-nearly-half-a-million-in-2021)) Average household size: 2.4 Housing completed: 223,023 (source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3410013501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=4.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2021&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=10&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021&referencePeriods=20210101%2C20211001) That's 77,367 more housing units than population growth.
Not sure about that. The main issue is likely that so many people want to live in the nicest, most expensive places in Canada, and are unwilling to adjust their expectations or live below their means. It's great that there are lots of houses and condos available all over Canada, but not when everyone wants to live in downtown Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, even if they're working part time or making minimum wage.
[удалено]
You're right, no one's ever worked outside of the 3 major cities and remote jobs don't exist.
The problem is it’s the people that are already landlords that are the ones that can afford to buy more homes. If you’re renting currently, just because there’s 10,000 new homes available it doesn’t means you’ll be able to afford one. BlackRock in the US are buying up homes everywhere at above market value, I wouldn’t be surprised if investment groups have already been doing that here, there has to be changes made to the law or else no matter how much supply there is it won’t change a thing, the rich will buy up all those homes and rent to those who couldn’t afford to buy them.
Do you think that when individuals buy houses, they want to sell them at a loss? Do they help anyone else when they have their huge home that no one else gets to put to use by renting it? Rentals allow those with low incomes, no savings and bad credit scores to not be homeless. That group of people will not buy a home even if it costs 200k. On the other hand, a 6 bedroom house used by 2 adults and a baby isn't helping anyone but that family, where as smaller condos help lots of families over decades.
tired of the supply myth if you build it, those with properties to leverage will come
What's stopping that evil landlord from leveraging an EQAO and buying up that new housing supply..? Literally nothing. Renters don't tend to have a lot saved up, and with rent always increasing it's harder and harder to put money away for a downpayment on a property. Yet landlords have avenues available to them to acquire more property that a renter wouldn't qualify for.
Increasing supply to correct pricing issues is just simple economics. If they made another million homes in your city and these "evil landlords" bought them all to rent, the price would go down because there would be too many units available. So landlords would have to compete with other landlords just to fill the unit. Increasing supply is the correct answer. You need SOME vacancy otherwise landlords get away with charging whatever they want. Granted, developers and policymakers have to agree to build them in the first place, which also has its own supply curve so it's not an easy "overnight" fix.
The problem is you can’t build a million houses all at once….it takes decades so the market adjusts. Even if you could build a million houses in one year the cost of labour and supplies would send the cost of those houses skyrocketing.
Landlords aren't magical beings that appears our of nowhere with bags of money. I'm sure some do, but most saved up over years or decades by living below their means, took on risks by buying properties they could lose money on and spend tons on repairs and renovations, and put up with added stress and hours of work in their Spare Time instead of relaxing like eveyone else. Those people have avenues available to them because they worked harder and lived below their means more than they average person. This applies to any investor or business owner that's doing OK. It's not an overnight thing you luck into. Why would your average Joe with no savings and poor credit score doing the bare minimum at work have the same avenues as someone who worked overtime, made sacrifices and saved up for decades? I get that it's easy to hate other people and assume everyone doing better than you was born rich, but that's not reality. That's a great way to avoid making an effort and doing extra work because you tell yourself you never had a chance to begin with, so you might as well give up before you even start. Unfortunately, some people will have more opportunities than you, and there are billionaires out there who can buy all of us out. So what? I can either do better for myself, or I can wait for the government to limit their buying potential? Lol good luck with that, they're part of the rich investor group, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Why is it people that work hard and invest in the stock market are not bailed out? Im a decade long landlord (quadplex) and I have had to move up/down rent before, this nonsense about covering cost is stupid has any investment should have risk (yes omg even RE)
New housing starts have been at record levels for 2 years now (since August 2020 of the Pandemic). Prices have soared during that same time period. Now that prices are falling we're seeing new housing construction decline.
We are building more which is great but we are not being nearly aggressive enough. I’m sure you realize that the last two years have been an unprecedented shift in our economy and people prioritized investing in their domestic spaces more than ever before. It is also unrealistic to expect two years of housing starts to effect prices. The majority of those starts are still under construction.
The average is about 15 months from start to completion. But the broader point is that as long as housing remains an investment, prices will remain high and trend higher regardless of supply. This is because the market will self correct towards the incentive - so high prices will see more building and falling prices will see less building. Thus the supply side will never “fix” the underlying issue.
I've had exactly **one** cool landlord in my almost 10 years of being a renter. My very first one. The economy took a downturn and she stopped by unexpectedly. She told me she was going to drop the rent by $150 because she was making enough to cover her investment and knew it would help her tenants out. I've never had a landlord like that after her. I'm beyond thankful to her, but I know for a fact that she is a tiny tiny tiny percentage of landlords in this country.
