News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

What would be interesting to know would be the breakout of household debt - Good vs Bad. How much is mortgage vs how much is consumer vs how much has been used to purchase investments?

I carry zero consumer debt, no mortgage, but have taken advantage of low interest rate to borrow $100k and invest it in dividend paying CDN stocks (threshold was equitys that had a higher payout ratio then my interest rate). I'm still currently way ahead (+30%) but would start to sell if interest rates rise and my payments become greater than my dividends.

So technically I'm part of the masses that have large debt but can easily exit my equity position and payoff my debt tomorrow. Out of my circle of friends about 50% of us have done this.

I doubt you would be included in household debt. Your debt is used to leverage an investment in the stock market. Risky in itself to be certain but a far cry from personal debt used to acquire consumer goods.

What stocks are buying that pay dividends greater than the cost of unsecured debt?
 
I doubt you would be included in household debt. Your debt is used to leverage an investment in the stock market. Risky in itself to be certain but a far cry from personal debt used to acquire consumer goods.

What stocks are buying that pay dividends greater than the cost of unsecured debt?

My borrowing was all done on an unsecured line of credit through BMO at prime +1% and then on my margin account at prime + 2.5%. There are a ton of securities that are currently paying greater than 5%. My portfolio consists of BMO, RY, TD, CIBC, BCE, AER, SJR.B, AGF.B and SLF. Keep in mind that the bulk of my purchasing was done in 2009 so my portfolio is still paying a greater payout % than my current interest charges.
 
My borrowing was all done on an unsecured line of credit through BMO at prime +1% and then on my margin account at prime + 2.5%. There are a ton of securities that are currently paying greater than 5%

I assume you realize that stocks with yields over 5% are usually quite volatile. Sounds to me like you are ignoring the underlying principal risk of investing in equities. For example, former blue chip Manulife is down 13% YTD and that's after a big comeback from its lows.
 
I assume you realize that stocks with yields over 5% are usually quite volatile. Sounds to me like you are ignoring the underlying principal risk of investing in equities. For example, former blue chip Manulife is down 13% YTD and that's after a big comeback from its lows.

I agree with you in "normal times" however 2009 was not normal times. Most of my holding currently have yields in the 3-4% range if you were to buy them today. Example RBC. I picked it up in April 2009 at $40 / share exactly at 5% yield. At close today its was trading at $52.82 with a yield of 3.79%. AER I got at $9.50 with a yield of 5.5% today its at 3.68%. The only equity I'm worried about in my portfolio right now is Sunlife. I'll likely exit my position in March.

As for Manulife... I picked up 2000 shares in OCT at 13.01. I was waiting for the drop ;)
 
Hodgkinsken,
I would take very seriously what CN Tower is trying to tell you here.
You bought last April and picked the bottom. Alot of people thought the world was essentially going to end, at least the financial system. It didn't but all those banks which in hindsight were great buys were purchases made with a tremendous amount of risk. You gambled and hit an absolute home run. Just remember the roulette wheel. It comes up red just as often as black, so you called right and have a big + going forward.
I assume you appreciate that having the intestinal fortitude which you and your friends did last year after a huge drop allows you the big gains but similar gains going forward are suspect and a traumatic event in the world (sovereign default, more problem Euro zone, bank stress tests that show weaknesses, further drop in real estate prices, or any such similar event) could reshape your whole thinking.
However, the above said, kudos on a very brave, gutsy call that turned out to be very right.
 
I agree with you in "normal times" however 2009 was not normal times. Most of my holding currently have yields in the 3-4% range if you were to buy them today. Example RBC. I picked it up in April 2009 at $40 / share exactly at 5% yield. At close today its was trading at $52.82 with a yield of 3.79%. AER I got at $9.50 with a yield of 5.5% today its at 3.68%. The only equity I'm worried about in my portfolio right now is Sunlife. I'll likely exit my position in March.

As for Manulife... I picked up 2000 shares in OCT at 13.01. I was waiting for the drop ;)

You're not worried about RBC after the Moody's downgrade?

Personally I believe the realm of the public equity markets is a great venue to acquire wealth off the back of other people's capital- investment banking, advisory, wealth management, private equity, etc. but a dangerous place to park your wealth for exact sMe reasons. Mass scale manipulation of prices for reasons usually contrary to shareholder interest.

I'm not trying to dissuade you, obviously your timing was good, but overall I would be really careful. At least your investments are liquid.
 
Last edited:
My borrowing was all done on an unsecured line of credit through BMO at prime +1% and then on my margin account at prime + 2.5%. There are a ton of securities that are currently paying greater than 5%. My portfolio consists of BMO, RY, TD, CIBC, BCE, AER, SJR.B, AGF.B and SLF. Keep in mind that the bulk of my purchasing was done in 2009 so my portfolio is still paying a greater payout % than my current interest charges.

Using borrowed money to purchase securities with more borrowed money. Using the dividend payments for the carrying charges. I sure hope you have additional cash for those pesky margin calls. I trust it's a trade and not a strategy. I have seen people get wiped out and brokers sued using this strategy. It seldom works except if you pick the bottom of a market. Great timing!!!
 
Yet another article in the Globe and Mail today on line:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/household-debt-ratio-hits-record/article1835268/

...


BoC Govenor Mark Carney warns again ... let's see if it falls further on deaf ears.

Sometimes I just wish he would just quit the talk and actually do it ...
raise the rate 1/4 every Q and let the bubble slowly deflate vs. letting rates remain at historic lows exasperating a bubble (that will pop) and encouraging outrageous debt.

those who over-leveraged will get burned, but they never should have been participating in the first place


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...lacency-can-lead-to-reckoning/article1835539/

Mark Carney warns again on debts: Complacency can lead to reckoning

Jeremy Torobin
Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Published Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 12:07PM EST
Last updated Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 7:47PM EST



The Bank of Canada is looking at new ways for monetary policy to guard against financial imbalances such as the build-up of household debt that has occurred amid historically low interest rates, Governor Mark Carney said Monday, warning borrowers, banks, companies and governments not to be complacent about such risks.

In a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto, Mr. Carney repeated his concerns about the debt loads of Canadians rising faster than their incomes, and, while saying further interest rate hikes would need to be carefully considered, stressed that borrowing costs would eventually begin rising again.

Saying it is the central bank’s responsibility to “draw the appropriate lessons” from past experiences where the perception of endless stable prices led countries to “financial disaster,” Mr. Carney said policy makers are examining how they might play a supportive role through pre-emptive actions.

“Experience suggests that prolonged periods of unusually low rates can cloud assessments of financial risks,” he said in the text of remarks he was delivering. “Low rates today do not necessarily mean low rates tomorrow. Risk reversals when they happen can be fierce: The greater the complacency, the more brutal the reckoning.”

Mr. Carney and central bank officials have suggested on several occasions that they view narrowly tailored regulatory changes, such as the Finance Department’s tightening of mortgage rules earlier this year, as the most effective and appropriate tools for reining in household borrowing.

The Globe and Mail reported Monday that the federal government, in its pre-budget consultations, is in talks with Bay Street financial executives about what further steps could be taken. Also, Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday said the amount of household debt amassed by Canadians is a ``matter of concern for the government’’ and that Ottawa is looking at ways to encourage better decision-making among borrowers.

Mr. Harper made the comment in televised remarks at an event in Quebec, without elaborating.

The central bank’s warnings about household debt have become sharper in recent months as global economic uncertainties and a slowdown in Canada make the need to keep its benchmark interest rate – currently at 1 per cent – steady for longer more evident.

With the central bank scheduled next year to renew its inflation-targeting agreement with the Finance Department, Mr. Carney and his policy team have been looking closely at how their mandate might be tweaked so they could play a greater role in ensuring the stability of the financial system, instead of being limited to controlling prices.

Statistics Canada reported Monday that the ratio of household debt-to-disposable income rose to 148.1 per cent in the third quarter, topping the 147.2-per-cent ratio in the United States as measured by the U.S. Federal Reserve. That marks the first time in more than a decade that the ratio has been higher in Canada than south of the border.

Also, Mr. Carney noted in his speech, the global and domestic economic environments have become more complicated in recent months.

In Canada, policy makers are trying to keep the most at-risk borrowers from taking on more than they’ll be able to handle when rates rise, emphasizing that personal responsibility is key.

At the same time, they warn that future economic growth will depend on higher business investment and a better export performance as more consumers pull back. But the sluggish U.S. rebound, as the world’s biggest economy fails to grow quickly enough for the unemployment rate to fall, and the debt crisis facing several European governments, have made the picture for Canadian sales abroad murkier.

“Current turbulence in Europe is a reminder that the crisis is not over, but has merely entered a new phase,’’ he said. “In a world awash with debt, repairing the balance sheets of banks, households and countries will take years. As a consequence, the pace, pattern and variability of global economic growth is changing, and Canada must adapt.’’

The trouble abroad, in turn, means that interest rates in most of the so-called advanced economies are likely to stay low for longer, increasing the scope for risky behaviour outside Canada’s borders too, Mr. Carney said.

