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
The other night, I went down a Parisian real estate rabbit hole on Twitter. And one of the things that kept coming up was this half joke: The biggest developer in Paris today is the mayor. The reason for this is that the city is targeting 40% of all homes to be public housing by 2035 (of which 30% will be social housing and 10% will be moderately affordable).
Supposedly this is to stem the steady outflow of people from the capital as a result of housing being too expensive. But it means that a lot of new public housing will need to be created. As of January 1, 2021, the official estimate was 260,563 "logements sociaux" in the capital, which translates into 22.4% of all principal residences.
To hit this 40% goal, the city is going to need to create somewhere around 140,000 new public housing dwellings between now and 2035. So how does it plan to do this? By being a developer, of course. A big part of the strategy seems to be to convert existing buildings (d'adapter l’existant). And to execute on this, the city is leveraging something known as "le droit de préemption."
The way it works is like a right of first refusal clause (ROFR), except that it's not something that was contractually negotiated between market participants, it's just the law. What it means is that if a property owner goes to sell their building and they receive an offer, the city has an automatic ROFR and can choose to buy the building at whatever that third party was willing to pay.
Over the last two years, the city has elected to do this 84 times and has spent over €1.1 billion,
This year, 88 companies delisted or transferred their primary listing away from the London Stock Exchange. Only 18 new companies listed. This, according to FT, marks the biggest net outflow of companies since the financial crisis.
A lot of these companies are, of course, moving their listings over to the US. The New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq are, by far, the two largest stock exchanges in the world by market cap. And so many companies believe that they'll generally have a better time being listed over there -- better access to capital, greater liquidity, etc.
This is not a new trend. Last year, the FT also called out the London Stock Exchange as being the European stock exchange with the greatest risk of seeing companies depart for the US. Here's what's been happening since the financial crisis:
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
The other night, I went down a Parisian real estate rabbit hole on Twitter. And one of the things that kept coming up was this half joke: The biggest developer in Paris today is the mayor. The reason for this is that the city is targeting 40% of all homes to be public housing by 2035 (of which 30% will be social housing and 10% will be moderately affordable).
Supposedly this is to stem the steady outflow of people from the capital as a result of housing being too expensive. But it means that a lot of new public housing will need to be created. As of January 1, 2021, the official estimate was 260,563 "logements sociaux" in the capital, which translates into 22.4% of all principal residences.
To hit this 40% goal, the city is going to need to create somewhere around 140,000 new public housing dwellings between now and 2035. So how does it plan to do this? By being a developer, of course. A big part of the strategy seems to be to convert existing buildings (d'adapter l’existant). And to execute on this, the city is leveraging something known as "le droit de préemption."
The way it works is like a right of first refusal clause (ROFR), except that it's not something that was contractually negotiated between market participants, it's just the law. What it means is that if a property owner goes to sell their building and they receive an offer, the city has an automatic ROFR and can choose to buy the building at whatever that third party was willing to pay.
Over the last two years, the city has elected to do this 84 times and has spent over €1.1 billion,
This year, 88 companies delisted or transferred their primary listing away from the London Stock Exchange. Only 18 new companies listed. This, according to FT, marks the biggest net outflow of companies since the financial crisis.
A lot of these companies are, of course, moving their listings over to the US. The New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq are, by far, the two largest stock exchanges in the world by market cap. And so many companies believe that they'll generally have a better time being listed over there -- better access to capital, greater liquidity, etc.
This is not a new trend. Last year, the FT also called out the London Stock Exchange as being the European stock exchange with the greatest risk of seeing companies depart for the US. Here's what's been happening since the financial crisis:
For those of you who are visual learners like me, here's the first property on the list:
It's certainly ambitious.
But, for the most part, it does not create a lot of net new housing, even though the city is also aiming to buy office buildings, parking garages, and other non-residential buildings. APUR previously estimated that for every 1 unit of new public housing, 0.6 existing units are being demolished. So the most accurate way to think about this initiative is that it represents the socialization of Paris' housing stock into public hands.
This runs in contrast to what we've been talking about recently with cities like Minneapolis and Austin, who have instead added a lot of new market-rate housing in order to temper rents and increase affordability. Paris is reducing its stock of market-rate housing.
At the same time, the city also enacted new policy prohibiting homes that consume more than 450 kWh/m2 from being rented. This is intended to force landlords to renovate, but it will certainly have a further impact on supply, at least in the short term.
It's also worth noting that all of this is happening at a time when Paris' housing market is in broad decline (less transactions, higher days on market, lower prices, and so on). Like Toronto, it started around the middle of 2022. And it's something that Paris hadn't seen since the 2008 financial crisis.
Chart by CoStar via Business Immo; cover photo by Salomé Watel on Unsplash
Some people may not think that this is a big deal, but it certainly undermines London's position as a pre-eminent global center. Most rankings of the world's best or most global cities have London and New York out front. But from an economic prosperity standpoint, the US hegemony is real and feels even stronger right now.
Naturally, this decline will also trickle through other parts of the economy. On the real estate side, prime central London is seeing the biggest buyer's market since the financial crisis. (Presumably this is true of other submarkets as well.) On the new construction side, sales and starts are falling, and unsold homes sitting as developer inventory are increasing:
It is tempting to say that London will always be London. But:
“The UK market does not have any god-given right to be a leading listing venue, [but] it requires nurturing and support to be successful in a market that is increasingly global,” said Hall, adding that “more companies will depart” unless action is taken.
This is true of every city and every industry. There are no guarantees. Cities need to compete, just as companies compete. I am also of the opinion that Brexit has and will continue to be a drag on the UK economy. Disclaimer: I'm not an economist. But the UK is a relatively small country. So intuitively, I would think that the way to compete with the scale and dominance of the US is through a more unified Europe.
Are you bullish or bearish on London right now?
For those of you who are visual learners like me, here's the first property on the list:
It's certainly ambitious.
But, for the most part, it does not create a lot of net new housing, even though the city is also aiming to buy office buildings, parking garages, and other non-residential buildings. APUR previously estimated that for every 1 unit of new public housing, 0.6 existing units are being demolished. So the most accurate way to think about this initiative is that it represents the socialization of Paris' housing stock into public hands.
This runs in contrast to what we've been talking about recently with cities like Minneapolis and Austin, who have instead added a lot of new market-rate housing in order to temper rents and increase affordability. Paris is reducing its stock of market-rate housing.
At the same time, the city also enacted new policy prohibiting homes that consume more than 450 kWh/m2 from being rented. This is intended to force landlords to renovate, but it will certainly have a further impact on supply, at least in the short term.
It's also worth noting that all of this is happening at a time when Paris' housing market is in broad decline (less transactions, higher days on market, lower prices, and so on). Like Toronto, it started around the middle of 2022. And it's something that Paris hadn't seen since the 2008 financial crisis.
Chart by CoStar via Business Immo; cover photo by Salomé Watel on Unsplash
Some people may not think that this is a big deal, but it certainly undermines London's position as a pre-eminent global center. Most rankings of the world's best or most global cities have London and New York out front. But from an economic prosperity standpoint, the US hegemony is real and feels even stronger right now.
Naturally, this decline will also trickle through other parts of the economy. On the real estate side, prime central London is seeing the biggest buyer's market since the financial crisis. (Presumably this is true of other submarkets as well.) On the new construction side, sales and starts are falling, and unsold homes sitting as developer inventory are increasing:
It is tempting to say that London will always be London. But:
“The UK market does not have any god-given right to be a leading listing venue, [but] it requires nurturing and support to be successful in a market that is increasingly global,” said Hall, adding that “more companies will depart” unless action is taken.
This is true of every city and every industry. There are no guarantees. Cities need to compete, just as companies compete. I am also of the opinion that Brexit has and will continue to be a drag on the UK economy. Disclaimer: I'm not an economist. But the UK is a relatively small country. So intuitively, I would think that the way to compete with the scale and dominance of the US is through a more unified Europe.
Are you bullish or bearish on London right now?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