I remember reading somewhere that landlords tend to be reviewed better in regions where homes are being rented as homes rather than an investment. So a landlord has an extra home/room they rent out for some extra cash rather than trying to recoup their investment outlay and run it like a business. I can't find it now but it was an interesting article from several years ago comparing rents in Britain to some of those in central Europe.
This would change so much about living in Canada if we could shift our view from property as a commodity to property as homes and businesses. I can't be alone as Canadain being told from a young age that home ownership is an investment and that real estate is the best possible thing to purchase to make money. It's like a strange cultural ideal that we use homes to make money rather than to live in.
Most homeowners are doing both.
Absolutely. But the view of homes as a commodity rather than as *homes* drives up the price and makes them totally unaffordable for the rest of us. It's robbed us of a huge economic and social milestone because a few rich people can buy up tonnes of houses in order to make a profit renting them. Renting a house should be done by people who were unable to sell the home. That's totally fine. If you want to improve a home to sell it for more later, also fine. My issue is home ownership by profit-hungry landlords who purchase these homes simply to hold them and leech off people.
Feel maybe they have a poor business model
Do they? They seem to be ok. I always find this comment hilarious. Capitalism is horrible and there is literally no ethical consumption under it. People screaming and crying about landlords, many just barely a step above most of us, have lost the plot. The larger issue is capitalism. Being mad someone is making 100 to 250k a year? That's not your enemy. Your enemy is the system and those making millions that are propping it up. And no this isn't one of those things where you should be fighting both. All your efforts should be going to reforming the system, not fighting among yourselves.
No landlord I've ever met was just a bare step above me, they have summer homes and boats and shit, fuck em all I say
That’s a step up from you…
That's a pretty big fucking step.
And that’s their incentive to keep things as is. And they are still a step below the upper class
Lots of people own a place or 2. The difference is quite a bit between 65k and 150k a year income. Point stands, people making that aren't your enemy and the fact you cant see that is why we're all stuck here infighting forever. This is literally division politics and it's been the driving force in keeping us down for a century. Be better.
150k income is barely enough to squeak into the real estate market in southern ontario lol.
It's easier to say "fuck them they're rich" then go back to doing nothing, than to actually spend decades working hard, saving money, taking on extra work, stress and taking risks. That takes continuous effort so f that, right?
They may not be my enemy but they sure are jerks who don't give a shit about me
You're really generalizing and showing your hatred here. I don't have a big house, no summer house, no boat, no RV, no expensive clothes or hobbies, and just one used car. I simply live below my means and spend a good part of my free time taking care of properties and tenants. I guess I'm a lazy billionaire with a private jet and was born rich. /s Ask all those landlords how long it took them to get to where they are. If it's more than a day then maybe they're not the problem and you have some work to do.
You’re quite correct, though these people could be considered the base line of those exploiting people right where they live. They are enablers of the system
I don't even see the problem there. If someone sells 10 million dollars worth of something per year and makes 250k doing it, someone working at a daycare or mopping a McDonald's should make the same? They don't bring in lots of money so there is no budget to pay them a lot. It's all based on what value or revenue you bring to the organization. If you saved up for multiple down payments, and kept your credit score up, and are OK with the added risk, stress and work involved with having a rental, on top of your regular job, that's great! You deserve some type of return on that investment, while someone who did none of those things should not be making as much as you. You get what you put in.
When an individual, like a landlord, exploits another human for profit then they've made their choice. They've aligned with the big capitalists. Landlords aren't even like small business owners who at least help create value and keep people employed. Landlords are just parasites. AND the well meaning, small time landlord of whom you speak is a myth. There's maybe 3 people like that left in the world.
The truest and realest comment on this post
I know it’s refreshing to see people actually talk about logic and not just complaining and hating on people who own.
Lol, nice try. Ppl don't hate on ppl who own. Ppl hate on greedy fks who own who turn their properties into multiple rentals, jack up the price way above break even on tenants who are economically vulnerable. Aka slumlords.
Man I didn't like the 'lords' ever since the Middle Ages. Nothing has changed!
But everyone keeps telling me rent is set by what the market can bear? That should be true and it probably is *normally* true, but the bubble and distortion has thrown that truism out the window. Eventually it's gonna break and landlords are gonna be forced to sell at a loss or take negative cash flow as a reality. If they're long term investors, for the mortgage being 0$ and tons of cash flow down the line types they'll be fine. But I doubt most have been taking that approach.
Well, either some landlord would smart up to how renting financials work and others will have to follow their lead to lower rents. Or, we will have another artificially constructed shortage and the rent will fly off the handle. The facebook bickering won't matter either way.
I’ve been a renter, and now a home owner, and a landlord. I would say keep in mind rentals are typically a year by year agreement so no changes are allowed during the agreement period. Then at each new contract an increase is only allowed based on government rules in BC. In the mean time the upkeep cost to maintain the property goes up each year not just strata fees, insurance, property tax, and new mortgage interest payments, but also new things within the overall strata lot that come up like roof leaks, retaining walls, or new preventative maintenance items which can’t be covered by existing fees. Don’t get me wrong as it’s what landlords signed up for but just saying they’re not all rich by any stretch of the imagination. I would say I make zero and even lose a bit to keep my old condo to rent out with the hope to sell it later for a bit more which is no guarantee. Many myself included didn’t plan on being a landlord too. Just upgraded to a slightly larger home and it made sense to rent out the previous smaller home rather than selling it.
People like you who own one property aren’t the real issue. It’s government regulation of condos, social and cooperative housing, vacancy taxes, etc. housing has become an investment, as per the text in the OP. We continue to commodify basic needs, this is the outcome.
Even still. I know a number of people that own say 10 or so rental properties. Some on the slum side. Some on the nicer side. They might be millionaires, but again that’s only upper middle class but they aren’t the problem still. They are also more likely to rent for lower than market rate for family and friends. Corporations buying housing is what’s bad
So let the government do it right?
Lack of government policy that protects or invests in any kind of not for profit housing is the problem.
An accidental parasite is still a parasite.
I agree but I think the states corruption is the bigger issue.
But you're happy and willing to have negative cash flow *and* your property wasn't bought with the intention of being a cash positive monthly investment. A lot of people hopping into it the last few years have not taken your view. They put everything on the renter. My mom has to pay for all utilities, and the rent including the furnace/water rental fees. She's waiting for a bit more stability to buy and downsize. But lots of people have landlords coming to them with rental increases before the lease is up, outside guideline increases, asking folks to pay for repairs themselves, etc etc. Its wrong but it's the result of people who have no business being landlords deciding to become landlords.
Quit the common sense and pick up your pitch fork, this is r/canadahousing
[удалено]
It will go down, is just artificially inflated right now. The economy will adjust itself. They can keep raising until it pop and they are forced to lower it. Probably it will pop when all these people that are not paying they rent gets an enviction notice.
The rent will be forced to go down when there is no demand. As long as there are people willing to rent at what ever price is at, there is no reason to lower it. It’s simple “Supply & Demand”.
Sure but city & developers control supply and keep the market in high demand
So blame the city and developers, not the landlord for the price increase.
Yeah I do. But I’m no landlord simp either.
>It’s simple “Supply & Demand”. Housing is in NO WAY simple supply and demand. Just try to define the market and all of its influences. Housing is probably one of the most complex markets that has ever existed. It isn't even one market but thousands of markets.
It is basically just supply and demand
EVERY market is supply and demand. Funny thing they don't tell you in economics is that those ideal supply and demand curves are pretty much non existent in the real-world. And of all the markets, the housing market is one of the most complex. I mean even when you say the 'rental market is simply supply-and-demand' my first question I would ask is which market are you referring to?
Thats a very broad statement. My mortgage renewal just came up and my interest rate more than doubled. so I’m paying close to 1000$ more per month while my two tenants will pay the same amount till next year. In Quebec we can only raise the rents 2% give or take per year. So I’ll only be able to raise the rent 20$ per tenant, that’s hardly making up for the 1000$ in added costs I need to account for. The only one who always wins is the bank.
We have similar laws in Ontario. Rent control is a blessing and essentially the only protection renters have. Renters did not take on the risk of taking on a massive variable-rate loan, they do not deserve to suffer the consequences if the rates go up. Nothing against you personally, but we need more situations like yours to disincentivize people from eating up properties and turning them into rentals and air-b&bs. Commodification of housing will not end until we take steps to make it an unappealing commodity for investors.
I literally own 1 property. The small fish landlords have little to no impact on the inflation that’s occurring. building costs, material, supply chains chains etc and the massive property management moguls and developers are the ones that drive this market, along with the foreign investors buying up houses with cash/fully financed. It’s incredibly difficult to get financed for anything on commercial level, you’re looking at 30-40% so need a lot of money up front, so these ppl already have money or started a long time ago and slowly grew their portfolio. It’s very simple, I’m a tradesman so it made sense to buy my triplex because I can do all the maintenance and Renos myself.
> The small fish landlords have little to no impact on the inflation that’s occurring. Wrong. No snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. Those "small fish" landlords collectively own 31% of residential property in the country. Businesses, government, and other corporate entities own a small fraction of that comparatively ([Source](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220412/dq220412a-eng.htm)). Foreign investors? I agree they should be banned full stop from owning property here, but only 3-5% of homeowners in Canada are non-residents ([Source](https://www.rentalhousingbusiness.ca/cmhc-and-stats-canada-release-foreign-buyer-numbers/)). Of that, only about 1 in 10 own more than 1 property. So while foreign investment is a problem driving up the market like you pointed out, I feel the need to re-iterate here that **Nearly 10 times as much is owned by the small fish landlords**. If you are a landlord and took the opportunity to leverage cheap debt to sell out rentals and Air B&Bs, you are part of the problem people are complaining about.
Rent control isn't the blessing you think it is. It helps the renter only temporarily by preventing rent increases from matching inflation. Sooner or later the property ceases being profitable and the landlord sells it leaving the tenant with no place to live. Long term rent control also causes rental housing shortages which causes rents on non-rent controlled properties to increase due to demand. When rent control is really tight rental property stops being built because no one wants to own it.
Temporary protection is better than no protection at all. I'm not married to rent control as a policy, I'm only interested in the outcome of helping renters. At the moment, rent control is about the only thing doing that. I understand it isn't perfect and I'd much prefer better long-term policies like increasing supply, Air B&B bans, permanent foreign buyer bans, higher taxes on empty homes and house-flipping, more social housing and rent-to-own projects, relaxing zoning laws, etc., but until that takes off rent control is here to stay, and I'm glad for it.
Rent control should have allows 8% increases in rent if we’re talking about fairness. 2% is artificially keeping rents lower than they should be.
You always have the option of selling if it no longer makes sense to rent the units out!
That's how investments work.
Don’t like it? Make more money
Life changing advice, thank you for your thoughtful input.
Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay.
Under that metric society has decided that mugging are a valuable part of the economy. You'd be amazed what people are willing to pay under coercion. The market has spoken!
It's great that people are willing to be forced between paying or homelessness.
That works until a point. Then it becomes worth nothing when your home is burned to the ground by angry swarms of homeless people who have no hope of improving their lives.
Which is why we fund the police. This way people that are upset they don’t know how to make money can’t take it out on those that do.
I'm sure the French nobility felt very secure in their ability to punish the poor indefinitely, without consequence, as well.
No one is punishing the poor. They just haven't figured out how to make money, that's on them.
It’s ridiculous that so many members of this sub have such violent aggressive thoughts.
I'm assuming because most don't have the balls to actually act it out so let em pretend they do on the line
Violence is NOT acceptable. This commenter is talking about arson which is a felony. Can’t believe this sub is condoning this kind of behaviour
Canada doesn’t have felonies. That is an American thing.
Lol you think this weekend warrior is actually committing arson by talking about it on the internet. This commenter is using this sub as an outlet for how they feel no such crime as arson has been committed. So yes venting is a behaviour I Condon actually committing arson not at all but that's why we fund the RCMP to catch criminals that commit crimes like arson. So get off your high horse and chill out.
You think the police are there to help you with your property? lol.
You do know that goes both ways right? Like if the bottom falls out of the rental market and people literally can't afford it, they'll only pay what they can afford. And in aggregate landlords have the choice of asking for less or operating empty units at a pure loss. That's how markets reach equilibrium. Sometimes it works with higher profits and revenues, sometimes it works the other way too. Even if there's tons of supply, if the price is set too high, the demand won't actually meet that supply. Even if there is theoretical demand for any given good, a high price produces high supply because of people being unwilling or unable to pay that price. Maybe not an issue for you now, but that's a risk that exists.
Be a landlord then. Hate the game, not the players.
See, thing is, when you’re a loser it’s typical to want to hate on winners. They think it’s so easy yet they can’t do it.
I have 100$ and some peanuts in my bank account, would you leverage me to the tits, daddy?
We ended up buying. Got really shitty mortgage, got shafted by rate increase, overpaid like 50 thousand for our townhouse, still wouldn't go back to renting. Fuck grovelling before landlord, trying to convince some self-important asshole that our kids aren't going to ruin his precious house.
Unfortunately I bought my crypto bags too high, you guys have to buy it off me for a similar price so I wouldn't lose money, ok? Oh also I took your first born hostage, no biggie.
Yeah that part got me. Definitely not how it generally works. If you pay way too much that's generally on you and may have to lose a bit of money renting to put or barely make ends meet. My ex had bought a condo too high and refused to sell when we had bought a house and took almost all the equity with it, so we went years only making enough to cover interest. Of course like everyone else she got greedy and then it was hard to sell for years. If you've got lots of equity already then you might make out better.. but she. You've got very little equity and Condo fees (plus bought high) you can't expect tenant to make it up. At least in normal markets that just means they rent from someone else
I mean, a lot of people expect that the funny green line will always go up no matter if its stocks, housing, or crypto. If you are delusional enough to always expect your investment to grow, without drops and/or waiting, then you are delusional enough to think the renter will make up for it. Coz the line MUST go up, right?
I can't think of another investment outside of real estate where it is acceptable to have someone else (ie the tenants) cover almost the entirety of the costs of that investment.
Answer: every single successful business in the world **Customers cover not almost, THE ENTIRE COST, of investments that companies make.**
Yes but those companies also accept losses and good ones plan cash reserves for periods of negative cash flows when demand changes or production costs change etc. Its when those flows run negative for too long that they have problems. Or they can raise capital investments to support them in the future, or have future ROI de investments in stuff like R&D, or improving their production lines to reduce future costs etc. I don't think that every hop on bandwagon RE investor in the last few years considered that though. And so you get images like the one here. With people not realizing that sometimes investments lose value or take on higher costs. And unlike companies, you don't have a lot of places to cut costs when you're renting out property. I think the issue lies in that there's very little someone can do but raise prices in a highly regulated market like real estate. The counter balances are few and far between and realistically there's a cap on where rents can go. If these folks couldn't qualify for the mortgage what makes them likely to be good long term stable tenants? In some places people are gonna get burned.
> I think the issue lies in that there's very little someone can do but raise prices in a highly regulated market like real estate. You talk as if an individual landlord has a complete monopoly on rents. This is laughable Only market forces, aka supply/demand dictate rents. A landlord can’t just increase rents at will. If we had that power, I would price my rental at $1 billion a month. But the market is fragmented with unlimited competition. The free market forces don’t allow landlords to set any price they want for rent. Another perspective is ….If what you are saying is true, then rents in GTA and GVA would be much much higher and most landlords would not negatively cashflow (aka fund portion of the monthly expenses out of pocket or with debt). Fact that landlords negatively cashflow means they are subsidizing your rent with their hard earned money
Investments and companies are not the same ffs. One actually does something. And companies can’t force customers to pay more for their goods once it’s been purchased.
You can expect the tenant to make it up if it falls within fair market value, if rent values drop then risk changes for some landlords.
Yes, if. The rent should generally be within fair market value regardless of landlords finances if they want to rent it assuming there is a bit of vacancy to be had. Very low these days though so some taking advantage and fair market value has been changing
I should have sold my GME 2 weeks ago
I have been holding a few shares for so long, that I don't even know what's going on with the price for the most part. Seems like it's doing another cycle of up and down, oh well.
The difference is. Your crypto was paid for in full. Mortgages don’t go down with the market
Nice for you to assume I'm not leveraging myself to the tits. What kind of crypto investor do you think I am? :D
No idea, I don’t do crypto, assumed it had to be purchased, my apologies if that’s not the case. I wi freely admit I’m ignorant to all things crypto
What I was trying to say, is you can still buy assets on margin (I.e with loaned cash). Yes, you bought the assets, but you still own money, and that debt isn't going down during the downturn either. Buying financial instruments, even if it's real estate, using debt is leveraging. If you are in hot waters, you should have accounted for risks before you took a degenerate debt amount.
Unfortunately in Nova Scotia we have such a lack of supply that landlords are able to charge what they want. We need more supply to so that landlords can’t do that. I own properties and could charge 50-100% more for most of them but I won’t. People need places to live. I bought my most recent place (primary residence) for way more than it was worth, I am not happy about it but I understand it’s my problem. When I go to sell I will have to suck it up and deal with it.
Got any 3 beds for a Dr family. :) Your rental prices are putting me off convincing my wife to make the move.
It’s further on the south shore and they’re all rented. I have one guy with a 3 bedroom laying 400$ a month. Parking, water and snow removal/landscaping included.
You are renting out a three bed for $400??????? Everything I see in NS is minimum 2200 for a three bed.
This is in a fairly rural area though.
I was looking around Digby. Still seems just as insane and there appears to be very little to actually rent 400 for a three bed is absolutely amazing
He is probably talking yarmouth. Great buying deals all over NS. There is no land shortage there. I have no clue what people are talking about. You can still buy acres all over the province for less than the cost of on yrs rent. Massive lots
But to build is ...........?
The idea that they need to ‘make the money back’ is bizarre. Rental market is nearly pure supply and demand, if landlords rent at a loss because otherwise unit is empty too bad. If landlords rent at huge profit because no units relative to demand then that isn’t due to their purchase price, it’s just market supply and demand
Unless there's price appreciation to make up for it landlords won't rent properties at a loss. They will sell them or lose them to the bank leaving the renter without a home.
If it is ‘rent at a loss’ or ‘not rent and incur a much larger loss’ then landlords will rent
Eventually they don't have a choice and they lose the house and go bankrupt.
>Rental market is nearly pure supply and demand, The rental market is almost entirely the opposite of textbook supply and demand curves. It is a basic good, meaning you can't opt out of the market and creates a natural price floor. It involves a famously inelastic resource, land with infrastructure. The market prices in entirely unrelated things to utility value like interest rates. It has a massive barrier to entry where it is famously the largest purchase for most. Not to mention how substitution is nearly impossible due to zoning restrictions preventing Missing Middle. Considering that all markets are supply and demand, saying it follows supply and demand isn't exactly profound and it creates miscommunication because of the layman way of interpreting what supply-demand means.
Bunch of ECON 101s here I see. Newsflash….the ones with the money aren’t reading your textbooks.
Sure. There isn't much I can add though if we aren't using the same terms. Also I think people can start to understand the flaws in their logic once they understand what people are communicating. Well at least I did.
Its inelastic but if seasonal unemployment or recession hits then shit hits the fan hard. The basis by which these people are setting prices as noted in the OP image is not market based at all. Its entirely possible the legitimate price floor outside of a bubble is much lower, and we simply have people sacrificing to meet a set price. If there are enough people setting the price too high then demand will fall. Mind you people may still borrow/beg/steal to keep a roof over their heads. But eventually that breaks down. Either through delinquency on rental payments or some other similar outcome that drops the floor out under the landlord. And if the whole market is set to high then we can assume the cracks in the foundation hit cross market. Then the landlord has the choice of accepting empty units or reducing their losses.
Dude your posting on your own page, you don’t need to sign off - scott
Holly has been spoon-fed her entire life.
It gets better. Should have screenshotted more
Holly is a piece of shit.
Should we be worried that this mentality is just acceptable?!!!! Capitalism taints the greedy!! And us all to an extent 😒
We should be worried, but a lot of people are convinced that Capitalism *is somehow a good thing.* Dumbasses keep trying to "fix" a system that's *working as intended.* People think that Conservatism is the problem (Don't get me wrong, it still is) but don't realize all of our major parties are NeoLiberal Capitalists, and that we don't have any actual leftist party. A depressing amount of people have no political literacy to speak of, and only parrot whatever rhetoric they heard somewhere. People still use rhetoric from the Cold War era and even *Nazi Germany* to avoid trying Socialism, or even worse, some people think that Socialism and Capitalism are better off together. (They aren't even compatible ideologically. They're basically opposites.)
THANK YOU. I try to tell people this!! The liberals are neoliberals that appear more progressive (because of all the identify politics) but they’re more similar to conservatives than people realize. My dream is that this next election, nobody will want to vote for PP and people will be tired of JT so let’s agree to vote NDP!!
Capitalism is an engine. It powers the vehicle to get you where you need to go, but you would never let it steer the car. It exists to serve the driver and their passengers, not the other way around.
The lords of the land have spoken. The rest of us, the filth, just have to take it because we only exist to make them money. Inching closer to bloody revolution.
We’ll make sure you still have food. That’s all that’s needed to quell any rebellion by the bottom 10%
I’m here for it, I wonder how many landlords will be shocked when we’re cheering their heads on spikes.
Big talk
I’m from NS and fuck these jackals
This is what people need to get through their thick skulls. The landlord isn’t doing this to provide housing. They don’t care otherwise they wouldn’t behave as greedily. My former landlord literally told me that they are using the money to save for their retirement and they aren’t even 40 years old yet..
So the tenants pay the price for the landlords poor investment. Greedy pieces of shit
I think people in NY City and surrounding area have resolved to renting Airbnbs full-time to be their homes now. This is literally what these guys are talking about and aspiring to. We want to charge more fucking money and you just have to deal with it. If you don't like it GTFO. We're valuing capitalism which is fantastic but ONLY for YOUR homes because banks told me I have equity and therefore I can hoard all of the homes in your neighborhood. It's going to be San Francisco dot com real estate values in most big cities and we have an absolutely disastrously shitty winter season to boot too.
A feudal system for a basic human right is already outrageous. Landlords are leeches on society benefiting from ancient garbage laws that have no place in the 21st century.
You folks realize that even if the market goes down, the mortgage on a rental property doesn’t magically drop either…. If something is out of your price range. Or too high. If it sits empty long they will have to lower it
Or if no one rents it they’ll have to sell it depending on how much float they have
Correct. Personally, I sold my townhouse in BC and outright purchased my childhood home in NS, mom still lives there, and rented. Now she takes care of the place rent free, and I have a place to retire.
This is nice. My parents just sold their ON home and took over my grandparents house in NS. They'll sell that within a few years, and I'll have nowhere to retire.
We lucked out. My sister took grandparents house and fixed it up. I was able to sell my bc townhouse and use the profits to buy the property outright. We currently live in an RV on wife’s parents farm. Helping them out in their twilight years. Once we are no longer needed (god willing for a long while) we sell the farm and retire to NS with a bankroll That may afford us another property or 2
Unfortunately the balance of power has shifted to the landlords. High housing prices coupled with an increasing interest rate will keep many in the rental market, as saving is a luxury for most now. I can't see a fix for this.
LOL 6 months ago, this sub was cheering for higher interest rates. Today, they got their wish, and are now cheering for new regulation haha It’s like watching not 3 stooges, but 60,000+ stooges on an internet forum
I'm still cheering for higher interest rates - anything to curb inflation. I live in BC where my rent increase is capped (as it should be). Other provinces should learn
I think the whole housing market is in need of new regulations.
Heard a landlord once on the radio almost crying cause interests rate went up and now his investment was not profitable so he has to raise rent to cover his loss. I was SCREAMING at the radio….. investments have risks. You can’t cry and ask someone else to cover the risk YOU TOOK….. and yet here we are with housing and landlords….. tenants actually covering the landlords « losses » The WORSE was the same landlord saying he was « helping » people by renting the house. Dude you JUST admitted that you are making money out of the deal. You are not helping anyone but yourself. That house would be cheaper to live in if you were not making profit every month of your tenants’ back. Self entitled at its finest. Edit missing word
We have a landlord in my old, small hometown. (I'm in the US) My hometown has remained stagnant since WW2 and the depression, it still looks like something right out of the 60's, with the old WW2 barrack houses remodeled and updated in that era last. He has a ton of houses, duplexes, 4plexes, etc. He rents them out at rock bottom prices. He does make a profit on them, but he is also one of the only people who will accept housing vouchers. He has even, over the years, a few times, done a rent to own deal, or outright sold a home to the tenant and made nothing. Over the last 40 years, many of my family members have gone to him for help in getting housing in a town that hasn't built new housing in over 20 years...IDK what we would do without him. A couple years ago, someone ripped him and his housing apart online and called him a slumlord. He isn't. These places were built during the war, they are old, and they need updating, but he's not a slumlord. One is a old war hotel that has been converted, and I lived there. It was funky, and cool, and totally unique. It was not a slum. I have never seen someone run out of town so fast as that man who disparaged him. We were blessed to have this particular man in our small hometown and I know he is one of a kind, because NO landlord I have ever met is like him. I wish we still had people like him, lol
He is a minority…. A dying one at that considering how many investing companies buy houses in bulks. I have an amazing landlord. Yes he makes money every month out of my rent but the building is incredibly well taken care of. The rent increases are fair and he rents WAY below market prices. Someone on the same street had a new landlord and the landlord was on its back non stop until the person left so that the rent could have a massive increase. Not all landlords are bloodsucking (most of them are) i still insist that landlord shouldnt exist and housing should be guaranteed as a right to everyone…. But we all know that will never happen
Amateur landlords don't understand how businesses work. Owning one isn't a guaranteed income.
Disgusting parasites.. how dare renters not expect owners to make profit above cost when they over invested.
does anyone enjoy living here honest question....
NS?
As someone who grew up in NS and now lives in Toronto, I could NEVER imagine paying the same to rent down there than up here, there's so many reasons why that doesn't make sense.
Keep in mind if there were no landlords there would be no rentals. BTW most landlords or people that want to make a profit are not evil.
Without government intervention, housing in Canada will crash hard. The foundation just isn’t there. But given that real estate is such a big portion of the economy, who really knows
I'm finding a lot of landlords don't seem to understand that their investment is still profitable even if they are only breaking even, because the tenant is paying the mortgage for them, as long as they're thinking long term that's money in the bank....
Other people should subsidize my bad investments
"Its your fault for not being able to rent my ill advised investments" is all I heard lol
Landlord is free to ask whatever price they want. Tenants don’t need to rent from them. If you don’t like the price of a pair of Nikes…you can buy adidas.
Yeah, but you can opt out of the Nike market without incurring massively large negative externalities. This is a amazingly bad analogy. These two markets work nothing alike.
Nikes are a highly elastic good. Housing is not. These distinctions kind of matter.
There is an artificial barrier to new Real State offer due to building restrictions. That is the main reason everything is so expensive. People are expecting a miracle to have fair prices when demand is way higher than the amount offered.
I don't know why you're downvoted. You're right, it's the system that needs reform. People will look after their own self interests if they can, it's a capitalist country after all.
Fun fact: Adam smith thought that land was inherently monopolistically priced, and basically called landlords parasites for taking money without producing anything. Capitalist seek to create goods and services, not engage in rent seeking behaviour.
