#many many things have been changed in the BOC version

[nattaphum]

Kinnporsche full trailer (9:19 mins) - old version from the Filmania era

[shinigami-dispatch-association]

An In-depth Post About This Thing I Saw:

And whether it is true or not

So, to start, I thought there might be something about it on his character sheet and, lo and behold, I found this online:

How perfect, I thought, surely the note in the top right mentions whether it’s dye or bleach. Except, it’s too blurry for me to translate. Well, I then found a better version, and…

I am choosing to assume that this translation as accurate (even though I would much rather translate it for myself), because the original is too hard to make out.

So, what does it say about his hair? Well, nothing. His hair is short in the back. I guess that’s good to know, but it doesn’t mention his dye/bleach.

Then, I decided to look at some images of him. But, you have to remember he only appears in BoC, BoA, and Season II. I will only be looking at his BoA appearances because, in my opinion, his other appearances make his hair much more orange than blond. Note: I am also ignoring Doormouse! Ron.

So, to start, ignoring the time period, would it be possible to dye or bleach his hair this color?

Following his character sheet, I am saying that his lighter section is between a 7-9, while the same is somewhere between 1-3. So, would this be possible to achieve?

Yes, there is multiple people who have bleached their naturally black hair as far as platinum blond. However… the multiple examples of people doing this are all from the modern day. Now, to be fair, I will also stage that it is also possible to go the opposite direction with a simple OTC hair dye.

So, what does history tell us is more likely? Well, in the Victorian Era the fashion trend was actually dark hair, with many recipes preserved that show homemade hair dye. However, this same source also mentions that changing your hair color still is not recommended, as it seemingly defies nature. But, this doesn’t mean that it wasn’t ever done.

Furthermore, the color that people actually wanted the most was auburn hair. Saffron and other natural dyes would actually be used to give hair a more orange color. However, blond could also be achieved as far back the Elizabethan Era. So, in theory, both dye and bleach could be used to, but, in comparison, dye would have been cheaper and more accessible for the average person. Though, there is one last isle to go down.

If you do read the articles, you might have (like me) noticed that any color change was difficult and even frowned upon. So, what if his hair is just Like That™️? Is two-toned hair naturally occurring? Yes, it’s called Hair Heterochromia, but it is not this extreme. I also thought that it could be some very extreme sun bleaching, seeing as only the top is light. Unsurprisingly, that is not possible either. Not that this completely disqualifies the idea, though. After all, Yana-sensei’s characters don’t exactly have reasonable hair in terms of color to style.

So, which is it? Well, I think there is actually two different answers for this question.

If you take a literal approach, then the article is right, and it is almost certainly dark dye on light hair. Not only would bleach strong enough for his hair level not exist, but blond hair was not sought after the same way it is today.

However, I do not think this is the case in-universe. From Madame Red’s bright red hair (She has a flashback that proves it’s natural), to Ciel, Ciel, and Vincent, it can be assumed that hair colors in their version of Victorian London are different, with basically anything being possible. Do with this information what you want, and know that I will personally be forgetting all of this research in order to continue writing him with bleached hair.

[rebeccahpedersen]

Scrap The Mortgage Stress Test: Yay Or Nay?

TorontoRealtyBlog

We briefly discussed this two weeks ago when I posted my angry rant about the Liberal government’s attempt to buy votes in the coming election.

One thing the government could do, to make housing more affordable, is eliminate, or alter, the mortgage stress test that was brought into effect in 2017.

Many of the readers suggested the mere presence of the test itself is useless, unnecessary, and/or unfair.

Others suggested that it’s a fantastic idea, especially in a climate of rising debt levels, and some went on to talk about abolishing the CMHC, which always comes up when we talk about anything debt-related.

There is so much to talk about today, I almost don’t know where to start.  I’m going to share four articles with you, chronologically, which explain where this is all going, and where the “yay” and “nay” sides stand.

First, for those that don’t know – what is the mortgage stress test?

It’s an initiative from the Bank of Canada to promote financial responsibility among mortgage borrowers, effectively ensuring that all borrowers can afford higher payments at some point down the line.  It’s a real-life “what-if” scenario being used in the qualification process.

The “test” portion of the term essentially comes from the fact that borrowers are all being tested against rates are 2% higher than prevailing rates, to see if they’d pass.

So if a 5-year, fixed rate mortgage is currently 3.29%, the Bank of Canada wants that borrower to be able to afford the same mortgage at 5.29%.  The BOC wants the borrower to qualify, “pass the test,” and ultimately be safe in an environment of rising rates.

An optimist would argue that being financially responsible is never a bad thing, and since the government protects us from ourselves all the time, by making it illegal not to wear seat-belts in cars, they’re protecting us from ourselves when it comes to home-buying by ensuring we can afford to pay our mortgages if and when rates rise.

A pessimist would argue that it’s not up to the government to address how or when we save for the proverbial rainy-day, and that the stress test has the greatest impact on those who are already clinging to the bottom rung of the housing market.  Foreign buyers, cash buyers, and high-end buyers are all unaffected.

In the end, I’m sure the votes will be split 50/50 on this one.  My personal opinion is that a 1% stress test would bridge the gap between two arguments, both with merit.

Two weeks ago, this article appeared in the National Post:

“Canada Considers Applying Mortgage Tress Test Rules To Private Lenders, Sources Say”

From the article:

Canada is considering subjecting private lenders to the same mortgage stress test rules faced by banks to prevent housing markets from being destabilized by the lenders’ rapid growth, three sources with direct knowledge of the matter said.

Officials from the country’s finance ministry, financial regulator, central bank and federal housing agency have discussed whether the private lenders’ expansion over the past year poses a threat to economic stability, said the sources, who declined to be named because the talks are confidential.

Private lenders, usually groups of wealthy individuals, currently account for around one-tenth of Canada’s $1.5 trillion mortgage market, according to economists, and are still dwarfed by banks but their growth has accelerated since rules introduced by the country’s financial regulator last year made it harder for banks to grant loans.

There’s a few things to discuss here.

First, most of the alternative lenders are already using their own version of the stress test.  They have higher rates, say, 4.79%, and they’re qualifying borrowers at 6.79%.  Equitable Trust and Home Trust are two examples of where this stress test is already in effect.  Granted, the alternative lenders use different qualification measures, ie. when it comes to commission-based income, stated income, etc.

Second, the credit unions are provincially regulated, not federally regulated, so perhaps this article and these “sources” are aimed at credit unions.

Lastly, the idea that the government can regulate how private individuals lend their money is ridiculous.  If the owner of a $2,000,000 house, with no debt, wants to borrow $100,000, but has no job, and no income, would that home-owner have to qualify based on a mortgage stress test?  We can debate the merits of this, and the Libertarians will probably end up on the other side of the argument of the folks who work at banks, and have their hands tied.

Earlier this week, the following article appeared in the Financial Post:

“More Debt Not The Answer: Watchdog Says Contentious Mortgage Stress Test Is Safety Buffer For Banks And Borrowers”

The sub-heading reads: “answer to the rising cost of housing cannot be more debt,” and that seems like a very reasonable conclusion.

But that won’t stop those who no longer qualify for mortgages from crying foul, and as we know, the cries are getting louder and louder.

From the article:

A federal banking regulator defended on Tuesday a stress test for uninsured mortgages that has been criticized for making it harder than it should be for some Canadians to own a home.

“The stress test is, quite simply, a safety buffer that ensures a borrower doesn’t stretch their borrowing capacity to its maximum, and leave no room to absorb unforeseen events,” said Carolyn Rogers, assistant superintendent at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

“This is simply prudent. It’s prudent for the bank and it’s prudent for the borrower.”

Later in the article, we see how politics is going play a role, whether simply as a measure to buy votes, or in terms of actual change:

“The government, through the stress test, changes to the mortgage rules, carbon taxes and higher daily costs of living, is suppressing the ability of people to meet the day-to-day needs and pay for their needs,” said Conservative MP Tom Kmiec in a speech in the House of Commons on Jan. 31.

The Mortgage Professionals of Canada also chimed in, with a quote that will surprise nobody:

“Our report illustrates that a more reasonable stress test level and lending restriction reforms are now needed to strike a better balance for borrowers and policymakers, improving housing affordability and Canada’s economy,” said Paul Taylor, president and CEO of the group, in a release.

And the day after this article was posted, the good ‘ole Toronto Real Estate Board, yes, everybody’s favourite, put their two cents into the bucket.

This article by the Canadian Press was picked up in multiple news outlets:

“Toronto Real Estate Board Calls On Ottawa To Revisit Mortgage Stress Test”

No kidding?

TREB is on the “nay” side of the stress test?

Well I’ll be damned!

And here I thought they were so busy agreeing to share sold data with their membership-paying agents who want to give better customer service to their clients, that they wouldn’t have time to back a horse in this particular race.

From the article:

Canada’s largest real estate board is calling on Ottawa to revisit whether a stricter mortgage stress test introduced last year is still needed, arguing that the policy has negatively impacted the economy and Toronto’s once red-hot housing market.

“While we saw buyers return to the market in the second half of 2018, we have to have an honest discussion on whether or not today’s homebuyers are being stress tested against rates that are realistic,” said John DiMichele, chief executive of the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) in a statement Wednesday.

“Home sales in the GTA, and Canada more broadly, play a huge role in economic growth, job creation and government revenues every year. Looking through this lens, policymakers need to be aware of unintended consequences the stress test could have on the housing market and broader economy.”

I will give John DiMichele credit for that one point – that rates might not be “realistic.”

I was the one who predicted at the start of 2019 that despite rumours of interest rate increases, not only did I think rates would fail to be increased, but that I think rates will decrease.  So is a 5.79% interest rate realistic?  We’re looking at a five year horizon, so it’s unreasonable to say “Not a chance.”  But do I think we will see a 5-year, fixed rate mortgage of 5.79% in the next five years?  No.  I don’t.

Having said that, it looks suspect when the CEO of a real estate board comments on public policy that currently makes buying real estate less affordable.  I don’t know why TREB even bothered.

But that’s what TREB does, right?

When they’re not busy making optimistic predictions about the real estate market, case in point…

“Toronto Area Home Prices Predicted To Rise 4 Per Cent This Year”

I love headlines like this.

Predicted?

Who predicted?

Oh.  A bunch of real estate agents.

And last but not least, I give you today’s article in the Globe & Mail:

“Why Ottawa Must Rethink The Stress Test On Mortgage Switches”

At first glance, seeing that this article is by Rob McLister, who is the founder of Ratespy.com, and works in the mortgage industry, you might think the article is biased.  I probably wouldn’t blame you.

But Mr. McLister is arguing a different point, that of mortgage renewals, and how the stress test applies to borrowers looking to renew a mortgage, but not to those who are renewing with a new lender.

This ends up “trapping” buyers with their existing lender, and who thinks that less choice in a free market is a good thing?

From the article:

The stress test, which requires federally regulated lenders to confirm you can afford a rate that’s at least two percentage points higher, does not apply if you simply renew your mortgage with your existing lender.

As a result, lenders industry-wide have enjoyed watching their customer retention rates climb. Last October, OSFI reported that renewals surged an unusual 30 per cent as of midyear while new mortgages were down 19 per cent.

As many as 100,000 renewers every year may be at risk of not passing the stress test, based on estimates from Mortgage Professionals Canada. And when a lender suspects you can’t qualify elsewhere, it has little incentive to offer you excellent renewal rates.

Worse yet, renewers who flunk the new stress test have no ability to switch to a lender with more favourable terms (such as lower penalties or more flexible refinance privileges). Better terms often save borrowers one to three times more than even a quarter-point interest rate difference.

“A stress test when switching lenders is purely anti-consumer,” says Ron Butler, a 23-year mortgage veteran of Butler Mortgage. “It’s an abuse of Canadian mortgage holders who deserve to shop for a better rate.”

Later in the article under the heading, “A Flaw In Logic” we read:

Renewing borrowers have already been stress tested. And they’ve already proven they can make all their mortgage payments on time. Exempting the current lender from the stress test, but not a competing lender (the one with the better rate and terms), is virtually nonsensical.

The renewing lender generally doesn’t re-underwrite the mortgage. So, it has less insight into how likely the customer is to pay going forward, versus a brand-new lender that fully reviews the borrower’s income, employment, credit report, property and other expenses.

“The borrower [who renews elsewhere] will be far better underwritten than at the incumbent lender who just fired off a renewal offer after checking for arrears,” Mr. Butler states.

You have to admit, this is a lot of attention on the stress test just in the past week, and I do think that changes are coming, like it or not.

We have a federal election this year, and as we have learned in every election in recent memory, it’s not about who you are as a party, it’s about what you can promise people – whether you follow through, or not.

I suspect both the Liberals and Conservatives will promise to make housing more affordable, and reducing the mortgage stress test is the low-hanging fruit…

The post Scrap The Mortgage Stress Test: Yay Or Nay? appeared first on Toronto Realty Blog.

Originated from http://bit.ly/2DiW2MF

[howstamm-blog]

Right Angle Entertainment and A Rising Tide Theatrical Group have announced the all new national tour of GREATER TUNA.

 The hilarious hit comedy about the third smallest town in Texas where the Lion's Club is too liberal and Patsy Cline never dies, is coming back to theatres, this time with co-creator Jaston Williams sitting in the director's chair. Each performance will be followed with a Q&A.

 GREATER TUNA will play The Grand 1894 Opera House for a limited three-performance engagement on Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 3 and 8 pm; Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 3 pm. Tickets may be purchased at The Grand Box Office, 2020 Postoffice Street, by calling 409.765.1894, 800.821.1894 or online at www.thegrand.com.

 Although written and first performed over thirty years ago, the residents of Tuna could not be more up-to-date. Contemporary politicians and The Religious Right have put the basis for the comedy in GREATER TUNA back on the front pages of today's newspapers. Vera Carp is still leading the Smut Snatchers of the New Order in their campaign to clear the library shelves of dirty books like "Huckleberry Finn" and "Romeo and Juliet". Elmer Watkins speaks up for the KKK, Petey Fisk argues for animal rights, and a Celebrity Murder is on the front page. UFO Sightings? A Fat, Overbearing Talk Show Host? Celebrity Murder? It's not the cover of Time Magazine, it's GREATER TUNA and it's Hilarious!

