Up to Their Eyeballs

Canadians are slowly waking up to the fact that putting the brakes on spending is not enough to battle household debt.

According to the latest debt report from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA-Canada), Canadian families are faced with household debt that’s reached a record high.
“The debt of a typical household is rising,” says Rock Lefebvre, CGA-Canada’s vice-president of research and standards and co-author of the report. “And the financial situation of certain groups of households is much worse than average and continues to deteriorate. This is concealed if you focus only on the national or aggregate picture.”
The report illustrates that while consumer spending may be down in the first quarter of 2011, many Canadians continue to struggle with household debt that has reached a new all-time high of $1.5 trillion. The situation has hit those already feeling the pinch of lower or stagnant incomes, or personal circumstances, even harder.
The survey-based report reveals several alarming trends, as single-parent families, retired Canadians, and those with annual household income of less than $50,000 face a bleak financial situation.
“The report confirms that more than half of indebted Canadians are borrowing just to afford day-to-day living expenses like food, housing and transportation,” adds Anthony Ariganello, president and CEO of CGA-Canada “For these individuals, there is little hope for improved financial condition.”
Some of the key findings of the report show more Canadians are carrying debt into retirement, with one-third of retired households carrying an average debt of $60,000 and 17% carrying $100,000 or more. More than half of indebted respondents (57%) singled out daily living expenses as the main cause for their increasing debt. The single-parent family is the only category where debt increases with age.
If household debt was spread evenly across all Canadians, a family with two children would owe an estimated $176, 461.
Lefebvre says that a number of measures taken by the government to address some identified shortcomings have not helped improve household balance sheets.
“It’s important that the dynamics of household indebtedness remain high on the radar of policy-makers,” said Lefebvre, “particularly when it comes to policies and incentives that encourage Canadians to improve their finances.”
With the Bank of Canada likely to delay rate hikes, an effective deterrent to debt can be discounted. At a time when household debt has reached a record high, low interest rates could prove somewhat counterproductive as they may tempt more Canadians to take on debt.
Canadians can expect borrowing costs to remain near record lows for the rest of the year, according to the quarterly economic forecast issued today by TD Economics.
“That’s because the pace of the economic recovery is expected to slow sharply in Canada, the United States and much of the world,” said the report, credited to Craig Alexander, chief economist, TD Economics.
As a result, the Bank of Canada will likely refrain from raising its key interest rates until 2012. This will make it easier for Canadians to continue borrowing, burying themselves deeper in hock which will take years to clear.
Debt is partly contributing to a slowdown in Canadian growth as households are too overstretched to further stimulate the economy, thus creating something of a vicious cycle that many global economies are struggling to break.

Filed by Vikram Barhat, editor@Advisor.ca Originally published on Advisor.ca

Personal Finance and Home Purchasing

Something that I haven't quite got my head around is how so many (thousands per month) people can seemingly 'afford' to purchase homes in the Vancouver area considering the prices at which local homes seem to be sold at. Greater Vancouver benchmark for all dwelling types is just about $520,000 as of June 2009.

Let's look at a sample first time home buyer.

Let's imagine John and Jenny want to get started on the property ladder after getting married last year. They have saved $10,000 over the past couple years and they have about $25,000 in their RRSP accounts which they intend to use toward a property purchase under the Home Buyer's Plan. Jenny's parents have offered to help them purchase their first home as well with an extra $20,000 'loan' to be used toward a down payment that may never need to be paid back. They don't have any credit card debt but are making payments of a combined $900 per month on two car loans which have 3 years left on them. Combined down payment = $55,000.

John makes $60,000 per year working in the technology field and his job prospects are very good given his education and work experience. Jenny works in sales and her income has averaged $50,000 per year over the past two years. Although she does okay at work, her job prospects are sketchy as the company she works for has seen business drop off considerably and has laid off a few people in the last few months. Gross Annual Income = $110,000. Net Monthly Cashflow = $6,000.

They are wondering what they are able to afford (apparently they don't have a budget) so they go talk to a mortgage broker about their situation. The mortgage broker punches some numbers into the computer and comes up with a preapproval amount of $430,000. John and Jenny are amazed, they wonder what they have done to make the bank love them so much! This pre-approval emboldens them.

They call up a realtor and begin looking at homes in the $400,000 to $500,000 price range. The realtor shows them several condos and a few townhouses which meet their criteria and they settle on a nice townhouse and make an offer for $450,000 which is accepted and the deal is drawn up.

John and Jenny put $45,000 down by using the parent's money and withdrawing from their RRSP accounts under the Home Buyer's Plan. They have paid CMHC and legal fees of $9,000 which gets added to their mortgage so they owe a total of $414,000 and they have decided to amortize over 35 years (they will be 65 when it is finally paid off if they stick to the original plan with the original rate) with a 5 year term and a rate of 4.5%. They will be making principal and interest payment of $1,950 per month, they have added life insurance to the mortgage ($50) and are paying property tax monthly with their mortgage payment ($200). They now get to pay strata fees of $200 per month as well.

Let's have a look at John and Jenny's monthly budget.

John and Jenny's total monthly obligations are:
Mortgage - $1,950
Life Insurance - $50
Taxes - $200
Strata - $200
Car Payments - $900
Food - $600
Fuel - $400
Home and Auto Insurance - $400
Telephone/Internet/Cable - $300
Clothing/Other/Misc - $300
Entertainment/Vacations - $500
RRSP contributions - $200
Total = $6,000

This couple can have a 'reasonable' lifestyle based on these numbers but let's look a little closer.
Let's test this for several common risks:

Death - The mortgage is life insured, the survivor would be financially okay so long as the life insurance remains in place.

Divorce - They are in bad financial shape if this happens. Neither one of the two could afford the townhouse if they split up and the townhouse would need to be sold quickly.

Children - They are in bad financial shape if they have kids. Not only would they have extra monthly expenses, which they don't have room for in the budget, they would also have less income for a period of time as it is typical for the mother to take some time off work after giving birth. Even if mom went back to work there are daycare costs, which are not small.

Job Loss - They are a financial disaster if one of the two loses employment of any extended period of time. They would be forced to make some significant life changes and likely sell the home.

Interest Rate Rise at Renewal - If interest rates rise by 100-200 basis points they would be extremely rough financial shape. Unless they had an increase in income, they would likely be forced to re-amortize the mortgage and/or make other lifestyle changes. If rates increased more than 200 basis points, they would not be able to maintain their current lifestyle in any shape or form.
1) 100 basis point rise to 5.5%, maintain original amortization, payments rise to $2180 / month
2) 200 basis point rise to 6.5%, maintain original amortization, payments rise to $2420 / month
3) 300 basis point rise to 7.5%, maintain original amortization, payments rise to $2670 / month

Time - This is the most insidious risk of all and the least recognized. As a financial planner, I see many people who have put themselves into this type of scenario and they manage to muddle through life, manage to pay off a modest home by retirement and save a very modest sum of money. They retire at 65 and have a fairly low standard of living since they have no real significant savings and no pensions. If none of the above risks occured and they both managed to work a full career, get regular raises, contribute to CPP, receive OAS and have some modest RRIF withdrawals, they would make it through life without severe financial hardship but as a debt slave. The bank would have made over $400,000 from them in interest payments and they would have never saved much. They would live month to month their entire life and financial freedom would be a mere dream as they play the lottery each week hoping their number is drawn.

The reality is that the risks noted above are very real and for John and Jenny's situation to work out they need everything to work perfect, with no hitches, glitches or problems. This seems unlikely to me. It would be far better for them financially to leave themselves more room in their monthly budget so that they could:
1) Live / survive with only one income
2) Maintain mortgage amortization if interest rates rise
3) Speed up mortgage pay down by making extra payments as they receive raises if things work out well.
4) Increase their personal savings to RRSP and/or TFSA to ensure they have money for the unexpected and for retirement.

There are only two ways for John and Jenny to make the above work in a sustainable manner:
1) Continue renting and saving aggressively
2) Buy a much cheaper home and aggressively pay down the mortgage

What are your thoughts? Do you know John and Jenny? I do.

Bill Gross on the New Normal

Bill Gross, the “Bond King” is going to great lengths to get us to understand that the world is in a state of reversion to what he and El-Erian, his co-chief at PIMCO coined as the “New Normal” 3 months ago, in his latest missive - “Bon” or “Non” Appétit?.

Our economy which once feasted, no, binged, unable to stop itself, on debt and leverage, and on the basis that home and other asset prices would rise to the sky, is now fasting, cleansing itself of the fat that accumulated, and it is a long-term process that will take many years to complete.

Here are some of the highlights from the letter, which you may download here:
Gross re-iterates the “New Normal” - Its starting to sound a lot like “The Emperor’s New Clothes“:

Our economy’s lights, if not switched off in a rehash of the 1930s Depression, have certainly been dimmed in a 21st century version likely to be labeled the Great Recession. Much like John McSherry, U.S. and many global consumers gorged themselves on Big Macs of all varieties: burgers to be sure, but also McHouses, McHummers, and McFlatscreens, all financed with excessive amounts of McCredit created under the mistaken assumption that the asset prices securitizing them could never go down. What a colossal McStake that turned out to be. Now, however, with financial markets seemingly calmed and an inventory-based recovery in store for the balance of 2009, there is a developing optimism that we can go back to the lifestyle of yesteryear. PIMCO’s driving thesis however, if not a juxtaposition, is succinctly described as a “new normal” where growth is slower, profit margins are narrower, and asset returns are smaller than in decades past based upon the delevering and reregulating of the global economy, which in turn should substantially inhibit the “gorging” of goods and services that we grew used to in decades past.

Forecasts based on econometric models inevitably miss these secular/structural breaks in historical patterns because it is impossible to quantify human behavior, and long-term trends involving risk-taking and in turn derisking are decidedly human in their origin. Bell-shaped curves with Gaussian/random distributions fail to anticipate that human beings do not make decisions by chance or independently of each other, but in many cases in reaction to one another. Humanity’s personal and social computers appear to be programmed that way. And so, instead of “normal” distributions, economists and investors must learn to be on the lookout for “black swans,” and if not, then certainly “fat tails,” which differ from the measurement of natural phenomena accepted in science. “New normals,” flatter-shaped bell curves, and structural shifts in previously accepted standards become not only possible, but probable as human nature reacts to itself and its prior behavior. The efficient market hypothesis was always dead from the get-go, but academic tenure and Nobel prizes were food for the unwilling or perhaps unthinking.

Others are starting to wonder about the emperors new clothes, the “green shoots”:
I was impressed this weekend by an article in the Op-Ed section of The New York Times by staff writer Bob Herbert. “No Recovery in Sight” was the heading and his opening sentence asked, “How do you put together a consumer economy that works when the consumers are out of work?” That is really all one needs to ask when divining our economy’s future fortune. Unless an optimist can prescribe how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and shuffle him/her back to work then there can be no return to an “old normal.” As unemployment approaches 10%, what is less well publicized is that the number of “underutilized” workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically from 15 to 30 million. Those without jobs, as well as those individuals who only work part-time and have become discouraged and stopped looking, total 30 MILLION people. The number is staggering. Commonsensically, one has to know that many or most of these are untrained for the demands of a green-oriented, goods-producing future economy. Imagine a welding rod in the hands of an investment banker or mortgage broker and you’ll understand the implications quicker than any economist using an econometric model.

Fifteen Words to describe the era that led us to our current economic crisis:
The supersizing of financial leverage and consumer spending in concert with the politicizing of deregulation describes in fifteen words our most recent brush with irrational behavior and inefficient markets. Greed will come again. But for now, the trend is the other way and it promises to persist for a generation at a minimum. The fact is that American consumers have suffered a collapse in wealth of at least $15 trillion since early 2007. Global estimates are less reliable, but certainly in multiples of that figure. And when potential spenders feel less rich by that much, the only model one can use to forecast the future is a commonsensical one that predicts higher savings, lower consumption, and an economic growth rate that staggers forward at a new normal closer to 2 as opposed to 3½%. There’s no magic in that number, and no model to back it up, just a lot of commonsense that says this is how people and economic societies behave when stressed and stretched to a near breaking point.

Where do we go from here:
Investors who stuffed themselves on a constant diet of asset appreciation for the past quarter-century will now be enclosed in a cage featuring government-mandated, consumer-oriented fasting. “Non Appétit,” not Bon Appétit, will become the apt description for the American consumer, and significant parts of the global economy, including the U.S. Because this is so, short-term policy rates will be kept low for longer than cyclical norms, and the outlook for risk assets - stocks, high yield bonds, and commercial and residential real estate will involve just that - risk. Investors should stress secure income offered by bonds and stable dividend-paying equities. Consumer Cuisinart consumption is a relic of the past.

The Debt Snowball Method

I have seen this work very effectively in several instances where I have done credit counselling for people.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The debt-snowball method is a debt reduction strategy, whereby one who owes on more than one account pays off the accounts with the smaller balances first, proceeding to the larger ones later.

Overview
The debt-snowball method of debt repayment is a form of debt management that is most often applied to repaying revolving credit — such as credit cards. Under the method, extra cash is dedicated to paying debts with the smallest amount owed.

This method has gained more recognition recently due to the fact that it is the primary debt-reduction method taught by many financial and wealth experts. However, it has always existed, as people have a tendency to want to take care of smaller, easier-to-take-care-of things first.

Methodology
The basic steps in the debt snowball method are as follows:

List all debts in ascending order from smallest balance to largest.

This is the method's most distinctive feature, in that the order is determined by amount owed, not the rate of interest charged. However, if two debts are very close in amount owed, then the debt with the higher interest rate would be moved above in the list.

Commit to pay the minimum payment on every debt.

Determine how much extra can be applied towards the smallest debt.

Pay the minimum payment plus the extra amount towards that smallest debt until it is paid off.
Note that some lenders will apply extra amounts towards the next payment; in order for the method to work the lenders need to be contacted and told that extra payments are to go directly toward principal reduction.

Once a debt is paid in full, add the old minimum payment (plus any extra amount available) from the first debt to the minimum payment on the second smallest debt, and apply the new sum to repaying the second smallest debt.

Repeat until all debts are paid in full.

In theory, by the time the final debts are reached, the extra amount paid toward the larger debts will grow quickly, similar to a snowball rolling downhill gathering more snow (thus the name).

The theory works as much on human psychology as it does on financial principles; by paying the smaller debts first, the individual, couple, or family sees fewer bills as more individual debts are paid off, thus giving ongoing positive feedback on their progress towards eliminating their debt.

A first home mortgage is not generally included in the debt snowball, but is instead paid off as part of one's larger financial plan. As an example, many financial plans pay off home mortgages in a later step, along with any other debt which is equal to or greater than half of one's annual take-home pay.

The issue of whether one should make retirement contributions during the debt reduction process is a matter of dispute among proponents of this method:

Some argue that all contributions are to be halted during the debt snowball, thus freeing up more money to pay down the debt snowball.

Others dispute this practice, citing the cost of compounding interest to be greater than the gains of paying off debt.

Some compromise by arguing that retirement contributions should be reduced to only the minimum amount that the employer will match with an employee, but not eliminated completely.

Many financial and wealth experts teach that this halting of retirement contributions should last no more than two years.

Simple Example
An example of the debt-snowball method in action is shown below.
A person has the following amounts of debt and additional funds available to pay debt (the debt is listed with the smallest balance first, as recommended by the method):
Credit Card A - $250 balance - $25/month minimum
Credit Card B - $500 balance - $26/month minimum
Car Payment - $2500 balance - $150/month minimum
Loan - $5000 balance - $200/month minimum

The person has an additional $100/month which can be devoted to repayment of debt.
Under the debt-snowball method, payments for the first two months would be made to debtors as follows:
Credit Card A - $125 ($25/month minimum + $100 additional available)
Credit Card B - $26/month minimum
Car Payment - $150/month minimum
Loan - $200/month minimum

After two months (presuming the person has not added to the balances, which would defeat the purpose of debt reduction), Credit Card A would be paid in full, and the remaining balances as follows:
Credit Card B - $448
Car Payment - $2200
Loan - $4600

The person would then take the $125 previously used to pay off Credit Card A and apply it as additional payment to the Credit Card B balance, which would make payments for the next three months as follows:
Credit Card B - $151 ($26/month minimum + $125 additional available)
Car Payment - $150/month minimum
Loan - $200/month minimum

After three months Credit Card B would be paid in full (the final payment would be $146), and the remaining balances would be as follows:
Car Payment - $1750
Loan - $4000

The person would then take the $151 previously used to pay off Credit Card B and apply it as additional payment to the car loan balance, which would make payments as follows:
Car Payment - $301 ($150/month minimum + $151 additional available)
Loan - $200/month minimum

It would take six months to pay the car loan (the final payment being $245), whereupon the person would then make payments of $501/month toward the loan (which would have a $2800 balance) for six months (with the last payment at $295).

Thus in 15 months the person has repaid four loans, with two of them being paid in a mere five months and three within one year.

Benefits
The primary benefit of the smallest-balance plan is the psychological benefit of seeing results sooner. A secondary benefit of the smallest-balance plan is the reduction of total amount owed to lenders in a single month. This is a risk reduction in the event of a lost job or emergency.

Criticism
People with more financial discipline can get ahead quicker by paying off the credit cards and loans with the higher interest rates first. This will minimize costs to become debt-free faster than the smallest-balance approach. Dave Ramsey, a proponent of the debt-snowball method, concedes that "the math" leans toward paying the highest interest debt first; however, based on his experience, Ramsey states that personal finance is "20 percent head knowledge and 80 percent behavior" and that people trying to reduce debt need "quick wins" in order to remain motivated toward debt reduction.

The Debt-Snowball method is only for those on high enough incomes to be able to meet all the minimum repayment requirements on their debts. This method could instead lead to problems for those who are struggling to meet these minimum payments demands. In this circumstance, an individual should not be advised to pay creditors differing amounts as this could count as non-equitable repayment, leading to problems (e.g. with going bankrupt, or with maintaining non-equitable repayments over longer periods).

People are Going to Save, not Spend

The inevitable outcome.

Logos of Despair

Canadians spend more on pets than childcare: StatsCan

OTTAWA - Canadian families pay more in personal taxes than they do on either shelter or food, and spend more on their pets than they do on child care, according to Statistics Canada's latest annual report on household expenditures.

Despite the tax-cut boasts of governments, Canadian families paid 6% more on average in personal income taxes last year, which remained the single largest expense for families, even ahead of housing.

In total, households spent an average of $69,950 in 2007, up 3.3% from 2006, Statistics Canada said yesterday in its report on family expenditures, noting that the increase was also more than a full percentage point above the 2.2% increase in the cost of living last year.

Among major expenditures, however, it was personal taxes that posted the steepest increase, rising to an average of $14,450. As a result, taxes ate up 20.6% of the average family budget, up from 20.1% in 2006, and reversing a generally downward trend from a record high of 21.9% in 1996.

There was little change in the share of spending that went on major expenditures other than taxes and to a lesser extent shelter, said Statistics Canada analyst Bradley Snider.

The report, however, showed that pet expenses rose by nearly 10% to an average $432 per household, exceeding the average $330 in child-care expenses per household, which was up by just $1 or 0.3%.

Average pet expenses have exceeded child-care expenses for some time, noted Mr. Snider, explaining that re-flects the fact that a greater proportion of households have pet expenses than have child care expenses, boosting the overall average.

If limited to households with child-care expenses, the average spent is $3,060, while for those with pet expenses the average is just $800.

"But you could say that collectively as a society we do spend more" on pets than on child care, Mr. Snider added.

Households also spent an average of $9,400 on transportation, up just 1.7%, as an increase in spending on gasoline was offset by a decline in spending on auto purchases, it said. In addition, they spent an average of $7,310 on food, up 3.7%, which -- though modest compared to the increases in other major expenditures -- was the steepest rise in food expenditures in half a decade.

Households in Alberta spent the most on average last year, at $85,910, but Statistics Canada noted that was only an 0.8% increase from 2006, the smallest among the provinces, while next door, spending by families in Saskatchewan rose 7.7% to $63,940, the fastest rate of growth.
Households in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, on average, spent the least.

But how much a family spends, and on what and what proportion of their budget it eats up varied widely by income.

For example, the one-fifth of households with the lowest income spent an average of $22,340 in 2007 on the basics of food, shelter and clothing, which accounted for 52% of their total spending, while personal taxes, at $577, accounted for a mere 3%.

In contrast, the top fifth of households spent an average of $143,360 on the basics of food, shelter and clothing, which, however, was just 28 of their family budget, while personal taxes, at $41,895, accounted for 29% of their total spending.