Vancouver Condo Info

..At least that’s what Mark Carney and other Bank of Canada officials have said according to this article, yet they’re refraining from being more specific.

Meanwhile the Organization for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD) is urging Canada to start raising interest rates in the fall and keep on raising them to stop an inflating housing bubble and reign in inflation.

The OECD, a high-powered economic research group backed by contributions from its 34 rich country members, offers a scenario: An increase in the benchmark rate of a quarter of a percentage point in the autumn, and similar increases each quarter through to the end of next year, leaving the benchmark overnight target at 2.25 per cent.

That still would be low by historical standards, yet, according to the OECD, likely a big enough increase to cause prospective homeowners to think twice before buying at current inflated prices. However, the OECD’s recommendation comes with a risk.

The Federal Reserve Board has made a conditional pledge to leave U.S. rates extremely low until the end of 2014. Following the OECD’s path could create an unprecedented spread between Canadian and U.S. interest rates, which would put upward pressure on a Canadian dollar that many say already is too strong.

Oh, and the OECD made this same recommendation a year ago and was ignored. So I wonder how Carney intends to bring the days of ultra-cheap money to an end?

This post was submitted by Adam.

A new report issued by US ratings agency Fitch says that fast-rising home prices and record levels of household debt pose a threat to the credit portfolios of Canadian banks.

The agency examined the exposure of Canada’s six largest banks to mortgage risk and found that household debt fuelled by mortgage credit expansion in Canada is the largest threat to credit profiles.

“These are quite high levels of debt for households and the movement in house prices, we don’t think this is sustainable in the long term,” said report author Fabrice Toka, senior director at Fitch.

The six banks have a combined $730-billion in mortgage exposure and an additional $182-billion in home equity loan exposure, the report noted.

High unemployment or interest rate shock “could aversely affect the ability of leveraged homeowners to meet their mortgage obligations,” the report said.

The risk testing scenario looked at drops of 1 to 10% and sees CIBC and RBC as the most exposed to mortgage value risks. The debt-to-income ratio in Canada is currently higher than it was in pre-recession US, but Fitch points out that there are structural differences in our housing market.

Here’s the full article in the Financial Post.

This post was submitted by rj.

This is odd.  The Globe and Mail published an article about the condo boom titled “How condo boom threatens a ghost city phenomenon” and included the following alarming section:

“CMHC estimates that roughly 25 per cent of condominiums in the Greater Toronto Area are sold but sitting vacant — shades of Miami at the height of its collapsed condo bubble in 2007. Other analysts say the 25 per cent figure may be too low.

“This is the ghost city phenomenon,” Mr. Holt said.

Condo developers in Eastern cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, appear to be rushing to sell and build units before interest rates start to climb, and the market crashes.”

But if you visit that link you’ll no longer find that text and the headline has been changed to “Housing starts shoot higher on back of condo boom” (although as of this writing the URL still shows the original title).  Why the dramatic change in tone?

This post was submitted by doubleplusgood.

Here’s a couple of recent stories about Canada’s Housing Agency:  First off there’s the news that the government seems to be trying to figure out how to distance themselves from it, maybe by selling it off:

Anyone trying to understand the concern over a potential housing bubble in Canada need look no further than the debate among government officials over whether to exit the mortgage insurance business.

The board of Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp. considered selling the home loan insurer last year, according to former Chairman Dino Chiesa, who’s term ended in March. CMHC, set up in 1946 to promote home ownership, also studied the sale of Australia’s government-owned insurer and presented the findings to the Bank of Canada, according to documents released to Bloomberg News under Canada’s Access to Information Act.

Here’s the full article.

But of course the CMHC is also saying they see ‘no sign of a market bubble’.

While the report did not make specific reference to the government’s changes in the oversight of CMHC, it did offer what could be characterized an strong validation of its role and operations.

“CMHC follows prudential regulations as set out by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, with CMHC maintaining more than twice the minimum capital required by OSFI,” it said. “As a result, CMHC is well positioned to weather possible severe economic scenarios.”

The report also highlighted the important role CMHC plays in the housing market, which it said accounted for 20%, or $346-billion, of Canada’s gross domestic product last year. It pointed out the agency “manages its mortgage loan insurance and securitization guarantee operations using sound business practices that ensure commercial viability without having to rely on the government of Canada for support.”

Here’s that article.

This post was submitted by Scott.

Yes, you heard that correctly.

The word “bubble” was used in a discussion on a national news broadcast.

The CBC discusses the Canadian housing bubble with four economists and gets a fairly unanimous agreement: The Canadian housing market is overpriced and bubbly in many areas.

video embedded below:

This post was submitted by specuskeptic.

You’ve probably noticed lots of eye rolling around here anytime someone mentions how Canadian banks are so different from US banks.  The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is now pointing out in a report that Canadian banks actually received a multibillion dollar bailout from October 2008 to July 2010.  The government is being accused of offering ‘liquidity support’ that is much higher than originally reported.

All told, the study counts $114 billion worth of guarantees and financial aid for Canada’s big banks from government agencies such as the Bank of Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

MacDonald combed through financial reports from government institutions as well as quarterly reports from the banks themselves.

He says the government has been obfuscating the true cost of supporting the banks.

“A healthy and resilient banking sector cannot operate under a shroud of secrecy. Details of the massive taxpayer support Canadian banks received should be released in the name of transparency and accountability,” MacDonald said.

They also point out that the heads of Canada’s big banks received large raises during the time this ‘liquidity support’ was offered.

Many Franks pointed out this article in the Financial Post, which offers a flipside view to yesterdays “do whatever it takes to scrape up 5%” article.

It has a real simple message: Banks exist to make money.  That includes making offers that sound good but may not be in your best interest.

While many people want to blame the banks or the government for Canadas alarming consumer debt problem, theres only one person who is truly to blame: the consumer.  Sign yourself up for a suckers deal and you have only yourself to blame.

While some bank chief executives have put it on themselves to tighten their own lending rules, others continue to look to Ottawa to take the lead.

In the interim, all you have to do is walk into a branch, grab some pamphlets and you will see an array of offers that could get you into even more debt trouble.

One of my favourites is the cash-back mortgage. It is offered to a varying degree by most of the major banks, so there is no point in picking on any one institution.

Here’s the offer: Take out a mortgage for more than five years and get 5% of the value of the mortgage up front to a maximum of $25,000. In other words, get a $500,000 loan and immediately get $25,000 back. “It’s great for first-time buyers,” we’re told.

Really? If the loan is at the posted rate of 5.44%, which it usually is for these types of mortgages, you could easily land into more debt trouble long term.

Another deal tries to lure me over to a new bank with an offer of 2% cash up front, or up to $4,000 on $200,000 if I switch to the financial institution. But what about the costs to break my existing mortgage, and is there really any point in switching products to get that cash right away if I’m going to end up with a higher rate and a less-flexible mortgage?

“Somebody is going to pay for it,” says Kelvin Mangaroo, president of RateSupermarket.ca, about the cost of the promises. “Sometimes there is more fine print than the actual offer.”

Check out full article here.

What do you think, do we need more consumer protection to protect consumers from themselves?

Bank of Montreal Chief Executive Officer Bill Downe is saying there are ‘legitimate’ concerns about house prices being over inflated and coming down, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver.  He is now calling for the fabled ‘soft landing’ to swoop in and fix the problem:

“We took a long, hard look at the Canadian housing market and concluded … there was a legitimate concern that house prices – particularly in the largest cities – had been rising at a rate that was simply unsustainable,” Mr. Downe said.

“With growing concerns over household debt, a soft landing in housing is in the best interests of our customers and the national economy.”

For those that are curious, yes this is the same BMO that kicked off a rate war with competitors over a special 2.99% mortgage deal. If you’re wondering why a bank would offer credit crack and then tell the addict they should cut back I think Patriotz puts it very clearly:

Because he runs a business and it’s his responsibility to the shareholders to make money. It’s either lend at 2.9% or give the mortgage business to someone else.

Banks like every other business have a responsibility to obey the law and that’s what they are doing. If you don’t like the parameters that the government has established, blame them not the banks.

This is why you’ve been hearing more call from the banks for the government to tighten lending standards.  No single bank can cut out a huge percentage of the market just because they’re concerned about over-debt households.  The banks can’t even get together and agree that they’ll adjust their lending standards themselves, because that would be collusion and illegal.

It’s all up to Flaherty now.

Wow, it seems like it was just a few days ago we were talking about newly introduced teaser-level mortgage rates offered by Canadian banks.

… oh, it was just a few days ago.

BMO kicked off the competition and TD, Scotia and CIBC jumped in with competing lowball offers.

Well it looks like Scotiabank blinked first.  Their special offer didn’t even last a week.  Canadian Mortgage Trends is reporting that Scotiabank has pulled their special offer for a 2.99% rate.  Guess we’ll have to wait to see if the other banks will follow.

And speaking of mortgages, Canadian Mortgage Trends also has some interesting analysis of the OSFI recommendations for underwriting practices and how it’s about to lead to mortgages that are a bit tougher to get.

After reading through 18 pages of changes in detail, our immediate reaction was frankly, concern.

That’s not because the guidelines are greatly imprudent. Some are unnecessarily rigid, but most are sound policy.

It’s because OSFI risks tightening too much, too fast.

Real professional posted an updated housing sentiment indicator over at Vancouverpeak.com

This is an excerpt from the housing bubble chart book produced by Pacifica Partners.