OSFI/CMHC Clamps Down on (One Form of) 100% Financing

There’s another set of mortgage rules coming this summer. CMHC sent out a notice recently with implementation dates for three policies related to OSFI’s B-21 guideline.

We knew this stuff was coming but these rules could nonetheless make it harder to get low-ratio insured variable-rate mortgages, self-employed mortgages and 100% financing.

Here’s what’s happening:

  1. The qualifying interest rate for low-ratio variable and fixed terms of less than five years will officially become the Benchmark Qualifying Rate (currently 4.64%). This change only applies to transactionally insured mortgages, not bulk insured mortgages, says CMHC. Effective date: “As early as possible after June 30, 2015, and no later than December 31, 2015.”
  2. Lenders will officially be required to obtain “third-party verification” of income for all borrowers, “including substantiation of employment status and income history.” CMHC did away with “stated income” financing many moons ago, but the private insurers still offer a form of non-traditional income verification (see Genworth’s program and Canada Guaranty’s program). We don’t yet know if/how their programs might change. For CMHC’s part, this announcement “is simply [meant] to add additional clarity and re-affirm CMHC’s position,” spokesperson Charles Sauriol says. Effective date: June 30, 2015.
  3. Cash-back down payment mortgages will be eliminated unless the borrower can come up with 5% down on their own. Ever since OSFI’s Guideline B-20 killed these products at the banks, this type of 100% financing has only been offered by a small number of credit unions. Effective date: June 30, 2015.

With this last rule, you might be wondering why people can borrow their down payment from a 20%-interest credit card but not derive their down payment from lender-provided cash rebates.

“To differentiate the two—in other words, use of lender cash backs versus borrowed funds to satisfy minimum equity requirements—lender cash-back mortgages are typically associated with higher interest rates charged to the borrower,” says Sauriol. That “translates into a larger insured loan amount and in the event of a default, into potential additional risks for the mortgage insurer.”

“In cases where funds are borrowed to satisfy minimum equity requirements, the borrowing is outside of the insured loan amount and is also factored in the total debt service ratio, and therefore taken into account for borrower qualification purposes.”

The end result is that the insurer incurs less severe losses on default (e.g., after five years, the loan balance being insured can be 3% to 4% less if the down payment was borrowed).

Unfortunately, borrowed down payments can also result in higher interest costs and/or payments for the homeowner, depending on what interest rate and amortization applies to the borrowed down payment. In cases where this makes it tougher for the borrower to debt service, that could theoretically increase the probability of default.

Sidebar: It appears none of these rules prevent a lender from offering an unsecured line of credit for the borrower’s down payment. It should be noted, however, that lenders scrutinize applications very carefully if someone is borrowing his/her down payment.

  1. To anyone who knows the answer:

    Does any lender offer unsecured credit lines through brokers?

    Thank you

    1. Yes, MCC brokers can submit to CIBC, and brokers set up as an approved CFF Bank (called Canadian First Financial Centres) have access to a LOC and a host of other banking products.

      1. MCC brokers can still submit applications to CIBC? I thought CIBC cut ties with MCC when they sold it to DLC. Do you get paid on ULOC applications? What about mortgage applications?

        1. Yes, albeit small for unsecured LOC’s.
          Mortgage Apps — No. As I understand, only if you work for HLC (or CIBC).

  2. I find it hilarious how they keep tightening the mortgage market under the pretense of minimizing taxpayer exposure to mortgage losses while in the unsecured credit market, which truly needs regulating, it’s business as usual. As if the taxpayers are not exposed to credit losses on the unsecured side? OSFI declared the Big 6 as DSIBS so any lack of prudent lending on their part, such as car loans at 20% against an asset that depreciates at 2% a month, will be borne by the taxpayers! When things go wrong the government will bail out any one of the Big 6 if the losses threaten to destabilize the banking system. People must have been sleeping when RBC’s Dave Mckay said a few months that he feels good about Canada’s housing market. You don’t say Dave…. if my private investors had half of their mortgage book backed by the full faith and credit of the Canadian government we too would be sleeping very well at night. It’s absurd how those who support the government’s mortgage tightening do not understand the basic concept of how a bank functions. When a person experiences an unexpected challenge such as a job loss or disability and they tap out their reserves, the first thing they will default on is unsecured credit. The home will be the last thing. There are plenty of foreign investors looking to buy quality homes, not written-off credit card portfolios.

  3. OSFI has not got the ability to run with the mortgage rules. Key staff have left and have no suitable replacements.
    They have a whole team dedicated to condos and have spent the last 5 years counting condos across Canada. A team of 10 were working on this. B-21 is nothing too earth shattering.

    Remember this is the same organization that said banks would fail when the barrel of oil hit $80.00. We were all hoping the Rudin could restore some sanity to this organization that is so off topic. Most of there material is general and taken from other regulators.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Stories
CREA May home sales dataa
Housing Market Moderates in May, but Prices Forecast to Rise 19.3% this Year
Copy link