COVID-19: Second Wave Brings Uncertainty on Household Debt
Done!
Share via
Link copied
Share via
Link copied
Share via Email
Share via Email
Done!
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the household debt picture, at least for the time being. The debt-to-income ratio is a key indicator of debt as a vulnerability of the financial and housing sectors.
The household debt-to-income ratio decreased in all major Canadian metropolitan areas between April and June. Under normal circumstances, such a decline would signal a general improvement in households’ ability to pay off debt. Indeed, temporary government transfers effectively supported income losses. This most likely helped with reducing outstanding non-mortgage debt during those months. However, the mortgage part of household debt has increased in most metropolitan areas while employment has contracted.
Since entering the second wave, there has been great uncertainty regarding households’ ability to continue servicing their growing mortgage debt. It is crucial to study the dynamics of household debt, income and savings in Canada. This will allow for the assessment of the potential risk of rising delinquencies on mortgages and other credit products,
Key Findings in Canada
Q2 household debt is 17% down from the Q1 at 158% of disposable income
debt-to-income ratio had not significantly deviated from 175% since 2016 (see figure 1)
debt-to-income ratio for mortgage debt was also down, falling from 115% to 105%
debt-to-income ratio decline was a direct result of an increase in household disposable income (the level of outstanding debt was largely unchanged)
on average, disposable income grew by nearly 11% between the Q1 and Q2 of 2020 and by 15% year over year (this important income surge reduced the household debt-to-income ratio to a level last seen in 2010)
Household debt well supported by a temporary income surge
Figure 1 — Canadian debt-to-income ratio declined to levels not seen since 2010
Canada: Household debt-to-disposable income ratio (%, SA, 1990 – 2020)
Reference period
Total debt
Mortgage debt
Q1 1990
86.85
56.42
Q1 1991
88.76
58.44
Q1 1992
93.05
62.38
Q1 1993
93.18
63.56
Q1 1994
95.43
65.06
Q1 1995
97.69
66.53
Q1 1996
99.97
67.08
Q1 1997
102.98
68.09
Q1 1998
106.19
68.78
Q1 1999
107.69
68.81
Q1 2000
109.73
68.93
Q1 2001
106.07
65.57
Q1 2002
109.81
67.85
Q1 2003
113.18
70.02
Q1 2004
120.88
74.16
Q1 2005
130.39
79.01
Q1 2006
133.4
81.33
Q1 2007
138.38
84.33
Q1 2008
148.99
91.65
Q1 2009
155.49
95.91
Q1 2010
157.34
97.43
Q1 2011
161.27
100.68
Q1 2012
163.43
103.65
Q1 2013
163.31
104.17
Q1 2014
165.24
106.06
Q1 2015
164.58
106.22
Q1 2016
175.76
114.38
Q1 2017
178.52
116.76
Q1 2018
176.73
115.52
Q1 2019
176.7
115.07
Q1 2020
175.37
115.08
The boost in disposable income can be explained by the government’s assistance programs that supplemented Canadian’s incomes during the quarter. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit program contributed to an increase of approximately $50 billion1 in household income by June 30th. This equals roughly 13% of households’ primary income during the same period. In fact, households’ primary income decreased by a seasonally adjusted 7.4% in Q2 of 2020 (relative Q1). This was before accounting for all the current transfers received from the government, corporations and non-profit institutions
We can suppose the Canadian debt-to-income ratio would have seen a slight increase without the COVID-19-related income support.
Household debt-to-income in major CMAs: different versions of the same story
The situation in metropolitan areas mirrors that at the national level. The debt-to-income ratios in all major census metropolitan areas were significantly lower in Q2 of 2020. This is compared to the same period in previous years and for both mortgage and non-mortgage debt (see figure 2).
Key Findings in Census Metropolitan Areas
Compared to Q1 of 2020, the debt-to-income ratios saw the largest declines in Vancouver, Victoria, Regina and Montreal. All 3 cities were all down by over 20 percentage points. These markets were also among the ones exhibiting high disposable income growth in Q2 (see figure 3).
Calgary and Edmonton had the smallest declines in their debt-to-income ratios among all major census metropolitan areas. This was true for both mortgage and non-mortgage debt.
In Alberta, low oil prices and the COVID-19 lockdown reduced the average household primary income by over 7% from April to June. This is excluding government transfers.
Despite these generalized declines in debt relative to income, Vancouver and Toronto’s debt-to-income ratios, at 210% and 203%, respectively, remained way above the Canadian average of 158%. These differences were almost entirely due to the elevated mortgage debt. The mortgage debt-to-income ratios stood at over 140% in Vancouver and Toronto. These levels were materially higher than the Canadian average of 105%. Moreover, these large mortgage markets continued to see growth in mortgage debt in the second quarter.
Figure 2 — All major CMAs observed meaningful declines in debt-to-income ratios in the second quarter of 2020
Sources: Equifax, Statistics Canada, Conference Board of Canada, CMHC calculations.
Figure 2 — All major CMAs observed meaningful declines in debt-to-income ratios in the second quarter of 2020
Mortgage — Household debt-to-income ratio (%)
2017 Q2
2018 Q2
2019 Q2
2020 Q2
Calgary
130.47
127.00
120.98
112.55
Canada
115.54
115.25
114.30
105.31
Edmonton
113.89
110.34
111.12
105.06
Halifax
100.41
97.23
92.21
82.22
Hamilton
116.92
121.65
122.06
112.88
Montréal
109.48
107.08
106.31
95.15
Ottawa-Gatineau
108.41
102.69
100.23
90.03
Québec
88.22
85.81
85.68
77.58
Regina
115.64
120.70
114.91
100.42
Saskatoon
107.37
112.97
107.81
91.60
Toronto
145.23
149.06
148.24
141.05
Vancouver
170.59
174.72
168.17
152.84
Victoria
124.41
128.68
125.71
109.61
Winnipeg
90.86
90.52
89.11
77.91
Non-mortgage — Household debt-to-income ratio (%)
2017 Q2
2018 Q2
2019 Q2
2020 Q2
Calgary
61.40
62.52
61.25
55.95
Canada
61.32
61.66
61.20
52.89
Edmonton
61.66
61.72
62.94
57.86
Halifax
69.51
66.94
63.98
54.25
Hamilton
60.28
63.30
63.97
54.16
Montréal
56.24
56.58
55.14
45.77
Ottawa-Gatineau
56.90
56.27
55.93
46.84
Québec
52.63
52.31
51.74
43.85
Regina
56.23
58.00
55.60
47.85
Saskatoon
57.72
58.64
56.69
47.32
Toronto
65.52
68.71
69.61
61.48
Vancouver
65.40
68.46
66.75
57.25
Victoria
52.32
52.40
51.32
41.76
Winnipeg
50.31
49.83
48.18
39.56
Figure 3 — Higher income increases drive DTI ratios down (2020Q1 – 2020Q2)
Note: The size of the bubbles represents the number of credit consumers. Green bubbles represent CMAs with the largest declines in DTI ratios. Sources: Equifax, Statistics Canada, CMHC calculations.
Figure 3 — Higher income increases drive DTI ratios down (2020 Q1 – 2020 Q2)
Disposable income growth (2020 Q1 – 2020 Q2)
Change in debt-to-income ratio (percentage points)
Calgary
7%
-13.62
Edmonton
8%
-14.19
Halifax
13%
-18.26
Hamilton
11%
-17.44
Montréal
14%
-20.10
Ottawa-Gatineau
12%
-17.56
Québec
13%
-15.86
Regina
13%
-20.54
Saskatoon
12%
-19.16
Toronto
9%
-16.35
Vancouver
12%
-24.37
Victoria
14%
-21.02
Winnipeg
13%
-16.41
Excess household savings offer a sizable financial buffer, while uncertainty remains
This temporary increase in income has allowed households to build up their savings. Because of a cutback in spending, the household net savings rate jumped to 28.2% (figure 4). To put this number in context, the average savings rate is 3.7% since the global financial crisis. Households across Canada saved close to $100 billion during Q2 of 2020,2 around 10 times the pre-COVID-19 level. The excess savings resulting from government transfers and less spending could provide households a sizable financial buffer going into Q3.
Figure 4 — Household net savings saw a spike in the second quarter because of an increase in income and a cutback in spending
Figure 4 — Household net savings saw a spike in the second quarter because of an increase in income and a cutback in spending
Household income and expenditure ($B)
Primary household income less current transfers paid (LS)
Government transfers (LS)
All other transfers (LS)
Household saving rate (%, RS)
Less: Household final consumption expenditure (LS)
Less: Change in pension entitlements (LS)
Q1 2000
431
98
35
4.6
-575.54
-37.58
Q3 2000
455
95
37
4.7
-595.83
-37.23
Q1 2001
469
104
42
6.5
-606.38
-31.97
Q3 2001
473
101
45
4.8
-616.47
-27.38
Q1 2002
489
104
42
5.2
-634.58
-33.05
Q3 2002
500
105
43
2.7
-656.67
-26.82
Q1 2003
511
107
45
2.5
-672.94
-26.18
Q3 2003
509
109
44
1.2
-687.10
-33.42
Q1 2004
520
111
47
1.8
-700.76
-34.89
Q3 2004
542
112
49
2.6
-717.07
-33.03
Q1 2005
542
113
49
0.4
-738.36
-36.99
Q3 2005
559
118
48
2.1
-757.54
-48.11
Q1 2006
574
131
56
3.1
-779.14
-42.48
Q3 2006
599
126
57
2.8
-799.50
-40.40
Q1 2007
625
128
59
4.5
-821.21
-45.70
Q3 2007
616
138
61
1.3
-846.58
-42.75
Q1 2008
636
148
60
2.5
-873.30
-50.36
Q3 2008
670
142
62
3.1
-888.47
-41.09
Q1 2009
658
148
64
4.6
-866.32
-36.30
Q3 2009
669
157
65
4.8
-886.43
-38.49
Q1 2010
699
158
69
5.4
-911.51
-36.36
Q3 2010
697
160
71
3.8
-930.73
-37.65
Q1 2011
718
162
71
4.5
-952.56
-45.13
Q3 2011
726
164
73
4.3
-970.66
-49.12
Q1 2012
744
168
78
4.7
-989.67
-46.91
Q3 2012
761
168
79
5.4
-1000.46
-47.80
Q1 2013
780
174
82
5.8
-1021.02
-44.56
Q3 2013
790
176
82
4.8
-1044.83
-46.68
Q1 2014
804
176
87
4.3
-1065.68
-43.62
Q3 2014
823
180
88
3.8
-1093.19
-43.60
Q1 2015
842
189
92
5.6
-1105.26
-44.20
Q3 2015
844
193
99
4.1
-1129.57
-41.65
Q1 2016
813
196
102
0.9
-1141.18
-40.89
Q3 2016
829
205
106
2.3
-1156.13
-42.98
Q1 2017
837
210
107
0.7
-1187.04
-41.48
Q3 2017
884
214
107
3.1
-1212.88
-44.66
Q1 2018
894
217
109
2
-1241.28
-45.40
Q3 2018
900
223
113
1.3
-1262.96
-43.28
Q1 2019
921
229
115
2.3
-1279.84
-43.23
Q3 2019
947
231
117
3
-1301.22
-45.97
Q1 2020
953
254
123
7.6
-1274.72
-45.72
The higher savings rate could be a sign of increasing concerns among households about the economic recovery and income prospects. Part of the reduced spending is due to consumers’ inability to spend, for example, business closures and mobility restrictions. This is especially the case for expenditure on services. This historically high savings rate is also a result of consumers’ unwillingness to spend as a response to future uncertainties. Restrictions will wear off once the epidemiological situation gets better , whereas uncertainty will likely to linger for longer and dampen consumer demand in the longer term.
As of Q2, we have not yet seen a drastic change in household debt levels. However, with increasing uncertainties, the lack of demand could affect the speed of economic recovery and hence change the household debt and income picture over the coming months.
About CMHC Analytical Briefs
This analysis is part of our new series covering various research topics. We’ll tell you about the latest housing trends, patterns and symptoms in the data when you need it. You can use the information to influence decision-making to accelerate affordability.