Bruce Coleman Mortgage Brokers

604-688-6002

Record home building in Canada drives spike in building permits – ask a Vancouver mortgage broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

imageRecord Canadian housing construction led a faster-than-expected gain in building permits in January, government data showed one day after the central bank predicted a soft landing in the country’s real estate market.

North America’s top 20 housing markets: Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary among most expensive

Is Canada’s market overheated? Here’s a look at the prices in the top markets across North America. The results may surprise you

The value of residential building permits granted by municipalities jumped 26.3% to $4.60 billion ($4.18 billion), Statistics Canada said Thursday from Ottawa. One of the largest municipal gains was led by multiple-unit housing in Vancouver, a market that policy makers have said is most at risk from overbuilding.

The Bank of Canada affirmed its forecast for a housing market “soft landing” Wednesday with the ratio of household debt to income stabilizing around current record levels. Governor Stephen Poloz kept the benchmark overnight interest rate at 1%, citing balanced risks from stretched consumers and sluggish business spending.

Non-residential permits fell 14.6% to $2.39 billion in January, reducing the gain in total building permits to $6.99 billion, a rise of 8.5%. Economists forecast total permits would climb 1.7%, according to the median of the nine responses to a Bloomberg survey.

Vancouver building permits rose 30.5% in January to $627 million. It was one of the largest gains by city, along with Toronto and the Alberta capital of Edmonton, Statistics Canada said in its report.

Permits for multi-family housing projects such as apartments and condominiums jumped 42.8% to $2.10 billion, Statistics Canada said. Single-family housing permits rose 15.0% to $2.50 billion.

Housing Fall

Pacific Investment Management Co. forecasts Canadian home prices may fall as much as 20% in the next five years.

“Canadian housing is overvalued,” Ed Devlin, the London- based head of Pimco’s Canadian portfolio, said by telephone March 3. “I would expect to see it happening at the end of this year, we’re going to start to see housing roll over.”

Pimco has been reducing its holdings of Canadian debt after a run of strong profits, Devlin said. The housing decline will lead to a pullback in consumer spending, capping economic growth this year in Canada around 2%, he said.

Bloomberg.com

Say hello to your neighbour on top of you, below you and beside you – ask a Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

imageTORONTO — The dream of an affordable single-family detached home is fading fast. Rising land values and development costs mean even those trying to avoid high-rises will be living in more densely populated housing.

North America’s top 20 housing markets: Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary among most expensive on continent

Whether the market is overheated remains to be seen, but you might be surprised by how many Canadian cities make the top 10.Keep reading.

It’s not something that is going to happen overnight, but evidence is mounting that ground-level housing is becoming tighter. To counter the costly state of home ownership, increasingly developers are looking to build more townhouses or townhomes and what is called mid-rise or stacked housing.

Doug Porter, chief economist with Bank of Montreal, says statistics from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. show an increase in the number of row houses, as a percentage of detached homes.

In the 1990s, you might have four or five single detached for every row house, now it’s more like three to one

“In the 1990s, you might have four or five single detached for every row house, now it’s more like three to one,” said Mr. Porter, adding that’s a Canada-wide figure.

It’s not like this is a completely new. Mr. Porter remembers buying his first house in the 1980s and it was a semi-detached home linked in the basement.

“The trend is just becoming even more obvious in recent years,” said Mr. Porter, agreeing a detached home is probably now out of the reach of many consumers.

Location always determines value, and small municipalities will probably continue to have affordable detached homes, but in large cities and even suburban areas that dream home is slipping away.

The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver said its benchmark price for a detached home in the region reached $932,900 in February. The area’s most expensive place to buy a detached home was West Vancouver with the average home selling for $2,145,200 last month.

In Toronto, the average detached home sold for $955,314 in February. But even in the suburban ring around the city, the average detached home $640,405.

Townhouses are just more affordable. In Toronto, the average townhouse sold for $545,043 last month while in the suburbs townhouses fetched on average $400,165. It’s the same story in Greater Vancouver with the benchmark index price for a townhouse $458,300.

Affordability issues are driving developers to look for accommodations that can make housing more financially accessible and a key strategy is increasing the density of the pricey land parcels they are acquiring.

In some regions of the country, land use policy encouraging density have helped drive the issue by allowing less vacant land to come on stream.

