CanadianGunNutz.com logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 81

Thread: Firearms Financing.

  1. #21
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The GTA
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by veygas View Post
    Nntw, its only a matter of time:


    http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/cred...rticle/2536417


    Also, if tactical offers zero % over three months no credit card offers this. Even at 6 months their rate beats most cards.
    yowza!!!

    i'm a big advocate of credit cards that give me points/rebates.... and firearms are usually expensive enough that they give me lots of points.

    so this is a disturbing trend.

    but getting back to the 3 months issue... i was under the impression that tac cap charged an admin fee of at least $25.... so you've got to consider that as a cost.

    if you're buying a ruger 10/22, it becomes a significant % of the transaction.- almost 10%

    if you're buying the 50 cal sniper rifle you always dreamed of- and paying it off in 3 months, then it's probably a BRILLIANT move to finance it.

    everyone's needs,etc, are different... but i guess i feel like it's bad that tac cap's encouraging people to finance DISCRETIONARY purchases. you can argue that you need a way to get around (car), a place to live (home).... but to finance a hobby at 9.98 or 14.99%? i dunno... i feel in some ways it's taking advantage of people.

    but, it's a free country.... mostly...

  2. #22
    CGN Regular Thislilfishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    284
    This is bad....very very bad....hmm...think I am going to go browse their inventory now...you never know...might have something I'd like over there.


    Ian

  3. #23
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The GTA
    Posts
    4,799

    Debt by numbers: Troubling trends in Canadian consumer spending- dated Aug. 29 2013

    ht tp://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/debt-by-numbers-troubling-trends-in-consumer-spending/article14017219/

    Canadians are borrowing more, piling on consumer debt – credit cards, conventional bank loans, car loans and lines of credit. Numbers released this week show a number of troubling trends, from the consequences of low interest rates to why seniors are owing more.

    This is uncharted territory. And experts still aren’t sure about the long-term consequences of interest rates that drop to record low levels, and then stay there indefinitely.

    One obvious outcome is that people borrow more – a lot more.

    In spite of generally tighter lending standards and badgering by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Canadians are still piling on debt, according to a quarterly report released Wednesday by credit bureau TransUnion. The average Canadian was carrying $27,131 in debt in the second quarter, up $200 from the January-to-March period.

    Perhaps most shockingly, the figure excludes mortgage debt, which accounts for the lion’s share of household debt in Canada. We are talking strictly credit cards, lines of credit, auto loans and conventional bank loans.


    There was evidence earlier this year that Canadians’ appetite for debt was waning. That apparently isn’t happening. TransUnion now says it expects debt levels to continue to rise through the rest of this year, eventually reaching a new record high of nearly $28,000 by the end of this year.

    And that’s in spite of the fact that borrowing rates have begun to creep up in recent months.

    •$27,131: Consumer debt – not including mortgage debt – held by the average Canadian, according to TransUnion
    •3.47 per cent: Increase over 2012
    THERE ARE HUGE REGIONAL DISCREPANCIES

    Debt levels are rising right across the country, but from vastly different bases.

    The farther west you live in Canada, the more likely you are to have big debts, according to TransUnion.

    British Columbians had the highest level of consumer debt in the second quarter at $38,672. Albertans were second at $36,150, and are now adding to their debts at the fastest rate in the country.

    Quebeckers, on the other hand, are much less likely to borrow to fuel their spending. The average level of consumer debt in Quebec is $19,455, or slightly more than half of what British Columbians have.

    •7.7 per cent: Increase in average consumer debt in Alberta over 2012, according to TransUnion
    •1.84 per cent: Increase in Ontario
    DEBTS RISE, BUT DELINQUENCIES FALL

    This ought to be good news. Reports this week by TransUnion and Equifax Canada show that delinquencies rates on all types of loans are flat or declining.

    That suggests that for now, at least, consumers are comfortably managing to handle interest charges on all that debt.

    The key here is “for now.” Interest rates have started to creep up, and that means that Canadians will have to pay more just to carry the same level of debt.

    Stable house prices and a decent job market also help underpin borrowing.

    The higher the rates go, the more Canadians will wind up falling behind on payments and getting into default trouble. Most lenders stress-test their loan portfolios to determine what customers will encounter trouble and at what interest levels.

    So low delinquency rates are really a reflection of record low interest rates. When consumers borrow money at low rates, they’re less likely to run into trouble.

    Of course, the opposite is also true.

    •0.8 per cent: Increase in average credit card debt over 2012, according to TransUnion
    •2.73 per cent: Increase in average line of credit debt
    •5.52 per cent: Increase in average instalment loan debt
    •3.38 per cent: Increase in average auto loan debt
    SENIORS’ DEBT IS ON THE RISE

    Consumers 65 and older are increasing their debt faster than any other age group in the past year.

    Seniors, who typically should be drawing on savings in retirement, are instead borrowing to support lifestyles they otherwise can’t afford. Some may also be borrowing to support both grown children and elderly parents.

    This phenomenon is another consequence of the low-for-long phenomenon. With interest rates low, so are returns on the typical interest-bearing investments that many seniors depend on.

    Many are apparently turning to debt to make up the gap.

    •6.5 per cent: Increase in average debt for consumers aged 65 and over, according to Equifax

  4. #24
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The GTA
    Posts
    4,799

    statscan info on debt

    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-.../11636-eng.htm

    Many Canadians use debt to finance the purchase of a new home, acquire goods and services, or invest in education. In recent years, both mortgage debt and consumer debt have increased significantly (Chawla 2011). In 1980, the ratio of household debt to personal disposable income was 66%; that ratio recently passed the 150% figure (Statistics Canada 2011). This means that, in aggregate, households owed more than $1.50 for every dollar of disposable income. Household debt is therefore an increasingly important component of the finances of many Canadian families.
    Although estimates of household debt are produced on a regular basis at the aggregate level, less is known about the individual characteristics of borrowers. The Survey of Financial Security (SFS), last conducted in 2005 (and prior to that, in 1999), is one of the primary sources of information on household finances. Correspondingly, studies examining the characteristics of Canadian borrowers are relatively rare (Brighton and Connidis 1982; Schwartz 1999).

