Broker news forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Mortgage Broker News | 17 Oct 2016, 08:15 AM Agree 0
CMBA has spoken directly to Finance Minister Bill Morneau and has provided its recommended amendments and exceptions for the recent mortgage rule changes
  • Geoff Lander | 17 Oct 2016, 09:57 AM Agree 0
    Good job CMBA. I'm trying to surpress my cynical side when I say I truly hope your logic didn't fall on deaf ears.

    Good luck.
  • Betterbroker | 17 Oct 2016, 10:35 AM Agree 0
    I am from a small market area and this is going to hurt a lot more people then it would in the city. I would totally be on board recommendation 4. I think we are paying for the sins of Vancouver and Toronto(GTA). Its going to hurt the little people the most!
  • Tess Bridge | 17 Oct 2016, 11:00 AM Agree 0
    Your well-thought out positions, as seems to be a consistent pattern, are very much appreciated. Thank you for helping the entire industry.
  • Ron Butler | 17 Oct 2016, 11:03 AM Agree 0
    There is a basic flaw in proposing complicated changes to a government that made their minds up already.

    Here's the fight in the future: FAIRNESS. Do not change rules that adversely effect non-bank lenders and leave banks untouched. Don't remove programs that have worked perfectly for decades and remove choice and competition from the marketplace.

    That is the fight we need to fight, keep it simple and battle against future changes that hurt our channel, this current battle was lost the day this was announced.
  • Sabrina wells | 17 Oct 2016, 11:08 AM Agree 0
    Of course brokers would prefer longer terms for their clients, in doing this their commission doubles.
    Currently dealing with a client where broker put them into a 10 yr term and their IRD penalty is 28000.00,
    My clients are have to pay realtor commission and IRD.
    There will be no equity left.
    Great solution to line the pockets of brokers and for the clients it puts them on some cases in a worse position.

    My clients are splitting up and will not repurchase and are forced to pay.

    Long term mortgages are not the solution in this case
  • Ad Lakhanpal,Mortgage Broker | 17 Oct 2016, 11:18 AM Agree 0
    Ron Butler is right on! Keep it simple and FAIR.

    Even I, as an experienced broker, lost patience in reading through the recommendations. I wonder how the bureaucrats must have felt.
  • Joel Smythe | 17 Oct 2016, 11:56 AM Agree 0
    Unfortunately Ron misses the point - fairness is a loaded term; fair to who? Government acts in the interest of the public (consumers); they couldn't care less about fairness as between non-bank and bank lenders. An argument about fairness to non-bank lenders would be seen as little more than self-serving. An argument about fairness has to focus on the public interest/consumers.

    Politicians are often non-lawyers. Brokers generally are non-lawyers. Policy-making/writing bureaucrats generally are lawyers or at least have legal training. The letter is correctly directed to people in area of policy-making. Ad, the audience for the letter is not an experienced broker but rather a policy-maker. All the experience in the world as a broker does not begin to make a policy-maker.

    I for one am glad the letter correctly targets the correct audience. It shows a level of sophistication and understanding the policy makers understand and appreciate. Hence the quick meeting and discussion. They recognized the letter was written by someone who could intelligently discuss the issues in depth. Any amount of experience with policy-makers will tell you that is what they are after - substance, not window dressing.
  • Shelley Russell | 17 Oct 2016, 01:44 PM Agree 0
    Excellent recommendations! Hoping the minister gives this the attention it deserves!
  • Ron Butler | 17 Oct 2016, 02:23 PM Agree 0
    Joel, the whole point is that the federal government NEEDS to care about fairness. because fairness in the lending world translates as competition and competition is so incredibly vital to the consumer.

    This is critical to understand: when policy is changed on two weeks notice with ZERO consultation that was a ministerial decision not a bureaucrat's decision. If people think bureaucrats are our audience, please think again. Politicians are the key. The Trust Companies were decimated by policy change, the big stock brokers were all bought up by the banks due to policy change. Two "pillars" of Canadian finance were effectively wiped out but two survived: the banks who were the acquirers remained and so did the insurers. So why did the insurers remain and in fact were so strong they even forced banks to build separate locations to sell most insurance products from (that's right they cannot offer P&C insurance in their own branches) because insurers went straight to the politicians, they know every locale MP and MLA , they know every local campaign manager and every single money person for every party. The insurers knew better than to debate fine points of policy with bureaucrats, they pressed politicians to understand their value and the need for competition in their product category.

    As far as self serving is concerned, fighting the new hi-ratio qualifying rate IS SELF SERVING but fighting unfairness in the treatment of non-banks versus banks is about fairness and fostering competition that supports the consumer.

    We do not want to end up like Australia where their 4 big banks completely control the mortgage business. Interestingly as a group Australia's 4 banks are the profitable banks in the Western world.

    Fairness is not a loaded term, fairness is a hallmark of a strong democracy.
  • Mortgage Jake Abramowicz | 17 Oct 2016, 03:00 PM Agree 0
    I wish that the MQR was set at +1% to discounted. The gap between MQR and discounted is too wide - 2.39 vs 4.64 on example. Why they didn't set a +1% instead is confusing.

    Oh I know! Because they didn't ask..
  • RR BC | 17 Oct 2016, 03:15 PM Agree 0
    Government never seems to ask any more. They always ask for consultation after they make up their mind. Shame on Justin Trudeau. Good work CMBA. the letter was written from a Mortgage Brokers perspective. i hope they realize we are on the front line and can provide them with ideas. I am hoping they will grant us an extension to allow for more consultation. Please adopt these recommendations.
  • Ron Butler | 17 Oct 2016, 03:20 PM Agree 0
    I hear you Jake but at the end of the day the Feds wanted to slow things down and that takes a big jolt. Here is what makes us both sick: for the next 30 to 60 days or so, branches are just going to back date applications and say "oh, we forgot this one" and the insurer will approve those deals. Let's face it the only time the insurer actually asks to see the lenders docs is at the point a mortgage becomes a claim.
  • mat fugere | 17 Oct 2016, 04:15 PM Agree 0
    Sabrina...i assume you work for one the big banks by your comments? It's always ironic to hear someone at the bank level talking about large penalties given the disproportionate penalties when comparing a 5 fix with a monoline vs. a major bank. in my opinion, long term is neither good for the broker or the client.
  • vanislbroker | 23 Oct 2016, 04:39 PM Agree 0
    I like all Recommendations, except I think Recommendation #2 is a bit odd:
    how does one prove to a lender/insurer that borrower is a FTHB and therefore eligible for 30 year amortization?
Post a reply