RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:SCAM MANWell said Frankie. I'm sure it was not the intention however I firmly believe most of what has been done over the past many years has been to the detriment of the average homebuyer. Whether that be 5% downpayments, longer amortizations, or the 'first-time home buyer incentive'.
It would be better in my opinion if minimum downpayments were 20%, amortizations were shorter, and further incentives were non-existent. Why? Because there are not enough houses to go around which therefore means not every person who wants a house can have one.
Incentives, longer amortizations, and smaller downpayments which supposedly make it easier to save for a home only add further fuel to house bidding wars. How can any of this possibly change outcomes on average? It's not like the doctor or lawyer won't outbid the construction worker for the nice house in Toronto regardless of what incentives, amortization period, and downpayment requirements are provided to the construction worker.
Frankie10 wrote: If banks didn't extend amortization periods hiking would be done and we would be in recession. I have a number of friends with mortgages thru Scotia. For those who don't know, Scotia is the only bank, to my knowledge, who are not extending amortization periods on variable mortgages. Each friend is struggling to break-even on cash flow basis and after today will make further expense cuts to their budget. One is now contemplating selling his second house. This is exactly what we need to happen to solve inflation.
I'm not sure if BoC has authority over the banking system the way the Fed governs the US banks, but if Tiffy had half a brain cell, he would stopped the interest rate hikes and forced to banks to a 30 yr amortization period limit 6 months ago... by allowing banks to do this, our central bank has decided to sacrifice jobs in order to maintain the housing ponzi. Makes me sick.
Mugatu: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!"