Month: December 2017

Banks & Credit Unions vs Monoline Lenders

Mortgage Tips DAZADA DIAMOND 29 Dec

Banks & Credit Unions vs Monoline Lenders

Banks & Credit Unions vs Monoline Lenders

We are all familiar with the banks and local credit unions, but what are monoline lenders and why are they in the market?

Mono, meaning alone, single or one, these lenders simply provide a single yet refined service: to fulfill mortgage financing as requested. Banks and credit unions, on the other hand, offer an array of other products and services as well as mortgages.

The monoline lenders do not cross-sell you on chequing/savings account, RRSPs, RESPs, GICs or anything else. They don’t even have these products and services available.

Monolines are very reputable, and many have been around for decades. In fact, Canada’s second-largest mortgage lender through the broker channel is a monoline lender. Many of the monoline lenders source their funds from the big banks in Canada, as these banks are looking to diversify their portfolios and they ultimately seek to make money for their shareholders through alternative channels.

Monolines are sometimes referred to as security-backed investment lenders. All monolines secure their mortgages with back-end mortgage insurance provided by one of the three insurers in Canada.

Monoline lenders can only be accessed by mortgage brokers at the time of origination, refinance or renewal. Upon servicing the mortgage, you cannot by find them next to the gas station or at the local strip mall near your favorite coffee shop. Again, the mortgage can only be secured through a licensed mortgage broker, but once the loan completes you simply picking up your smartphone to call or send them an email with any servicing questions. There are no locations to walk into. This saves on overhead which in turn saves you money.

The major difference between a bank and monoline is the exit penalty structure for fixed mortgages. With a monoline lender the exit penalty is far lower. That is because the banks and monoline lenders calculate the Interest Rate Differential (IRD) penalty differently. The banks utilize a calculation called the posted-rate IRD and the monolines use an IRD calculation called unpublished rate.

In Canada, 60% (or 6 out of every 10) households break their existing 5-year fixed term at the 38 months. This leaves an average 22 months’ penalty against the outstanding balance. With the average mortgage in BC being $300,000, the penalty would amount to approximately $14,000 from a bank. The very same mortgage with a monoline lender would be $2,600. So, in this case the monoline exit penalty is $11,400 less.

Once clients hear about this difference, many are happy to get a mortgage from a company they have never heard of. But some clients want to stick with their existing bank or credit union to exercise their established relationship or to start fostering a new one. Some borrowers just elect to go with a different lender for diversification purposes. (This brings up a whole other topic of collateral charge mortgages, one that I will venture into with another blog post.)

There is a time and a place for banks, credit unions and monoline lenders. I am a prime example. I have recently switched from a large national monoline to a bank, simply for access to a different mortgage product for long-term planning purposes.

An independent mortgage broker can educate you about the many options offered by banks and credit unions vs monolines.

  • https://dominionlending.ca/news/banks-credit-unions-vs-monoline-lenders/

Much Ado About Almost Nothing–Non-Resident Ownership of Housing

Dr. Sherry Cooper DAZADA DIAMOND 23 Dec

Much Ado About Almost Nothing–Non-Resident Ownership of Housing

dbd3c75c-f197-4083-927d-f212e2cfd0a8[1]Statistics Canada in conjunction with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) released their first report this morning from the Canadian Housing Statistics Program (CHSP), providing data regarding the non-resident ownership of Canadian housing. This program was mandated by the last federal budget, filling in a significant data gap in housing statistics. For years, many have speculated that foreigners were the major culprits driving housing prices into nosebleed regions in Vancouver and Toronto. Today’s release shows that non-residents own less than five percent of housing in both cities.
Immigration remains a significant driver of housing activity in Canada. Canada has the most robust population growth in the G7, three-quarters of which is attributable to immigration and foreigners moving to Canada will be of growing importance in the future. But the report showed that non-residents – defined as both foreigners and Canadians whose principal residences are outside of Canada, irrespective of citizenship – are not the primary cause of the housing affordability problem in Canada’s two largest cities.
Many have blamed foreigners– mainly the Chinese–for the sky-high prices that have surged in the past three years–pricing many Millennials out of the housing market. A voter backlash spurred provincial governments to introduce a 15% tax on non-resident buyers in Vancouver (August 2016) and Toronto (April 2017), though earlier available data showed that foreign purchases were only between 5 and 10 percent of all home sales. In both regions, the tax slowed housing activity mainly by changing psychology. New listings surged, and buyers became more cautious as their options improved with more supply and lower prices. Other measures to slow housing activity by government and financial institution regulators have led many to assert that “boomers have priced millennials out of the housing market.”

Data revealed that non-residents (individuals whose principal dwelling is outside of Canada) owned 3.4% of all residential properties in the Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA), while the value of these homes accounted for 3.0% of the total residential property value in that metro area. In the Vancouver CMA, non-residents owned 4.8% of residential properties, accounting for 5.1% of total residential property value.
Estimates of non-resident ownership varied by property type. In both metropolitan areas, non-resident ownership was more prevalent for condominium-apartments. Non-residents owned 7.2% of condominium-apartments in the Toronto CMA and 7.9% of these units in the Vancouver CMA. By comparison, non-residents held 2.1% of single-detached houses in the Toronto CMA and 3.2% of single-detached homes in the Vancouver.
Over the past decade, home prices have accelerated markedly in Canada’s largest urban areas, particularly in Vancouver and Toronto. Data from the Canadian Real Estate Association Home Price Index show prices increased 173.7% in Vancouver from January 2005 to November 2017, while they rose 145.0% in Toronto over the same period. The last three years have been particularly telling, with house prices in Vancouver increasing by more than 60% and in Toronto by more than 40%, triggering great concern about housing affordability.
Below are two infographics produced by Statistics Canada giving more regional detail on non-resident ownership in Vancouver and Toronto. Breaking down the metro regions by municipalities, across the Vancouver CMA, non-resident ownership was most concentrated in the City of Vancouver (7.6%), followed by Richmond (7.5%) and West Vancouver (6.2%). In the Toronto CMA, the shares of non-resident owned properties were most substantial in the municipalities of Toronto (4.9%), followed by Richmond Hill (3.6%) and Markham (3.3%).

aba32331-5f54-47e5-a538-98324f362738[1] af1e05b9-fb28-4175-bda6-7ee05ea8be44[1]

 

Largest Share of Non-Resident Ownership Is High-Price Condos
The most significant share of non-resident ownership in both CMAs was for condominiums, at 7.9% in the Vancouver and 7.2% in the Toronto. (See table below).
In Vancouver, almost two-thirds of non-resident owned properties were condominiums, while in Toronto, this share was close to half. Although the majority of condos were apartments, some were also single-detached houses, semi-detached houses and row houses.
Across the Vancouver CMA, 50.1% of condominium-apartments owned by non-residents were in the City of Vancouver, while 14.9% were in Richmond. In the Toronto CMA, non-resident owned condominium-apartments were primarily located in the City of Toronto (82.8%) and Mississauga (8.6%).
In the Vancouver CMA, the average value of a condominium-apartment owned by non-residents was 30.4% higher than that of a resident held condo-apartment. The City of Vancouver had the highest rate of non-resident ownership of condo-apartments within the CMA. The average value of these apartments was approximately $930,600, which was 25.6% higher than resident-owned.
The relative disparity between non-resident condo prices and resident condo prices in Toronto was much smaller than in Vancouver. In the Toronto CMA, non-resident owned condominium-apartments were on average 8.7% more expensive than resident owned. The City of Toronto had the highest concentration of non-resident owned condo-apartments in the CMA, which were on average valued at $439,000, or 7.6% more expensive than resident-owned.

22518f7b-b6c5-4b52-8f7b-435128333767[1]

30646683-0026-44c1-b307-4588effb8193[1]Same is true for Non-Resident Owned Single-Family Homes–More Expensive Than Resident-Owned
For the Vancouver CMA, the average value of a single-detached house owned by non-residents was approximately $2.3 million compared with $1.6 million for resident held. These differences were most pronounced in the Greater Vancouver A subdivision, the City of Vancouver and West Vancouver. In Greater Vancouver A, single-detached houses owned by non-residents had an average value of nearly $8 million, while those owned by residents had an average value of $5.3 million. The average size of a single-detached house held by non-residents in this district was close to 4,800 square feet, 32.2% larger than the average size of single-detached dwellings owned by residents.
In the Toronto CMA, single-detached houses owned by non-residents were on average 12.3% or $103,500 more expensive than homes owned by residents. Differences in average values for single-detached dwellings were most marked in the municipalities of Markham, Richmond Hill and Toronto. In Markham, the average value of single-detached houses owned by non-residents was close to $1.1 million compared with $997,500 for resident owners. In Richmond Hill, non-resident held single-detached homes were, on average, valued at $1.2 million compared with $1.1 million for resident owned houses. In the City of Toronto, a non-resident owned single-detached house was, on average, valued at just over $1 million compared with $965,800 for a resident owned home. These differences, once again, are much smaller in the GTA than in the GVA.

Bottom Line: Non-residents represent a significantly more important factor in the Vancouver region than in the Toronto CMA, as expected. Moreover, non-residents purchase markedly more expensive properties compared to residents in Vancouver than in Toronto.
Wealthy Chinese nationals are a more significant factor in Vancouver than in Toronto, which has been the case for many years–not surprising given the geography. Moreover, many Chinese nationals began buying properties in the Vancouver CMA well in advance of the July 1997 handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China. Chinese have continued to find the Vancouver region an attractive haven for capital despite the imposition of capital controls in China.
Many are non-residents and have not rented their properties. In consequence, there are relatively more vacant properties in Vancouver than in Toronto. The Vancouver city council approved a tax on empty homes, the first of its kind in Canada, in early 2017, with the first payments due in 2018. Self-reporting owners will be assessed a one percent tax on homes that are not principal residences or aren’t rented for at least six months of the year. Though a similar tax has been discussed by the Toronto city council, to date, it has not had legs.

Top 5 costly financial mistakes homeowners make with their mortgage

Mortgage Tips DAZADA DIAMOND 22 Dec

Top 5 costly financial mistakes homeowners make with their mortgage

1. Not consolidating high interest debt into low interest mortgage.
2. Paying “fees” to get the lower rate
3. Not looking at their long term forecast
4. Taking a 5 year rate when 3-4 years can be cheaper
5. Having their mortgage with a lender that has high penalties and restrictive clauses.

Not consolidating high interest credit or vehicle loans in their mortgage. I hear this often “I don’t want to use the equity in my home” or “I can pay it off”. Many times when people end up with debts is due to inefficient budgeting and understanding what your income is and your debt payments are. There are many folks where monthly payment is the driving factor in their monthly budget. Making minimum payments can take you YEARS to pay off. Soon after people get mortgages, they are buying that new car at 0% interest and $600 month payments, then the roof or hot water tank goes and they put another $15,000 on credit, then someone gets laid off and boom…can’t make all the payments on all those debts that it took a 2 income family to make. It’s a true reality. Let’s look at an example:

Paying Fees to get the lower rate.
Dear rate chasers…they catch up with you somewhere. Nothing comes for free. Let’s face it, you go to the bank and their goal is to make money! A lender that offers you a 4.49% with a $2500 vs a 4.64% with no fee and you think “yes, score what a great rate!” Hold your coins… as you could be walking away poorer as the banker didn’t run the bottom line numbers for you. Chasing rates can cost you more money in the long run.

Your $500,000 mortgage was offered with two rates for the business for self guy who needed a mortgage where they didn’t look at the income so much: 4.49% and $2500 fee and $4.64% no fee. Lets see what it really looks like for a 2 year mortgage.

$502,500 (built in th $2500 feel) 4.49% – payments $2778 per month – $479563 owing in 2 years
Total payments: $66672
$500,000 (no fee) 4.64% – payments $2806 per month – $477634 owing in 2 years
Total payments: $67344.

Wait? So by taking the lower rate with the fee means I owe $1929 MORE in 2 years and only saved $672 in overall payments?

The long term financial planning side.
I counsel many of my clients to take 2-3 year year terms for a variety of reasons. Better rates, lower payments, capitalizing on the equity in your home to pay off a car loan or upcoming wedding. Did you know the average homeowner refinances every 3 years of a 5 year term and pays a penalty?

Taking a 5 year when 3 and 4 year rates might be a better option. Many times the 2-4 year rates can be significantly lower than the 5 year rates. Remember, the bank wants money and the longer you take the term, the more they make. True, many folks prefer or fit the 5 year terms, but many don’t. Worrying about where rates will be in 3-5 years from now should be a question, but not always the guiding factor in you “today” budget.
Here is an example of a $450,000 mortgage and what the difference in what you will owe on a 3 year term.

2.34% – payments are $990 every two weeks = $402,578 owing in 3 years
2.59% – payments are $1018 ever two weeks = $403,604 owing in 3 years.
Your paying $28 MORE every two weeks ($2184 total) and owe $1026 MORE in 3 years. Total LOSS $3210! Planning is key. Stop giving away your hard earned money!

Mortgage monster is in the penalties you pay when you fail to plan.
Since many families today are getting in with 5-10% as their downpayment.
If you got your mortgage with many of the traditional banks you know and your current mortgage is $403,750 and you need to break your mortgage (ie refinance to pay off debts) 3 years into the contract you potential penalty could be $12,672! Ouch. vs going with a mortgage broker who can put you with a lender that has similar rate you penalty would be significantly different – almost $10,000 dollars different!

Get a plan today! If you have any questions, please contact your local Dominion Lending Centres mortgage specialist.

  • https://dominionlending.ca/news/top-5-costly-financial-mistakes-homeowners-makes-mortgage/

Construction Mortgage Part 1 – Serviced vs Unserviced Lots

Commercial & Rental DAZADA DIAMOND 21 Dec

Construction Mortgage Part 1 – Serviced vs Unserviced Lots

Construction Mortgage Part 1 - Serviced vs Unserviced LotsOn several occasions we have had people ask us at Dominion Lending Centres about construction mortgages. Every lender has their own guidelines and rules when it comes to construction mortgages. That’s because there are many details involved in the process of construction, let alone the mortgage that actually funds it! Below is part 1 of 2 of what a construction mortgage entails and what you need to know when tackling this complex mortgage.

Construction Mortgages almost always start with raw land

Raw land usually comes in 2 forms: service lots and un-serviced lots*

Serviced Lots are defined as having:

  • Portable water-water that is safe enough for drinking and food preparation
  • Septic/sewer services-city connected sewers or a septic field
  • Access-a driveway, as rough or refined as it is
  • Hydro-connected to power
  • Natural gas (if applicable)
  • Need 25% to 35% down

Un-serviced Lots are defined as having:

  • Portable water-needs to be available
  • Septic/sewer services-not applicable
  • Access-(other) or not typical such as water access
  • Hydro-not applicable
  • Natural Gas-not applicable
  • No Agricultural Land Reserve**
  • Need 35% to 50% down

*guidelines depend on the lender
**land that is reserved for agricultural activity (ie. Farms)

Rates and terms of purchasing raw land

Serviced Lots usually have:

  • Maximum Mortgage Amount, depending on the lender
  • Maximum Mortgage Amortization, depending on the lender
  • Rates are usually a little higher than discounted rates (ie best discounted fixed rate plus 1%), but not always
  • Fees – usually a lender/broker fee, but not always
  • Terms – usually 1 thru 5 years

Un-Serviced Lots are defined as having

  • Maximum Mortgage Amount, depending on the lender
  • Maximum Mortgage Amortization, lesser maximum amortization compared to serviced lots
  • Rates are usually a little higher than discounted rates and higher than serviced lots (ie best discounted fixed rate plus 2%), but not always
  • Fees – usually a lender/broker fee and usually higher than serviced lots, but not always
  • Terms – usually 1 thru 5 years

How do you qualify?