Niall Haggart, executive vice-president of the Daniels Corp. which builds all types of housing from high rises to single family residences in the Greater Toronto Area, says condominium construction costs have risen fast during the boom. There is a different type of expertise need to build with concrete as opposed to the wood of low-rise and it’s more expensive.

FP0310_Row_V_Single_C_MF

A solution to the problem has been what he calls building “stacks, back-to-back’ which is basically a block of townhouses with units at the front and units at the back and on different floors.

Daniels upped the ante on this type of housing by taking some of these complexes to four storeys high, which still allows the units to be built with low-rise trades keeping prices down and profits up.

Advertisement

“This evolution of density has become really important because building in concrete has become really expensive,” said Mr. Haggart. The towers at key urban locations can still sell because they can attract enough density to make projects work.

To put the density in context, traditional townhouses allow for about 14 to 18 units per acre, depending on some design factors. Daniels started with stacked and back-to-back and the density went to 26 to 27 units per acre.

“This gave us a greater variety of unit sizes but it also achieved more financially accessible units,” said Mr. Haggart, adding the next step was taking to four storeys which increase the density to 45 units per acre. Single family homes, by comparison, might generate just generate three or four units per acre.

About nine years ago his company built a development in an expensive area of mid-Toronto with a small seven-storey tower and some townhomes. It was the townhomes that sold first.

“It was an affluent buy down market, but people wanted into condominium lifestyle and they wanted their own front door amenity space as opposed to more communal living of a tower,” said Mr. Haggart.

The mid-density structures are still set up legally like traditional condominiums with corporations that run them but there is very little common area and that keeps the condos fees down.

Fees are slightly above 50¢ a square feet per month in Toronto towers, while the townhomes in Daniels average fees about $100/month. Even in the smallest units, the fees are a fraction of highrise condominium.

housing

Sam Crignano, president Cityzen Developments, said during the housing downturn in 2009 his company had a development approved for 1,400 high-rise units but switched to stacked townhouses because of a belief they would sell better. It worked.

The units have one level of underground parking, then four stories above. There’s usually two small flats on the lower levels, and then on level three and four a pair of two-storey units.

“A [high-rise] condo you have to sell well above $500 per square foot just to break even,” said Mr. Crignano, adding government fees and obligations can amount to up $70,000 per unit in some GTA jurisdictions.

It’s not as if detached single family homes are disappearing overnight, but if you look around the GTA, the popular 46-foot lot — once the hallmark of that class of housing — is in short supply.

George Carras, president of RealNet Canada Inc., says there are only eights sites in the entire GTA region offering lots that size and only 31 homes were unsold at the end of 2013. It might have something to do with price as the average was going for $929,423.

“Housing choices are about substituting something, space or you go into a condo. You keep driving [away from Toronto] until you qualify,” he said, noting people can still buying those 46-foot homes — but in Niagara Falls, a commute of more than two hours to downtown Toronto.

Michael Geller, an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University and a real estate consultant and developer, says the stacked townhouse is something he believes will make its way to the rest of the country.

“It provides a more affordable ownership opportunity in Vancouver,” said Mr. Geller. “No doubt, Vancouver, Calgary and other Canadian cities are copying Toronto.”

He says these type of projects make sense because it allows people downsizing to stay in neighburhoods they prefer and helps buyers break into an area they could otherwise not afford to live in.

“I call them in-between density, whether it’s putting nine homes on three lots or putting 14 townhouses acre, there is something in between a single family house and an apartment building.” said Mr. Geller.

Canadian housing starts pick up in February – consult with Bruce Coleman, Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

imageTORONTO — Canadian housing starts rose more than expected in February, data released on Monday showed, but the modest increase did not sway economists’ expectations that the country’s housing market will cool this year.

The seasonally adjusted annualized rate of housing starts rose to 192,094 units last month from a upwardly revised 180,481 in January, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp (CMHC) said. That topped expectations for an increase to 189,500.

Activity had decreased in January due to unusually harsh winter weather and the rebound in February suggested some of the weather-related impact was starting to wash out of the economic data.

The six-month moving average showed housing starts stood at 192,236 units. Since August 2013, the trend has remained in a range between 185,000 and 195,000, in line with CMHC’s outlook for a stable housing market this year, the report said.

