Whose CMHC? – The Board Of Directors Of The Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation


Sophie Joncas (Interim Chair)
St-Hubert, Quebec
Chartered Accountant
“.. professional experience in the public and private sectors, including construction and real estate firms, has enabled her to assist companies with their business and strategic planning needs…”


Karen Kinsley
Ottawa, Ontario
President and Chief Executive Officer, CMHC
“Prior to joining CMHC, Ms. Kinsley was Vice-President and Treasurer with two real estate development companies.”


James A. Millar
National Capital Region
Associate, The Sussex Circle
[“A career public servant.”]


Brian Johnston
Toronto, Ontario
President, Monarch Corporation
“..the President of Monarch Corporation, one of Canada’s oldest and largest real estate companies. … an active member within the home-building industry.”


André G. Plourde
Montréal, Quebec
President, Groupe immobilier de Montréal Inc.
“…President of Montreal Real Estate Group Inc. since 2001, an important commercial real estate brokerage firm in Montreal.”


E. Anne MacDonald
Pictou, Nova Scotia
Lawyer
[“..has operated a general law practice in the Town of Pictou, Nova Scotia, since 1979.”]


Michael Gendron
Edmonton, Alberta
Chief Financial Officer, Mancap Group
“…part owner of Mancap Ventures Inc., a privately owned venture capital company with majority equity interest in a number of homebuilding and support companies based in Edmonton, Alberta.”


Rennie Pieterman
London, Ontario
Partner, Practical Plumbing Co. Ltd.
“…partner at Practical Plumbing Co. Ltd. … served eight years on the Board of Directors of the London Home Builders’ Association, including as President in 2003. … a member of the Association’s Renovators’ Council since 1994.”

– from the CMHC website
[hat-tip to ‘watson’ at VCI, for publicizing this]

The point of this post is so obvious that it requires barely any commentary. What are the CMHC ‘s priorities? – vreaa

39 responses to “Whose CMHC? – The Board Of Directors Of The Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation

  1. I suggest that vreaa apply for the chair. The position is posted on their website. Strong communication skills, Ability to deal with ambiguity and manage uncertainty, Ability to foster debate and discussions, Consensus-Builder/Negotiator, Sound judgment and integrity…

    http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/about/cogo/cogo_031.cfm

    (Ben Rabidoux noticed the posting)

    • Ralph Cramdown

      Not to dis vreaa, but how about some insurance industry experience? It’s interesting to read Warren Buffett’s annual letters to shareholders to see how insurance is different from most other industries. Let’s see, people I wouldn’t want to be responsible for hiring/firing the management of a $600BN insurance company: All the current board members.

  2. Renters Revenge

    “The CMHC guarantee is a direct and unconditional obligation of CMHC as an agent of Canada. It carries the full faith and credit of Canada, and constitutes a direct and unconditional obligation of and by the Government of Canada.” – 2010 CMHC Annual Report, p.86 http://www.cmhc.ca/en/corp/about/anrecopl/upload/2010AR_EN.pdf

    We are being ruled by real estate agents, property developers, and a plumber!!!

    This is insane.

  3. Village Whisperer

    No conflict of interest here… everyone move on.

  4. What are the priorities? Mortgages and houses, and doing well on both counts.

  5. Paul Streppel

    their occupations make sense, but their ages are very telling. What is the age at which you exert peak power? clue: Saturn

    • Renters Revenge

      Hey CMHC, My, like, hot water tank went on the fritz. Can you guys, like, give me a grant so my housing doesn’t become less affordable. Thanks, eh.

    • wtf? So if I’m a co-op CMHC will give me other taxpayers money to pay for maintenance costs on my housing? Will they give everyone who needs a new roof and didn’t bother to plan for that money; or only people with the right connections?

  6. The conflict of interest / occupational bias here is just scandalous.

  7. Seriously, isn’t there an obvious conflict of interest? Am I missing something? Can someone please enlighten me?

    Farmer? F1? Basement suite? Anyone?

    • CMHC has a mandate under the purview of various ministries. If they appoint a board that is either inappropriate for provisioning for its own default — they mismanaged CMHC given its terms of operation — or incapable of fulfilling its mandate because they have the wrong collective skillset, that’s one thing. Quite another is that their mandate is off kilter.

      Stay on target. If this Board is incompetent or inappropriate, smear their managers who got it wrong and did nothing about it. But from what I see, given CMHC is fully underwritten by the government, I’d say on first pass this Board is an excellent choice.

    • It’s sort of like putting Colonel Sanders in charge of the welfare of chickens.

  8. I am very reassured that our $600 Billion liability is in such solid hands. Not!

  9. Now that’s a board.
    http://www.manulife.com/public/about/index/0,,lang=en&navId=610010,00.html

    PhD (Economics)
    Order of Canada
    Ambassador to the Peoples’ Republic of China
    Distinguished Life Time Member of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives
    Distinguished Visiting Professor
    Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Boston University
    Auditor General of Canada
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Inco Limited
    Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Executive Officer
    Master of Business Administration from Harvard
    Head of Investment and Corporate Banking
    President and CEO of Teck Resources
    President Emerita and Professor of York University
    PhD from Princeton University
    Superintendent of Financial Institutions
    Deputy Chairman, KPMG
    Staff Assistant to President Richard Nixon

  10. No conflict of interest here. Move along now.

  11. Ms. MacDonald from Pictou, NS, probably feels very out-of-place.

    • just a wild conjecture based on results to date and quickie scan of the bios … if safeguarding the village was the objective, somebody installed the 7 dwarves … not 7 samurai … yes, i know it’s 8 🙂

      • btw, typical of regulatory agencies … e.g. SEC … they go after the jay walkers and ignore armed robbery/assault on same block

  12. I just wrote an quick analysis on CMHC and Fannie/Freddie http://worldhousingbubble.blogspot.com/2012/05/comparing-canadas-cmhc-to-us.html if anyone is interested. I also try to clear up some rife oversimplification I frequently see regarding Fannie/Freddie.

    Gah, posted on the wrong thread. Blogmeister can please to delete from the previous thread… ?

    • totally out of my envelope here but … isn’t cmhc backing some pretty non-std stuff like helocs and whatever the issuer wants/needs to purchase MI for? then also, there’s the question of their loss reserves vs risk. they won’t go down because they have a direct pipe pre-approved … question is how much they’ll need to use it?

      • HELOCs were removed from coverage. http://www.fin.gc.ca/n11/11-003-eng.asp Jan 2011. I thought that would have more of an impact on the banks. Well, they did start upping HELOC interest rates based on anecdotal reports.

        For statistical purposes HELOCs are personal debt, not classified as mortgage debt.

      • just something isn’t adding up in my mind … at this 10kft level, you had this fat bulge of credit issuance that went through in us … it happened because ‘less than prime’ stuff got peanut buttered, rating agencies blessed, dupes/dopes running with access to other people’s money bought – everywhere, on top of cb purchases of gse paper … in cdn you got a similar fat bulge of housing credit issuance … but it isn’t backed by real gdp type fundamentals … so by inference, i’d say it has to be hokey … short version -> all that stuff on cmhc books can’t be gse-grade … how bad is it? … you can see from the chart of their insurance in force that they’re absorbing the bulge, without them there’s no where for it to go because the peanut butter machine is hosed already … so, this risk balanced against their loss reserves (lol) would be a measure of how much boc help they’re going need when things go down …???

      • I think there might be a point of diversion between the U.S. and Canada on some of the points you bring up. But I don’t have the Canadian data (only BoC and CMHC do…) to back this, but it’s just an impression.

        True U.S. Subprime garbage didn’t have any customer payments made on it at all. It was that egregious. Then there were the arrears in 3 months grade of crap followed by the arrears after the low teaser rate used for qualification calculations reset (generally in three years), or the pick a pay neg-am mortgages that recast after X time or Y dollars of principal increase.

        Another thing that really shows the separation between the two markets, is 3-5 year interest rate lock-in and crazy high early payment penalties? Those were the bastion of crap subprime mortgages. Real mortgages don’t have either of the qualities in the U.S. So we are talking about vastly different perspectives on rules and expectations.

        So, I’d say that CMHC isn’t sitting on the same deep level of junk that Wall Street was slicing and dicing and selling off all the way to Deutsche Bänk. BUT, that doesn’t mean the scale isn’t as bad. If 70% of mortgages go 20% underwater that’s as bad as 10% going 70% underwater and another 20% going 35% underwater. Especially because CMHC has no cap, and is sitting on larger potential losses in the high end. Luxury can swing much more wildly and it harder to offload in a crisis. No one bulk buys those things.

        Normal housing crash/decline comes post some other trigger, usually employment strain. The U.S. crash came because the crap mortgages sunk the very machine providing mortgages. Then the employment situation declined and the vicious spiral began. This is an abnormal situation. But in the end it all looks the same. Reversion to the mean, and the mortgage backers holding assets insufficient to cover the loans.

        Will the scale of the losses be the same? Seems like not a bad starting point for estimation. So average the U.S. Fannie Freddie bailout range to 415 Billion out of 4.3 Trillion on mortgages, that’s 10% of book. Doesn’t sound implausible for CMHC… a $56 billion dollar bailout.

        (sorry so long.)

      • hey thanks a bunch for the color, ag. in my ‘conservation of X’ mindset, X amt of insanity should translate to X amt of pain … somewhere. so, if cmhc wasn’t going to get nailed, who was? $56B makes a decent ballpark lower bound estimate – against $20B-$30B (?) reserves. i’d bet the actual will be at least twice though. i pinged a pro while ago on the situation and his response was that relative to the us situation, the industry was in a much stronger position vs homeowners … so this meant there wasn’t much interesting to bet on. maybe that means, relative to us situation, cdn homeowners underwater will be paying a lot more of this from THEIR loss reserves – in which case, the bk laws are going to get work out. geez, this is one messed up puppy 😦

      • That’s the bailout after reserves are exhausted, to keep it parallel. Best I can figure out, F/F’s reserve requirement was 2.5%, which I believe is close to CMHC which is required to have something like 1.5% but is holding double that. You know, to be safe.

      • $56B bailout, yes. speeding again … metaphorically of course.

  13. CMHC? ooh that’s gonna hurt when the koolaid high wears off

  14. Thai-born Chinese Canuck

    Didn’t know that “similar practice” still remains in Canada as in a third-world country like Thailand. I am shocked.

  15. The foxes are in charge of the battery hen house

  16. Pingback: Whose CMHC? – The Board Of Directors Of The Canada Mortgage … « larrymatthews

  17. It’s all about appetite for the debt on the other side.

    Unless your question was facetious, low won’t help until consumer debt is down to something more like 70% of disposable income (the end of the 90s). We’re down to about 133% now. Choking off credit issuance through paranoid scrutiny and a social shift in values is about the best we can do, forces consumers to use the low rates for what they really should be used for, which is getting out from under debt, not going deeper into it.

  18. FOX GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE

  19. Is the government nuts!!!!!! Its, like getting a getting a pack of wolves to guard a hen coop.

  20. friends … these don’t look like wolves nor foxes … think patsies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s