 With its humble beginnings at a Sixth Street cabaret in Austin, Texas in 1981, GREATER TUNA came from the minds of master comedians Jaston Williams and Joe Sears, along with original director Ed Howard as the imaginative authors who parlayed the sketch into the critically acclaimed production which has entertained audiences across the country ever since.

 Co-creator Jaston Williams will direct this all new tour starring the fresh talent of Ryan Bailey, Tim Leavon and Will Mercer. Assisted by lightning-quick costume changes, the actors will portray all characters: men, women, children and animals. This multi-award winning comedy is a funny, loving portrait of rural America -- big hearts, small minds and all.

 According to Williams, "One of the things I am proudest of was Greater Tuna being named Play of the Century by Texas Monthly. Some people tend to think of the shows as an act for Joe Sears and myself, but the reality is that Greater Tuna is a seriously constructed play produced all over the country with other actors. I can say, I know these characters when I see them and I see them in this wonderful cast we have decided to work with."

 This fresh new take on GREATER TUNA reunites several of the original design team to include costumes by Broadway designer Linda Fisher and sound design by Ken Huncovsky. The creative team is rounded out with lighting design by Ovation Award winner Luke Moyer and scenic design by Michael Krauss.

 For its April return to The Grand 1894 Opera House, the Greater Tuna tour features a new cast and production. Joe Sears and Jaston Williams have "hung up their wigs, dresses, and high heels," and Jaston Williams has stepped into the role of director. Following each performance, Director Williams will lead a Q & A that's bound to be as entertaining as the show!

 For ticket prices and more information call The Grand's box office at 409.765.1894, 800.821.1894, or visit The Grand's website at www.thegrand.com. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, The Grand 1894 Opera House is located at 2020 Postoffice Street in historic downtown Galveston's Cultural Arts District and is recognized as "The Official Opera House of the State of Texas." All major credit cards accepted.

 For additional information, visit your friends in Tuna at www.TunaTouring.com, and on Facebook: www.facebook.com/greatertuna and Twitter @greatertunatour.

 ABOUT THE PRODUCTION TEAM:

 Jaston Williams (Co-Creator, Director) Jaston is known nationally as the co-author, co-star and producer of the four award-winning plays in the Greater Tuna cycle. His performances have played on and off Broadway at the Kennedy Center, the Edinburgh International Arts Festival, the Spoleto Festival U.S.A. and all over America. Jaston received the L.A. Dramalogue Award for both Greater Tuna and A Tuna Christmas. A Tuna Christmas was published in "Best Plays of 1995." For several years, he toured in Larry Shue's The Foreigner. He performed in The Fantasticks and directed the musical Bad Girls Upset By The Truth. Jaston received the Texas Governor's Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Arts by a Native Texan and has performed at the White House on three occasions. He has appeared at Austin's State Theatre in Eugene Ionesco's The Chairs and at ZACH Theatre in Jay Preston Allen's Tru, for which he received the Austin Critics Table Award for Best Actor in a drama. He has also appeared at the ZACH Theatre in Te Laramie Project, Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike and A Christmas Carol. Jaston's autobiographical play, I'm Not Lying, was the first of his five solo shows, all receiving critical acclaim in performances across the country. The others are Cowboy Noises, Camping With Gasoline, Blame it on Valentine, Texas and his latest Maid Marian in a Stolen Car. Jaston has been seen recently with friends Joe Ely, Kimmie Rhodes, Jimmie Dale Gilmore and Jo Carol Pierce in their performance piece, Is There Life After Lubbock? as well as shared the stage with Lauren Lane in his new work A Wolverine Walks into a Bar. Jaston is the recipient of the 2013 Texas Medal of the Arts and has been inducted into the West Texas Walk of Fame.

 Ken Huncovsky (Sound Designer) The National Tours of ANN - The Ann Richards Play (& Broadway), Tuna Does Vegas, A Tuna Christmas (& Broadway), REd White And Tuna, and The Foreigner. Regional credits include: The Greater Austin High School Musical Theatre Awards, A Wolverine Walks Into A Bar, Blame It On Valentine, Texas, Tru, Camping With Gasoline, Cowboy Noises, Windblown, Hillbilly Heaven, Small Town Girl, Trail of Tears, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum, The Cow Patty's, The Fantasticks, Peter Pan, The Wizard of Oz, The Chairs, and American Fiesta. Currently, Ken is the Production Supervisor at The Long Center for the Performing Arts in Austin.

 Linda Fisher (Costume Designer) created the original costumes for Greater Tuna first at Hartford Stage Company, then off-Broadway in 1982, and later for the Embassy Communications/Norman Lear Television special of Greater Tuna which aired on HBO. Her Broadway productions include A Tuna Christmas, Painting Churches, Bus Stop, Foxfire, and Morning's at Seven for which she later designed tours and the film version for CBS Cable. Other film/TV credits include Heart of Midnight, The Private History of a Campaign That Failed, and Pudd'n-head Wilson, as well as Rachel River for American Playhouse and The FinAl Verdict for TNT, the pilot for the short-lived NBC series Prince Street, and Stephen King's The Langoliers, an ABC miniseries. Ms. Fisher's other Off-Broadway credits consist of 52 productions at 19 theatres including the Manhattan Theatre Club, Playwright's Horizons, the Phoenix Theatre, The Roundabout, and American Place as well as several workshop productions for the New York Public Theatre. Regional credi

s include 132 productions at 28 theatres. A few regional theatres for which she has designed costumes are the Guthrie Theatre, Long Wharf Theatre, Arena Stage, Alaska Repertory Theatre, and the Williamstown and Berkshire Theatre Festivals. Ms. Fisher received her BFA in costume design from The University of Texas and completed her MFA from Yale University School of Drama. Union affiliations: United Scenic Artists Local 829 and Costume Designers Guild Local 892.

 Luke Moyer (Lighting Designer) Luke is the resident lighting designer for the NoHo Arts Center and Open at the Top, and his recent credits include Blame it on Valentine, Texas, Discord, The Light Bulb, One November Yankee, Red Room, Having it All Dracula (Ovation Award), Yo Ho Ho! A Pirates Christmas, East of Berlin, Departures, Pirates of Penzance, Feed, Jerusalem, Barnum, Elizabeth Rex (Ovation Award), Lizard, and the full staging of Angels In America. He is also the resident lighting designer for the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. Luke began his career at the Main Street Stage in Massachusetts where he designed PMS, Apartment 3A, Irma Vepp, and Collected Stories. He has designed many shows for The Company Rep including Six Degrees of Separation, Camino Real, Split, The Comedy of Errors, The Fantasticks, The Pension Grillparzer, Season's Greetings, Twelfth Night, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and Play Strindberg. More west coast credits include Deathtrap (Ovation Award), Shooting Star, Year Zero, Grace and Glory, All Night Strut, Celadine, A Long Christmas Ride Home, Recent Tragic Events, The Intern, The Last Pitch, Generator Girl, and Why's The Dog Howlin' Mama?

 MICHAEL KRAUSS (Scenic Designer) is a native North Carolinian and recent graduate with an MFA in Scenic Design from The University of Texas at Austin. His most recent credits include Charlotte's Web and jj's arcade at the ZACH Theatre, Suor Angelica and Gianni Schicchi at the Butler Opera Center. Prior work includes Three Decembers and At the Statue of Venus (BOC), Enter a Woman, Pretty Enough (UT), world premiere of Refugia (The Moving Company & UT), Fame! (UT), and Advance Man (UT New Theatre). He is currently working in television and film, but his first love will always be theatre.

 RIGHT ANGLE ENTERTAINMENT & A RISING TIDE THEATRICAL GROUP (Co-Producers)

 Right Angle Entertainment is a Production Company specializing in the production, management and distribution of live theatrical and concert events. RAE has worked with diverse brands and companies such as NBC, FremantleMedia, Character Arts, Lucasfilm, DreamWorks Theatrical, S2BN, Ad Astra / For the Record and Cirque du Soleil Theatricals. Co-Founders Alison Spiriti and Justin Sudds have over 35 years collective experience in presenting on the road, managing artists, producing new work and love collaborating with their partners to bring the most innovative work to life on stage.

 A Rising Tide Theatrical Group, LLC is a multi-faceted entertainment company founded in 2013 by Denton Yockey and Scott Galbraith who, together, have 70 years' experience in both non-profit and commercial theater. Inspired by the adage "a rising tide lifts all boats," A Rising Tide (ART) exists to lift audiences, artists, and producers alike. Most recently, ART aided the world premiere of the new musical Idaho! at The Smith Center in Las Vegas. Galbraith's career has included producing, presenting, venue operations, marketing, directing, and acting, and he was recently called upon to train emerging arts leaders in China. Yockey, whose background also includes acting, directing, teaching, and producing plays, musicals and children's theatre has run four not-for-profit theatres and overseen more than 300 productions.

 ABOUT THE CAST:

 RYAN H. BAILEY, a native of Park Forest, IL, has been living in Texas since 1996, and currently resides in Fredericksburg, TX with his wife Tommie and daughter Rachel. He has been acting since his first year of college in 1994 at Lewis University near Joliet, IL, when as a student merely working in the theater scene shop, got caught playing the piano backstage one day and was asked to read for the younger lead role of Buddy in The Diviners, and he has been hooked ever since. Ryan has had no formal training, and since moving to Texas, he has performed in around three dozen community Theater Productions throughout the Hill Country area. Some favorite roles include Camille Chandebise in A Flea in her Ear, Max in Lend Me A Tenor, Smee in Peter Pan, Rapunzel's Prince in Into the Woods, Pharoah in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Feste in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, Sancho in Man of La Mancha, Mortimer Brewster in Arsenic and Old Lace, Pseudolus in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To The Forum, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Amadeus, and most recently Garry Lejuene in Noises Off! Ryan has also played a variety of the roles originated by Jaston Williams in two separate productions each of Greater Tuna and A Tuna Christmas, the most recent ones being produced in 2015 at the Fredericksburg Theater Company. Additionally, Ryan enjoys nature photography, woodworking, playing piano, drawing, model building (basically anything artistic), and multiple other aspects of theater, including directing, light and set design/construction, musical direction, and original music composition for plays. Ryan is currently employed as a surgical technician at Hill Country Memorial Hospital in Fredericksburg, TX.

 TIM LEAVON is an American artist better known for his work as a stage and film actor. He first burst onto the stage as the Mischievous Monkey in his 2nd grade production of The Mighty Circus and has been essentially reprising that role ever since. After being unceremoniously removed from his high school theatre program and leaving The University of Montevallo without a BA in theatre, Tim found a home in the bustling theatre community of Birmingham, Alabama where he first appeared in Equus at Theatre Downtown, winning the award for Best Actor by the Hobo Awards for his role as Alan. He then went on to fortuitously appear in productions of Greater Tuna and Tuna Does Vegas at Terrific New Theatre under the legendary Carl W Stewart. He spent a year touring as a lead cast member with Birmingham Children's Theatre Company. Tim is also a cast member of Birmingham's premiere improv comedy group Ugly Baby with whom he has appeared at the Del Close Marathon in New York and the Spontaneous Combustion festival in Atlanta. He was also featured with Ugly Baby as one of 3 'Funniest People in Birmingham' in B-Metro Magazine. He then moved to Los Angeles to study the film industry, appearing as lead in films Roomies, Shepard, You Have Arrived, and Halloween Hell House. He can also be seen as lead in the web series Web-Camelot and L.A. Nites. He completed improvisational and character training at UCB West and Groundlings Theatre and has since returned to Alabama as their Native Son to start his Production Company Cool Beans who's first projects include We Are Frogs Now and Courtin' Carl.

 Will Mercer grew up in Wimberley, TX, playing the piano and singing in church. As a High School student, Will was an active member of the Speech and Debate team, competing at the State and National level. Will attended Texas State University where he earned a BA and MA in Communication Studies. After college, Will spent 25 years in corporate America serving in leadership positions in the areas of Training and Development, Change Management, and Leadership Development. He now works for himself as an Organizational Development Consultant and Software Developer focusing on small and mid-size business. In addition, Will has taught in the Communication Studies department at Texas State University as an Adjunct Instructor for 28 years. Will was honored to receive the Outstanding Alumni Award from the department in 2009. Will has been performing in the vibrant Central Texas community theatre scene for many years. Some of his favorite roles include Wardell in Sordid Lives, Inspector Kemp in Young Frankenstein the Musical, and Clifton in Who's in Bed with the Butler. In 2015, Will had the opportunity to tackle Greater Tuna. Will ?rst met these characters in 1985 as an audience member at the Paramount Theatre in Austin, TX. It was the ?rst live, professional theater he had experienced. Needless to say, he fell in love with the theatre and the show. Playing Thurston, Elmer, Bertha, Yippy, Leonard, Pearl, R.R., Rev. Spikes, Sheriff Givens, and Hank resulted in Will receiving the 2015 Best Leading Actor in a Play (Comedy) from BroadwayWorld Austin. Will currently resides in Austin, TX, with his husband of 3 years. Will has two grown children who also live in Austin. He enjoys cooking, coffee, and making great theatre!

[rebeccahpedersen]

Scrap The Mortgage Stress Test: Yay Or Nay?

TorontoRealtyBlog

We briefly discussed this two weeks ago when I posted my angry rant about the Liberal government’s attempt to buy votes in the coming election.

One thing the government could do, to make housing more affordable, is eliminate, or alter, the mortgage stress test that was brought into effect in 2017.

Many of the readers suggested the mere presence of the test itself is useless, unnecessary, and/or unfair.

Others suggested that it’s a fantastic idea, especially in a climate of rising debt levels, and some went on to talk about abolishing the CMHC, which always comes up when we talk about anything debt-related.

There is so much to talk about today, I almost don’t know where to start.  I’m going to share four articles with you, chronologically, which explain where this is all going, and where the “yay” and “nay” sides stand.

First, for those that don’t know – what is the mortgage stress test?

It’s an initiative from the Bank of Canada to promote financial responsibility among mortgage borrowers, effectively ensuring that all borrowers can afford higher payments at some point down the line.  It’s a real-life “what-if” scenario being used in the qualification process.

The “test” portion of the term essentially comes from the fact that borrowers are all being tested against rates are 2% higher than prevailing rates, to see if they’d pass.

So if a 5-year, fixed rate mortgage is currently 3.29%, the Bank of Canada wants that borrower to be able to afford the same mortgage at 5.29%.  The BOC wants the borrower to qualify, “pass the test,” and ultimately be safe in an environment of rising rates.

An optimist would argue that being financially responsible is never a bad thing, and since the government protects us from ourselves all the time, by making it illegal not to wear seat-belts in cars, they’re protecting us from ourselves when it comes to home-buying by ensuring we can afford to pay our mortgages if and when rates rise.

A pessimist would argue that it’s not up to the government to address how or when we save for the proverbial rainy-day, and that the stress test has the greatest impact on those who are already clinging to the bottom rung of the housing market.  Foreign buyers, cash buyers, and high-end buyers are all unaffected.

In the end, I’m sure the votes will be split 50/50 on this one.  My personal opinion is that a 1% stress test would bridge the gap between two arguments, both with merit.

Two weeks ago, this article appeared in the National Post:

“Canada Considers Applying Mortgage Tress Test Rules To Private Lenders, Sources Say”

From the article:

Canada is considering subjecting private lenders to the same mortgage stress test rules faced by banks to prevent housing markets from being destabilized by the lenders’ rapid growth, three sources with direct knowledge of the matter said.

Officials from the country’s finance ministry, financial regulator, central bank and federal housing agency have discussed whether the private lenders’ expansion over the past year poses a threat to economic stability, said the sources, who declined to be named because the talks are confidential.

Private lenders, usually groups of wealthy individuals, currently account for around one-tenth of Canada’s $1.5 trillion mortgage market, according to economists, and are still dwarfed by banks but their growth has accelerated since rules introduced by the country’s financial regulator last year made it harder for banks to grant loans.

There’s a few things to discuss here.

First, most of the alternative lenders are already using their own version of the stress test.  They have higher rates, say, 4.79%, and they’re qualifying borrowers at 6.79%.  Equitable Trust and Home Trust are two examples of where this stress test is already in effect.  Granted, the alternative lenders use different qualification measures, ie. when it comes to commission-based income, stated income, etc.

Second, the credit unions are provincially regulated, not federally regulated, so perhaps this article and these “sources” are aimed at credit unions.

Lastly, the idea that the government can regulate how private individuals lend their money is ridiculous.  If the owner of a $2,000,000 house, with no debt, wants to borrow $100,000, but has no job, and no income, would that home-owner have to qualify based on a mortgage stress test?  We can debate the merits of this, and the Libertarians will probably end up on the other side of the argument of the folks who work at banks, and have their hands tied.

Earlier this week, the following article appeared in the Financial Post:

“More Debt Not The Answer: Watchdog Says Contentious Mortgage Stress Test Is Safety Buffer For Banks And Borrowers”

The sub-heading reads: “answer to the rising cost of housing cannot be more debt,” and that seems like a very reasonable conclusion.

But that won’t stop those who no longer qualify for mortgages from crying foul, and as we know, the cries are getting louder and louder.

From the article:

A federal banking regulator defended on Tuesday a stress test for uninsured mortgages that has been criticized for making it harder than it should be for some Canadians to own a home.

“The stress test is, quite simply, a safety buffer that ensures a borrower doesn’t stretch their borrowing capacity to its maximum, and leave no room to absorb unforeseen events,” said Carolyn Rogers, assistant superintendent at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

“This is simply prudent. It’s prudent for the bank and it’s prudent for the borrower.”

Later in the article, we see how politics is going play a role, whether simply as a measure to buy votes, or in terms of actual change:

“The government, through the stress test, changes to the mortgage rules, carbon taxes and higher daily costs of living, is suppressing the ability of people to meet the day-to-day needs and pay for their needs,” said Conservative MP Tom Kmiec in a speech in the House of Commons on Jan. 31.

The Mortgage Professionals of Canada also chimed in, with a quote that will surprise nobody:

“Our report illustrates that a more reasonable stress test level and lending restriction reforms are now needed to strike a better balance for borrowers and policymakers, improving housing affordability and Canada’s economy,” said Paul Taylor, president and CEO of the group, in a release.

And the day after this article was posted, the good ‘ole Toronto Real Estate Board, yes, everybody’s favourite, put their two cents into the bucket.

This article by the Canadian Press was picked up in multiple news outlets:

“Toronto Real Estate Board Calls On Ottawa To Revisit Mortgage Stress Test”

No kidding?

TREB is on the “nay” side of the stress test?

Well I’ll be damned!

And here I thought they were so busy agreeing to share sold data with their membership-paying agents who want to give better customer service to their clients, that they wouldn’t have time to back a horse in this particular race.

From the article:

Canada’s largest real estate board is calling on Ottawa to revisit whether a stricter mortgage stress test introduced last year is still needed, arguing that the policy has negatively impacted the economy and Toronto’s once red-hot housing market.

“While we saw buyers return to the market in the second half of 2018, we have to have an honest discussion on whether or not today’s homebuyers are being stress tested against rates that are realistic,” said John DiMichele, chief executive of the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) in a statement Wednesday.

“Home sales in the GTA, and Canada more broadly, play a huge role in economic growth, job creation and government revenues every year. Looking through this lens, policymakers need to be aware of unintended consequences the stress test could have on the housing market and broader economy.”

I will give John DiMichele credit for that one point – that rates might not be “realistic.”

I was the one who predicted at the start of 2019 that despite rumours of interest rate increases, not only did I think rates would fail to be increased, but that I think rates will decrease.  So is a 5.79% interest rate realistic?  We’re looking at a five year horizon, so it’s unreasonable to say “Not a chance.”  But do I think we will see a 5-year, fixed rate mortgage of 5.79% in the next five years?  No.  I don’t.

Having said that, it looks suspect when the CEO of a real estate board comments on public policy that currently makes buying real estate less affordable.  I don’t know why TREB even bothered.

But that’s what TREB does, right?

When they’re not busy making optimistic predictions about the real estate market, case in point…

“Toronto Area Home Prices Predicted To Rise 4 Per Cent This Year”

I love headlines like this.

Predicted?

Who predicted?

Oh.  A bunch of real estate agents.

And last but not least, I give you today’s article in the Globe & Mail:

“Why Ottawa Must Rethink The Stress Test On Mortgage Switches”

At first glance, seeing that this article is by Rob McLister, who is the founder of Ratespy.com, and works in the mortgage industry, you might think the article is biased.  I probably wouldn’t blame you.

But Mr. McLister is arguing a different point, that of mortgage renewals, and how the stress test applies to borrowers looking to renew a mortgage, but not to those who are renewing with a new lender.

This ends up “trapping” buyers with their existing lender, and who thinks that less choice in a free market is a good thing?

From the article:

The stress test, which requires federally regulated lenders to confirm you can afford a rate that’s at least two percentage points higher, does not apply if you simply renew your mortgage with your existing lender.

As a result, lenders industry-wide have enjoyed watching their customer retention rates climb. Last October, OSFI reported that renewals surged an unusual 30 per cent as of midyear while new mortgages were down 19 per cent.

As many as 100,000 renewers every year may be at risk of not passing the stress test, based on estimates from Mortgage Professionals Canada. And when a lender suspects you can’t qualify elsewhere, it has little incentive to offer you excellent renewal rates.

Worse yet, renewers who flunk the new stress test have no ability to switch to a lender with more favourable terms (such as lower penalties or more flexible refinance privileges). Better terms often save borrowers one to three times more than even a quarter-point interest rate difference.

“A stress test when switching lenders is purely anti-consumer,” says Ron Butler, a 23-year mortgage veteran of Butler Mortgage. “It’s an abuse of Canadian mortgage holders who deserve to shop for a better rate.”

Later in the article under the heading, “A Flaw In Logic” we read:

Renewing borrowers have already been stress tested. And they’ve already proven they can make all their mortgage payments on time. Exempting the current lender from the stress test, but not a competing lender (the one with the better rate and terms), is virtually nonsensical.

The renewing lender generally doesn’t re-underwrite the mortgage. So, it has less insight into how likely the customer is to pay going forward, versus a brand-new lender that fully reviews the borrower’s income, employment, credit report, property and other expenses.

“The borrower [who renews elsewhere] will be far better underwritten than at the incumbent lender who just fired off a renewal offer after checking for arrears,” Mr. Butler states.

You have to admit, this is a lot of attention on the stress test just in the past week, and I do think that changes are coming, like it or not.

We have a federal election this year, and as we have learned in every election in recent memory, it’s not about who you are as a party, it’s about what you can promise people – whether you follow through, or not.

I suspect both the Liberals and Conservatives will promise to make housing more affordable, and reducing the mortgage stress test is the low-hanging fruit…

The post Scrap The Mortgage Stress Test: Yay Or Nay? appeared first on Toronto Realty Blog.

Originated from http://bit.ly/2DiW2MF