Archive for May 24, 2010

RBC, TD cut 5-year fixed mortgage rates

Others expected to follow Canada’s largest bank with lower rates

CBC News

Canada’s largest bank is lowering its five-year fixed mortgage rate, the second reduction this month.

RBC Royal Bank says the posted rate for five-year mortgages will be reduced by about one-10th of a percentage point to 5.99 per cent, effective Friday. Later in the day, Toronto-Dominion bank announced it, too, was cutting its benchmark five-year rate to 5.99.

Banks routinely discount from their posted rate, but other banks are expected to follow suit.

RBC’s rate started the month at 6.25 per cent, but it was lowered by 15 basis points on May 11 along with a range of other rate cuts. A basis point is one 100th of a percentage point. Prior to this month, Canadian mortgage rates had been on the rise.

Variable-rate and fixed-rate mortgages can often move in opposite directions. Most lenders are still offering variable-rate mortgages under two per cent. That’s because those rates are directly tied to the Bank of Canada’s lending rate, which currently sits at 0.25 per cent.

Fixed-rate mortgages, however, are less based on the central bank’s rate, and are more dependent on the bond market, where lenders sell bonds to raise money to lend to prospective home-buyers.

Responding to higher costs to borrow on the bond market, the big banks moved to raise their fixed-rate interest rates, peaking at 6.1 per cent in April. The Greek debt crisis, however, has brought those costs back down for Canadian banks, which led to the rate drop.

The fixed-rate change is also significant because under new mortgage rules in place since April 19, borrowers must qualify for a bank’s posted, five-year fixed rate mortgage, no matter what the term and nature of mortgage they end up choosing.

Don’t fall victim to energy fraud at the door

Ellen Roseman – Toronto Star

On April 23, Ontario passed the Energy Consumer Protection Act 2010. This long-awaited law will curtail unethical sales of energy contracts to households.

The Ontario Energy Board logs 100 to 150 consumer complaints a week about the practices of energy retailers, says the energy ministry.

I get almost as many some weeks – and I’m not a regulator, just a journalist and blogger who’s been writing about energy marketing abuses for the past decade.

Most of the new rules are expected to come into effect Jan. 1, 2011. Unfortunately, they don’t cover door-to-door sales of rental water heater replacements and carbon offset plans to reduce emissions.

Here are some recent stories that made me angry, involving pressure on seniors and misrepresentation by the big three (Summitt Energy, Direct Energy and Just Energy).

Bruno Iaboni: A Summitt Energy agent came to his elderly mother’s door and persuaded her to replace the water heater and pay $14.99 a month to offset her carbon use. She was caring for a sick husband and couldn’t speak or read English. Summitt agreed to cancel its evergreen program after Iaboni appealed to me. It also lowered the rental fee for the water heater to match what his mother was paying before the switch.

Jack Licht: His father is 86 and an Alzheimer’s patient, living at home with a caregiver, and is hard of hearing. He signed a contract for carbon offsets when Summitt Energy came to his door. His son called Summitt three times and was told it was a valid contract. Summitt cancelled when he threatened to go to the media, but didn’t reverse four months of bills for carbon offsets, adding up to $62.96.

Joy Daniels:
She had been with Direct Energy for electricity in 2007, though she didn’t remember signing up. Suspecting fraud, the company sent her a recording of a call when she supposedly confirmed the contract. A man had answered (although she lives alone) and agreed he was Joy Daniels when asked. Direct Energy has now paid back $1,285 in excess charges (and also paid $200 in interest once I got involved). Daniels wants to know why the company gave out her personal details to a fraudster.

Peter Blair: He was surprised when Direct Energy sent him a renewal letter on April 1 for his five-year gas contract, since he had never signed up for gas. When he wrote to me, he had waited almost a month to get proof of the contract. Because Direct Energy couldn’t retrieve his “voice signature” from the outsourced supplier, it agreed to cancel the contract and send him a refund for any overpayments back to 2005.

Jeff Raymond:
He had a five-year contract for electricity with Just Energy, but cancelled after two years because he found his bills 40% higher than before. As instructed, he paid an early termination fee of $169.50 last February. Just Energy cashed his cheque (he had proof) and sent his account to a collection agency in error. When I got involved, it stopped collections and confirmed his credit rating was not affected.

Malcolm Rowe: An immigrant to Canada from South Africa, he was persuaded to sign for gas and electricity with Universal Energy in 2006 after being told he could cancel at any time. This year, he realized he was overpaying and called to cancel with Just Energy (which took over Universal). Because his reaffirmation call couldn’t be found, he will be reimbursed for the difference between the contract rates and the regulated utility rates.

Commission-paid energy sellers have committed fraud for years, abetted by weak rules and lack of enforcement by the Ontario Energy Board.

Always ask for identification when someone offers help on behalf of your local gas or hydro utility. They often work for a separate company.

Check your utility bills to see if you have relationships with retailers whose names you don’t recognize. And never renew any such contracts without checking their validity.

————————————————————————————————————–

Contact the Jeffrey Team for more information  -  416-388-1960

————————————————————————————————————–

Incoming search terms for the article:

Vendor financing – A creative way to sell a home

Rather than having a bank or mortgage company lend money, the seller of a house, known as the vendor in property-speak, gets money from the buyer with whatever terms have been negotiated.

Andrew Allentuck, Financial Post

Vendor financing, one of the less well-known ways to buy a home, is one of the most flexible means to pay for it.

Rather than having a bank or mortgage company lend money, the seller of the house, known as the vendor in property-speak, gets money from the buyer with whatever terms have been negotiated.

The deal, sometimes called vendor take back finance, may include barter, such as a swap of assets with or without additional cash. For a homeowner willing to defer payment over time or to include a property swap, such as the buyer’s prized antique car or sailboat, as part of the purchase price, it’s a way to get the deal done.

“It all depends on the purchaser’s needs and the vendor’s motivation,” explains Jim Murphy, president of the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals in Toronto. “Frankly, these deals are uncommon these days, but in a tougher real estate market, you would see more of them.”

In residential real estate sales, vendor financing deals are rare, says Kevin Jaques, whose Jaques Law Office in Regina, Sask., does them, though not often. “If I am trying to sell a place, I just want to get my money and get out,” he explains. “I don’t want the difficulties of worrying about getting paid and enforcing an agreement if I am not paid.”

But there are special situations that make vendor financing helpful and even essential to making a sale. If a buyer has not established a credit history and a bank won’t lend at a reasonable rate of interest or perhaps at all, vendor financing may be required. “The vendor will want a big deposit to cover costs of foreclosure if the deal does not work out,” Mr. Jaques cautions.

Vendor financing can also be used when the vendor knows the buyer well, as would be the case of a family member such as a child who buys a property form a parent.

Becoming the lender in a sale of one’s home can increase the risks that the vendor takes in the deal. If the buyer does not pay on time after title has been transferred to him, getting the home back may take years of litigation. One of the best protections the vendor can have is to make the deal an agreement for sale. Unlike a mortgage take back in which title is transferred to the purchaser who then grants a mortgage back to the vendor, the agreement for sale does not transfer title to the property until all payments have been made and no further funds are owed. Until the title is transferred when all payments have been made, the buyer has limited rights over the property, which remains the vendor’s.

Vendor financing may be worth the trouble if the mortgage pays appreciably more than bank deposits or GICs or if tax advantages add to the return. If the vendor has no other investment plan for the money from a sale other than put it into a bank deposit at low interest rates, he can write a loan against property he already knows.

In commercial real estate sales, where mortgages tend to have higher interest rates than residential mortgages, vendor financing is more common. And where there is a taxable capital gain, it makes sense to consider vendor financing.

If a person sells a second home, perhaps a vacation cottage, then the difference between the sale price and cost (which includes improvements) will be a taxable capital gain. If the sale is financed by a conventional mortgage, the vendor is paid immediately at the closing and the gain is taxed in the year it is realized. But if the vendor finances the sale, then the deal can be structured to distribute the capital gain exclusive of interest over a maximum of five years. Interest is taxable as received, which could be a period as long as the amortization of as much as 25 or 30 years. The accounting details are complex, but the result of distributing the capital gain over as much as five years is lower tax each year and the possibility of putting gains through the tax process at a lower overall rate than if the sale occurs in a period during which the taxpayer is at his or her highest income and tax bracket, Mr. Doer notes.

A final word: vendor take back mortgages are instruments in which the rights and responsibilities of each party need to be spelled out. As well, the costs of the deal – the lawyers’ bills, surveys, etc. – can be shifted to the buyer by agreement. “A private vendor should get the purchaser to pick up the legal costs,” Mr. Jaques says.

Vendor financing deals are best left to the wordsmithing of lawyers who know the field. Protecting a deal in which a family’s potentially largest asset will be transferred is worth the legal fees, perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, depending on the value of the deal and the jurisdiction.

“The vendor has to check out the buyer very closely to ensure that he or she has the ability to handle his obligations,” Mr. Murphy cautions. The vendor has to be satisfied that buyer can carry his responsibilities for as long as the financing agreement is in place. Vendor finance exposes the seller to problems not involved in a sale handled by a bank or other conventional lender. In an economic sense, the higher risk justifies the higher reward a vendor financing deal may generate.

————————————————————————————————————–

Contact the Jeffrey Team for more information  -  416-388-1960

————————————————————————————————————–

Incoming search terms for the article: