While many people will speak to a mortgage broker before buying a home, few people call a mortgage broker before selling a home. Calling could save you thousands of dollars and many sleepless nights.

Why? Brokers understand mortgages and ask the right questions. How long do you have remaining in your present mortgage? Do you know if it’s portable to a new property? Have you heard of increase and blend? A mortgage broker can help you to anticipate a penalty to break your present mortgage and see if porting or taking your mortgage to your new property is a good idea. Need more money? Blend and Increase will allow you to increase your mortgage amount and blend the old rate with the present day rate and save you thousands in penalties.

If you are at the stage in life where you have children leaving for university and you are down-sizing, perhaps a line of credit might be useful for helping to pay tuition and dorm fees.

While you may like your home it may need a new roof. Most home buyers do not want a fixer-upper and will discount your selling price to account for this. It may be easier to get the price you want and sell faster if you replace the roof, furnace or whatever is old yourself. The problem is that you are saving money for a down payment. Your mortgage broker can come to the rescue with a line of credit, either secured or unsecured which can be paid out with the home sale. In short, “we’ve got a mortgage for that!”.

Remember, calling your Dominion Lending Centres mortgage broker before buying is a no-brainer but why not call them before you sell.

You might think you would be rewarded for toiling away to save a down payment of 20% or greater. Well, forget it. Your only prize for all that self-sacrifice is paying a higher interest rate than people who didn’t bother.

Once upon a time we had high ratio vs conventional mortgages, now it’s changed to; insured, insurable and uninsurable.

High ratio mortgage – down payment less than 20%, insurance paid by the borrower.

Conventional mortgage – down payment of 20% or more, the lender had a choice whether to insure the mortgage or not.

vs

Insured –a mortgage transaction where the insurance premium is or has been paid by the client. Generally, 19.99% equity or less to apply towards a mortgage.

Insurable –a mortgage transaction that is portfolio-insured at the lender’s expense for a property valued at less than $1MM that fits insurer rules (qualified at the Bank of Canada benchmark rate over 25 years with a down payment of at least 20%).

Uninsurable – is defined as a mortgage transaction that is ineligible for insurance. Examples of uninsurable re-finance, purchase, transfers, 1-4 unit rentals (single unit Rentals—Rentals Between 2-4 units are insurable), properties greater than $1MM, (re-finances are not insurable) equity take-out greater than $200,000, amortization greater than 25 years.

The biggest difference where the mortgage consumers are feeling the effect is simply the interest rate. The INSURED mortgage products are seeing a lower interest rate than the INSURABLE and UNINSURABLE products, with the difference ranging from 20 to 40 basis points (0.20-0.40%). This is due in large part to the insurance premium increase that took effect March 17, 2017. As well, the rule changes on October 17, 2017 prevented lenders from purchasing insurance on conventional funded mortgages. By the Federal Government limiting the way lenders could insure their book-of-business meant the lenders need to increase the cost. We as consumers pay for that increase.

The insurance premiums are in place for few reasons; to protect the lenders against foreclosure, fraudulent activity and subject property value loss. The INSURED borrower’s mortgages have the insurance built in. With INSURABLE and UNINSURABLE it’s the borrower that pays a higher interest rate, this enables the lender to essential build in their own insurance premium. Lenders are in the business of lending money and minimize their exposure to risk. The insurance insulates them from potential future loss.

By the way, the 90-day arrears rate in Canada is extremely low. With a traditional lender’s in Canada it is 0.28% and non-traditional lenders it is 0.14%. So, somewhere between 99.72% and 99.86% of all Canadians pay their monthly mortgage every month.

In today’s lending landscape is there any reason to save the necessary down payment or do you buy now? Saving may avoid the premium, but is it worth it? You may end up with a higher interest rate.

By having to wait for as little as one year as you accumulate 20% down, are you then having to pay more for the same home? Are you missing out on the market?

When is the right time to buy? NOW.

