News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

This new regulation is attempting to deal with people over extending themselves where at the same time these over extenders are insuring these mortgages with CMHC leaving every tax payer on the hook if defaults occur. It's not about poor or rich buyers but instead about buyers who can't afford what they are buying. Never lose sight of the fact that there are millionaires out there who spread their wealth thinly. Flaherty shows once again that he is correcting his own mistakes and trying to sell them as wisdom not based on personal mistakes.
 
Last edited:
The past low interest rates did boost our housing market and now with them going higher of course things will naturally slow down. Plus, it's February. Then there are so many condos in Toronto too and so the law of economics will also prevail.
 
Mortgage defaults higher in neighborhoods dependent on driving, research shows

Click on this link for the article from the Chicago Sun Times.

Can living near a train station save your house?

Researchers looked at mortgage defaults in three cities and found something curious -- the chance of foreclosure is higher in neighborhoods more dependent on cars, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which included data from Chicago's Center for Neighborhood Technology. The report examined 40,000 mortgages in Chicago, Jacksonville and San Francisco.

The link became more obvious in looking at foreclosures after July 2008, when gas spiked over $4 a gallon, said CNT President Scott Bernstein, who studied foreclosures in the Chicago area. Bernstein found that gas price spikes provide an "early warning" of a rise in foreclosures in car-dependent communities.

"Nobody should be surprised this is happening," said Bernstein, noting that the cost of a gallon of gas doubled between 2000 and 2008. "In the suburbs, two or three cars and all that driving can cost more than the mortgage," Bernstein said. "If gas prices go up, some percentage of people will find those pressures to be too much."

Bernstein isn't saying high gas prices alone caused the foreclosure crisis -- but for people already in trouble because of an interest rate change or a job loss, it was another hole in the boat.

Bernstein think banks should look at "location efficiency" when calculating home loans, because a household that doesn't need two or three cars to get around has lower expenses and is less vulnerable to the budget-crushing impact of higher gas prices. Banks could provide better borrowing terms, like a lower interest rate, to people living in walkable neighborhoods near buses and trains.

Bernstein has testified twice before the U.S. House of Representatives in favor of a provision in the climate bill that would promote location efficient mortgages for first-time homebuyers. The bill has passed the House.

Michael van Zalingen, director of homeownership services for Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, found the NRDC report "incomplete." He noted that households facing foreclosure are typically in the red by $1,500 a month, because of job loss, a change in their mortgage cost or some other problem. Getting rid of a car and being able to take the train might save $200 a month, but that's not enough.

"Fixing the transportation issue is not going to get those costs in line," said van Zalingen. "If everyone had free excellent public transportation, at least 80 percent of the families in foreclosure would still be in foreclosure."

Van Zalingen acknowledged that loan underwriting should take a closer look at the household budget to see if someone can really afford a loan, and transportation costs would be a part of that. "I do think the government could provide an incentive for a person to not buy another car by lowering the interest rate," van Zalingen said.

Bernstein said that Fannie Mae has experimented with location efficient mortgages in the past -- about 2,000 location efficient mortgages, sometimes called "smart commute" mortgages -- were issued in the 1990s.

Only one went into default -- and that was a "technical" default that was corrected and the home was saved.

"It ought to be part of the toolkit we could use to improve the economy and have a positive environmental impact," said Bernstein.
 
This new regulation is attempting to deal with people over extending themselves where at the same time these over extenders are insuring these mortgages with CMHC leaving every tax payer on the hook if defaults occur. It's not about poor or rich buyers but instead about buyers who can't afford what they are buying. Never lose sight of the fact that there are millionaires out there who spread their wealth thinly. Flaherty shows once again that he is correcting his own mistakes and trying to sell them as wisdom not based on personal mistakes.

I agree it is funny that just a couple of years ago the Harper government allowed the increased terms to go to 40 years and the 5% down. If Canada escapes the fate of the US (which was worse for all the reasons described before: Ninja loans, subprime, teaser rates, non recourse mortgages) it will not be because we were so smart but rather that we only had a couple of years of this and not many more with resultant far larger share of the US market being in these subprime and now the ARM (adjustable rate mortgages) coming home to roost which will be a larger problem as there at least double the ARM mortgages with initial low teaser rates adjusting now than there were subprime mortgages. If the US had not self imploded, I am sure Mr. Flaherty would happily have let things continue and we would be much further down the road than we are and with much more potential mess to clean up. That said, I think we have to be fair and state it is easy to quarterback Sunday evenings game the following Monday morning. I am always amazed at how well I can predict the past.
 
I agree it is funny that just a couple of years ago the Harper government allowed the increased terms to go to 40 years and the 5% down. If Canada escapes the fate of the US (which was worse for all the reasons described before: Ninja loans, subprime, teaser rates, non recourse mortgages) it will not be because we were so smart but rather that we only had a couple of years of this and not many more with resultant far larger share of the US market being in these subprime and now the ARM (adjustable rate mortgages) coming home to roost which will be a larger problem as there at least double the ARM mortgages with initial low teaser rates adjusting now than there were subprime mortgages. If the US had not self imploded, I am sure Mr. Flaherty would happily have let things continue and we would be much further down the road than we are and with much more potential mess to clean up. That said, I think we have to be fair and state it is easy to quarterback Sunday evenings game the following Monday morning. I am always amazed at how well I can predict the past.


IMO, US style ARM mortgages, which reset at a higher rate after a few years, are no different than Canadian style regular mortgages than have short terms ( 1 - 5 years ) subject to renegotiations during the amortization (25 - 35 years).

from my discussions with individuals, many Canadians don't realize that US mortgage rates can be fixed at the onset for the FULL amortization (ie. 25-40 years) and only think the problem with the US mortgage meltdown had to do with subprime/ninja loans.
 
IMO, US style ARM mortgages, which reset at a higher rate after a few years, are no different than Canadian style regular mortgages than have short terms ( 1 - 5 years ) subject to renegotiations during the amortization (25 - 35 years).

from my discussions with individuals, many Canadians don't realize that US mortgage rates can be fixed at the onset for the FULL amortization (ie. 25-40 years) and only think the problem with the US mortgage meltdown had to do with subprime/ninja loans.

You are absolutely correct but what happened with some ARMS is they got teaser rates of say 2% for the first 2 or 3 years followed by makeup rates of 5 to 6% after the first 2-3 years and these people NEVER qualified for the 5 to 6 % rate so they relied fully on the ability to flip the property with NO HOPE of being able to hang on. This says nothing about all the chicanery such as lying on mortgage applications, inflating property values to get bigger mortgages etc.
 
You are absolutely correct but what happened with some ARMS is they got teaser rates of say 2% for the first 2 or 3 years followed by makeup rates of 5 to 6% after the first 2-3 years and these people NEVER qualified for the 5 to 6 % rate .


sounds eerily familiar to those who maxed out their mortgage based on very low variable-rates, and will be in for a large surprise when rates go up.

with the new CMHC rules, at least the borrower will have to be able to qualify at the 5 year term rate.
 
Do people believe that the up to 40% investors talked about are buying with5% down.

I'm not a real estate investor, but I always believed, and have read, that it's always best to put in as little of your own capital as possible, be it in real estate, small businesses, etc. It's always better to use someone elses money! :D

I would be shocked if most RE investors put more than 5% in their investments.
 
I'm not a real estate investor, but I always believed, and have read, that it's always best to put in as little of your own capital as possible, be it in real estate, small businesses, etc. It's always better to use someone elses money! :D

I would be shocked if most RE investors put more than 5% in their investments.

When RE investors do put more than 5% to save CHMC insurance etc...they can always cash out their capital by HELOC...

It's still liquidity...

So more than 5% won't hurt real investors with sufficient funds...it will keep pure speculators that want dangerous investing (pre-constructions they can never close) out of the gate.
 
Last edited:
"I would be shocked if most RE investors put more than 5% in their investments."

You are speaking about a niche pool of investors specific exclusively to the residential condo market that exploits a loop-hole in policy allowing high risk lending to occur under the umbrella of government incentive to promote personal home ownership. Most real estate investors are held to 25% down / equity standards (even higher for property deemed commercial) when financing or re-financing property.
 
"I would be shocked if most RE investors put more than 5% in their investments."

You are speaking about a niche pool of investors specific exclusively to the residential condo market that exploits a loop-hole in policy allowing high risk lending to occur under the umbrella of government incentive to promote personal home ownership. Most real estate investors are held to 25% down / equity standards (even higher for property deemed commercial) when financing or re-financing property.

I would have thought the same thing, at least 25% down. Usually that is requested by new condo developments for investors and not end users though not always of late. do you know this to be correct or are you speculating. I would think anyone who put 5% down, especially on more than 1 condo is not an investor but rather a gambler or speculator unless they are very wealthy and have the warewithall to close multiple properties at 95% in the event of even a mild decline in prices. Let's hope that the 5% "investor crowd" is not any significant portion of the market since the marginal players end up distorting the market and adding instability for the rest of the investors/end users.
 
anecdotal evidence ... i hope it's not the norm.

i've heard a fair number of people in the past 10-15 years in various locations from Vancouver to Alberta to Toronto, who have financed new property purchases by taking out the paper capital gains on other purchases.

a great way to utilize leverage when the market value continues to go up along with low interest rates, but very risky if valuations decline and interest rates go up. let's hope anyone who used that strategy maintained a minimum of 20% equity and has sufficient cash flow to cover expenses, etc.
 
When RE investors do put more than 5% to save CHMC insurance etc...they can always cash out their capital by HELOC...

It's still liquidity...


Actually HELOC`s are limited to 80% LTV. So the investor can`t put down 20% and then cash out via a HELOC down to 5%.
 
anecdotal evidence ... i hope it's not the norm.

i've heard a fair number of people in the past 10-15 years in various locations from Vancouver to Alberta to Toronto, who have financed new property purchases by taking out the paper capital gains on other purchases.

a great way to utilize leverage when the market value continues to go up along with low interest rates, but very risky if valuations decline and interest rates go up. let's hope anyone who used that strategy maintained a minimum of 20% equity and has sufficient cash flow to cover expenses, etc.

that would have to be one questionable lender who would lend based on a property one does not even own. Unless the gains was very significant (say 25% increase in price which has happened over the last 3 years on paper at least) this is risky for both lender and borrower. Unless the lender satisfies himself that the borrower has other funds(may have other assets tied up for eg. stock) so that there is something that can be sold, this would be a very frightening(and highly stupid akin to the nonsense tht went on in the US) way of conducting business. Plus, with the exception of a few closeouts by developers, they usually do not offer 5% down and then it presumably would require CMHC coverage(insurance) which I believe adds about another 2-3 % on average to the cost of a property. Very disturbing if it turns out to be widespread. Unfortunately, CDR I don't think there is anyway other than to anecdotally to arrive at accurate figures. I hope your example is the exception and not the rule or we will be in deep trouble however while there are a few "gamblers" out there who would bet on a straight up trajectory of the market, I believe that the majority of investors cannot and therefore would not take such risks (coincidently the only thing saving those reckless individuals).
 
anecdotal evidence ... i hope it's not the norm.

i've heard a fair number of people in the past 10-15 years in various locations from Vancouver to Alberta to Toronto, who have financed new property purchases by taking out the paper capital gains on other purchases.

a great way to utilize leverage when the market value continues to go up along with low interest rates, but very risky if valuations decline and interest rates go up. let's hope anyone who used that strategy maintained a minimum of 20% equity and has sufficient cash flow to cover expenses, etc.

This is a common strategy used by most investors and landlords. Especially with the equity growth that we have seen over the past 5 years (where properties values of almost doubled in some neighborhoods in those cities). It's a tax free way of utlizing profits and the interest the funds you get for another investment property might be tax deductable.

Quick tips to manage risk:
- Ensure that the property you are refinancing can cashflow, or if its your own, ensure you can cover payments (you might want to go with a 35 year amortization)
- Buy a property with a mortgage that will cashflow with at least a 5%-6% interest rates
- Work with a mortgage broker that understands financing investment property and something about financial planning (i'd recommend www.CalumRoss.com)

Added tip: buy a property undermarket value today so you have a built in capital gain.
 

Back
Top