Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Report urges flood insurance for Canadian homeowners

Insurance providers could bundle flood insurance with other risks: report

Posted: Apr 21, 2011 9:06 PM CST 

Last Updated: Apr 22, 2011 5:12 AM CST 

Spring flooding in Saskatchewan has left many homeowners with major damage. Spring flooding in Saskatchewan has left many homeowners with major damage. (CBC)

A report by an independent insurance research body says Canada is out of step with other developed countries because homeowners cannot purchase flood insurance.
"Canada is the only G8 country where flood insurance is not available to homeowners," Paul Kovacs, the executive director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, said in a news release Thursday.
"With other forms of water-damage being covered, such as sewer backup and burst pipes, and with commercial entities being able to purchase flood insurance, the coverage void tends to confuse — even anger — homeowners when they discover that they are not covered after a flood event," he added.
The report found that when there are catastrophic floods, governments end up providing disaster aid to homeowners.
"Flood insurance has many advantages over government relief programs," the report said.
For starters, it said an insurance program would encourage flood prevention measures by homeowners who would face higher premiums for not reducing their risk.
"Also, insurance companies have well established methods for assessing and paying claims, which can result in faster recovery," the report said.
The report also addressed how to overcome an identified problem with offering flood insurance: very few people choose to select such coverage.
The institute said coverage could be "bundled" with other risks, such as fire and theft.
"The bundling approach has been in place in the U.K. for the past fifty years and ... is the best-suited model for Canada," the report concluded.
People in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been on alert for the past two weeks due to flooding in many areas.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Canadian Real Estate – The Ignored Election Issue

  Apr 11, 2011 – 3:17 PM ET
PACIFICA PARTNERS
As Canadians go through yet another election, politicians of all stripes are busy dusting off campaign slogans, attack ads and policy books. Each party puts forth its best ideas to fix what ails the country and what will propel it forward on a wave of prosperity.
The amazing part of this election campaign is that nobody seems to be addressing the 800 pound gorilla in the room. That gorilla is named “Canadian Real Estate”. The overvaluation of real estate(“bubble” is so overused it has lost its shock value)in many parts of Canada has been propelled by a Canadian addiction to debt and federal government policies that helped to create a runaway freight train in the form of real estate prices. Outside of the Canadian political campaigning trail the Conservatives have paid lip service to the issue through their recent series of mortgage lending restrictions, however, this tightening is only undoing the Conservative party’s mortgage lending loosening from a few years earlier. Again, both key facts are rarely mentioned by any of the political parties currently campaigning.
Some economists and even the Canadian Finance Minister have argued or proclaimed that a Canadian estate bubble does not exist. They point to the fact that Canadian mortgage lending standards are more rigorous than those that contributed to the US real estate meltdown. In part, this is true. However, the role of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in helping to push real estate prices to their current levels seldom receives the attention it deserves.
The CMHC has been especially generous in ensuring that banks and other financial institutions were not hindered in making mortgage credit available to Canadian borrowers. Given its central role in the real estate markets and the potential impact on the Canadian economy, it should be an election issue that is front and center. If Canadian defaults on mortgages were to increase, the Federal government (i.e. Canadian taxpayers) would be on the hook for the bill. As Ross Perot once said about the US deficit, “it’s like the crazy aunt in the basement nobody wants to talk about”.
Given that Canadian consumer debt is at record levels and challenging the peak figures of US consumer debt before the recent recession, it does not take a generous amount of imagination to envision a scenario in which Canada may have a “Made in Canada Housing Crisis”. Canadian income growth has been dismal but record low interest rates have given many Canadians a “What Me Worry?” attitude.
Those who confront the issue are often faced with a response of, “can you prove that there is a bubble in Canada”? As with any bubble or even other unpleasant economic events such as recessions, only time will truly tell. However, in at least one Canadian market, Vancouver, the fundamentals and rate of price increases have gone far beyond what could be prudently considered sustainable.
As the chart demonstrates, Vancouver home prices have surged far beyond total British Columbia GDP growth and personal income growth. In fact, for housing prices to revert back to the GDP growth rates by the end of 2011 (assuming the BC economy grows at 4% in 2011), we would require at least a 12% and up to a 31% correction in home prices. This of course assumes that BC’s GDP isn’t linked to a housing bubble bursting. In truth, the dependence on real estate to spur economic growth has been very apparent, especially in Vancouver, and therefore a deeper correction would actually be required to find a sustainable equilibrium.
Canadians should be demanding some answers from their politicians about what they propose as a solution to this issue and to recognize that an issue does exist. If it unfolds even somewhat close to the worst case scenario, many Canadians may be left wondering “How could this happen?” The problem is that there is no easy fix to getting Canadians to ease off the debt spigot. However, we need simply look across the border to see what occurs when the problem is ignored.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Underwater mortgages: When is it OK to just walk away?

Garry Marr, Financial Post · Apr. 9, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 11, 2011 9:25 AM ET
Let’s just say you owed somebody a ton of money but there was no legal way to force you to pay it back.
Would you? What if it was one of those evil corporate banks that make for an easy target? Did the answer just get a little easier?
Not for 60% of Americans who say it is never okay to simply stop making payments on your home, according to a survey by Eagan, Minnesota-based findlaw.com, a free legal information website.
Another 34% say it’s okay to walk away from a mortgage but only if you can’t make the monthly payments. Only 3% of believe you should be able to walk away from a mortgage anytime you want, according to the survey which interviewed 1,000 American adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
It’s an interesting survey given that U.S. law in a number of states allows consumers to simply hand over the keys to their homes without the lender going after their other financial assets -- something that is all but impossible in Canada.
That is not to say that walking away from a mortgage isn’t affecting the credit of Americans who do so. They might not be able to buy another house for years unless they do so with cash.
Despite what the survey says, Americans have been walking away from mortgages in droves because it makes financial sense.
Think about it. You have a home with a $500,000 mortgage on it. The present value of it is $250,000. Why would you not walk away, if you could?
“We just asked people what do you think of the idea, not would you do it yourself or have you thought about doing it yourself,” said Leonard Lee, the researcher behind the survey. “There is a practical argument but there’s a whole philosophical argument.”
If you were shareholder in a company that owned a $250-million building but kept making payments on a $500-million mortgage even though the company had the ability to walk away from the debt how would you feel? Would the executives be breaching a fiduciary responsibility?
The U.S. real estate industry even has a term for all this - strategic default. “You are asking at some point doesn’t it make more sense to walk away from the mortgage where you are unlikely to recoup your original investment,” says Mr. Lee.
Ted Rechtshaffen, president of TriDelta Financial and certified financial planner, says once you put aside the moral issues it would come down to a simple choice.
“It will impact your credit rating but from a financial perspective why wouldn’t you do it? You are getting a $250,000 head start. Another investment is probably going to be better than your current house,” says Mr. Rechtshaffen.
But Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist with CIBC World Markets, says while it might not make economic sense, there is evidence Americans are not actually walking away from property as much as they probably would if they were listening to a financial advisor.
“Whatever the default rate is now in the U.S., people say it’s 8% and that’s extremely high. I say that’s surprisingly low,” says Mr. Tal.
“You have up to six to seven million households that could default any day, namely because there are in a negative equity position.”
What’s in it for them to keep paying? There is something to say for wanting to stay in your home where you have been raising a family and living. There is also a stigma that comes with somebody slapping a foreclosure sign on your property -- suddenly your neighbours know a little more about your financial situation.
“At the end of the day though, that’s the rational thing to do. You are talking about houses that are under water more than 20%. Based on an economics textbook, that would be the rational thing to do,” says Mr. Tal.
In Canada it’s pretty tough to do. For starters, if you have an insured mortgage, backed by the government, the bank will get paid off for their loan. But the insurance company, whether it’s Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. or a private insurer, will go after you for any deficiency created by proceeds from the property being less than the mortgage.
It’s the case in most of the country for uninsured mortgages too, says John Turner, director of mortgages for Bank of Montreal. Rules are slightly different in Alberta and designed to protect consumers but Mr. Turner says banks can elect to go after other assets in some circumstances.
There’s also a scenario where you might have bought a condominium as an investment before it was built and put down say 20% payment. If you think you walk away should prices drop by 50% once the building is up, forget it. You’ll be sued.
“As a lawyer we can’t advise someone to break a contract. The law is not you don’t have to obey it, the law is the consequences of not obeying [the contract],” says Calgary lawyer Jeff Kahane. “You haven’t broken the law, you’ve broken your promise. Is it any different than saying why would I want to pay for a chocolate bar at 7-11 when I can put it into my pocket and steal it if I can get away with it.”

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Banks boosting mortgage rates


Several of Canada's big banks are raising most of their fixed-term mortgage rates ahead of the busy spring real estate market.
Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD-T85.22-0.92-1.07%) said the biggest increases will be for mortgages with terms of five to 10 years, which will all go up by 0.35 of a percentage point starting Tuesday.
The move was matched by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.(CM-T84.67-0.22-0.26%)
Royal Bank of Canada (RY-T60.24-0.36-0.59%) raised its rates on mortgages for five and 10-year terms by 0.35 or a percentage point, and its seven-year rate by 0.15 of a percentage point.
The posted rate for five-year closed mortgages — one of the most popular types of loans for Canadian home owners — will rise to 5.69 per cent.
The three banks will also raise their rates on one-year, three-year and four-year terms by 0.2 of a percentage point while two-year terms go up 0.3 of a percentage point.
Fixed mortgage rates, which are closely tied to the bond market, tend to climb when traders shift investment activity to riskier equity assets from bonds, which are considered safer.