We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
Jun 29th 2012 | 8:05 am
#46
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
Agreed. I was involved on my first house purchase but never again since that one was sold in 1986.
Jun 29th 2012 | 4:22 pm
#48
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
Leading the life of a busy international executive, but fortunately that's over for a while.
Yeah - I kind of assumed that it's mostly FTBs that need this as most home owners will probably have enough equity to not need it.
welcome back honey, where have you been?Yeah - I kind of assumed that it's mostly FTBs that need this as most home owners will probably have enough equity to not need it.
Jun 30th 2012 | 2:40 am
#49
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
Jun 30th 2012 | 2:48 am
#50
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,578
From: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
one who is not forward thinking and open minded and will just do as you tell them
Jun 30th 2012 | 5:33 am
#51
Binned by Muderators
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,708
From: White Rock BC
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
I think I read somewhere recently that less than 10% of the mortgages CMHC current insures have a LTV ration of 90% or greater. We would need to see a 1930s style depression before CMHC goes underwater.
Jun 30th 2012 | 9:16 am
#53
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,324
From: Near Kingston, Ontario
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
our mortgages are much more highly regulated. Now with the higher value prop purchases over $1MM, the Loan to value has been lowered on a case by case basis.
Jun 30th 2012 | 2:30 pm
#56
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 40,070
From: Ontario
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
If you're looking for a house buying related scandal in Canada, maybe title insurance would be a better target than the CMHC. Title insurance is, I think, rather a scam.
What it does is to absolve the lawyer for a house purchaser of responsibilty for performing searches (for example, for liens, for boundary disputes or other claims against the property and for orders against the property). The house purchaser pays the premium but the benefit is to the lawyer who, protected by the insurance, doesn't have to do the searches.
It is, of course, the lawyer who sells the policy to the purchaser; if conflict of interest was a concept recognised in Canada this would be a glaring one. If a problem is discovered, then in theory, the title insurer indeminifies the purchaser but, here's the catch; the policy is only good for 90 days after purchase.
I know of the limitations of title insurance because, a year or so after buying a property, it became apparent that the boundaries had been under dispute for some years. Well, that's a shame but, a colleague recently purchased a property only to find out six months later that it had been condemned. Prior to the advent of title insurance these matters would likely have been discovered when the lawyers for the purchasers looked into the properties in question, when they did their searches. Now the lawyers only charge for doing searches but don't actually do them we're all worse off. The insurance isn't of any real value because the issues in question take years to manifest themselves; the policy is only saleable because the purchaser doesn't understand what's being sold to them and because they're inclined to think that the lawyer they've hired to conveyance the property acts for them. Selling someone title insurance on a property is, in my view, like selling someone a long term warranty on a washing machine.
CMHC, not terrible and has commercial competitors such as Genworth. Lawyers, utter shits, to be trusted as one would a car salesman. If you have one to dinner count the spoons before he or she leaves.
What it does is to absolve the lawyer for a house purchaser of responsibilty for performing searches (for example, for liens, for boundary disputes or other claims against the property and for orders against the property). The house purchaser pays the premium but the benefit is to the lawyer who, protected by the insurance, doesn't have to do the searches.
It is, of course, the lawyer who sells the policy to the purchaser; if conflict of interest was a concept recognised in Canada this would be a glaring one. If a problem is discovered, then in theory, the title insurer indeminifies the purchaser but, here's the catch; the policy is only good for 90 days after purchase.
I know of the limitations of title insurance because, a year or so after buying a property, it became apparent that the boundaries had been under dispute for some years. Well, that's a shame but, a colleague recently purchased a property only to find out six months later that it had been condemned. Prior to the advent of title insurance these matters would likely have been discovered when the lawyers for the purchasers looked into the properties in question, when they did their searches. Now the lawyers only charge for doing searches but don't actually do them we're all worse off. The insurance isn't of any real value because the issues in question take years to manifest themselves; the policy is only saleable because the purchaser doesn't understand what's being sold to them and because they're inclined to think that the lawyer they've hired to conveyance the property acts for them. Selling someone title insurance on a property is, in my view, like selling someone a long term warranty on a washing machine.
CMHC, not terrible and has commercial competitors such as Genworth. Lawyers, utter shits, to be trusted as one would a car salesman. If you have one to dinner count the spoons before he or she leaves.
Jul 2nd 2012 | 1:26 pm
#59
Thread Starter
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 860
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
If you're looking for a house buying related scandal in Canada, maybe title insurance would be a better target than the CMHC. Title insurance is, I think, rather a scam.
What it does is to absolve the lawyer for a house purchaser of responsibilty for performing searches (for example, for liens, for boundary disputes or other claims against the property and for orders against the property). The house purchaser pays the premium but the benefit is to the lawyer who, protected by the insurance, doesn't have to do the searches.
It is, of course, the lawyer who sells the policy to the purchaser; if conflict of interest was a concept recognised in Canada this would be a glaring one. If a problem is discovered, then in theory, the title insurer indeminifies the purchaser but, here's the catch; the policy is only good for 90 days after purchase.
I know of the limitations of title insurance because, a year or so after buying a property, it became apparent that the boundaries had been under dispute for some years. Well, that's a shame but, a colleague recently purchased a property only to find out six months later that it had been condemned. Prior to the advent of title insurance these matters would likely have been discovered when the lawyers for the purchasers looked into the properties in question, when they did their searches. Now the lawyers only charge for doing searches but don't actually do them we're all worse off. The insurance isn't of any real value because the issues in question take years to manifest themselves; the policy is only saleable because the purchaser doesn't understand what's being sold to them and because they're inclined to think that the lawyer they've hired to conveyance the property acts for them. Selling someone title insurance on a property is, in my view, like selling someone a long term warranty on a washing machine.
CMHC, not terrible and has commercial competitors such as Genworth. Lawyers, utter shits, to be trusted as one would a car salesman. If you have one to dinner count the spoons before he or she leaves.
What it does is to absolve the lawyer for a house purchaser of responsibilty for performing searches (for example, for liens, for boundary disputes or other claims against the property and for orders against the property). The house purchaser pays the premium but the benefit is to the lawyer who, protected by the insurance, doesn't have to do the searches.
It is, of course, the lawyer who sells the policy to the purchaser; if conflict of interest was a concept recognised in Canada this would be a glaring one. If a problem is discovered, then in theory, the title insurer indeminifies the purchaser but, here's the catch; the policy is only good for 90 days after purchase.
I know of the limitations of title insurance because, a year or so after buying a property, it became apparent that the boundaries had been under dispute for some years. Well, that's a shame but, a colleague recently purchased a property only to find out six months later that it had been condemned. Prior to the advent of title insurance these matters would likely have been discovered when the lawyers for the purchasers looked into the properties in question, when they did their searches. Now the lawyers only charge for doing searches but don't actually do them we're all worse off. The insurance isn't of any real value because the issues in question take years to manifest themselves; the policy is only saleable because the purchaser doesn't understand what's being sold to them and because they're inclined to think that the lawyer they've hired to conveyance the property acts for them. Selling someone title insurance on a property is, in my view, like selling someone a long term warranty on a washing machine.
CMHC, not terrible and has commercial competitors such as Genworth. Lawyers, utter shits, to be trusted as one would a car salesman. If you have one to dinner count the spoons before he or she leaves.
I'm already investigating how to 'port' that business model to my own line of work
Jul 3rd 2012 | 5:38 am
#60
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: We're all on the hook for Canada's mortgages?
If you're looking for a house buying related scandal in Canada, maybe title insurance would be a better target than the CMHC. Title insurance is, I think, rather a scam.
What it does is to absolve the lawyer for a house purchaser of responsibilty for performing searches (for example, for liens, for boundary disputes or other claims against the property and for orders against the property). The house purchaser pays the premium but the benefit is to the lawyer who, protected by the insurance, doesn't have to do the searches.
It is, of course, the lawyer who sells the policy to the purchaser; if conflict of interest was a concept recognised in Canada this would be a glaring one. If a problem is discovered, then in theory, the title insurer indeminifies the purchaser but, here's the catch; the policy is only good for 90 days after purchase.
I know of the limitations of title insurance because, a year or so after buying a property, it became apparent that the boundaries had been under dispute for some years. Well, that's a shame but, a colleague recently purchased a property only to find out six months later that it had been condemned. Prior to the advent of title insurance these matters would likely have been discovered when the lawyers for the purchasers looked into the properties in question, when they did their searches. Now the lawyers only charge for doing searches but don't actually do them we're all worse off. The insurance isn't of any real value because the issues in question take years to manifest themselves; the policy is only saleable because the purchaser doesn't understand what's being sold to them and because they're inclined to think that the lawyer they've hired to conveyance the property acts for them. Selling someone title insurance on a property is, in my view, like selling someone a long term warranty on a washing machine.
CMHC, not terrible and has commercial competitors such as Genworth. Lawyers, utter shits, to be trusted as one would a car salesman. If you have one to dinner count the spoons before he or she leaves.
What it does is to absolve the lawyer for a house purchaser of responsibilty for performing searches (for example, for liens, for boundary disputes or other claims against the property and for orders against the property). The house purchaser pays the premium but the benefit is to the lawyer who, protected by the insurance, doesn't have to do the searches.
It is, of course, the lawyer who sells the policy to the purchaser; if conflict of interest was a concept recognised in Canada this would be a glaring one. If a problem is discovered, then in theory, the title insurer indeminifies the purchaser but, here's the catch; the policy is only good for 90 days after purchase.
I know of the limitations of title insurance because, a year or so after buying a property, it became apparent that the boundaries had been under dispute for some years. Well, that's a shame but, a colleague recently purchased a property only to find out six months later that it had been condemned. Prior to the advent of title insurance these matters would likely have been discovered when the lawyers for the purchasers looked into the properties in question, when they did their searches. Now the lawyers only charge for doing searches but don't actually do them we're all worse off. The insurance isn't of any real value because the issues in question take years to manifest themselves; the policy is only saleable because the purchaser doesn't understand what's being sold to them and because they're inclined to think that the lawyer they've hired to conveyance the property acts for them. Selling someone title insurance on a property is, in my view, like selling someone a long term warranty on a washing machine.
CMHC, not terrible and has commercial competitors such as Genworth. Lawyers, utter shits, to be trusted as one would a car salesman. If you have one to dinner count the spoons before he or she leaves.
Here, no searches are done and, IIRC, title insurance assists the purchaser by ensuring that issues that arise from any delay between the purchaser transferring the funds to the vendor, and the title being registered by the Land Titles Office, are indemnified by the policy. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong.
I can't see how any form of title insurance assists a lawyer that screws up. If the purchaser doesn't sue them, I would imagine that the insurer would. Of course, one could always refuse the insurance and insist the lawyer does what the purchaser is paying them to do. I cannot see how the purchase of title insurance (in the circumstances you described above) benefits the purchaser unless the cost of the insurance is less than what the lawyer would charge to perform the work and the purchaser is willing to take the risk in order to save a few hundred dollars (or whatever the amount). Wouldn't one have to be a little thick to accept such a deal?