A booming Canadian housing market in recent years prompted fears of a U.S.-style collapse, but Canada has so far avoided such a correction. The Canadian government intervened four times to tighten mortgage rules, which has helped rein in the market.

Most economists believe an increase in borrowing costs this year and an economy that is growing only modestly will lead to a softer but stable market in 2014.

FP0311_HousingStarts_C_JR“We remain of the view that construction activity will edge lower over the course of the year as the forecasted increase in interest rates should restrain demand,” said David Tulk, chief Canada macro strategist at TD Securities in Toronto.

“A smaller contribution from the housing market is consistent with the macro theme of domestic fatigue that will leave headline growth at or below its trend rate until net exports are able find their footing both in response to a weaker currency and a fundamentally stronger US economy.”

Urban starts increased by 7.5% to 175,584 in February. Multiple urban starts surged by 13.3% to 116,458, while single-detached urban starts decreased by 2.4% to 59,126.

Activity increased in urban centers in Quebec and in the Atlantic region, was stable in Ontario, and decreased in the Prairie provinces and British Columbia.

© Thomson Reuters 2014

Fixed mortgages now trump variable, report says. Not everyone agrees – Consult with Bruce Coleman, Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

Vancouver Mortgage BrokerFixed-rate mortgages have gained an edge over variable-rate mortgages given the improving economy and attractive offers on longer-term deals, says a new report from economists at one of Canada’s big banks.

“Fixed now modestly trumps variable,” according to a BMO Nesbitt Burns study published Thursday.

While many mortgage brokers agree with that assessment, others caution that locking into a fixed rate is not the best way to go.

Historically low interest rates have dramatically narrowed the spread between five-year fixed mortgage rates and variable ones, according to the report by BMO Nesbitt Burns chief economist Douglas Porter and senior economist Benjamin Reitzes.

Added to that are improving economic conditions and the likelihood of rate hikes from both the Bank of Canada and the U.S. Federal Reserve next year, they say.

“While we have in the past supported going variable, and even though short-term rates are likely to remain low this year, current offers on long-term mortgage rates and the improving economic outlook tilt the balance in favour of locking in at this stage,” the authors say.

Five-year rates of 2.99 per cent can still be found and that compares favourably to the roughly 2.5-per-cent rate offered on variable mortgages, said David Hughes, a mortgage agent with Mortgage Group Ontario Inc.

“I don’t see how you can go wrong getting a five-year mortgage at 2.99 per cent,” he said.

But mortgage planner David Larock says the BMO study “sounds like another chapter in the age-old fixed versus variable debate – and the banks have largely been saying that fixed rates are the way to go for years now, even in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary.

“I am always a little cynical of this stock advice when given by the banks because their fixed-rate mortgages are much more profitable, and convenient, because advising borrowers to take the more conservative path is easily defensible, even if it proves more expensive over time,” he said in an e-mail.

Vince Gaetano, principal broker with MonsterMortgage.ca, agrees.

“Banks are very good at scaring variable-rate clients into locking in prematurely. This took place last year when fixed rates spiked temporarily only to fall again. At the same time, variable-rate discounts have increased,” he said.

The BMO report, meanwhile, says the bond market has been signalling strongly for the past year that “the era of low interest rates may be finally drawing to a close.

“As bond yields rise, the cost of funds for lenders also rises, ultimately putting upward pressure on consumer and business borrowing costs, including long-term mortgage rates. So, even if variable rates take some time to climb, we may not see such low fixed rates again any time soon.”

Historically, fixed rates have proven to be more expensive than variable rates.

“Fully 85 per cent of the time since 1975, the cost-effective route for borrowers was to stay variable,” the report said.

“Considering the likely upward trend in interest rates as the global recovery picks up speed in 2014, this may be one of those rare periods when a fixed rate turns out to be the superior choice.”

There are other reasons why locking into a five-year mortgage may not be for everyone, says another mortgage broker and industry expert.

It could be a disadvantage for homeowners who are considering a move in the near future or mulling a refinancing of their property, said Robert McLister, editor of Canadian Mortgage Trends.

“The bank penalties are not so friendly,” he said.

On average, though, “mathematically speaking I think the five-year fixed is the best value in the market right now.”

The BMO report refers to another – less tangible – factor favouring fixed rates: peace of mind.

The borrower “gets certainty with a fixed rate, and that certainty is worth something to many. A small premium on fixed-rate mortgages and shorter amortization schedule represent inexpensive protection against a rate spike.

“For those who don’t have much financial flexibility, and would run into difficulty from a pronounced upswing in interest rates (typically first-time buyers), any potential extra cost for peace of mind now appears to be a price well worth paying.”

Think Gen Y will prop up Canada’s housing market? Think again – Consult with Bruce Coleman, Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

Hints of the housing market’s undoing can be found in the questions being asked by a 26-year-old, recently graduated, money-saving virtuoso we’ll call Steve.

Heard about all the struggling members of Generation Y who wonder how they’ll ever afford a house? Steve’s not one of them. He graduated with an engineering degree in 2012, landed a full-time job several months later and has been saving aggressively.

Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Boomers, Gen Y may not be able to pay the price you’re expecting to get for your home when you sell in the years to come.
(Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail)

Now, he’s thinking about home ownership. He wonders, is it wise for a young person like himself to buy now, or is the market headed for a fall as baby boomers unload their family homes? “I’m curious who they think is going to buy their houses at the prices they expect to get,” Steve said.

Steve, who lives in Mississauga, has done all the right things financially. He worked and saved hard in his student years and, with help from his parents, he graduated from university with no debts other than a small balance of a few hundred dollars on his credit card.

“I’m very fortunate in my situation,” he said. “But I feel like I’m a bit of an outlier. How many young people out there are swimming in debt and can’t even start saving up for a house down payment until their mid-30s?”

Here’s what we know about the struggles of Gen Y. The number of people aged 20 to 29 who are living with their parents hit 42.3 per cent in the 2011 census, up from 27 per cent in 1981. The unemployment rate for young adults was double the national rate at 13.9 per cent in January, and there’s a serious problem of underemployment. Ask your friends and co-workers how their adult kids are doing and you’ll find this to be an issue that cuts across all lines on family income and status.

Meantime, housing prices keep rising in the big cities that offer the best job prospects. The average Calgary house went for about $444,000 in January. The Hamilton-Burlington area, a commutable distance from Toronto, averaged about $385,600, while Toronto itself averaged about $526,500.

Condos may be a cheaper option, and there are always cheaper homes to be found in the suburbs or less desirable neighbourhoods. But there are still two big impediments to Gen Y home ownership: Saving a down payment, and affording the monthly carrying costs.

Not for Steve, mind you. He’s been renting an affordable apartment and, thanks to his good salary and savings habits, he’s not far from having a down payment for a house in the Toronto area. If he dips into his registered retirement savings plan using the federal Home Buyer’s Plan, he’s probably good to go with a minimum 5-per-cent down payment.

A quick aside: This engineer is so meticulous in his financial thinking that he’s creating a spreadsheet to help him understand whether it makes good financial sense to use the Home Buyer’s Plan – “I know how horribly nerdy it sounds.”

In Steve, we have a Gen Y member who believes in home ownership and can afford to buy. He’s just nervous about buying into a market that seems headed for a mismatch between sellers expecting top dollar and buyers with limited means. “You’re going to have a younger generation basically saying, sorry, we can’t afford that.”

Steve e-mailed me looking for some feedback on his thinking about housing. I really have only one question about his analysis: Why is this 26-year-old the only one asking about Gen Y’s ability to keep the housing market afloat in the years ahead?

Boomers, wake up to this. A recent survey by Sun Life Financial suggests almost one in four Canadians see their house as their main source of income in retirement. Newsflash: Gen Y may not be able to pay the price you’re expecting to get for your home when you sell in the years to come.

As for Steve, I suggest waiting on the home purchase. If it’s not Gen Y’s economic struggles that cool the market, it will be the total disconnect between rises in house prices and income (read more about that in my column: Why Canadian homes are more unaffordable than ever.)

The only way it makes sense for Steve to buy any time soon is if he commits to staying in the house long enough – 10 to 12 years at least – for prices to recover from a possible correction. In the short-term after a decline, he should prepare for an epic case of buyer’s regret.

————————-

Here’s an online reading list for people who want to get up to speed on Generation Y and the housing market:

1. Renting beats buying: Asked to justify buying or renting, the 20-somethings in Prof. Richard Harris’s urban housing class at McMaster University choose renting by a margin of 18 to five.

