Каморка

oblom писал(а):
+ мне наплевать...как я уже упоминал неоднократно.

It sounds like a sweet deal: not only does the bank lend you 95% of the cost of your new home — it actually gives you the other 5%, the minimum down payment required to obtain the necessary mortgage insurance. Hence the name no-money-down mortgage (sometimes also called a cash-back mortgage).

The catch — and you just knew there had to be one — is, boy, will you pay down the road.

A no-down-payment mortgage is one of several exotic varieties introduced in the past few years to lure homeowner wannabes unsure if they can afford a home. Unlike a conventional mortgage where the buyer puts down at least 25% of the purchase price and pays the rest over up to 25 years, the new mortgages extend the amortization to 30 or 40 years, offer interest-only payments for up to 10 years, or no down payment at all. The rationale? In the era of $1-million "starter homes" in some Canadian cities, even a 5% down payment can be a hefty sum for people who nevertheless have the earning power to afford mortgage payments.

The banks don't hand these out to just anyone. You have to have a solid credit rating, and show steady and sufficiently high income to meet regular payments. As such, these products aren't part of the so-called "sub-prime" mortgage market currently causing havoc in the U.S. economy. Sub-prime loans are aimed people who don't qualify for standard mortgages, such as new immigrants, the self-employed or those with poor credit ratings. If anything, the criteria for these new mortgages are more stringent than for conventional mortgages.

Alternative lenders such as Calgary-based CanEquity Mortgage or Toronto's Xceed Mortgage Corp. have been offering no-money-down mortgages for some time, but as the boom in Canadian real estate showed no sign of busting, major financial institutions jumped in. Scotiabank launched its Free Down Payment Mortgage in 2003, offering to fund the 5% down payment, and then in the fall 2006 added the 100% Mortgage that lends the entire purchase price. Others soon followed. TD Canada Trust and RBC Financial both offer no-down-payment and 100% mortgages with similar terms. Qualified buyers must come up with 1.5% of the purchase price to cover lawyer's fees and other closing costs.

Some lenders go even further. General Motors Acceptance (GMAC) Canada will lend as much as 107% of the home's value, meaning you get 7% of the purchase price as a loan at closing. On a $200,000 mortgage, that's $14,000 you could spend on appliances, sundry expenses or paying down the mortgage after closing, points out Callum Ross, a Toronto mortgage broker. "The Canadian cash back program can also be used by someone who already has a mortgage with a rate that is considerably higher than the current rate and is in a situation where it pays to break the mortgage and use the cash back to pay for the penalty costs," he writes on his website.

What's in it for the lenders? First, they get a client into the mortgage cycle earlier than they would otherwise. What's more, these clients tend to be top-notch credit risks. In fact, such mortgages are often marketed to new graduates of professional schools — young doctors or lawyers with little money today but excellent earning prospects.

Naturally, these deals have their downsides. For starters, with no equity in the home, you essentially start out in the hole by the amount of your closing costs. As well, any time you put down less than 25% down payment, the mortgage has to be insured by the likes of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC) or Genworth Financial to protect your lender in case you default. This insurance ups your cost, and the lower the down payment, the higher the insurance rate. With a no-money-down mortgage, you're looking at 3.5% or higher of the principal.

Most importantly, such mortgages entail higher interest rates — typically one or two points above what you could negotiate on a conventional mortgage. And if you want to get out of the mortgage before the end of the term, you'll need to pay back at least some of the gift amount.

No-money-down mortgages — along with long-amortization and interest-only varieties that keep your premiums low but keep you in debt longer — are much more pricey in the end, which is why they don't have many fans among financial advisers. The Bank of Canada also disapproves of them. In a letter to the CMHC, BoC Governor David Dodge expressed "dismay" at the government agency's extension of insurance to interest-only and 30-plus-year mortgages. Such products contribute to inflation, he argued, and increase the risk of a housing bubble by excessively expanding the pool of potential buyers.

None of which is likely to dampen lenders' creativity. In a report issued last year, CIBC economist Benjamin Tal noted that non-traditional mortgages are growing by 50% a year.

"Over the next five to 10 years," he noted, "innovation in the mortgage market will accelerate at a pace not seen before in Canada.

В это кстати никто не верит. Скорее всего даже включая тебя.

Из спортивного интереса в каждом маломальски завалящем топике про недвижимость не отмечаются с такой непринужденной активностью.

sz писал(а): > 2. чем бы вызван скачок и что произойдет если эти факторы исчезнут.

Скачок может вызываться только одним - спрос сильно перерос предложение. А вот исчезнет ли этот фактор - это, как раз и есть вопрос который тут обсуждается....

baby boom

oblom писал(а):

RBC Royal Bank said a recent survey it did found 39 per cent of Canadians have borrowed against the equity of their home, by either refinancing their mortgage to a larger amount, or by taking out a home equity line of credit.

найс.......вери найс. всего то 40 процентов кандидатов .

oblom писал(а):вот именно...подкинуть дровишек....пока не потухло. причем подкинуть рискуя.

И это, должно предохранить рынок от самых опасных заемщиков.

Ms. Dickson: We do not think we need any additional powers. I will say that the previous witnesses did comment on the 75 per cent loan-to-value ratio and the increase to 80 per cent. They suggested that would create risks for banks that were not in the system's interest.

We are very comfortable with the increase to 80 per cent. The issues in the sub-prime mortgage market are primarily issues in the U.S. We have looked at the differences in the sub-prime mortgage market in Canada versus the U.S. and they are completely different. The 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio does help when banks are making loans. It does not allow for too much movement up the risk curve, so to speak, when the mortgage has to be insured.

The differences between the Canadian and U.S. sub-prime mortgage market are about 2.3 per cent of the Canadian market and close to 15 per cent in the U.S. The type of products you see in the U.S. are very aggressive, the loans, very exotic. In Canada, we primarily still see 25 to 30 year amortizations. We do not really see the kind of features that the U.S. has seen. This market is taking off a bit in Canada. People have started to look at it and some institutions are interested in it. It is nowhere near the size and does not have the characteristics of the U.S. market. We are perfectly comfortable with the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio.

oblom писал(а):

И это, должно предохранить рынок от самых опасных заемщиков.

каким образом?????