Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Canada's Mortgage and Housing Corp under the oversight of a federal regulator.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    79

    Canada's Mortgage and Housing Corp under the oversight of a federal regulator.

    Surprised no one has posted about this yet. Am I the only one that thinks this is a huge deal? It should pull the market down to reality and stabilize it.

    Here is the article

    Ottawa is ramping up oversight on federally backed housing mortgages, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled legislation in Parliament on Thursday that aims to put Canada's Mortgage and Housing Corp. under the oversight of a federal regulator.


    The new legislation would also ask banks to shoulder some of the lending risk in Canada's red-hot real estate market.


    Flaherty, who hinted at the change in the recent federal budget, said that CMHC has become a major player in the country's mortgage sector and requires stiffer control.


    "I've been concerned about CMHC for some time, in this sense, it's become an important financial institution in Canada and it was not subject to the same supervision" as major financial institutions like banks, he said.


    "I think this is an important step forward."


    One major plank of the new plan will require CMHC to undergo a yearly "stress test," which would be similar to tests currently in place for banks. Those tests ensure that the institutions could make it through times of economic upheaval.


    While CMHC was initially created to handle mortgages for public housing, it has become increasingly important because it backstops mortgages in Canada that have less than 20 per cent down payments.


    The government backing on such high-leverage mortgages has taken some of the lending exposure off banks, and it was instrumental in keeping Canada's housing sector stable during the financial crisis of 2008-09, which saw foreclosures and collapse in many key U.S. markets.


    However, the government guarantee on high-leveraged mortgages, in addition to years of low interest rates, has led to an influx of home ownership and housing starts that many analysts believe is unsustainable.


    In turn, housing prices have become over-inflated, and Flaherty has voiced concern over hot condo markets in Toronto, Vancouver and even Montreal.


    But the new legislation would put CMHC under the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and it would be forced to undergo the same rigorous tests as the big banks.


    Tsur Somerville, an analyst from the University of British Columbia, said that the heated housing market in cities like Toronto and Vancouver is the result of several key factors.


    He said that capital inflow from investors and "people speculating on housing" has been driving up the prices of homes in a "very low" interest rate environment.


    Recent statistics show that Toronto has more condo developments than big American centres like New York and Chicago.


    Sonya Gulati, an economist from TD Bank, said that the changes are part of an overall message from the federal government that low interest rates are not sustainable.


    She added that Toronto has a "condo glut," and there have been warnings that condominium units are 10-15 per cent overvalued on the retail side.


    "There's concern about all of that supply and what it's going to mean for demand going forward," she said.




  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,162
    What I read between the lines is that the gov't is not so sure of a soft landing, and doesn't want to look like the bad guy in the public's eye.

    The move is long overdue IMO, I am not so sure how much it will stabalize the RE market, but it should begin a trend towards normal ranges.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    79
    What I found the most interesting is

    The new legislation would also ask banks to shoulder some of the lending risk in Canada's red-hot real estate market.

    If a bank has to take more risk when lending they will be more careful. Which should make it harder to get a large mortgage.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,165
    On the surface this makes sense to me. Clearly it will be more difficult for underqualified people to get mortgages. This is as it should be.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,604
    Sounds like a sensible precaution to me. We all want CMHC to avoid the risks undertaken by the likes of Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac. CMHC was headed down the road of approving 40-year mortgages and zero down payment mortgages before the government stepped in. Setting up better federal oversight might head off such risky policies before they become problems for government to address. (Leaving it to the government has three problems: a) unperceived risks being taken because agency is not regularly monitored; b) delayed reaction when government does become aware of risks, and decides some action needs to be taken; and c) government decisions can be based as much on politics as on financial prudence.)
    Last edited by OhGreatGuru; 2012-04-27 at 04:18 PM.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    35
    I think it's a huge deal too, emperor. Especially given the the underwriting requirements that OFSI suggested earlier this month (or maybe it was in March?).

    The gov't is clearly looking to distance themselves from the potential housing bust. It seems clear as well, that they're not going to be increasing the 600b ceiling, which is (imho) a good thing. It'll almost certainly tighten up lending.

    Eminently sensible.

  7. #7
    Senior Member CJOttawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Canada's National Capital
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by emperor View Post
    What I found the most interesting is

    The new legislation would also ask banks to shoulder some of the lending risk in Canada's red-hot real estate market.
    If a bank has to take more risk when lending they will be more careful. Which should make it harder to get a large mortgage.
    I picked up on that too.

    I wonder though if it's too little, too late to ensure a soft landing for the housing market. Being a renter, I'd like to say, "I don't care," but I suspect a lot of my other investments would suffer during a housing crash.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    336
    Read an interesting article on how this will change liquidity in the market, as CMHC starts to bump up against their $600 M lending limit. It also pointed out that private mortgage insurer Genworth Financial is also bumping up against it's government regulated lending limit ($250M I believe). By not increase these limits, the Gov't is able to tighten the money supply available to the housing market, without chocking it off all together (in theory anyways), with the belief that this should create a soft landing rather than a crash. Time will tell. And if main stream lenders are forced into taking more risk, there will be a higher risk premiums (via interest rates) and higher underwriting standards (again in theory).

    Either way, in January, I started to aggressively pay off my mortgage(s) against rising interest rates at maturity in a couple of years (lump sum, double-up, and 10% increase in bi-weekly payments).

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/23/t...ousing-bubble/
    Last edited by Mall Guy; 2012-04-28 at 01:34 PM. Reason: found link

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Senior Member CJOttawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Canada's National Capital
    Posts
    266
    I read both of the above-posted articles a while ago. For those who'd rather not, this graphic from the MacLean's article puts the CMHC cap in perspective:



    This assumes the caps for Genworth and CMHC aren't raised (a fact that's implied by statements by Flaherty).

    The issue as I understand it is that increased costs of borrowing or more stringent lending standards will generally result in a decrease in housing prices, the bubble deflating.

    How fast and to what degree that happens could/would be affected by how fearful sellers are and how aggressively they mark down their homes, trying to bail before things get "worse." (much like people bailing when equity markets are down - the downward side of the "greed/fear" coin)

    Last edited by CJOttawa; 2012-04-29 at 12:11 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •