Is renting actually "throwing money away"—or is buying a house secretly a financial trap in Canada? 🏡💸 I ran the exact math for a $425K home at a 4.5% interest rate over 25 years, comparing it side-by-side against renting. Here’s what the numbers revealed: 💰 Option A: BUYING A HOUSE • Surplus left over per month: $1,143 • Total estimated net worth after 25 years: $1.85 Million 🔑 Option B: RENTING & INVESTING • Surplus left over per month: $2,064 • Total estimated net worth after 25 years: $1.97 Million While renting leaves an extra ~$120K on paper, real life isn't just a spreadsheet. Factors like forced savings, closing costs, maintenance, and tax-free capital gains completely change the game. 📊 I broke down my full Excel spreadsheet line-by-line so you can plug in your own numbers and figure out what makes sense for your financial journey! What would you do in today's market—Buy or Rent? Let me know in the comments below! 👇💬 #PersonalFinance #RealEstate #Investing #CanadaFinance #BuyVsRent #MoneyWithMaYur 👇 Watch the full video and grab the Excel sheet here: https://youtu.be/vnzbPuvLOHoread more
The perfect house is a myth. Everybody compromises on something even the wealthy when it comes to renting and/or ownership. You just have to decide which headache you're most willing to live with
China’s real estate market has effectively erased much of the gains made over the past 20 years. Yet, the People’s Bank of China was able to manage a massive highly leveraged housing bubble without triggering a single quarter of economic contraction or completely derailing growth in the broader economy. Perhaps there’s something Canada could learn from this approach. Sometimes allowing a painful adjustment in the short term is necessary to build a healthier and more sustainable market over the long term. I honestly wish Canada would take a similar approach to make housing more sustainable and accessible. Driving younger generations out of the market or forcing them to leave the country in search of affordability is not a healthy outcome. Eventually that comes with economic and social consequences. And I say this as a homeowner myself since 2018. I’m completely okay with some short term pain if it means creating a stronger, more sustainable housing market for the long term. I’d rather see prices and expectations reset now than continue kicking the can down the road. $XRE$ZRE$VRE$CHIR
• Fixed mortgage rates are climbing as bond yields rise • Sub-4% fixed mortgage rates are becoming scarce • The best variable mortgage rates remain in the mid- to high-3% range • July home sales fell 5.3% • Nationally, house prices may be starting to stabilize Is the housing market finally approaching its bottom? It is too early to say so, but some early signs may indicate the bottom is being set.read more
As I have previously mentioned, I live in Quebec, and one of the main issues currently facing political parties ahead of the upcoming provincial elections is homeownership access. Government measures are being proposed to help build affordable housing, encourage purchases for first-time buyers, etc. These societal issues led me to look into the prices of properties for sale. A January 2026 article in La Presse, citing a statistic from the QPAREB (APCIQ), mentioned a 67% increase in the median price of a single-family home between 2020 and 2025. I then wondered who the real beneficiaries of this increase are. Let's be honest: if you own a home that you bought several years ago and resell it for a high price, you win in the immediate term. However, as soon as you buy a new home (if that is your goal), the gain obtained from the sale is offset by the purchase price of the second property. So, for the majority of single-family homeowners, unless they sell to move into a rental or downsize to a smaller place, it is merely a transfer of money. This is why Robert Kiyosaki stated in his book Rich Dad Poor Dad that a primary residence is not an asset, but a liability. So, who is the real winner of the rising prices of single-family homes? In my view, it's real estate brokers. They charge, on average, commission rates ranging between 4% and 6% in 2026, a trend that has persisted for over a decade. In the early 2000s, the average rate was between 6% and 7%, representing only a very slight decrease. House prices are rising, brokers' commission percentages remain stable, while the workload remains the same. So, why aren't sellers more outraged by the amounts claimed by brokers? Here is my theory, based on transaction cost theory, which states that the price of goods sold incorporates, consciously or unconsciously, all costs associated with the transaction. Here is my core premise: the home price listed on Centris subconsciously incorporates the broker's commission fees. Theoretically, the house is listed at a higher price to absorb the commission, artificially contributing to the property's price increase even though its intrinsic value has not gone up. A parallel to support my observation is the fees charged to merchants by credit card companies (Visa, Mastercard) on every transaction. The merchant will theoretically adjust the price of their goods to maintain their margin, which inflates the product's price without its actual value increasing. This is why a cash-only merchant has the choice to either keep the same price and increase their margins or lower the product's price to attract more customers. This parallel applies to real estate when comparing DuProprio (without a broker) and Centris (with a broker). Statistics show that homes listed on Centris sell for higher prices and faster than those on DuProprio, supporting the thesis that the listing price set by brokers factors in their commission. Sellers using DuProprio have little choice but to list at slightly lower prices for an equivalent property, reflecting the absence of certain services (such as the broker's advice and liability protection). If you ask a real estate broker why you should choose them over selling on your own, they will argue that they offer peace of mind, expertise, and insurance which is true but also that they will sell the house for more money and more quickly. This is also true, but it is not attributable to their individual performance: rather, it is because roughly 95% of homes are sold through a broker (thus exposing them to a much larger pool of buyers) and because the commission is built into the listing price. Personally, I sense a shift in public acceptance of commission rates. This is reflected by certain brokers offering rates as low as 1.5%, or by companies like UBEE that offer platforms where brokers compete directly by offering fixed or more competitive rates. The current model is obsolete and due for revision. Capitalism and free-market dynamics work when true competition exists, not when a system is locked down by a near-monopoly network as is currently the case in Quebec. The question remains: real estate brokers certainly provide expertise and peace of mind, but at what cost? What do you think would be the fairest way to compensate them? Francais Frais de commission et marché immobilier : La théorie des coûts de transaction appliquée Comme je l'ai déjà mentionné, j'habite au Québec et l'un des principaux enjeux actuels des partis politiques en vue des prochaines élections provinciales est l'accès à la propriété. Des mesures gouvernementales sont proposées dans le but d'aider à bâtir des logements abordables, de favoriser l'achat pour les premiers acheteurs, etc. Ces enjeux de société m'ont amené à me pencher sur le prix des propriétés à vendre. Un article de La Presse de janvier 2026, citant une statistique de l'APCIQ, mentionnait une augmentation de 67 % entre 2020 et 2025 du prix médian d'une résidence unifamiliale. Je me suis ensuite interrogé sur les véritables bénéficiaires de cette augmentation. On va se le dire : si tu es propriétaire d'une maison que tu as acquise il y a plusieurs années et que tu la revends à gros prix, tu es gagnant dans l'immédiat. Cependant, à partir du moment où vous rachetez une nouvelle maison (si c'est ton objectif), le gain obtenu lors de la vente va se transposer dans le prix d'achat de la seconde propriété. Donc, pour la majorité des propriétaires de maison unifamiliale, à moins de vendre pour aller habiter en logement ou de déménager dans plus petit, il s'agit seulement d'un transfert d'argent. C'est pourquoi Robert Kiyosaki a mentionné dans son livre Père Riche, Père Pauvre qu'une résidence personnelle n'est pas un actif, mais un passif. Alors, qui est le véritable gagnant de la hausse du prix des maisons unifamiliales ? Selon moi, ce sont les courtier immobiliers. Ceux-ci chargent en moyenne des taux variant entre 4 % et 6 % en frais de commission en 2026, et ce, depuis plus d'une décennie. Au début des années 2000, le taux moyen était de 6 % à 7 %, ce qui représente une très légère diminution. Les prix des maisons augmentent, le pourcentage de commission des courtiers reste stable, alors que la charge de travail demeure la même. Alors, pourquoi les vendeurs ne sont-ils pas plus outrés par les montants réclamés par les courtiers ? Voici ma théorie, basée sur la théorie des coûts de transaction qui stipule que le prix des biens vendus intègre, consciemment ou non, l'ensemble des frais reliés à la transaction. Voici ma prémisse de base : le prix de la maison affiché sur Centris intègre inconsciemment les frais de commission du courtier. Théoriquement, la maison est donc affichée plus cher pour absorber la commission, ce qui contribue artificiellement à l'augmentation du prix de la propriété alors qu'intrinsèquement parlant, sa valeur n'a pas augmenté. Un parallèle pour appuyer sur mon observation : les frais chargés aux commerçants par les sociétés de cartes de crédit (Visa, Mastercard) à chaque achat effectué. Le commerçant va théoriquement ajuster le prix de son bien pour conserver sa marge, ce qui gonfle le prix du produit sans que sa valeur significative n'ait réellement augmenté. C'est pourquoi un commerçant n'accepte que l'argent comptant a le choix soit de garder le même prix et d'augmenter ses marges, soit de réduire le prix de son produit pour attirer plus de clients. Ce parallèle se transpose à l'immobilier entre DuProprio (sans courtier) et Centris (avec courtier). Les statistiques démontrent que les maisons vendues sur Centris se vendent plus cher et plus rapidement que sur DuProprio, ce qui vient appuyer la thèse selon laquelle le prix affiché par les courtiers intègrent leur commission. DuProprio n'a d'autre choix que de proposer des prix légèrement inférieurs pour une propriété équivalente, soulignant qu'il ya un service de moins offert (les conseils et les assurances de protection du courtier). Si vous demandez à un courtier immobilier pourquoi le choisir plutôt que de vendre par vous-même, il proposera qu'il offre une certaine sécurité, une expertise et des assurances ce qui est vrai , mais aussi qu'il vendra la maison plus cher et plus rapidement. Cela est également vrai, mais ce n'est pas imputable à sa performance individuelle : c'est plutôt dû au fait que 95 % des maisons sont vendues par l'initiative d'un courtier (donc devant un bassin d'acheteurs beaucoup plus grand) et à l'intégration de la commission dans le prix affiché. Personnellement, je sens un vent de changement dans l'acceptation sociale des taux de commission. Cela se reflète par certains courtiers affichant des taux à 1,5 %, ou par des entreprises comme UBEE qui offrent une plateforme où les courtiers sont en concurrence directe en proposant des tarifs fixes ou plus avantageux. Le modèle actuel est désuet et tend à être révisé. Le capitalisme et la loi du libre marché fonctionnent lorsqu'une concurrence existe, et non lorsqu'un système est verrouillé par un quasi-monopole de réseau comme c'est le cas actuellement au Québec. La question reste entière : les courtiers immobiliers apportent certes une expertise et une tranquillité d'esprit, mais à quel prix ? Quel serait le moyen le plus juste de les rémunérer selon vous ? read more
New York City homeowners are suing NYC Mayor Mamdani over planned taxes on their second homes, stating that the city wrongfully targeted thousands of properties.
Real estate is the clearest early concentration, with $O and $AHR making up 10 of the 19 entries. $ALL adds a sizable insurance presence, while $BURL brings retail into the mix.
Your Balance Sheet Is the Real Risk Test Most people hear “invest based on your time horizon” and treat it as complete advice. It isn’t. Time only answers one question: how long the money has to bounce back if markets drop. It says nothing about whether you can actually absorb that drop without wrecking your plans. Take a house down payment in seven years. Two people can have the exact same timeline and the same account, yet face completely different realities: • One has $80k in an FHSA and other savings that make up nearly their entire liquid net worth. A 40% decline forces them to delay the purchase, settle for a smaller place, or walk away. • The other has millions overall and just happens to keep $80k in the FHSA. The same decline is an inconvenience, not a crisis — they can cover the gap from elsewhere without blinking. Same clock. Totally different capacity to take risk. The popular rule of thumb only works as a rough proxy because, for most people, a down payment is a huge chunk of what they have. But a proxy is still just a proxy. Time tells you the recovery window. Your balance sheet tells you whether you can afford to wait out the storm.read more
I saw a post on Blossom today from someone planning to buy a rental property in Canada. As a real estate investor with a day job, I can say from experience that Canadian real estate isn't worth it when you weigh the risks against the rewards. The business is far from passive—even with a property management company—and it's completely illiquid. You still have to deal with people, and the cost of managing the property eats right into your returns
🏠 Bought a 1,200 sq ft home in 2021 🚚 Moved out earlier this year 🔨 Put about $12K into renovations 💰 PITI: ~$1,350/month 🏘️ Rent: $2,000–$2,200/month 🏢 The area is heavily dominated by apartments The cash flow looks decent on paper, but once you factor in repairs, vacancies, maintenance, taxes, insurance, and capital expenses… I can honestly see why some people say: “Just buy the S&P 500.” 📈 Real estate isn’t automatically the better investment. Sometimes, boring index investing wins.read more
My wife and I have an opportunity to buy a really nice lakeside vacation property on the Shuswap. But would need to almost drain our TFSA to make it work. Would you do it? Eventually we would move there and sell our house in Calgary once we retire in 10 to 15 years.
Real Estate Investment. What’s your thoughts on investing in a rental property in Ontario with the potential drop in the housing prices and interest rates? Advice a beginner, any pros and cons will be welcomed.
i just opened a fhsa and was wondering what stock or etf i should buy to put in? i did look at xbal and vbal but i’m not sure i also look at xeqt and veqt but i wanna know if there other options!! thanks
