Real estate prices are falling, and a U.S.-style collapse could cost taxpayers plenty

Could it happen here?

by Jason Kirby on Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:00am - 18 Comments

Some who borrowed heavily to pre-buy during the Great Canadian Condo Boom are also struggling. Scott Hannah, CEO of the Credit Counselling Society in Vancouver, has seen cases where buyers obtained mortgages to buy condos with no down payment. As the equity in their unfinished properties rose, they took out secondary loans to buy furniture. Now those buyers are underwater, and they still haven’t moved in.

Even in Toronto, where the market run-up wasn’t as big as in the west, some owners face problems. The number of homes listed under power of sale, which refers to repossessed properties, has climbed from 300 to 500 since the spring, says Jim Common, a real estate agent whose monthly newsletter tracks the sector. It’s a small fraction of the total active listings, but he expects the number to rise.

It can take months for the full extent of a collapsing housing market to be felt. For instance, some in the real estate industry point to the relatively low default rate on residential mortgages as a sign the market remains strong. According to the Canadian Bankers Association, the percentage of residential mortgages in arrears stands at just 0.28 per cent of the total market. But when the 1990 housing bubble burst, the national default rate was also 0.28 per cent, and it took two years before defaults peaked at 0.65 per cent.

If defaults rise, claims against CMHC could climb, too. The good news is that because the buck ultimately stops with Ottawa, the country should avoid a mortgage-fuelled banking crisis like the one that has claimed so many victims in the U.S. In fact, through CMHC the federal government plans to buy up to $75 billion worth of mortgages from the banks as a way to inject liquidity into Canada’s financial system.

But could taxpayers be left holding a massive bill? There’s almost no way to know. CMHC doesn’t divulge key information about its lending portfolio, which it considers to be competitive information. Even so, Nick Rowe, an economics professor at Carleton University, recently posted online a “back of the envelope” calculation of CMHC’s potential losses. Based on what is known about the agency’s $334-billion insurance portfolio and $7 billion in reserves, he argued CMHC could lose $9 billion if prices in Canada fall as much as they have in America. (U.S. prices have dropped 20 per cent from their 2006 peak, with some cities down 35 per cent.) By contrast, CMHC posted profits of more than $1 billion for three straight years, thanks largely to insurance premiums it charges homebuyers. Rowe admits his analysis is crude. But he worries CMHC officials may not have accounted for serious price declines when constructing their financial models, believing, as Fannie and Freddie did, a catastrophic economic event would never happen.

For what it’s worth, CMHC remains more optimistic about the Canadian market than some of the real estate industry’s most bullish proponents. On Oct. 30, CMHC predicted the average MLS selling price for this year will come in higher than last, and continue to rise in 2009 to $306,700. A week and a half later, the Canadian Real Estate Association predicted the average price of a Canadian home will end the year down 0.6 per cent to $303,900 from 2007, and continue to fall in 2009 to $297,600. “Somebody needs to work out what the losses for CMHC would be if house prices fell 20 per cent across Canada,” says Rowe. “We’ve got a rough idea of the national debt, and what the deficits are going to be, but there’s an item here that hasn’t been taken into account. There’s no question of anything going bust, but this is something we should know. It’s very clear who is on the hook here, and that’s the taxpayer.”

No one is saying this is all CMHC’s fault. Genworth, Canada’s second-largest mortgage insurer, moved in lockstep with its government-backed rival. Meanwhile, smaller U.S. mortgage insurers rushed into the Canadian market at its peak. (Almost all have since fled Canada.) And CMHC didn’t exactly hold a gun to the head of lenders, who were the ones actually doling out questionable loans at the outer limits of CMHC’s insurance policies.

Still, at the end of the day, CMHC isn’t a private company, which means taxpayers may have to write a sizable cheque if the housing market worsens. It’s happened before. Back in the early 1980s Ottawa had to bail out CMHC when thousands of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages and insurance claims skyrocketed. Much has changed since then, but it’s becoming clear that CMHC’s policies encouraged many homebuyers to jump into the market before they were ready. And the consequences of that could be far-reaching. “[The easy credit] dragged buyers kicking and screaming from the future to today and they were lent money whether they could afford it or not,” says Ozzie Jurock, a Vancouver real estate promoter. “The only test was whether they could breathe.”

With Rachel Mendleson

Bookmark and Share
  • http://Macleans alexlorn@telus.net

    Excellent piece of information, well written and very informative.

  • gah

    This should be on the cover of Macleans

  • gah

    This should be on the cover of Macleans magazine

  • Rob

    Many people have been saying this for the last few years but were shouted down in favour of ‘let the good times roll’ thinking or saying Canadians were too smart to let it happen here, our banks are the best in the world blah blah blah — and now we may all pay the price bailing out the gullible and the greedy get away with it.

