|
quote:
First comment: quote:Anonymous, December 5, 2014 10:57
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 12:26 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:53 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Scotia Bank profit slips 14% Yes, BNS only profited 1.44 Billion dollars last quarter. Never bet against Canadian banks. Even when the wheels come off the housing market, they will be fine.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 14:51 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:
Dictators of the 20th century would have been climbing over each other to recruit a mind like this.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 15:20 |
|
Saltin posted:Yes, BNS only profited 1.44 Billion dollars last quarter. More like they'll crash horrifically and will have to be bailed out with that sweet taxpayer nectar.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 15:42 |
|
Xoidanor posted:More like they'll crash horrifically and will have to be bailed out with that sweet taxpayer nectar. Canadian banks aren't as exposed to mortgage debt as you'd imagine. Especially the low quality debt. Taxpayers are exposed to most mortgage debt through CMHC. Also yes, you can count on the banks getting bailed out if poo poo really does go sideways, which is why they'll never lose. You can get upset about it, or you can get busy owning your own little piece of it. If you can't beat em..... Saltin fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Dec 6, 2014 |
# ? Dec 6, 2014 16:33 |
|
Saltin posted:Canadian banks aren't as exposed to mortgage debt as you'd imagine. Especially the low quality debt. Taxpayers are exposed to most mortgage debt through CMHC. Also yes, you can count on the banks getting bailed out if poo poo really does go sideways, which is why they'll never lose. You can get upset about it, or you can get busy owning your own little piece of it. If you can't beat em..... Totally agree. I've seen posters here and elsewhere simultaneously decry the CMHC's lax policies and predict doom for the banks. You're free to advocate either one, but if you advocate both... I'm questioning your comprehension and logical faculties.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 16:50 |
|
Xoidanor posted:More like they'll crash horrifically and will have to be bailed out with that sweet taxpayer nectar. It owns how CMHC went from social housing program for WWII vets to basically a way for banks to shift their bad mortgage risk over to the tax payer. To use a US mortgage analogy canadians don't have to worry about PMI since even if you can't make a 20 percent downpayment, don't worry the government will cover the risk! It's also important to note that the CMHC also does do the old securitization of mortgages similar to what happened in the US. Basically buys up bank mortgages and then bundles them to investor as bonds. Said bonds are seen as low risk safe investments for fixed income investors since it's a government backed investment vehicle. Since the baml offload their risk to the government via the bond conversion, it gives them the ability to make even more loans since the notes are technically no longer on their books. http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/a-mortgage-monster/ quote:It the end of 2009, the CMHC insured roughly $473 billion worth of mortgages (it expected that figure to rise to $519 billion last year, though updated figures haven’t been released), which is nearly the entire mortgage insurance market in the country. The CMHC also assists the financial sector by buying pooled mortgages and reselling them to investors as bonds, giving banks and other institutions an immediate source of cash that they can re-lend. As of 2009, the CMHC had securitized $300 billion worth of mortgages. So critical is this function that Ottawa relied on the agency to prop up the country’s big banks during the financial crisis, giving the CMHC permission to buy $66 billion worth of mortgages. Also the VP of the CMHC quote:Serré declined to comment directly on Macdonell’s remarks. “I’m not exactly sure what low or poor credit is,” he says. “But I want to make clear that our mandate is not to get people into home ownership, our mandate is to provide the housing of choice. The last thing we want, as a government insurer, is to get people in a position where they can’t manage their debt.” etalian fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 6, 2014 |
# ? Dec 6, 2014 16:51 |
|
To support Lexicon's argument, read this paper: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/fsr-december13-crawford.pdf tl;dr, if you're a Canadian taxpayer, you're gonna keep this bitch from burning down. I'd say if you were a housing bull having doubts that prices will keep going up, read this paper as it provides supporting evidence that there's nothing wrong with the lending market in Canada. namaste friends fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Dec 6, 2014 |
# ? Dec 6, 2014 17:54 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:
"Guys! Guys! Guys! Hey guys! You know what would fix the economy? We need to find a way to force poor people to give up their money, and we can punish them if they don't! It will totally work! It's for their own good, you see. If we don't their already futile job search will become even *more* hopeless." - LEON BERKELMANS - ECONOMY GLOBAL NEWS indeed.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 17:58 |
|
Regarding CMHC, who gets stuck with the house in case of a secured mortgage default? Does the bank have an obligation to try and auction it off it at 'market rate', and for how long before the insurance kicks in?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 18:02 |
|
CMHC gets the house after paying creditors 'fair market value' whish is drastically below what the house originally sold for. They then turn around and turn the house in to government owned rental property. Repeat until most family dwellings are government owned and rented out at better rates and less loving over tenants than private rentals. Now we have a Vienna model and banks and investors are the ones that bore the losses of doing such. loving brilliant. Too bad it won't actually work that way.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 18:15 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:To support Lexicon's argument, read this paper: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/fsr-december13-crawford.pdf
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 19:35 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:To support Lexicon's argument, read this paper: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/fsr-december13-crawford.pdf It's also helps that the CMHC over the years has unilaterally loosened lending standards and also lacks transparency in many other ways such as honestly disclosing risk. Hell just the practice of letting Canadian banks offload their mortgage risk via the securitization process should make people shake their heads. etalian fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Dec 6, 2014 |
# ? Dec 6, 2014 19:45 |
|
lol
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 21:27 |
|
etalian posted:lol I know right. When the revolution comes, all the loving autists that came up with this bullshit need to be rounded up and shot.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2014 01:07 |
|
etalian posted:lol something something tragedy something something farce
|
# ? Dec 7, 2014 02:12 |
|
lmao gently caress canada https://twitter.com/LJKawa/status/541628917065723905
|
# ? Dec 7, 2014 17:50 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:lmao gently caress canada Basically commodity and real estate focus is a classic example of dutch disease in the economy. Good thing the price per barrel is expected to be at the lower market rate over the next few years. It's basically like Australia IMO. etalian fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 7, 2014 |
# ? Dec 7, 2014 17:58 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:lmao gently caress canada 2009 seems like a pretty arbitrary and misleading year to use as a base case, given the credit crunch and steep decline in commodity prices, which then spiked in 2010-11. That would be an interesting chart to see in dollar terms and over 20 or 30 years but as is it's next to useless because it tells us nothing about whether 2009 was a normal year for capex in either index.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2014 20:57 |
|
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-...?service=mobilequote:
|
# ? Dec 7, 2014 21:15 |
|
Can't wait for the boomers to start running out of cash and selling off real estate to fund their retirement, gently caress yeah...
|
# ? Dec 7, 2014 22:32 |
|
Buskas posted:Can't wait for the boomers to start running out of cash and selling off real estate to fund their retirement, gently caress yeah... Selling their house will be a last resort for most boomers.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2014 22:36 |
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Mar 16, 2019 |
# ? Dec 7, 2014 22:40 |
|
Do reverse mortgages exist yet in Canada? Those are huge now in the US as a way for retirees to have some money and have seen a huge increase in use since around 2008-2009. They were apparently around before then in the US but they weren't so common. I hadn't even heard of them until the early 2000's and it was in a 'lookit dis poo poo hahaaha' sort of context. Banks started really pushing them when the bust really got going because that was when it finally became clear to them that the bust wasn't going away and they became desperate for more money. Lots of unscrupulous poo poo going on with them for a while now but nothing will probably be done about it.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 00:15 |
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Do reverse mortgages exist yet in Canada? Yep. CHIP runs ads all the time on CBC to prey on seniors. https://www.chip.ca/
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 00:22 |
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Mar 16, 2019 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 00:51 |
|
How do they work anyway? You're basically selling your house in installments, right?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 01:14 |
|
FrozenVent posted:How do they work anyway? You're basically selling your house in installments, right? Yes instead of paying money to the lender for your home, the lender gives you money to buy your home out over time.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 01:25 |
|
Also the whole reverse mortgage process tends attract lots of scammer and dishonest companies.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 01:25 |
I could see a reverse mortgage if you have no heirs and you expect not to live past however long it lasts, but it seems like a corner case that is more likely to leave you homeless and penniless than anything else.
|
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 01:31 |
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I could see a reverse mortgage if you have no heirs and you expect not to live past however long it lasts, but it seems like a corner case that is more likely to leave you homeless and penniless than anything else. Elderly people are better off selling and just downsizing to a apartment/condo complex IMO.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 01:34 |
|
/\/\/\ Yup. In a perfect world if everyone did what they were supposed to and were properly informed of the risks and there wasn't any scammers around reverse mortgages could be a legit option. In the real world where none of that is true they don't make much sense for nearly all the population and they probably do more to enable scammers who prey on the elderly than to help any of them. The few where it would make sense wouldn't be ill served by doing the above (downsize + rent) at all, particularly if it was in a decent retirement community like Leisure World. Personally I believe if something does more harm than good and the instances where it can do good are at least a bit niche than that thing shouldn't be allowed so I don't like reverse mortgages at all.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 01:54 |
|
I don't give a poo poo if a bunch of loving boomer shitheads lose their shirts through reverse mortgages. gently caress em
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 02:01 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I don't give a poo poo if a bunch of loving boomer shitheads lose their shirts through reverse mortgages. gently caress em Careful, you are financially on the hook for the boomer's bad decisions. Do you really think politicians will ignore destitute elderly people?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 02:04 |
|
on the left posted:Careful, you are financially on the hook for the boomer's bad decisions. Do you really think politicians will ignore destitute elderly people? I think that the politicians should create a program where each destitute elderly Baby Boomer is placed with a young person or family that is funding their previous lifestyle and continues to fund them today. The Baby Boomer gets a place to live, and the young people can benefit from the elderly person droning on about how the young people are doing it wrong!
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 02:09 |
|
Professor Shark posted:I think that the politicians should create a program where each destitute elderly Baby Boomer is placed with a young person or family that is funding their previous lifestyle and continues to fund them today. lmao imagine you drew neil mcdonald or margaret wente
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 02:19 |
|
etalian posted:Elderly people are better off selling and just downsizing to a apartment/condo complex IMO. This only works as long as prices in the boondocks or suburbs are inflated like in Canada and Australia right now. Under normal circumstances grandma's Frankenstein fixer-upper doesn't cover a modern apartment in a desirable and safe/quiet part of a city, preferably with medical and accessibility amenities.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 02:57 |
|
You know how bob rennie et al keep telling us that we need to have vision and start living in micro condos? WELL I think they lack vision. http://www.npr.org/2014/12/07/36876..._content=202607 quote:In Beijing, even the tiniest apartment can cost a fortune — after all, with more than 21 million residents, space is limited and demand is high. quote:And, in addition, there's a stigma to living in basements and bomb shelters, as Kim found when she interviewed residents above-ground about their neighbors directly below. In beijing, renters are literally considered scum.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 03:29 |
|
Hey, at least the people who engineered those inhuman living conditions aren't moving to Canada.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 03:43 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:53 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:You know how bob rennie et al keep telling us that we need to have vision and start living in micro condos? C.H.U.D.S. are real.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 03:44 |