PDA

View Full Version : Flaherty to Manulife: You are doing it wrong



Sugarphreak
03-20-2013, 07:16 AM
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is coming under fire for using his position to pressure a private sector mortgage lender to raise its interest rates.

"That's Banana Republic behaviour," said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, who added the minister has no business interfering with the free marketplace.

Liberal interim leader Bob Rae called the minister's actions "ridiculous" and in essence working to increase borrowing costs for Canadians.

Related Stories
Flaherty warns against 'race to the bottom' lending wars BMO lowers five-year fixed mortgage rate Photos
Manulife Financial President and CEO Donald Guloien is introduced at the company's Annual General Meeting at its head office in Toronto on Thursday May 3, 2012. (Aaron Vincent Elkaim / THE CANADIAN PRESS)
"Either we have a market or we don't," he said. "The banks have huge profits. The idea that they shouldn't be able to give a break to consumers is ridiculous and the idea that the Minister of Finance would basically be trying to create some kind of a cartel among the banks and the financial institutions as to what they can offer consumers by way of interest rates is I think completely inappropriate, completely wrong actually."

On Tuesday, Flaherty admitted he asked a member of his staff to phone Manulife Financial Corp. (TSX:MFC) after it had cut its posted rate for five-year fixed mortgages to 2.89 per cent from 3.09 per cent.

The company quickly reversed its decision, saying only that "after consulting with the Department of Finance, Manulife Bank has withdrawn the promotional campaign and reverted to our previous posted rate."

It's the second time in a few weeks that Flaherty interfered in the mortgage market. Earlier in the month, he called the Bank of Montreal (TSX:BMO) after it had dropped its posted five-year rate to 2.99 per cent, but on that occasion BMO did not reverse itself.

Afterwards, he thanked other institutions for not following the BMO lead, at least until Manulife's brief discounted offering.

Since the government tightened mortgage rates in July, Canada's housing market has slowed considerably in terms of sales, starts and even prices. Two weeks ago, the Bank of Canada signalled it was no longer as concerned about Canadian debt levels, saying it does not expect the situation to worse appreciably from its current high levels.

Slowing home sales and credit, however, has intensified competition among financial institutions and banks for a dwindling slice of the mortgage market, a relatively safe and lucrative sector of the industry.

Flaherty told reporters he acted with Manulife to keep lenders from taking on risky loans and was happy with the company's subsequent decision.

"As I said before, we encourage prudent lending practices, we don't want a race to the bottom on mortgage rates by our financial institutions so I'm pleased at their response," he said.

"I had one of my staff call them and indicate my displeasure, which is the same thing I did with the BMO except I called myself."

But the opposition leaders said the government has no right to interfere in the free marketplace once it sets the ground-rules. To act otherwise is to substitute its opinion for that of the players in the market.

"That company is operating completely with full respect of the law, they see an advantage in attracting clients at this rate, why shouldn't they go out to do that?" Mulcair asked.

"It's none of his business. It's the minister's opinion, it's nuts. We've never seen this before."

Flaherty has for the past several years complained that Canadians are borrowing beyond their means, particularly on mortgages, and worried they will be trapped once interest rates start to rise.

To slow down borrowing, he has tightened the rules on four occasions, reducing the amortization rate to 25 years from a historic high of 40 years, which was reached under Flaherty's watch.

As well, he has asked the federal watchdog on financial institutions to enact stricter lending practices and controls.

While the first three attempts did little to slow down the housing and credit growth, the last move in July seemed to accomplish the trick. The market has been on a steady downward slide ever since, with analysts predicted prices may fall between 10 per cent and 25 per cent over the next few years.

The central bank notes that credit growth has also slowed, adding it expects household debt to disposable income to remain at or near the record level of 166 per cent, where it has been the past two quarters.

But while Ottawa has apparently succeeded in pricking the housing bubble, one of the offshoots of the policy has been to slow down economic growth to below two per cent.

Source: http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/manulife-withdraws-promotional-mortgage-rate-under-federal-pressure-1.1202129

davidI
03-20-2013, 07:22 AM
I've seen a lot of articles on this and all of the editorials seem to think this is none of his business and that he shouldn't be involved.

I disagree. If the banks lend too much and things go sideways guess who is going to be backstopping it? The government via the taxpayers.

It would probably be better to have some sort of formal policy regarding this (as they've done with mandating mortgages can't be over 25 years), but rates are sort of a moving target that depend on market circumstances and potentially the lender....so I don't really have issue with the way this was approached.

I'm all for free market principles, but people can't just expect free market principles when times are good and then when shit goes south suddenly want bailouts.

ExtraSlow
03-20-2013, 07:23 AM
I don't understand why a phone call from the minister carries so much weight.

I also don't understand how Governments can make so much noise about consumer debt, when for the last three years (or longer) virutally all economic growth has been financed by debt, both consumer and governmental.

ZenOps
03-20-2013, 07:31 AM
Encouraging real estate buying with ultralow rates is a high level of risk.

If the borrower cannot pay, the bank can potentially fail which of course will come out of everyones pockets. It is predatory lending practice, which really only benefits the mortgage broker (not the individual or bank) as he will probably get another fee to charge when the loan payback fails.

The current mortgage rate market has absolutely nothing to do with free market. Just like currencies around the world it is a competitive "race to the bottom".

Under 3% is too low, over 18% (1970's) is too high. If if was decided worldwide to stop printing money - rates could hit double digits once again.

Inflation would then turn into reflation. But given the current state of employment this is not a feasable scenario.

davidI
03-20-2013, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by ExtraSlow
I don't understand why a phone call from the minister carries so much weight.

I also don't understand how Governments can make so much noise about consumer debt, when for the last three years (or longer) virutally all economic growth has been financed by debt, both consumer and governmental.

Because he can make their lives hell.

Governments want lending where it's "good debt" i.e. where the debt will be used to stimulate growth and such. Think of it as leverage for an investment. Borrowing to expand a factory, to buy new equipment, to hire additional staff etc. should all help stimulate growth. That's why you hear so much about them wanting banks to increase lending to small businesses.

"Bad debt" can also stimulate growth...people financing renovations, purchasing more from retailers, upgrading cars etc. but realistically, the increase in initial purchases will just mean a decrease in future purchases as people are stuck servicing their debt. Plus, if rates increase and people can no longer afford to service their debt, it will be another financial meltdown.

You also have to think that if someone upgrades from their Buick to a Ferrari or buys new furniture made in China, how much of that expenditure is really stimulating the domestic economy? I would expect most of that money to be going overseas Now the cash is there and the debt is here. Financing consumerism isn't great IMO when we're no longer a manufacturing economy.

Sugarphreak
03-20-2013, 07:34 AM
...

G
03-20-2013, 08:39 AM
I think he should have a say because most mortgages are CMHC insured. When the home owner defaults CMHC is on the hook not the bank. You guessed it CMHC is backed by the government hence us.

sputnik
03-20-2013, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by G
I think he should have a say because most mortgages are CMHC insured. When the home owner defaults CMHC is on the hook not the bank. You guessed it CMHC is backed by the government hence us.

A simple fix for this would be to require 20% down for ALL home purchases (or 20% equity on refinancing) or charge a much higher interest rate for CMHC backed mortgages.

G
03-20-2013, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by sputnik


A simple fix for this would be to require 20% down for ALL home purchases (or 20% equity on refinancing) or charge a much higher interest rate for CMHC backed mortgages.

That surely will put housing into a spiral. They stopped insuring mortgages over $1 million and look what it is doing to Vancouver where most homes are over a million. How many first time homeowners will have 200k down payment.

Sugarphreak
03-20-2013, 09:30 AM
...

davidI
03-20-2013, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Sugarphreak


The BOC is currently holding historically low overnight spending rates... the prudent thing to do is raise those rates.

Why is that prudent? They still want lending to businesses and a relatively free flow of capital to stimulate growth. Our economy isn't exactly booming right now...

It's also not like the Manulife was reacting to a lowering of the overnight rate. They were just trying to issue more Mortgage Debt. That's how the banks have been making all of their profits these last few quarters. If something isn't done to limit the amount of mortgage debt, we'll be in a position to replicate what happened in the US.

sputnik
03-20-2013, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by G
That surely will put housing into a spiral. They stopped insuring mortgages over $1 million and look what it is doing to Vancouver where most homes are over a million. How many first time homeowners will have 200k down payment.

Spiral? I guess if you think your house is an investment you might be disappointed.

However we are currently enjoying a relatively stable economy so it isn't like house prices will drop at the same time as everyone is losing their jobs. So why not cool the market with tighter lending rules in advance of loose lending rules leading to a collapsing economy?

As far as I am concerned, if you want a $1 million dollar mortgage you BETTER be coming up with the $250k for your down payment. Besides if anything the situation in Vancouver shows how much the market is overheated by relaxed lending regulations.

G
03-20-2013, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by sputnik


Spiral? I guess if you think your house is an investment you might be disappointed.

However we are currently enjoying a relatively stable economy so it isn't like house prices will drop at the same time as everyone is losing their jobs. So why not cool the market with tighter lending rules in advance of loose lending rules leading to a collapsing economy?

As far as I am concerned, if you want a $1 million dollar mortgage you BETTER be coming up with the $250k for your down payment. Besides if anything the situation in Vancouver shows how much the market is overheated by relaxed lending regulations.

I think the market should be cooled by higher rates, raise minimum down payment to 10% and shorten to 20 years max.

I do not think my house is an investment. It is some place to live and enjoy our own space. Why do I care if the markets crashes since I have no mortgage and do not plan on moving any time soon.

Xtrema
03-20-2013, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by sputnik


A simple fix for this would be to require 20% down for ALL home purchases (or 20% equity on refinancing) or charge a much higher interest rate for CMHC backed mortgages.

Unfortunately, CMHC genie is out of the bottle and the equity that everyone think they have is closely tied to CMHC policies. But I agree that 20% down and 25 years max should be mandatory and we won't get into this mess in the 1st place. Stupid Liberal trying to manipulate market and make housing affordable for some ended up being unaffordable for most. While developers, flippers and bankers are all laughing to the bank.

To undo the harm CMHC done to the market, it has to be done very slowerly to avoid a major crash.

The fact that Mr FM flips out on 0.1% means that we are in deep shit on overpriced real estate, but probably mostly in Vancouver and Toronto.

G
03-20-2013, 01:13 PM
interesting read on RichMan BC

http://realestatetalks.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=128300

woodywoodford
03-20-2013, 02:32 PM
wtf is "Banana Republic behavior"?

revelations
03-20-2013, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Or get rid of CMHC all together



The better question is why would a first time homeowner be taking a 1M mortgage in the first place. Banks need to be taking more responcibility for thier loans, CMHC is undermining that.

Because in YVR the orientals can afford 1M first time homes? :dunno:

Xtrema
03-20-2013, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The better question is why would a first time homeowner be taking a 1M mortgage in the first place. Banks need to be taking more responcibility for thier loans, CMHC is undermining that.

Well 1M is better than unlimited which was the rule before. Again 1M is probably the next gradual step from unlimited to prevent a sell off.

I agree that 1M is too much. $500K would give you a decent pad coast to coast. After all CMHC's mission is about helping people to start building up equity, not put them in mansions.


Originally posted by revelations
Because in YVR the orientals can afford 1M first time homes? :dunno:

1st gen FOBs can't get mortgage anyway. But they pay cash, so CMHC won't be involved.

2nd gen may need CMHC's help to own in YVR since the market is overheated by recent corrupted Chinese money.

Seth1968
03-20-2013, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by davidI
I've seen a lot of articles on this and all of the editorials seem to think this is none of his business and that he shouldn't be involved.

I disagree. If the banks lend too much and things go sideways guess who is going to be backstopping it? The government via the taxpayers.


It always pisses me off when I hear terms such as "Government funded", or the ultimate classic, "It doesn't matter to me, as the Gubment pays for it".

dawerks
03-20-2013, 06:33 PM
What's really shocking is that the NDP leader is advocating FOR the free market?!

BOC can't raise interest rates. It's hands are tied in more ways than one.

89coupe
03-20-2013, 06:47 PM
All the government needs to do is make it tougher to get a mortgage. 20% down, leaner debt ratio, etc.

masoncgy
03-20-2013, 10:12 PM
It goes to show how stupid Mulcair and the NDP really are. Flaherty's move is something they should support, given his goal is to soften the housing bubble meltdown and avoid an all out collapse (you know, the one he helped create with 0/40s)

Government backed mortgage insurance? The finance minister can intervene all he wants. Do you think the banks would offer up such risky financing without CMHC kicking around?

davidI
03-20-2013, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by dawerks
What's really shocking is that the NDP leader is advocating FOR the free market?!


They support the opposite of what the conservatives do. That is it. No thought behind so many of their arguments.

Conservatives: It's Yellow
NDP: NO, It's Green!

Conservatives: It's Green
NDP: NO, It's Yellow!