# CMHC



## The_Fallen (Jan 14, 2022)

Can anyone give me a reason for the existence of the CMHC? What market function does it serve? I can't wrap my head around the CMHC and its purpose or function. I have yet to hear anyone make a positive argument for its existence other than politicians. I am legitimately asking if there is a role for the CMHC? Are there any finance or real estate professionals that can shed some light on this? Is this something that needs reform or does it need to be scrapped? The whole idea of giving lending institutions all the upside and none of the downside seems insane to me. You have created a really bad incentive structure, where the lenders don't have any skin in the game. Every person that I have had this conversation with regardless of political colour agrees with me. Am I ignorant or am I on to something?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is default insurance, that allows buyers with insufficient down payments (equity) to borrow enough money to buy a home.

The insurance is funded by the home buyers by paying a premium that is added to the mortgage and paid out over the term of the mortgage.

Without CMHC insurance the lenders would demand more equity down payments, higher credit scores and incomes.

If not for CMHC default insurance, there would be many fewer home owners.

If a home owner defaults on the mortgage, the bank is required to sell the home for "fair market value".....whatever that is at the time, and CMHC guarantees the bank any difference owing on the outstanding mortgage.

In "recourse" Provinces, everywhere in Canada except Alberta and Saskatchewan, without CMHC insurance, the lender can sue the home owner in default for any losses.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

> > The whole idea of giving lending institutions all the upside and none of the downside seems insane to me.


I suspect that if there were no insurance on mortgages with less than 20% downpayment, the banks would simply not lend to those buyers, and they would therefore have the same "upside" as before. At the same time, new homebuyers would find it even more out of their reach to get their first house, i.e. they will never be able to catch up to the 20%. Even if they do, they may very well end up with a bigger mortgage than if they could have started years earlier with a 5% down, even with the CMHC fee included.

Since the CMHC is self-funded, I don't see the downside, I do see the upside in new buyers being able to get into the market earlier with probably less overall debt.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, imagine trying to save a 20% down payment while homes are rising 30% in price a year.

A buyer would never catch up.......which is happening now, with average home prices around $800,000 or more.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Joe Black said:


> I suspect that if there were no insurance on mortgages with less than 20% downpayment, the banks would simply not lend to those buyers, and they would therefore have the same "upside" as before. At the same time, new homebuyers would find it even more out of their reach to get their first house, i.e. they will never be able to catch up to the 20%. Even if they do, they may very well end up with a bigger mortgage than if they could have started years earlier with a 5% down, even with the CMHC fee included.
> 
> Since the CMHC is self-funded, I don't see the downside, I do see the upside in new buyers being able to get into the market earlier with probably less overall debt.


Good example of the "politician talk" referred to in the OP...

Turns out this was wrong, and any positive-sounding "upside" rhetoric just ended up meaning prices becoming 2-3x what they should've been in an unmanipulated market. Resulting in young buyers ending up indentured to the banks for that much longer, and investors and banks getting that much richer, and inflation rising that much more, benefiting the already rich institutions and people.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

The_Fallen said:


> Can anyone give me a reason for the existence of the CMHC? What market function does it serve? I can't wrap my head around the CMHC and its purpose or function. I have yet to hear anyone make a positive argument for its existence other than politicians. I am legitimately asking if there is a role for the CMHC? Are there any finance or real estate professionals that can shed some light on this? Is this something that needs reform or does it need to be scrapped? The whole idea of giving lending institutions all the upside and none of the downside seems insane to me. You have created a really bad incentive structure, where the lenders don't have any skin in the game. Every person that I have had this conversation with regardless of political colour agrees with me. Am I ignorant or am I on to something?


I would dig into it more if I was you. The upside is the BILLIONS in Dividend payments that CMHC has sent to the Government of Canada and Social Housing Programs. Billions on a yearly basis. 

Is there an upside to Balanced budgets? You tell me. 



https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/cmhc-declares-dividends-of-995-million-871622702.html



Talk about shutting down CMHC is extremely short-sighted. As far as reforms. underwriting standards have been modified. Risk exposure is down, premiums are up. 

I would argue that CMHC has too conservative a model and that's why Genworth and Canada Guaranty are gaining marketshare.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The model is too conservative while the prices of housing go up.
Saying that there is no downside is absolutely ridiculous though. 
There is a downside - and a substantial one at that. We just need prices to correct to level we have seen 2 years ago and the entire house of cards might tumble - and the taxpayers will be on the hook.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am more concerned about catastrophic damage from climate change, a meteor strike, a super volcanic eruption, or the election of Pierre P.

Even if there was a housing price collapse, CMHC would still own the homes and could sell or rent them out.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

peterk said:


> Good example of the "politician talk" referred to in the OP...
> 
> Turns out this was wrong, and any positive-sounding "upside" rhetoric just ended up meaning prices becoming 2-3x what they should've been in an unmanipulated market. Resulting in young buyers ending up indentured to the banks for that much longer, and investors and banks getting that much richer, and inflation rising that much more, benefiting the already rich institutions and people.


Do you have any evidence that your _opinion_ has more validity than mine?

What undisputed authority says prices would be 2-3x less without CMHC? CMHC does not set house prices, if you want to find "manipulators" look at investors and a real estate establishment that discourages a transparent process. Not to mention that until recently you could get financing rates at 2% or less - that alone has had a much bigger influence than CMHC could ever have had.

In the end people are getting approved for their homes based on their ability to carry the payments, and CMHC has always been self-funded so that proves it's going to people who are able to take on the commitment, just not the down payment. When I was a "young buyer", a few more years "indentured to the bank" would have been a good trade to a few more years not owning a home. I prefer paying off a loan sooner rather than paying rent longer while trying to save.

Unless you can show me hard evidence, I'm just going to take your opinion as "politician talk" as well.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

sags said:


> Even if there was a housing price collapse, CMHC would still own the homes and could sell or rent them out.


Why do people assume a collapse in house prices would mean people would suddenly abandon their houses? If there had been a collapse the year after I bought my house, I would have just kept making my payments cause I need to live somewhere. Why would I leave my house, then rent someplace - probably for about the same as what my payments were?

While I'm actually living in the house, I don't really care what the resale value is. I would also assume prices would eventually recover by the time I'm ready to sell.

If anything it would be the investors who might bail, which of course wouldn't affect CMHC.


----------



## dougbos (Jun 4, 2012)

CMHC does not own the homes they insure. The homeowner is on title and the lender registers the charge in their name. If a home owner defaults the lender legally can demand full payment and if it goes into default can put the home up for sale.
If CMHC insurance was not available larger down payments would be required and rates would be higher due to the higher risk to the lender.
An upside to me is that it allows consumers to get into homeownership. Their mortgage payment probably is no higher than the rent they would be paying in the marketplace these days. When people move into a home they usually want to change things to suit their taste or create more room. Whether they hire someone or do it themselves they need to spend money to buy the products that they require. At some point in the supply chain jobs will be created with the demand. Workers pay taxes which benefits everyone as the government can offer services to the public.
CMHC with its mandate has been around this 1946. By offering insurance many consumers have been able to attain home ownership.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

dougbos said:


> If CMHC insurance was not available larger down payments would be required and rates would be higher due to the higher risk to the lender.


That's a good thing. Higher rates = lower prices. Saving up a down payment just might take a while longer. I've been saving toward owning a house for 9 years now. Low rates might have helped some people, but they've set me way back. I have no choice but to save more than 20% because I don't have an income high enough to qualify for these insanely huge mortgages that people are getting. The entire system is rigged for high income earners putting down the absolute minimum down payment. I could probably cheat the system since mortgage fraud is rampant, but I'd rather not contribute to the problem.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

Its not that easy just to walk away from your mortgage and your home. If in default the F/I will eventually demand payment, foreclose, sell the property, and in I believe most provinces obtain judgment against the borrower(s) for the shortfall plus costs. This is a road I don't think one would to go down as you would have lost your down payment, CMHC fees, moving and legal costs, and then have a judgment against you it affects your credit rating and stays with you for I believe 15 years. Yuk.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The_Fallen said:


> Can anyone give me a reason for the existence of the CMHC? What market function does it serve?


The intention is to make mortgages more readily available in Canada, supposedly allowing more people to obtain mortgages and own a home. This is mainly accomplished by offloading some of the risk from banks.

The argument for having the CMHC is that without this government support, mortgages would be harder to obtain because banks would be less likely to lend the money.

Personally I would prefer it that way, with a much smaller CMHC. I think mortgages should be harder to get.


----------



## The_Fallen (Jan 14, 2022)

james4beach said:


> The intention is to make mortgages more readily available in Canada, supposedly allowing more people to obtain mortgages and own a home. This is mainly accomplished by offloading some of the risk from banks.
> 
> The argument for having the CMHC is that without this government support, mortgages would be harder to obtain because banks would be less likely to lend the money.
> 
> Personally I would prefer it that way, with a much smaller CMHC. I think mortgages should be harder to get.


I would like to take a step back and maybe go back in time prior to the CMHC. Before the creation of the CMHC, why would lenders be so reluctant to lend for homeownership? I am aware that credit markets were not as developed back then, and a lot of credit was given at the merchant level. I am certain there were lots of other good reasons. Maybe back then the CMHC would have made a lot of sense. At some point in time, things have changed and access to credit has become more widely accessible to people. If lending institutions today will give out vehicle loans, credit cards, and unsecured lines of credit, and are willing to accept the losses with these bad loans (not to mention cybercrime), why are they not prepared to do the same for mortgages? Or am I mistaken here and our government is covering the losses for these other credit products also??? God, I hope not. Judging from the other responses in this thread, lending institutions today are reluctant to give loans for an asset class that generally appreciates in value, but have no issue with giving credit for depreciating assets like vehicles. I find it even more perplexing that the lending institutions get to then re-sell these mortgages to other investors in the form of Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Then these institutions get to remove the loans from the balance sheet. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me and seems like a very perverse form of incentives that does not encourage responsible lending. If I was a lender with no default risk, I would be giving out as many loans as possible (the bigger the better). To be honest, I am kind of surprised that some of the other responses on this thread are not bothered by the fact these lending institutions are privatizing profits but offloading any potential losses to the public purse. Given that fact alone, I think that is one part of the CMHC that should be tweaked. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the devil's bargain our government has agreed to. I really thought this was something most people (except bankers) would agree with. I have been more wrong than right in life and I guess I am in the minority here. I am open to the possibility there is something I don't know about this process and if someone would share that insight with me it would be much appreciated.


----------



## FI40 (Apr 6, 2015)

birdman said:


> Its not that easy just to walk away from your mortgage and your home. If in default the F/I will eventually demand payment, foreclose, sell the property, and in I believe most provinces obtain judgment against the borrower(s) for the shortfall plus costs. This is a road I don't think one would to go down as you would have lost your down payment, CMHC fees, moving and legal costs, and then have a judgment against you it affects your credit rating and stays with you for I believe 15 years. Yuk.


I know some folks at work who, if faced with any significant negative equity or payments they can't cover, would simply leave the country and go back to the country of their birth.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

The_Fallen said:


> I would like to take a step back and maybe go back in time prior to the CMHC. Before the creation of the CMHC, why would lenders be so reluctant to lend for homeownership? I am aware that credit markets were not as developed back then, and a lot of credit was given at the merchant level. I am certain there were lots of other good reasons. Maybe back then the CMHC would have made a lot of sense. At some point in time, things have changed and access to credit has become more widely accessible to people. If lending institutions today will give out vehicle loans, credit cards, and unsecured lines of credit, and are willing to accept the losses with these bad loans (not to mention cybercrime), why are they not prepared to do the same for mortgages? Or am I mistaken here and our government is covering the losses for these other credit products also??? God, I hope not. Judging from the other responses in this thread, lending institutions today are reluctant to give loans for an asset class that generally appreciates in value, but have no issue with giving credit for depreciating assets like vehicles. I find it even more perplexing that the lending institutions get to then re-sell these mortgages to other investors in the form of Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Then these institutions get to remove the loans from the balance sheet. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me and seems like a very perverse form of incentives that does not encourage responsible lending. If I was a lender with no default risk, I would be giving out as many loans as possible (the bigger the better). To be honest, I am kind of surprised that some of the other responses on this thread are not bothered by the fact these lending institutions are privatizing profits but offloading any potential losses to the public purse. Given that fact alone, I think that is one part of the CMHC that should be tweaked. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the devil's bargain our government has agreed to. I really thought this was something most people (except bankers) would agree with. I have been more wrong than right in life and I guess I am in the minority here. I am open to the possibility there is something I don't know about this process and if someone would share that insight with me it would be much appreciated.


The financial margin (the difference between cost of funds or deposits and the income from the loan or mortgage is only around 1.25% (before overhead) and is much smaller than say for commercial loans, personal loans, credit cards, etc. After deducting overhead including salaries, premises, etc. there is probably about .50% or so left for the bottom line. Not so sure on Mortgage backed securities but I believe they only retain servicing costs of .25%. Pretty thin margins from my perspective.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

The_Fallen said:


> I would like to take a step back and maybe go back in time prior to the CMHC. Before the creation of the CMHC, why would lenders be so reluctant to lend for homeownership? I am aware that credit markets were not as developed back then, and a lot of credit was given at the merchant level. I am certain there were lots of other good reasons. Maybe back then the CMHC would have made a lot of sense. At some point in time, things have changed and access to credit has become more widely accessible to people. If lending institutions today will give out vehicle loans, credit cards, and unsecured lines of credit, and are willing to accept the losses with these bad loans (not to mention cybercrime), why are they not prepared to do the same for mortgages? Or am I mistaken here and our government is covering the losses for these other credit products also??? God, I hope not. Judging from the other responses in this thread, lending institutions today are reluctant to give loans for an asset class that generally appreciates in value, but have no issue with giving credit for depreciating assets like vehicles. I find it even more perplexing that the lending institutions get to then re-sell these mortgages to other investors in the form of Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Then these institutions get to remove the loans from the balance sheet. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me and seems like a very perverse form of incentives that does not encourage responsible lending. If I was a lender with no default risk, I would be giving out as many loans as possible (the bigger the better). To be honest, I am kind of surprised that some of the other responses on this thread are not bothered by the fact these lending institutions are privatizing profits but offloading any potential losses to the public purse. Given that fact alone, I think that is one part of the CMHC that should be tweaked. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the devil's bargain our government has agreed to. I really thought this was something most people (except bankers) would agree with. I have been more wrong than right in life and I guess I am in the minority here. I am open to the possibility there is something I don't know about this process and if someone would share that insight with me it would be much appreciated.



CMHC was created to allow affordable housing. So when everyone was blaming the government for not doing anything about affordable housing, their answer was CMHC. Many years later, people are still blaming the government for not doing anything. Prior to CMHC, you needed 25% minimum down-payment and be on good terms with the loan officer. 

Everyone seems concerned with CMHC's profitability and the risk to tax-payers' money. CMHC generates its own funds and is very profitable. So profitable that 2 other insurers decided to take a piece of the pie as well.

Lenders cannot simply lend as much money as they want. They need to raise capital first. Without capital, there is no money to lend - regardless if it can be securitized or not. 

There is also a limit that CMHC will securitize. It has recently been increased to $750 billion but will revert back to $600 billion in a few years. The private insurers, Canada Guaranty and Sagen (formerly Genworth), will pick up the balance.

You need to understand that these insurers simply offer a coverage. Its no different that a home and auto insurance. In a downward market, people don't just walk away from their homes - if they do, someone else will be eager to pick it up. Risk is minimal. 

Car loans operate in a similar manner. The loans are also packaged and sold off to investors - just not securitized by insurers such as in the mortgage industry. The lender carries the cost of generating and servicing these loans. Mortgages are tied to an appreciating asset which is why the coupon rate is much lower than a car loan, private loan or even a credit card.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

No problem with the CMHC assisting first time home buyers to get one mortgage, for one house. In my view that's a reasonable use of the government assistance and probably was the original idea.

However where I think CMHC over steps is its involvement with everything else in the housing market. Multiple mortgages for one person. Multiple-property owners. Real estate investors. etc

The CMHC can still serve a useful purpose to allow equitable access to housing without having to be shut down entirely. I think we just have to eliminate the extra froth.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

james4beach said:


> No problem with the CMHC assisting first time home buyers to get one mortgage, for one house. In my view that's a reasonable use of the government assistance and probably was the original idea.
> 
> However where I think CMHC over steps is its involvement with everything else in the housing market. Multiple mortgages for one person. Multiple-property owners. Real estate investors. etc
> 
> The CMHC can still serve a useful purpose to allow equitable access to housing without having to be shut down entirely. I think we just have to eliminate the extra froth.


I don’t recall the program specifics as they stand today, but I’d suspect the number of CMHC deals for real estate investors, multiple- property owners as you’ve stated are quite small. I traditionally found that the vast, vast majority of property investors were putting 35% down.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Here are the current “basics”. The GDS/TDS ratios are quite conservative Generally. Also, the down payment can not be borrowEd.

*What are the general requirements to qualify for homeowner mortgage loan insurance?*
Find out which requirements you must meet to qualify for CMHC's Homeowner Mortgage Loan Insurance.


The home is located in Canada.
For CMHC-insured mortgage loans, the maximum purchase price or as-improved property value must be below $1,000,000.
You will typically have a minimum down payment starting at 5%. For a purchase price of $500,000 or less, the minimum down payment is 5%. When the purchase price is above $500,000, the minimum down payment is 5% for the first $500,000 and 10% for the remaining portion.
The minimum down payment comes from your own resources. However, a gift of a down payment from an immediate relative is acceptable for dwellings of 1 to 4 units. Check with your lender for qualifying criteria and availability.
Your total monthly housing costs, including Principal, Interest, property Taxes, Heating (P.I.T.H.), the annual site lease in the case of leasehold tenure and 50% of applicable condominium fees, shouldn’t represent more than 32%* of your gross household income (Gross Debt Service (GDS) ratio). Use the GDS form to calculate how much you can afford in housing costs to be eligible.
Your total debt load shouldn’t be more than 40%* of your gross household income. The Total Debt Service (TDS) ratio is your P.I.T.H. + the annual site lease in the case of leasehold tenure and 50% of condominium fees (if applicable) + payments on all other debt / gross annual household income. Add up your costs and determine your Total Debt Service ratio using the TDS form.
You also need to think about closing costs (for example, legal and land transfer fees) equivalent to 1.5% to 4% of the purchase price. Many first-time buyers are surprised by these costs. That is why, when qualifying for CMHC’s Mortgage Loan Insurance, our Home Purchase Cost Estimate worksheet form will help you calculate your total homebuying costs.

Closing costs include but are not limited to one-time items such as lawyer fees, GST and PST as applicable, land transfer tax if applicable, adjustments, etc., to allow you to complete the house purchase.
*Please note that other requirements may apply and are subject to change. These ratios serve as guidelines and you may still qualify for a mortgage, even if your GDS and TDS are slightly higher than the industry standards. For details, please contact your lender or mortgage broker.


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

What market function does it serve? 

People like my wife and I who are good savers but aren’t saving fast enough for 20% down because the market climbs so fast that we fall behind. This is a reality for many. Many people who are doing all the right things and are still getting screwed.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

MK7GTI said:


> What market function does it serve?
> 
> People like my wife and I who are good savers but aren’t saving fast enough for 20% down because the market climbs so fast that we fall behind. This is a reality for many. Many people who are doing all the right things and are still getting screwed.


It allows you to save as little as 5% rather than 20% to acquire a property.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

james4beach said:


> No problem with the CMHC assisting first time home buyers to get one mortgage, for one house. In my view that's a reasonable use of the government assistance and probably was the original idea.
> 
> However where I think CMHC over steps is its involvement with everything else in the housing market. Multiple mortgages for one person. Multiple-property owners. Real estate investors. etc
> 
> The CMHC can still serve a useful purpose to allow equitable access to housing without having to be shut down entirely. I think we just have to eliminate the extra froth.


What tend to happens is people will buy their first home and live in it a couple of years. Family grows, decide to buy a bigger property and rent out their current one. Family grows further and another upgrade. No matter how you look at it, there are ways around the idea to limiting CMHC's limitations.

As per my example, you may look at that and think this person is hoarding properties by taking advantage of the system.....when in fact, they simply had the capacity to maintain multiple properties.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Money172375 said:


> Here are the current “basics”. The GDS/TDS ratios are quite conservative Generally. Also, the down payment can not be borrowEd.
> 
> *What are the general requirements to qualify for homeowner mortgage loan insurance?*
> Find out which requirements you must meet to qualify for CMHC's Homeowner Mortgage Loan Insurance.
> ...



GDS and TDS in 40s are not conservative. Credit score is laughably low as well.
They made ratios slightly more stringent at beginning of 2020 but rolled it back pretty much immediately. Realistically, if they want to tackle inflation, you are looking at interest rates of 4.5-5% + easily. How is GDS/TDS going to look then for those who qualified in a hot market over past year?


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

Mortgage u/w said:


> It allows you to save as little as 5% rather than 20% to acquire a property.


I’m well aware as we just used First Time Home Buyers program on a home. 10% down and used the full 35k allowable.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

damian13ster said:


> Realistically, if they want to tackle inflation, you are looking at interest rates of 4.5-5% + easily. How is GDS/TDS going to look then for those who qualified in a hot market over past year?


Hopefully these higher rates will slow the real estate market and perhaps reduce the high prices which in turn will assist first time buyers. It will be unfortunate for those that have recently purchased but prices normally eventually rebound. As others have mentioned I believe seemingly high immigration rates is inflating prices as well as builders and land availability can't keep up.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

damian13ster said:


> GDS and TDS in 40s are not conservative. Credit score is laughably low as well.
> They made ratios slightly more stringent at beginning of 2020 but rolled it back pretty much immediately. Realistically, if they want to tackle inflation, you are looking at interest rates of 4.5-5% + easily. How is GDS/TDS going to look then for those who qualified in a hot market over past year?


GDS is 32%. And I remember when most applications i did went up to 44% TDS….so 32/40 feels conservative to me. And that’s verifiable income. A lot of people have multiple sources of income that can’t be included in an application due to a variety of factors.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

Money172375 said:


> GDS is 32%. And I remember when most applications i did went up to 44% TDS….so 32/40 feels conservative to me. And that’s verifiable income. A lot of people have multiple sources of income that can’t be included in an application due to a variety of factors.


GDS/TDS allowable is actually 38%/44%. They don't advertise it since it requires the analysis of underwriters.

Although 32/40 seems conservative, its actually high none-the-less. Remember, you're qualifying with gross income so after you service your mortgage payment and property taxes, you're left with less than 70% to pay for income taxes and consumable goods. 

Credit scores below 680 don't get approved much. I would say 650-680 have a good chance. Below 600-650 is difficult. Below 600 is subprime clientele.

Given the current stress test, borrowers are being qualified with a the higher of 5.25% or contract rate +2%. Anyone choosing fixed rates today are qualifying with a rate over 6%.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mortgage u/w said:


> As per my example, you may look at that and think this person is hoarding properties by taking advantage of the system.....when in fact, they simply had the capacity to maintain multiple properties.


Had the capacity *WITH* government hand-holding them and providing stimulus, to make a purchase that they may not have been able to afford on their own.

Which, big picture, makes mortgages pretty easy for everyone to get, and distorts the entire housing market (inflates all prices).


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Had the capacity *WITH* government hand-holding them and providing stimulus, to make a purchase that they may not have been able to afford on their own.
> 
> Which, big picture, makes mortgages pretty easy for everyone to get, and distorts the entire housing market (inflates all prices).


Well, the program was designed to make housing accessible to everyone, regardless the situation. If an individual has the capacity to maintain multiple properties and qualify for multiple mortgages, kudos to them. 

I wouldn't say mortgages are easy for everyone to get. There are still qualification criteria to meet. Qualifying for a mortgage when you own multiple properties is not easy, nor does the government make it easy. 

Bottom line, CMHC was created to give everyone an opportunity to own a property. Without it, we'd be faced with a much larger housing issue.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

james4beach said:


> However where I think CMHC over steps is its involvement with everything else in the housing market. Multiple mortgages for one person. Multiple-property owners. Real estate investors. etc


What programs does the CMHC have for those type of multiple property owners? Isn't it just primary residential homes they insure?


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

Joe Black said:


> What programs does the CMHC have for those type of multiple property owners? Isn't it just primary residential homes they insure?


they will insure rental properties containing 2 units or more provided borrower puts 20% down.

they will also insure secondary properties such as a vacation home.


----------

