Bank of America Merill Lynch weighs in on Canadian real estate

Bank of America Merill Lynch has released a new report about Canadian real estate titled, “Our Homes Have Four Walls“.  Hat tip to Dylan for emailing this to me.

The main conclusion of the report is as follows:

“Valuation metrics of Canadian housing are clearly stretched, but the usual
symptoms of a tipping point are simply not there. Speculation is low, price
expectations are cautious, home building is not excessive, and most importantly,
the economy continues to expand steadily.”

Now let’s see how they’ve come to that conclusion and if they’ve missed anything along the way.

On the difference between the Canadian and US mortgage market

“Focusing on the key differences between the Canadian and US mortgage market,
we find that the structure of the Canadian mortgage market greatly reduces the
probability of a US style housing melt-down. In the US excessive risky lending left
financial institutions vulnerable, a housing market vastly over supplied and
subsequently created a record breaking foreclosure crisis”

Nothing to argue with here.  Even the most ardent housing bear has to acknowledge that indeed there were significant lending differences between the US and Canada.  But to acknowledge difference does not dismiss the reality that we have had our own “made in Canada” lending excesses characterized by dramatic loosening of mortgage lending standards.  So while we gaze south of the border at the greatest wealth destruction in human history, let’s not get entirely complacent about the prospects that we may have engaged in our own excesses, though arguably on a smaller scale.

“We find government guaranteed mortgage insurance mitigates risk to
financial institutions. Unlike the US where financial institutions were
clearly over exposed and the solvency of insurance providers were
questionable.”

Indeed this has mitigated risks to our for-profit financial institutions and has instead placed the risk squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayers via CMHC.  While the big Canadian banks have seen a net reduction in residential mortgage exposure over the past 3 years, they nevertheless have significant exposure to non-secured debt such as unsecured lines of credit and credit cards.  The exact extent is unknown, but it is worth noting that a typical pattern of default involves skipping payments on unsecured debts before missing a mortgage payment.

Legal recourse laws reduce the risk of households walking away from
their mortgage and implicitly improve lending quality, unlike the US
where reports of abandoned vacant homes were and remain rampant.

This remains one of the most misconstrued facts.  It still surprises me how many people miss the fact that over half of the US states are in fact recourse states, including some of the hardest hit such as Florida, Nevada, and Michigan.

In fact, states that have an element of lender recourse outnumber those that are non-recourse.

This is not to suggest that having an element of recourse has no impact on default rate.  In fact, the same Fed paper referenced above also suggests that recourse reduces defaults by 20%.  Not insignificant, but it certainly does not reduce them completely as seems to be often suggested, and it no doubt provides little comfort to those living in some recourse states like Florida and Nevada where the delinquency rate is hovering around an astonishing 20%.

Government backing of 30% of the mortgage funding market acts to prevent US style funding freeze which would amplify the problems.

This fact is true until all of a sudden it’s not.  While theoretically it should serve to protect against a funding freeze, we can also point to the fact that the Canadian government and the Bank of Canada had to take extraordinary measures in 2008 and 2009 to prevent the very funding freeze mentioned above. 

On the conservative Canadian consumer

“Canadian’s have historically held lower leverage ratios than their US counter parts and tend to gravitate to more conservative mortgage options. Canadian household balance sheets have deteriorated and have been treading into more risky areas like variable rate mortgages, but sub prime lending remains a virtually non-existent market in Canada.”

Let’s dissect this statement one point at a time.  I suppose that the statement that Canadians have ‘historically’ held lower leverage ratios is entirely accurate, if not misleading.  The more important question is what do these leverage ratios look like today, and what do they look like in a historical context.

If we were to take ‘leverage ratio’ to indicate total debt levels relative to incomes, we would note that Canadians are at leveraged at a historically high level.  By some measures, our current debt levels exceed those of the American consumer before their crisis.  By all measures, we’re currently more indebted than they are.

If perhaps the statement is specifically directed at the level of real estate leverage, it may be worth revisiting the average level of house equity in Canada.  You’ll recall that while Canadians have an average of 63% equity in their homes, the US had 60% equity in theirs before their bust.  This is to say that for every dollar of home value, the average Canadian has 63 cents in equity and 37 cents in debt.  This is not remarkably different from that US experience and it highlights just how much a rapidly rising real estate market can mask an expansion in debt as the leverage ratio still looks relatively strong.

