Welcome to First Place Realty 650-2514 Sign in | Help
Ottawa revamps mortgage rules effective Oct 15

Effective Oct. 15, CMHC will guarantee loans only up to 35 years and require a 5% down payment. Will this motivate any buyers to get a house before the Oct 15 deadline?

Here's the story from the Globe & Mail:

 The federal government, fearful of a U.S.-style housing bubble, has pledged steps aimed at keeping riskier borrowers in their rental units and away from homes they probably can't afford.

Canada's housing agency will no longer be allowed to guarantee loans with amortization periods longer than 35 years, a move that likely will end the surge in 40-year mortgages, popular because they allowed borrowers to reduce their monthly payments.

Prime Ministers Stephen Harper's Conservative government said Wednesday Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. will also require a minimum down payment of 5 per cent to get government insurance.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney both expressed concern about the surge in 40-year mortgages over the past year, suggesting the loans were feeding a bubble.

The U.S. housing market collapsed last fall amid record defaults by homeowners who got loans during a period of easy credit at the start of the decade. U.S. officials say their housing problems continue to persist, and many economists say the market's woes have driven the world's largest economy into recession.

“Today's announcement marks a responsible and measured approach by the government to ensure Canada's housing market remains strong and to reduce the risk of a U.S.-style housing bubble developing in Canada,” the Finance Department said in a news release.

The government also said borrowers will require a minimum credit score of 620 to qualify for a CMHC insured mortgage, and that it will demand stronger documentary evidence that borrowers can pay their loans.

The changes take effect Oct. 15 with few exceptions, Finance said in the release.

Economists at Scotia Capital in Toronto said the measures would have a limited impact on Canada's economy, which has gotten a boost from record home buying.

“The changes are more about optics, in comparison to a fairly modest impact upon the economy, housing markets or financial markets,” Derek Holt and Karen Cordes wrote in a note to clients.

Currently, home buyers can get a CMHC-backed mortgage – even one with an amortization period of four decades – with no money down. Such “financial innovation” only came to the market toward the end of 2006, and the “marketplace has been quick to adopt these innovations,” Finance said in a background document explaining the changes.

Still, the government sought to play down the impact of its housing measures on home buyers, while emphasizing that the growth in Canada's housing market is more boom than bubble.

By way of example, the Finance Department said reducing the amortization period to 35 years from 40 years on a loan of $200,000 at 6 per cent interest would result in a $41 increase in the borrower's monthly payment. That borrower would save $49,000 in interest payments over the life of the loan, Finance said.

The department took pains to note that the International Monetary Fund concurs with the government that the surge in Canadian house prices and building is explained by low interest rates, rising incomes and a growing population.

The government said it expects construction of new homes to remain at an annual pace of 200,000 new units for a seventh straight year in 2008, and that bank mortgages in arrears are stable at 0.27 per cent, near the lowest levels since 1990.

Posted: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:11 PM by Bob Truman

Comments

Bob Truman said:

This comment was posted on the previous thread, but pertains to this topic, so I've brought it forward:

CalgaryBuyer said:

There goes any price gains for the Calgary market for the next 12 months.

CMHC Drops 100% Financing and 40-Year Amortizations

BREAKING NEWS

This will be a big surprise to many.  The Department of Finance has just announced that it will no longer back the following:

100% financing (5% will now be the minimum downpayment on an insured mortgage)

40 year amortizations (35 years will be the new maximum on insured mortgages)

The government will also require the following with all new mortgages it backs:

A new 620 minimum credit score requirement

45% maximum TDS ratio

New loan documentation standards

The new rules will take effect October 15, 2008.  This affects CMHC insured mortgages as well as mortgages insured by Genworth, AIG, etc.  Insured mortgages are generally those with less than 20% down.  Certain conventional mortgages are also insured, however.

In a statement earlier today, the Department of Finance said, "Today’s announcement marks a responsible and measured approach by the Government to ensure Canada’s housing market remains strong and to reduce the risk of a U.S.-style housing bubble developing in Canada."

These new rules pertain only to new, government-backed insured mortgages.  This will not affect existing mortgages.

# July 9, 2008 5:58 PM

liverless said:

It is interesting to look at the stock charts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They fill a role in the United States that is similar to what the CMHC fills in Canada.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=FNM#chart1:symbol=fnm;range=6m;compare=fre;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

My understanding is that Freddie and Fannie have had a more conservative mandate then the CMHC.  They have had, up until just recently, a cap on their loan size of $417K.  And they don't insure long-dated mortgages like the 40 year.  They also have a minimum of 3% down-payment on conventional duration mortgages, and 5% on others.

