Real Estate
First-timer home buyers like low rates
For a week after they signed the papers on their Douglas Park townhome, John Morettie and Jessica Wilson felt nauseated with anxiety. Like about 40 percent of first-time home buyers, according to Statistics Canada, the couple waited until their 30s to dive in. On the one hand, they now have enough money flowing in to afford a Vancouver-sized mortgage. On the other, they need more space than a typical box-in-the-sky condo provides, due to a work-at-home situation and the imminent possibility of kids.
So thanks to a once-in-a-lifetime low interest rate, they snagged a home. But were the provincial and federal government programs effective in helping them do it? Not so much. In order to take advantage of the provincial First Time Home Buyers’ Program, they would have had to find a unit priced at $425,000 or less.
“There’s nothing out there at that price for a family, unless you’re prepared to have a crib in the [bed]room, and I don’t know what you’d do with the second one [child],” Morettie told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview as he and Wilson unpacked moving boxes. “It’s not realistic in Vancouver at all.”
The provincial program allows first-time buyers to skip the $10,000 fee for registering a property at the Land Titles Office. While the duo qualify for the new federal closing-costs tax benefit and were able to get a five-percent-down deal, those benefits were small potatoes, they said, in terms of the gigantic financial burden that comes with buying a home here.
What really helped? The 2.75-percent interest rate they were offered. It ultimately allowed them to move from a $1,800-a-month apartment into their own home.
“But we don’t have a lot of [wiggle] room,” Morettie said. “We can go up to four percent, but then we’re done.”
Historically, Canada’s average five-year residential mortgage lending rate has boomeranged from about five percent to over 21 percent, according to the Bank of Canada.
Government programs tend to be stable, but an escalating interest rate can mean instant poverty for homeowners at the end of a fixed term.
So should couples like Morettie and Wilson think twice before taking advantage of the low rates, if they’re dependent on them?
Absolutely not, says the CEO of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association. Back in 1981, when interest rates jumped into the 20s, Peter Simpson got caught in that recession-related blip himself. At the time, he also felt like throwing up. But he made it work on his $38,000 home by scrimping, and he’s been a homeowner with an ever-increasing net worth ever since.
“You can get hit by a bus at any time,” he told the Straight, suggesting that 10 years—the maximum amount of time you can lock in an interest rate—is too long a period of time to worry about. “Your jobs will probably be paying higher in five years.…To me, my home was never an investment. I had to be somewhere, so I never thought about five or 10 years down the road.”
Similarly, the executive director of the Mortgage Brokers Association of B.C. said interest rates are not something to worry about.
“I don’t think anyone wants to see what happened in 1981,” Tamera Olsen told the Straight. “The lenders are aware; they don’t want to see anyone lose their homes.…What I’m hearing is that any increase in rates will be gradual. Very gradual.”
She also said that 10 years is too far away to worry about.
However, interest rates can have a huge impact on a family that’s mortgage-stretched. For example, at today’s rate of about 2.75 percent, a 35-year mortgage on a $600,000 home would require payments of $2,221 per month, according to Vancity’s on-line calculator. The same arrangement with an interest rate of eight percent nearly doubles the monthly payment to $4,205.
What doesn’t help first-time home buyers? Pushy lenders, Morettie and Wilson said. Some brokers were able to find up to $850,000 to lend them. That’s an amount, Morettie said, that would have left them with about $100 in their pockets at the end of the month.
Also, the couple found the process highly confusing. Wilson noted that if governments want to help, a one-stop Web site for new homeowners would be welcome, along with a key to all the legal jargon.
Also, of course, a first-time homeowners’ program that’s useful to Vancouverites.



E-mail
Print

Comments
"What really helped? The 2.75-percent interest rate they were offered. It ultimately allowed them to move from a $1,800-a-month apartment into their own home.
“But we don’t have a lot of [wiggle] room,” Morettie said. “We can go up to four percent, but then we’re done.”
They're done at 4%! This is a stunning level of risk to take on given their limited ability to tolerate the almost inevitably rising rates. The so-called real-estate experts should be sued when rates rise a couple of % and this couple defaults.
In the past, homebuyers who have entered variable rate mortgages have saved money over the long-term. However, times have changed, and with the change of times comes a change in strategy.
We are in a deep recession, and it would make a lot more sense for less sophisticated first-time homebuyers to lock in rates for at least 5 years to weather out this economic storm we are in. Thousands of people have lost their jobs, and many more will continue to lose their livelihood. I pray that this couple has a sound emergency fund in place to help them ride any personal storms they may face.
One of the reasons why the U.S. housing market is in such rough shape is due to the fancy mortgage products which were offerred - they started out with low up-front rates, that eventually reset to astronomical rates in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th year of the mortgage.
Absolutely not, says the CEO of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association. Back in 1981, when interest rates jumped into the 20s, Peter Simpson got caught in that recession-related blip himself. At the time, he also felt like throwing up. But he made it work on his $38,000 home by scrimping, and he’s been a homeowner with an ever-increasing net worth ever since."
That is just plain greasy. Peter Simpson's $38,000 home in 1981 adjusted for inflation would cost around $89,500 today. His little anecdote just does not apply to today's market. Does he really think that people can make up several thousand dollars per month by 'scrimping'? Talk about misleading.
Program, they would have had to find a unit priced at $425,000 or less.
"There's nothing out there at that price for a family, unless you're
prepared to have a crib in the [bed]room, and I don't know what you'd do
with the second one [child],"
a 5-second MLS search puts this to a lie - i found a half-dozen homes in
burnaby for <425k with 4 bedrooms, enough for their 2 theoretical kids
and their home office. what they mean is "we don't want to have to live
in burnaby: we want to live in kerrisdale", in which case shut up.
government programs are there to ensure you can afford a house, not a
ticket to an upper-middle class neighbourhood.
and why does anybody listen to the real estate board / mortgage industry
spokespeople anymore? is it 2006 again? haven't they been proven to be
totally without any integrity or insight, or even basic fundamental
knowledge of their own industry? "you can get hit by a bus at any time"
- that's your professional financial advice? really? "my home was never an
investment" - isn't that the exact opposite of what you've been tellling
people for 5 years? "i had to be somewhere" - right, but why did you
*have* to own, when renting is likely cheaper?
"What I'm hearing is that any increase in rates will be gradual. Very
gradual."
oh please, like you have any more information about what rate increases
are going to be like than anyone else. stop talking like you've got
some hush-hush secret source. and even if that's true, you're talking
about the next 2 years - you have no idea where rates will be 5 years
from now, aside from peering into the same tea-leaves of 5-year bond
prices as everyone else.
"But we don't have a lot of [wiggle] room," Morettie said. "We can go up
to four percent, but then we're done."
then you're done. interest rates will be 4% when you refi in 5 years.
guaranteed. actually, i think you're done sooner, because the only
2.75% mortgages i've seen are on short-terms, 1-2 years, or on
variables, in which case you'll probably be at 4% inside 4 years
anyways.
"Your jobs will probably be paying higher in five years....
oh, right, those awesome raises you'll be getting in the next 5 years.
i forgot about that. never mind that most companies have frozen wage
increases. never mind most companies are actually more likely to fire
you than give you a raise. no, you guys are superstars so no doubt
you'll be getting nice bumps. have you completely forgotten about the 2
kids you're planning to bring into the world? do you imagine for a
second life is going to get cheaper for you then? if you have no wiggle
room now how are you going to be wiggling on one salary, or with 2 kids
in childcare?
this article could have been delivered via RSS timewarp from 2007 - the
same "why isn't the government making it easier for me to buy a $600k
home w/ 5% down", the same bullshit platitudes from agencies who profit
off real estate speculation, the same complete lack of interest in
challenging these platitudes on the part of the author, either by their
own voice or via counterbalancing with a different opinion. how is it
we've learned absolutely nothing in the last 12 months of financial
armageddon?
thanks so much for pissing me off this early in the morning. it's going
to be a lovely day.
Post a comment