Abolish the CMHC

[hitops]

Here's a mini-rant.

The CMHC no longer serves any productive purpose in Canada. It was founded because the influx of soldiers returning from war and the difficulties in finding housing as a result. Worthy goal, perhaps. Today it basically serves one purpose.....to enable people who should never receive loans, to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in home loans.

There is absolutely no reason why a 22 yr old grad who cannot cobble together even 10% for a house should receive a large bank loan. I shouldn't pick on the young, there are all kinds of people who have never learned or cared to live within their means or save. Banks know this, and they don't give loans to those kinds of people.......unless they have a guarantee that those loans are backed. Welcome to Fannie and Freddie the CHMC.

If you don't pay at least 20% down, you need CMHC insurance. This allows banks to lend foolishly because they eliminate their risk. This situation should not exist, and is basically exactly the same problem that led to the American housing collapse. Same story - government creates an entity that allows those with no ability to manage their budget, to get huge loans.

But doesn't that help poor people? No. The mandate of the CHMC "includes facilitating accessibility to a "wide choice of quality, environmentally sustainable, affordable housing solutions." It has created just the opposite effect.

When every kid stepping out of high school can get $300,000 and who's financial attention lasts about as far as the commercials during the Bachelor, this obviously drives the price up for everybody else as well. Way up. Home ownership is at ridiculous levels which are not supported by the economy, and homeowner debt is at out of control all time highs.

Poor people cannot afford the median $350,000 home, nor even homes much less than that. Subsidizing home ownership has basically made it impossible for poor people to ever pay off a home. Attempts to help people without lots of money get stuff they cannot afford......what could go wrong? (facepalm) Yet we keep trying these dumb ideas time after time......

But they will rent right? Wrong. Home prices have gone up, and as a result so have rentals. It is a major issue right now that the poor are being priced out of their rentals.

The other serious problem is that the Bank of Canada has to keep interest rates low to avoid pushing millions of people out of their homes. They do this to avoid the political backlash of people losing their homes, but the economy needs interest rates to go up, not down.

Many factors contribute to the housing boom (bubble). By the number one factor BY FAR, is the increase in debt financing for homes. And the number one source BY FAR for this debt, is mortgage insurance through the CMHC.

But it's making money you say. Yes, during housing booms it will always make money. When the crash hits, it will be losing money big time. And guess who gets to pick up that tab? The taxpayer of course.

Moving the max amortization to 40 years was one of the worst financial decisions of the decade. Moving it back to 25 years recently was a good move, although much of the damage has been done. An even better move.....get rid of it!

That was more of a full rant.

[August1991]

I fundamentally disagree.

A civilzed state requires property (land) owners. (Indeed, in some flights of fancy, I would restrict voters in a Democratic State to owners of real property.)

-----

To own property, it requires leverage. The State should offer this guarantee.

IOW, our most valuable capital is our human capital. Without the luck of a rich parent, how can we develop this capital?

[Bonam]

I fundamentally disagree.

A civilzed state requires property (land) owners. (Indeed, in some flights of fancy, I would restrict voters in a Democratic State to owners of real property.)

-----

To own property, it requires leverage. The State should offer this guarantee.

IOW, our most valuable capital is our human capital. Without the luck of a rich parent, how can we develop this capital?

Someone with a $300,000 home and a $290,000 mortgage isn't an owner of anything. The bank is the owner, the person paying the mortgage is just renting from the bank.

I agree with hitops, the government should not be in the business of guaranteeing risky mortgage loans. In fact, the less government does to "help" people afford homes, the less capital will be in the housing markets, and this will allow housing prices to decline so that homes are actually affordable to people. You know, affordable as in they can actually afford it and eventually pay off the mortgage, as opposed to just sitting on giant mountains of debt for their whole lives.

Sadly, housing prices declining is seen as an apocalyptic scenario rather than a reasonable necessity, because government sees things through the lens of the 50-70 year old generation of people in positions of power, and they are the people who already own homes. These people want their homes to be worth as much as possible so that they can use their home equity as additional capital throughout their retirement. They'd love housing prices to keep shooting up, cause once you have a house, it doesn't matter that they aren't affordable. Unfortunately, this prices anyone that isn't already an owner out of the market.

The reality is government will continue to do anything in its power to prop up the housing sector, including keeping interest rates at or near zero, guaranteeing risky mortgages, providing tax incentives for home ownership and mortgage payments, etc. And there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it despite the fact that such policies are about the worst possible thing for our society and economy. The way government, economists, and the media think about and talk about the economy is just fundamentally wrong; it's all about keeping things from falling apart, rather than letting things renew and rejuvenate themselves.

[hitops]

I fundamentally disagree.

A civilzed state requires property (land) owners. (Indeed, in some flights of fancy, I would restrict voters in a Democratic State to owners of real property.)

-----

To own property, it requires leverage. The State should offer this guarantee.

IOW, our most valuable capital is our human capital. Without the luck of a rich parent, how can we develop this capital?

Very true you need property owners. But owning a lifetime of debt is not owning a property, it's just owning liability. We do not require the government to make property ownership possible.

The reason you need a rich parent is exactly because the CMHC has driven housing prices through the roof! It's the standard attempt at social engineering and that, so predictably, just makes everyone poorer in the end. if you got rid of the government loan guarantee, you could leave it to private bank to offer insurance themselves. They would assess risk more accurately and charge for that insurance as appropriate. Housing prices would drop in half and reach their true value in the economy.

Lost the CMHC, and you lose the need to have a rich parent to own a house for so many people. It means of course that they might have to save up a little longer.....you know......that insane strategy of actually saving up for something until you afford it.

We are at 70% homeownership, which is WAY too high. Servicing debt just means less disposable income for other things. So from the economy's perspective, its just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

My fear is that the government will cower and do something stupid like print money to help everyone (and themselves) with their debt, which just encourages stupid financial planning and instability.

Edited April 6, 2013 by hitops

[TimG]

Very true you need property owners. But owning a lifetime of debt is not owning a property, it's just owning liability. We do not require the government to make property ownership possible.

CHMC is not free - people have to pay for the the insurance. So it is completely unfair to describe it as a subsidy. It may be worth looking at the premiums to make sure they actually cover the risk but I see no need to do away with the program. Edited April 6, 2013 by TimG

[August1991]

Someone with a $300,000 home and a $290,000 mortgage isn't an owner of anything. The bank is the owner, the person paying the mortgage is just renting from the bank.

And I suppose, in similar fashion, if a person "owns" $3 million of potential human capital, but cannot borrow against this capital, then the potential will not be realized. Edited April 6, 2013 by August1991

[Bonam]

CHMC is not free - people have to pay for the the insurance. So it is completely unfair to describe it as a subsidy. It may be worth looking at the premiums to make sure they actually cover the risk but I see no need to do away with the program.

If it is a viable insurance service, then I'm sure some private sector company will capitalize on the lucrative opportunity to sell such insurance. No reason for government to do it.

[TimG]

If it is a viable insurance service, then I'm sure some private sector company will capitalize on the lucrative opportunity to sell such insurance. No reason for government to do it.

You can say that about health insurance yet most people in Canada support a government run insurance system. The complaints are only about the ban on private purchases of healthcare which is a Canadian anomaly among developed countries with single payer systems.

Insurance is one of those services which sometimes needs the scale of a government to provide (like police, roads or education). The only question is whether the system is being run like a business focused on its objectives or is it is being used a scheme to dole out political favours. I see no evidence that the CMHC is badly run at this time. Fanny and Freddy were privately run failures due to bad management and political interference.

Edited April 6, 2013 by TimG

[Archanfel]

Why abolish the CMHC if it's sound business? The government typically have longer investment horizon than private corporations, therefore, crown corporation does have certain competitive advantages. There's no reason why CMHC can't make money for the Canadian tax payers if it's run as a business.

[hitops]

CHMC is not free - people have to pay for the the insurance. So it is completely unfair to describe it as a subsidy. It may be worth looking at the premiums to make sure they actually cover the risk but I see no need to do away with the program.

It is a subsidy because the government guarantees the loans. How would we look at premiums? The government has no way of assessing a reasonable premium because it is all artificial and based on politics, not market forces.

Insurance is one of those services which sometimes needs the scale of a government to provide (like police, roads or education). The only question is whether the system is being run like a business focused on its objectives or is it is being used a scheme to dole out political favours. I see no evidence that the CMHC is badly run at this time. Fanny and Freddy were privately run failures due to bad management and political interference.

Why abolish the CMHC if it's sound business? The government typically have longer investment horizon than private corporations, therefore, crown corporation does have certain competitive advantages. There's no reason why CMHC can't make money for the Canadian tax payers if it's run as a business.

But there is a critical, massive difference between the two. Healthcare has a budget for its costs and potential costs, and generally adheres to this budget. Gov housing insurance liabilities are not budgeted, if a crash occurs there is no way to cover it and the taxpayer will foot the bill. Put another way - you are right the government is a health insurance company. But there is no way to create 'health bubble', where people can borrow against their health and then suddenly all become sick when a bunch can't pay. Rather it's a predictable (although rising), fairly steady rate of health problems that will always be generally spread out evenly over time for the whole population. The CMHC is not bound to something natural like the rate of health problem's over time, the CMHC itself can create a cliff of problems for itself, and it has.

It's a massive bill. Their liabilities are $600 billion. CMHC profits last year were $250 million. That means if 0.04% of additional homes foreclose, it's in the red. 1% would mean insolvency. The total tax revenues of Canada are $230 billion. Canadians are currently running their highest debt-to-incomes ratios ever, 150% today vs 60% in 1980. If the interest rate goes up even a little bit, there will be mass of foreclosures. This is because Canadians are spending a huge portion of their incomes on mortgage servicing today, more than ever before, around 50% of net income. That is with interest rates nearly zero. When people are spending half they money on their home every month with rock-bottom rates, guess what happens when the rate goes up?

It is in no way a sound business. It is a business that responds to the politics of the moment. It only makes money when housing prices are rising and people are not foreclosing. How did that assumption/strategy work out for our friends to the south?

And I suppose, in similar fashion, if a person "owns" $3 million of potential human capital, but cannot borrow against this capital, then the potential will not be realized.

The difference is you cannot have a 'human capital bubble'. And the reason is simple.....there is no government institution that artificially subsidizes human capital (only banks to do that, and they do it according to real risk). There is for homes, and that's why its a major problem. Whenever the government gets involved in a non-necessary market like home-ownership, it makes it more expensive for everyone, including the government. Housing is not a right, and trying to make it possible for everyone to borrow has only succeeded in making it virtually impossible for most new buyers to ever actually own their home.

To summarize, the cmhc:

- Drives up the cost of homes, making it impossibly expensive for new buyer's to buy without borrowing

- Adds cost to mortgages because virtually all new buyer's need to pay cmhc fees

- Encourages borrowing far more than would be reasonably safe for a given income, discourages saving

- Drive poor people out of the housing market

- Prices poor people out of rentals

Edited April 6, 2013 by hitops

[hitops]

One other point that is vital to understanding this problem. If there is a housing crash, can't you just say f_ck it and let the bank foreclose on the house you paid $400,000 for which is now worth $250,000? No, not in Canada you can't. Unlike in the US, if the bank sells your home and there is a big difference leftover, you are still responsible for it. A housing crash would not only push millions of out of their homes, it would push them into bankruptcy.

Edited April 6, 2013 by hitops

[TimG]

It is a subsidy because the government guarantees the loans. How would we look at premiums? The government has no way of assessing a reasonable premium because it is all artificial and based on politics, not market forces.

Sure it does. Like any insurance provider the premiums should be set at a level where the losses of a few are covered completely by premiums paid by the many. The CHMC can do the same calculation that fire or life insurance companies do.

Gov housing insurance liabilities are not budgeted, if a crash occurs there is no way to cover it and the taxpayer will foot the bill.

There is no budget allocated for earthquakes either. That does not mean the government does should not be involved in the clean up. If you are worried about government policies that create housing bubbles then you should start elsewhere. For example:

1) Tax deductions for mortgages discourage people from paying down debt and inflate the cost of real estate.

2) No recourse loans encourage people to take on debt because they can walk away with no consequences.

3) No oversight by the agency guaranteeing the loans into the credit worthiness of the people getting them.

All of those problems exist in the US but not Canada. Those are the things that led to the mortgage meltdown and the need for massive public bailouts.

To summarize, the cmhc:

- Encourages borrowing far more than would be reasonably safe for a given income, discourages saving

- Drive poor people out of the housing market

- Prices poor people out of rentals

What you fail to take into account is that money spent on rent cannot be used to build a down payment. This makes it much harder, if not impossible, for people to build up a down payment if they are forced to rent. On top of that housing prices have risen faster than a person's ability to save which would permanently lock poor people out of the housing market - the opposite of what you intended.

If you really cared about poor people you would be looking at the CHMC and asking whether its rules achieve the stated objective. For example, CHMC recently stopped insuring homes worth $1 million. The CHMC also insures rental properties - perhaps the CHMC should be limited to owner occupiers.

Your rational is like saying we should ban alcohol because comes people drink and drive. Millions of Canadians make prudent financial decisions and are able to get into the housing market because of CHMC loans. There is no reason to take deny access to responsible people because some may be irresponsible.

[Bonam]

On top of that housing prices have risen faster than a person's ability to save which would permanently lock poor people out of the housing market - the opposite of what you intended.

That's precisely the point. Housing prices have risen, and will continue to rise, partially because of government policies that will pull out all the stops to make sure that they do so. Stop propping up the housing market with all kinds of government intervention, and you'll see prices return to more reasonable levels.

What is a reasonable level? Well, a reasonable definition would be the average family should be able to buy the average house and pay off the mortgage in 25 years. By the time you pay off a mortgage, you've paid about 2 times the selling price of the home (that's just an approximation for mortgages around 4-5% interest rate). You should be paying no more than around 1/3 of your income for housing. Median household income is $70k. Therefore that average family should pay no more than $23k per year for housing. Times 25 years that's $583k. Divide by ~2 to go from the total paid on the mortgage to the initial selling price of the home and you're at about $300k. But average home prices in Canada are at $451k.

Prices need to be allowed to drop by ~30% on average in Canada. Government policies that contribute to rising housing prices by providing additional capital to the housing markets should be abolished to help achieve this.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Bonam

[TimG]

That's precisely the point. Housing prices have risen, and will continue to rise, partially because of government policies that will pull out all the stops to make sure that they do so. Stop propping up the housing market with all kinds of government intervention, and you'll see prices return to more reasonable levels.

Housing prices would obviously drop but the cost of rentals would also rise (especially since the CHMC also insures rental properties). The rise in rental costs would reduce the ability to save and likely eliminate any benefit in increased affordability that comes from lower home prices.

The rise in rental costs would then lead to increases money spent on direct subsidies of rental housing so you are simply replacing a hypothetical government liability with a real subsidy.

The risk of a mortgage meltdown following a housing bubble can be adequately managed by regulations governing the issuing of mortgages (insured or not).

Edited April 6, 2013 by TimG

[kimmy]

Interesting idea. I can agree with the premise that the CHMC shouldn't insure every mortgage without agreeing that it should be abolished entirely.

I disagree with some of the ideas presented. I got my own mortgage about 15 months ago, and based on the approval process I went through, I'm skeptical that somebody just out of highschool can get a $300k mortgage, or anything close. My bank was willing to lend me up to $200k, and I have a good income, solid employment record, and well-established credit history.

Tim mentions they no longer insure homes over $1 million. Sounds good to me. Likewise, if that hypothetical high-school kid applies for a mortgage, I hope somebody from CHMC tells the bank "if you want to lend to that kid, you're on your own." In fact I suspect that this was part of the process I went through with my bank. I assume that the $200k limit that we arrived at was a result of guidelines about what CHMC would insure.

-k

[Bonam]

The risk of a mortgage meltdown following a housing bubble can be adequately managed by regulations governing the issuing of mortgages.

Since when did you become such a proponent of government regulating everything? No, government can't foresee all problems and make sure that everything turns out "adequately". They can easily screw up and preside over "meltdowns", even if they have the best of intentions. I'm sure US regulators had no desire to see a mortgage meltdown, and there are a lot of smart people there, but it happened anyway. Canada is not immune. But, in the end, the mortgage meltdown was a good thing, it returned absurdly inflated prices back to more reasonable levels, and that's exactly what the housing markets needed. One way or another, prices will come into balance, the only decision government has to make is whether to let it happen naturally and smoothly on year to year cycles, or to make policies that force unsustainable growth for a decade or two only to watch it eventually explode.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Bonam

[TimG]

I assume that the $200k limit that we arrived at was a result of guidelines about what CHMC would insure.

Here are the current rules: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/hoficlincl/moloin/hopr/hopr_001.cfm

[Bonam]

Tim mentions they no longer insure homes over $1 million. Sounds good to me.

Yes, I suppose that's one way of abolishing the CHMC, or at least abolishing it's relevance in certain areas. I guess the CHMC won't be insuring detached homes in decent neighborhoods of Vancouver, for one!

[TimG]

Since when did you become such a proponent of government regulating everything? No, government can't foresee all problems and make sure that everything turns out "adequately".

First, I have never been an advocate of zero regulation. I have been an advocate of smart regulation that focuses on setting the right incentives so the private sector actors can make informed choices and are responsible for the consequences of bad choices. In that sense a government run mortgage insurer could be a very bad idea depending on how the incentives are structured. My argument is that, in Canada, the incentives are structured reasonably and there is no reason to be concerned. In the US the incentives were designed to create the kind crisis we saw. So the failure of the US system is not an argument that the Canadian system needs to be abandoned. That said, it is always worth reviewing the Canadian system and thinking about how it could be improved.

Keep in mind that AIG was a private sector player that insured high ratio mortgages - it still cost the US government a bundle to bail out the banks who thought they had insurance so simply eliminating the CHMC would not reduce the risk to Canadian taxpayers.

Edited April 6, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

I fundamentally disagree.

A civilzed state requires property (land) owners. (Indeed, in some flights of fancy, I would restrict voters in a Democratic State to owners of real property.)

-----

To own property, it requires leverage. The State should offer this guarantee.

IOW, our most valuable capital is our human capital. Without the luck of a rich parent, how can we develop this capital?

A - stop buying needless useless things.

B - you really don't NEED that new car.

C - if you can't pay your bills every month, cut some things out.

D - know your freakin priorities.

ect

Save some money. I spent 10 years paying off a huge school loan debt and told myself, no more being in debt. I have now a good chunk of cash in the bank and currently looking at buying a house. I should have no problem. Part of my plan is to not owe the bank any money or as little as possible. I will be approaching my parents to help me out with that, and make arrangements to pay them back. I'd rather pay interest to my parents than the bank.

I am also not looking for an expensive house/property. I have a budget and sticking to it.

[Moonbox]

GoshHacked, do you realize how pitiful you sound? You're against CMHC and telling people they should save up on their own to buy a house, yet you're approaching mommy and daddy for help buying your own house? That's hilarious. Some people don't have mommy and daddy to help look after them.

[Bonam]

My argument is that, in Canada, the incentives are structured reasonably and there is no reason to be concerned. In the US the incentives were designed to create the kind crisis we saw.

The US incentives weren't purposefully designed to produce a crisis. Rather, they were all designed with the best of intentions, it was lack of foresight and understanding that ended up actually making such incentives lead to a crisis. In Canada, our incentives may be slightly different, but there is no reason to assume our regulators are any more wise and foresighted than American ones. Lot's of people thought US incentives were "reasonable", too. Just because you think Canadians incentives are reasonable doesn't mean you might not be wrong, does not mean that in hindsight, someone might not say, "those incentives were designed to create a crisis".

I'd prefer government just not be in the business of providing any kind of "incentives" in the housing market at all. We don't need any incentives. The housing market can and should be left to work on its own, to come to its own reasonable equilibrium of prices and homeownership ratios.

[GostHacked]

GoshHacked, do you realize how pitiful you sound? You're against CMHC and telling people they should save up on their own to buy a house, yet you're approaching mommy and daddy for help buying your own house? That's hilarious. Some people don't have mommy and daddy to help look after them.

I see people complain about money all the time, yet they blow it on needless things. But you jumped to a conclusion, I never said if I am against or for the CMHC.

But being in control of ones finances is pitiful? I have no problems with people getting loans for a home. Just buy what you can afford and have a plan to get out of debt as soon as possible while being able to maintain a standard of living AND have some money for those rainy days. So common sense is pitiful to you?

I want to buy a home and start a family. I can't do that if I cannot afford it. I also have not approached my parents about this yet, so I may still have to get a loan from the bank. I want to minimize the amount I owe and the time frame to pay it off.

As a not so good example .. watch those property virgin shows or whatever. Some of these people have budgets up to $600,000. Unless you are making over 100,000 a year, then that house is simply out of your price range and you run the risk of not being able to pay it off, ever. Another thing that irked me is that they wanted the house to be perfect in every way. Unrealistic expectations, and no will to compromise in a sense.

