Banning foreigners from buying real estate tends to be popular policy.

In a recent public opinion survey conducted in British Columbia, 77% of respondents said they approve of the provincial foreign buyer tax increasing from 15 to 20%, and 75% said they agree with the federal government's temporary ban on foreign buyers. This is consistent with what I'd expect. But for obvious reasons, the development industry doesn't like these policies.

Foreign-buyer bans are a demand-side measure. Meaning, they are intended to ease home prices by reducing demand. The development industry doesn't like this because low demand is bad when you're trying to build things. A better scenario is something involving high demand and high supply, which is why supply-side measures tend to be more popular with industry. Even though there's always the risk of overbuilding.

But it's pretty hard to argue that more supply will help to lower home prices and then not argue the same with reduced demand via the banning of certain buyers. Both levers should, in theory, have an impact, even if the former is suboptimal for builders. That said, there remains the important question of whether there's enough foreign demand for a foreign-buyer ban to actually have an impact or whether it's just political theater.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that we have not typically seen a lot of foreign buyers in our pre-construction condominium projects. The deposit structure we use is different for non-Canadians and it tends to be a very very small percentage of buyers. But for resales in markets like Vancouver, the numbers do seem to be higher, at least based on some historical data.

According to this recent research paper, once BC started tracking the nationality of buyers in June 2016, they discovered that in the 5-week period that immediately followed, about $885 million was spent by foreigners in the Greater Vancouver Area and that they represented about 10% of all sales. It was also discovered that of these foreign buyers, about 90% of them were from China.

This data was so impactful to policy makers that it is allegedly what led to BC's foreign buyer tax in August 2016. And since then, there's further data to suggest that it has worked to temper home prices. Here's a chart from the same research paper:

As a developer and proponent of open markets, I don't love this policy. It's a form of protectionism that discourages or flat-out blocks this kind of foreign investment from entering the country. I also worry that it can be a crutch or excuse not to expand the overall housing supply of a market. But this is seemingly not how many or most voters feel. And I can certainly appreciate why that would be the case.

Cover photo by Alejandro Luengo on Unsplash

Here's the thing about housing:

The delegates insisted on one hand that “housing is for living not speculation”, but on the other, emphasised the critical importance of real estate to China’s economic growth.

In other words, things are complicated. We want housing to be affordable to more people, but at the same time, we recognize that housing appreciation is kind of useful for overall economic growth. So we're a bit conflicted. And that may be why we tend to take contradictory actions.

Broadly speaking, the current playbook in Canada seems to be as follows: heavily tax new housing, force those who can afford new market-rate housing to subsidize those who can't, and then tax/ban foreign buyers.

Canada's new foreign buyer ban came into effect on January 1 of this year. And for the next 2 years, it prohibits companies and people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents from acquiring non-recreational, residential property in Canada. (What is the definition of non-recreational?)

While this may sound good to some -- finally, more homes for Canadians -- we're talking about a relatively small portion of the market, which is likely why there's also little evidence that any of our foreign buyer taxes have been all that effective.

It's really hard to imagine this one working much better. But it certainly sounds like something.

Here is an interesting article from the Financial Times talking about the quiet move of people and companies from Hong Kong to Singapore. I say quiet, because apparently Hong Kong-based companies are reluctant to overtly signal that they are setting up offices and moving some of their executives out of the city, in case that starts to upset people over in Beijing.

But the real estate market in Singapore seems to be benefitting from some of these macro trends, as well from the city-state's handling of the coronavirus. This is despite there being a 25% stamp duty tax on foreign property purchases (US nationals and a few others are exempt) and despite the fact that the economy shrank in the second quarter of this year by the largest percentage (13.2%) since independence in 1965.

According to FT, there were 2,362 residential property transactions in the core central region of Singapore in the first 9 month of this year. This compares to 1,962 transactions for the same period last year. Of these total sales, 260 residential homes were sold to foreign nationals this year (~11%), compared to 316 last year (~16%). While this is obviously a decline, including a decline in the percentage sold to foreign nationals, it still feels pretty significant given that the borders were presumably closed, or largely closed, earlier this year.

Apparently 75% of the above 260 homes were sold to buyers from either mainland China or Hong Kong. I don't know how this percentage compares to last year. But the narrative out there right now is that it is up (along with office leasing by foreign companies) and that Singapore is a pretty safe place to put your money right now.

Photo by Kirill Petropavlov on Unsplash