Here’s a scenario is based on 2.59% interest with 19.99% or less down and 2.89% interest for a mortgage with 20% or greater down, 25-year amortization. In this scenario, it takes one year to save the funds required for the 20% down payment.

• First-time homebuyer
• Starting small, buying a condo
• 18.9% price increase this year over last

Purchase Price $300,000
5% Down Payment $15,000
Mtg Insurance Premium $11,400 (4% as of March 17, 2017)
Starting Mtg Balance $296,400
Mortgage Payment $1,341.09

Purchase Price $356,700 (1 year later)

20% Down Payment $71,340
Mtg Insurance Premium $0
Starting Mtg Balance $285,360
Mortgage Payment $1,334.40

The difference in the starting mortgage balance is $11,040, which is $360 less than the total insurance premium. As well, the overall monthly payment is only $6.69 higher by only having to save 5% and buying one year sooner. Note I have not even built in the equity that one has also accumulated in the year. The time to buy is NOW. Contact your local Dominion Lending Centres mortgage professional so we can help!

I remember the first time I learned about how compound interest can work for you. I was introduced by a friend to someone in the financial services industry and he explained a simple technique to easily calculate how compound interest can work for you – the Rule of 72. I was so excited and started running numbers. I was really amazed that I never once learned this in school. How could we miss such an important bit of information?

Canada’s economy continue to generate job growth in March, extending an employment rally that is the strongest in years, but with increasingly sluggish wage increases. Canadian employment grew by 19,400 in March–exceeding economists’ expectation for the fourth consecutive month–while the unemployment rate increased 0.1 percentage points to 6.7% as more people searched for work.

This brings job gains in the first quarter to 83,000 or 0.5%, which is comparable to the last quarter of 2016 and well above the first quarter of last year. This further flags a surge in Canadian economic activity in Q1, as real GDP growth is likely to come in at a 3.5% pace.

Another piece of very good news is that most of the employment gain was in full-time work. The net job gain in March reflected an increase of 18,400 full-time jobs and a gain of 1,000 part-time workers. The year-over-year increase in employment is posted at 276,400 (+1.5%), now mostly in full-time work, as the total number of hours worked rose by 0.7%. Canada has added 223,100 full-time jobs over the past year versus 53,300 part-time jobs.

Yet, the pace of annual wage rate increases fell to 1.1% in March, the lowest since the 1990s. The weakness in wage gains seems to be an Ontario phenomenon. The province, which has led employment increases over the past year, recorded an annual 0.1% increase in wages in March, also the lowest on record. On the brighter side, manufacturing looks like it came back in March, with a gain of 24,400 positions, the most since 2002. The rise in the number of hours worked helped to offset the weakness in wages.

Leading the way was strength in job growth in hard-hit Alberta, showing gains of 20,000, all in full-time work. More people sought jobs in the province last month, leaving the jobless rate unchanged at 8.4%–down from a peak of 9.0% in November. Job gains were also recorded in Nova Scotia and Manitoba. Employment in March fell in Saskatchewan, while it was relatively stable in the remaining provinces.

There were more people working in manufacturing; business, building and other support services; wholesale and retail trade; and information, culture and recreation. On the other hand, declines were recorded in educational services; transportation and warehousing; “other services”; and public administration. The rebound in manufacturing was the largest one-month increase since August 2002. This is on the heels of a downtrend in factory work throughout 2016.

The strength of today’s jobs report for March gives the Bank of Canada a lot to ponder when it meets next week. Real GDP is on track to beat the Bank’s forecasts for a third consecutive quarter and the unemployment rate at 6.7% remains below the 10-year pre-recession average, a time when the economy was considered to be at full-employment. The Bank has played down the recent upswing in economic data and this report will likely fuel their concerns even with the gain in employment. While economic growth has accelerated and employers are hiring, it’s tough to be sanguine about the expansion without a pick-up in wages. Wage rates are growing at only half the pace of the cost of living. The Bank of Canada will likely hold interest rates at today’s low levels despite the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes.

The mortgage process can seem huge and overwhelming. It can be an emotional process because a mortgage is the loan you are taking to buy a home for yourself and your family which makes it infinitely more than just a loan. Or it may represent the loan you are taking to refinance your home to invest in business dreams or to clean up some debts after life has thrown you sideways.

Likely you will head out to get your loan and, if you are human, are probably nervous about the whole process and whether you will even be approved. The new guidelines brought into place by the federal government have made it harder and you may even feel that you deserve a medal by the end of the process after jumping through all the hoops. The other part of the process is that we are inundated with information and we want to make sure that we are choosing the best mortgage that will protect us now and in the future. The easiest measure of mortgage ‘victory ‘seems to be the interest rate we are offered. What rate did you get is a hot topic after a home is purchased and it seems a no brainer that the one with the lowest rate is the clear cut winner in that conversation, but it is time to challenge that assumption and to do so we are going to look at just two normal situations. The fact of the matter is that you need to look beyond rate. Of course it is important as the lower the rate, the lower your payment but at the end of the day there is more to it than rate.

The Case of the Mortgage Penalty

Client is a regular person. Good credit, saved up the down payment and is ready to purchase a home. Receives two offers for the mortgage both at the best rate of the day. Chooses option A through her home bank as she likes the ‘security’ of bricks and mortar locations. Fast forward to down the road and sadly the client is separating and needs to payout the mortgage. Had she thought to ask she would have known that the penalty is calculated very differently from lender to lender and she would have saved herself thousands; this information is readily available online and asking questions before signing is the way to go.

The Case of the Self Employed

Client is a hard working tradesman guy who has saved 15% to put down on a home but needs to state his income given that he cannot verify it traditionally. Option A takes him to a mainstream lender who has to go through the mortgage insurer. Option B takes him to a B lender who will not through the insurer but charges a higher rate and a fee.

Let’s assume a mortgage amount of $250,000

Lender A – Rate is 2.79% for a 2 year term and the mortgage insurance fee is 3.75%

Lender B- Rate is 4.89% and the lender fee is 1%

It seems simple until you realize that the difference between the two fees is $7,235 and even though he will pay a higher amount monthly, he will actually owe $3,000.57 less at the end of the term as he borrowed less overall. So there was no so called victory in achieving the lowest rate but the client did in fact save himself a lot of money.

The point is that your mortgage is made up of far more than a rate and the onus is on you to make sure you are getting the best mortgage overall even if you lose the water cooler bragging rights. As you can see in just two examples, there is a lot of money that can be saved. Be sure to contact your local Dominion Lending Centres mortgage professional who can help you find the right mortgage for you.

We are all familiar with the banks and local credit unions, but what are monoline lenders and why are they in the market?

Mono, meaning alone, single or one, these lenders simply provide a single yet refined service: to fulfill mortgage financing as requested. Banks and credit unions, on the other hand, offer an array of other products and services as well as mortgages.

The monoline lenders do not cross-sell you on chequing/savings account, RRSPs, RESPs, GICs or anything else. They don’t even have these products and services available.

Monolines are very reputable, and many have been around for decades. In fact, Canada’s second-largest mortgage lender through the broker channel is a monoline lender. Many of the monoline lenders source their funds from the big banks in Canada, as these banks are looking to diversify their portfolios and they ultimately seek to make money for their shareholders through alternative channels.

Monolines are sometimes referred to as security-backed investment lenders. All monolines secure their mortgages with back-end mortgage insurance provided by one of the three insurers in Canada.

Monoline lenders can only be accessed by mortgage brokers at the time of origination, refinance or renewal. Upon servicing the mortgage, you cannot by find them next to the gas station or at the local strip mall near your favorite coffee shop. Again, the mortgage can only be secured through a licensed mortgage broker, but once the loan completes you simply picking up your smartphone to call or send them an email with any servicing questions. There are no locations to walk into. This saves on overhead which in turn saves you money.