“While low current interest rates create short-term fiscal flexibility, they expose budgets to any increase in policy rates and abrupt changes in private market sentiment,’’ Mr. Carney said. “Countries would be wise to heed the lessons learned by Canada in the 1990s: the bond market is there until it is not.’’

Canada's banks may have earned international praise for their financial prudence but they should not make the mistake of becoming complacent at this juncture in the crisis, Mr. Carney said.

“They've earned that reputation, but reputations have to be earned every day. They are hard to build and easy to lose,” he told reporters following his luncheon address.

The World Economic Forum recently rated Canada's banking system the soundest in the world for three years straight, but Mr. Carney said banks, insurance companies and private investors all have to be careful in the current environment.

“Don't assume that things can go on forever,” he said.
 
Last edited:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadians-debt-to-income-ratio-now-higher-than-americans/article1835539/
And further in the Globe and Mail on the web site:

Canadians’ debt-to-income ratio is now higher than Americans’ for the first time in a dozen years, leaving policy makers with a dilemma: Rein in spending and risk hampering the recovery, or do nothing and risk a cascading financial failure.

Measures that track Canadians’ ability to repay loans have shown an increase into record territory. A sudden shock, such as a drop in house prices or higher interest rates, would leave some homeowners unable to make their payments and trigger personal and corporate bankruptcies. That has policy makers ratcheting up warnings about the too-high level of consumer debt and acknowledging that more might have to be done if the situation worsens.



There is more to the article but it did not copy for me. Similar to the previous post. As cdr says, everyone is crying out warning of the impending overextension of Canadians. Our only hope is that there is not a severe correction and that the government can orchestrate (more luck than skill) a soft landing. In the mean time, I keep repeating that I hope prices stop rising in the Real Estate market because the more it goes up, the further the eventual drop. And I am not one looking to buy. If anything, I would be looking to sell so this is not in my interest to adopt this position. But for the overall good, I hope there is some slow deflation of house prices or at least a temporary (couple of years or more) halt in their almost continuous upward march.
 
[url

In the mean time, I keep repeating that I hope prices stop rising in the Real Estate market because the more it goes up, the further the eventual drop. And I am not one looking to buy. If anything, I would be looking to sell so this is not in my interest to adopt this position. But for the overall good, I hope there is some slow deflation of house prices or at least a temporary (couple of years or more) halt in their almost continuous upward march.

I have a distinct feeling that you will be proven wrong. You can not stop dead real estate activities, as they say, in its tracks, unless, of course, there is a general collapse of the economy.

Certain number of individuals will keep buying real estate -- because they need to live somewhere or that, considering the alternatives at present, real estate is still a better investment. Then, there is 'foreign money' wanting to park money, some where, for a long, perhaps longer term. What one might not know, quite a few real estate firms -- and Baker Real Estate is the one name that comes into mind -- have offices in Hong Kong, China and other parts of the world pushing real estate as a safe investment in Canada. And that means, first, Vancouver and, second, Toronto.
 
A quick lesson on debt-to-income ratios. It is an AVERAGE. There are plenty of people who own their houses outright and have 0 debt. A large % of Canadians rent, 30%, so they do not have any mortgage debt. The realistic # is about 2-3x higher on average per mortgagee-- so a mortgagee easily has a 400%+ debt-to-income ratio. Some make the argument that Canadians are wealthy, and we have 6.1T of wealth. Again, it is an average and includes HOME EQUITY (about to crash) and RETIREMENT SAVINGS. This is not real 'wealth' but the debt has to be paid every month promptly or you're homeless. Furthermore, again, it is an average, and a successful entrepreneur who has amassed $20M+ in wealth will skew the average for 200 poor home'owners'.Averages are great at massaging numbers and making them look pretty, I did the same shit when I worked as a MORTGAGE BANKER ON WALL ST ROFL.

Haha, I love it.

Mark Carney, the BoC Governer who knows infinitely more than any little RE get-rich-quick-schemer on here, comes out and says a certain % of people will be homeless and destitute very soon once a 'brutal reckoning' comes (his words).

Harper is very concerned about Canadian debt loads.

Housing bubble destroyed the US, UK, Japanese, Irish, Spanish, etc etc economies.

OECD says Canadians have a housing bubble. Economist said so. IMF is concerned. TD/CIBC/etc have said Canadian real estate values will drop 5-10% (so in reality 30-40%+ because banks NEVER say that-- TRUST ME, I KNOW).

So yeah, I'll be blowing bubbles into my fucking Bubble Tea while stupid Canadians are crying that nobody warned them... ROFL!

Ciao.
 
But unfortunately how many places in the World can you tell me of Ka1 whereR/E is supported virtually totally going forward by non residents. The residents have too much debt.

As for stopping dead in its tracks, one does not have to look very far back. Just to Sept 2008. About a 15% dropin a matter of 6 months or so. Now, it recovered equally fast as we both know but you know my feelings on this. There is no good reason this happened which is why I expect to retest at least 2009 lows if not go back even to 2007 prices.

The reason for our real estate soaring is because Canada is viewed as safe stable with a great banking system. Well, just yesterday, our premiere Bank just got downrated. Now grant you it went from 1 of 6 banks in the World with AAA rating to AA+ so it is still great but none the less I am sure that the international investors many of whom if they could name a Bank in Canada would name the Royal Bank will take note.

In general, you are absolutely right that likely it will not stop dead in its tracks. Rather, it is like a big ship that takes "miles" to turn from when the decision to turn is made. Now Vancouver is a mini colony of China almost so it is behaving irrationally if viewed in a Canadian context. Remove the foreign buyers, its geographic proximity, and a s a place for China and other Asian peoples to park their money, on a limited island of space and one can explain its behaviour. Whether this is rationale or not, I have my views but it exists. Where it behaving as part of Canada and similar to the rest of the country, it would have deflated long ago.
Toronto is somewhat different. More land, not an island, more of an economy based market. Being the financial capital, there is some rationale for its prices but again prices are becoming less affordable and unless Toronto assumes a Vancouver role as I have described above, I just don't believe it is different this time.


Carney is fretting and there is an article in the paper today in the Financial post business section talking about bubbles and their forming in R/E, the stock market etc. because the World is awash in money. Eventually, this excess liquidity has to be mopped up. Unfortunately, in the mean time it encourages borrowing to the point where Carney is talking louder and louder that Canadians have to watch their debt. In a way, I fear many are acting like children in a candy shop. Taking alot more because they can and then the stomach ache will come later.

Unfortunately, as others have posted, a significant correction if/when it occurs punishes not only those who acted irresponsibly (95% mortgage barely making the 5 year fixed interest requirements) with no room for any jolt to their financial system, followed by the next group when they start to default, and then ultimately followed by responsible individuals who took 50-75% mortgages who suddenly when faced with 6-7% 5 year rates, a decrease of 20% in property value, and have to renegotiate, and suddenly are not qualifying for "conventional mortgage". Look at all the responsible people who in the US are now being dragged down because "speculators" bought 1/4 of their neighbourhood. They can't sell because so much is for sale driving down prices even further. Ka1, I realize we are not the US, but I think it is dangerous to think we are so different that something on a smaller scale could not happen here.

My point is that housing has now become a commodity as opposed to a home and as such, it is subject to much more violent swings than it has had in the past. I just am fearful, perhaps wrongly, that people in China and other parts of the World pushing this commodity in Canada may find a better "commodity to speculate in" and we who live here will be left with the morning after hang over.

In the short term and until at least next year (late 2011) I think like you I will be proven wrong because of QE2 and possibly even QE3??

Eventually, all this manipulation of the market will either implode or be unwound sensibly. Either way, the market is effectively being manipulated higher with all this money which can only have one eventual outcome which I fear will not be pretty. I think we are only arguing about eventual degrees of "ugly".
 
In the meantime, we are wealthier as a people: $178,000/household/capita. Of this, how much wealth is the house. I don't know but I would speculate it is the majority so even minor corrections will make people feel a lot less" wealthy"
 
Interested I don't get why you come in here day in and day out and post tacit denials? Do you own speculative RE properties?

Face reality. The bubble is going to burst very soon, actually, it probably starting bursting in July, but it takes a while for people to realize it.

It will be the mother of all crashes. My friend recently moved to Kitchener and bought a house there, 1750 sq ft for $330K. 0/35, 2.35% VRM. Yes, 0 down. TD. He makes 45k/year. He can't spend any money because it all goes to his housing costs.

Mark my words, RE is about to be slaughtered so hard it will be shocking. As Carney said, a 'brutal reckoning'.
 
$178K (supposedly) counts retirement savings + housing equity. That is not wealth but necessities-- insurance in the form of an income policy when you are too old to work to eat, and a house so you can work.

In reality once the prices start dropping like rocks household wealth will drop to nothing, housing prices will easily crash 100K+ on average, the TSX will get slaughtered killing retirement savings.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 0 net worth considering we have the highest household debt load IN THE FREAKING WORLD! LOL.
 

Back
Top