  • Chincy

    how do i short CMHC? :-)

  • smwhite

    I concure, this piece of information considering the economic and political climate, is a firecracker waiting to go off…

    CMHC sold out Canada to the banks, again. Great article Mr. Kirby, nice to see a portion of the media peddling information versus misinformation.

  • Carioca Canuck

    What do you mean by the headline “could it happen here ?”

    It is well underway to happening here……..we are absolutely no different than the US real estate market in terms of lax lending practices or anything else.

    Denial of reality by the media due to RE industry funded advertising has to stop now.

    • Bernie Green

      What do you mean Carioca Canuck “no different lax lending”?
      Did we lend billions to people with no job, no income and no down payment?
      I don’t think so.

  • Dan Wu

    Not even a year ago, Macleans towed the Realtor’s line about how the real estate market in Canada was just fine. I am not a reporter whose job it is to look into the facts all day long and yet I could forsee the market was destined to move downward dramatically. The 0 down 40 year mortgages that smacked of bad lending practices, the unsustainable increase in home prices, and the slumping American economy did not even formulate into Macleans equation. I am greatful I saw how poorly researched that article was and avoided buying. I pity the many people who read your article and will go into bankruptcy after following the advice.

  • James G.

    I agree that there are housing problems in Canada. However, as someone who splits his time about equally amongst the cities of Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Toronto and Calgary, all that I can say is most Canadians have no idea what “collapse” means. I have seen price pressure in Canada, I have seen unemployment tick upwards but nothing – and I mean nothing – can prepare an average Canadian for the reality of the housing problem in the US. I have seen hundreds and thousands of homes ransacked and occupied by squatteres, Entire neighborhoods and indeed, communities have been lost.
    With regards to the banking system, I have never observed the same sort of unbridled greed and unchecked stupidity in Canada.

    Also, don;t kid yourself about US unemployment. There have been so many changes to the way that CPI,GDP and unemployment are calculated that the official numbers are essentially useless. Years of hedonic adjustments and rule changes have been designed to artificially depress the reality. I rely on others who calculate these numbers using the metrics that existed as they were BEFORE 1982 (eg. shadowstats). These people will tell you that US unemployment is actually closer to 14%. The thousands of homeless Americans that I see wandering the streets tend to confirm the number.

  • Pingback: Canada is having its own mortgage meltdown | Les Jones

  • Pingback: Friday free-for-all! | Vancouver Condo Info

  • Pingback: Macleans.ca - Will foreclosures hit Canadian homeowners?

  • Taxpayer

    Hahaha, the main stream drive by media (much like many politicians) is doing it again..inventing headlines to sell their rags..no wonder 99% of print media in North America is going bankrupt (look no further than the New York Times who’s stock can now be purchased for less than the price of their Sunday edition). This form of “bloody headline” drive by media has sadly become the “norm” and is accepted by those with a lower than average “financial IQ” making one wonder if there is something more sinister at play (such as social engineering-much like the “no house left behind syndrome” of the US) with the media playing more than a passive role.

    There are literally hundreds of “articles” and “reports” that completely disprove everything “theoretical” in this “National Enquirer” stylized “piece.” Stating “facts” and reporting the news is staggeringly different that “making” or “engineering” the news and worse having a hyper negative influence on markets whether they be real estate, financial, economic, military, political etc. How many times have you seen some ill informed “ideologue” Hollywood flavor of the moment screaming that the proverbial “sky is falling” and we should all get out of the way? It’s like Al Gore stating that he invented the internet when the only thing he ever invented was “man made global warming.”

    So, if you are as dumb as a bucket of wet hammers and love to be led around by some self important “gas bags” that are probably renting someone’s basement suite or for some ideological reason can’t fathom anyone wanting to own a home (God forbid in the evil suburbs) or more than likely living in some concrete coffin in downtown Toronto playing chicken little to all of their friends.

  • EX house owner

    Who already has had house wants the price goes up, and who does not have one wants the price goes down. The point is you can affort it, so buy it. you can not, just wait for a chance to buy it as now USA. I bet the real eatate will go down sharply after 2012 because baby boomer retirement wave

  • http://www.realestatevalley.ca/ Vancouver Homes

    I don't see this type of collapse happening. The reasoning for the sub prime collapse involved factors that just are not present here in Canada, including a more structured and accountable banking system. Recently the newer first time mortgage rate rules will serve to slow down the market, but also prevent those from overextending in my opinion.

  • http://www.canadianmortgageadvisor.com Canmort

    It all depends what exactly define collapse?

  • http://www.myhomefinder.ca MyHomeFinder

    I would like everyone to rest assured that we are NOT in the same danger as the American collapse… please read the following Toronto Real Estate Article.

    For all your Toronto Real Estate Needs, visit my website here: MyHomefinder.ca
    If you are looking for any recent Toronto Real Estate News, check out my blog here: MyHomeFinder.blog.com

    Vahab

From Macleans