The major difference between a bank and monoline is the exit penalty structure for fixed mortgages. With a monoline lender the exit penalty is far lower. That is because the banks and monoline lenders calculate the Interest Rate Differential (IRD) penalty differently. The banks utilize a calculation called the posted-rate IRD and the monolines use an IRD calculation called unpublished rate.

In Canada, 60% (or 6 out of every 10) households break their existing 5-year fixed term at the 38 months. This leaves an average 22 months’ penalty against the outstanding balance. With the average mortgage in BC being $300,000, the penalty would amount to approximately $14,000 from a bank. The very same mortgage with a monoline lender would be $2,600. So, in this case the monoline exit penalty is $11,400 less.

Once clients hear about this difference, many are happy to get a mortgage from a company they have never heard of. But some clients want to stick with their existing bank or credit union to exercise their established relationship or to start fostering a new one. Some borrowers just elect to go with a different lender for diversification purposes. (This brings up a whole other topic of collateral charge mortgages, one that I will venture into with another blog post.)

There is a time and a place for banks, credit unions and monoline lenders. I am a prime example. I have recently switched from a large national monoline to a bank, simply for access to a different mortgage product for long-term planning purposes.

An independent mortgage broker can educate you about the many options offered by banks and credit unions vs monolines.

A sincere thank you to our regulators, Ministers, MP’s, etc. for your concern about my personal debt figures.

And thanks for channelling this concern into recent deep and drastic cuts to my personal (home financing) purchasing power. Although certainly chopping Canadian families’ ability to buy a home in today’s rising market by a whopping 20% in one abrupt move seems a tad aggressive. Especially considering the many prudent cuts and measures introduced since 2008 which were enacted with reasonable industry consultation and reasonable rollout periods.

Again, thanks for the attention and concern for my own debt levels.

Perhaps we should talk about yours though; after all our nation’s fiscal order is in your hands. And you seem to be paying a lot of attention to this debt-to-income topic. At least where it applies to my own household.

But how do things look for the federal government’s debt-to-income ratio?

Let’s have a peak at your (or our collective) “house’s” debt to income ratio. And since the metric does not factor in equity, net worth, savings, or any assets at all when applied to us, we’ll leave them equally absent from this conversation.

Federal Gross income: $291.2 Billion
Federal Gross Debt: $1.056 Trillion

This appears to be a 363% debt-to-income ratio.

Why that’s twice our individual household debt-to-income ratio.

Double!

2.17 times higher to be precise.

And isn’t my mortgage debt capped for complete payout at 25 or 30 years – the maximum amortization allowable. Tell us again about the actual amortization timeline of the current national debt.

To Infinity and Beyond!

I believe the effective amortization of the national debt is currently just a touch beyond 25 years, or even 30 years; currently it sits at something closer to infinity. As happens when one steadily spends more than they make.

Perhaps you can tell us about your plans to get our nation’s debt to income level reduced below 167% – since this is apparently a concerning number. And once it is below 167% feel free to talk to me about my own debt-to-income ratio.

As things stand you look a bit like that guy at the party with seven shots of rye in him lecturing us all on how we should never consume more than three shots. Yet we are all going to get up tomorrow and work hard, and we had better because for all your worrying about us we need to hustle every day to cover your own fiscal imprudence.

Perhaps it is time for an early night, some introspection, and some internal house cleaning.

Same rules (ought to) apply.

The human brain struggles with distinguishing between a real or imagined threat.

Is it a snake? Or just a shoelace?

One may kill us quick, and so we react fast and think it through later… or maybe never.

Is the often cited, rarely critiqued, ‘debt-to-income’ ratio a snake or a shoelace?

A killer lying in wait or a meaningless footnote?

Federal regulators, and most mainstream media, would have us believe that at 167% it’s an Anaconda slithering through our sheets while we sleep, readying to swallow each household whole.

Two key points often absent from the debt-to-income conversation:

1.      The average household debt figure is largely irrelevant to the financial success of our individual household(s)

2.      What is my own debt-to-income ratio? And am I worrying about it at, say, 500%?

Perceived Reality

If one were to stop a citizen on the street and ask them if they believe today’s low interest rates have allowed Canadians to borrow more money than they should have most would say yes.

If one were to stop a citizen on the street and ask them if they believe today’s low interest rates have allowed housing prices to rise too high too fast, most would say yes.

If on the heels of these two questions you then asked one more question: Should government step in and tighten regulations?

Most at this point with this context would say yes.

And these citizens would be wrong.

Also by “yes” what these citizens mean to say is “regulate my reckless neighbours – not me, I’m cool.”

Framing matters

Let’s ask a few more questions.

Would it sound reasonable to take on a $2,000 mortgage payment with a household income of $100,000?

Is it fair to say that the same $100,000 per year household income could support a $2,600 monthly housing payment?

Likely we are going to get a “yes” response to both of these questions. As indeed these numbers are reasonable by any measure.

Numerical Reality

The $2,000 per month payment represents a monthly payment at today’s interest rates on a $500,000 mortgage balance.

Ah but what if rates double you ask? What if indeed…

The $2,600 per month payment represents a monthly payment at double today’s rates (when that $500,000 mortgage balance comes up for renewal).

Readers quick with numbers can see where this is headed, this household with their $500,000 mortgage balance and a $100,000 household income has a debt-to-income ratio of 500%.

Are they freaking out, suffering desperate times, readying a kidney for sale?

Not at all.

To be fair they do have concerns about debt levels – your debt levels!

The 500% debt-to-income household has things under control; they know that ~$1,000 of that ~$2,000 payment is principle reduction, a forced savings plan. They also know that the ~$1,000 interest component per month (fixed for the next five years) is way less than what they were paying in rent last year, and unlike rent this expense will not rise for five full years…and their mortgage debt balance will be dropping steadily. (by ~$60,000 over the first five years).

How many renters will see a ~$60,000 increase in net worth over the next five years? (this amount assumes 0% movement in home prices)

Nonetheless citizens remain concerned. Concerned that today’s low rates have allowed you to borrow more than you should have – and as you know, you are A-OK.

Guess what, your neighbours are OK too.

They are OK with a 500% debt-to-income.

Although few in Canada actually have a debt-to-income ratio this high; in fact Bank of Canada research shows that just 8% of Canadians have a debt-to-income ratio above 350%.

The example used in this piece is in fact a complete outlier, and not at all the norm; we are far more conservative than even these comfortable figures.

Tomorrow we discuss houses, in particular – glass houses and those who reside in them.

Our Government has concerns about their role with CMHC — essentially a mortgage insurance company — a role in which taxpayers are technically liable for their clients’ actions and behaviour (despite current CMHC premium reserves on hand to withstand up to a 40% market devaluation).

These concerns were apparently part of justification used regarding recent significant changes to not only the amount of debt Canadians can access (~20% less mortgage money) but also just which companies Canadians can access mortgage debt through. Limiting exposure to potentially bad behaviour seems a common refrain in Ottawa these days.

But what about bad behaviour with regard to unsecured debt?

‘Not our problem’ they state. Citing their lack of guaranteeing unsecured debt as they do mortgage debt.

Let’s view this through the lens of an analogy using cars, booze, and sales tactics.

Instead of mortgage insurance let’s call it car insurance, and consider the sales process of two different types of car dealers.

Company #1 strives to maximize profits by giving away a six pack of wine coolers (a new credit card) and a 40oz bottle of whisky (an unsecured line of credit) with every car (mortgage) sold. They place these ‘extras’ right there on the passenger seat at the time of delivery. Easy access.

Now hey, you don’t have to open these products up, and they cost you nothing if left unused. After all you only pay for what you consume. The sales agent is directly compensated for upselling you on the use of said wine & whisky; in fact their annual bonus depends upon it.

Company #2 has no Whisky (unsecured debt) to offer you. Their business model is simply to place you the right car (mortgage) for you and that is it. Often at a sharper price, with a few more bells and whistles, and a vastly superior trade in value (prepayment penalties). They send you on your way with a smile and a wave. No follow-up to cross-sell you on multiple other tempting products, like the wine & whisky for example.

Admittedly not everyone is going to crack that bottle open and consume the entire thing during their first drive home. But it seems reasonable, at least it should be to the insurance company (The Federal Government) witnessing this sales process, that there ought to be some greater concerns about the increased claims from company #1 and perhaps some stiffer regulations and legislation may be in order – especially when the government’s own research shows that twice as many clients of company #1 (0.28%) get into trouble and make a claim is do clients of company #2 (0.14%).

Table 1-A: Characteristics of median mortgage borrowers 2013Q1–2016Q3

Traditional lenders (*1)    Mortgage Finance companies (*2)
Credit score    739    742
90-day arrears rate (%)    0.28    0.14
Household income (annual)    $80,912    $84,404
Loan-to-income ratio (%)    304    357
Total debt-service ratio (%)    35.3    37.2
*1. Banks and credit unions

*2. Based on mortgages in pools of National Housing Act Mortgage-Backed Securities as of 2015Q4

Sources: Department of Finance Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Bank of Canada calculations

Instead our government appears to see things differently.

When the government decided to enact stiffer regulations and restrictive legislation they called only on Company #1 for consultation, and interestingly the net result of said consultation and deliberation is a set of new regulations which threaten the very existence of Company #2.

Despite the research clearly indicating a more prudent approach to the business by Company #2 than that of their competition (Company #1).

Taking into account the relative youth of Company #2 (about a decade) vs the age of Company #1 (~150yrs) the variation of the equity (loan-to-income) held by each of its clients is more than reasonable and understandable. The narrow difference in total debt-to-service reflects the generally conservative nature of Canadians and further supports the prudent processes in place at Company #2.

Why is our government effectively trying to legislate Company #2 out of business?

Why is our government consulting only with Company #1 when the government’s own research demonstrates the people at Company #2 are doing twice as good a job when it comes to avoiding problem clients?

Food for thought.

During a recent trip to our nation’s Capital with folks from Dominion Lending Centres and other mortgage groups, an Ottawa insider made an interesting comment: “We don’t care about consumer debt, because we don’t guarantee it.”

This comment was made in an effort to justify recent increased restrictions placed on borrowers taking out insured mortgages (i.e. backed by CMHC, Genworth, or Canada Guaranty – effectively the federal government) due to increasing concerns in Ottawa around the optics of “taxpayer backed” mortgages.

This use of such hot button language would be laughable if taxpayers understood a few key things about CMHC in particular:

1. It is incredibly profitable and has generated tens of billions of general revenue for the Federal Government over the years. (This is arguably one of the most profitable Crown Corporations ever created).
2. The actual numbers as to just what CMHC (taxpayers) are “on the hook” for. (see chart below).
3. The incontrovertible fact that the government will, should the need arise, bail out the privately-owned banks should they ever truly misstep and get into trouble – meaning all debt in Canada is truly government guaranteed when you get right down to it.

Consumer debt vs mortgage debt
Source: CMHC

What hit me as most stunning about such a laissez faire attitude towards consumer debt, setting aside the question of protecting consumers from themselves (got a pulse? No job? No established credit? No problem, here is a 14% car loan and a $20,000 credit card) was that the very people managing these “taxpayer guaranteed” mortgages cannot see the problem with a system in which the major banks approve the mortgage itself under strict guidelines and then the moment it is approved offer the newly leveraged client an additional $5,000 – $80,000 in unsecured credit “just in case” the new homeowners “need” new furniture, a new car, a vacation, etc.

How is that not a significantly relevant factor in the stability and security of the guaranteed mortgage product?

The real irony in this?

The Fed backs these mortgages through two sorts of lenders, and has arguably been creating policy to heavily restrict the competitive ability of one of the two channels. More tomorrow on just how misdirected the regulations being imposed are in their targeting of one supplier channel over another.