    The 2009 Canadian Financial Capability Survey (CFCS), supported by the Department of Finance Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, was conducted to assess the financial knowledge, saving patterns and credit use of Canadians. It included questions on the assets and debts of survey respondents (see Data source and definitions). The CFCS is the most current source of data on the characteristics of Canadian borrowers collected by Statistics Canada.

    One aim of the survey was to collect information on financial literacy. The Task Force on Financial Literacy defined financial literacy as having the knowledge, skills and confidence to make responsible financial decisions (Department of Finance Canada 2010).1 In the CFCS, financial literacy was measured by 14 multiple-choice questions related to inflation and interest rates, credit reports and credit ratings, stocks and risk, insurance, taxation, debts and loans, and banking fees. These questions covered a wide range of financial topics and concepts indicative of financial literacy rather than just numerical ability. Importantly, “do not know” was always an option so respondents were not required to come up with an answer.

    Given its focus on financial literacy, the CFCS can be used to examine whether the presence or amount of debt is correlated with financial knowledge—a new contribution to the Canadian literature on household debt.

    This paper begins by examining the characteristics of debtors, focusing on two questions. Are debtors more likely to be found in certain types of households? Which households accumulate larger amounts of debt? The article then investigates whether debts are associated with the level of financial knowledge or indicators of financial attitudes. It also examines whether the relationships between debt and financial capability persist when other characteristics like income and educational attainment are taken into account.

    Debt is the outcome of a contract between lenders and borrowers. Lending institutions will consider many factors in reviewing the loan applications of potential borrowers that affect both the incidence and level of debt. Such factors may include the level and stability of the applicant’s income, his or her current debt load, collateral assets, and the market value of mortgaged properties, among others. Thus the level of outstanding debt is not just a function of borrowers’ demands but also the lenders’ assessment of borrowers’ ability to repay or provide sufficient collateral assets.


    Top of Page Who are the borrowers?
    In the CFCS, household debt is defined as mortgage debt on all residences and real estate, and consumer debt (including debt outstanding on credit cards, personal and home equity lines of credit, secured and unsecured loans from banks and other institutions, and unpaid bills). Of those who answered the debt questions, two-thirds said that they held at least one type of debt. In 2009, borrowers had an average of $114,400 per debtor2 (Table 1).

    Consistent with the life-cycle theory (Modigliani and Brumberg 1954; Friedman 1957; Browning and Crossley 2001), younger people and parents with children at home were more likely to hold debt. Individuals under 45 made up 45% of the population, but 54% of borrowers. Similarly, married people with children accounted for 30% of the overall population, but 39% of debtors. They were also more likely to have higher levels of debt. Couples with children held one-half of all household debt, with an average debt of $144,600, higher than the overall average of $114,400. Similarly, individuals under 45 held 61% of household debt, $129,200 on average.

    Higher income was associated with an increased probability of holding debt and a higher debt load. Individuals who had a household income of at least $100,000 represented 31% of the population but 37% of those with debt. Moreover, individuals with higher household incomes had more debt, likely due to their greater debt-carrying capacity.3 The total amount of household debt was particularly concentrated among those with at least $100,000 in household income as they accounted for 37% of all debtors but held 56% of all household debt (averaging $172,400 per borrower). In comparison, those who had a household income of at least $50,000 but less than $100,000 represented 38% of debtors but held 31% of household debt (averaging $95,400 per borrower), while those with less than $50,000 in household income held 13% (or $57,700 per borrower), even though they made up 25% of debtors.

    Higher education levels were also associated with an increased probability of holding debt and higher average debt. Individuals with at least some postsecondary education comprised about one-half of the population but almost 60% of those with debt. And university graduates had an average debt that was 60% higher than those with less than postsecondary education—$145,400 compared to $90,900.

    Although the distribution of borrowers across regions was similar to the distribution of the population as a whole, the amount owed was more concentrated in some regions. Debtors in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario owed, on average, between $124,700 and $157,700, compared to the national average of $114,400. Together, households in these provinces held 3 out of 4 dollars of household debt in the country. The concentration of debt in these regions generally corresponds to higher real estate prices (TD Economics 2011).

    A close relationship was also found between home ownership and debt as households with mortgages accounted for 39% of the population but 58% of debtors. Conversely, homeowners without a mortgage accounted for 34% of the population but 62% of all households without any debt.4 Renters (26% of the population) were also less likely to hold debt, as they accounted for one-third of households without any debt.5

    Debt was concentrated among mortgagees, who held 82% of outstanding debt (averaging $161,200 per debtor). Conversely, homeowners without a mortgage held 11% and renters 7% of total debt. Almost two-thirds of mortgagees were under 45 (Chart A), and this group held more than one-half of outstanding debt. The concentration of debt among younger mortgagees falls in line with the life-cycle theory of consumption. For many mortgagees, housing is both a consumption item and an investment tool, which can also be used as collateral to finance other needs (see Mortgage and consumer debt).


