house

Doug Hoyes, Bankruptcy Trustee

Doug Hoyes, Bankruptcy Trustee

In a press release dated February 16, 2010, the government of Canada announced new rules for mortgage funding:

The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced a number of measured steps to support the long-term stability of Canada’s housing market and continue to encourage home ownership for Canadians.

“Canada’s housing market is healthy, stable and supported by our country’s solid economic fundamentals,” said Minister Flaherty. “However, a key lesson of the global financial crisis is that early policy action can help prevent negative trends from developing.

The Government will therefore adjust the rules for government-backed insured mortgages as follows:

  • Require that all borrowers meet the standards for a five-year fixed rate mortgage even if they choose a mortgage with a lower interest rate and shorter term. This initiative will help Canadians prepare for higher interest rates in the future.
  • Lower the maximum amount Canadians can withdraw in refinancing their mortgages to 90 per cent from 95 per cent of the value of their homes. This will help ensure home ownership is a more effective way to save.
  • Require a minimum down payment of 20 per cent for government-backed mortgage insurance on non-owner-occupied properties purchased for speculation.

“There’s no clear evidence of a housing bubble, but we’re taking proactive, prudent and cautious steps today to help prevent one. Our Government is acting to help prevent Canadian households from getting overextended, and acting to help prevent some lenders from facilitating it,” said Minister Flaherty. “If some lenders aren’t willing to act themselves, we will act. These measures demonstrate the Government is committed to taking action when necessary to support the long-term stability of a sector that is so vital to our economy and the financial well-being of Canadian families.”

These adjustments to the mortgage insurance guarantee framework are intended to come into force on April 19, 2010.

In October of 2008 the government tightened the rules, requiring all borrowers to have at least a 5% down payment, and for mortgage terms to be no longer than 35 years. These rules apply to all borrowers who required CHMC insurance.

What does this mean?

It means that it is no longer as easy to qualify for a mortgage as it was three years ago. Back during the housing boom (say in 2005, 2006, and 2007) you could get a mortgage with no money down, and you could stretch out the amortization for 40 years to reduce your monthly payment, meaning you could qualify for an even bigger home. You could continually refinance your home as house values increased.

So what’s the problem? Why should we care what the government is doing with mortgage insurance?

For most people a mortgage is the single largest amount they will ever borrow. The more you borrow, the greater the chances are that you will experience financial trouble (see my previous article on Debt in Canada: The Ticking Time Bomb). (Of course the greater your debt, the more likely you are to get scammed trying to deal with your debt, as discussed in Debt Management and Debt Settlement Plans: Scams, or a Good Alternative to Bankruptcy in Canada?). It would be logical to conclude that the less we borrow, the less likely we are to experience financial problems.

As a bankruptcy trustee in Canada, I have personally met with hundreds of people who have, over the good years, used their home as their personal ATM machine. They had credit card debt, but since their home had increased in value, they were able to refinance their home and use the money to pay off their credit cards. I have met with many people who did this many times. Every two years, when they needed money, they refinanced their home. They would increase their mortgage and use the money to pay off their credit cards, and also get a reduced interest rate.

That strategy works when house prices are increasing, but over the last two years house prices in many areas of Canada have stabilized or fallen, so that when you apply to refinance the bank may say “sorry, you don’t have enough equity.” That’s the problem many Canadians are now facing: high debts, but no ability to refinance.

Should we blame the federal government for tightening up the mortgage rules at precisely the time more Canadians are dependant on debt?

The cynic would argue that the government should have tightened the rules a few years ago, to prevent the problems we are now facing. I personally don’t spend time worrying about what the government is doing. I prefer to focus on what I can do; I’m a big believer in taking personal responsibility for my own situation, regardless of what the government may or may not do. The new rules are a wake up call for all of us. Here’s my approach:

Start by assuming that your house will not continually increase in value forever, and may even decrease in value over the short or medium term. Knowing that, don’t expect that you will be able to refinance to solve your credit card debt problems.

Then, take steps to reduce your debt. That may mean selling your house and using the proceeds to repay your debts, and buying a smaller house, or renting. I know it’s a shock to most people, but a house is NOT an investment. There are periods of time when a house may increase in value, but there are also times, like the last two years, or during the late 1980′s and early 1990′s, when houses decrease in value. You must be prepared for both the good times and bad. You can’t rely on your house to save the day, so start reducing your debt now.

If you already have too much debt, make a budget and repay your debt on your own, or file a consumer proposal, or even consider bankruptcy. If you plan to buy a house in the future, save for as large a down payment as possible. With a large down payment, your monthly payments are lower, you can probably negotiate a lower interest rate, and you don’t have to worry about whatever new rules the government might propose for mortgage insurance.

The world is different today than it was a few years ago, so take stock of your situation, and take action to protect your future by keeping your debt as low as possible.

Posted on Monday, March 22nd, 2010
posted by Doug Hoyes @ 5:19 am No Comments
Ted Michalos, Bankruptcy Trustee

Ted Michalos, Bankruptcy Trustee

There’s a very old saying that if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

Recently I’ve met with quite a few people that have managed to get themselves into far more debt than their income and assets (things that they own) justify.  Here’s a recent example:

I got behind on my payments for my mortgage and tried to borrow money from the bank.  I was declined.  I saw an ad in the paper (or an ad on a sign, or a flyer) for a company that promised to help people with bad credit get a loan.  I called the number and was told they could help get me additional credit, but the cost would be 50% of the money received.

I was desperate so I agreed and then we went about applying for credit cards directly from loans officer at different banks.  Over the course of a couple of weeks I was approved for 3 or 4 new cards, a couple of lines of credit and a loan.  I immediately took advances for 50% of what was granted to pay the “fee’ to the company that was helping me and paid them in cash as instructed.

I used what was left of the new credit to live off for the next 6 months or so, but now the credit has run out and I can’t make the payments on the $50,000 (or $75,000 or $100,000) that I owe.  I am starting to miss my mortgage payments again and I don’t know what to do…

It sounds pretty incredible, but this person that was only looking for help to save their house has somehow ended up thousands of dollars deeper in debt and six months later they are once again worried about losing their house.

The solution the company that helped them suggests is that they should file for bankruptcy.  The problem with this solution is that bankruptcy laws were created to help the “honest, but unfortunate debtor” – it is not at all clear in this case that the debt was incurred honestly.

If you knowingly incur debt that you cannot repay, or incur debt with the intention of filing for bankruptcy (or a proposal) then these debts are not dischargeable by the bankruptcy.   Even worse, the activity may be criminal.  Of course everyone reading this knows that – you wouldn’t borrow $1,000 from your mother knowing that you’ll never pay her back.  Why would you consider borrowing from a bank?  What’s wrong is still wrong.

Some of the warning signs include a ridiculously high fee (50% is outrageous and if you weren’t desperate you’d never agree to it), the same banks that rejected you by yourself now approve you with the company’s help (doesn’t that sound fishy to you?), the company suggests you can file for bankruptcy later if you can’t handle the debts, and the most obvious warning – they want to be paid only in cash.

If you find yourself considering this kind of arrangement we strongly suggest you take a few days to think things through.  The person in our story just wanted to keep their house and six months later they are back were they started only now they are a further $50,000 in debt with nothing to show for it.

It may very well be that there is no way to save your house – if you can’t afford the mortgage payments then the reality is you can’t afford the house, BUT there may be ways to reduce your  other expenses and debts that won’t get you into trouble.

Before you agree to an expensive and possibly illegal solution, consult a Canadian bankruptcy trustee for a free consultation, so you can understand all of your options.

Posted on Monday, November 16th, 2009
posted by Ted Michalos @ 5:54 am No Comments

Is owning a home in Canada a good investment? Conventional wisdom in Canada is that yes, owning your home is the best investment you can make.  Instead of paying rent to a landlord and having nothing to show for it, you may make mortgage payments, and over time you build up your equity.

doughoyestrusteeHere’s something that may shock you: A house is NOT an investment.  It is a consumer good, just like a toothbrush.  You use it, you throw it away, and then you replace it.

I know that many of you will strongly disagree with that statement, but think about it: if you own your home for the next forty years, it is likely that you have to:

  • Replace the roof
  • Replace the furnace and air conditioning system, and all appliances
  • Repair the plumbing
  • Paint the walls
  • Replace the carpet
  • And do whatever exterior painting and landscaping is required.

My point is that you may not “throw out” your house all at once like you do with your toothbrush, but you do replace, piece by piece, over many years.  An investment, like a savings bond, does not need repairs, maintenance and replacing, so a house is not an investment.

Here’s a challenge for you: do the math.  Add up what you have spent, or will spend over the next five years on your house (see the list above).  Then take that number and average it over the number of months between repairs.  If you need to replace the furnace and air conditioning system every 20 years (that’s every 240 months), and it will cost $12,000 to do it, that’s a replacement cost of $50 every month.  Add in the cost of every other item on the list, and you will quickly see that the replacement cost of a house is somewhere between $200 and $500 per month (and a lot more if you have an old house).

Now add to that replacement cost the monthly cost for your mortgage, property taxes, and routine maintenance each month.  That’s the true cost of owning a house.

Home owners often tell me that owning a home is cheaper than renting.  “My mortgage payment is only $1,200 per month” they tell me.  In truth, when you add in property taxes and repairs and maintenance and extra utilities due to the size of your house, the cost may be closer to $2,000 per month.  If rent would cost you $2,000 per month than you are correct; renting and owning cost the same.  But if you could rent a nice apartment or townhouse for $1,000 per month, it’s clear that in the short term renting is much cheaper than owning.

But wait, you say: “House prices go up, so even if I am paying more each month for my house, in the long run I’ll make money.”  Maybe, but only if, in my example, your house is increasing in value by over $1,000 per month.  A few years ago when the real estate market in Canada was booming, that was possible.  For the last two years the residential real estate market has declined in Canada, so your house has actually lost value each month, which increases its cost.

So what’s my point?  Am I saying you should never own a house?

No, that’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying you should view your house as a place to live, not as an investment.  If your repair costs are low and you buy and sell at the right time the value of your house may increase.  But it is also possible that it will not go up in value, so do the math before blindly assuming that your house is an investment.

Over the last year I have filed a large number of bankruptcies for people who bought a house two years ago, at the peak of the market, with no money down, and now their incomes are reduced and they want to sell, but if they do they will lose a huge amount of money.  They can’t afford the loss, and combined with their other debts they have little choice but to file bankruptcy in Canada.

I want to spread the word that you don’t need to be house poor.  Ask your home owning friends what it really costs to own a home, look at your own numbers, determine what it costs to rent, and only then can you make an informed financial decision about whether or not you should own or rent your house.

Posted on Monday, July 13th, 2009
Filed under: bankruptcy Canada
posted by Doug Hoyes @ 5:53 am 4 Comments