Where Are The Regulators?

I was reading an excellent piece by Nobel Prize winer Joesph Stiglitz on his thoughts on the World Economic Forum.

One of the things that he said that is proving to be a lesson that Wall Street sociopaths, morons, idiots, scam artists, con men, swindlers bankers refuse to acknowledge (or perhaps once a swindler always a swindler) that Stiglitz said is:

Bankers – and the rating agencies – believed in financial alchemy. They thought that financial innovations could somehow turn bad mortgages into good securities, meriting AAA ratings. But one lesson of modern finance theory is that, in well functioning financial markets, repackaging risks should not make much difference.

If we know the price of cream and the price of skim milk, we can figure out the price of milk with 1% cream, 2% cream, or 4% cream. There might be some money in repackaging, but not the billions that banks made by slicing and dicing sub-prime mortgages into packages whose value was much greater than their contents.

It seemed too good to be true -– and it was.

These are supposed to be intelligent people. US and European banks are working together to try and "shore up" the the mortgage insurers. I can't help but think this anything but smoke and mirrors to delay the day of reckoning when the risk comes home. I can not help but believe it is perpetuating a further fraud on the markets.

From my understanding of what I read in a letter from one of the largest share holders of one of these companies many of these insurance contracts have time limits. They expire and new insurance contracts will not be written.

Give the appearance that everything is ok and that the nay sayers really don't know what they are talking about and more get suckered into taking this junk off the banker's hands, or get suckered in to believing that a discount is a deal when without the appearance they are insured in fact the junk may be worth zero.

Naked Capitalism thinks that the worst thing happening here is that the bankers are spending money shore the insurance companies up when they will lose their AAA rating later.

I have more sinister beliefs, they are trying to delay the inevitable for either personal interests or because of cost is less than if it enables them to get rid of more of their junk.

So, where are the regulators and how did they let this happen?

Read More......

Currency Contrast of Commodity Prices

I am Canadian and as such when I look at commodity prices I convert to Canadian dollars. Earlier in the year the conversion meant adding as much as 19% onto the US quoted price yet today it means take 7% off.

The change in currency valuation is enormous for the base metal industry. If you look at the mining industry from a world perspective, there are some mines in the US, and for those mines wages have effectively declined as the US dollar has lost value in comparison to other currencies. The US has gone from a high of 1.1875 on Feb. 7 of this year to a low of 0.9323 this past week. At its height earlier in the year the US dollar was “worth” 27% more relative to the Canadian dollar. A $30/hour US wage on Feb 7th was $35.62 Canadian and at the low, this week, it is $27.97 Canadian. Canadian wages have done the opposite. A $30/hour Canadian wage at the height of the US dollar was $25.26 US and now it is $32.18 US.

For US based mining companies wages are fairly fixed relative to the US quoted commodity price. Their might be union contracts that give them an increase, but when you do your back of the napkin calculation on a company using commodity prices you do not need to correct for costs due to currency changes for mines located in the US. That cannot be said for mines located in the rest of the world.

Given that the US dollar has lost ground with almost all other currencies, when the “costs” are converted to US dollars the increases will be staggering, as the wage conversion calculation above shows. I suspect many investors are not going to be prepared for what this does to the value of their investments. The full effect of these increased costs are not going to show up in the third quarter financial reports, although some will. For the third quarter the US dollar averaged around 1.05. As of this week it has declined a further 12%. Only a portion of those wage changes will show up in the next series of quarterly reports. Expect to see costs up in that 12% range for 4th quarter results being reported next January to March.

The margins, or earnings, on base metal stocks are affected by both the costs, which are in the currency of the country and the commodity prices, which are quoted in US dollars. The workers may not have gotten wages, but once the costs are converted to US dollars, they are simply up dramatically relative to the US dollar in most countries. This is not good for investors, especially investors in commodity stocks with high P/Es. In general, I suspect that chances are if a base metal stock has a P/E over about 6-12 right now, depending on other strengths/weakness of the company, it is going to correct downwards in the next year, indeed, if the LME warehouse stock levels continue to rise this estimate may be conservative because of metal price declines due to increasing supply.

The one year copper spot price shows three almost equal peaks in the spot price of about $3.70 US, in April, July and October. In Canadian dollars those “peaks” are about $4.25, $3.85 and $3.60. Today in Canadian the US price of $3.40 is about $3.16 Canadian. In Canadian dollars the price of copper was about 35% higher at its peak. In an earlier blog I looked at the Bingham Canyon mine. About 2/3rds of the revenue when straight to earnings for the period I looked at it. Because this mine is located in the US it is not going to see enormous wage increases, although it will probably see large energy costs increasing. However, this mine will still have exceptionally healthy earnings, although the margin may decline a little. This mine has lots of room that if it saw a 35% hair cut on revenues it is still highly profitable, with probably 40-50% of revenue making it to earnings. Contrast that to a mine with say 20% of revenue with strong prices going to earnings. At 35% hair cut in commodity prices means that the mine is now losing money.

I dislike nickel immensely, and here’s why. Nickel prices peaked in April at around $24/lb US. In Canadian that would be around $27.50, and there is a lot of nickel being mined in Canada. On Friday nickel closed at $14.35 US, which is now about $13.40 Canadian. Nickel peaked at a price over 100% higher. The good thing about nickel is the peak was a short-term spike and that utterly unsustainable price only got averaged into earnings for a very short period. The very, very bad thing about nickel is that a number of nickel stocks have priced in an earnings expectation based on a much higher nickel price than is realistic. The current price is already a strong nickel price and a wise investor would be evaluating their investment at $10-12/lb nickel. I believe to have priced a nickel stock with a high P/E with the outrageous nickel price of $21.65/lb, or $25 Canadian, as investors in FNX mining did in the first quarter will prove to be economic suicide.

In my May 30th post on FNX I pointed out many problems with investing in this company, and in the shorter term the price has gone higher than the roughly $35/share it was at then. But, short-term hype and speculation is not true valuation and this is the type of investment susceptible a wake-up-one-morning to 40-50% haircut. Going back to first quarter, earnings were $30 million (extrapolate to $120 million full year expectation) with an average price of $21.65 and an exchange rate of 1.17. Guidance was that earnings are supposed to decline by $9 million per $1 decline in nickel price, so expect $66 million decline from the contraction of nickel price. A 10% change in exchange will kill another $12.7 million in earnings, so expect another $32 million decline from exchange, or $98 million. That leaves about $22 million for full year earnings, or $5.5 million per quarter. Factoring in the roughly 70% increase in production expected, that would give about $9 million per quarter, or earnings of $36 million per year. Assuming share count has not increase, which is full year earnings of about $0.42/share, outrageously low for a $37 commodity stock. The earnings have gone 36c the first quarter, 40c the second quarter and 15c this past quarter, yet this quarter had record output. Earnings were 24c/share in Q3 the year before. Output increased by 50%, yet instead of a 50% increase in earnings to 36c, earning were 15c, an expectation decline of 58%. The average exchange rate was 1.04 for quarter 3. Now it is 0.93. That 15c/quarter extrapolated to a full year is 60c, but factor in that further currency decline and expect to see next quarter earnings of 10-12c.

Anyone doing a peer valuation of their nickel stock relative to FNX is seriously misleading himself or herself.
I expected the US dollar to decline relative to the Canadian dollar, but never in my wildest dreams would I have predicted 0.9323 this fast. I suspect there is not an analyst report out there that has factored in the drastic loss of revenues, or alternative drastic cost increases, due to the strong changes in valuation of the US dollar.

I don’t have time to look at the degree of change in other commodity prices right now, but my prediction is 100% US companies will perform better relative to companies with operations in other countries because they will only be dealing with how commodity prices affect their bottom line where as other companies will have the huge challenges of how the drastic decline in the US dollar affects either costs or revenues, depending on what currency they do their reporting in.

Read More......

Gold – What’s in a Currency?

Whether a currency is weak or strong seriously affects buying power. Being Canadian, I have traveled the US when it took $1.50-1.60 to buy one US dollar. It keeps the cost of imports expensive. It helps export businesses and it helps tourism as people from countries with strong currencies see tremendous value in their vacations.

Gold is not a currency, but it does act like a form of money, and it preserves wealth in countries experiencing currency devaluation. It can work the opposite for countries whose currency is gaining strength.

We think we have cost of living issue, have you checked out Zimbabwe? According to this May article, Zimbabwe inflation in May, the cost of living double last April/May. It is predicted to be as much as 100,000% over this year, Zimbabwe inflation up more. The official exchange rate is very different than the black market rate where when converted to US dollars teachers make $100/month at the official rate and $6/month at the black market rate, Zimbabwe teachers on strike. Clearly demanding pay in grams of gold would protect buying power. Check out the video on life in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe living in hyper-inflation. Currently, foreign currency is king.

Zimbabwe is experiencing hyperinflation. Check out their stock market and the graph goes straight up. Check out the early warnings, as this 2001 article shows, Zimbabwe 2001 decsions and one starts to see that the burden of debt and the inability to attract foreign dollars as investors did not see that the interest rate offered would protect their investment from currency devaluation. Life has gotten very bad, indeed, Zimbawe lifestyle lost to hyper-inflation.

Canada’s weakened dollar through the 80s and 90s was due to debt. Few Canadians appreciate the debt of gratitude Canadians owe former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and finance minister Michael Wilson. They took over a Trudeau government that had program spending exceed tax revenues by $39 billion per year, never mind the cost of debt servicing. By the time Mulroney left office program spending match revenue. Canada still had a deficit in that tax revenue still did not cover debt servicing, but the changes they made during their tenure was outstanding.

Anyone who says other has a poor understanding of calculus, which tells us that if a graph is concave down, the rate of increase is coming under control. The graph for Canada debt was concave down for the entire time this team worked together. The graph of increasing debt under Trudeau is concave up, straight up. Many older Canadians look back at the Trudeau years as the glory years, but he left a burden of unsustainable program spending and debt that many Canadians blame the Prime Minster’s that were left to deal with the problem. No kidding the times feel very good indeed when fair share of taxes are not paid and the burden of paying for yesterday's lifestyle is passed on to future generations.

To that end, Mulroney and Wilson harped on and on about our debt problem and they set the stage for Canada to control debt and eventually move to surplus budgets, $13.8 billion for 2006-2007, Canada surplus budget, Canada budget highlights.

The US has increased debt, and they have increased it to levels that I believe are worse than Canada ever faced. And US currency is devaluing because of it and US congress is asking to increase the level of debt a few times per year. You can see that US debt was under control with Clinton, but out of control with Regan, Bush and Bush, graph of US debt. Last month the US Senate Finance Committee approved increasing the limit on debt to $9.8 trillion. Canada’s debt is $587 billion. With roughly 1/10th the population it means that the US level of debt per person at the federal level is about 1.7 times as high, and unlike Canada which currently has surplus budgets, there is no evidence that US government spending is coming under control, yet another increase to US debt.

Gold has protected wealth for Americans as government has continued out of control. With lowering the Federal Reserve rate last month from 5.25% to 4.75% the US government has chosen to devalue the US currency. The US dollar lost about 6% buying power in September alone in contrast with Canadian currency.

Gold has strongly outperformed many investments for US investors because of currency devaluation, but has not been nearly the performer for Canadian investors.



Over five years gold is up 41% for Canadian investors, or about 7.1% per year annualized. For US investors gold is up 126% over 5 years, or 17.7% per year annualized. Over a shorter term, say 6 months, gold has not been a good investment for Canadians.



Gold is down 6.1% for Canadians and up 8.3% for Americans. Gold is offering some protection of wealth from currency devaluation for Americans. If I were American I would consider owning some gold bullion as part of a diversified investment strategy. The Canadian dollar has had the fundamentals to strengthen the currency through debt management for a long time and it is showing up in a stronger Canadian dollar, from about $1.60 to by a US dollar five years ago to par today.



Surely, if the US government reduces the Federal Reserve rate, the US currency will devalue more and gold will increase in price in US dollars. It may or may not increase in price in Canadian dollars. If the Canadian dollar gets stronger relative to the US dollar, it is likely gold will decline in Canadian dollars.

If Americans panic about preserving wealth from a declining currency and do it through buying gold, gold will likely skyrocket and even currencies gaining strength relative to the US dollar would see gold increase. Should this happen gold will also be a very good investment for Canadians.

Gold behaves like a master currency against all currencies, gaining when a currency declines, and losing when a currency gains. It is subject to the same market forces that lead to selling-off and under valuation and speculation leading to over valuation, which makes the contrast to currencies relative to how gold is valued in the market as a whole. But it is ultimately a master currency. Gold stocks are not bullion and have very different fundamentals that need to be looked at one at a time. A gold stock with costs in foreign currencies will see costs going up due to currency devaluation and will not necessarily see a leverage of earnings that investors expect. Some gold stocks have very strong leverage of earnings expectation built into their price, completely ignoring the explosive cost increases due to currency devaluation.

Currently gold stocks tend to sell off all of their gold, trading it for the very fiat currency their philosophy claims to abhor.

Read More......

Par!

US/Canadian... 1.0006

I am in shock...

What a joke, everyone put on their born yesterday hats. The US government reported consumer prices fell in August by 0.1%. Energy prices fell 3.2%. I guess no one noticed that crude oil is over $80 month...

End of message

Read More......

2% inflation in one day

In one day or so the exchange rate for a dollar US went from $1.03 to $1.01 Canadian.

Today the US had 2% inflation on imports from Canada, or Canadian exporter to the US just saw their revenue drop by 2%. Either way, it is going to be ugly.

End of post.

Read More......

Canadian/US at Par?

I couldn't help but notice I'm getting US coins back in my change. That was not happening even 3 months ago... US, $1.0375 Canadian. Wow, the US dollar has come down fast and hard.

US importers are going to be hurting badly, as will Canadian exporter. I wouldn't want to be owning those kinds of investments through their next earnings reports, or even now...

All of a sudden US exports got a whole lot cheaper and more competitive, so Canadian importers should be looking good.

Read More......

Currency devaluation, social policy - Reflections from vacations

I just got back from a three week vacation in Costa Rica, where one US dollar gets you about 520 Costa Rican colones.

I know little of Costa Rica's economy, except that their main export is from agriculture and their main "industry" is tourism. Currently there is negotiations for a free-trade deal with the United States and every where you go graffiti shows opposition to a free-trade deal with the US. Their taxes are low with universal health care and education being the two most important items taking up the majority of the taxes.

I went to Costa Rica to explore the idea of learning Spanish, so I went for a two week introductory course and I stayed with a home stay family. The family consisted of grandparents and young adult grandchildren. What was strikingly different from Canada is this family with "retirement" age adults did not have entitlement attitudes towards pension, but continued working. They were a hard working family.

I would have to say our Canadian attitude towards entitlement and social programs leaves a foul taste in my mouth. First, not a senior currently collecting a pension paid for it. I so clearly remember my amazement as a very young adult with a job in the bank and seeing this pittance of a tax for pension and then also seeing how much seniors were getting in pension and I brought it up with my employer about how little the pension tax was compared to the pension payout and I was told that over the long term the money put in would pay for the pension and I was shown a bit of compounding, which still made no sense to me, but I simply assumed those older and wiser understood these things better.

I now know that our pension system was set up based on a pyramid scheme that would be illegal under today's law. The relative amount -- meaning correcting for wage increases -- we pay for pension today is much, much, much higher than what was paid in my youth, but it is still utterly unsustainable in terms of the pension entitlement expectations, and political leaders saying anything otherwise are either ignorant or lying. One day I will post more on the topic as I believe that I live in one of the greatest countries, but the unraveling of this pyramid scheme has the potential to destroy us, and could ultimately pit youth against age when age is defenseless. Certainly our currency and savings are at extreme risk from unsustainable debt and entitlement expectations and we are at risk of seeing it unravel as Mexico, Costa Rica and Zimbabwe have all experienced, unless we change our attitude and work together to make something sustainable and fair.

But, the Costa Rican people do not burden their children with their entitlement expectations, but instead continue to take responsibility for their economic future.

I wondered about the huge numbers for the currency in Costa Rica and I remembered traveling in Mexico in the 90s after their currency was grossly devalued and they were in the process of switching from old pesos to new pesos at a rate of 1000 old pesos is one new peso. They had periods of inflation of 30-40% per year, perhaps more. My Mexican friend in university in the 80s had talked about Mexican inflation and how her family had worked to move their money to more stable currencies as they saw the buying power of their savings rapidly decline. My last vacation in Mexico in the 1990s a Canadian dollar traded for about 3 Mexican pesos. Today it trades for 10.5 Mexican pesos so Mexico has continued to have a rate of inflation that grossly destroys the buying power of savings.

The young man at the school I attended talked about how over the previous few years if you had a US account you saw the number of colones increase pretty much daily as their currency deflated relative to the US currency. It made me wonder what had happened with government management of Costa Rica's economic resources. The young man in my homestay was highly interested and informed on political issues and he talked about the many social programs Costa Rica had at one time and their glory years of spending beyond their means and increased wealth. He mentioned the huge consequences to Costa Rica when one of their Presidents failed to yield to demands to cut social spending when their debt load to other nations was high. I do not know Costa Rica's full story, but it appears they faced a hyper-inflation due to high debt, an inflation that is not yet under control. I saw price increases of up to 25% at retail establishments in the mere 3 weeks that I was there.

There is something in place to control the currency exchange rate for the past year or so. The young man at the school said that you could no longer see your colones increase dramatically by holding a US account. What is this control? Currently in Zimbabwe there is an "official" exchange rate mandated by law. They have hyperinflation running at 4500%. At black market rates the exchange rate for 44,000 Zimbabwean dollars, the price of a loaf of bread, is about 18 cents. At the official rate mandated by law that loaf of bread costs $176.

Costa Rica is an inexpensive country for travel, but the tourist areas have become grossly expensive for the local people. The average price of meal in the tourist areas that I visited seemed about twice the price that I paid in San Jose in close proximity to the school, and other students said they visited tourist areas on the Pacific side where the price was double again to what we were paying in the Caribbean coast. A policeman`s monthly wage in Costa Rica is about $350 per month and with the prices I saw, inexpensive by Canadian standards, I can not imagine how they make ends meet. It seemed to me that the prices were anywhere from 20 to 75% less. Bottled water was about $1 as was pop. A lunch you`d spend $6-12 here was $2.50-5 in town, but as much as $7 in the Caribbean coast.

I discovered it is wise to always ask the price first because if you say what you want and then it is packaged, they will take you to the cleaners in terms of what they expect you to pay. I paid $2.65 for a coffee in a very small cup with two refills, whereas when I cautiously shopped for my coffee the next day I paid 70c for a coffee that was twice the size of the cup of the previous day.

In another example, the going price for the locals for a bag of cut mango fruit, the fruit of two very small mangoes or one large mango was 40c. I paid 60c, but my last day at the beach this other vendor, after I had confirmed the 60c price in the morning, had halved the amount in the bag and made it look the same by loading the bag with pits, which I only discovered after I returned to my friends, who had given me 60c for a bag each. He tried to charge $1.20 in the afternoon and I settled at 70c. I did not ask the price again before I just asked for it. So even asking the price earlier you still have to confirm the price again before you order. I found in many places Costa Ricans do not think twice about changing prices and the terms of what you think you`ve agreed to simply because they figure you can pay more.

Anyway, Costa Rica is a great country to visit right now, and depending on where -- ie Atlantic versus Pacific coast -- it is inexpensive by Canadian/American standards. The tours arranged for tourists are perhaps a little less expensive than a tour in Las Vegas or Disney World, but overall they are not cheap. They wanted $50-60 for a 3-4 hour jungle tour, and $70-80 for a river rafting tour, whereas you can find a room with a private bathroom for two people for as little as $35 per night close to the waterfront. Shop around and your meals will be less than $10 per day, but even going for the finest dining you would be hard pressed to exceed $25 per day.

I do wonder about how the currency is being set and about the rate of inflation as to whether Costa Rica will remain highly attractive for tourism.

Read More......

Subprime, Spending and Lending Laws

In a news story, Bernanke: Subprime hit could top $100B, Bernanke says that if prices drop consumers could cut back spending as much a 9c for every dollar of lost wealth.

So, a half million dollar home declines to $400,000 and the person would cut spending by $9k. A $200,000 home to $160,000 and they would cut by $3.6k.

It looks like businesses of non-essential items are going to be in for a hit.

They also state they are working to strengthen lending regulations. I'm sure they will be marginal at best. Having worked in the banking industry during a period where people lost their homes and were left with further debt to pay back, over the years I have thought dearly about this topic, and I have previously on interest rates, Low Interest Rates - As Destructive as Usury.

I have been a private advocate of strong laws and regulations around lending as interest rates decline due to the crazy amounts that people can borrow based on income. It makes no sense mathematically to apply a fixed standard to borrowing rates that have increasingly leveraged effects on the amounts that people can borrow as rates decline.

Legislation that would protect the consumer would be lending laws that limit the amount a consumer can borrow based on a fixed evaluation of income, down payment, amortization period and interest rates.

I have a 4.4% interest rate mortgage.

Qualifying for a mortgage should not be based on current interest rates. The leverage of the potential increase in payments is utterly enormous when interest rates are down, and the amount of money people quality for at low interest rates is insane. I qualified for 53% more mortgage that I borrowed for interest rates at 4.4%. If they'd been 3%, well, then I'd have qualified for 76% more than I borrowed. Based on the payments I chose to make I'd have qualified for 85% more at 4.4% and 115% more at 3%.

Qualifying for a mortgage should be based on being able to afford the payments with 30% of your income with 25% down and 8% interest for a 25 year mortgage. I'd have actually only qualified for 10% more than what I borrowed with that criteria.

So, then comes the fudging factor on how to change that to change with difference in individual's financial situation. Zero down loans are actually fine, if you afford them with 30% of income at 10% interest. I would not have qualified for my mortgage with this criteria. The maximum I would have qualified for would have been 6% less than I borrowed.

And there's nothing wrong with having it go the other way, say 30% of income at 6% if you have 50% down. Under this criteria I would have qualified for about 30% more mortgage that I took based on the interest rate, but I would not have qualified for the mortgage because I did not have half down.

The actual length of the mortgage should be based on the criteria given. You have a repayment schedule based on a 25 year mortgage at 8%, but with current interest rates you will pay it off in x-years. This criteria would have me paying off my mortgage in 13-14 years. With nothing down my smaller loan qualifying amount with larger payment would be paid off in 12 years. If I had the half down the last example would have had me paying off the mortgage in 19 years.

Anyway, these are guidelines that I've come up with from thinking about the issue over the years. I think qualifying based on fixed criteria, such as 30% of income to cover 8% at 25 years, is how lending should be regulated, but how this fixed rate criteria is set should be open to debate.

Read More......

I'm a banking bear

Over on Motley Fool I was asked why I rated Citigroup, a banking stock that is paying a 4.2% dividend and has a P/E of 11.39 as under perform and I thought it a question exceptionally worthy of an answer.

I do not usually rate under perform for a stock paying a good dividend and having a low P/E, however, I do not believe any financial institution will ride out the subprime fallout very well and I think the consequences of the sub prime lending market will be felt for years. These mortgages have been repackaged and sold and repackaged and sold again. They are hiding everywhere in financial institutions and investors would be very hard pressed to figure out any individual institution's exposure to risk.


I think there will be more than one wave of people in trouble with their sub prime mortgages, estimated to be at about 30% of mortgages. First wave is those that are not meeting interest payments now. Their mortgages are essentially increasing every month as unpaid interest is added onto principal.

There are lots of people who have bought on plans that offered lower interest rates the first 1, 2 or 3 years. These people are at risk as their interest rates readjust.

There are people who were barely able to make their payments and may be increasing credit card debt every month right now just due to the increase in the price of gas alone, and so many other costs have gone up. Expenses are increasing faster than wages and they lack any buffer zone in their income.

There are people who have been living off equity, borrowing more as their equity increases. If they've put the money into other investments they'll probably be ok. If they've been doing this to pay off their credit card debt that gets out of control every 2-3 years, well, obviously they already have money management problems and this is going to be big trouble for them.

Many have variable mortgage rates and coming into the market at a low rate and then finding the rate increases is an enormous negative leverage for the household budget. I worked out that each $100,000 of mortgage costs $474.21 per month at 3% for a 25 year mortgage. It costs $527.84 at 4%, or an increase of $53.63/month per $100k of mortgage, and that is an 11.3% increase in mortgage payment. I don't know about you, but that eats up 4.5 years of wage increases for me.

I do not believe that any banking institution will ride this out without taking some pain, as will the shareholders of banking stocks.

I would also like to point out what I believe to be a difference between Canadians and American because of public policy. In Canada you can not deduct mortgage interest from your taxes and if you buy a home with less than 25% down you must pay up to 2.5% mortgage insurance.

I believe that you are ultimately better off by paying off debt even if you get a tax exemption on interest paid, but I think there is a perception of getting something for nothing, or getting more if you have more debt, almost stick to the government, taxes are so ultimately evil and I figured out how to pay less. That's probably an exaggeration, but ultimately this policy that allows you to deduct interest has lead to a higher acceptance of debt and even a strong shift towards public perception that a level of debt is ok and perhaps even a level of debt relative to assets is wise... (Ekkk!!!!...)

Canadians are more motivated to pay off debt as there is no perceived benefit from holding debt and they are also much more motivated to try and have a larger down payment. That isn't to say they manage the 25% down, but what will typically happen is they might come up with say 15%-20% down, find another 5-10% through short term debt and finance their first home with a highly aggressive debt repayment plan for the first 5 years or so as they work to pay back that 5-10% in a short term. If they can only come up with 10% down they just fork out that 2.5% insurance because they don't have hope of paying back that short term debt in a reasonable time line. It is difficult to get a subprime mortgage with Canadian law. You have to have 5% down and have to pay that 2.5% insurance.

I don't believe the differences in behaviour is universal, no people or countries are monolithic in all things and I didn't say this is a universal thing, but I do believe that if you look at the facts you would find a greater percentage of Americans borrowing against their equity than Canadians, and this is one of the ways that public policy affects behaviour to the detriment of the economy as a whole.


And even another point, the policy of allowing interest to be deducted has leveraged an ever higher level of hyperinflation in the housing market, but that's another topic.

Read More......