These lenders, including mortgage investment corporations (MICs), limited partnerships and mutual fund trusts, “operate within defined capital pools and deploy risk‑managed strategies with transparent pricing and reporting,” it said.
By contrast, “private lenders are often individual or informal investors who lend their personal capital on a case‑by‑case basis,” the paper said.
This segment “lacks consistent underwriting standards, formal risk governance, and regulatory oversight,” a gap CAMLA argued increased the risk of fraud, misaligned incentives and market volatility.
Risk, oversight and consumer outcomes
On risk, CAMLA said alternative mortgage lenders adhere to “compliance frameworks, transparent disclosure and strict regulatory oversight.” Private lending, it said, carried “significantly higher borrower risk – particularly in vulnerable populations seeking short‑term solutions.”
CAMLA also highlighted basic protections that many private lenders do not consistently provide: privacy policies, cyber security, complaint handling and access to ombuds services.