2. Think houses are unaffordable now? Check out how astronomical prices will get if they keep rising at current levels.

3. Don’t fence me in: How some Gen Y members see home ownership as too big a financial sacrifice. tgam.ca/Dz9F

4. Neil’s story: He’s 31, single and renting. Should he use his $20,000 in savings to buy a condo or house?

5. The Who Had It Worse Time Machine: Compare the economic challenges faced by Gen Y with young adults back in the early 1980s.

Follow me on Twitter: @rcarrick

Can you really afford that mortgage? Know your Real Life Ratio – consult with Bruce Coleman, Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

imageSomeone ought to explain the facts of life to the nation’s bankers.

They’re handing out mortgages to people without any apparent understanding that today’s home-buying couple is tomorrow’s family of three or four. A lot happens to one’s ability to afford mortgage payments when kids come along, but you’d never know it by the way lenders qualify borrowers.

Never take a lender’s word for it that you can afford a house. Instead, try a new tool I’ve created called the Real Life Ratio.

Download the Real Life Ratio interactive spreadsheet here.

It’s designed to show how well you’ll be able to handle the basic monthly costs of home ownership, plus real life expenses such as cars, daycare and long-term home maintenance. Prospective home buyers should try it, and so should existing homeowners who want to see how well they’re handling their finances.

The Real Life Ratio is an expansion of a simple affordability measure I introduced last year called the Total Debt Service and Savings Ratio, or TDSS. The idea of creating something more comprehensive came to me after a Globe and Mail series on daycare was published last fall. We heard from many people about how hard it was to manage the cost of a mortgage in today’s expensive housing market, on top of daycare and other costs.

Use the Real Life Ratio and you’ll know what you’re getting into before you buy a house. You may decide you need to save a bigger down payment, buy a smaller house, live in a cheaper location or not buy at all.

Here are a few important things to know about the ratio:

1. Household take-home pay is used here: Other ratios use gross income, which is less relevant for practical financial planning.

2. This is not a budget: Only fixed costs are included here; food, clothing and other costs aren’t discretionary, but you decide how much to spend.

3. Costs for home maintenance and improvement are included: You won’t face these costs every year, but on a long-term basis they might average about 1 per cent of your home’s value annually; maybe less for brand new homes and more for older ones.

4. There’s a slot to include condo fees: Be sure to add any monthly utility costs that are not included in your condo fees.

5. Your local real estate market plays a big role: A liveable Real Life Ratio may be harder to achieve in big cities with roaring real estate markets.

Guidelines on how to interpret the ratio are provided. For optimum results, make a list of your monthly spending on food, transportation, entertainment and everything else not included in the ratio. Then, see whether your lifestyle is affordable. If your Real Life Ratio is 80, could you get by on 20 per cent of your take-home pay?

Keep in mind that your ratio will change – for the worse if you have kids in daycare and have a couple of cars, and for the better once your kids are out of daycare and you move into your prime earning years.

To ensure the Real Life Ratio reflects real life, I consulted four financial planners. Thanks to Rona Birenbaum, Barbara Garbens, Kurt Rosentreter and Renée Verret for some useful suggestions based in part on spending patterns of their own clients.

Download the Real Life Ratio interactive spreadsheet here.

Follow me on Twitter: @rcarrick

A third of Canadians would enter bidding war to buy a home: survey – Ask a Vancouver Mortgage broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

A third of Canadians would enter bidding war to buy a home:  – TORONTO — The Canadian Press

Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Real estate signs in Toronto’s East end on Dec. 16, 2013.
(Deborah Baic/The Globe and Mail)

More Canadians are willing to enter a bidding war and fight it out to secure a property, according to a home buying report released today by Bank of Montreal.

It says 34 per cent of Canadians surveyed are willing to enter a bidding war when it’s time to buy a home, an increase of six points, or 21 per cent, from a year ago.

The survey, conducted by Pollara for BMO, suggests the appetite for competitive bids among major cities is the highest in Toronto, at 44 per cent, and Vancouver, at 41 per cent.

On a provincial basis, prospective buyers in the Prairies and British Columbia are the most willing to compete on the price of a home, with a reading of 38 per cent in both regions.

The BMO survey also reports current homeowners say they visited an average of 9.5 homes before buying. While 49 per cent said they were successful on their first bid, the figure drops to 42 per cent among those who bought in the past five years – including 32 per cent in Vancouver and 24 per cent in Toronto.

The survey results are based on random online interviews with 2,007 Canadians between Jan. 24 and Feb. 3. Of those, 1,051 were prospective homebuyers and the remainder were current homeowners.

The polling industry’s professional body, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

Work longer but work smarter – Consult with Bruce Coleman, Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

Vancouver Mortgage BrokerFor most of us, the concept of retiring at 55 is dead. It is dead because many would struggle to finance a retirement that will last 30 plus years, but also dead because many people are realizing that they don’t actually want to be retired for 30 years.

Since 1975, the average number of years spent in retirement has grown by more than 30%.

Not everyone seems to be enamoured of that idea — Statistics Canada said last week in a comprehensive survey that once-retired people are returning to the workforce in droves. About 60% of those aged 55 to 59 opted to return to the workforce, the survey suggested. And about 45% of those aged 60-65 elected to return.

The study doesn’t nail down if it was money or other reasons that drove us back to the working world but these are significant numbers that we likely wouldn’t have seen 40 years ago. The study stopped at 65 but I think in the coming years we will see more and more people working well into their 70s.

According to The Canadian Human Mortality Database, the average life expectancy for a 55-year-old male is 27.1 years, or to age 82. Given that it is an average, roughly half of all 55-year-old males will live beyond 82. This is based on 2009 data.

In 1975, the number was 20.7 years, or to age 75.7.

This may not seem like a huge difference at first, but looked at another way, the average length of retirement for a 55-year-old male has grown 31% since 1975, from 20.7 years to 27.1 years. That is very meaningful.

If we look at the same numbers for a 65-year-old male, today the average life expectancy is another 18.8 years, versus 13.8 in 1975. This represents a 36% increase in average retirement for a 65-year-old male since 1975.

For females, the trend is the same, but slightly less dramatic. A 55-year-old female can expect to live another 30.5 years on average, meaning roughly 50% of 55-year-old females will live beyond 85. This has grown 17% for women since 1975.

A 65-year-old female can expect to live another 21.8 years, meaning roughly half will live beyond 86.8 years. This has grown 22% for women since 1975.

The point of all of this is that retirement planning needs to change, and a significant part of that relates to employment.

Let’s take a look at a 55-year-old male today.

He may have 20 to 40 years of life in front of him and may be nearing the end of his career. This makes no sense for most people – both for financial and quality of life reasons. There needs to be a better fit between this person’s skills, work goals, financial goals and the broader workplace.

This shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out.

The private sector is always looking for people to hire that will add to a companies’ profitability.

In many cases, someone who might have been making $150,000 a year working full time at age 55, might be very happy to work six months a year or 20 hours a week at age 65 and make $50,000.  This could be very productive for many companies.

I believe that there are currently two factors preventing a better workplace fit for those who want to work into their late 60s and 70s, and even 80s.

1) 9-5 workdays That rigidity certainly isn’t good for traffic during rush hour, but it also prevents too many valuable workers from continuing to work. Whether it is a much shorter or flexible work week or more piecemeal project work, there needs to be more workplace creativity in order to be able to take advantage of the great talent available.

2) Ageism There continues to be a belief that older workers can’t contribute or add value. Their ‘old school’ ways and lack of technology skills or “unwillingness” to burn the midnight oil are typical comments heard in the workplace. Despite these perceived weaknesses, we also know that things really get done based on communication skills, people management, problem solving, and looking at things from a different perspective.

This reminds me of an ‘old school’ manager I once had who would often be seen going over his files from the ’70s and ’80s. Occasionally he would pull one of them out, blow off the dust, and say “let’s see how we dealt with this same issue the last time.” It was amazing how often we would discover that today’s new business issues had already been dealt with many years before.

There is also a broader economic issue for Canada. As a country we would be in much better shape if we can tap into the productivity of those over 65. This wasn’t such a big issue in 1971 when those over 65 were just 8% of the population. Today that number is 16%, and it is expected to be 24% in the next couple of decades.

If 65 really is the new 55, then we better figure out how to make it work.

