The client
A household in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, took a $40,000 interest-only private second two years ago to bridge a cash-flow gap, alongside an existing $150,000 first mortgage. The private note carried a fixed 2-year term with the full principal due as a single bullet payment at maturity — a structure common to interest-only private mortgages.
First mortgage
$150,000, 4.35%
21 years remaining
Private second
$40,000, interest-only, 11.99%
Bullet due at 2-year maturity
Combined income
$6,300/month
Both salaried
Other debt
$120/mo credit-card minimum
Unchanged through the refinance
The maturity
Full $40,000 due as one payment
No principal had amortized in two years
The problem
Two years of on-time payments feels like progress on any loan. On an interest-only private second it isn't — every payment covered interest only, and the $40,000 owed at maturity is exactly the $40,000 borrowed at the start. The household had, reasonably enough, been thinking of the upcoming maturity the way anyone thinks about a mortgage renewal: a remaining balance to refinance, smaller than what they started with. It wasn't smaller. It was the same number.
What two years of interest-only payments actually did
- ▸Cost: $400 a month, every month, on schedule — never missed
- ▸Principal reduced: $0. Interest-only means interest only; nothing in the payment touches the balance
- ▸Amount due at maturity: the full original $40,000, exactly as borrowed
This matters for how the refinance gets sized. A broker who assumes a bullet loan has quietly amortized down, the way a normal mortgage would over two years, will price and pre-qualify against the wrong number — and discover the shortfall mid-underwriting, when it is far more expensive to fix.
The numbers
Getting the exit balance right meant treating the private second as if not one dollar of it had ever been repaid, because none had.
| Refinancing the full, unamortized balance | Amount |
|---|---|
| Existing first mortgage balance | $150,000 |
| Private second bullet, due in full at maturity | +$40,000 |
| New consolidated balance | $190,000 |
| New contract rate | 5.05% |
| Minimum qualifying rate (greater of contract + 2% or 5.25%) | 7.05% |
| New payment at the qualifying rate, 25 years | $1,337/mo |
| Total debt service | Before (first + private IO) | After (consolidated) |
|---|---|---|
| Mortgage payment | $906 (first, at 4.35%, actual) | $1,702 (consolidated, at the qualifying rate) |
| Property tax and heat | $365 | $365 |
| Private interest-only payment | $400 | — |
| Credit-card minimum | $120 | $120 |
| Total debt service | 28.4% | 28.9% |
The ratio moved almost nothing — up half a point, if anything, because the stress-tested qualifying rate on the larger consolidated balance costs slightly more than the old first mortgage plus the private interest did. This file was never going to be difficult on the numbers. Getting the exit balance right, early, was the entire job.
The solution
A submortgage broker working under Saskatchewan's Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority set the client's expectations correctly before shopping a single rate.
First, confirmed with the client that the bullet was the full original principal. Walked through exactly what two years of interest-only payments had and hadn't done, so the refinance target was $190,000 from the very first conversation, not a smaller number discovered to be wrong three weeks into underwriting.
Second, sized the new lender's approval to the correct combined balance. Pre-qualified against $150,000 plus $40,000, not against the first mortgage alone with the private balance treated as an afterthought.
Third, timed the closing to land before the bullet's maturity date, not after. A private lender with a bullet due in full has no obligation to extend it even briefly; the refinance needed to fund on or before the date the $40,000 came due.
The outcome
The consolidated refinance funded at 5.05% before the bullet's maturity date, retiring the full $40,000 private second in one payment. Total debt service settled at 28.9%, barely different from what carrying both mortgages had cost before.
Because this is an uninsured refinance, CMHC's ratio maximums don't apply here; the 28.4% and 28.9% figures are informational, not a pass/fail line.
What to take from this file
- 01Interest-only means interest only. An unamortized bullet loan owes exactly what it started at, no matter how many on-time payments preceded maturity.
- 02Confirm the exit balance in the first conversation, not partway through underwriting. A refinance sized to a wrongly-assumed paid-down balance is a shortfall waiting to surface.
- 03A bullet lender has no obligation to extend past maturity. The refinance has to fund on or before the due date, not sometime near it.
- 04A larger consolidated balance at the qualifying rate can cost about the same as two smaller payments did before. This file's ratio barely moved — the real work was getting the balance right, not the rate.
- 05Ask what an interest-only structure has actually done to the principal before quoting a client anything. The answer, correctly, is often nothing at all.
Sources
Every regulatory figure in this file traces to one of these primary sources. Client details and anything that varies by lender are illustrative, as flagged below.
- ▸OSFI — Minimum qualifying rate for uninsured mortgages — the minimum qualifying rate — greater of contract rate + 2% or 5.25%.
- ▸Provincial/territorial mortgage-broker legislation fetched directly (bclaws.gov.bc.ca, legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca, fcaa.gov.sk.ca, web2.gov.mb.ca, nslegislature.ca, assembly.nl.ca) plus FCNB's own site for NB and CanLII's index for PE — see notes for per-province method — provincial mortgage regulators and licence titles.
Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:
- ▸11.99% / 5.05% rates — rates move daily; neither is a quote.
- ▸the 28.4% / 28.9% total debt service figures — this file is uninsured, so there is no CMHC ratio ceiling -- the numbers are informational, not a pass/fail line.
Authority & provenance
How this case file was built
We publish the origin, the verification method and the reviewer for every case file, so you can judge how far to trust it before you rely on it with a client.
Where it comes from
Derived from files handled by Treadstone’s fulfillment desk and from scenarios contributed by partner brokerages. Names, employers, exact amounts and dates are changed so no client or file is identifiable.
Provenance: Composite — a pattern seen repeatedly on fulfilled files, not a single transaction.
What is verified
Every regulatory figure traces to a primary source listed above and was checked against it on the date shown. The arithmetic is recomputed by machine on every rebuild.
Anything that varies by lender is labelled illustrative rather than stated as a rule.
Who reviewed it
Reviewed for Canadian regulatory accuracy before publication, and re-checked whenever a cited rule changes.
Reviewed by: Nicholas Parson, Treadstone Associates — reviews every case file before publication.
This case file is professional reference material for licensed mortgage professionals. It is not advice to a borrower, and it is not a lender commitment. Insurer rules, qualifying rates and provincial taxes change — confirm the current position with the insurer, regulator or lender before you rely on any figure here in a live file.