5 ms·

Is a loan deemed not risky by the bank necessarily not risky for the loaner? (That's a genuine question, I have no clue)

• AstralStorm 7y ago
  No. Banks have a much higher risk threshold and can repossession you. They are diversified, have qualified financial staff (mostly) and more. Neutral side is generally considered "best effort" in the axis.
  • Mikeb85 7y ago
    That ignores the fact that the government regulates what kind of loans banks can make to individuals.
  • mistermann 7y ago
    More importantly, they're backed by the CMHC so they don't have to concern themselves with risk. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca And if there's a crisis large enough that solvency of CMHC might be questionable, they don't have to worry either because the bank of Canada will gladly buy their mortgages, passing the risk onto taxpayers. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/the-real-canadian-bank-bailout/ https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/the-real-canadian-b...
• Mikeb85 7y ago
  Yes, mostly. The government regulates what kind of loans banks can make to individuals.
• appleiigs 7y ago
  Yes and No. Yes - if a billionaire borrower buys a $200,000 house with a mortgage, there is little repayment risk for both borrower and banks. The mortgage payments are unlikely to stress the borrower. No - that risk can be distributed between bank and borrower. Bank provides 75% of the value of the house, so it takes more risk. However, it can reduce risk in variety of ways, including: 1) taking collateral, 2) taking a guarantee from borrower, 3) diversification, 4) off loading risk to 3rd parties.