Ted Rechtshaffen is president and wealth advisor at TriDelta Financial, a boutique wealth management firm focusing on retirement and estate planning.tedr@tridelta.ca

CMHC’s move to hike mortgage insurance premiums prompts competitors to follow – Ask a Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

The cost of mortgage default insurance is about to go up for most consumers after competitors moved quickly to follow Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.’s decision to raise premiums.

Vancouver Mortgage BrokerIn Canada’s housing market here’s what $500 K buys: A lake in Edmonton … a condo in Toronto

The Canadian Real Estate Association has predicted that the national average price for a home will be $391,000 this year.

But it’s hard to compare how far your buck will go in Canadian cities using that figure, since the average prices at year’s end are so very different: $785,574 in Vancouver and $320,693 in Montreal, for instance. So we’ve found a round figure in the middle and asked, what could approximately $500,000 have bought homebuyers in various markets across the country? Read on to find out.

The federal agency announced Friday it is increasing premiums across the board, effective May 1. The change does not impact existing homeowners and is expected to raise up to $175-million for CMHC.

“The higher premiums reflect CMHC’s higher capital targets,” said Steven Mennill, CMHC’s vice-president of insurance operations, in a release. “CMHC’s capital holdings reduce Canadian taxpayers’ exposure to the housing market and contribute to the long term stability of the financial system.”

CMHC said in a conference call with journalists to discuss the premium change that it should cost the average Canadian about $5 per month on their mortgage.

Canadians must buy mortgage default insurance if they have less than a 20% downpayment and are borrowing from a financial institution covered by the Bank Act. The insurance covers banks in the event of default and is ultimately backstopped by the federal government. There is close to $1-trillion backed by Ottawa, including private players.

At the top end of the market for someone with a mortgage for 95% of the value of their home, the premium CMHC charges will go from 2.75% to 3.15%. On a $450,000 mortgage, the fee — it is charged up front and often tacked onto the mortgage, would rise from $12,375 to $14,175.

CMHC controls about 70% of the mortgage default insurance market in Canada with private players Genworth Canada and Canada Guaranty holding the rest.

Genworth announced it too would raise premiums across the board by an average of 15%. Its increases will take effect May 1 too.

“All three insurers have the same standard premiums today. By the time CMHC hikes its fees in May, I suspect the privates will have announced matching increases,” said Rob McLister, editor of Canadian Mortgage Trends, before Genworth matched the hike.

Tyler Anderson/National Post
Tyler Anderson/National PostCMHC controls about 70% of the mortgage default insurance market in Canada with private players Genworth Canada and Canada Guaranty holding the rest.

A key issue will be whether the hike, it’s only 10 basis points for mortgages that are 65% loan to value, leads to people trying to buy ahead of the increase.

On the call with journalists, CMHC officials indicated they didn’t expect any of this so-called front-running to happen. However, when mortgage rates were set to climb, consumers did try to buy early to beat the increase — albeit interest increases have a far greater impact on consumer costs.

Finn Poschmann, vice President, research with the C.D. Howe Institute, said he thinks the increase will lead to a jump in sales ahead of the May 1 price change. “As a share of closing costs, it is a pretty big hit,” said Mr. Poschmann. “On a monthly basis it’s not that much. The change goes by the application date not the closing date so even if you are going to be closing a couple of months later, you are facing an incentive to get the mortgage application in.”

He applauded the change because it means CMHC is operating in a more professional manner.

“This is much better risk management and risk pricing,” said Mr. Poschmann. “And it is a sensible, scaled increase in premiums for rising loan to value ratios.”

Last year, the federal government announced that CMHC would fall under control of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Then in late 2013 it announced it had brought in a former investment banker, Evan Siddall, to run the Crown corporation.

7 Myths About Dividend-Paying Stocks Separate the myths from the facts on the value of dividend-paying stocks. – Consult with a Vancouver Mortgage Broker

Canadian Mortgage News

CMI 101 Series

Dreyer Group 101 Series

Financial FYI Series

First Time Buyers

Home Buying 101

Home Insurance

Latest News

Mortgage Rates

Refinancing

Retirement Planning

Self Employed

7 Myths About Dividend-Paying Stocks-  Separate the myths from the facts on the value of dividend-paying stocks.

Vancouver Mortgage BrokerThe most common misconception among investors may be the value of investing in dividend-paying stocks. Almost every week, someone contacts me to extol the virtues of investing in what they call “high quality, dividend-yielding securities.” Often, their interest is spurred by the recent high performance of these stocks. According to one paper by Gregg S. Fisher, published in the Journal of Financial Planning, the FTSE High Dividend Yield index of U.S. stocks returned a whopping 26 percent between the period of Jan. 1, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2012. During the same period, the Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell short, returning 19 percent.

There are many myths on the benefits of investing in these stocks. Here are some of the most common ones:

Myth No. 1: Dividends hold up in bad markets. There is a perception that dividend-paying stocks will hold up better when the market declines. If that were the case, you would think the stock of General Electric, a member of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, would help prove that point. GE paid a quarterly dividend of $0.31 per share in 2008. In 2009, during the global recession, GE cut its dividend to $0.10, commencing in the second quarter of 2009.

GE was not alone. In 2009, a whopping 57 percent of dividend-paying companies, located in 23 developed markets, either reduced their dividends or eliminated them altogether.

Myth No. 2: Dividend-paying stocks outperform the market. From 1991 to 2012, the simple average annual returns of dividend-paying stocks and the market were both 9.1 percent. During the same period, stocks not paying dividends had a simple average annual return of 11.1 percent, though the higher returns came with greater volatility.

Myth No. 3: Dividend-paying stocks provide adequate diversification.  If you focus only on investing in dividend-paying stocks, you are ignoring 39 percent of the global companies that do not pay dividends. An investor who invests only in dividend-paying stocks is sacrificing diversification. Approximately 53 percent of global small-cap stocks pay dividends. If your portfolio is made up entirely of dividend-paying stocks, you are excluding 47 percent of global small-cap stocks.

Myth No. 4: Dividends are a reliable source of future income.  A change in tax policy can dramatically affect future payment of dividends. In the U.S., dividends are taxed favorably compared with ordinary income tax rates. For individuals in an income tax bracket that not exceeding 35 percent, dividends are taxed at only 15 percent. However, there isn’t any assurance this policy will not change, or that foreign countries will not alter their tax policy toward dividends.

Myth No. 5: Dividends are tax efficient.  Dividends are more tax efficient than ordinary income because they are taxed at a lower rate. However, they are less tax efficient than capital gains, because you are taxed on dividends in the year in which they are paid, but you are not taxed on capital gains until you sell the stock.

Myth No. 6: Buying dividend stocks is a prudent way to obtain exposure to value stocks.Fisher’s analysis of more than 30 years of high dividend-yielding stocks compared those stocks’ returns with the broader stock market. The paper concluded that it wasn’t the dividends associated with high-yielding stocks that drove performance. In fact, the author, Gregg S. Fisher, concluded that the “ … yield factor associated with high dividend-yielding stocks actually detracted from performance.”

If dividends didn’t account for the returns, what factor did? It was the value factor, which refers to the purchase of stocks that have low prices compared with earnings or other metrics (like book value). The study concluded there are better ways to get exposure to value stocks than buying high dividend stocks. It recommended simply tilting your portfolio toward value stocks.

Myth No. 7: Dividend-paying stocks are a substitute for bonds. Some investors believe they can improve their yields, without taking additional risk, by dumping bonds from their portfolio and substituting higher dividend-paying stocks. This analysis is incorrect on several levels.

First, dividend-paying stocks are (obviously) stocks. They have significantly greater risk than high quality, short-term bonds. Comparing the returns of these two investments doesn’t make any sense.

Second, there is a better way to increase expected returns. You can do so by increasing your allocation to stocks. The purpose of bonds is to lessen periods of volatility. You should take a total return approach to investing. The stock portion of your portfolio is where you should take risk. You should not take any meaningful risk with the bond portion.

Third, if the market drops, the value of the stocks of dividend-paying companies would also likely decline, and the dividends could be reduced or even eliminated. Proponents of buying dividend-paying stocks often dismiss or ignore these risks.

Dan Solin is the director of investor advocacy for the BAM Alliance and a wealth advisor with Buckingham Asset Management. He is a New York Times best-selling author of the Smartest series of books. His next book, “The Smartest Sales Book You’ll Ever Read,” will be published March 3, 2014.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor