[Sylvanfan]

I'd argue the opposite that more investment may be needed. Supply needs to be increased, and the costs to the investors need to be lower. The banking system in my narrow minded view is easier for higher leveraged insured mortgages than lower risk options.

My primary residence that had like 7% down got a 5 year fixed for 4.19 last year. The rental which has half as much owing and about 60% of total value owed could get 5.5 on a fixed at best. So my principal which was variable with payment set at 3.5 went up about 8% in payment. My rental which I went variable with saw a 27% payment increase. So with that, taxes, insurance my costs were up 25% and I only passed like 5% of it to the renter, but will up it again this year etc. If my costs were more like the principal residence, the tenants might not have seen an increase. If anything it's smaller investors like my wife and I who will be driven out as it gets harder and big wealthy corporations will end up taking all that share. Who's better for the renter...an idiot like me who likes that they pay the rent on time, take care of the property and will do many minor repairs if I just provide the materials. Or a corporation who sees a balance sheet and says hey we need to fix the revenue problem.

You take risk when you own rentals because you need to keep the house up, and if your renter can't pay you still need to. If you get a bad renter it's not easy to get away from them. So those cops and firemen who accumulated properties thru their 30's are getting rewarded for the risk they took. Toronto type appreciation is pretty rare.