Property is new construction which is why the HST is an issue. If it was previously owned I would just wait till the end of the year to buy it rather than complicate the deal with a vendor takeback.

Yeah. I plan to pick three brokers (maybe four) and have them see who they can do for me. There is no way I would just go with one. CanadaLend for example won't compete so despite being a big player in this area they are not going to be one of the three.

wow that is a lot of variables and you are right, keeping in mind that higher end properties take longer to sell but also you look at the age of the property and the appraisal will weigh heavily.

The most famous answer from any Broker will always be they have to see the whole deal before they can give you definites and thats because the devil is in the details :) ... that said on a new property in a heavily populated area with a heavy downpayment will go along way and there are specific lenders that have their niche with specific deals.
Im definitely sure a Broker will be able to help you but like a doctor dont be afraid to get a 2nd opinion.

When choosing a Broker I would definitely go with someone who has been recommended to you by a family member or close friend as well as 1 or 2 others. The main thing youll need to know is what your Beacon score is so that each Broker will not have to pull individual credit reports on you.
Hope that helps :)

Thanks for the guidance.

I haven't actually finalized anything or even started to look seriously. I'm putting in an offer at the end of March and I have made some basic calls just to get a feel for things.

Again your LTV is much better than what anyone else seems to think is possible. I have been told that 65% is the best I can hope for. I've had a few say maybe 70% and one say 65% with an additional 10% as a second for 75% but those are the exceptions. Everyone else is 65% LTV max and even then they don't know if it is possible since to get to 65% I'm going to need to do a builder take-back as a second for some of that. I have a large sum of money coming in at the end of the year that would allow me to pay off the second mortgage and normally I would wait but I'm under the gun for time bacause of the HST.

The location is a major Ontario city with the property as downtown as you can get. As you said the strength of the property is the major consideration and more specifically the ability to recover the loan by repossessing the property. This is a very expensive property so it is the opinion of some of the brokers I called that most lenders won't be interested as properties at this price point tend to take at least a year and often longer to sell. Also it introduces way too much variance into their underwriting because it would be an atypical size for NIQ. Further, when I say NIQ I really need to stress the NO part as I literally have zero documentation with respect to income.

I'm still looking -- I called the company that Average Joe mentioned and am waiting for a call back. Given the additional information above do you still think 85% LTV is possible?

hmmm... I see. I dont think the NIQ is the issue neccessarily but LTV probably is. I think it will depend on your downpayment. The more risk that your personally taking, the more attractive your mortgage is to a lender. Also, it will depend on where the property is. If you are buying in an area like Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Oakville etc then the lender will be lending primarily on the strength of the property but if you are in a less populated area then the lender will weigh LTV, Income, Credit, TDSR etc., more heavily.

But still I find 7% to be high. If you are in a less populated area then chances are the lender will not go higher than 85% LTV any how and may only go as high as 75%. So the need for 7% would be a little rich.
Keep in mind that there are over 40 lenders servicing ontario and I have seen nunbers as high as 80 lenders for Canada. So make sure you are getting the right product, at the right rate, from the right lender.... lol I hope Ive helped :)

My credit is fine. The issue is that it is going to have to be a NIQ mortgage on an expensive property so not really something that anyone is jumping to finance.

My previous deal fell though because it was going to be private money and I was looking at double digit interest and points upfront. It was just horrible NIQ + co-ownership + on leased land. Worked out because I actually found a property I like better and it doesn't have the strange title or the leased land issue.

What a lovely number. I wish I could get even close to that. I'm thinking if I get 7% that won't be bad.

Even if your credit isnt the greatest you should be able to do better than 7%. Once your above 6% you are looking at private financing which probably means you credit is absolutely horrendous lol.

But seriously. People always think their credit is worse than what it actually is.

I had a few mortgages through invis.

http://www.invis.ca/rates/

"best rate out there right now is 3.75%"

What a lovely number. I wish I could get even close to that. I'm thinking if I get 7% that won't be bad.

------------

Unrelated to thread but Community Lend -- Canada's Prosper -- has launched today. This brings P2P lending to Canada (Ont and QC only for now) -- might make an interesting article as it is something new and an option for people with damaged credit to borrow.

I have nothing to do with the company and I think lending money via P2P is retarded but if you use it to borrow and have no better options then it isn't bad.

yes you are correct and in this case the error would have been me not catching a change in the interest rate in the mortgage instrument. lol... regardless I guess what I should ask you is, has this mortgage been registered as of yet... Also, I would honestly ask the bank if they are not willing to honour this appropriate rate if they can then release you without the penalty so you can get a decent rate. It seems to me the rate is exceptionally high and knowing banks underwriting guidelines, if you had really bad credit they just would refuse the rewrite. So they are taking advantage of the fact that you are trying to put yourself in a better financial situation using the equity you earned in your home.
The word Vampire comes to mind lol.... Seriously though... kick and scream for that rate and then allow them to just release you from your current mortgage. Knowing banks they wont do it easily but the Ombudsman is there for you to turn up the heat a little. Remember, they are not doing you any favours. Your money is put on the Bond market and then imagine the mark up from 2.25% to the interest rate they want you to pay. Can you start to understand what is going on now... also, the individual rep stands to gain on this deception as well.

As to what a court would say... Is is reasonable for the bank to charge you thousands of dollars more than what any other lender would charge you for the same underwriting criteria. Is it not reasonable to claim that you felt the initial commitment was for the maximum rate but you believed you were still negotiating the rate especially since 3.99% is the current going rate and an error would have been 2.99%. Remember the best rate out there right now is 3.75% so the error was what they were first trying to pull over your eyes and believe me they know it. lol

Errors and omissions insurance covers mistakes you make should your client then have damages because of reliance on those mistakes. It is completely different because the client does not know of the error. The important consideration here is that the borrower was aware that the rate was typed wrong.

As for going back to the 1800s I did that because that is how it is taught to first year students but the law hasn't changed. There are plenty of cases in the last five year where the doctrine of knowingly taking advantage of unilateral mistake is upheld. Basically you need an obvious mistake that one party makes and the other is aware of. The only issue here is if the mistake was obvious. That would be a question of fact and basically it would come down to could the bank establish that the borrower knew the rate was a typo and wanted to take advantage of that mistake. If the bank can then there is no contract if the bank can't then it is a valid contract. Based on the facts it is a coin-flip but this is where the asymmetrical access to resources kicks in -- banks have in-house lawyers and big Bay St firms on retainer.

I just don't understand why the bank is making a big deal about this. It isn't like the type was 0.5% or something insane. The typo is actually a reasonable rate.