A colleague I’ll call Andy came up against a curious barrier to deducting mortgage interest on a rental property. Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) likes to see a straight line between the mortgage lump sum and the purchase of the property that will generate rental income. Unfortunately, it seems that Andy cannot easily draw a line that would satisfy CRA. Andy owns a small home free and clear. He plans to move to a new larger home soon. He had hoped to rent out his old home to make some rental income. His plan had been to take out a mortgage on the old home and use this money to reduce the size of the mortgage on his new home. A side benefit Andy hoped for was using the interest on the mortgage on the old house once it becomes a rental property as a deduction against the rental income. Unfortunately, CRA won’t allow this. From CRA’s point of view, the borrowed money wouldn’t be used to purchase an investment, but would be used to buy Andy’s new home. The following Q and A on page...
As a shareholder in BMO I hope they recover some of this lost money! Thanks for the mention, have a pleasant weekend.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Michael - I think balance protection insurance is big business for the lenders...
ReplyDeleteHave a great weekend.
@CC: Something I was wondering about is whether stock prices tend to adjust for currency swings. If the Canadian dollar drops suddenly, will the price of a large Canadian company that operates multinationally go up (in Canadian dollars) as a result to compensate for the fact that some of its revenues are in other currencies? If so, it isn't correct to just add stock volatility to currency volatility to get overall volatility of unhedged portfolios.
ReplyDeleteThe comment above is a reply to Canadian Capitalist's comment below. His subsequent reply is further below.
Delete-----
Thanks for the mention Michael. I'll have to think through the analysis but I'm sure of one thing: the delta between S&P 500 and S&P 500 CAD Hedged returns leads me to conclude that currency hedging has significant costs.
-----
@Michael: I'm writing about this on Monday. AB's two assumptions are flawed:
1. The risk of unhedged dollar returns is less than the sum of risk of local market returns and currency risks. Often risks of unhedged portfolio returns was less than risk of local market returns due to negative correlation with exchange rate changes.
2. A minor point. SD of C$ against the USD was 4.6 over the 1900-2000 period and 4.2 over the 1950-2000 period.
Data from Triumph of the Optimists. Post on this on Monday.
Have a great weekend.