*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Going golfing now; will try to find data to link later.

It's something thats come up in discussions here heading into the municipal election.
I believe since affordability is so difficult here and the #1 topic; more people are still renting into their 30s/40s/beyond who will vote and more renters show up to vote in general compared to other provinces since housing is such an important issue here.

Here's one breakdown for BC & Ontario going to a past federal election:
https://betterdwelling.com/canadas-e...c-and-ontario/

That seems to be using voter eligibility data, but I'll try to find data for actual votes cast here in the municipal or provincial levels.

Better Dwelling isn't a reliable unbiased source. They are extrapolating data from unofficial data sources and merging them in a way to fit their narrative. Only the census is reliable and the latest data from 2021 also shows home ownership to be 67%.

https://www.thestar.com/business/202...people.html?rf

The decline in homeownership rates between 2011 and 2021 was the largest for younger Canadians, with the rate falling to 36.5 from 44.1 for those between the ages of 25 and 29.

Canadians between the ages of 30 and 34 experienced a similar but slightly smaller decline in homeownership, falling to 52.3 per cent from 59.2 per cent.

In other words, you only have a tiny demographic of the population without 50%+ home ownership

[opendoor]

Those percentages are of households though, not of the population. So if you combined 3 roommates renting a house and 1 person owning a condo, that would show a 50% home ownership rate, whereas only 25% of the people in that sample own a home.

A 20 year old living with their parents would also be categorized within a household that owns their home, as would someone renting a room from an owner. And I believe, some illegal suites would also be counted under the home ownership umbrella of the main unit, in cases where they didn't receive separate census forms and no one verified whether there was a separate rented unit.

The population % of homeowners is probably more in the 50-55% range, rather than the 65-70% range of household % of homeowners. So in the under 45 demographic, it's likely that non-owners make up a significant majority in many places. Though I'm skeptical it's enough to create renter-majority voting populations in any province.

[Johnny199r]

nm

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Those percentages are of households though, not of the population. So if you combined 3 roommates renting a house and 1 person owning a condo, that would show a 50% home ownership rate, whereas only 25% of the people in that sample own a home.

A 20 year old living with their parents would also be categorized within a household that owns their home, as would someone renting a room from an owner. And I believe, some illegal suites would also be counted under the home ownership umbrella of the main unit, in cases where they didn't receive separate census forms and no one verified whether there was a separate rented unit.

The population % of homeowners is probably more in the 50-55% range, rather than the 65-70% range of household % of homeowners. So in the under 45 demographic, it's likely that non-owners make up a significant majority in many places. Though I'm skeptical it's enough to create renter-majority voting populations in any province.

Someone close to the Vancouver municipal election told me about 60% of voters here are renters.
That plus the article I linked seemed to make sense but I can't find reliable data, so I'll admit it could be incorrect and retract the statement.

To the original point that was made about elections focusing on home owners as they vote more; that definitely does not feel to be the case in Vancouver or BC; but I can see that making sense in most places.
If you look at the leading candidates for the Vancouver election this week; campaign focuses are definitely not trying to win over home owners.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Those percentages are of households though, not of the population. So if you combined 3 roommates renting a house and 1 person owning a condo, that would show a 50% home ownership rate, whereas only 25% of the people in that sample own a home.

A 20 year old living with their parents would also be categorized within a household that owns their home, as would someone renting a room from an owner. And I believe, some illegal suites would also be counted under the home ownership umbrella of the main unit, in cases where they didn't receive separate census forms and no one verified whether there was a separate rented unit.

The population % of homeowners is probably more in the 50-55% range, rather than the 65-70% range of household % of homeowners. So in the under 45 demographic, it's likely that non-owners make up a significant majority in many places. Though I'm skeptical it's enough to create renter-majority voting populations in any province.

The bolded, they would be considered a dependent and treated the same way as a child under 18. They are neither owner or renter.

https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3V...=DEC&Id=251053

https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3V...=Unit&Id=32746

Census differentiates between non-census-family households (i.e. roommates) and census family households. Each roommate would be counted separately.

In your scenario, the 3 roommates would be counted as 3 separate census families as they are not related or in a common law relationship.

You can see the released preliminary data here.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...2021A000011124

Census is as accurate as it gets and accounts for different household definitions. If someone comes out and says 60% of voters are renters, they are statistically incorrect.

Most Canadians own, with 60% of owners having a mortgage. Governments will dictate policies on who gets them in power, which is why we had such dangerous policies for so long.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1579840696697384960

[MillerTime GFG]

Ahh Ron Butler...well educated, and usually in the know, but such a prick lol.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The bolded, they would be considered a dependent and treated the same way as a child under 18. They are neither owner or renter.

https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3V...=DEC&Id=251053

https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3V...=Unit&Id=32746

That's my point; they're adults who don't own their house, but they're counted as part of a census household that owns their residence. Similarly, anyone renting a room from an owner or who rents an illegal suite that Census Canada doesn't pick up on is an adult who isn't reflected as a renter, despite not owning. I've personally been in the latter situation when I was younger; I rented a detached suite but didn't get mail there, and Census Canada would have had no idea that I lived there.

Census differentiates between non-census-family households (i.e. roommates) and census family households. Each roommate would be counted separately.

In your scenario, the 3 roommates would be counted as 3 separate census families as they are not related or in a common law relationship.

The 3 roommates would be counted as 1 household though. Here's the definition from the census:

Household refers to a person or group of persons who occupy the same dwelling and do not have a usual place of residence elsewhere in Canada or abroad. The dwelling may be either a collective dwelling or a private dwelling. The household may consist of a family group such as a census family, of two or more families sharing a dwelling, of a group of unrelated persons or of a person living alone. Household members who are temporarily absent on reference day are considered part of their usual household.

and:

Household type refers to the differentiation of households on the basis of whether they are census family households or non-census-family households. Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family. Census family households may be differentiated based on the presence of additional persons (that is, persons not in a census family).

And the numbers bear that out. Sticking with BC, in the 2021 census there were 2,041,835 households. That number exactly matches the number of private occupied dwellings, which is also 2,041.835. If, as you say above, they were counting each member of a non-related household as their own household, then the number of households would exceed the number of dwellings. But they match exactly:

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...1&HEADERlist=0

So multiple unrelated adults who rent a dwelling are treated as a single renting household. And also, multiple unrelated adults who live in a dwelling where one of them owns it are treated as a single owning household. So you can see how there are situations where the number of non-owners is underestimated by simply looking at household data.

[blankall]

It sounds like you guys are arguing about two different things. Home ownership in BC vs. just Vancouver. Rental rates are clearly going to be higher in Vancouver vs. the rest of the province.

To add to this, it's not just home owners in BC, who have an interest in keeping the status quo. It's also their children, who stand to inherit huge swaths of money via ultra high real estate prices. Also, young people are more likely to rent, and they aren't great at voting. It's also not just votes politicians are concerned with, it's issues like tax revenue and sway from the wealthy.

Home owners pay more taxes, especially on the municipal level. Once the election has been won, the politicians can then choose to cater to interest groups. This is why we can't get townhouses, but we easily get lots of quieted streets and bike lanes.

[Yoho]

From Toronto Broker.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1580234450952421376

[Fuzz]

^ How does that happen when we have stress tests(at a level I don't think we have reached)? Were banks fudging stuff to make it work?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ How does that happen when we have stress tests(at a level I don't think we have reached)? Were banks fudging stuff to make it work?

*Shocked Pikachu Face*

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ How does that happen when we have stress tests(at a level I don't think we have reached)? Were banks fudging stuff to make it work?

It doesn't, at least not on a large scale without significant job losses happening. It's an anecdote based on 2nd hand information, and seems to assume that hitting a trigger rate means that people can't afford their mortgage anymore.

People will do basically anything to avoid having to sell their house; very few people are going to incur tens of thousands of dollars in transaction costs and potentially sell an asset that's underwater to switch to renting at this stage. More likely, they'd make cuts elsewhere to make up the difference, with selling their house being the last resort. I mean, that's the whole point of raising interest rates to combat inflation; it removes disposable income from the economy as people reduce spending elsewhere to service mortgages and other debt.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ How does that happen when we have stress tests(at a level I don't think we have reached)? Were banks fudging stuff to make it work?

I have a variable rate mortgage. I've only got one more 25 bps hike before I'd be negative amortization (ie trigger rate). That definitely doesn't mean I'm going to have an issue making payments. For one thing, the huge paydown from many years of fixed payments when the rate was lower means I'm many years ahead on the principal already, so I don't actually have to increase payment, because the trigger point is years of negative amortization away. That's not what I'll do, but it's a way better option than defaulting.

Someone who bought their max possible 12 months ago in a bidding war and went variable might be in a different position, but the number of mortgages reaching their trigger rate isn't predictive of defaults at all, imo.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It doesn't, at least not on a large scale without significant job losses happening. It's an anecdote based on 2nd hand information, and seems to assume that hitting a trigger rate means that people can't afford their mortgage anymore.

People will do basically anything to avoid having to sell their house; very few people are going to incur tens of thousands of dollars in transaction costs and potentially sell an asset that's underwater to switch to renting at this stage. More likely, they'd make cuts elsewhere to make up the difference, with selling their house being the last resort. I mean, that's the whole point of raising interest rates to combat inflation; it removes disposable income from the economy as people reduce spending elsewhere to service mortgages and other debt.

I know things are different, but that line of thought didn't hold in 2008-09. People (in the US, because Canada wasn't at the epicenter of the GFC/subprime) were walking away from their homes and renting. The thought was that people could keep their car that way, still work and keep things rolling, but if they got rid of the vehicle at that point they were stuck in a house that they couldn't afford payments on.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know things are different, but that line of thought didn't hold in 2008-09. People (in the US, because Canada wasn't at the epicenter of the GFC/subprime) were walking away from their homes and renting. The thought was that people could keep their car that way, still work and keep things rolling, but if they got rid of the vehicle at that point they were stuck in a house that they couldn't afford payments on.

That was in the face of double digit unemployment though. Obviously if people lose their source of income and can't make payments, that changes things. But that isn't happening right now. Also, unlike much of the US, you can't just walk away from your house in most of Canada due to full-recourse mortgage rules. If you sell for less than the amount owed as a mortgage, you're liable for the difference unless you declare bankruptcy.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That was in the face of double digit unemployment though. Obviously if people lose their source of income and can't make payments, that changes things. But that isn't happening right now. Also, unlike much of the US, you can't just walk away from your house in most of Canada due to full-recourse mortgage rules. If you sell for less than the amount owed as a mortgage, you're liable for the difference unless you declare bankruptcy.

I realise those differences, but I'm just saying that the idea that people will cut other things and work to keep their homes isn't a constant. Of course, unemployment remains low right now, but that's one of the issues for the BoC (and the fed) when it comes to curbing inflation. No one is going to come right out and say they want job losses, but they wouldn't be heartbroken to see the unemployment rate climb at this point.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yoho

From Toronto Broker.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1580234450952421376

I think the AND is doing a lot of work on that tweet.

People have reached their trigger rate where the interest rate exceeds their payment.

But Can’t afford and don’t want to afford and are complaining are too different things.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I have a variable rate mortgage. I've only got one more 25 bps hike before I'd be negative amortization (ie trigger rate). That definitely doesn't mean I'm going to have an issue making payments. For one thing, the huge paydown from many years of fixed payments when the rate was lower means I'm many years ahead on the principal already, so I don't actually have to increase payment, because the trigger point is years of negative amortization away. That's not what I'll do, but it's a way better option than defaulting.

Someone who bought their max possible 12 months ago in a bidding war and went variable might be in a different position, but the number of mortgages reaching their trigger rate isn't predictive of defaults at all, imo.

Even if you bought the max unless you committed fraud you should still be okay in terms of max borrowing limits which may be uncomfortable but not catostophic.

[nik-]

Sometimes a number that technically works on paper during a stress test doesn't really work in the real world. It doesn't need to be fraud, it can just be underestimating what "tight budget" can actually mean.