If they can find another way, go for it. but if they have to get a loan, well use your head for some common sense and be smart about it.

[shortlived]

I actually agree with hitops in some respects on this. In terms of property issues

1. This is mostly a provincial issue.

2. The federal government should work with the provincial governments to eliminate poverty in part by leveraging the unemployed and underemployed to take part in programs that are similar or equal to habitat for humanity so as to provide low income housing on demand.

3. The federal government should export all felons to work camps in the North of Canada to serve their sentences and until they provide for restitution.

The government should be able to provide these services but they should do it through a Citizens Bank run in association with the central bank, and it should just be a mortgage service like the banks have, not a separate organization.

CMHC actually generates revenue though. Why ruin a good thing?

Edited April 6, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Sure it does. Like any insurance provider the premiums should be set at a level where the losses of a few are covered completely by premiums paid by the many. The CHMC can do the same calculation that fire or life insurance companies do.

But they don't. You have answered your own question - housing insurance should function like fire and life insurance.......administered by banks of private companies. Because, also just as you point out, those entities can appropriately do the calculations. The government has proven it cannot.

There is no budget allocated for earthquakes either. That does not mean the government does should not be involved in the clean up.

Correct, but the critical difference is that programs to clean up earthquakes do not contribute to the creation of earthquakes. It would be one thing if the CMHC was just there to protect against unforseen housing busts. But it creates the conditions for the bust.

If you are worried about government policies that create housing bubbles then you should start elsewhere. For example:

1) Tax deductions for mortgages discourage people from paying down debt and inflate the cost of real estate.

2) No recourse loans encourage people to take on debt because they can walk away with no consequences.

3) No oversight by the agency guaranteeing the loans into the credit worthiness of the people getting them.

All of those problems exist in the US but not Canada. Those are the things that led to the mortgage meltdown and the need for massive public bailouts.

I've mulled over those facts for a long time, and the media feeds the idea that because of all that, we are safe. It's false. Just because we don't have all the factors, does not mean our fundamentals are good. The major problem is still here - people are buying a lifetime worth of debt that they can only successfully service because the interest rate is rock bottom. This is unsustainable. Just because we don't have sub-prime lenders who will rates the rates after 3 months doesn't change this. If the bank of Canada raises the rates, the effect is the same.

You may believe what is reported that our banking system is good and it hasn't changed. What you may not have heard about is what has changed, which is the record levels of mortgage debt, unprecedented in our history. That's why it's different now.

What you fail to take into account is that money spent on rent cannot be used to build a down payment. This makes it much harder, if not impossible, for people to build up a down payment if they are forced to rent. On top of that housing prices have risen faster than a person's ability to save which would permanently lock poor people out of the housing market - the opposite of what you intended.

Read my original post and you'll see I very much took that into account. This is exactly what I'm saying, renters cannot save up because their rent it too high......as a result of the CMHC driving house prices up. Even if the poor borrow, they will lose the home as soon as interest rates go up, leaving them even further behind than with saving, in fact most likely bankrupt. The CHMC is the biggest long-term obstacle to the poor owning a home, not to mention everyone else.

If you really cared about poor people you would be looking at the CHMC and asking whether its rules achieve the stated objective. For example, CHMC recently stopped insuring homes worth $1 million. The CHMC also insures rental properties - perhaps the CHMC should be limited to owner occupiers.

Your rational is like saying we should ban alcohol because comes people drink and drive. Millions of Canadians make prudent financial decisions and are able to get into the housing market because of CHMC loans. There is no reason to take deny access to responsible people because some may be irresponsible.

False analogy. It would make as an analogy sense if we allowed people to borrow money to buy alcohol, and allowed them to buy government provided insurance as a fee on alcoholic purchases that guaranteed against the customer defaulting on their liquor loans. We don't do that for alcohol and we should not do it for housing either.

Or, the appropriate analogy would be banning alcohol vs banning home-ownership. I agree we should both allow them and not subsidize them. So when the analogy is appropriate applied, yes we should treat them equally.

Basically the CMHC benefits one group of people. Older folks who bought their homes many years ago. I have personally benefited from the CMHC driving up the cost of my house since I bought it. But I am being objective and I realize how this is a toxic policy that will only do damage and ruin the lives of a lot of poor and new home buyers in the very near future.

Edited April 6, 2013 by hitops