Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Housing in Calgary on June 22, 2013.

Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press

We need to start thinking of it as a housing emergency.

The price of a home in the metropolitan areas of many countries has so far outstripped incomes that a generation is left without a reliable pathway to secure long-term tenure. In the Vancouver area, an average house now costs 12 times the combined salaries of an average employed couple; in Toronto, it’s nine times – meaning those couples would typically have to spend 60 to 80 per cent of their paycheques on house payments alone. Below 30 per cent is considered affordable housing.

Even if you erase the pandemic-era price bubble and the recent period of ultra-low interest rates, the discrepancy between house prices and incomes has been dangerously wide for a decade and a half.

Story continues below advertisement

Housing has become similarly unaffordable in the major cities of Britain, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

And that has led to talk of urgent solutions. You would think that most of those solutions involve removing obstacles that prevent organizations from putting up apartments and houses at prices that people are able to pay.

Unfortunately, there is a competing theory, which holds that house-price increases have nothing to do with insufficient housing, but by something vaguely termed “financialization.”

As described in a United Nations agency report and a European documentary that popularized the theory, financialization involves big investment firms buying up units of housing and converting them into ever-higher-priced rentals as a source of profit – thus causing overall prices to rise.

It certainly is true that the investment industry has moved into private housing in the last few years as more funds – desperate to find secure places to put our retirement savings – have found that housing offers rare above-index growth. Most controversially, the U.S. firm Invitation Homes, of which the investment firm BlackRock owns a stake, has bought up about 80,000 foreclosed houses and converted them into rental units.

In Canada, according to reporting by my colleague Rachelle Younglai, about 20 per cent of home purchases during each of the past three years have been “investor buying” (that is, when a buyer already owns at least one other house). One company, Toronto’s Core Development Group Ltd., plans to buy $1-billion worth of single-family houses over the next five years and turn them into rentals.

But the “financialization” theory has the logic of these investments upside down. These companies have switched to investing in existing housing because supplies are so short and demand is so high that prices are bound to rise. The investment firms are simply riding an existing wave.

Story continues below advertisement

Investors make no secret of this. Invitation Homes says in its own stock prospectus that the one thing that would destroy its business model would be “excess supply of homes” and the resulting lower prices.

Despite the headlines, investor buying is too minor to be a driver of market price increases. In the United States, investment-company ownership of housing stock is estimated at less than half of one per cent. In Canada, where the practice isn’t as entrenched, it’s probably less.

In reality, the truly disturbing thing about investor buying is that existing housing is a desirable market at all. Until about 2000, Canadian homes generally didn’t rise in value by any investment-grade margin. Affordable-housing activists should be welcoming pension-fund investments in housing – as long as they are creating new housing, not simply churning existing stock.

There is plenty of new-housing investment, in both rental and owner markets – it just doesn’t offer quick returns, because new apartments and houses have become so difficult to get approved and built in numbers anywhere close to Canada’s population-growth rate. When new supply does manage to get built in decent numbers, prices stop rising. For example, average rents declined in Toronto during 2020-21, a period in which a lot of new rental towers were coming online.

Unfortunately, some “financialization” theorists go as far as arguing that housing policies actually ought to limit new housing construction through restrictive price regulation and outright investment bans, because they don’t see supply as a problem.

Quite the contrary. A new analysis by Scotiabank economists found that Canada has the worst housing undersupply among G7 countries, with only 424 units per 1,000 people (France and Germany have more than 500). If Canada wanted to match the slightly higher housing supply of Britain (433 units), it would need to build about 250,000 new homes.

Story continues below advertisement

But Canada has only built 188,000 new homes over the last 10 years – and its population is growing. Our “chronic insufficiency of home supply,” as the economists put it, is what’s making housing expensive. And every time a city government, a development-approval board or a misguided politician stops a new development from going up, it’s adding to the emergency.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies