Month: December 2016

Gender Bias in Financial Preparedness

Woman opening an overdue bill to indicate insolvency risk

Every two years Hoyes, Michalos & Associates publishes what we call our Joe Debtor study. This study examines the average person who experiences financial hardship. A portion of our study is dedicated to the female debtor. There are clear differences between why women become insolvent when compared to men. This gender difference in terms the unique financial challenges and circumstances faced by women was confirmed by a recent study done in Windsor, Ontario.

Our guest today is Georgia Graham, Programs Manager of WEST (Women’s Enterprise Skills Training). Their mission is to improve the employability of women in Windsor-Essex County.

WEST completed their own study focusing on identifying the financial needs of women in particular, and their results paralleled our own. The study Women’s Financial Preparedness: Bridging the Divide in Windsor-Essex found that women were less knowledgeable than men when it came to financial products and financial indicators.

Why Women?

Based on our Joe Debtor study of women and bankruptcy, 30% of female insolvent debtors are single parents. That’s a huge difference when you consider only 8% of male insolvent debtors are single dad’s.

Women also typically bring home less than men. Our study found that the take-home pay of the female debtor is 10% lower than the average male debtor. This not only affects their day-to-day living expenses, but also their ability to repay pre-existing debt.

The fact that women earn less can come stem from multiple causes. Women are typically the partner who takes maternity leave, and who return to work part-time while children are younger or take time off to care for aging parents. This means that women are still often heavily reliant on their spouse for support when it comes to their family finances.

The WEST study found that 21% of females listed marital or relationship breakdown as a cause of their financial difficulty. This is very consistent with our own study which found that more women listed marital breakdown as a cause of their insolvency than men.

We found that student debt is also an issue for 17% of female debtors, compared to just 10% of male debtors. Inconsistent income makes repaying student debt, incurred to improve their situation, difficult to repay.

All of these challenges create a financial risk for many women. According to the WEST study:

if there was a financial crisis, 40% of women would actually only be able to sustain themselves for less than one week

Vulnerable Groups

WEST’s Needs Assessment Study concluded that there were three main vulnerable groups within Windsor-Essex. These vulnerable groups of women struggle to not only become, but to maintain a moderate level of financial preparedness.

  1. Young women under 29 years old,
  2. Women who earn less than $40,000 a year, and
  3. Women who are 60 years and older

Key Takeaways

Embrace emotional detachment

It’s important to ask yourself “how can I plan for my future?”, and not just the future of your children. The study found that in most relationships, a woman’s income was dedicated to day-to-day expenses like groceries, and household bills. The remainder of a woman’s income would go into RESPs for their children. That may be a good goal, however women need to consider other personal choices like how they will be able to save for retirement. As Georgia says,

women should not see investing in their future and their retirement as a selfish act but actually an act that benefits the family as a whole

Advocate for yourself

Women are much less likely to take an active role in their financial preparedness. In addition, gender bias can cause financial institutions tend to offer women products and services based on their role as a mother, wife or widow rather than their individual needs. When spouses talk to the bank together, they found that their financial representative was more likely to address the male rather than the female when discussing finances.

The study also found that while there are financial products and services to meet the needs of students, seniors and newcomers there are few products specifically tailored to the needs of women. Based on the WEST study, 46% of women in Windsor-Essex are single mothers. Banks in that county should create products that are specifically catered to single mothers in order to give them the best possible service.

Know your options

Conduct your own research don’t just rely on what your advisor suggests. Your advisor’s job is to sell you products to make money and they can jump to the easy sell – you’re in school you must need a student loan, you have children you must need an RESP.

they were selling according to the need that I presented as opposed to exploring

Just because John Banker was your initial point of contact, does not mean that you have to use him as your advisor. Like a realtor, you’re able to shop around until you find one that you connect with. Your financial advisor will help you make some of the biggest decisions in your life. You should feel confident that who you’re dealing with has your best interests in mind.

Resources mentioned in the show:

FULL TRANSCRIPT show #120 with Georgia Graham

women-insolvency-high-risk-debt

Doug Hoyes: Every two years we do what we call our Joe Debtor study. In our last study we discovered that about half of our clients are female. That’s no surprise, about half the population is female. But what was more surprising was the differences we discovered between the financial circumstances of men and women. For example 30% of female insolvent debtors are lone or single parents, compared to only 8% for males. A higher percentage of women site marital breakdown as the reason for their financial difficulties.

Women debtors take home pay is 10% below that of the average male insolvent debtor. They’re living on a tighter budget, making it harder to keep up with debt payments, even though their total debts are also lower. Student debt is a major issue for female debtors. Their lower pay, intermittent work and the need to deal with childcare can make repaying student debt difficult. So, even those who are trying to improve their financial health through better education are likely to experience financial problems.

So, it’s clear that there are significant differences in certain areas between the financial circumstances of women and men. Well, what are some of the other unique challenges that women face? What help is available specifically to help women address these unique challenges. Those are questions that my guest today can help answer so let’s get started, who are you, where do you work, and what do you do?

Georgia Graham: Hi. My name is Georgia Graham; I’m the senior manager of research and development at Women’s Enterprise Skills Training.

Doug Hoyes: So, Women’s Enterprise Skills Training, you go by the acronym WEST.

Georgia Graham: Correct.

Doug Hoyes: What does WEST do? Tell me about WEST?

Georgia Graham: WEST has been in the community for the past 30 years. We’re coming up on our 30th Anniversary in March and we provide training and support to women in the community to help them either return to continue education or re-enter the labour force.

Doug Hoyes: And WEST has been around a long time. You’ve got a fairly substantial operation here in Windsor, is that correct?

Georgia Graham: Yes, we service over 3,000 annually. We provide different training services including labour market re-entry as well as educational services.

Doug Hoyes: And you’re a not for profit organization?

Georgia Graham: Yes we are.

Doug Hoyes: And so where does your funding come from?

Georgia Graham: We’re funded; we have a diverse funding model. We do do fundraising events we get corporate donations as well as government grants to support our programs and services.

Doug Hoyes: And so obviously that’s one of your challenges to make sure that you can keep the lights on. So, if anyone’s listening today they’d be more than happy to accept any donations I’m sure.

So, now that we understand what WEST does, WEST was the lead on a new study that just came out. That’s why I wanted to have you on the show today. And the study, which I have here in front of me is called Women’s Financial Preparedness: Bridging the Divide, in Windsor Essex, which is where we are today. So, tell me a bit about the study, what was the point of it, what did you discover as a result of this study?

Georgia Graham: So, in 2015 WEST received a grant from Status of Women Canada and we worked in collaboration with Financial Fitness, the local financial institutions looking at women’s financial preparedness, the challenges women have in terms of being prepared for their financial future as well as the systemic barriers that may exist that limits women’s abilities to be prepared financially.

Doug Hoyes: And what kind of things did you discover then? So, I said at the opening that on the one hand you wouldn’t think there would be any differences, the population’s half men, half women. And yet when we did our own study we did find yeah, there are some very real differences. And some them, from my perspective, are fairly easy to understand because it’s women who are much more likely to leave the workforce, to take care of children. It’s women who are much more likely to be taking care of aging parents for example. So, it’s obvious why some of those things, why there are some differences. What specific differences or challenges did you find? What were some of the things you found in the study?

Georgia Graham: Well, as you know women traditionally has earned less than men and that was something similar that you guys found in your study. But what we found was that when it came time if there was a financial crisis 40% of women would actually only be able to sustain themselves for less than one week. And in a community that predominately has high representation of single mothers, women and children are living in poverty. And this is concerning for us and the community as a whole.

Doug Hoyes: So you identified three different vulnerable groups I think is the term that you used. Young women under 29 years old, women who earn less than $40,000 a year and then women who are 60 years and older. Are there reasons for those different groups you think?

Georgia Graham: Well, what we found with young women was that they were less likely to be actively involved in their financial preparedness. So, they tend to rely on their parents to guide them, while young men under the age of 29 actually were more involved in financial decision making than young women. I believe it was 30% of young women indicated that they were not involved in financial decision making compared to 14% of young men.

Doug Hoyes: And do you have any idea of why that is?

Georgia Graham: Based on the anecdotal evidence that we gathered speaking with women in the community, one reason is just the role of women in society. A lot of times where parents are concerned, males are seen as the providers, they’re seen as the bread winners within their families and parents will train and position their sons to take on those roles, while women tend to not be encouraged that way.

Doug Hoyes: So, that sounds kind of sexist to me. But if I’m a parent, and I have two boys, so I know nothing about females whatsoever. I have a wife but that’s the extent of my experience. So, I can’t speak from experience as if I had a daughter and a son, how I would treat them differently because I’ve never been in that position. But I would think well, okay I think I’d treat them pretty much the same, like, you know, I’d make sure they both understood what writing a cheque meant. You’re saying that that’s really not the case, that parents do not educate their children similarly.

Georgia Graham: Exactly. And this is not solely just an issue with parents, this stems a little bit deeper. When you look at it systemically, women’s interacts with the financial institutions is also based on gender.

Doug Hoyes: Well, and this is a good point and I wanted to raise this because there’s section in the study that talks specifically about this. So, the study says that when interacting with the financial industry, women are offered financial products and services based on their role as a mother, wife or widow. The general consensus amongst financial professionals, women associate their financial wealth to the financial health of their children, whereas men seek products or services that seek better position them for retirement.

So, I interpret from that then, okay banks for example treat men and women differently. And I don’t fully understand that because according to the Canadian Bankers Association, 61% of the workforce of Canadian banks are female. And I think in your study that you actually surveyed people who worked in financial institutions and the people you surveyed were overwhelmingly female. I think it was 80% of the study sample was female. So, if it’s females who are working in the bank, are they giving different advice or treating differently their female clients than they do their male clients? Is that what the study is saying?

Georgia Graham: In essence, yes it is. And the – in addition to speaking with the financial institutions we actually asked women and men in the community how they were perceived by the financial institutions. And what we found was that 60% of women and 40% of men agree that the financial intuition does treat men and women differently. We also found that 65% of women and 52% of men identified that when they do go to meet a financial representative that the financial representative is more likely to speak to the male as opposed to the female. The other finding that we had was that 60% of women and 40% of men agree that men are taken more seriously by the financial institutions. So, not only does this have to do with parenting but there’s definitely a systemic challenge that women face in terms of being able to gain the financial skills and knowledge they need.

Doug Hoyes: And the problem isn’t just that men treat women different, it’s that the institutions treat them differently. So, if I was a female bank officer, I would be more predisposed to be addressing my questions to the male as opposed to the female.

Georgia Graham: Exactly. And we need to recognize that there was a significant percentage of men that agreed with that statement, that they know that when they enter the financial institution with their significant other, that the products and services are being sold to them.

Doug Hoyes: And I guess that’s probably true in other places. Like if my wife and I went to go buy a car, probably the car salesmen would talk to me and not to her.

Georgia Graham: Exactly.

Doug Hoyes: Which is why we never go buy cars together, she goes and buys her car and I go and buy mine and it all works out great. So, what is the solution to that then? I understand as a human being I’m going to treat anyone who is different than me differently. That’s kind of an inbred bias that we have. If I’m tall and you’re short, I’m going to treat you differently than if you were tall I guess. But if we’re both tall and yet I’m treating you differently, that kind of blows my mind. I’m a female bank officer and I, you know, I live it myself, I’ve been treated this way myself and yet when I’m meeting with clients, I’m still treating the woman different than the man. That’s kind of what your study is saying. Is it just because that’s the way it’s always been?

Georgia Graham: Well, it’s an institutional culture and I don’t think gender has a lot to do with that culture. The financial representatives are trained to sell certain products and those products are geared towards the needs of men.

The other thing that the research found was that while there are specific products for students, there’s specific products for seniors, for newcomers and different groups. There’s nothing specific for the needs of women. So, if the representatives are saying that women’s financial livelihood or future is tied with that of their children and they’re only being sold products that would enhance the lives of their children, there is nothing to help women overcome that obstacle as well.

Doug Hoyes: So, you’re going to have to work with me here, I’m kind of slow. You have to explain this to me. So, I understand if I’m a student how there could be a specific product for me, a student loan for example, which would only apply to a student. I think you sort of gave an example there then of a product that would be more male oriented or female oriented. Can you flesh that out for me? So, can you give me some examples of what’s a more male oriented product and what’s a more female oriented product?

Georgia Graham: I think it has a lot more to do, not necessarily the product but the presentation of the product and what the product does. It’s what, finance is emotional, right? And the way men look at money might be different than how women look at money. And how products are being explained to women would need to tie into those emotional elements that are key to women’s financial decision making.

In the U.S there are great initiatives right now that are actually run by women and they provide products and services specific to the needs of women. These are investment products. And it’s not that the products are different than any other investment products, but it’s how it’s packaged, it’s how it’s explained, it’s how the financial representatives are sharing that information to women so that they’re able to understand it. The language being used is a language of exclusion, right?

Doug Hoyes: So, okay so let’s talk about investment products then. And I guess you’re talking about things like mutual funds or something like that. So, how does that get explained to man versus how that gets explained to a woman? Or is it a case that it just doesn’t get explained to a woman, like what’s the specific difference that your participants would see?

Georgia Graham: It doesn’t get explained to women necessarily. A lot of the – and this is anecdotal, these weren’t questions we asked specifically in the research but we have a council of women, of 15 women that have helped us steer the project as we’ve gone through. And we’ve spoken to our clients and based on our experience and Financial Fitness’ experience with their clients, but what we found was that when women go to the banks, when they go to their financial representatives, they’re not offered those investment products. And when they are offered those investment products, it’s not explained to them in a manner where they understand. So, women are less likely to do investments than men would be.

Doug Hoyes: So, I come into the bank and you’re the bank person. And you look in my bank account and you see I’ve got $10,000 cash. So, presumably as a banker you would say ah, this is prime opportunity here. Someone’s got some money, we could put them in mutual funds, we could put them in GICs, something like that. So, if you were trying to sell that to me as a woman, is it as simple as speak up and tell me that kind of stuff, don’t gloss over it? Is that kind of what we see happening or are there specific ways that it needs to be done?

Georgia Graham: I think that our assumptions of basic knowledge of these products and services. One of the things that we’ve done with this project is that we hold information sessions. And the common theme throughout these financial information sessions is that they felt that those representatives that were non-judgmental they were able to provide the information using examples that were real and relatable for women, right? And it’s talking about real life stories that women can relate to. And I’ve attended those sessions and it’s completely different than when I go to a financial institution and I sit down with an advisor and the information that I’m getting and the manor that I’m getting the information in. Having that type of forum actually made me realize there is a difference in how we get information.

Doug Hoyes: So, if I was the head of the biggest bank there is, there’s a lot of money I could be making here, because it sounds like there’s a market that I am not servicing, exploiting if you want to use that word. But I mean is that true? If I’m selling products to this person but not that person, well why aren’t I selling products to that person too? Why don’t the banks kind of wake up and see this? This seems like they’re leaving a lot of money on the table here.

Georgia Graham: Absolutely. And as I mentioned they’re great programs out in the U.S that are targeting this particular niche and that’s what we’re pushing for. We’re asking for the financial institutions to look at how they can cater to the needs of women. Women make up 55% of the labour force. They’re out numbering men in terms of labour market participation. They’re the decision makers in the households but the decisions that they’re making is related to everyday living. Women need to be educated and provided support in terms of long-term financial preparedness. And we’re living in a day of age where there’s less and less government social security’s and women outlive men and this is why this is really concerning for us is that women outlive men by almost 10 to 20 years.

Doug Hoyes: Wow. So, okay let’s talk about retirement then. So, I assume then that retirement is going to be a big issue if I’m a female and living longer and yet I also have either less knowledge or less access to resources or less resources. What can you tell me about retirement?

Georgia Graham: The most interesting thing that we found with retirement was the fact that men start planning for retirement between the ages of 30 to 39. Women do not start planning for retirement until they’re in their 50s, 50s to 59. And that has a lot to do with the fact that women’s finances are tied to that of their children.

Doug Hoyes: Women’s finances are tied to that of their children meaning first I get my kids out the door and then I start worrying about myself.

Georgia Graham: Absolutely. And at the age of 50 to 59 –

Doug Hoyes: Your kids are hopefully gone by then.

Georgia Graham: Well either that or they’re part of your retirement plan.

Doug Hoyes: Right and so whereas men don’t think that way.

Georgia Graham: No, they’re starting young, they’re starting to plan for their future at a way younger age. As we were putting this research together and talking about the findings, so many women confirmed the fact that, especially at our organization, where women’s organization, many of my colleagues do not have a retirement plan for themselves, their focus has been on educating their children, putting their children through. And the expectation was that the husband’s income was focused towards investment and the wife’s income was focused towards the children’s needs.

Doug Hoyes: And what then – part of that I guess is what you said earlier, if a woman’s income is lower of if she’s off work for a period of time looking after her kids, looking after elderly parents or something, then they’re just isn’t enough money there that can be devoted to early retirement. First of all I’ve got to worry about the day to day stuff, I’ve got to pay the rent, pay the groceries, that kind of thing. So, presumably a lot of it is tied up in that. Are there any solutions then? How would you advise a woman with respect with retirement? Is the first step at least to acknowledge what you just said, that you’ve got to start thinking about it sooner?

Georgia Graham: Absolutely. I think that there is a responsibility, not just on the financial institutions, this messaging of women’s finances being tied with that of their children comes through the fact that child tax benefits, it goes to the women, right? The government has kind of promoted this notion that children are women’s responsibilities and once women start to realize that they need to invest in themselves, invest in their future and that is also considered an investment in their children. Living in poverty when you retire is not good for the community and it’s not good for families. It was interesting for us to find out that 22% of women were confident that once they retired they would be okay, compared to 73% of men. Retired men were much more comfortable in retirement than women.

Doug Hoyes: And that’s interesting what you said. Children are viewed as women’s responsibility, which I guess on the one hand, well yeah I can see why that would be. But again getting back at this whole theme of institutionalization, the child tax credit for example is sent to the woman. Is that how it works or is it sent to the lower income –

Georgia Graham: It’s the lower income and we live in a society where –

Doug Hoyes: That’s almost always the woman. Now you’re certainly not saying oh well we should be sending the child tax credits to men, that doesn’t make any sense.

Georgia Graham: No, I’m saying that the messaging that that gives because if that money, it’s a child tax, you assume that that money is for the children, right? And they put that money towards their children and their money towards the children. I just think that behaviour’s the hardest thing to change and it takes time to change. And if there’s a collective message encouraging women not to see investing in their future and their retirement as a selfish act but actually an act that benefits the family as a whole and the community, right?

Doug Hoyes: Well and ultimately at some point in your life you have to be selfish. You have to take care of yourself. And like when your kids are 45 years old are you still going to be supporting them or is there going to be a time where you say no, I got to start looking after myself? Well, maybe that’s a decision that has to go through your mind earlier I guess. You made a key comment I think earlier because I’m thinking in my head here, okay what’s a solution, what’s a solution, what’s a solution? And can you give me the solution in like a 140 word Tweet here to solve all of our problems? That’s not going to happen today.

So, let’s kind of think this through. You used the word emotion earlier. And you said something to the effect of we make a lot of our decisions based on emotion. And is that – how does that factor into this then? Is that something we have to be conscious of then? When I go into a bank do I have to be conscious and say hey, I’m going to be asking some questions, I need some answers? Is that part of the solution here?

Georgia Graham: Absolutely but I think it goes a little bit further is that women actually need to be trained earlier on. We learn about finances and financial management and you hear people talking about money messages. All these messages are given at an earlier age either through the educational system, the family, you know, the institutions and so forth. Those messages need to change at an earlier age where women need to be seen as equal decision makers when it comes to finances and be equipped with the same type of knowledge that young men and young boys have so that when they do go to the financial institutions, they’re able to make informed decisions. In order for it to be informed, both people have to come to the table with some level of knowledge. And women don’t have that basic level of knowledge going to the table.

Doug Hoyes: So the first step is education and maybe even awareness is before education I guess. Why would I learn something if I don’t even know I need to learn it? And that has to start very, very early then.

Georgia Graham: Uh huh, absolutely.

Doug Hoyes: So early like little kids is – you can’t start too early I guess. How would you – so, how would you start that then? If you’re sitting down with a new parent today, okay your kid’s two days old we don’t have to talk about it yet. But, you know, by the age of 3, 4, 5, 6 that’s when these perceptions start to become engrained I would assume. What kind of things would you be saying then to a young parent who’s got perhaps both a daughter and a son? What do I need to be aware of that I’ve got these hidden biases that I’m going to be treating my son differently than my daughter, what are some things I should be aware of so that I’m not letting that happen? Is there anything practical that I can do?

Georgia Graham: Well, the – we met with a group of young mothers and the one thing that we guided them was that they should be encouraging savings at a younger age for both genders, right? And it’s a trip to the bank, it’s also encouraging young girls to ask those questions. There’s one case that was shared in one of our council meetings where one young girl said that when my parents took me to the bank, I just sat there and they made all the decisions. And the financial representative spoke to the parents and the parents spoke back and this young girl, who was preparing to go off to university, just sat there. What ended up happening was when she got to university, all the credit cards started to come in and she blew her credit. Why? Because she didn’t realize the full cycle of what those decisions are. And someone always made those decisions on their behalf.

Doug Hoyes: And is that story you’re telling me just happened in the financial world or would it happen in other worlds too? So, for example if I’m a mother and I’m taking my daughter to I don’t know, the dentist, the doctor, something like that, would it be the same scenario where the parent does all the talking or would the child be more encouraged to talk in different environments or is it the same either way?

Georgia Graham: I feel that these are social norms.

Doug Hoyes: So, it’s not a money thing it’s this is just the way our brains are wired at the moment or we’ve been taught to be wired this way and we have to actually be conscious of it. And we have a couple of real practical things there. Okay, savings. You’ve got to talk to your kids and I think that’s great advice, how can you argue with that? But whether it’s a daughter or a son the advice is exactly the same. And the other thing you said was ask questions. It doesn’t matter if you’re male or female, asking questions, don’t be just sitting there.

So, two final questions for you then, is there anything else in the study that you think our listeners should be aware of that we haven’t covered? And then my second question will be to cycle back to different recommendations. So, is there anything in the study that either popped out at you or was of interest that we should talk about?

Georgia Graham: I guess the only other thing looking at young people is that 45% of female youth compared to 22% of young men had no retirement plan. So, again young boys are being encouraged to plan for their future earlier than young girls are being encouraged.

Doug Hoyes: And again, that’s a societal thing.

Georgia Graham: I do believe so, I do believe so. The one thing that we are looking at as a response and what came out of the research was a collective approach to this issue. So, we’ve established a financial empowerment network and this is a network of community organizations working with these vulnerable populations, so those working with youth, individuals living in poverty, we’ve been looking at work and the financial institutions working with them, to come up with a plan for Windsor-Essex.

And also the collaborative’s objective is to ensure that financial empowerment actually become part of the poverty reduction strategy. So, in order to address poverty, we feel that people need to be financially literate and have a financial plan for their future.

Doug Hoyes: Which would have a huge benefit to society.

Georgia Graham: Yeah and the common response that we get is that if someone’s living in poverty, how can they put money aside for the future? It’s about that behaviour. Even if it’s a dollar, even if it’s five dollars out of whatever money that they’re getting in, that would help to start modelling that behaviour for when they do have an increase in wealth, when they do see themselves slowly emerging out of poverty, that they’re going to continue that process and increase the contributions that they’re making towards their future.

Doug Hoyes: Yeah and obviously once they’ve saved enough they’re not in poverty anymore, you’ve kind of solved the issue. So, let’s talk then about recommendations. What can actually be done? So, my first idea and you can tell me if this is crazy or not, is it sounds to me like there’s a huge untapped market here. There are I assume in the general population more females then males, because they live longer.

Georgia Graham: Yes.

Doug Hoyes: You already said that the workforce is 55% female, so there’s more customers. So, as a provider of any service there is, I should be going after females as clients. So, if I run a bank then I should be specifically targeting them. Now I’m sitting here thinking about this because of course I run a personal insolvency firm. And we don’t target anyone in particular. I mean we target people with debt. So, I am happy to help males, females, tall, short I don’t care, doesn’t matter to me.

But what you’re saying is either I’m unusual or I have biases I don’t even know about, that when I’m sitting talking to two different people, I will treat them differently and I’m not even aware of it, which may be true. Maybe we have to do some hidden camera things with me to see if that’s actually the case. So, recommendation number one then is if you run a bank there’s a market here to be exploited and the way to do it is by training your people.

Georgia Graham: Absolutely. The one thing that came out of the information, once we disseminated the information through a summit last month, a lot of the financial representatives, the feedback that we got in the surveys say that they weren’t aware. So, if the individuals that are providing the services are not aware of these biases that they may have raising that awareness is definitely the first thing to change.

Doug Hoyes: So, if I’m a bank employee, and we’re only picking on banks because this is a financial preparedness study, but I mean we could be picking on doctors, lawyers, dentists, gas station attendants I guess. But if I’m a bank employee and you’ve got a minute to make me aware, can you give me another illustration then of how I would treat a female client different than a male client?

Is it as simple as – I understand what you’re saying if there’s a male and female there, a husband and wife for example, the natural tendency, and it doesn’t matter if the bank employee’s male or female, they’re going to be directing their attention towards the male. So, I understand that, that’s something we’ve got to consciously decide to do differently. What if I’m just speaking with a female?

Georgia Graham: I think one of the things is to ask those questions in terms of what their emotional attachment are to their financial planning and their investments, right, and to try and educate from that perspective. So, for example I run a program with youth, I’ve sent all the youth to meet with their financial representatives at their various institutions. I’ve equipped them with what questions they should ask and so forth. And when they went to that meeting, because they were better prepared and aware, they were able to redirect the discussion a little bit and ask questions and get responses that met their needs.

So, if financial institutions were able to say okay, fine you’re a mother of three children, you’re a single mother of three children, I understand that you want to put away for RESPs and these different things, have you considered about retirement? For the most part, when our clients go, there’s only two things that they know, retirement education savings plan, some asked us what were RRSPs and the tax-free savings account. But there are other ways for women to plan for their future.

Doug Hoyes: So, okay let’s say I’m a woman and I’m going to go meet with my banker this afternoon, give me a question I should ask them.

Georgia Graham: Well…

Doug Hoyes: See I’m putting you on the spot here. I want actual tangible things. And I realize everyone is a different situation, I realize a single mother of three who’s 29 years old is different than a 70 year old woman. But what kind of things should I at least have in my brain when –

Georgia Graham: We always encourage our clients to ask how can I plan for my future? So, okay yes I’m looking at debt consolidation or I’m looking at various savings plans for my children. Okay, then what can I do for myself? I’ll be retiring in 20 years, in 10 years, in 30 years, how will I be able to start saving for retirement? Should I be maybe reducing how much I’m putting in RESPs and maybe, you know, splitting those contributions or something like that?

Doug Hoyes: Yeah and there’s no right answer. But if you don’t ask the questions, you’re not going to be even close. So, if you just automatically default to well, I’m the mother my goal is to take care of my kids, that’s it, full stop, that’s it. Okay, well that may be a perfectly good, well it is a perfectly good goal. But have you even considered the other ones? That’s really what you’re saying.

Georgia Graham: Absolutely. I recently went to go meet with my financial advisor after doing all of this research and one of the recommendations was you should be doing it yearly. You should be doing an annual financial check-up. The last time I did mine was three years ago. So, I went in and I said okay, I’m currently doing my PhD, I’m a student, what are your recommendations? And I only got recommendations for being a student. And I said okay but I’m also a mother of three children. You know, I have another 30 years till I’m retiring, how can I achieve these other goals?

Doug Hoyes: Was your, the person who was interviewing you, were they male or female?

Georgia Graham: Male.

Doug Hoyes: Ah ha, so you see, stupid men don’t know anything. But you hit the nail on the head, you asked the questions. So, they defaulted to oh, you’re a mother, boom, you’re a student, boom. They kind of went down the obvious path. And you are a student, you are a mother so those were valid things but they also didn’t see you as a complete human being who will at some point retire or want to buy another car or buy another house or take a trip or whatever. So, ultimately it was up to you to put the discussion in the right direction. And did you end up getting the answers you wanted?

Georgia Graham: No.

Doug Hoyes: So, should we mention the name of this person and institution and call them out right here, right now?

Georgia Graham: No, to be honest with you, the information that I got from the informal sessions amongst a group of women was completely different than the information I got when I went to the financial institution.

Doug Hoyes: And was this financial institution person just not knowledgeable enough or they’ve got these products to sell and that’s how we’re doing it and they don’t really care what you’re saying?

Georgia Graham: Absolutely, they were selling according to the need that I presented as opposed to exploring, they had the information to see that I had children, they had the information to see that, you know, I’m a homeowner or these different things. And I did explain that it’s been three years and I’m here to kind of do a check-up and to explore options and so forth. But my first presentation was that I was a student and that’s what I was looking at in terms of not incurring any student debt or anything like that. And that’s what they focused on.

Doug Hoyes: So, they went to the easy answer.

Georgia Graham: Right, they didn’t focus on those other elements, which I really feel that it’s important, like you cannot look at it like, you can’t look at a person as just one thing. You have to look at them in their completeness. You can’t look at a woman as just being a wife or just being a mother, you have to see her as a mother, a wife, a worker, whatever.

Doug Hoyes: Yeah, because we’re human beings.

Georgia Graham: Exactly.

Doug Hoyes: If I go to the doctor and tell him I’ve got a sore elbow, well I guess he’ll treat the sort elbow. If he doesn’t ask me well, what about all those other things that are wrong with you or need attention then I guess I’m not going to get any feedback on that. That’s really what you’re saying in your case hi, I’m a student. Oh okay, boom, let’s pull out the student checklist, boom, boom, boom, boom, anything else about you? I guess you’re just a one dimensional being, we don’t have to talk about anything else. And so, it was up to you to keep pushing oh by the way I’m also this, this and this. I’m a mother, I’m a parent, I’m whatever. But even when you pushed, you’re saying you still didn’t get as complete an information as you got in some other environments.

Georgia Graham: And it was always me saying oh, but this is what I was told when I went to this information session. They would go outside and they would go and check and they would come back and say oh yeah, that’s accurate.

Doug Hoyes: So, have you fired your bank then?

Georgia Graham: No, I’m just going to look for another advisor.

Doug Hoyes: That’s what I mean, that’s kind of what firing is.

Georgia Graham: Well, that individual but I’ll keep shopping around in the financial institution. I think the key is to – the financial representative needs to match the person. And I know the industry is kind of like whoever’s available, that’s who they put you with. And that was the difference with these information sessions is that the person providing the information matched the needs of the group. So, whether it was a group of single mothers, they were coming in and speaking specifically to those needs.

Doug Hoyes: So, you can pick your advisor. It’s not whoever’s there, it’s not like I’m buying a hamburger at the hamburger joint, whoever’s serving me that’s who’s going to make my hamburger, right? This is your money, this is your life and you’ve probably got another 20 to 50 years on the clock. So, let’s get the right person. So – and don’t we do that in other areas of our life too? Like if my auto mechanic does a lousy job, I don’t keep going back.

Georgia Graham: Or if my auto mechanic doesn’t explain things to me because I’m a woman, I don’t go back.

Doug Hoyes: Yeah. And you find one and maybe you got to go through 10 auto mechanics and maybe you’ve got to talk to someone who refers you to someone who refers you to someone. But isn’t it the same with everything we do, we don’t have to default to oh well. I mean I’m sure if I was to ask all my listeners right now to put up their hands, which I wouldn’t be able to see because this is a podcast, but how long have you been with your bank, more than 10 years or less than 10 years?

And I would suspect that the vast majority of people have been with the same bank for more than 10 years. And if we were to drill down further, why are you with that bank? I mean I know my own story, my parents went to the Bank A and so until I was, I don’t know, married, I was with that bank. And my wife was at Bank B and so I switched to that bank and I’m still with that bank. So, in my life I’ve been with two banks. And I’m oversimplifying this story slightly but not much.

So, why am I with the bank? Well, is it because I did a rationale evaluation and looked around? Well, maybe it was the path of least resistance. Well when it comes to your money you can’t do that. You’ve actually got to be a little more aggressive with it and I guess societally we’re not really trying trained to do that both males and females but perhaps more likely with females. Is that an accurate statement?

Georgia Graham: Yeah, that’s correct. Recently at our agency we have – they set up investment accounts for us and the advisor came in and we were all told to do moderate investments. And I was like, I was just oh, I can go aggressive.

Doug Hoyes: Yeah, whether you’re young, old, everyone is moderate.

Georgia Graham: No, we were all told no, that’s not a good idea and stuff like that. Now shopping around and being a bit more aware and talking to other people I’m realizing that, and I asked all my colleagues, and they were like yeah, we were told the same thing. And I’m like well.

Doug Hoyes: Great individualized advice. So, just before I forget, what are you getting your PhD in?

Georgia Graham: Public policy.

Doug Hoyes: Why?

Georgia Graham: Policy drives everything that we do as a community organization as well as just in society, social needs and how they’re addressed and dealt with.

Doug Hoyes: So, when I have you back on this podcast in five years.

Georgia Graham: It’ll be in a year.

Doug Hoyes: A year, excuse me, in a year. So, I’ll have to call you Dr. Graham. And so, let’s go five years in the future then, what will you be doing in five years?

Georgia Graham: I hope to remain in the community. The one thing I did mention is that I am the Senior Manager of Research and Development at WEST. Evidence based work is what’s fuelling the community today. And non-profit organizations are required to –

Doug Hoyes: Evidence based so that means facts.

Georgia Graham: Exactly.

Doug Hoyes: Oh that’s good.

Georgia Graham: And that’s what this research is and the research that we’ve done, all of our research tends to inform our programming. So, based on this research we’ve now embedded financial literacy into all of our programs and services because we realize the importance of educating the women we serve.

Doug Hoyes: Excellent. Well, I like that. If you’re basing stuff on facts how can anyone criticize you? I guess anyone can criticize anyone because I don’t agree with your facts. But facts aren’t something you can disagree with, facts are facts. It’s how you interpret them perhaps is different.

But well, and you and I are the same mind-set, that’s why we do our Joe Debtor study is to see what the numbers actually show. I have my own perception, my own anecdotal evidence, but when you actually see it in writing then you can make some better decisions. So, well I think that’s great. So, are there any things, is there anything else in the study we didn’t hit on or are there any other recommendations that we need to pop out there that we’ve missed?

Georgia Graham: The one key recommendation that came out from the council of women that were kind of steering the women was that the financial institutions and organizations need to market real life scenarios. Women need to see themselves represented in, not just the products and services, but how they’re being marketed. So, when you go the bank and you see the picture of the husband and the wife and the home, you know, or the husband and the wife and the new car or the husband and the travel trips or whatever the case may be, there’s like Windsor has about 46% of single mothers.

There’s nothing targeting their needs or maybe to show them a future that they could have as well. So, the women really recommended – and that’s one of the things that we did do, was that we showcase stories of women and women experiences and how their financial struggles have come to inform them and make them who they are.

Doug Hoyes: Which ties into your comment about emotion, you’ve got to link in with people at an emotional level and if all you’re going to do is show me advertisements with mother, father 2.3 kids, a dog and a cat and that’s not my situation then it’s not going to resonate with me, I’m not going to go forward. So, there’s a ton of work that the financial institutions, banks, credit unions and so forth can do here and help improve things, so. Excellent, well I think that’s a great way to end it Georgia. Thanks very much for being here.

Georgia Graham: Thanks for having me.

Doug Hoyes: That was my discussion with Georgia Graham, the programs manager at WEST. WEST is the Women’s Enterprise, Skills Training of Windsor Inc. And they did a study on Women’s Financial Empowerment: Bridging the Divide in Windsor and Essex. And there were four key recommendations I think that I got from what Georgia said.

Number one banks, other financial institutions need some training because it is often that they default to speaking to the male as opposed to the female, addressing problems that are more suitable to men than women even though there are certainly products that benefit both. And I think it’s a subconscious thing they’re not even aware of it because it’s even the women employees at the bank who are doing this. So, some better training to make them aware of this would probably start alleviating some of those issues.

She also mentioned number two, the whole emotional attachment that we have to certain things and the correct answer then if the bank person is not giving you the advice you need is you have to stick up for yourself and ask one obvious question which is how can I plan for my future? Start asking questions about you. So, if they want to sell you products for your kids, RESPs and things like that, well that’s great but what about my retirement? How can I play for my future? So, I thought that was a good positive recommendation.

Also with respect to banks, this whole concept of marketing real life scenarios every bank commercial you ever see, there’s a husband, a wife, 2.3 children, a dog and a cat. Well, as she said 46% of mothers in Windsor are single mothers. So, if there were advertising and marketing and products directly centered around the specific people that they’re seeing, that would probably make the customers feel better but it would also be better for the banks as well.

And then the final piece of advice is that you can pick your own advisor. So, if you go to a bank or a doctor or a dentist or anybody else and you don’t think that they are serving your needs, they’re not giving you all the different options that are out there, you can switch. You don’t have to say with your bank for life. If you’re not getting the support that you need, if you’re not getting the advice that you need, then move. There’s no reason you can’t do that.

A lot of great advice there.  I’m going to put links in the show notes to everything we talked about today on our website at hoyes.com

Thanks for listening.  Until next week, I’m Doug Hoyes.

That was Debt Free in 30.

 

 

Filing Bankruptcy to Avoid a Judgment or Lawsuit

Gavel with lawyer

For the average person, a judgment or lawsuit is a scary thing. This is not just someone calling you for collection or sending you past due notices. Somebody is using the legal system and the courts to collect money from you. You feel like you are at their mercy. What happens if you can’t repay what you owe or if doing so would cause undue personal financial hardship? Can you file bankruptcy if you are being sued?

Filing bankruptcy discharges most unsecured debts.

In most cases, a debt arising from a judgment lawsuit can be discharged and an existing lawsuit is stopped as soon as you file bankruptcy.  Even if your creditor has already taken action to garnish your wages, the garnishment can be stopped once your bankruptcy is filed with the government.

How a judgment or lawsuit works

A judgment is a court order that confirms that you owe a creditor a debt.

Creditors may apply for a judgment for an unpaid debt. Or you may be sued as a result of a lawsuit from a mishap, injury, business loss or other event. Regardless, the process of establishing that a debt is owed and collecting on that debt is the same.

There are three basic steps in the judgment process:

  1. It begins with a creditor or lawyer sending you a legal document called a statement of claim.
  2. If you ignored this notice and don’t defend the action, or you lose your defense in court, the judge will award a judgment to the plaintiff. This judgment means that the court has now confirmed that you owe this debt, and this carries a lot more weight.
  3. The creditor can now take this piece of paper and try and collect from you.
  4. If they know where you work, they can contact your employer and start a garnishment against your wages.
  5. If they know where you do your banking, they can seize all the cash in your bank account to collect on judgment debts.
  6. A judgment creditor can also gain an execution order to seize and sell your assets.

A few other facts you should know about judgments and garnishments:

  • you can’t go to jail for not paying your debts;
  • certain income cannot be garnisheed including social assistance, employment insurance and both government and private pension;
  • in Ontario, a creditor can only garnishee up to 20% of your wages (50% for garnishments issued by the family court);
  • in contrast, a creditor can seize up to 100% of your bank account to enforce a judgment for outstanding debts.

Read more: Why change your bank account

Bankruptcy stops a judgment

Filing a consumer proposal or bankruptcy provides a stay of proceeding which stops most creditor actions for judgment debts including garnishments and can unfreeze a bank account.

There are exceptions. Certain debts are not eligible for discharge in a bankruptcy including debt related to fraud or misrepresentation, court-imposed fines, student debt less than 7 years old, and child support or alimony. Neither a judgment debt or garnishment can be stopped for these debts.

However all other judgment debts can be eliminated through both a bankruptcy and a consumer proposal.

Read more: How to stop a wage garnishment

Act before a lien is placed on your property

Bankruptcy can stop a wage garnishment, even one that is in process. It can also stop most creditors from taking money from your bank account, the only exception being if you bank where you owe money.  However, bankruptcy does not deal with secured debts. That means if your creditor places a lien on your home or other property, they will be entitled to continue to seize and sell those attached assets even if you file bankruptcy.

If you have received a judgment order that you cannot pay, talk to a Licensed Insolvency Trustee to find out how a consumer proposal or bankruptcy can help in your situation.

Privatize CMHC? A Politician Says Yes

Man in a suit holding a small house

My guest today is Michael Chong, the Member of Parliament for the federal riding of Wellington-Halton Hills, and an advocate for the privatization of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.  First, some background:

As we have discussed on previous shows, the big banks are required to have mortgage insurance on all mortgages where the borrower has less than a 20% down payment, and the biggest mortgage insurer in Canada is CMHC.

According to Michael Chong, while there are two private mortgage insurers in Canada (Genworth and Canada Guaranty), CMHC insures 80% of all insured mortgages in Canada, and they currently insure over $500 billion in mortgages.  That’s huge.

Mr. Chong’s position is easy to understand: with mortgage insurance, it is almost impossible for a bank to lose money on a mortgage, so they have a strong incentive to lend as much money as possible to maximize their profits.

The government has privatized profit and socialized risk through mortgage insurance.

Those aggressive lending policies have allowed Canadians to obtain bigger mortgages, buy ever-more expensive homes, and that is one of the main contributors to the very high real estate prices we are currently witnessing in Ontario.

Despite all these changes and all this tinkering around the edges, the price of housing continues to accelerate to unsustainable levels

Even worse, Mr. Chong believes that since banks can make money risk free on mortgages, they have no incentive to make riskier loans, like loans to small businesses, and that impedes job growth.

The solution

Mr. Chong believes that, over a period of time, CMHC should be privatized so that mortgage insurance can be properly priced by the free market, changing the model so insurance rates are not set by a government entity.

We discuss how the privatization of the CMHC would impact the real estate market, and I give my thoughts on the CMHC on today’s show.

Resources mentioned in the show:

FULL TRANSCRIPT show #119 with Michael Chongprivatized cmhc podcast transcript

Doug Hoyes: This is episode 119 of Debt Free in 30. And today, for the first time ever, my guest is a sitting member of Parliament. That’s right, my guest is a politician. So, before we start let me give the disclaimer that I’ve read many times on this show. Debt Free in 30 exists to provide different perspectives on the world of debt. I regularly invite guests who have different opinions than my own so just because I have a guest on the show does not mean I necessarily agree with everything they say. I’m not a member of any political party, I’m not supporting any particular politician.

I don’t pay guests to be on the show and guests can’t pay me to be on the show, this is not an advertising show, it’s a show designed to inform and that’s what we’ll do today. So, with that disclaimer out of the way let’s get started. My guest today is Michael Chong, the member of Parliament for the riding of Wellington-Halton Hills, which is a riding that looks a bit like a donut including everything around the city of Guelph but not the city of Guelph, which is actually where we’re sitting recording this today. The riding includes the town of Fergus, which is where Michael Chong was born.

Mr. Chong was first elected to parliament in 2004 and is currently a candidate for the leadership of the conservative party of Canada, which will be decided at a convention in May 2017. So, why in the world am I having a politician on this podcast? Well, simple answer: Mr. Chong wants to abolish the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation. And since the overheated real estate market has been a big topic here in 2016 and will probably be a big topic in 2017, I thought it would be interesting to hear a different perspective on the CHMC. So, with that background, Michael Chong, welcome to Debt Free in 30, how are you doing today?

Michael Chong: Great, great to be here.

Doug Hoyes: Well, thanks for being here so let’s talk about the CHMC then. We’ve addressed it many times on the show before but can you maybe give us the really quick 30 second overview of what is it, what is the CHMC?

Michael Chong: CHMC is a federal crown corporation that issues government backed mortgage insurance and securitization for Canada’s banking system. It is the largest crown corporation in terms of its assets and liabilities and it’s often one of the least known corporations out there.

Doug Hoyes: The largest crown corporation, so in terms of assets. So, what kind of numbers are we talking about, billions of dollars I assume?

Michael Chong: We’re talking about 514 billion dollars in mortgage guarantees in force as of December 2016.

Doug Hoyes: And the limit that they can insure is 600 billion dollars. So, we’re getting close to the limit then I would assume.

Michael Chong: Yeah, the amount that they have insured has come down somewhat from previous quarters but it is, generally it’s at record high levels compared to five or 10 years ago.

Doug Hoyes: Do you have any idea why it would have come down in previous quarters? I mean the real estate market is going nuts in places like well, Toronto, Vancouver it’s eased off a bit. Any idea why it would have come down or is it just natural ebbs and flows?

Michael Chong: It’s come down because the federal government is desperately trying to cool the housing market and has issued direction to CHMC to reduce the amount of guarantees in force. I think they’re trying to reduce the risk that the Canadian tax payers bare with these guarantees and force and they’re also trying to cool the market. So, that’s why it’s come down from its previous highs in the last year. But even taking a step back from its current amount of 514 billion, it’s still a record amount in the context of the last five to 10 years.

Doug Hoyes: And it sounds like a huge number. So, obviously you have some problems with CHMC but let me give their side of the story ’cause this is supposed to be two sided. I’ve done research; I’ve done advance prep here. I went on their website and according to their website “CHMC helps Canadians meet their housing needs, sounds pretty good. As Canada’s authority on housing we contribute to the stability of the housing market and financial system, provide support for Canadians in housing need and offer objective housing research and advice to Canadian governments, consumers and the housing industry. Prudent risk management, strong corporate governance and transparency are cornerstones of our operations”.

So, I don’t know what your problem is, these sound like fantastic people, what’s your problem with CHMC?

Michael Chong: Well, that to me sounds like a lot of corporate gobbly gook.

Doug Hoyes: It brought a tear to my eye, come on.

Michael Chong: I mean quite simply the problem is this, that we have a problem in Canada with skyrocketing housing prices and many of Canada’s largest cities that are putting homeownership out of the reach of middleclass families.

We also have a problem where the government of Canada now has 514 billion dollars in potential liabilities on its books, liabilities that are born by Canadian taxpayers. I think that that problem is, those two problems, are due to one fact, which is that CHMC has issued mortgage insurance and securitization to the point where it’s become unsustainable. In other words if you – I think the largest factor contributing to skyrocketing housing prices, and there are many factors, but the largest factor is the unsustainable rate of mortgage credit growth in Canada over the last 15 years.

And I think that is directly a result of CHMC’s mortgage insurance and securitization program. Look, what we’ve essentially done is we have given the banks profits without any risk because this program, this CHMC mortgage insurance program allows the banks to issue mortgages with no risk to their balance sheet. And so we’ve essentially privatized profits and socialized risk. In other words the banks churn out these mortgages risk-free, backed by government mortgage insurance and they have an incentive to turn out as many as they can to take advantage of that program.

That in turn has lead to unsustainable levels of mortgage of credit growth. Some 10 years ago outstanding mortgage, residential mortgages stood at around 700 billion dollars, today we’re double that at 1.4 trillion. That’s an annual compounded growth rate in mortgage credit of around 7%. That’s not sustainable even taking into account population growth and inflation.

Doug Hoyes: So, they key phrase you said there we have privatized profits and socialized risks. So, if I’m a banker, maybe you and I should start a bank, that sounds like a pretty good gig. We start a bank and I go out and I loan money on mortgages but I don’t have to worry too much because if the mortgage gets into trouble the taxpayer ultimately is going to say no problem here’s the money.

Michael Chong: That’s exactly it.

Doug Hoyes: It’s as simple as that.

Michael Chong: Simple as that.

Doug Hoyes: So, that sounds like a fantastic business, so we should all be starting banks then. So, I guess if CHMC is a good idea then we should have the same thing in every other business too then.

Michael Chong: We should.

Doug Hoyes: You know, if you own a hardware store then the government should guarantee losses if you sell a hammer for too little. I mean that would be the logical extension of it wouldn’t it?

Michael Chong: That’s right. And that’s why the banking system, the big banks, have loved this program so much. It’s literally allowed them to issue these mortgages without any risk to their balance sheets. So, out of the 1.4 trillion in outstanding residential mortgage debt in Canada, the Government of Canada has guaranteed 520 billion dollars of that with this mortgage insurance and securitization program.

And there’s been another unintended consequence, which is that the banks have shut down their lending to small to medium sized business in Canada. It’s very for SMEs to get access, to get loans, to get access to capital. And that’s because the government of Canada, through CHMC, has actually given banks and incentive not to loan to small to medium sized enterprises. And this isn’t my conclusion, this is the conclusion of the international monetary fund.

Some three years ago the IMF’s Chief Admission in Ottawa issued a very public statement saying that CHMC should, and the Government of Canada, should scale back its mortgage insurance business because it’s drying up funding and financing for Canada’s small to medium sized enterprises, which in turn is leading to lower levels of business investment. Literally this program gives a disincentive to banks to loan to small to medium sized business.

Doug Hoyes: Which makes perfect sense, if I’m a bank and I’ve got a million bucks sitting here in deposits that I want to lend out, I got a choice. I can lend to Hoyes, Michalos & Associates, a relatively small business but they might not pay me back and I’ll lose everything. And with interest rates as low as they are, I mean I can’t charge them 50% to mitigate the risk. Or I can take that million dollars and put it into mortgages and I know I can’t lose because the government will cover any losses.

Michael Chong: That’s exactly it.

Doug Hoyes: So, it’s not that the government is telling them not to lend to small businesses, it’s just the obvious conclusion that anyone would make. I can earn a return risk-free here, that’s what I’m going to do. And so what you were saying then is, so let’s get into the options here. So, CHMC is bad, that’s what you’re saying. I’m putting words in your mouth but, you know.

So, we got a choice. So, we can do what you said at the outset, what the federal government is doing, which is kid of turn down the taps a little bit. And we’ve had previous guests on the show Ben Rabidoux, Hilliard Macbeth and a few and Ben a couple of episodes ago said well they are doing some things to turn down the tap, they brought in these rules on October 17th, there’s some new rules that came into effect on November 30th, they’re going to be adjusting the capital requirements next year.

So, the fire hose is going full blast, we’re going to gradually turn it down and, you know, somehow engineer a soft landing. You obviously don’t agree with that approach. You think no, blow the whole thing up. So, why is getting rid of CHMC better than gradually trying to slow the plane down before it crashes?

Michael Chong: Well, I think we should try to slow the plane down and engineer a soft landing as they say, you know, in the language of the industry. But I’m skeptical that we’re going to be able to engineer that soft landing. We have been tinkering around the edges of the mortgage, insurance market now for the better part of six, seven years. Minister Flaherty introduced many, many changes to the program. Bill Morneau, the current Finance Minister has introduced several more changes and they’re talking about even more changes in the future.

And despite all these changes and all this tinkering around the edges, the price of housing continues to accelerate to unsustainable levels and mortgage credit growth continues to grow at unsustainable levels. So, I don’t think tinkering around the edges is a long-term solution. I think the long-term solution is to privatize CHMC’s mortgage insurance and securitization business. That is the long-term solution to making housing more affordable.

Doug Hoyes: So, let’s assume that in May you become the leader of the party and then, I don’t know whenever the next election is, the boy king gets defeated and you become the Prime Minister. So, do you just on day one say we’re shutting the doors to CHMC? Or when you say privatize, to me privatize means we find some other people to buy it, that’s what privatize in my mind means.

And if I’m not mistaken there are two other entities that provide mortgage insurance in Canada today, Genworth and Canada Guaranty. Obviously they are much smaller than CHMC I assume. So, would those, one of those two entities be a logical purchaser of CHMC or do you have some other plan as to how it would actually be privatized?

Michael Chong: Well, first off we wouldn’t shut it down on day one, we’d plan an orderly transition to ensure continuity in the marketplace. The second thing we would do is that we would take out all the non-mortgage insurance and securitization assets, out of the corporation and back into a federal government department. So, CHMC does have some other things that they do, such as providing affordable housing for low income families and low income Canadians. We take those programs, spin them out of CHMC back into the federal government department.

What we would then be left with is a crown corporation with only the assets of the mortgage insurance and securitization business. We would then consult with the competition bureau and get their advice as to whether or not this single large crown corporation with about 80% market share would have, you know, an unfair monopoly over the market. And if the advice came back that it is, that it would lead to unfair competition, an unfair monopoly, we would look at splitting the assets into two and then putting it up on the marketplace for sale to a private company.

So, it would be an orderly plan transition so that Canadians could continue and banks could continue to get mortgage insurance, just not on the taxpayers dime and not – and in a way that’s sustainable.

Doug Hoyes: So, I’m a bankruptcy guy as well as being an accountant so I understand what the difference between an asset and a liability is, an asset is something you own and a liability is something you owe. Is CMHC – does CHMC actually have assets? ‘Cause it sounds to me what they really have is liabilities. So, is there anybody out there who would buy this? It’s an insurance company so if mortgages go bad, we got to pay out a bunch of money. But if mortgages don’t go bad we don’t get anything more ’cause we’ve already collected the premium. So, it seems to be it’s a massive liability, not an asset. Would anyone actually pay anyone for it?

Michael Chong: Well, they have significant cash on hand.

Doug Hoyes: So, all the premiums that they’ve been paid. Not all of them, but they’re building up on the left side of the balance sheet and the liabilities are on the right. And so, the hope is that the assets are greater than the liabilities. Obviously we don’t know, tell me when the market’s going to crash and we can do the math.

Michael Chong: Yeah, they’ve significantly increased their fund, their contingency fun for bad debt. I think it’s been more than doubled in the last number of years because they’re starting to realize the risk that’s out there. So, they do have assets. And the assets are significant. And one of the biggest assets is the 520 billion dollar mortgage insurance and securitization portfolio. Yes, there’s liabilities associated with that, there’s also assets associated with that. And the market would have to price that in order to determine what the value is.

Doug Hoyes: So, what you’re talking about is doing open heart surgery on the patient while they’re still awake here ’cause this is not a simple thing that you’re describing. So, we want to cool down the housing market ’cause it’s overheated but we also want to sell off this asset. So, we also want the housing market to be really strong when we sell it off because then we get the most bang for the buck. If we let the housing market crash tomorrow then CHMC is in the hole and no one is going to pay anything for it.

So, presumably this would be a multiyear process. It would not be like you say on day one. If it was Donald Trump it would be done on day one but we’re in Canada here so presumably it would take two, three, four, five years kind of a thing to wind out of it, is that your thought?

Michael Chong: Yeah, I would hope that it would take no more than two to three years to privatize it. My expectation is it wouldn’t take five or six years to do it.

Doug Hoyes: So, the obvious question then is again, you know, you’re the Prime Minister, you do this two to three years, get wound out of it. You just said that CHMC has an 80% market share. So, that tells me of all the insured mortgages out there, CHMC has their fingers in 80% of them. So, you take out that from the market, that’s got to have some affect on the real estate market.

Michael Chong: Well, we’re not, I’m not proposing to take 80% of the mortgage insurance market out of the – I’m not proposing to take 80% of the market, 80% of the mortgage insurance out of the market. I’m just proposing to change the ownership of the 80% of the mortgage insurance.

Doug Hoyes: So, the assumption is the consumers would still be able to get mortgage insurance, I guess it’s not consumers, it’s banks.

Michael Chong: That’s right.

Doug Hoyes: You’re not insuring the average guy, we’re insuring the big banks. The banks would still be able to get mortgage insurance, it would just be from either Genworth or Canada Guaranty or whatever gets spun out of CHMC as a private enterprise.

Michael Chong: That’s right. And the difference would also be that not only would it not be from the Government of Canada, the mortgage insurance, the mortgage insurance would be properly priced. And that’s the problem we have today is that risk is not being properly priced in the marketplace, it’s being underpriced in the residential –

Doug Hoyes: And so what you’re saying is mortgage interest rates would probably be higher. And I realize it’s not just the mortgage interest rate when I buy a house, it’s there is an insurance fee built into that.

Michael Chong: I’m not saying mortgage interest rates would be higher ’cause that’s set by the central bank and by the bond market. What would be properly priced is the risk associated with the amount of mortgages being issued, their amortizations, their – the amount of individual mortgages that are being issued. Those are the kinds of things that start to get properly priced. Currently there’s not a proper price of risk in that area.

Doug Hoyes: So as a consumer it’s five years in the future now, so you’ve been the Prime Minister for two years at this point, what do I notice that’s different? Do I notice anything different? There’s some huge changes on the bank’s side obviously because they’re now dealing with CHMC Private Co instead of Government Co, but does the consumer notice anything different?

Michael Chong: Yeah, I think the consumer would start to notice several things. First they would start to notice that housing is not accelerating at unsustainable levels. So, in other words housing prices start to moderate and as inflation catches up, housing prices become more in reach of middleclass families.

The second thing people would start to notice is that there isn’t a one size fits all solution that’s being imposed on the entire country for the mortgage insurance market. Because the private sector I think would be much more flexible on the way it deals with risk than the current federal government’s approach, which is to say, you know, here’s our change to the mortgage insurance of CHMC and this is going to apply across the country even though it is being brought in because of the problems we’re having in the Toronto and Vancouver market.

So, I think there would be greater flexibility with mortgage insurance that would allow consumers more choice and would also allow people who are in markets where the housing market isn’t so heated to more easily access mortgage insurance.

Doug Hoyes: So you’re saying CHMC is the Henry Ford Model T approach, you can buy any colour of car in the rainbow so long as it’s black, there’s one colour and that’s it. And you’re saying if it’s privatized there would be many more flexible options presumably. Would you also assume then that small business would have access to better funding because now the banks are going well, we – the mortgage market isn’t quite so lucrative so let’s start throwing some money at some other places?

Michael Chong: That’s exactly it and it would free up billions of dollars in capital for small to medium sized businesses because banks would start focusing on lending to SME’s because the risk then becomes more reasonable.

Doug Hoyes: So you think the real estate market would moderate but would not crash.

Michael Chong: Well, that would be – I mean I don’t know, that’s up to the marketplace, that’s not up to me to pronounce upon. But I think that it’s clear that countries where government backed mortgage insurance is in place have a tendency to have asset bubbles and the corresponding crash. That’s not my conclusion of the IMF. The IMF has done a lot of work on this and they’ve concluded that housing markets where governments intervenes in the marketplace through mortgage insurance have a tendency to create those housing bubbles and the associated crashes.

And in the long run this leads to the lower levels of home ownership. You know, the United States today has the lowest levels of home ownership in 48 years. Just before the crash in 2008 they had the highest level of home ownership in decades. And so that is not a good thing for the market to have these huge appreciations in prices and a corresponding correction. What you want is a marketplace where you have sustainable long-term rates of credit growth that allow for a stable housing market. Government intervention in the marketplace does exactly the opposite and that’s the conclusion of the IMF.

Doug Hoyes: So your basic point is let’s get the government out of it, let’s let the market decide.

So, final question for you then, in addition to what you recommended about CHMC you’ve also got some ideas on OSFI. So, first of all what is OSFI and number two, in broad layman’s terms what do you think needs to be tweaked there?

Michael Chong: Well, OSFI stands for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. It is Canada’s federal banking regulator. Its role is to ensure the stability of the banking system and to ensure that banks don’t take on too much risk. So, if we are going to privatized CHMC’s mortgage insurance business then we also have to strengthen OSFI. And its oversight not just of the banking system but of the private sector mortgage insurance market to ensure that we don’t have another 2008 financial crisis where banks have taken on inappropriate levels of risk.

Doug Hoyes: Do we care if private lenders take on inappropriate levels of risk?

Michael Chong: We do because our banks are public utilities. And when big banks fail, the entire economy goes into a tailspin and taxpayers end up having to bail out these banks.

Doug Hoyes: They don’t have to.

Michael Chong: Well, in practice they have to.

Doug Hoyes: We’re lucky in Canada ’cause the last time a bank failed was the depression if I’m not mistaking.

Michael Chong: That’s right.

Doug Hoyes: The U.S well, they’ve had a few.

Michael Chong: We’ve actually had some bank failures more recently, smaller bank failures in recent decades but the last big wave of bank failures was in the great depression.

Doug Hoyes: Yeah and they wouldn’t have been the big schedule A banks obviously, perhaps some smaller regional ones. So, ultimately what you’re saying is let’s get the government as far away from it as we can but still have a regulatory presence.

Michael Chong: That’s right, so that risk is properly priced. If a large bank fails it becomes the taxpayers’ problem. And we saw that in 2008 with the failure of many large banks around the world. We saw it even in Canada where the government of Canada had to step in and provide over 100 billion dollars in federal guarantees at the time to keep out banking system afloat.

So, when large banks get into trouble, the federal government ends up having to bail them out. And so, we want to avoid that situation and we can avoid it by strengthening OSFI to make sure that it is preventing that kind of undo risk-taking by banks.

Doug Hoyes: Got it. So, what this really all stems from is the fact that we just got too much household debt too. I mean it’s a chicken and an egg thing I guess, right? But mortgages are a big component of household debt and if we ease back on the mortgage component a bit, that presumably reduces our overall level of household debt and makes us more stable going forward I guess.

Michael Chong: Yeah. So, mortgages make up roughly two thirds of all household debt and my view, the chicken and egg is that skyrocketing housing prices are not the cause of high levels of household indebtedness. Rather the opposite is true, is that the easy access to mortgage credit due in large part because the government has privatized profit and socialized risk through mortgage insurance, has created skyrocketing housing prices.

Doug Hoyes: So wet sidewalks don’t cause rain, it’s the other way around is what you’re saying.

Michael Chong: That’s right.

Doug Hoyes: Excellent. Well, I appreciate that Michael. That’s a good overview and gives us all something to think about. I think here in Canada CHMC has been around for I don’t know 70 years or whatever it’s been. So, it’s not something we even conceive of as not being there. But you’re saying that there is an answer so I appreciate you coming and bringing it to us so thank you for being here.

Michael Chong: Well, thank you for having me. I know it’s a bit of a dry topic but it’s an incredibly important one, probably one of the most important macroeconomic policies of the federal government.

Doug Hoyes: Yeah. And just because it’s dry doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact us so I think being aware of it is a good thing. Thanks for being here.

Michael Chong: Thanks for having me.

Doug Hoyes: Thank you. That was my discussion with Michael Chong. And just a quick correction, he actually wasn’t born in Fergus Ontario, he was born in Windsor Ontario and then moved to Fergus at the age of two. So, Michael Chong is a member of parliament who believes we should abolish the CHMC.

So, what’s my take on the CHMC? Well, I’m not a big believer in government interference. I wasn’t alive back on January 1st, 1946 when the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was created, over 70 years ago, to help house returning war veterans.

In 1979 the name was changed to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and today we have a government organization that actively encourages Canadians to buy houses. If you have less than a 20% down payment, the CHMC says to the big banks, lend them the money to get a mortgage and if they can’t pay, don’t worry, we’ve got you covered.

The CHMC doesn’t protect you. If you can’t pay and the bank forecloses on your house, then bank gets paid and then CHMC is coming after you for the short fall.

But of course the CHMC, being a government entity is not very efficient. I’ve actually had clients who had their houses foreclosed on 10 years ago and only now is CHMC finally pursuing them, often by taking their tax refunds and many years later I end up doing bankruptcies for people who lost their houses many years earlier. Let me repeat that. CHMC doesn’t insure you, they insure the bank. Is that really the role of government?

The biggest bank in Canada, the Royal Bank, just announced that their fourth quarter profit was 2.54 billion dollars. That’s not their profit for a full year, that’s their profit for three months. I have no problem with banks making money, I can buy shares in a bank if I want to, many pension funds invest in banks. That’s great. But do the taxpayers of Canada really need to help a bank that makes two billion dollars every three months?

I mean I get it; the argument is that the CHMC new homeowners would never be able to buy a house. I disagree. In fact I think it’s the opposite. In fact I think the fact the taxpayers are guaranteeing that a bank an never lose money on a mortgage encourages the banks to lend crazy high amounts and that drives up real estate prices and that makes it even more difficult for young Canadians to afford to buy their first home. And as Michael said in the interview if the banks are lending all that money on mortgages, essentially risk-free, they have no incentive to lend any money to small business and that obviously hurts the economy in the long run.

So, if we agree that CHMC is at least part of the problem, should CHMC be reformed or eliminated? Well, as Ben Rabidoux and I discussed back on show 117, that was two shows ago, there are changes that are happening to make it more risky for banks to finance mortgages so the problem may begin to correct. Perhaps those changes will be enough.

But Michael Chong makes a good point. If you completely eliminate CHMC there is no need to tweak the rules. There would be no rules because the banks would be fully at risk for their own loans or they would need to use a private insurer, not the taxpayer. Would the abolition of the CHMC cause the real estate market to crash? Well, Michael Chong says no and I guess I doubt it because every house in Canada is not purchased with CHMC insurance but it would likely lead to some price reductions.

Ultimately I don’t control the government so I don’t worry about what they do. I only worry about what I can control and so I’ll give you the same advice I give my clients. If you really want to buy a house, crunch the numbers, make sure it’s the correct decision for you and then save up as big a down payment as possible. With a big enough down payment, mortgage insurance is irrelevant.

That’s our show for today. Full show notes, including links to everything we discussed can be found on our website at hoyes.com.

Next week I’ve got a totally different show for you. My guest isn’t a politician; he’s a PHD candidate who has some very interesting ideas. So, tune in next week for that podcast, it’ll make you think. Until next week, thanks for listening. I’m Doug Hoyes. That was Debt Free in 30.

Who Will Know I Filed Bankruptcy?

Old postcard sent as notice to creditor

It is understandable that when you are experiencing financial problems you don’t want that information broadcast to your friends, family and co-workers. This is a concern raised by many potential clients which brings us to this week’s technical podcast question:

Who will find out if you filed a bankruptcy or consumer proposal in Canada?

Is bankruptcy private?

Your initial debt consultation with a trustee in bankruptcy is between you and the trustee. It’s a private, one-on-one, in person meeting designed to review your debt relief options. It’s not unusual for clients to bring someone for support – a spouse or a friend – but aside from that, the discussion is private. Your trustee will likely take notes about your assets, debts and income to better understand your situation and to have information at hand for follow-up meetings, however, the discussion about what to do is between you and your trustee.

Nothing is reported to a credit bureau or your creditors until you decide to file.

What records become public?

From a practical point of view, only those who need to know will be informed that you filed insolvency:

  • your bankruptcy or proposal documents are electronically filed with the government;
  • creditors will be notified so they can file a claim in your bankruptcy or vote in your proposal;
  • if your debt has been forwarded to collections, a notice will also be sent to the collection agency. This is for your benefit as it will also stop further collection calls.
  • Revenue Canada is notified as there are tax returns to be filed as part of the process;
  • the government sends a notice that you filed insolvency to the credit bureaus;
  • the only time your employer will be notified is if you ask to have a wage garnishment stopped as part of the bankruptcy process.

If someone wants to see whether you filed insolvency, they must do a bankruptcy search through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Records of the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. To obtain any confirmation that you have filed, and see any records, there are several steps they must take.

Individuals who want to search Canada’s bankruptcy records must:

  • Register an account with Industry Canada.
  • They can then search by name or bankruptcy number.
  • Before anyone can see the results of their search (even names) they must pay a fee (currently $8 for each search).
  • Once they pay, they will only see summary information about your total assets, total debts and limited personal information (such as your address & birth date); just enough to confirm that they have the right individual.

Contrary to a popular bankruptcy myth, in personal insolvency cases, a notice does not appear in the newspaper signifying that you filed insolvency. This can be the case for business bankruptcies or if the value of your assets (excluding secured assets) will exceed $15,000, but this does not happen in most individual bankruptcies. A consumer proposal is never reported in the newspaper.

Will my employer be notified of my bankruptcy?

Your employer is not notified that you have filed bankruptcy as part of the normal process. They can do a search however, but they would have to have some inclination to want to do so. Sometimes new employers may want to conduct a search, especially if you are dealing with trust money or are in some other bondable occupation, but generally, your employer will never know.

As we mentioned, only time your employer is notified is if you have a wage garnishment that you want stopped. If that is the case, your trustee will notify your employer’s payroll department in order to stop the deductions being taken from your pay.

Bankruptcy is a fresh start

As you can see, someone has to be pretty motivated to find out whether you filed a bankruptcy or consumer proposal. In most cases, the only people likely to do a search are a bankruptcy trustee (to see if you have filed bankruptcy before) or possibly a creditor (to confirm that you have filed).

Bankruptcy was designed to be a fresh start for the honest, but unfortunate debtor. Widely publicizing the fact that you filed bankruptcy would serve no purpose and would in fact be counter-intuitive to the goal of the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act.

If you are considering bankruptcy, you should consider the pro and cons of bankruptcy, but not really worry about whether or not your bankruptcy will be discovered by your friends and family, since this doesn’t happen unless you choose to talk about your situation.

As many as 15% of Canadians will file insolvency at some point in their life.  As Ted Michalos said on the show:

There is life after bankruptcy. I mean there has to be because again, one in six Canadians at some point in their life is going to be insolvent.

To learn more about the notification process in a bankruptcy listen to the podcast or read the transcript below.

NOTE: The pictures with this post show how creditors were notified back in 1879.  Trustees back then had postcards printed that were mailed to the creditors.  Today creditors are notified electronically (there are no pre-printed postcards).

FULL TRANSCRIPT Show 116

who will know I filed bankruptcy

Doug H:            On today’s technical tidbits edition of Debt Free in 30 we’re going to address a common concern raised when someone is considering filing bankruptcy. Who will find out that I filed bankruptcy or a consumer proposal? It’s understandable that you don’t want knowledge of your financial problems broadcast far and wide an as we’ll see that’s just not the case.

However what’s even more important is to ask the right question, will bankruptcy help me and should I be embarrassed if someone finds out? To talk about these issues I’m joined by my Hoyes Michalos co-founder Ted Michalos, so Ted walk us through it. Who is going to find out if you file bankruptcy?

Ted M:              Okay. Well so, people need to understand that bankruptcy is a legal process, anything done through the courts is public information. So, that makes it sound like the world is going to find out. That’s just not the case. From a practical standpoint the only people that know that you filed for bankruptcy are the folks that are informed directly about the bankruptcy, so, that means that people that you owe money to. You’re required to give your trustee a list of your creditors in a bankruptcy or proposal. We send notices to those creditors so that they can avail themselves of the process and they’ll leave you alone.

Doug H:            So, that’s called the initial mailing and when does that happen?

Ted M:              So it’s got to happen within five business days of your actually filing. It’s all done electronically now by most firms, certainly by our firm, so it all goes out very quickly.

Doug H:            So in a day or two everybody you owe money to finds out and obviously the government is going to find out ’cause that’s who it get sent to as well. What about Revenue Canada?

Ted M:              Well, Revenue Canada is notified of all the filings. I mean half the people that become insolvent in Canada owe the government money away so they’re on the list of creditors. But even if they’re not, they’re notified regardless.

Probably more of greater concern for people is what about your employer? So, if you have a wage garnishee, somebody is suing you and they’re taking money off your pay, then your employer’s going to be notified that you filed bankruptcy or a proposal ’cause that’s how we stop the wage garnishee. It’s probably the reason you filed the bankruptcy or the proposal.

If you don’t have one of these things outstanding against you, nobody’s taking money directly from your pay and there’s no reason for your employer to be told and your trustee’s not going to contact them. So, unless someone is already taking money off your pay, you don’t have to worry about your employer finding out. And presumably that means the people at work aren’t going to find out.

Doug H:            Yeah and you’re actually going to tell us I want you to talk to your employer ’cause otherwise this wage garnishment can’t stop.

Ted M:              That’s the reason you came in in the first place ’cause they’re taking money off your pay.

Doug H:            You have to talk to the payroll person to get it stopped, they’re the only person who can stop it obviously.

Ted M:              Well, there’s another aspect of this too then. So, the fact that you filed bankruptcy or proposal is going to show up on your credit bureau report. There are a few credit bureaus in Canada. The major ones are Equifax and Trans Union. They get an information tape from the government every month basically saying who’s filed an assignment or a consumer proposal this month and also who’s been discharged from their bankruptcy or proposal, who’s completed the procedure? So, that information gets reported on your credit report, so anyone looking at your report after you filed will probably notice that that’s happened.

Doug H:            And obviously it’s not like anybody can just go pull anybody’s credit report but if you’re applying for a loan then they will look to it.

And you made a key point there, it’s not you and me the trustee who’s notifying the credit bureau, the bankruptcy or the proposal is filed with the Office of the Superintendent of bankruptcy and then they in turn report to the credit bureaus.

Ted M:              Correct.

Doug H:            And the individual creditors are also reporting to the credit bureau.

Ted M:              Yep. So, the credit bureau, and we can do a whole show on credit bureaus, the credit bureau reports whatever their members, the people that you owe money to, tell them to report every month on your credit report. The government reports whether or not you’ve availed yourself of the insolvency laws to get relief from your debts. The trustees actually have no direct intercourse with the credit bureaus because there’s just no facility for us to do that.

Doug H:            Yeah, we don’t have the right to discuss with them so that’s how the information gets there. So now the key question to me is not who’s going to find out, you’ve already said that. I mean anybody’s who’s involved in the bankruptcy is going to find out, your creditors and that’s a good thing. You want them to stop calling, you want them to stop garnishing your wages.

Ted M:              Correct.

Doug H:            I mean a lot of people are afraid to go bankrupt because they’re afraid people are going to find out. But I think it doesn’t really matter if anybody finds out because number one, lots of Canadians end up declaring bankruptcy or filing a proposal. What kind of numbers are we talking about?

Ted M:              I always thought that the number were something like 11% Canadians. But I think it’s even higher than that. Somewhere between one in six or one in seven, which is as high as 15% of all Canadians. So, I don’t know. If you’re cheering on the Blue Jays these days, or you were ’cause you were at the Dome with 30,000 people look around at any one point in time, there’s at least 6,000 of those people were in financial difficulty or will be.

Doug H:            Or have been, yeah.

Ted M:              It’s a huge number.

Doug H:            And I mean you get on an elevator with six or seven people, well one of those people at some point in the past or in the future is going to be in a situation or a bankruptcy or a proposal that’s something you’ve got to consider. So, I think that’s a key consideration. You’re not alone. I don’t think you need to be embarrassed about something that one in seven people are ultimately going to have to do.

Ted M:              I mean it’s part of the indoctrination process that the lenders have still done. The whole idea of bankruptcy still makes folks uncomfortable and it does make them embarrassed. But that’s because the moral suasion is they want you to pay your debts. And frankly if you’re able to pay your debts, you should. For those who can’t though, this is a legal procedure designed to give you relief so that you don’t – it doesn’t affect the other aspects of your life. Financial problems create so much stress. You take it out on your family, your kids.

Doug H:            Yeah, medical issues, it stresses you out and everything. So, I think that’s the other key point then that you’ve eliminated your debt. Let’s focus on the positive here. Okay fine there’s going to be a note on your credit report, maybe we’re going to have to talk to your employer to stop the wage garnishment but you are now debt free once the proposal is done or the bankruptcy’s done and that’s really what matters. That’s what we should be focusing on here.

Ted M:              And there is life after bankruptcy. I mean there has to be ’cause again, one in six Canadians at some point in their life is going to be insolvent. You can’t just take one out of six Canadians out of the marketplace and say oh sorry you can’t use credit ever again. That’s just not realistic.

Doug H:            Yeah and you can take steps to improve your credit report once this is done.

Ted M:              That’s exactly right. In fact the whole purpose of this is to give you after the relief from your debt is to give you some financial tools, some knowledge so that next time around you’re a little bit wiser, a little bit more careful and you’re less likely to get in trouble.

Doug H:            Yeah so it becomes a win, win. So, I guess to sum up then don’t be focused on the negative that oh people are going to find out. Look at that as a positive, you want the creditors to find out so they stop calling you, you want your employer to find out so they stop your wage garnishment. And it becomes the fresh start that you need, your debts are eliminated, you can take steps to start rebuilding your credit so in the future you actually will be able to finance a car, a house, whatever it is you need to do, which you won’t be able to do if you keep going the way you are now.

Ted M:              Yeah nobody ever believes me when I say this but probably the most youthful or helpful thing you can do for your friends and [co-workers] is to tell them you’ve done this sort of thing, when you’ve relied on a consumer proposal or bankruptcy to solve your debt problems. ‘Cause most people don’t talk about their finances and therefore they suffer much longer than they need to.

If you share some of your experiences, one you can tell them to go to somebody that’s treated you properly so you get a better level of service but more importantly the stigma associated with this stuff will be removed and people will seek relief sooner so they be less stressed and less anxiety, less suffering.

Doug H:            Fantastic, I think that is a great way to end it. This is designed to be a positive process and so worrying about who’s going to find out is not something that you need to worry about.