With regards to gravitating towards more conservative mortgage products, there is nothing more conservative than a 30 year mortgage term in which the interest rate is fixed at a ridiculously low 4-5% for the entire length of the mortgage.  This is the mortgage product that dominates the US market.  Contrast that with a market where the vast majority of the population is exposed to interest rate risk every 5 years.  This is the Canadian market.  Consider that the Bank of Canada  recently ran a stress test scenario in which they determined it would take only a 0.5% increase in interest rates for 1.1 million Canadian households to become at risk of defaulting on their consumer credit or mortgage-related debt.  Now how conservative do we look?

Finally, the report states that sub prime lending is virtually non-existant in Canada.  I suppose it’s important to define that term before we discuss whether or not it is happening in Canada.  While a precise definition is not set in stone, “As a rule of thumb, a subprime mortgage is a home loan to someone with a credit score below 620. But some lenders count loans as subprime even if the borrowers have credit scores of 660 or higher, if the borrower makes a down payment of less than 5 percent or does not document income or assets.“- Source

So does this happen in Canada?  According to CMHC, a borrower needs only a FICO score of 600 to qualify for mortgage insurance of up to 95% of the value of the home if the mortgage is a fixed rate product.  This rises to a whopping 610 if it is a variable product.

Consider also the fact that Canada still has zero down mortgages.  While structured as 5% cash back products, they nevertheless serve the same purpose of allowing homeowners to purchase a home with zero equity as they can borrow the necessary 5% down payment and then pay it off with the cash back when the sale closes, leaving them with zero equity.

We also have stated income mortgages where self-employed individuals don’t have to prove their income.

Taken collectively, these facts certainly cast doubt on the statement that sub prime lending is ‘virtually non-existent’ in Canada.  While perhaps not structured as the ARMs and Alt-As that crashed the US mortgage market, they represent lending standards that are far from conservative.

I have to leave it here for now.  I’ll make another post later today where I’ll deal with the rest of the inaccuracies in this report as well as hopefully look at the latest CREA stats.

Cheers

Ben

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Real Estate and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Bank of America Merill Lynch weighs in on Canadian real estate

  1. Alex says:

    When I took secured a $180,000 mortgage on my house in 2008 just after my divorce, I was able to do so with a “stated” income and Revenue Canada papers from two years prior. I have now sold that house at the peak because I’m a huge believer in a mania-induced bubble (driven recently, IMO, by mainstream media news outlets that unabashadly continue to pimp for their number one advertiser), but the fact remains that I can personally attest to stated income mortgages.

    • UnagiDon says:

      I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but do you have any proof that the number one advertiser in mainstream media is the real-estate industry?

      • Alex says:

        No, UnagiDon, I do not have drop dead proof. But please note I didn’t say “mainstream media.” I said “mainstream media news outlets.” Nonetheless, I can tell you this: No other industry seems to buy as much ad time or sponsor as many segments on the regional evening and noon hour newscasts. No other industry seems to pay for as many lengthy inserts or grab as many advertising spots inside the local (i.e. the “Now” group) newspapers. As for the bigger regional papers (Vancouver Sun, Province), both feature weekly home reno/new home sections each weekend, and both feature a massive array of ads for various condo/townhome/SFH developments throughout the week.

        I would say the new/used car industry is close, but based on what I see on a regular basis, I’d give the edge to the real estate industry. How about you?

        I’m curently in the second stage of a lengthy complaint I filed with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council over the way I preceive Global BC in particular “filters” real estate-related events (and non-events) for broadcast. It is my belief that Global selectively filters what it broadcasts and what it “hides” in order to shine a more positive light on the housing environment and thereby drive the mania that keeps this bubble alive in some areas. So yes, I feel very strongly about this, particularly when both the news segments I referenced in my complaint were “brought to you by Re/Max.”

      • Alexcanuck says:

        Not to do with advertising revenue, but our new Premier got more than half of her campaign donations from the RE industry, and that is only the ones who could be positively identified as being directly linked. Shows how strong the influence is.

      • UnagiDon says:

        Thanks for your response Alex. I can’t comment on MSM advertisements because I don’t own a TV, haven’t touched a newspaper in years, and AdBlock Plus filters all online ads.

  2. TS says:

    Is it possible to find the data to provide a graph for Canada that is similar to this one that has been done in Australia?
    http://nfbpsh.blogspot.com/2011/01/home-ownership-getting-tougher.html

  3. The Masked Haranguer says:

    “Legal recourse laws reduce the risk of households walking away from
    their mortgage and implicitly improve lending quality, unlike the US
    where reports of abandoned vacant homes were and remain rampant.”

    Don’t buy this statement. People who loose their homes generally do not have significant outside assets for a creditor to attach. No one gives up their home with $50,000 cash sitting in their bank account. There is also the negative press associated with taking legal action against someone after the lender has sold the home under Power of Sale and dumped the poor debtor on his ass at the curb along with his wife, grandparents, children and a dog! I worked for a big five Canadian bank who, during a tough econpmic time years ago, issued a statement that legal action would not be taken to recover any residual balance after Power of Sale.

    People walk away from their home when they have nothing to loose. I believe the fact that the creditor could sue them never enters into their decision. They usually have far more pressing matters to occupy their thoughts.

    The Masked Haranguer.

  4. fatjay says:

    “This remains one of the most misconstrued facts. It still surprises me how many people miss the fact that over half of the US states are in fact recourse states, including some of the hardest hit such as Florida, Nevada, and Michigan.”

    You’ve used this argument a few times, so I’ll play devils advocate here. This is info I’ve received from an accountant in Vegas:

    In reality, Nevada acts like a non-recourse state because the bank has to choose an option of judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosure. Most loans were secured by a deed of trust as opposed to a mortgage, in which case, if the bank chooses non-judicial foreclosure they can no longer sue for a deficiency between the sale price and the outstanding loan.

    In almost all circumstances the banks are choosing non-judicial foreclosure for expediency and costs. Even if the loan was secured by a mortgage or if the borrowere has other assets, the bank only has 90 days to bring forward a deficiency action after the foreclosure sale, and generally they aren’t investing the time to even look at each loan on a case by case basis, they’re just writing off their losses and moving on. It would probably be only in extreme circumstances (huge loans, borrowers with known significant assets, etc.) where the bank would attempt to sue.

    I know a couple people who have “strategically” defaulted on homes in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and within 6 months had bought back into the market again.

    In many other “recourse” states, bank backlogs and the general consensus that most people have nothing to go after means that they act as non-recourse states for the average person as well. At worst, for an out of state owner, banks in Florida are happy to accept a short sale and let the borrower off the hook if they can pay even a small portion of the deficiency, maybe 10-20%, maybe even nothing.

    I personally believe that Canada (excepting Alberta) has much tougher recourse laws than most of the States so the blanket argument that “over half of the US states are in fact recourse states” doesn’t hold water. There are certainly different levels of recourse.

    I don’t think our recourse laws will stop a crash, but the crash probably won’t be nearly as abrupt due to a foreclosure spike, and unfortunately, it will be a longer term draw on many peoples finances.

    • fatjay says:

      I just looked a little further into Florida foreclosures. Lot’s of contradicting info out there, but apparently the lender has 5 years to go after the borrower for a deficiency. That could be a rude awakening for some people a few years from now.

      Maybe it’s less the recourse laws than it is the herd mentality of “it’s better to walk away” or “it’s the right thing to keep paying the mortgage”. Question is, which would prevail in Canada?

      • Thanks for the info, Fatjay. Without a doubt it is not an apples-to-apples comparisson, but the point is simply to illustrate 2 things:
        1) The common belief that there is no element of recourse in the US is false

        2) An element of recourse certainly serves to lower defaults, but it will not eliminate them. A far greater predictor is negative equity.

  5. John in Ottawa says:

    Back from a short vacation visiting my parents in California. Great weather! I’m still digging out of the snow here.

    My parents spent the last few years of their working career in subprime automobile financing. They sold out and retired in 2006. My mother said it was a good thing they did or they would have fields full of repossessed cars now.

    A key component of the subprime financing in autos and houses was the refinance. Subprime in housing was fraught with fraud. People were getting NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans thrown at them. Some real estate agents were even making the house payments for the first six months, just long enough to avoid a put back. Mexican field workers were being put into $750,000 homes. There was massive fraud at every level from the home evaluation to the securitization of the loan. Negative amortization, no interest loans made payments easy for some buyers for the first two or three years. People were told they could refinance when interest kicked in.

    When the subprime game came to an end, the ability to refinance came to an end with it. With no ability to refinance, and refinancing was promised and key to the scheme, the only recourse was to default. There never was an ability to make “normal” payments and subprime loans (which were about the size of the monthly payment, not just the credit score) simply became unavailable.

    I first got interested in this whole mortgage business back in early 2006 when my ex bought a $430,000 house in Oklahoma and told me it was 0% interest. I couldn’t understand how that could work and started researching the subprime business. As I write this, her house is listed as a short sale.

    BTW, some people who took out 40 year mortgages in Canada ran into problems and defaulted when their 40 year mortgages came up for renewal. Those 40 year mortgages were being funded out of the US and that financing dried up as well.

    Heck, this Japan disaster could trigger a correction all by itself. But we are not going to have a US style financial disaster because there is simply no comparison between what is going on in Canada and what was going on in the US. Apples and oranges and the only thing there is in common is they are both fruit.

    • Alex says:

      Hi John:

      Agreed. The Canadian money-lending system deosn’t appear as corrupt. But 5%-down, 40-year mortgages do exist. Moreover, there’s ample evidence that many lenders have offered cash-back mortgages that essentially allow the customer to buy a home over a 40- or 35-year period with *no* downpayment. None. So the question then becomes: How can a person who *needs* this type of loan ever hope to pay it back? Adding fuel to the fire, what if valuations revert even somewhat to their norms and a home worth, say, $600,000 (not unusual in and around Vancouver) at the time of purchase is now worth just $400,000? And what if even a small percentage of the people who took advantage of easy credit to buy a home they couldn’t afford in the first place now have to sell for one reason or another? One word: Ouch.

      • John in Ottawa says:

        No doubt some pain may be down the road. I have no opinion on Vancouver because it would appear that Vancouver is able to defy all laws of the known Universe. Magical powers are beyond rational financial analysis.

        The difference between our zero down 40 year mortgages and US subprime mortgages is that we have to pay the interest. What’s more, there is an interest premium. In the US, the interest was forgiven completely for up to three years. Then the interest would become “due” but would get rolled into a refinance. It is the inability to refinance that fueled the melt down fire.

        US subprime borrowers never intended to repay the loan and never intended to pay monthly interest. They never thought they would have to and for a long time they didn’t.

        You say 40 year mortgages are still available in Canada. Do you have a source for that? Even if they are, people who have those mortgages are making the full monthly interest payment and as long as they don’t have a set back, they will continue to. Even people with 25 year mortgages can get into some nasty financial hot water if they lose their jobs.

        Again, excluding the mystical Vancouver, a 33% housing correction would be unprecedented and, IMHO, unjustified in the vast bulk of Canada. 15% would not surprise me or upset me. I’ve seen it before.

    • A US style catastrophe?- No
      A “made in Canada” correction?- Highly likely.

      I have never said that mortgage lending practices are perfectly analogous, but I do think that this report glosses over some significantly risky practices while it portrays Canada as a bastion of fiscal prudence. I’m highly suspect of that portrayal.

      • John in Ottawa says:

        Hi Ben,

        It isn’t a matter of being perfectly analogous, it is a matter of being comparable at all. The US mortgage market was a fraudulent ponzi scheme. When “the music stopped” it took out Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, AIG, Washington Mutual, IndyMac, Countrywide, and a few others. Every subprime broker went down. They all went down because it was a ponzi scheme.

        Americans couldn’t pay the interest let alone the principle. Canadians, no matter what the nature of their mortgage, pay the interest and the principle every month. All of it.

        If we have another terrible recession some people will become unemployed and unable to keep their homes. Happens all the time and there is nothing special about it.

        If we have a housing correction of 15 to 25% people will continue to pay their mortgages because they already can. It isn’t worth it to default.

        I’ve said it before. Canada is different. Different from the US, from Ireland, from Greece, from almost any country in the world. We are stinking rich with natural resources and have a small population. Even if Canada got into a serious cash flow problem, we can simply sell the rights to one of our natural riches. How does the royalty rights to the next 25 years of tar sands production sound? What does Ireland have to sell besides green beer?