    Top of Page Dispersion of household debt
    Even though some groups have higher average debt levels than others, this does not necessarily mean that debt is equally distributed within these groups. One method that can be used to look at debt dispersion is the Gini coefficient.6 A higher value of the Gini coefficient indicates a greater concentration in the distribution—the situation where a relatively small proportion of borrowers hold a large proportion of total debt. Looking only at borrowers, the 2009 Gini coefficient of household debt was 0.611, compared with 0.372 for household income for the same group (Table 3). This means that debt is about 64% more concentrated among borrowing households than income in those same households. Moreover, debt was more concentrated than income among borrowers in all sociodemographic groups.

    Nevertheless, household debt was more unequally distributed within some groups of borrowers than others. Groups with a higher Gini coefficient included those who had less than a postsecondary education, unattached individuals and people in 'other' family types, and those with less than $50,000 in household income. Because individuals in these groups may have fewer resources to deal with debt payments, the most indebted within these groups may be more at risk of defaulting because they hold a large portion of the group debt.7

    Conversely, debt was more equally distributed among youth, those with a postsecondary education and those who had at least $50,000 in family income (the latter hold a disproportionate amount of outstanding debt).

    Table 3 also indicates that owners without a mortgage and renters had higher levels of debt inequality—even if differences between them are, by definition, mostly due to differences in consumer debt. This means that even though renters and mortgage-free homeowners held just 18% of household debt, most debt was concentrated among a relatively small proportion of the group.


    Top of Page Financial literacy
    A large proportion of total household debt is held by people who are in the accumulation stages of their life cycle and/or who have higher-than-average incomes. Although their borrowing accords with life-cycle smoothing and has passed institutional lending standards, the extent to which borrowers account for the risk of interest rate increases, housing price declines, income interruptions or other such factors in their borrowing decisions is not known. To some extent, such risks may be mitigated by the financial literacy of borrowers since those who are more financially capable would be expected to better understand the risks associated with borrowing and how to best mitigate these risks.8

    The question as to whether financial literacy is associated with varying debt metrics has been studied previously. Gerardi et al. (2010) found that lower financial literacy was associated with a higher probability of defaults and foreclosures in the United States (U.S.) housing market. Using data from the CFCS, Hurst (2011) examined the relationship between financial literacy and several indicators of financial insecurity, but found little relationship between the two. This paper contributes to the literature by examining the relationship between household debt levels and financial literacy.

    The CFCS measured the financial literacy of survey respondents by asking a series of questions on financial principles and practices, which can be used to test whether the presence, type or amount of debt is correlated with financial literacy (see Appendix for the questions and answers). The financial literacy score is the sum of correct responses to these questions. In 2009, those who had some kind of debt obtained an average score of 72% on the financial quiz, compared to an average of 68% among those without debt (Table 4). The score was higher among those who had at least $250,000 in debt (representing about 13% of debtors), who averaged 76%, while those who had less than $50,000 in debt averaged 70%.

    Because these questions comprise just one method of estimating the overall financial knowledge of individuals, other measures of financial literacy were examined. One alternative was to examine how respondents perceived their own financial knowledge. About one-half of those owing at least $250,000 reported themselves as “knowledgeable” or “very knowledgeable” in financial matters, compared to just over one-third of other borrowers. These results, together with the higher scores obtained for high debtors, suggest that higher debt is in some way correlated with financial literacy.

    However, the association between debt and financial literacy may not be straightforward. For example, it may be that high debtors are more knowledgeable about finances since they tend to have higher incomes (Keown 2011). Any examination of the link between household debt and financial literacy should therefore control for other factors that potentially correlate with financial knowledge.9 This can be done by estimating a Tobit model, with household debt as a dependent variable and financial literacy variables as independent variables. One advantage of the Tobit model is that it estimates the outcome within a specified range. This is important because the debt distribution is left-censored (meaning that no one can report “negative” debt amounts). Hence, the Tobit model accounts for the fact that a significant portion of the population is “left censored” (i.e., people without any debt). All results are expressed in additional debt dollars that an individual would incur if the independent variable increased by one unit (or, in the case of dummy variables, by how much debt levels vary from the reference category).

    When only the financial scores and geographical controls are included in the model (Table 5, Model 1) the estimates suggest a relationship between debt and financial literacy since each unit increase in the financial score variable was associated with a $14,700 increase in debt. However, when household income was included as a variable, the strength of the relationship was reduced (Model 2) to $9,100 with each additional point in the financial score variable. When a full set of controls was included (Model 3), the relationship between financial scores and debt became even weaker—to $5,100 per additional point.10

    In fact, other variables also had a strong relationship with higher debt levels. Home ownership and household income were both associated with higher debt levels. The debt of homeowners was estimated to be $100,000 above that of renters; similarly, the debt level of those who had at least $100,000 in household income was nearly $60,000 above that of people who had less than $50,000 in household income. An association with higher levels of debt was also found among younger individuals, recent immigrants, highly educated people and employed individuals. Conversely, lower levels of debt were found among older individuals, retired people, and people in families without children.11

    Another model was estimated using self-assessed financial knowledge variables instead of financial test scores (Table 5, Model 4). In line with the test results, this model revealed a positive relationship between debt and individuals' own assessment of their financial knowledge. Those who said they were knowledgeable about managing household finances held more debt than those who said they were not very knowledgeable. For example, the debt level associated with those who said that they were “very knowledgeable” was $29,100 higher than that for those who said they were “not very knowledgeable.” The results were very similar to Model 3 for other variables.


    Top of Page Financial perceptions and attitudes
    The CFCS also included questions to gauge the financial perceptions and attitudes of Canadians (Table 6). Questions asked whether the respondent was “good or very good” at keeping track of money, making ends meet, shopping around to get the best financial products, and staying informed on financial issues. The respondents were also asked whether they agreed with a series of statements meant to gauge their interest and attitude vis-à-vis financial matters. Finally, they were asked whether they received financial advice, and whether they ever made a financial decision they later regretted.

    Borrowers with the highest levels of household debt (at least $250,000) were more likely to respond that they were good or very good at shopping around to get the best financial products (like loans and insurance rates) and staying informed on financial issues. In addition, they were also more likely to say that they “enjoyed financial matters,” “had a clear idea of financial products needed,” “knew enough about investments to make the right choices,” and “always researched their choices thoroughly”—thereby suggesting that high levels of debt may be associated with a greater interest in finances. On the other hand, 58% of individuals with at least $250,000 in household debt also reported that they had made a financial decision that they later regretted, compared to 45% of those with less than $50,000 in household debt and 36% of those with no debt at all.

    With regard to financial advice, individuals with debt of at least $250,000 were also more likely to seek financial advice on financing children’s education (18% versus 8% for those with debt less than $50,000), insurance (27% versus 15%), tax planning (23% versus 11%) and general financial planning (37% versus 24%). They were also less likely to report that they didn’t seek any advice at all, although 40% said they didn’t receive advice (compared to 63% among non-debtors).

    Financial attitudes may also be correlated with other sociodemographic characteristics. Logit models were estimated to study the association between debt and key financial attitude variables: whether they regretted making some decisions, and whether they received financial advice (data not shown). As the descriptive results suggested, higher levels of debt corresponded to a higher likelihood of receiving financial advice and with financial regrets—even when other variables (like household income and education) were taken into account.


    Top of Page Conclusion
    Increases in aggregate household debt burdens since the 1980s have renewed interest in household debt and underscored the risks to household balance sheets due to rising interest rates or falling asset prices. Given this situation, understanding the characteristics of borrowers, particularly those with higher levels of debt, facilitates a greater understanding of the risks in the household sector. In particular, since holding debt often involves a set of choices, understanding whether people with high levels of debt have corresponding levels of financial literacy is important.

    As noted in earlier studies, the incidence and level of household debt are higher in certain population groups: younger homeowners, young families with children, the better-educated, and those with higher household incomes. Indeed, over 60% of household debt was held by those under 45 years of age, and nearly one-half was held by couples with children.

    Debt, however, was not equally distributed within groups. Although they held a small portion of the total, household debt was more unequally distributed in populations that are considered more economically vulnerable, such as the less-educated, unattached individuals and renters. This is consistent with previous research, which showed that these groups were more likely to experience financial insecurity (Hurst 2011). Conversely, debt was more equally distributed among the better-educated, couples with children, people with higher household incomes, and mortgagees.

    Although previous research found little evidence of a relationship between high debt ratios and financial literacy (Hurst 2011), this study found that both financial literacy and self-assessed financial knowledge were associated with higher absolute debt levels, even when other characteristics had been taken into account. However, other characteristics—like home ownership and household income—were also strongly associated with higher debt loads. In addition to having better financial knowledge, people with a larger household debt load (defined as those who had at least $250,000 in household debt) were more likely to perceive themselves as good financial managers, and were more likely than others to seek financial advice on a variety of financial matters.


    Top of Page Mortgage and consumer debt
    The 2009 CFCS did not collect information on the relative contribution of consumer debt and mortgage debt to overall household debt. However, it collected information on the presence of six types of consumer debts: student loans, payday loans, other loans (excluding the first two), credit card balances, personal and home equity lines of credit, and unpaid bills (e.g., taxes, rent).12 The proportion of debtors with an outstanding credit card balance was 48%; 41% had an outstanding line of credit; 32% had other loans (e.g., personal loans); 18% had student loans; 3% had other debts (e.g., unpaid bills); and less than 1% had payday loans.

    Debtors with a mortgage were more likely to have more than one source of consumer debt. For instance, 48% of those with just one type of consumer debt were mortgagees, compared with 65% among those who had at least three types of consumer debts.

    As the homeowner ages, both mortgage and consumer debt decline. Among those under 45, the proportion of debtors with three or more consumer loans was 18%, but this proportion was 11% among those age 45 to 64 and just 3% among those at least 65 years of age (Table 2). Conversely, the proportion of debtors using only one source of consumer debt rose with age, from 39% among those under 45, to 62% among those at least 65 years of age.


    Top of Page Appendix
    CFCS Financial Quiz Questions
    A unique feature of the Canadian Financial Capability Survey is a series of 14 questions that were designed to test respondents’ knowledge of financial principles and practices. The questions and answers are the following:

    Questions

    1. If the inflation rate is 5% and the interest rate you get on your savings is 3%, will your savings have at least as much buying power in a year’s time?

    a) Yes
    b) No

    2. A credit report is... ?

    a) A list of your financial assets and liabilities
    b) A monthly credit card statement
    c) A loan and bill payment history
    d) A credit line with a financial institution

    3. Who insures your stocks in the stock market?

    a) The National Deposit Insurance Corporation
    b) The Securities and Exchange Commission
    c) The Bank of Canada
    d) No one

    4. True or false...

    By using unit pricing at the grocery store, you can easily compare the cost of any brand and any package size.

    a) True
    b) False

    5. If each of the following persons had the same amount of take home pay, who would need the greatest amount of life insurance?

    a) A young single woman with two young children
    b) A young single woman without children
    c) An elderly retired man, with a wife who is also retired
    d) A young married man without children

    6. If you had a savings account at a bank, which of the following statements would be correct concerning the interest rate that you would earn on this account?

    a) Sales tax may be charged on the interest that you earn
    b) You cannot earn interest until you pass your 18th birthday
    c) Earnings from savings account interest may not be taxed
    d) Income tax may be charged on the interest if your income is high enough

    7. Inflation can cause difficulty in many ways. Which group would have the greatest problem during periods of high inflation that lasts several years?

    a) Young working couples with no children
    b) Young working couples with children
    c) Older working couples saving for retirement
    d) Older people living on fixed retirement income

    8. Lindsay has saved $12,000 for her university expenses by working part-time. Her plan is to start university next year and she needs all of the money she saved. Which of the following is the safest place for her university money?

    a) Corporate bonds
    b) Mutual Funds
    c) A bank savings account
    d) Locked in a safe at home
    e) Stocks

    9. Which of the following types of investment would best protect the purchasing power of a family’s savings in the event of a sudden increase in inflation?

    a) A twenty-five year corporate bond
    b) A house financed with a fixed-rate mortgage
    c) A 10-year bond issued by a corporation
    d) A certificate of deposit at a bank

    10. Under which of the following circumstances would it be financially beneficial to borrow money to buy something now and repay it with future income?

    a) When something goes on sale
    b) When the interest on the loan is greater than the interest obtained from a savings account
    c) When buying something on credit allows someone to get a much better paying job
    d) It is always more beneficial to borrow money to buy something now and repay it with future income

    11. Which of the following statements is not correct about most ATM (Automated Teller Machine) cards?

    a) You can get cash anywhere in the world with no fee
    b) You must have a bank account to have an ATM card
    c) You can generally get cash 24 hours-a-day
    d) You can generally obtain information concerning your bank balance at an ATM machine

    12. Which of the following can hurt your credit rating?

    a) Making late payments on loans and debts
    b) Staying in one job too long
    c) Living in the same location too long
    d) Using your credit card frequently for purchases

    13. What can affect the amount of interest that you would pay on a loan?

    a) Your credit rating
    b) How much you borrow
    c) How long you take to repay the loan
    d) All of the above

    14. Which of the following will help lower the cost of a house?

    a) Paying off the mortgage over a long period of time
    b) Agreeing to pay the current rate of interest on the mortgage for as many years as possible
    c) Making a larger down payment at the time of purchase
    d) Making a smaller down payment at the time of purchase

    Answers

    1.b
    2.c
    3.d
    4.a
    5.a
    6.c and d
    7.d
    8.c
    9.b
    10.c
    11.a
    12.a
    13.d
    14.c
    Table 7 shows the proportion of those who correctly answered questions within debt-size categories.

    For some of the 14 questions, the difference between categories of debt size was not very large but differences were larger for other categories. For instance, 56% of those in the highest category of debt size (at least $250,000) correctly answered Question 2 on the credit report, while only 46% of those with lower debt levels (less than $50,000) did so. Question 7 on inflation also showed relatively large differences in the proportions of correct answers given between the larger and lower debt groups (63% versus 53%), as did Question 11 on ATM machines (84% versus 73%). Other questions showing notable differences between higher and lower debtors included Question 3 about the insurance of stocks, Question 8 about the safety of placements, Question 9 about options to protect the loss of purchasing power, and Question 13 about the factors influencing the interest rate of a loan. In all cases, the high debtors fared better than those with lower levels of debt. More information about the CFCS financial capability questions can be found in McKay (2011).


    Top of Page Data source and definitions
    The analysis contained in this study is based on the 2009 Canadian Financial Capability Survey (CFCS). This survey was sponsored by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the Department of Finance Canada and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to assess Canadians’ knowledge and abilities related to handling their finances, including budgeting, saving for retirement and children’s postsecondary education, assets held, mortgages and consumer debts owed. The survey also collected information on the sources Canadians used to improve their financial knowledge and abilities to handle and improve their finances, day-to-day money management, and general financial planning.

    The survey received responses from 15,519 persons 18 years of age and over covering sociodemographic and employment characteristics, sources of income, types of assets held and debts owed, and other behavioural characteristics. In the vast majority of cases (about 90%), survey respondents were those responsible for decisions related to ongoing household expenses and financial management. Most of this information was in terms of “yes/no” format with separate codes for “refused,” “don’t know,” “not stated,” and “valid skip.” Quantitative information was sought on pre-tax total income, the household’s total income, asset holdings, debts and liabilities, and wealth. Missing information on income was imputed whereas total assets, total debts and liabilities, and wealth were left with a separate code. Because of the low response rate to the assets portion of the survey (about 50%), assets-related variables are not used in this paper. Regarding the debt section, 84% of those in the sample provided usable data on their debt status and the amount of total debt outstanding. The valid response range for total debt was greater than $0 and less than or equal to $5 million.

    The total household debt includes mortgage debt on principal residence, vacation home and other real estate, and consumer debt. The latter includes debt outstanding on credit cards, personal and home equity lines of credit, secured and unsecured loans from banks and other institutions, and unpaid bills (including taxes, rent, etc.).


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notes
    1.For other definitions of financial literacy used in recent literature, see Remund (2010). Also, the October 2011 issue of the Journal of Pension Economics and Finance contains papers discussing financial literacy for a number of countries around the world.
    2.This is consistent with estimates found in other reports (Sauvé 2011).
    3.Marshall (2011) also finds higher levels of debt among high-income seniors. Higher levels of collateral assets and favourable lending conditions may also influence the borrowing practices of high-income households.
    4.Among homeowners without a mortgage, their debt was mostly related to lines of credit and credit cards.
    5.Not all individuals have equal access to credit markets as financial lenders ration credit. This also helps explain why lower-income groups and renters have smaller debt loads than others.
    6.A Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion generally used to measure the inequality of a distribution. The value of the Gini coefficient always lies between 0 and 1. A value closer to 1 indicates greater concentration (more inequality). Since the Gini coefficient is insensitive to the size of the variable of interest, it can be used to compare the dispersion of household debt relative to household income.
    7.Accordingly, Hurst (2011) found that individuals in these categories were more likely to have a higher total debt-service ratio, a higher debt-to-pre-tax household income ratio, and a higher debt-to-asset ratio, even after accounting for all other socioeconomic characteristics. Hurst limited his population to those under age 65.
    8.See Department of Finance Canada (2010) for a discussion on the importance of financial literacy.
    9.In addition, there is a possibility of causality between debt and financial literacy but the direction of causality is not clear. Debt may motivate borrowers to become more knowledgeable about their finances. Alternatively, increased financial capability may affect the type or level of debt. This paper does not attempt to draw any causal inferences but focuses on associations.
    10.A referee pointed out that questions 9 and 10 on the financial quiz could have more than one correct answer. Additional models were estimated by recalculating the financial score in two ways: (a) by having multiple correct answers for those two questions; and (b) by excluding those two questions. The conclusions did not change.
    11.Models were also estimated using quartiles of financial scores instead of numbers, and quartiles of income instead of the three groups. The conclusions did not change.
    12.The 2009 CFCS collected information on indebtedness but not on amounts outstanding on the six types of consumer debt specified above.
    References
    Brighton, J.W. and J.A. Connidis. 1982. Consumer Bankrupts in Canada. Ottawa. Policy Research, Analysis and Liaison Directorate, Policy Coordination Bureau, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada. 126 p.

    Browning, Martin and Thomas F. Crossley. 2001. “The life-cycle model of consumption and saving.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 15, no. 3. Summer. p. 3-22. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Chawla, Raj K. 2011. “The distribution of mortgage debt in Canada.” Perspectives on Labour and Income. Vol. 23, no. 2. Summer. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-001-X. p. 1-12. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Department of Finance Canada. 2010. Canadians and Their Money: Building a Better Financial Future. Report of Recommendations on Financial Literacy. Catalogue no. F2-198/2011E-PDF. Ottawa. Task Force on Financial Literacy, Department of Finance Canada. 106 p. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Friedman, Milton. 1957. A Theory of the Consumption Function. Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University Press. 259 p.

    Gerardi, Kristopher, Lorenz Goette and Stephan Meier. 2010. Financial Literacy and Subprime Mortgage Delinquency: Evidence from a Survey Matched to Administrative Data. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper Series. Working Paper 2010-10. April. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 54 p. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Hurst, Matt. 2011. “Debt and family type in Canada.” Canadian Social Trends. No. 91. Summer. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-008-X. p. 38-47. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Keown, Leslie-Anne. 2011. "The financial knowledge of Canadians." Canadian Social Trends. No. 91. Summer. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-008-X. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Marshall, Katherine. 2011. "Retiring with debt." Perspectives on Labour and Income. Vol. 23, no. 2. Summer. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-001-X. p. 1-12. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    McKay, Stephen. 2011. Understanding Financial Capability in Canada: Analysis of the Canadian Financial Capability Survey. Research paper prepared for the Task Force on Financial Literacy. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. 47 p. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Modigliani, Franco and Richard Brumberg. 1954. “Utility analysis and the consumption function: An interpretation of cross-section data.” Post-Keynesian Economics. Kenneth K. Kurihara (ed.). New Brunswick, New Jersey. Rutgers University Press. p. 388-436.

    Remund, David L. 2010. “Financial literacy explicated: The case for a clearer definition in an increasingly complex economy.” The Journal of Consumer Affairs. Vol. 44, no. 2. Summer. p. 276-295. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Sauvé, Roger. 2011. The Current State of Canadian Family Finances: 2010 Report. Vol. 12. February. Ottawa. The Vanier Institute of the Family. 44 p. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Schwartz, Saul. 1999. “The empirical dimensions of consumer bankruptcy: Results from a survey of Canadian bankrupts.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal. Vol. 37, nos. 1 & 2. p. 83-125. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Statistics Canada. 2011. "Table 2: Household sector indicators – Not seasonally adjusted." National balance sheet accounts. The Daily. December 13. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-XIE. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    TD Economics. 2011. Assessing the Financial Vulnerability of Households Across Canadian Regions. Special Report. February 9. Toronto. 8 p. (accessed March 2, 2012).

    Authors
    Raj K. Chawla and Sharanjit Uppal are with the Labour Statistics Division. Raj K. Chawla can be reached at 613-951-6901. Sharanjit Uppal can be reached at 613-951-3887 or both at perspectives@statcan.gc.ca.

  5. #25
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The GTA
    Posts
    4,799
    y'know, when you think about it, FINANCING a firearm means you actually have LESS money to buy guns with because of the interest payment and service charges.

  6. #26
    CGN Regular jordanmalmal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    907
    Don't you guys remember that financing firearms are an easier way for criminals to get ahold of guns?? lol...

  7. #27
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer lone ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    sask
    Posts
    2,572
    I will definatly use this service. Thanks frontier !
    A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been ruled illegal but which are argued not to directly violate or threaten the rights of any other individual.

  8. #28
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer saskgunowner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    near Prince Albert
    Posts
    4,632
    You could maybe start your own thread titled "Why nntv thinks Tactical capital is a bad idea" ??
    ______
    I get distracted easily when

  9. #29
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The GTA
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by jordanmalmal View Post
    Don't you guys remember that financing firearms are an easier way for criminals to get ahold of guns?? lol...
    well, now that you mention it, they RENT guns because they can't afford to buy them.....


    Star investigation: Guns being rented, shared on Toronto’s streets

    The gun pipeline, fifth in a series: In Toronto, criminals looking to get their hands on firearms have several options: rent, buy, borrow and steal. The Star’s ongoing investigation continues today with a look at how guns circulate once on our streets.

    ht tp://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2013/05/15/star_investigation_guns_being_rented_shared_on_tor ontos_streets.html

    By: David Bruser and Jayme Poisson Published on Wed May 15 2013

    Photos View photos zoom
    Toronto police officer Rob North saw the robbery suspect standing in the middle of Rankin Cres., feeding a shell into a single-barrel shotgun.

    North, responding to a report of a Beer Store holdup, stopped his squad car on an angle, thinking he could get out and behind it for cover.

    The suspect, Jeron Powell, saw North getting out of his cruiser about 30 metres up the road, and swung the gun up, hip-level.

    “When he raised it, I knew right away that this wasn’t good,” North recalled.

    Hours earlier, Powell had rented the 12-gauge, sawed-off shotgun for $200 and a day’s work from a man in an Etobicoke housing project.

    North heard a zip as something cut the air and hit his forehead. He touched his hand above his left eye and looked at the blood on his hand.

    North remembers thinking: “Holy sh-t. I’m shot.”

    On that January evening in 2009, the suspect fired five shells at pursuing Toronto cops. Four were slugs that would have blown a large hole in whatever they hit. These missed their targets.

    The bullet fired at North was a casing of birdshot pellets that disperse when fired. One of these pellets hit North’s forehead but did not penetrate his skull.

    “A slug round would have killed me,” said North, now a homicide detective who has seen rented guns in some of the cases he’s investigated since his confrontation with Powell in 2009.

    “It causes a lot of concern that these things are available out there for rent,” he said. “Because if it can happen to a police officer, it can happen to anybody.”

    The Star’s ongoing investigation — which began by revealing how easy it is to buy a pistol in the U.S., then followed the gun pipeline from the states with lax gun-purchase laws to the border where most guns get across to Toronto — continues today with a look at how guns circulate once on our streets.

    In Toronto, where comparatively strict laws make gun possession difficult, criminals, depending on their street-level connections and budget, have several options.

    Today’s story is about how criminals desperate for firepower will rent, buy, borrow and steal.

    Whether a gun is domestic or foreign, big or small, comes with ammunition or without, are among the variables that set prices on Toronto’s black market for firepower.

    While most guns used in Toronto crimes are smuggled from the U.S., about 20 per cent are traced to domestic sources, such as break-and-enters.

    In a case now before the courts, a Toronto man is accused of stealing more than 20 firearms, most of them handguns, from storage lockers in Durham Region. In another case, a Scarborough man was found with several shotguns and rifles, including five taken during a break-and-enter in Caledon.

    A gun stolen from a home or storage locker can command less than a smuggled gun, which will sell for as much as 10 times the original value.

    This markup is driven in part by the risk taken by the mule who, if caught at the border, could face several years in prison. And because U.S. guns are often new, ordered for trafficking by Toronto criminals.

    If not smuggled or stolen, guns headed to Toronto streets have found another supply route, a recent Toronto police bust revealed. Chief Bill Blair recently told the Star of a case involving two local men with firearms licences who bought guns, obliterated the serial numbers and then sold them to the street. It is called straw-purchasing.

    “About 70 guns hit the street as a result of the actions of those two guys . . . They were buying really inexpensive guns and selling them on the street at a premium,” Blair said. “Now, we’ve locked them up and we got some of the guns, but the majority of them were already out there.”

    Gun size matters , too.

    While the shotgun used in the 2009 Beer Store robbery was rented for $200 and would likely sell for $600 to $800, handguns, easier to conceal, typically sell and rent for more.

    An economy brand Hi-Point 9-mm sells for around $1,500 on the street while the rarer but coveted .50-calibre Desert Eagle — which comes in a gold finish — can sell for $3,000 or even as much as $6,000.

    In another gun-renting case, a Toronto man charged $600 per night for a handgun.

    In August 2006, undercover officers met crack dealer Marvin Washington at a jerk chicken restaurant on Finch Ave. The officers said they wanted a gun and Washington said he had a source. He made a call, then told the officers to drive to the Jane St. address of Joel Thomas. Thomas got in the undercovers’ car, showed a loaded 9-mm Helwan handgun and exchanged the rental for cash.

    “(Thomas) wanted to utilize what’s known as a community firearm that allows customers to rent the firearm over a weekend or week to do whatever they wanted to do with it and then they had to return it,” one of the officers who investigated the case told the Star.

    After accounting for pretrial custody, a judge sentenced Washington to four months in jail and Thomas to 11 months.

    So-called “community guns” are a growing problem facing the public and police.

    “The reality is that some of these guns are being used in multiple crimes, and not necessarily by the same people,” Supt. Ron Taverner of Toronto police’s 23 Division said earlier this year. “We know that guns are being shared, rented.”

    Often stored in shoeboxes , guns are dealt for money or an equivalent amount of drugs like cocaine, the deals done in apartments, cars and, in at least one case, a clothing store.

    An apartment in 2675 Eglinton Ave. W. consisted of a couple bedrooms, a bathroom and a combined kitchen and living area, but police who raided the unit in January 2009 found little to suggest the 500-square-feet of space was anything but a store selling drugs and guns.

    In one of the bedrooms, two pit bulls and their feces. In the living room, no chairs or couch but an aquarium holding an alligator and rat. And in a closet, two shotguns and two rifles.

    In the kitchen, no food, cutlery or dishes. The freezer contained two clear plastic bags of cocaine. In a drawer under the counter were three handguns, a Taurus .357 revolver loaded with six rounds, a .38 Special snub-nosed revolver and a Glock loaded with 10 rounds.

    Other ammunition found in the apartment was in small bundles, leading a police officer to testify during the subsequent trial that the rounds were packaged for sale.

    “This was an apartment being used for . . . selling crack cocaine and guns,” said the judge before finding Lyvon Lambert guilty of gun possession. After noting Lambert’s previous record and accounting for time he spent in pretrial custody, the court sentenced him to serve nearly 10 more years in prison.

    In another case, as part of an investigation of illegal guns flowing from Windsor to Toronto, police watched John Currie pull into a laneway behind a clothing store on Danforth Ave., exit his Jeep, hand another man a shopping bag of guns and ammunition, and the man walk into the store. Later that night, a third man walked out carrying the bag.

    Of the eight guns sold that night in 2009, one had its serial number obliterated and could not be traced, six were smuggled from the U.S. and another was reported stolen in Hamilton the year before. Currie served 2 ½ years in jail.

    Sale and rental price go up if ammunition is included.

    “Prior to . . . 1998, the normal citizen could go into a gun store and buy ammunition by showing photo ID,” Toronto police gun expert Michael Press testified in a trial. “Now, you are required to show an actual firearms licence for that particular class of firearm (and) what type of ammunition you are buying.”

    This restriction means ammunition on Toronto’s streets can sell for up to $25 a bullet. Until recently, a shortage of ammunition due to the demands of overseas wars also strained the supply chain.

    Bullets of the same calibre — that is, the same diameter — come in different lengths, points and casings, and due to scarce and irregular supply, Toronto criminals cannot be choosy.

    Toronto police sometimes seize crime guns with mismatched bullets in the magazines.

    How fast a criminal can lay hands on a gun depends on his street connections to people like Omar Allen.

    Allen was called as a defence witness in the trial of Lyvon Lambert, whose apartment police raided and found the pit bulls, alligator, drugs and guns. Allen said on the stand that the drugs and guns were his, but the judge did not believe his attempt to spare Lambert.

    Allen, a convicted criminal and drug dealer, testified that “if it is time to get down and dirty, I am locked and loaded” and that while he “ain’t no Santa Claus,” he would loan a gun to a friend in need.

    Associates of 20-year-old Derick Kusi had no such ready source. The 2011 case shows those desperate to arm themselves will go wherever they have connections, and they’ll take whatever they can get.

    Kusi, an errand boy for a Toronto gang rattled by the murder of one of their own and needing guns for “serious times,” was sent to B.C. by plane to meet a man in a blue Honda and bring home two packages by Greyhound bus.

    Toronto police had been watching Kusi and his associates, and on the evening of Oct. 15, 2011, two Mounties approached Kusi in the Langley, B.C., bus station as he carried a Foot Locker shopping bag. Inside were a .22-calibre Browning and a Glock 9-mm, both handguns, both loaded.

    One of the guns was “good, but a bit rusty,” Kusi said on an intercepted telephone call the day before his bust. After Kusi’s arrest, police traced the Glock to a sale in Oregon.

    Kusi was sentenced to four years and two months in prison.

    While his accomplice waited in the getaway car, Jeron Powell went in the Beer Store with his rented shotgun and ordered everyone down on the floor. He grabbed some money but not much, said Det. Nunzio Tramontozzi, who investigated the case.

    Det. Rob North remembers the radio call came in at 7:17 p.m. on the evening of Jan. 24, 2009. “A holdup in progress at the Beer Store at Symington and Dupont.”

    North was about to respond to the call when he heard a shot. He drove closer to the scene and heard two more. (Two undercovers had approached a man in the street and asked to talk to him. The man was Powell, who smiled and pulled the rented sawed-off shotgun to fire two rounds that missed, Tramontozzi said.)

    North turned his car onto Rankin Cres., saw Powell and drew his Glock as he got out of the cruiser. The officer says he does not recall hearing the shotgun’s boom or seeing the muzzle flash.

    “The adrenalin that you feel is astronomical. I can recall a short time later having a massive headache.”

    A couple of firefighters who arrived on the scene “sort of had this look of terror on their face,” said North, who now believes he was going into shock.

    They put him in an ambulance headed for St. Michael’s Hospital.

    “In my mind I’m thinking I’m OK,” but North wondered why the ambulance was driving so fast. “I finally said, ‘Listen, if I’m not going to be OK, I’m going to need to make some phone calls.”

    In the weeks after the shooting, North struggled through emotional swings. “You’re home and sometimes you’re laughing and sometimes you’re crying. . . . and I’m thinking: What’s going on with me? This isn’t the way I normally act.”

    After several weeks, North decided he was not “going to sit there and be a victim,” and went back to work. Powell later pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

    After his arrest that night, Powell told officers he planned to hold up a convenience store after the Beer Store job, then return the gun, Tramontozzi said. Police never learned the identity of the man who rented the shotgun to Powell.

    “There are people out there that criminals can go to rent the guns, to commit whatever criminal offence they want, and after that they return the gun,” Det. Tramontozzi said. “It’s very easy to do. It’s done all over the city. It’s very disturbing.”

    David Bruser can be reached at dbruser@thestar.ca or 416-869-4282

  10. #30
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The GTA
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by saskgunowner101 View Post
    You could maybe start your own thread titled "Why nntv thinks Tactical capital is a bad idea" ??
    maybe i should. i've posted in a similar thread in another retailer's forum.

    ultimately, it's not my money so it's not my problem. some folks (scott_r, for example) know their spending habits, the costs, and figure it will work for them, but i think tac cap is often taking advantage of people who don't appreciate how much this 'service' will cost them, AND that there are more flexible alternatives.

    cheers.
    Last edited by nntw; 06-26-2014 at 10:00 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •