Home Guy wrote:
Canadian census data indicates that Canadian home ownership was 68.4%
in 2006 - an all time high. I haven't been able to find home
ownership rates for subsequent years - but the forclosure and
home-abandonment rates in Canada are nowhere near what they've been
in the US during the past 5 years.

Indications are that Canada held onto higher ownership rates over the
past 5 years and now exceed the rate in the US by anywhere from 1 to 4
percent.

Canada was able to reach record high ownership rates (comparable to
the US peak in 2004) without resorting to irresponsible bank lending
practices and the subsequent bubble and crash that happened in the US.

The American Dream.

Alive and well - in Canada...


Some Americans always considered Canada to America's attic - the place you
kept your crazy aunt.

Maybe the aunt wasn't as crazy as we thought.

Canadian census data indicates that Canadian home ownership was 68.4% in
2006 - an all time high. I haven't been able to find home ownership
rates for subsequent years - but the forclosure and home-abandonment
rates in Canada are nowhere near what they've been in the US during the
past 5 years.

Indications are that Canada held onto higher ownership rates over the
past 5 years and now exceed the rate in the US by anywhere from 1 to 4
percent.

Canada was able to reach record high ownership rates (comparable to the
US peak in 2004) without resorting to irresponsible bank lending
practices and the subsequent bubble and crash that happened in the US.

The American Dream.

Alive and well - in Canada...


See also:

http://www.aei.org/article/economics...gage-meltdown/
http://dallasdirt.dmagazine.com/?s=C...home+ownership
================================================== =====================

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...07436/1?csp=ip

Homeownership rates fall to 66% as downturn nears a bottom
By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY
Updated 12h 30m ago

Fewer Americans own homes and many of them are continuing to see values
decline.

By Charles Buchanan, AP

The U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the nation's homeownership
rate fell to 66% in the fourth quarter, continuing a seven-year drop
from a fourth-quarter peak of 69.2% in 2004. At the same time, U.S. home
prices fell 1.3% in November from October and were 3.7% below 2010
levels, the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index indicates.

Falling homeownership — and prices — reflect the worst housing downturn
since the Great Depression. And while there are signs that the housing
industry's downturn may at least be nearing a bottom, the impact of the
collapse will be evident for years to come, economists say. As of
November, average U.S. home prices were back to mid-2003 levels, S&P
says.

"Americans are less keen on homeownership knowing now that prices can
fall," says Paul Dales, economist with Capital Economics. Even if
people want to own a home, they may not be able to, given the difficulty
in getting financing for a mortgage, Dales says. The National
Association of Realtors says many purchase contracts appear to be
falling through for that reason.

Many economists expect home prices to continue to fall this year and
maybe into next year before stabilizing and then showing little or no
appreciation for some time. "The trend is down, and there are few, if
any, signs in the numbers that a turning point is close at hand," says
David Blitzer, chairman of S&P's index committee.

Phoenix was the only city in Case-Shiller's 20-city index where home
prices rose in November from October. They were up 0.6%. On a
year-over-year basis, only two cities showed rising values. Detroit was
up 3.8%, and Washington, D.C., 0.5%, the Case-Shiller data show.

While prices are still falling in most areas, there are signs of
increased home sales. Existing home sales rose in December for the
third consecutive month, the National Association of Realtors says. And
pending home sales, while dropping more than expected in December, were
still above levels a year before, NAR says. "Home prices will be the
last thing that moves up" after increasing sales and shrinking
inventories, Blitzer says.

The homeowner vacancy rate fell again in the fourth quarter, the Census
data show, to 2.3% from 2.4% in the third quarter and from 2.7% in the
fourth quarter last year. The 2.3% rate is the lowest since early 2006
and "leaves the visible inventory at a level consistent with house
prices bottoming out later in the year," Capital Economics says.

The drop in homeownership rates has been most pronounced in the West. As
of the fourth quarter, the homeownership rate there stood at 60.1%, the
Census data show. That's down from 64.5% in the fourth quarter of
2006, which is about when home prices began their five-year tumble.

The West is home to three of the states most affected by foreclosures,
which have hurt homeownership rates. Nevada, Arizona and California were
the top three states last year with the highest foreclosure rates,
market researcher RealtyTrac says.

While homeownership drops, more people rent. Almost 34% of occupied
homes in the fourth quarter were rented, according to the Census data.
That's up slightly from the same quarter a year earlier. The rental
vacancy rate of 9.4% for the quarter was the same as a year ago but down
from above 10% rates in the fourth quarters of 2009 and 2008, the Census
data show. Higher rents are expected as more people rent, economist
Dales says.

On 2/1/2012 8:31 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Canadian census data indicates that Canadian home ownership was 68.4% in
2006 - an all time high. I haven't been able to find home ownership
rates for subsequent years - but the forclosure and home-abandonment
rates in Canada are nowhere near what they've been in the US during the
past 5 years.

Indications are that Canada held onto higher ownership rates over the
past 5 years and now exceed the rate in the US by anywhere from 1 to 4
percent.

Canada was able to reach record high ownership rates (comparable to the
US peak in 2004) without resorting to irresponsible bank lending
practices and the subsequent bubble and crash that happened in the US.

The American Dream.

Alive and well - in Canada...

This has been the subject of much discussion. To sum, it's because
Canada understood the dangers of unregulated financial markets and has
maintained much stricter controls over theirs. Thus, in Canada, there
was no insanely loose lending and widespread fraud by banks, mortgage
lenders, and developers leading to a bubble/bust.

Hell Toupee wrote in :



This has been the subject of much discussion. To sum, it's because
Canada understood the dangers of unregulated financial markets and has
maintained much stricter controls over theirs. Thus, in Canada, there
was no insanely loose lending and widespread fraud by banks, mortgage
lenders, and developers leading to a bubble/bust.




You've got that /quite/ backwards.

Outside of a couple of fairly minor programs, Canada never engaged in the
sort of coercion Congress visited upon lenders in the US, and the sort of
enticements and encouragement Congress and the Fed pushed on American
borrowers.

Congress, the president and the Fed have all collaborated over 80-years
using explicit and implicit methods to force lenders to finance home
ownership, and in forcing lenders to accept lower and lower standards in
order to try and ensure a vibrant and growing housing market.

Dating from the Hoover-era up to the present day, Congress passed such laws
as the
Own Your Own Home Act,
Community Reinvestment Act (amended twice),
American Community Renewal Act,
American Dream Downpayment Assistance Initiative,
all of which were explicitly aimed at pushing people into houses, and at
pushing lenders to lend to them, with penalties for lenders who did not
comply.

Then there were artificially-low rates for credit; speeches by presidents
scolding lenders for failing to lend enough to minorities; mandates forcing
Fan and Fred to buy extremely suspect mortgages; at one point eliminating
the requirement that borrowers show proof of ongoing income; Barney Frank
wanting to "roll the dice" on subsidized housing; forcing Fan and Fred to
buy mortgage securities that all knew full-well were "opaque and difficult
to understand". I could go on and on.

The crisis was not caused by lack of oversight, but by WAY TOO MUCH OF IT,
especially after 2001.

Congress needs to /butt out of the whole business/ instead of running the
show.

--
Tegger

On 2/1/2012 11:20 AM, Tegger wrote:
Hell wrote in :



This has been the subject of much discussion. To sum, it's because
Canada understood the dangers of unregulated financial markets and has
maintained much stricter controls over theirs. Thus, in Canada, there
was no insanely loose lending and widespread fraud by banks, mortgage
lenders, and developers leading to a bubble/bust.




You've got that /quite/ backwards.

Outside of a couple of fairly minor programs, Canada never engaged in the
sort of coercion Congress visited upon lenders in the US, and the sort of
enticements and encouragement Congress and the Fed pushed on American
borrowers.

Congress, the president and the Fed have all collaborated over 80-years
using explicit and implicit methods to force lenders to finance home
ownership, and in forcing lenders to accept lower and lower standards in
order to try and ensure a vibrant and growing housing market.

Dating from the Hoover-era up to the present day, Congress passed such laws
as the
Own Your Own Home Act,
Community Reinvestment Act (amended twice),
American Community Renewal Act,
American Dream Downpayment Assistance Initiative,
all of which were explicitly aimed at pushing people into houses, and at
pushing lenders to lend to them, with penalties for lenders who did not
comply.

Then there were artificially-low rates for credit; speeches by presidents
scolding lenders for failing to lend enough to minorities; mandates forcing
Fan and Fred to buy extremely suspect mortgages; at one point eliminating
the requirement that borrowers show proof of ongoing income; Barney Frank
wanting to "roll the dice" on subsidized housing; forcing Fan and Fred to
buy mortgage securities that all knew full-well were "opaque and difficult
to understand". I could go on and on.

The crisis was not caused by lack of oversight, but by WAY TOO MUCH OF IT,
especially after 2001.

Congress needs to /butt out of the whole business/ instead of running the
show.


I don't think The Canadian government forced Affirmative Action lending
on their banks like The U.S. government did to U.S. banks. I could have
gotten one of those Affirmative Action loans but knew better because if
something happened to me, I would not be able to make payments. Sure
enough, I was injured and unable to work as I had been working and it
would have wiped me out. o_O

TDD

"Tegger" wrote in message
...

Canada understood the dangers of unregulated financial markets and has
maintained much stricter controls over theirs. Thus, in Canada, there
was no insanely loose lending and widespread fraud by banks, mortgage
lenders, and developers leading to a bubble/bust.

You've got that /quite/ backwards.

Outside of a couple of fairly minor programs, Canada never engaged in the
sort of coercion Congress visited upon lenders in the US, and the sort of
enticements and encouragement Congress and the Fed pushed on American
borrowers.

1. From 1945 until decontrol in the early 1970s, Canada had
-- Max. 6. per cent mortgage interest (under the usury laws
-- Strict separation between the functions of banking, mortgage
lending, insurance and stock brokerage. (These restrictions
were abolished when Canadians decided to follow the US
method of conglomerating these functions.
-- Governent-insured and government-inspected mortgages
-- Min. 10 per cent deposit on a house (earlier 20 per cent.)

2. Banks are federally incorporated in Canada. (The 10 provinciall
governments can authorize only building societies and credit
unions.) The overall Bank Act is revised every 6 years by
legislators some of whom are bank directors, but Canada never
had such relations between bank lobbyists as permitted the
Savings & Loan scandal of the 1990s (laws that practically
encouraged fraud.)

The crisis was not caused by lack of oversight, but by WAY TOO MUCH OF IT,
especially after 2001.

Congress needs to /butt out of the whole business/ instead of running the
show.

Canadians have heard plenty of Americans say this. The paradox
is that the free enterprise system can be assumed to work only if
there is freedom to fail, e.g. for banks, manufacturers, insurance
concerns etc. to go bust without repaying their creditors -- which
does indeed mean allowing people to starve, lose their houses
(or capital) etc. No government would be electable on such
a platform, and none has tried since Hoover.

Regular democracies try to prevent or pre-empt this (i.e.
restricted financial markets) and vary quite a lot (e.g. Canada,
Germany, Ireland, Greece.) We appreciate that many Americans
see their country as unique, free from the experience of others and
and not needing to learn from others' experience. Regular
democracies are usually willing to borrow any idea or technique
that seems to work in like circumstaces.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

In article ,
"Don Phillipson" wrote:



2. Banks are federally incorporated in Canada. (The 10 provinciall
governments can authorize only building societies and credit
unions.) The overall Bank Act is revised every 6 years by
legislators some of whom are bank directors, but Canada never
had such relations between bank lobbyists as permitted the
Savings & Loan scandal of the 1990s (laws that practically
encouraged fraud.)

Actually the S&L was largely related to government screwing around, too.
The first batch came about because of the restictions on what they could
pay for deposits meant that they couldn't do much to gain after
inflation kicked in to get deposits. That, and the fact that they had
(low interest) long-term mortgages and (high interest) short-term CDs,
etc., brought about a mismatch of income with outgo that sent many over
the edge.
Round two took place because of bad oversight, but also because
Congress again screwed around. They pulled some tax deductions that
resulted in quite a few commercial buildings all of a sudden having no
reason to live (the only reason being the money the owners were making
on the now-pulled tax breaks) didn't.
The third, and biggest wave, was also Congress meddling. The S&L
regulators had begun to patch together marriages of good S&Ls with bad.
However, in order to entice the good S&Ls to take the bad S&L's loans
(which would have messed up the good S&L's balance sheets) the
regulators came up with "regulatory good will" that was part of the
contracts with the good S&Ls.
Henry Gonzalex (D-TX) got a burr up his butt and introduced the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989,
that (among other things) took away the regulatory goodwill.
This resulted in 3 things occurring. (1). No good S&Ls would come
with a 100 miles of a bad one (2) Good S&Ls were no longer good and
closed literally overnight adding to the confusion and the burden to the
tax payers and (3). Cost the government an extra few $ billion when the
good S&Ls sued for breach on contract and won (In United States v.
Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 116 S.Ct. 2432, 135 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996), the
Supreme Court upheld the decision that the United States was liable for
breach of contract to thrifts with which it had agreed to permit the use
as regulatory capital of ³regulatory goodwill² that had been created in
connection with the thrifts' acquisition of a failing thrift.


Canadians have heard plenty of Americans say this. The paradox
is that the free enterprise system can be assumed to work only if
there is freedom to fail, e.g. for banks, manufacturers, insurance
concerns etc. to go bust without repaying their creditors -- which
does indeed mean allowing people to starve, lose their houses
(or capital) etc. No government would be electable on such
a platform, and none has tried since Hoover.

Canadians don't seem to realize that, as you have noted, the Canadian
tend to regulate things but then stay out of the way. The US changes
things on a dime and often with an almost willful disregard for the econ
realities. They do things, are surprised when they can't will the world
to conform to their version of reality, and then blather along instead
of actually fixing the problem until it is too late.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz