Developer proposes a 'more-nuanced approach' to foreign investment in B.C. housing
'If we're inviting foreign money back into the market, I would recommend that it comes with a bit of a handcuff, and that would be a requirement to enter the rental pool for five years,' Townline Homes CEO Rick Ilich said Friday.
Townline, he said, proposes allowing foreign buyers into the market, but 'under regulated conditions that require their units be rented out through a professionally managed rental program for the first five years of ownership or the first five years after project completion.'
Ilich had declined to add his name to a recent letter that was signed by dozens of leading figures in B.C.'s real estate sector, lobbying Ottawa and Victoria for policy changes to encourage more foreign purchases of local homes to boost a struggling construction industry and ensure a steady future pipeline of housing.
'I don't want to say it was a mistake,' Ilich said of the request from his fellow developers. 'But it does misread public opinion.'
The coalition's letter, which was sent Tuesday, asked the governments of B.C. and Canada to reconsider the federal temporary ban on foreign purchases of residential real estate and the provincial tax on foreign buyers.
The coalition urged the federal government to look at Australia, which prohibits foreigners from buying existing homes, but allows them to buy new builds and presales.
The federal Housing Department responded with a statement suggesting such changes were not in the cards. Provincial leaders were even more blunt, with Premier David Eby saying he's glad the old model of foreign-funded speculative development is dead.
'In fairness to the existing government, they took a position which is popular,' Ilich said Friday. 'But we are not going to hit the prescribed housing targets … if we don't get creative with finding other means of having capital enter the market, because there's simply not enough capital interested in real estate in Canada right now — so invite it back, but use it as a catalyst to expedite rental.'
Ilich is working on a proposal he plans to present to provincial and federal government leaders. He provided with Postmedia a version of the letter, which says that while he and his colleagues at Townline understand the concerns and motivations behind the other developers' request earlier this week, they would advocate a 'more-nuanced' approach.
'Many factors drove housing prices beyond reach for both renters and owners — unrestricted access to our market by foreign investors was one of those contributing factors,' Townline's draft letter says.
'Today, the foreign buyer ban has swung the pendulum too far, at a time when the housing industry needs to attract diverse and broad forms of investment — both local and non-domestic — to meet our long-term housing needs.'
Ilich argues that his proposed program could free up capital for developers to build more housing, increase rental supply for local residents, prevent empty homes, and 'discourage quick resale for profit.'
Ilich chairs the Urban Developer Institute, but emphasized he is floating this idea on behalf of he and his company, not for the industry association.
He proposes allowing foreigners to buy both presale condos and unsold condos currently under construction or recently completed.
'This is not about bailing out developers. It's about freeing up capital for a purpose, to produce housing,' he said.
The coalition's Tuesday letter cited an estimate that only one per cent of Canadian homes were owned by non-residents.
But the proportion of foreign ownership appears to be dramatically higher in certain segments of the market, according to a new analysis by Andy Yan, an associate professor of professional practice in urban studies at Simon Fraser University.
A Statistics Canada report released this week showed that 4.8 per cent of all residential properties in British Columbia were owned by at least one non-resident of Canada, Yan said, but when looking only at newly built condos that rises to 14.8 per cent in Vancouver, 12.6 per cent in Burnaby, and 15.1 per cent in Richmond.
It seems likely that those levels of foreign ownership could put upward pressure on prices, Yan said. 'The question for the federal government is whether it would like to continue on with a game that has created some winners and many losers, or actually create a housing system that houses all Canadians. … Do we want to extend and pretend? Or change and adapt?'
It remains to be seen whether governments — and the voters who elect them — might be open to encouraging some type of foreign investment in real estate, with certain restrictions.
While Eby's response to the coalition's letter earlier this week made clear he is not interested in 'going back' to the days of wild speculation and empty condos, he seemed to leave the door open to some kind of role for international investment.
Citing the cautionary tale of a downtown Vancouver condo project that was fuelled by foreign money and is now facing receivership, Eby said 'that model is dead.' However, Eby also said: 'If foreign capital can help build housing for Canadians and British Columbians, great.'
Asked Friday about Townline's proposal, a B.C. Housing Ministry spokesperson sent an emailed statement that said that the province recognizes the 'the urgent need to increase housing supply throughout B.C. so we can continue to see rents fall and vacancy rates rise.'
'While we will not return to previous policies and approaches that don't help people find the housing they need, we are open to exploring new opportunities that support the development of more rental homes — particularly those that meet long-term needs of the community,' the ministry said.
'We are also mindful of the federal government's ban on foreign home ownership, but we remain open to engaging with industry experts to find a balanced approach where we can leverage investments and deliver more homes for people.'
dfumano@postmedia.com
twitter.com/fumano
Related
'That model is dead': B.C. Premier, housing minister rebuff developers' request for foreign real estate investment
Duelling B.C. letters to Mark Carney on housing crisis expose clash over way forward
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Reddit Post Breaking Down A MAGA Dad's "Awakening" From Two-Time Trump Voter To Trump Critic Is Going Viral
A Reddit post by a user who claims their father voted for Donald Trump twice has recently gone viral for revealing what finally turned their MAGA dad into a Trump critic. At the start of the post, the redditor explained what initially attracted their father to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. "What got him into Trump was the first primary debate he participated in, in which he brutally attacked Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the others..." Related: They went on to explain that their father, a business owner, personally benefited from Trump's tax cuts, which made his view of Trump's first presidency a "success," despite events like January 6. According to the redditor, things started to change for their father when Trump's tariff war threw his business into "disarray." Related: The negative financial impact of Trump's tariff war made their father seek out more "accurate reporting" of Trump, and the new information "awakened" him. Related: "He wishes Trump would stop being such an idiotic fuckup." And finally, the post ended with the redditor's realization about changing the minds of "casual Trump voters." "You can bring all that stuff up, and they'll just wave it off. But as soon as he does do something harmful that affects them, they can be turned." After reading the post, people in the comments shared their perspective on "uniformed voters" who supported Trump. "I just think so many people drank the 'John Wayne' kool aid in the Reaganite '80s, the idea that, like the lone gunslinger, Americans are singular, self sufficient individuals, not members of a society. So many in the U.S. bought that BS wholesale, like this guy's Dad," one user wrote. "He thinks he only need care about his business, his family and his bikes, but he forgets that for businesses to flourish he needs society at large to be healthy, he needs trade rules to be enforced, and he needs stability in trade hates paying taxes, but never thinks about why the roads are maintained, why water comes out of the tap or electricity out of the socket. He's been trained and rewarded to see himself as a lone entity, independent of all social bonds. Now he's been uncomfortably reminded he is part of an interdependent society, but I'm sure he'll forget the reminder soon enough. Individualism is too deeply ingrained in his psyche for him to abandon it now." Related: "Everyone keeps saying 'they voted for this.' But in reality, some didn't. There are lots of uninformed voters out there. I'm not excusing it, but it's true. My dad is the same way," another user admitted. "He liked the sound bites he saw about draining the swamp and liked the idea of a businessman instead of a career politician. My dad is woefully misinformed and wouldn't listen to me either. But he's not an evil monster. Just complacent and kinda ignorant. He's also 83, so there's that." "They're not going to figure out Trump sucks until they get burned by the hot stove," this user wrote. "I think there is a large portion of classic Republicans, not the MAGA people, who probably just didn't give a shit about most of Trump's agenda harming other people." And finally, "I feel like the real takeaway from this is that the dad is against something Trump did, but still doesn't regret his vote." "The popular Reddit sentiment is that conservatives are feeling regret now that his policies are hurting them, but the actual sad truth is that given the opportunity at a revote, they'd probably vote for Trump again because they're convinced Harris would've still been worse or as bad as Trump anyway," another user wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With 65% institutional ownership, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:RIGL) is a favorite amongst the big guns
Key Insights Given the large stake in the stock by institutions, Rigel Pharmaceuticals' stock price might be vulnerable to their trading decisions 51% of the business is held by the top 9 shareholders Using data from analyst forecasts alongside ownership research, one can better assess the future performance of a company This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. To get a sense of who is truly in control of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:RIGL), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. With 65% stake, institutions possess the maximum shares in the company. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). Given the vast amount of money and research capacities at their disposal, institutional ownership tends to carry a lot of weight, especially with individual investors. As a result, a sizeable amount of institutional money invested in a firm is generally viewed as a positive attribute. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Rigel Pharmaceuticals. Check out our latest analysis for Rigel Pharmaceuticals What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Rigel Pharmaceuticals? Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. We can see that Rigel Pharmaceuticals does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It's therefore worth looking at Rigel Pharmaceuticals' earnings history below. Of course, the future is what really matters. Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. It would appear that 15% of Rigel Pharmaceuticals shares are controlled by hedge funds. That's interesting, because hedge funds can be quite active and activist. Many look for medium term catalysts that will drive the share price higher. Our data shows that BlackRock, Inc. is the largest shareholder with 9.7% of shares outstanding. Armistice Capital LLC is the second largest shareholder owning 8.5% of common stock, and Morgan Stanley, Investment Banking and Brokerage Investments holds about 8.3% of the company stock. Furthermore, CEO Raul Rodriguez is the owner of 0.8% of the company's shares. We did some more digging and found that 9 of the top shareholders account for roughly 51% of the register, implying that along with larger shareholders, there are a few smaller shareholders, thereby balancing out each others interests somewhat. While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future. Insider Ownership Of Rigel Pharmaceuticals While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. Shareholders would probably be interested to learn that insiders own shares in Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. As individuals, the insiders collectively own US$5.5m worth of the US$392m company. Some would say this shows alignment of interests between shareholders and the board. But it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling. General Public Ownership With a 19% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over Rigel Pharmaceuticals. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. Next Steps: It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand Rigel Pharmaceuticals better, we need to consider many other factors. For example, we've discovered 1 warning sign for Rigel Pharmaceuticals that you should be aware of before investing here. If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
STERIS (NYSE:STE) Will Pay A Larger Dividend Than Last Year At $0.63
STERIS plc's (NYSE:STE) periodic dividend will be increasing on the 26th of September to $0.63, with investors receiving 11% more than last year's $0.57. Despite this raise, the dividend yield of 1.0% is only a modest boost to shareholder returns. We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. STERIS' Payment Could Potentially Have Solid Earnings Coverage It would be nice for the yield to be higher, but we should also check if higher levels of dividend payment would be sustainable. Before making this announcement, STERIS was easily earning enough to cover the dividend. This means that most of what the business earns is being used to help it grow. Looking forward, earnings per share is forecast to rise by 59.3% over the next year. If the dividend continues on this path, the payout ratio could be 26% by next year, which we think can be pretty sustainable going forward. See our latest analysis for STERIS STERIS Has A Solid Track Record The company has a sustained record of paying dividends with very little fluctuation. Since 2015, the dividend has gone from $0.92 total annually to $2.28. This implies that the company grew its distributions at a yearly rate of about 9.5% over that duration. Companies like this can be very valuable over the long term, if the decent rate of growth can be maintained. We Could See STERIS' Dividend Growing The company's investors will be pleased to have been receiving dividend income for some time. We are encouraged to see that STERIS has grown earnings per share at 5.2% per year over the past five years. Growth in EPS bodes well for the dividend, as does the low payout ratio that the company is currently reporting. We Really Like STERIS' Dividend Overall, a dividend increase is always good, and we think that STERIS is a strong income stock thanks to its track record and growing earnings. Earnings are easily covering distributions, and the company is generating plenty of cash. Taking this all into consideration, this looks like it could be a good dividend opportunity. Market movements attest to how highly valued a consistent dividend policy is compared to one which is more unpredictable. At the same time, there are other factors our readers should be conscious of before pouring capital into a stock. As an example, we've identified 1 warning sign for STERIS that you should be aware of before investing. Looking for more high-yielding dividend ideas? Try our collection of strong dividend payers. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data