Yes, the company should violate their terms of data subscription by giving out the raw data, permanently lose access to future information their business depends on, and then you still have the same issue of not knowing if the data is verifiable since it’s for subscribers. Teranet shared the article on their social media, so I’m guessing it’s pretty friggen reliable. Only 677,760 records to pull if you want to verify. That’s about $16,944,000 of inquires for the public to check, unless Teranet agrees to give you the data for cheaper (about ~$10k is my understanding). Or they can pay $17 million for giving you the data, so one person feels more comfortable.

Less credible is the governments that set up a system to hide information, and put it in the hands of a private, for-profit company.

You’re probably right. Though they make it out that additional analysis was done and extra context given for what all of these numbers mean.
I think if these types of articles are going to be taken seriously and hold any weight in any of our minds the author should include the source material, not just a link to the company who holds the data secretly. Personally, I think this particular dataset is absolutely fascinating and critical in pointing to the cause of increased home prices and rent (that is, more landlords are being made due to the promise of “investment properties”, and they are using their home equity to bid against one another to increase home prices. high rents then follow). However, I can’t (and I don’t think anyone here can) take this article seriously without source material. It’s too complicated a subject to derive meaningful conclusions without access to the raw data along with context for those numbers.
The author _may_ be trustworthy, but they should provide an avenue to “trust, but verify”

It sounds like a big part of your positive financial position is having secured affordable rent years ago, with increases of no more than 1-2% year after year. Whereas people who buy / rent today (yourself included should you move to rent or buy) are participating in today’s market with high home prices and commensurately high rent (with increases far far greater than 1-2% year after year).
I think you’re in a lucky position where you are effectively living in the marketplace of 10-20 years ago (not sure when you secured your rent). But for anyone who is just entering the market, there isn’t much they can do. They will either have to pay high prices for a home or high prices for rent (made high due to high prices of homes)

Nice one! 😀

Either way – “the last one in is holding the bag.”
My wife and I live downtown TO and have rented for years (same place – thankfully still reasonable rent) watching this insane bubble grow exponentially over the years.
We have saved like squirrels and have kept our $400k powder dry in this craziness.
I have told her we will jump into buying when “this thing” comes crashing down – and the Gov’t and the pandemic money has just kept it going… but not for much longer.
And if these stats BD quoted are true to form, we will have the pick of the litter of properties to choose from on severe discount in a matter of months – not just from the recent buyers in the pricing bubble – but the investors who thought it wise to buy in at the same time.
As Rumi once said –

“Greed makes man blind and foolish – and makes him an easy prey to death.”

Be careful what you wish for. If you haven’t done well in a structured environment what makes you think you will do better in an unstructured environment?

They probably paid Teranet for the data, which just come as a CSV at my work. Expensive as hell too.

“Are you claiming property prices in London did NOT go through the roof?”

Not like in Toronto.

“Supply and demand have to both be discussed. There are multiple factors on each side and they all have to be addressed.”

Very true. Agree 100%