        As for interest rates going up appreciably, don’t count on it. Not while QE is going on in the US. Marc Faber is looking forward to QE XVIII (an institutionalized ponzi scheme of a dying empire). The last thing Canada wants is to become a key component of the carry trade. We’re having enough problems with an elevated loonie.

    • HHV says:

      An interest premium on 0 down 40 year amortizations? There was no such thing as far as I am aware. There’s an insurance premium for sure, which affects the total amount of mortgage, but there’s no interest penalty for 0 down 40 year amortizations other than the length and depth of the interest rate on offer (which is almost guaranteed to be the same interest rate you’d be offered using a 20% down and shorter amortization). The banks argued they only approved “people with excellent credit” for these products anyway–which Ben has further defined for us to include people with sub-standard credit based on FICO.

  6. jesse says:

    Also note in many “non-recourse” states (and provinces) it’s only the first mortgage that’s non-recourse and even then it depends (as fatjay mentioned). The “jingle mail” phenomenon in the US is one of the most misunderstood concepts around. It’s nowhere near as simple as what the media, and many investment analysts, are touting.

    Ben your previous posts highlight the issue, that lending practices are a symptom and a catalyst. But it’s high prices relative to rents and incomes that is the root problem. Stating that since lending is more conservative in Canada (and arguably it is) its higher “P/E ratios” are therefore justified is extremely suspect. Merrill Lynch… I’ll note that name down for future reference. Never heard of ’em.

    • John in Ottawa says:

      Merrill Lynch….really? They were one of the iconic private banking/brokerage houses in the US along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, Lehman, et al. ML didn’t survive the financial melt down and had to be bailed out by Bank of America, which then had to be bailed out by the US Government.

    • jesse says:

      Kidding… Actually I wasn’t aware the brand was still around.

  7. HHV says:

    The whole non-US-style correction is a straw man argument. The UK, Ireland and Spain have all had significant, in some cases worse, housing market corrections over the same time frame that weren’t brought on by skanky mortgage products.

    Remember that skanky mortgage products were only an issue after prices began falling. We won’t be able to completely judge Canadian mortgage product issues until our prices fall significantly here. But obviously, given the recent changes, the government is starting to proactively judge some Canadian products to be the sub-prime-like offerings they are.

    Does anyone really believe the banks would lend Canadians 0 down + cash back over 40 years without a hefty interest premium based on the toxic risk they’d have on the banks balance sheets? The only reason why banks didn’t charge a hefty interest rate premium was because the home buyer insured them against the risk and the Canadian taxpayer guaranteed the insurers.

    In 2008, in Canada, you could get a 7% cash back, 0-down, 40-year amortization mortgage using stated income insured by the CMHC with a FICO score of 610. How does anyone think that wasn’t “sub-prime”? Now you can get a 5%-down, 30-year amortization, 5%-cash back product, at a variable rate with a skip a payment per year option.

    We’ve created our own issues. When and if the market corrects, we’ll have our own Canadian-style problem to deal with.

  8. jesse says:

    I do think longer ams are still available, they just can’t be high ratio:
    http://www.ratehub.ca/articles/35-year-and-40-year-mortgage-amortizations-still-available

    Now imagine for a second someone scrapes together 20% to avoid CMHC insurance and gets a 40 year amortizing loan from some arbitrary lender. Now imagine prices drop (gasp!) and he has to renew but doesn’t have 20% equity any more. Uh-oh… now he needs to amortize over 30 years, qualify at the posted 5 year rate, AND needs to pony up CMHC insurance fees as an extra nipple tweak. All Made in Canada.

    • jesse says:

      And if you think the government is aware of the goings on with low-ratio loans and thinks it’s a problem, I think you’d be right. The big question for me is what they’re going to do to curb it.

    • John in Ottawa says:

      Canadians are so parochial. Canada has something we call a tank. It was put into service about 30 years ago. It has a pea shooter that couldn’t take down a brick wall. It has eight rubber tires. The Americans have something they call a tank. It can fire depleted uranium shells with incredible accuracy while driving 60 miles per hour over rough terrain. That’s a tank. What we have is only called a tank.

      We have fighter jets. I remember when the CF-18 first arrived in Canada. It was an obsolete American made fighter jet. I was present when the first CF-18 landed at the Canadian Aviation Museum and was put into moth balls. We don’t have a replacement. The Americans have fighter jets. We have what we call fighter jets. Good for us. The truth is, the Governor of the State of Ohio has more soldiers, more modern tanks, and more modern jets under his direct command than the Prime Minister of Canada.

      Americans had subprime mortgages. We have what people on this blog call subprime mortgages. I guess we just want to be like the Americans. The only problem is, in any category you wish to name except language, we are nothing like the Americans. To you, perhaps that’s an embarrassment. To me, that’s a blessing.

      • John let’s deal with the accepted definition of what subprime is, as discussed in my post. Is it a stretch by B of A to suggest that it is ‘virtually non-existent’? By the standard definition, we clearly do have some sub prime lending taking place. Is it anywhere near the scale that took place in the US? No.

        But let’s also not forget that the root concern here is the significant loosening of mortgage rules, coupled with falling interest rates, which has allowed real estate valuations to reach levels never before seen in Canada when compared using measures of fundmantal value (price/rent, price/income). Without a doubt there are massive differences between the two markets, but does that automatically suggest that we have nothing to be concerned about? Ultimately we have seen mortgage innovations which have allowed people to access home ownership who would not have otherwise been able to based on the long-standing standards of only a half decade ago.

        Now we can debate exactly what we should call the form of lending that allows increasingly marginal buyers to purchase homes with increasing leverage, but it’s ultimately not good…..and it is happening here in Canada.

      • jesse says:

        There are two questions: whether Canada has a lending problem as severe as the US had 5 years ago, and whether Canada’s prices are overvalued. Loose lending, including all variations and magnitudes of subprime on both sides of the line, regardless of if it continues with or without regulation, is not the reason prices fall — it’s that prices are too high. Maybe that’s pedantic but it’s an important distinction.

  9. Alex says:

    Good discussion, guys. And to John in Ottawa, no, the banks aren’t handing out 40-year mortgages now. But as you likely know, plenty of people managed to grab 40-year mortgages when they were still available in 2009 (2010?), and are cruising along with them today. And for the next 38 years.

    • John in Ottawa says:

      40 year, 5% down mortgages ended in August, 2008. As the term was only 5 years, there will be a reckoning soon. Anyone who can’t qualify for a 30 year mortgage will get hurt.

      However, anyone who bought as late as 2008 has built up some equity in their home. During the five years, they may have had a promotion or two at work. Perhaps there is a second income now. These factors may help many of them get into a 30 year conventional mortgage.

      People run into financial difficulties all the time. My brother-in-law was foreclosed last month. He built his house with his own two hands, the closest a man will ever get to giving birth. If we aren’t talking about something systemic, we are wasting our time.

  10. Liam from Calgary says:

    A “made in Canada” correction?- Highly likely.

    Broken Record

  11. Pingback: B of A / Merril Lynch on Canadian housing…part 2 | Financial Insights

  12. @Jesse
    “There are two questions: whether Canada has a lending problem as severe as the US had 5 years ago”

    I don’t think that’s the question at all. The answer to that is clearly a “no”. Rather, the questions should be whether we have engaged in our own version of lax lending standards, has this led to an expansion in house prices beyond the ability of underlying fundamentals to support them, and is it sustainable.

  13. jesse says:

    “and is it sustainable”

    You mean are prices sustainable with current lending standards, or are the lending standards themselves sustainable? If the first I argue the answer is no, regardless the lending standards. Lending standards are sustainable — it would never be the case the laws, standards, and regulations must change — but the practices (i.e. the ability/willingness to issue/borrow debt) cannot be sustainable in the long run. This is the “pushing on a string” argument.

  14. Peter says:

    It’s important not to group Canada all together. Each province has quite a different real estate situation.

    There are some interesting figures in this report from TD showing for example how Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and Manitoba all have Debt to Income ratios of 1.0 or lower:
    http://www.td.com/economics/special/db0211_householddebt.pdf

    It’s the bubble in BC – fuelled in a big way by investors from China – that’s pushing up the ‘Canadian’ average.

    I wonder if you weighted the reported debt to income ratios in the TD report by population in each province how the overall Canadian average would come out then?

  15. Pingback: CMHC feeling the heat | Financial Insights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s