In
the Bank of Canada's semi-annual publication "Financial System Review" for December 2011, Canada's
central bank notes that there are some worrisome trends that could well have a
negative impact on Canada's financial system. While Canada's economy
appears to be unscathed compared to both Europe and the United States, the Bank
of Canada's Governing Council notes that there are several factors that have
increased the risk of financial system instability which could result in weaker
economic growth in Canada. The Bank notes that the main risks are:
It
is the interconnectedness of the global economy that could well make Canada's
economy the victim of collateral damage from the sovereign debt crisis in
Europe.
Here's
an interesting chart that shows how the level of risk has changed for each of
the five aforementioned factors over the past six months:
Note
that the overall level of risk to the Canadian financial system has risen since
June 2011. The Bank notes that it is crucial that the debt issues of the
less solvent Eurozone members be resolved and that meaningful efforts to
solidify Europe's banking system be undertaken since, even with a rescue plan
in place, it will take time the return Europe's economic system to a position
of strength.
For
this posting, I'd like to focus on one risk factor that could impact the
stability of Canada's financial system; Canadian household finances, with an
emphasis on the real estate debt portion of the risk factor. That is the
one economic factor that most of us deal with on a daily basis and can relate
to most easily. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, has
repeatedly warned about the levels of household indebtedness in Canada and how
the current environment of ultra-low interest rates has lulled consumers into a
false sense that all is well.
The
Bank of Canada now finds itself concerned that a significant portion of
Canadian households would be unable to service their household debt if the
world experienced an adverse economic shock. Canadian banks would be
forced to raise their loan-loss provisions leading to overall tighter
conditions for granting new or additional credit. This would impact the
health of Canada's financial sector, pretty much the world's only financial
sector that did not suffer during the Great Recession although, as shown here,
even the share prices of two of Canada's most highly regarded banks, TD Bank (TD) and
Royal Bank of Canada (RY), suffered massive losses during the depths of the Great
Recession:
As
many economists note, drops in stock prices often have a strong negative impact
on savers and consumers since a drop in the value of their portfolios
(including real estate) is usually accompanied by a loss in the "wealth
effect" that keeps savers consuming.
The
Bank notes that household credit growth was very strong likely due to the imposition
of new more stringent rules on government-backed insured mortgages in the first
quarter of 2011 but has moderated over the second and third quarters of 2011. That
said, the Bank notes that mortgage credit rose in October with the robust
growth in housing resale activity. Here is a graph showing the growth in total household credit (in red),
residential mortgage credit (in blue) and consumer credit (in green):
Please
note that this graph shows the growth in credit as an annualized 3 month growth
rate, not total outstanding credit.
Here
is a graph that shows how Canada's household debt-to-income level (red line)
has risen to a historical high of 149 percent in the second quarter of 2011,
surpassing the household debt-to-income levels for both the United States (blue
line) and the United Kingdom (purple line):
Notice
that while Canada's household debt-to income level is at an all-time high, it
is still roughly 15 percentage points lower than the level experienced by
American households just prior to the Great Contraction. The Bank expects
that the growth in household credit will moderate in the coming quarters since
the growth of personal disposable income is expected to moderate. As
well, the Bank expects that the uncertainty in the global markets may cause
Canadian households to moderate their spending (again, the wealth effect) but
with overall credit still growing, the household debt-to-income level is not
expected to end its climb upwards. Particularly concerning is the rising
share of Canadian households with a debt-service ratio (DSR) that exceeds 40
percent (i.e. the percentage of household income required to service debt). Both
the number and share of Canadian households with elevated DSRs is above the
average over the past decade. As a rule of thumb, households with a DSR
in excess of 40 percent are likely to have more difficulty making payments
against their outstanding credit.
Canadians
holding mortgages that are in arrears are also higher in number than they were
prior to the Great Contraction. While the numbers have fallen in the past
quarter, here is a graph showing that banks are carrying an elevated number of
delinquent mortgages on their books:
Let's
take a little deeper look at the Bank's viewpoint on Canada's housing market. The
Bank notes that the elevated level of household debt makes individual Canadian's
more vulnerable to either a significant decline in house prices or a
deterioration in the country's employment picture. With high-ratio
mortgages in Canada being insured by the taxpayer-funded Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation
(CMHC), a modest fall in house prices would lead to lower household net worth
(and lower wealth effect) which would reduce access to credit and would lower
employment in the housing sector.
The
report notes that Canada's house prices remain very high compared to normal
levels when measured in terms of household disposable income as shown on this
graph:
For
the 15 year period between 1985 and 2000 the house price multiple averaged
about 3 (i.e. the average house was priced at 3 times the average household
disposable income). This multiple rose throughout the first decade of the
21st century and now stands just below 5. As I've posted here, Demographia multiple calculations
(median price divided by median income in a given market) show that most major
Canadian cities have multiples that are well in excess of 5, a price level that
is considered to be severely unaffordable. In fact, Vancouver has one of
the highest multiples in a seven nation study at a whopping 9.5. Here's a chart showing the results for all nations in the study noting
that, out of 35 markets, Canada has six that are severely unaffordable and 3
that are seriously unaffordable with the bulk of the remainder being considered
moderately unaffordable:
Fortunately
(or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint), generational lows in interest
rates have made what would have been traditionally unaffordable housing more
affordable. Here's a graph showing how mortgage payments as a fraction of
household disposable income would increase (blue line) if interest rates had
been closer to historical norms:
In
2010, rather than mortgage carrying costs being 28 percent of disposable income
(i.e. 0.28), it would have risen to 37 percent (i.e. 0.37) with a floor
interest rate of just 4 percent. The red line reflects the actual
carrying cost to income ratio with the current low interest rate environment. From
this graph, you can readily see that the situation could rapidly become
critical if interest rates rose to 6 or 7 percent. In case you were
wondering, here's a graph showing Canada's historical one,
three and five year posted fixed mortgage rates over the past 10 years:
Here is a graph showing just how ugly things were
back in the early 1990s:
Over
the 10 year period, the average 1 year fixed mortgage rate averaged 5.07
percent with a peak of 7.35 percent, the 3 year fixed mortgage averaged 5.71
percent with a peak of 7.55 percent and the 5 year fixed mortgage averaged 6.33
percent with a peak of 7.54 percent with all of the peaks occurring in December
of 2007. Like most of us, apparently, I have conveniently forgotten just
how high mortgage rates were just 4 short years ago.
The
Bank is more concerned about some types of real estate than others. They
note that the multiple-unit sector (i.e. condominiums) are more susceptible to
price corrections since the supply and demand picture in some urban markets is
no longer in balance with an excess supply of completed but unoccupied
condominiums. Any Canadian that lives in a major urban centre has first
hand evidence of the burgeoning number of new (and partially completed)
condominium projects, particularly in core areas. Personally, I have
always wondered who is lining up to buy all of these new units. What
should be particularly concerning is that in many cases, one can rent a condo
for far less than what would be paid in mortgage, taxes and condo fees
combined. This is a very worrisome trend.
To
summarize, I always find it most interesting that Canada's central bank remains
concerned about household debt levels when it is their deliberate policy of
maintaining a low interest rate environment that is largely to blame. Low
interest rate policies are used by central banks to encourage credit and
discourage saving thereby stimulating economic growth. While we may be
suckers for what appears to be easy money, we should be taking a close look at
what happened to over-indebted consumers in the United States over the past few
years. Their fate could well be ours.
As we are starting to see, what happens on the other side of
the Atlantic doesn’t necessarily stay on the other side of the Atlantic. The ultimate fate of our economy may
well be out of our control.
This is the main reason why I stopped studying economics after my undergraduate in the USA. There is such a huge lack of common sense (or maybe economists intentionally fudge information) on a variety of economic scenarios. ASSUMING all the factors of every damn theoretical economic model, the world is perfect! We should all be rational humans, companies will not form monopolies or barriers to entry. My apologies for this rant. I am just delighted to find this blog where econ. PhDs/MAs/etc. are not substituted for common sense.
ReplyDeleteIt is alarming that Canada is now headed for the same turmoil that hit the US so hard. I was in my last semester of college when the crisis began to widen. Our professor told us how Canada had weathered the storm better because their regulations were better than those of the US. But now I realize there were other factors too. I hope Canada doesn't have to face this turmoil.
I hope not as well, however, as they (whoever they are) say, common sense is not all that common!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the rant.
I don't think that Canada will suffer the depths that the USA or Europe has/is. Anon mentions regulations, these do play a big roll and are still more sound than in NY or London. Another, bigger, roll is played by the simple differences between the countries in question. Canada has a small pop. compared to Europe as a whole or USA but, recieves lots (although not neccasarily more) of (rich) immigrants, creating a stronger than usual housing market that is not flooded or terribly overvalued. Yes, TO, Van, and some other places are too hot at the moment but, the rest of the country is not. My house (IMO) is certainly not overvalued whereas that of my partner (in Van.) is, big time! (2/3sqft, 3x the price plus strata and tiny 'yard'). But, rich immigrants (some of our close friends) find this to be a stellar deal (vs HK, where a permanent parking space will cost you more than my house) and will be piling in for a few years to come. Also, we fear of contagion and exposure to the debt, not the actual (european) debt. Canada dealt with fiscal and financial issues in the '90s and appears to have learned some lessons.
ReplyDeleteAnd not by any measure the last reason, Canada loves to dig in the dirt and forests and sell what it finds, and we aren't running out of either for some time and as long as Harper is in, we will do it with gusto, FBetterofWorse. Do people spend more than they should and buy bigger houses than they should? Probably, but (I dare say) not as much as our cousins beyond borders...
Australia is the one that should be really sweating about this.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait till the big bust. save save save!
ReplyDeleteI don´t know, but I am still confused, because there are many different opinions on this topic. For example this article says that we don´t have to worry. Your article says the opposite. So who should we believe? And is it the irresponsibility of the consumers or central bank we should blame?
ReplyDelete@Peter R.
ReplyDeleteDo you trust an article by a Real Estate firm that profits of of people who extend their debt levels to fuel house purchases, or do you instead trust an article written by a neutral entity with no stake in the personal household debt market?
Cannot see much difference between Australia and Canada, both have very high household debt compared to other developed economies - and both have a resource boom.Prof. Steve Keen from Sydney writes well on this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/filterSpectatorsc?openview&restricttocategory=Steve%20Keen