News   Jan 30, 2026
 5.3K     11 
News   Jan 30, 2026
 6.5K     1 
News   Jan 30, 2026
 685     0 

Canadian Subprime Crisis

livkroy

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv....SUBPRIME14/TPStory/National/?pageRequested=1

3 years later the msm catches on...

For those of you Canadian banking system boosters in the crowd, here's some somber evidence that Canada has not been immune from improvident lending.

And for those of you cheerleaders proclaiming Toronto's insulation from the housing market meltdown (it's only outside the 416 you say?), here's some hard evidence of the crash:

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/602261

Toronto's unemployment rate shot up half a percentage point last month to 9 per cent, compared with 8.2 per cent in Montreal and 5.7 per cent in Vancouver. On a three-month moving average, which smoothes out statistical bumps, Toronto's jobless rate was 8.3 per cent, compared with 7.8 per cent in January.

Neither piece of news bodes well for Toronto real estate prices folks. Let's face the facts and see things clearly. The more we see clearly the easier it will be cope and adjust to the new reality of rapidly declining property values.
 
Thanks, now I'll more easily adjust to declining values! I'll take $20 for my house. Interested?
 
In all these articles what is "Toronto" clearly it's not just the 416 - but is it just the 416 + 905 or is it larger then that?
 
For those of you Canadian banking system boosters in the crowd, here's some somber evidence that Canada has not been immune from improvident lending.

Before you blame Canadian banks or the banking system, read the article again.

By the mid 2000s, this little-used lending practice was transformed into the fastest growing segment of the country's mortgage market. Driving the changes was the migration to Canada of aggressive U.S. mortgage lenders such as Accredited Home Lenders Inc., Wells Fargo, GMAC and GE Money, which were drawn to Canada's frothy real estate market, particularly the commodity-stoked cities in Western Canada.

As long as real estate prices soared, these lending high-rollers were comforted by the belief that losses on defaulted mortgages could be recovered by foreclosing and selling repossessed homes at a profit. Added protection for a small portion of these lenders came from aggressive U.S. mortgage insurers that were approved by the federal government in 2006 to compete in Canada. Other mortgage newcomers such as Vancouver-based Abode Mortgage Corp., a company created out of the remains of a former flush toilet maker, and Toronto-based Xceed Mortgage Corp., minimized their risks by selling mortgages to entities that sold securities backed by mortgages to investors.

One of the first experts to sound the alarm about the proliferation of subprime mortgages was Benjamin Tal, an economist with CIBC World Markets who published a report in late 2006 warning "the genie is out of the bottle." Mr. Tal declined to be interviewed, but his report estimated that subprime loans were growing at a "meteoric" annual pace of 50 per cent by the end of 2006, making it the fastest growing segment of Canada's mortgage market. In 2006, Mr. Tal estimated more than 85,000 Canadian homeowners had subprime loans.

By late 2007, the combination of easy money and soaring real estate prices lulled many borrowers and lenders into viewing houses as virtual cash machines. Some borrowers took out second and third mortgages at high rates of interest to make investments on other properties or fund a lifestyle beyond the means of their paycheques.

Nick Kyprianou, president of Home Trust, one of Canada's first and largest alternative lenders, said his company began to scale back in Western Canada in 2007 because it became uncomfortable with homeowners' soaring debt levels.

"When the values are escalating at that rapid of a rate and you're just allowing people to use their houses as ATM machines and they keep refinancing every year to accommodate their lifestyle, it's just a house of cards," Mr. Kyprianou said. Home Trust's retreat was apparently not fast enough. According to court data, the company initiated foreclosure proceedings on 120 borrowers in Alberta in 2008.

Home Trust is a federally regulated trust company, unlike competitors such as the U.S.-based GE Money and Wells Fargo that jumped into the Canadian market in mid-2000. Mortgage lenders that aren't federally regulated aren't required, like banks and trust companies, to use a government-approved insurer when the borrower has put down less than 20 per cent of the value of the home.

Canadian banks were certainly not angels, but neither they nor the banking system in this country can be held accountable for the allowed practices being carried out south of the border. Sub-primes were a standard practice in the US, but were certainly not so in Canada.
 
The article was so sensationalist and poorly presented I can't beleive the G&M actually ran it.

I'd address its faults directly, but honestly this crap doesn't deserve my time.

Worst. Article. Ever.
 
I'd like to know how common these mortgages are. I only know one person with a second mortgage and even she is succeeding at paying it off fairly quickly and has significant reserve income overseas that she could port over...hence the second mortgage. The article makes it sound like every second mortgage in Canada is subprime. Hardly the case I would think. Perhaps its regional....I could see it being far more common in Alberta and BC with the red hot real estate markets there until recently. But I don't know too many people queing up to see a sub-prime lender.

The article used flawed data too. They were assessing foreclosures. Logic would dictate that sub-primes being higher risk would see higher default rates than prime. I'd be worried if it were the other way around. The only point that should concern people is the proportion of mortgages that are sub-prime and that data is left out. All it says is that 85 000 homeowners had subprime loans in 2006. That's still only a fraction of the total amount of mortgages in this country. The article seems to be lacking more relevant and recent data.

Could have been a good piece, had they had more info.
 
Last edited:
I find this chart that was attached to the article interesting.
It shows what percentage of the foreclosures are PRIME loans.
Now, if only they included other provinces and areas.

A look at Canada's westernmost provinces shows subprime foreclosures are not as rare as many claimed.

SUBPRIME FORECLOSURES, BY CITY IN 2008

Sub-prime loans Prime loans
British Columbia 42% 58%
Nanaimo 53 30
Vancouver 45 94
Kelowna 49 27

Alberta 57% 43%
Edmonton 330 218
Calgary 515 520
Red Deer 33 4
 
^All that proves is that the majority of foreclosures are subprimes in those areas. Should there really be any surprise here that the riskier loans default at higher rates than the less risky ones?
 
^All that proves is that the majority of foreclosures are subprimes in those areas. Should there really be any surprise here that the riskier loans default at higher rates than the less risky ones?


If you look again at the numbers closer, you will notice that 58% of foreclosures in BC, and 43% in Alberta were PRIME loans.

To echo your point, YES, I would expect SUB-prime to have higher default rates, MUCH higher than prime.

As the numbers show, there were more foreclosures in BC that were PRIME loans (Vancouver's ratio of 2:1 is especially disturbing); and in Calgary the ratio is split almost 50:50.
 
What where the percentage of the other types of loans? If 40 year loans were very popular then wouldn't the percentage be appropriate? eg. If only 5% of all loans were 10 year and 50% of them defaulted then you end up with a nearly proportional failure rate.

Would be more accurate to see a total of each type of mortgage and how many defaulted.
 

Back
Top