  • You need to complete a mortgage application
  • You need to provide credit bureaus and income documents showing that you qualify for the amount of money you wish to borrow.
  • You need to provide a detailed construction budget.
  • You need to provide a title search (through your mortgage broker or lawyer)
  • You need to submit a copy of the purchase agreement, including all addendums and amendments.
  • Builder information and resume (if requested) and project contract
  • Full set of legible construction drawings scaled to legal size paper or smaller
  • HPO registration (Home Owner Protection forms or registration of new home)
  • You base the amount to be borrowed on the appraisal based on a completed project

You may need to also provide….

  • Copy of all construction contracts
  • Corporate financial statements (if applicable)
  • You need to submit a detailed summary of the deal, including how you are expecting to move out of the higher interest rate construction mortgage into a “normal” mortgage, depending on the lender
  • Copy of purchase agreement for the land purchase

These are the first steps to setting up and understanding a construction mortgage. There are unique traits to this type of mortgage as with any other mortgage. Remember, you should always consider calling a mortgage broker to help walk you through this complex process!

Stay tuned for Part 2 which will cover the budget, the loan, and key take points.

  • https://dominionlending.ca/news/construction-mortgage-part-1-serviced-vs-unserviced-lots/

Much Ado About Almost Nothing–Non-Resident Ownership of Housing

Dr. Sherry Cooper DAZADA DIAMOND 19 Dec

Much Ado About Almost Nothing–Non-Resident Ownership of Housing

dbd3c75c-f197-4083-927d-f212e2cfd0a8[1]Statistics Canada in conjunction with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) released their first report this morning from the Canadian Housing Statistics Program (CHSP), providing data regarding the non-resident ownership of Canadian housing. This program was mandated by the last federal budget, filling in a significant data gap in housing statistics. For years, many have speculated that foreigners were the major culprits driving housing prices into nosebleed regions in Vancouver and Toronto. Today’s release shows that non-residents own less than five percent of housing in both cities.
Immigration remains a significant driver of housing activity in Canada. Canada has the most robust population growth in the G7, three-quarters of which is attributable to immigration and foreigners moving to Canada will be of growing importance in the future. But the report showed that non-residents – defined as both foreigners and Canadians whose principal residences are outside of Canada, irrespective of citizenship – are not the primary cause of the housing affordability problem in Canada’s two largest cities.
Many have blamed foreigners– mainly the Chinese–for the sky-high prices that have surged in the past three years–pricing many Millennials out of the housing market. A voter backlash spurred provincial governments to introduce a 15% tax on non-resident buyers in Vancouver (August 2016) and Toronto (April 2017), though earlier available data showed that foreign purchases were only between 5 and 10 percent of all home sales. In both regions, the tax slowed housing activity mainly by changing psychology. New listings surged, and buyers became more cautious as their options improved with more supply and lower prices. Other measures to slow housing activity by government and financial institution regulators have led many to assert that “boomers have priced millennials out of the housing market.”

Data revealed that non-residents (individuals whose principal dwelling is outside of Canada) owned 3.4% of all residential properties in the Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA), while the value of these homes accounted for 3.0% of the total residential property value in that metro area. In the Vancouver CMA, non-residents owned 4.8% of residential properties, accounting for 5.1% of total residential property value.
Estimates of non-resident ownership varied by property type. In both metropolitan areas, non-resident ownership was more prevalent for condominium-apartments. Non-residents owned 7.2% of condominium-apartments in the Toronto CMA and 7.9% of these units in the Vancouver CMA. By comparison, non-residents held 2.1% of single-detached houses in the Toronto CMA and 3.2% of single-detached homes in the Vancouver.
Over the past decade, home prices have accelerated markedly in Canada’s largest urban areas, particularly in Vancouver and Toronto. Data from the Canadian Real Estate Association Home Price Index show prices increased 173.7% in Vancouver from January 2005 to November 2017, while they rose 145.0% in Toronto over the same period. The last three years have been particularly telling, with house prices in Vancouver increasing by more than 60% and in Toronto by more than 40%, triggering great concern about housing affordability.
Below are two infographics produced by Statistics Canada giving more regional detail on non-resident ownership in Vancouver and Toronto. Breaking down the metro regions by municipalities, across the Vancouver CMA, non-resident ownership was most concentrated in the City of Vancouver (7.6%), followed by Richmond (7.5%) and West Vancouver (6.2%). In the Toronto CMA, the shares of non-resident owned properties were most substantial in the municipalities of Toronto (4.9%), followed by Richmond Hill (3.6%) and Markham (3.3%).

aba32331-5f54-47e5-a538-98324f362738[1] af1e05b9-fb28-4175-bda6-7ee05ea8be44[1]

Largest Share of Non-Resident Ownership Is High-Price Condos
The most significant share of non-resident ownership in both CMAs was for condominiums, at 7.9% in the Vancouver and 7.2% in the Toronto. (See table below).
In Vancouver, almost two-thirds of non-resident owned properties were condominiums, while in Toronto, this share was close to half. Although the majority of condos were apartments, some were also single-detached houses, semi-detached houses and row houses.
Across the Vancouver CMA, 50.1% of condominium-apartments owned by non-residents were in the City of Vancouver, while 14.9% were in Richmond. In the Toronto CMA, non-resident owned condominium-apartments were primarily located in the City of Toronto (82.8%) and Mississauga (8.6%).
In the Vancouver CMA, the average value of a condominium-apartment owned by non-residents was 30.4% higher than that of a resident held condo-apartment. The City of Vancouver had the highest rate of non-resident ownership of condo-apartments within the CMA. The average value of these apartments was approximately $930,600, which was 25.6% higher than resident-owned.
The relative disparity between non-resident condo prices and resident condo prices in Toronto was much smaller than in Vancouver. In the Toronto CMA, non-resident owned condominium-apartments were on average 8.7% more expensive than resident owned. The City of Toronto had the highest concentration of non-resident owned condo-apartments in the CMA, which were on average valued at $439,000, or 7.6% more expensive than resident-owned.

22518f7b-b6c5-4b52-8f7b-435128333767[1]30646683-0026-44c1-b307-4588effb8193[1]Same is true for Non-Resident Owned Single-Family Homes–More Expensive Than Resident-Owned
For the Vancouver CMA, the average value of a single-detached house owned by non-residents was approximately $2.3 million compared with $1.6 million for resident held. These differences were most pronounced in the Greater Vancouver A subdivision, the City of Vancouver and West Vancouver. In Greater Vancouver A, single-detached houses owned by non-residents had an average value of nearly $8 million, while those owned by residents had an average value of $5.3 million. The average size of a single-detached house held by non-residents in this district was close to 4,800 square feet, 32.2% larger than the average size of single-detached dwellings owned by residents.
In the Toronto CMA, single-detached houses owned by non-residents were on average 12.3% or $103,500 more expensive than homes owned by residents. Differences in average values for single-detached dwellings were most marked in the municipalities of Markham, Richmond Hill and Toronto. In Markham, the average value of single-detached houses owned by non-residents was close to $1.1 million compared with $997,500 for resident owners. In Richmond Hill, non-resident held single-detached homes were, on average, valued at $1.2 million compared with $1.1 million for resident owned houses. In the City of Toronto, a non-resident owned single-detached house was, on average, valued at just over $1 million compared with $965,800 for a resident owned home. These differences, once again, are much smaller in the GTA than in the GVA.

Bottom Line: Non-residents represent a significantly more important factor in the Vancouver region than in the Toronto CMA, as expected. Moreover, non-residents purchase markedly more expensive properties compared to residents in Vancouver than in Toronto.
Wealthy Chinese nationals are a more significant factor in Vancouver than in Toronto, which has been the case for many years–not surprising given the geography. Moreover, many Chinese nationals began buying properties in the Vancouver CMA well in advance of the July 1997 handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China. Chinese have continued to find the Vancouver region an attractive haven for capital despite the imposition of capital controls in China.
Many are non-residents and have not rented their properties. In consequence, there are relatively more vacant properties in Vancouver than in Toronto. The Vancouver city council approved a tax on empty homes, the first of its kind in Canada, in early 2017, with the first payments due in 2018. Self-reporting owners will be assessed a one percent tax on homes that are not principal residences or aren’t rented for at least six months of the year. Though a similar tax has been discussed by the Toronto city council, to date, it has not had legs.

  • https://dominionlending.ca/news/much-ado-almost-nothing-non-resident-ownership-housing/

5 Common Mistakes To Avoid When Shopping For a Mortgage

Mortgage Tips DAZADA DIAMOND 19 Dec

5 Common Mistakes To Avoid When Shopping For a Mortgage

5 Common Mistakes To Avoid When Shopping For a MortgageAvoid these 5 common mistakes, and you will have no problem getting your mortgage faster, more efficiently, and with a clear understanding of the process:

1. Thinking banks are the first and best place to go for a mortgage

Mortgage brokers can often beat the bank rates by using different lending institutions. The bank is limited to one lender, but if you use a mortgage broker, they have the option to shop for you with multiple lenders to find you the best product.

2. Not knowing your credit score

Your credit score is a HUGE factor in your mortgage application. The first thing lenders look at is your history and your score—then from there they build your file.

You should know where you stand because so much of your lending availability is tied to your credit score. In mere minutes, a mortgage broker can help you obtain a copy of your credit report, and go through it to ensure the information is correct.

3. Shopping with too many lenders

When you shop from institution to institution you will have your credit score pulled multiple times. Lenders typically frown upon this and it may interfere with your mortgage application. If you go to a mortgage broker though, your score is pulled ONE time only.

4. Not keeping your taxes up-to-date

Plain and simple: If you are self employed or the mortgage application is requiring a 2 year income average to qualify (utilizing overtime wages and/or bonuses) and you haven’t filed your taxes and kept them up to date, you cannot get a mortgage. Lenders will ask for your notice of assessment if your tax filings are not up to date, and you will not get your mortgage until they are filed properly and a Notice of Adjustment from the latest year it is received.

5. Not understanding that the real estate market you qualify in TODAY will adjust in the future.

Rates may be at an all time low right now, but new rules, government regulation, and changes when you are up for renewal can change the circumstances. You must be able to carry your mortgage payment at a higher rate or with new laws imposed.

Remember, securing a mortgage isn’t always about getting the best deal. It’s about getting a home you want and establishing yourself as a homeowner. That means not overextending yourself and taking your qualifying amount to the maximum. Leave some breathing room because no one knows what the future may hold!

But one thing’s for sure – you should contact a mortgage professional at Dominion Lending Centres.

  • https://dominionlending.ca/news/5-common-mistakes-avoid-shopping-mortgage/

Getting a Mortgage After Consumer Proposal or Bankruptcy

Mortgage Tips DAZADA DIAMOND 19 Dec

Getting a Mortgage After Consumer Proposal or Bankruptcy

Getting a Mortgage After Consumer Proposal or BankruptcyLife can definitely throw some challenging financial situations your way. As mortgage professionals, we can provide solutions and strategies during or after these challenging times in order to get you back on track. We have access to banks, trust companies and mortgage companies that specialize in this transitional period to help you move forward with the best mortgage plan for you. We protect your credit by negotiating with multiple lenders to find a solution for you.

If you have never owned a home and have had a consumer proposal, the good news is that you are already accustomed to the discipline of saving money every month. Should you choose to continue to grow your savings, those funds can then be put toward a down payment and re-establishing credit.

If you own a home already, there are lenders that will help you refinance and pay out your proposal earlier in order to accelerate your transition period.

After bankruptcy, different lenders will issue mortgages based on the amount of time since you were discharged, the amount of down payment on a purchase and/or the current equity in your home if your already own. Lenders then price their rates based on these aspects of your application.

At Dominion Lending Centres, we look forward to learning about your journey while protecting your credit and guiding you through the best strategy on a moving forward basis.

  • https://dominionlending.ca/news/getting-mortgage-consumer-proposal-bankruptcy/

Is it time to lock in a variable rate mortgage?

Mortgage Tips DAZADA DIAMOND 11 Dec

Is it time to lock in a variable rate mortgage?

Approximately 32 per cent of Canadians are in a variable rate mortgage, which with rates effectively declining steadily for the better part of the last ten years has worked well.

Recent increases triggers questions and concerns, and these questions and concerns are best expressed verbally with a direct call to your independent mortgage expert – not directly with the lender. There are nuances you may not think to consider before you lock in, and that almost certainly will not be primary topics for your lender.

Over the last several years there have been headlines warning us of impending doom with both house price implosion, and interest rate explosion, very little of which has come to fruition other than in a very few localised spots and for short periods of time thus far.

Before accepting what a lender may offer as a lock in rate, especially if you are considering freeing up cash for such things as renovations, travel or putting towards your children’s education, it is best to have your mortgage agent review all your options.

And even if you simply wanted to lock in the existing balance, again the conversation is crucial to have with the right person, as one of the key topics should be prepayment penalties.

In many fixed rate mortgage, the penalty can be quite substantial even when you aren’t very far into your mortgage term. People often assume the penalty for breaking a mortgage amounts to three months’ interest payments, which in the case of 90% of variable rate mortgages is correct. However, in a fixed rate mortgage, the penalty is the greater of three months’ interest or the interest rate differential (IRD).

The ‘IRD’ calculation is a byzantine formula. One designed by people working specifically in the best interests of shareholders, not the best interests of the client (you). The difference in penalties from a variable to a fixed rate product can be as much as a 900 per cent increase.

The massive penalties are designed for banks to recuperate any losses incurred by clients (you) breaking and renegotiating the mortgage at a lower rate. And so locking into a fixed rate product without careful planning can mean significant downside.

Keep in mind that penalties vary from lender to lender and there are different penalties for different types of mortgages. In addition, things like opting for a “cash back” mortgage can influence penalties even more to the negative, with a claw-back of that cash received way back when.

Another consideration is that certain lenders, and thus certain clients, have ‘fixed payment’ variable rate mortgages. Which means that the payment may at this point be artificially low, and locking into a fixed rate may trigger a more significant increase in the payment than expected.

There is no generally ‘correct’ answer to the question of locking in, the type of variable rate mortgage you hold and the potential changes coming up in your life are all important considerations. There is only a ‘specific-to-you’ answer, and even then – it is a decision made with the best information at hand at the time that it is made. Having a detailed conversation with the right people is crucial.

It should also be said that a poll of 33 economists just before the recent Bank of Canada rate increase had 27 advising against another increase. This would suggest that things may have moved too fast too soon as it is, and we may see another period of zero movement. The last time the Bank of Canada pushed the rate to the current level it sat at this level for nearly five full years.

Life is variable, perhaps your mortgage should be too.

As always, if you have questions about locking in your variable mortgage, or breaking your mortgage to secure a lower rate, or any general mortgage questions. contact a Dominion Lending Centres mortgage specialist.

  • https://dominionlending.ca/news/time-lock-variable-rate-mortgage-2/