Landlords Dodge New CMHC Rule
Landlords Dodge New CMHC Rule
The recent changes to CMHC rules on qualifying for investment mortgage are having an effect that is causing havoc on an investor’s debt-service ratio, making it difficult for investors to qualify without a more-than stable personal income.
The following article discusses how recent investors are experiencing difficulty when qualifying for mortgages, and explores the best ways to avoid CMHC, highlighting that investors should deal with banks that “go outside of CMHC”.
We DO have lenders that still do the offset under certain circumstances. Call to find out how and when.
— Mark Herman
Article Source (Calgary, Alberta – Financial Post) – These are particularly confusing times to be a real estate investor due, for the most part, to a policy change made by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC) in April.
The major issue concerns mortgages on CMHC-insured properties with four complete units or less, which went from being calculated using an 80% offset model to a 50% add-back one. As reported in this paper, the offset model meant that up to 80% of the expected rental income is used to offset the cost of the mortgage. With the add-back model, half of the expected gross rental income will be added to an investor’s income, but the entire mortgage is added to expenses.
In other words, it wreaks havoc on an investor’s debt-service ratio, as was the case with full-time Toronto investor and consultant Cindy Wennerstrom, who is currently shopping for her eighth property but is “stuck, mortgage-wise,” she says.
“When banks take off 50% of the rent and apply that to your expenses, there is usually a deficit. That is subtracted from your actual income,” she says.
And with Ms. Wennerstrom’s other properties each producing a cash flow of $800 to $1,100 per month, there still isn’t enough to bring her to the desired debt-service ratio of 40%.
“That means 40% of your gross monthly income has to service your monthly debts,” says Barrie, Ont., broker Adam Bazuk. “That makes it very difficult to qualify investors unless they also have an enormous personal income.”
If that wasn’t difficult enough, the 50% add-back policy is not rubber-stamped across all lending institutions, with some allowing investors to use more than 50%, and others maintaining different versions of the offset program.
“It’s gone from a nice simple A or B plan, to an A, B and C plan, with all different ways to get there,” says Dustan Woodhouse, a B.C. mortgage broker with Invis.
Confusing, perhaps. But is it a bad thing?
Consider the 80% offset, for instance. “Everybody thought rental offset was gone,” says Mr. Woodhouse. “All they could see was that, based on a $1,000 monthly rental income, an 80% offset would qualify you for a $190,000 mortgage, while a 50% add-back would qualify you for $45,000, so it’s messed up the market from that perspective.”
But he says that for “organized property investors,” who have been reporting rental income on their T1 forms for the past two years, there are still good, if not better, options out there.
“Under the old rules, I would only be allowed to subtract 80%,” Mr. Woodhouse says.
While not a true 100% offset, it is the easiest way to explain the program, says Chris Hoeppner, a regional vice-president at Street Capital.
“If a client can provide the statement of real estate rentals from the T1 General, we just go with the net gain or net loss that property produces. As long as a person claims enough rental income to cover all the expenses, it basically becomes a wash, taking that property out of the debt servicing.”
But for those not so organized, who have not been reporting rental income on their T1 forms, there are still options.
As well, private mortgage insurers Genworth allows for rental offset.
Mr. Bazuk suggests avoiding CMHC by having a 20% or more down payment, and dealing with banks that “go outside of CMHC.” He also says Scotiabank, National Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce still offer a 70% offset arrangement, or are rental-property friendly.
Ms. Wennerstrom, despite being without a mortgage at the moment, is still confident.
“The option is still there, but you just have to buy the right properties,” she says, which means ones with “exceptionally positive cash flow.” To her, that’s more than $700 a month after expenses, plus a 10% reserve for maintenance and a 5.4% vacancy slush fund.
“After that, it’s just what sort of hoops to jump through to get the mortgage,” she says. “They will continue to change the rules and we will continue to find ways around them.”