I don’t understand. This theory implies that a significant percentage of Canadian houses are empty due to speculation. Is there any evidence for that theory?
Looking a bit online it feels like this might be a disproven theory https://financialpost.com/real-estate/busting-the-myth-of-ca...
Also just on a very fundamental level - outside of luxury housing, why wouldn’t investors rent out the houses they’re sitting on? Sure it’s nice to own an appreciating asset but isn’t it also nice to rent it for 10% of its value yearly?
They didn't say they are empty?
Most investors aren't keeping their properties empty. The empty places are generally owned wealthy people as a second/third home, or as means for foreigners to offshore their wealth. And this accounts for a tiny fraction of the housing supply compared to domestic/corporate real estate investors.