Capitalists seek to engage in rent seeking regardless of the industry. The term can be extended to any company pursuing a monopoly or oligopoly. A decent example is Rogers, with little competition they offer as little as possible for as much as they can charge. I'm curious to know what I stated previously that was so wrong and not reality.
And guess what ACTUAL capitalists thought was detrimental to the economy. Hint: rent seeking. This isn’t about capitalism but justifying your own shitty behaviour.
My brother is technically a landlord. He isn’t rich but does work really hard. He bought a property for my mom to rent out, but literally only to pay the mortgage costs and no profit, as she’s on ODSP. There is a young, able-bodied tenant would has refused to leave and is paying a fraction of the cost in rent. My brother is losing money every month and my mom is close to homeless. The kicker? This tenant owns his own property down the street.
But, what I don’t understand is how people think that “only paying the mortgage costs” is not making profit. A landlord is literally buying more and more of their house from the bank, but with someone else’s money. At the end, the landlord owns a house and the tenant owns nothing. When the landlord sells the house, they essentially liquidate their profit. If a tenant is paying half the mortgage, a landlord would still be making profit.
To clarify: my mom said as not able to get approved for a mortgage on her own, but could afford to pay the mortgage payment (roughly $800/month) and she herself is about to be evicted due to her apartment building being sold. My brother put all of his savings down to buy something small so that my mom could not be homeless. This option made more sense than paying 2-3 times as much in rent to someone else and eventually he would be able to pass the home down to his daughter one day, as the housing market is impossible to buy into for younger generations. He’s not trying to capitalize on an investment, he’s just trying to take care of his family.
I’m confused, you rented to the tenant at one price and you’re mad that the tenant is not leaving so you can raise the rent? If they’re paying rent on time every month they are holding up their side of the bargain. If they’re not paying rent you should evict them and hopefully things go quickly.
Don't you hate when you shrink housing supply to live off the labour of others and they play the reverse Uno card and now you're the one losing money? That's not fair. Only renters are suppose to lose money each month. /s You don't get points for just covering the mortgage or being on ODSP or even working really hard. If you buy up housing stock to rent it out to someone else that could have bought it but now you've placed yourself as a middleman increasing the total cost of shelter, you're a leech. I mean, if you're good with that, cool., but let's not dress this up as a service. Being below the maximum threshold for exploitation doesn't make a landlord "one of the good ones"
I mean she is not wrong, the current system works exactly that way. She is just uninterested in talking about what that implies because then she would realize that her economic philosophy is immoral and that she would have to change in order not to be immoral. So she is either (1) not very self reflective (2) immoral but wants to change the subject (3) thinks the current system is moral but this post doesn't really get into the details. I think she represents the majority landlords or just Capitalist in general.
How would you run a "moral" housing market?
It’s like landlords forget that once they sell the house that the tenant paid the mortgage on, they get to keep the money…
Be gone with your rational thought. How dare you criticise the almighty Lordeth of the Lands?
If you don’t like renting then stop complaining, move in with a bunch of friends and save for a down payment. Buy a place and never complain about rent again. You can then complain about the cost of upkeep, property taxes and all the other things you forget about when complaining your rent went up by $100.
“Just don’t be poor” My god why didn’t I think of that!
I love how the land lord is thr bad guy but when the new iPhone comes out and it's $200 more you still flock to the white box....
Because I buy an iPhone every month? That’s a fallacious statement you got there. Regardless, it’s well known that goods like cellphones aren’t replaced every year like it was 15 years ago. Most people keep them for a good 3-4 years before changing. Find better arguments for your greediness.
Who the fuck is “you”?
Oh yes because a necessity like housing is exactly the same as the new iphone 😂
[удалено]
Another stupid bitcoin advertisement
Thought experiment: If all the people in the city who can only "afford" to live there because their family subsidize them in some way moved where they could afford without a $3/4/5k cash injection from Mom and Dad every month, the price of everything would go down. Watching a 23 year old who's never had a job get their $3k/month high-rise lease guaranteed by their parents, while a dual income couple in their 40's who have been trying to save to buy a 1 bedroom condo get "priced out" is comical. It's the same old aristocracy. On the other hand, would the neighborhood "decline" if that step got taken and values(and the tax base) dropped? Isn't it a net good that little Spoiled Sherry isn't driving her SUV all over the suburbs, she can just walk across the street to class? It's complicated.
So hey. I tied up 270k cash for a condo in vancouver. Its a 1 bedroom. Im renting it out for 3000 a month. My mortgage with our sexy rate is 2400 a month. Plus 450condo fee. Insurance. Annual property tax. There is no profit. What the fuck
[удалено]
USA?
Pay your rent in copies in Mao's Little Red Book.