La banque centrale canadienne est nerveuse !

Évidemment, nos politiciens amateurs ont voulu stimuler notre économie par une méthode simpliste, baisser les taux d’intérêt.

Ajouter, notre milieu financier (banque) qui génère des milliards de profits grâce à l’endettement, quel beau cadeau à leur donner.

Nos stupides politiciens ont permis aux milieux financiers de gérer plus 250 milliards de prêts additionnels sécurisés par le peuple en moins de 5 ans, quelle manne d’argent pour ces amis de Bay Street.

Alors, comme d’habitude, ceux-ci n’ayant aucune morale ont accordé du crédit facile à tout ce qui bouge, vous n’avez pas de mise de fonds pour votre maison, pas grave, on va vous arranger cela.

On vous donne une belle de marge de crédit, ainsi vous allez payer votre 5 % de mise de fonds, peut-être votre notaire et pourquoi pas ! quelque meuble avec cela.

Si vous sautez, ce n’est pas grave, on va se repayer grâce au capital cumulé sur votre maison et comme le prêt est sécurisé par le peuple, on ne perd rien au change, pour le reste, c’est votre problème M. le peuple.

Beau système, j’ai juste l’impression de voir le même film série B une seconde fois, l’Espagne, ça ne vous dit rien ?

The issue here is that CMHC has a parliamentary-approved mortgage insurance cap of $600 billion and is rapidly approaching that cap.

Admittedly, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has lifted that limit several times before–in 2007 its was $350 billion… meaning that taxpayers’ exposure to the housing market has risen by 70 per cent in just four years.
Réf: 1.

CMHC hard stop

Trois articles sur le sujet, celui de Lawrence Solomon nous indique comment certains pays ne sont pas tombés dans cette facilité.


Extrait de: Housing Market: Bank Of Canada Outlines Scenario For How Home Sales Slump Could Drag Down Economy, By Daniel Tencer , The Huffington Post, 12/06/2012

Don’t hit the panic button yet, but the Bank of Canada just outlined how a housing market slowdown could drag down the entire economy with it.

“Canadian households are vulnerable to two interrelated shocks: a significant decline in house prices and a sharp deterioration in labour market conditions,” the bank said in its latest financial system review. “The vulnerabilities will increase the longer imbalances persist (or grow) in the housing market and the more household indebtedness rises.”

The BoC report singles out the condo market, and especially Toronto’s condo market, as the tinder box where a housing collapse could begin (and maybe already is beginning).

“In the current context, a specific concern is that the total number of housing units under construction has been increasing and is now well above its historical average relative to the population. This development is entirely accounted for by multiple-unit dwellings (which include condominium units), especially in major metropolitan areas,” the report says.

The BoC describes a sort of spiralling domino effect that could hit Canada’s economy, with housing pushing down the broader economy, and the broader economy further pushing down housing.


Extrait de : The unstoppable Canadian spending spree, Sophie Cousineau, The Globe and Mail, Dec. 07 2012

«Thank God and Mark Carney – and the two are interchangeable these days – interests rates remain in shoppers’ paradise. In fact, interest and mortgage rates have been so low for so long one wonders how Canadians will wean themselves off of this heroin-like dependency – especially since banks tend to have an uncharacteristically generous understanding of our capacity to reimburse mortgages. You want to buy a $700,000 overpriced condo with 10 per cent cash down on a $130,000 household income? Go for it.

Looking at bank profits, everybody figures they know what they are doing, right.

With $6.5-billion in profit, Bank of Nova Scotia has never made as much money as in the past year. Same goes for Royal Bank of Canada, which amassed a record $7.5-billion. Even Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, long described as the bank most likely to walk into a sharp object, beat analysts’ expectations with its prudent approach, amassing $3.3-billion this year. What economic slowdown? Fuelled by increased consumer borrowing, profits keep on skyrocketing» …

Plus que le monde entier est endetté, plus que le monde financier devient riche. Et quand, il se comporte en vrai bougon, on demande au peuple de les secourir, hum …


Extrait de: Bring back the rental market, Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Nov 23, 2012

Halve the rate of home ownership

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is triggering a “policy-induced housing-market downturn,” in the view of experts such as those at the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals. They blame Flaherty for tightening the rules that apply when people seek mortgages, squeezing them out of the housing market.

The federal government no longer promotes no-down-payment mortgages, for example, no longer backs mortgages that won’t be repaid for 40 years, no longer insures those with pathetic credit scores. Instead the federal government now wants to see a 20% down payment before it offers insurance, it now wants the mortgage paid off in 25 years or less, it now wants to see a decent credit score.

Flaherty does deserve criticism, but not for curtailing too-easy credit — a move taken to prevent a housing bubble. His blame lies in failing to curtail easy credit earlier. There is no “policy-induced housing market downturn,” if by that Flaherty’s critics mean that he is interfering with a free market in mortgages that artificially depresses demand for housing. To the contrary, the government for decades has thwarted a free market in housing by pumping it up beyond anything economically rational. A free market — one without any policy inducements — might have halved the number of owner-occupied houses now standing.

By removing some federal government guarantees, Flaherty is in fact removing policies that improperly induced Canadians to buy homes. According to CAAMP’s chief economist, Will Dunning, as a result of three Flaherty steps alone “9.3% of all home buyers would be removed from the market.” But why should Flaherty stop at 9.3%? More should and would leave the market if the federal government guaranteed no one’s mortgages. Or subsidized no one’s housing through federal agencies such as CMHC. More still would leave the market if the provincial and municipal governments stopped favouring home ownership through subsidies of their own. Prior to government interventions — in good part to provide work for the construction trades during the Great Depression — terms for homeowners were far more stringent. Homeowners needed to provide down payments of at least 40%, mortgage terms were five years, and mortgagees had no duty to renew a mortgage.

What would happen to Canada’s housing market if governments didn’t prop up the home-ownership market? One indication comes from Europe, where countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands don’t much pull people into buying homes. There the rate of home ownership is about 50%.

Vous remarquerez deux paus scandinaves, bien sur le Q.I. del eurs politiens est certainement plus élévée que les notres,

Harper et cie, solution facile, désastre facile.

In Germany it’s closer to 40% and in Switzerland, 30%

Canada’s current near-record high 70% home-ownership rate,

Harper et cie, solution facile, désastre facile.

Where would Canadians live if they weren’t induced into home ownership? In rental accommodation, a high-demand, low-availability commodity in Canada because of a different set of government policy inducements that have long punished the rental market. These include rent controls, which prevented apartment building owners from operating freely, and property taxes, which are far higher on rental properties and thus on tenants than on owned residences. Because of these two factors, apartment building construction all but stopped decades ago, despite near-zero vacancy rates. Condo rentals have emerged in a big way to satisfy the public’s pent-up demand for rental accommodation but this is at best a second-rate solution, both for many tenants and for society at large.

The condo landlords are in good part amateurs in the rental business. Unlike professional apartment building owners, who are in it for the long haul and thus want stable long-term tenants, those who rent out condo units typically seek short-term tenants. Some buy condos as speculators, planning to flip them when prices increase. Others are homebuyers who expect they’ll need to downsize in a few years; others still are foreigners from volatile countries, who want a safe house in case they need to leave their native land in a hurry. In all these situations, the tenant who wants a permanent address but doesn’t want the responsibility or financial commitment of home ownership is ill-served.

Society at large is also ill-served by abandoning a once-stable apartment-building industry. The condo boom — or bubble that so many fear — is in good part fuelled by the rental market for condos, which would be greatly diminished if high-quality apartments were again readily available. Rental-rationalized condo purchases would no longer represent a big component of the housing bubble that Flaherty is trying to avert, to prevent the meltdown that the U.S. saw when it pushed home ownership to levels comparable to Canada’s, and to prevent the meltdown that other countries have experienced over the decades. According to an IMF study of 20 housing meltdowns that occurred in various countries between 1970 and 2001, recession followed 19 times.

The key to better living costs nothing: Simply remove the carrots luring people into home ownership, and the sticks punishing apartment dwellers.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com