The Canadian finance department must be concerned when they see what the market is doing to these institutions down south.  These are, to quote a phrase of Donald Coxe's, the sort of charts where if you saw them by a hospital bed you'd be ordering flowers for the widow.

Will the Canadian market follow the US?  That is now a multi-billion dollar question.  I guess we'll just have to see whether the Canadian housing market has been driven by credit or the economy.

# July 9, 2008 6:41 PM

Peter said:

Seems to me that this will lead to further price correction after October, as people that could never really afford what they were borrowing will now be forced to see the reality.  It's not a big change but the need to put some real money down, and a limitation of 45% total debt (gross?) will weed out the sillier borrowers.

I would have thought that places like Vancouver will feel the pinch the worst, but also Calgary will see some adjustment.  Also we might see extra houses on the market due to some flippers seeing the new reality coming.

That's what it's all about really, reality (something we seem to lose a grip on, sometimes).  Houses have to be affordable by the average Joe.

As for me, fool or not, I bought a house recently - to live in - knowing that it may be some time before prices recover to what they are now.  The debt ratio was kept to a 3.5 times gross salary due to an unexpected blessing, otherwise I doubt I would have contemplated it.  I could have rented I suppose, but nothing in the rental market seemed right, and moving multiple times with family is never an especially appealing prospect!  There are other factors in life than money, though sometimes you might wonder on reading these blogs. ;-)

Regarding flippers seeing the reality - the person we bought from is selling four other houses, the reason we were looking is because our landlord wanted to sell.  Go figure.  We all have our different motives and rationales.

# July 9, 2008 7:02 PM

worldclass said:

Indeed some people who shouldn't be affording a home (40 year mortgage?!) have likely bought into a house due to this new rule.  This will give the housing sales a shot in the arm for the next few months as fence-sitters have another reason to buy.  But after Oct 15 2008 when the rules take effect, who is left holding the bag when property values may be falling due to lower sales?

Mind you, 35 years isn't that far off from 40, so the new change likely will only affect fringe-buyers who could not qualify for a 35 year (which is ridiculously easy to qualify for).

# July 9, 2008 7:08 PM

Nathan said:

This is great news for people who manage their finances responsibly.

# July 9, 2008 7:28 PM

Vladimir Levin said:

I think it was a wise move to discourage speculators. Zero down certainly makes it very tempting to try flipping a property. Will it affect the market in Calgary? It's hard to say, and I'm no expert, but I don't forsee it making a huge difference...

# July 9, 2008 10:37 PM

One Of A Kind said:

Wow this is Big news , we were going to do this in a few months . I know we have till Oct. 15 but I don't think we will even bother with buying now . I know we should have a down payment of 5% but we can't save with the prices of things going up. If my pay would only rise we could do it. Maybe a few years from now, I really feel we have totally missed out here in Calgary. Yes we are jealous of those who got in before us !

# July 10, 2008 6:40 AM

New-USER said:

Will Genworth and the other insurers continue to insure 40 year 0%down mortgages?  The press release only mentiones CMHC. Is this a change to the law or just the practises of CMHC?

# July 10, 2008 9:10 AM

dvrvd said:

New-USER, Genworth and the other insurers have to follow the new rules as well, I believe.

I support these new guidelines, as I think 40 year mortgages are/were a bad idea that only really benefited banks, but I doubt it will have much of an impact on the market -- which I'd say is mostly governed by excessive inventory and the fear of falling prices on the part of potential buyers. So, until either prices stabilize or inventory starts to drop, the market is going to be weak, regardless of the mortgage products available.

# July 10, 2008 10:54 AM

Bob Truman said:

I'm off for a couple weeks to enjoy some time in the mountains. You are welcome to post comments, but I will only be checking sporadically, so your comment may not appear for a while.

# July 10, 2008 11:57 PM

Carol said:

One of a kind...

I really feel for you - in my view the gov't should never have allowed 40 year zero down mortgages - that policy created the speculative mess in the first place and I agree that it largely benefited the banks and flippers - not the regular buyers.  Policy-makers should have (and still should) re-institute the registered home ownership savings plans of the 80s that shelter first time buyer's savings from tax if they use them as a downpayment on a home.

But if you do your homework you will find out that there are some properties (even good ones) that are back at 2006 prices now so you have not completely missed out. And looking for a home that could be worked on would be like having a second income in terms of the equity built by your own hands.   There is a strange phenomenon that new buyers seem to want absolutely turn key homes - with no room for improvements.  This is foreign to me - that prospective buyers would fore go the opportunity to improve a solid but perhaps dated property and instead let the flippers charge excessive prices for doing some straightforward cosmetic work.  

# July 12, 2008 8:40 AM

Ping said:

I agree with Carol. In most cases, a little sweat and elbow grease can turn a fundamentally sound property into a gem. A run down and dated property in a good location, right orientation, close to schools and other shopping convieniences can be converted back to its glorious days with a fresh coat of paint, new flooring, new sod and other cosmetics touches. If one were to choose to live in it, try changing a new high eff. furnace, windows, doors and extra lawn work to enjoy the south or west setting sun in the backyard.

One must be able to look past the old peeling paint, the patchy yard, or the tired flooring. These are cosmetic attributes and doesn't necessary affect the basic function of the house. In fact you may want to add in your personal touch should you choose to live in it. The bull sees it as an opportunity while the pessimist sees it as a lack of value.

Unfortunately or fortunately, it is an instant gratification the general populous is after and using the least brain cells or that lack of creative flair which make it seem easier to delegate those task to other ppl who has or who is willing to put in the extra effort. And so...other ppl like the flippers/contractors benefit. Someone's bain is another's gain. It seems that human nature has it right after all. Put in a hard day's work each day, will eventually bring in dividend in the end.

# July 12, 2008 11:47 PM

B said:

Hi Bob, I was doing some research for a project re secondary suites and stumbled upon your website. As someone who has worked in planning for almost 30 years and viewed MANY realtor websites, I have to tell you, this site is BY FAR the best -- not only do you successfully sell yourself, you make an effort to educate your reader while you entertain! Great job! B

# July 13, 2008 10:40 AM

Bob Truman said:

Nigel Hannaford's column in today's Herald is about the end of the 40-year, no-down mortgage. He believes that some government regulation is a good thing:

"As a rule, economies do best unburdened by government regulation. That Canada has so much has hindered growth. Yet, purism can go too far. The U.S. experience shows what can happen if anything goes.

In Canada, allowing people to buy houses over 40 years with nothing down, especially when interest rates are low, is a recipe for setting up people in homes they can't afford -- and will lose when rates rise.

Thus, not only was Finance Canada right to lower the boom for purely fiscal reasons. It will also, by this and tougher qualification practices already in place, save thousands of Canadians from getting themselves into the same distress as so many of their U.S. neighbours.

When the definitive sub-prime book is written, there will be plenty of culprits, from the smart-alecks who dreamed up ABCP, to mortgage companies that qualified people who should never have had a mortgage, to plain folks who got greedy. A little restraint would have made all the difference.

At Stephen Harper's barbecue on Sunday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty remarked in conversation how young people should understand their first house doesn't have to be what their parents took 30 years to own."

Read the full column Mortgage reforms will save Canadians from U.S. - style mortgage woes

# July 15, 2008 9:21 AM

Mike said:

No housing bubble in Canada: Flaherty

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=659488

# July 17, 2008 2:41 PM

Janice said:

It appears that sales are picking up, despite what we're hearing inthe press these days. Everywhere I turn it's negativity but the market in Calgary seems to be getting stronger and even the prices are holding up well(median up over $5,000 this mo.). I'd be interested in knowing how July sales compare to last year.

Sales are down 14% compared to July 2007. That's a considerable improvement over the 34% which sales were down to the end of May. Condo sales are down 6% compared to last year. 

Are you referring to headlines like this in today's Calgary Herald? Calgary home prices slide. They're talking about the second quarter of the year which is old news.  -Bob

# July 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Bob Truman said:

Local accountant Brad Gough is one homeowner who is grateful for the 40-year mortgage:

"Without the 40-year mortgage, we couldn't have moved. We would have been stuck in the townhouse."

Read more of this front-page story in the Calgary Herald Lenders predict rush before Oct 15 change

# July 21, 2008 11:50 AM

Diabolo said:

Check this out and make up your own mind.

http://tinyurl.com/5flww9

# July 22, 2008 10:09 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled