In one corner, CMT says changes to CMHC amortization policies
"handicap hundreds of thousands of well-qualified homeowners and lessors. These people may have very legitimate needs for the cash-flow flexibility that extended amortizations provide. Forcing strong borrowers to make less-optimal budgeting decisions serves few interests, and is not what government was intended for."But the knockout punch is delivered in one swift motion by Ben:
"I’m curious how these well-qualified borrowers overcame that ‘handicap’ and the ‘legitimate need for flexibility’ for the 60 plus years prior to the rule changes in 2005. And as for the last sentence, exactly what should the role of government be when it comes to insuring the profits of private, profit-seeking financial institutions using taxpayer money?"If you're not already reading Financial Insights every day, add it to your list. I generally appreciate the insights offered at CMT, so this post isn't a poke at them, only on their offside argument that all-but-claims the taxpayer funded insurance schemes of the CMHC are "free market."