kEiThZ
Superstar
Well at least they only rob you blind as a customer. In the US, their banks are robbing them blind as taxpayers as well.
|
|
|
Financial Crisis
- Thread starter BobBob
- Start date
lordmandeep
Banned
I remember hearing story 2 years ago about how were so strict and conservative in Canada when it comes to monetary and even fiscal policy.
People were like saying look at California and Iceland and such...
lol
People were like saying look at California and Iceland and such...
lol
jade_lee
Active Member
Todays headline in the National Post reads: BMO GETS CHUNK OF AIG CASH
"The documents show at least US$1.1 billion of bailout money was funneled to BMO
alongside payouts of up to $13 billion each to US and European banks."
Congress intends to probe these payments.
"BMO had paid the unit to provide insurance to cover the Toronto-based bank in the event it's investments in credit instruments (greed instruments) suffered losses (high risk investments don't happen in our stellar conservative Canadian banks our prime minister claims).
"John Aiken, an analyst at Dundee Securities said: Was this all of BMO's exposure? How much is still out there? We don't know, which doesn't help from the point of view of the investor confidence" Don't worry, the government says our banks are stellar, the best in the whole wide world he gushes.
"the analyst said one of the key reasons Canadian bank shares were depressed was the whole unknown of just what the full capital repercussions would be from the various exposures. This is not something that is going to shake itself out any time soon. BMO declined to comment"
So is the game plan of our government just to play dumb and hope our Banks are being honest??? Do our Canadian banks really think that the American government is going to investigate only American financial institutions?
It appears that our banks are also robbing the American tax payers as well.........is this information too dangerous to discuss?
"The documents show at least US$1.1 billion of bailout money was funneled to BMO
alongside payouts of up to $13 billion each to US and European banks."
Congress intends to probe these payments.
"BMO had paid the unit to provide insurance to cover the Toronto-based bank in the event it's investments in credit instruments (greed instruments) suffered losses (high risk investments don't happen in our stellar conservative Canadian banks our prime minister claims).
"John Aiken, an analyst at Dundee Securities said: Was this all of BMO's exposure? How much is still out there? We don't know, which doesn't help from the point of view of the investor confidence" Don't worry, the government says our banks are stellar, the best in the whole wide world he gushes.
"the analyst said one of the key reasons Canadian bank shares were depressed was the whole unknown of just what the full capital repercussions would be from the various exposures. This is not something that is going to shake itself out any time soon. BMO declined to comment"
So is the game plan of our government just to play dumb and hope our Banks are being honest??? Do our Canadian banks really think that the American government is going to investigate only American financial institutions?
It appears that our banks are also robbing the American tax payers as well.........is this information too dangerous to discuss?
urbanfan89
Active Member
Naah. Don't worry.
AIG was contractually obliged to make those payouts, and this was precisely why it was driven to the point of bankruptcy. This is understandable, because it was precisely the reason AIG was bailed out.
Paying out million dollar bonuses to executives who ran the company into the ground is another matter.
AIG was contractually obliged to make those payouts, and this was precisely why it was driven to the point of bankruptcy. This is understandable, because it was precisely the reason AIG was bailed out.
Paying out million dollar bonuses to executives who ran the company into the ground is another matter.
jade_lee
Active Member
It's all about "toxic assets" aka buying into get rich quick schemes to get personal payouts at the expense of many others. Instead of trusting what the banks in Canada have revealed we should be digging for the truth and let the chips fall where they will.
How on earth is it possible that our economy is interlinked so strongly with the U.S. economy yet we are told that our banks have acted independently? It's not possible and we should face that reality, hiding from the facts will not change them.
Harper has praised our banks too much now.
How on earth is it possible that our economy is interlinked so strongly with the U.S. economy yet we are told that our banks have acted independently? It's not possible and we should face that reality, hiding from the facts will not change them.
Harper has praised our banks too much now.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Jade_Lee
It depends on interpretation. There's no doubt that some Canadian banks (TD was the exception I believe) had some exposure to the US sub-prime lending markets. However, does that mean that our banks are going to collapse tommorrow? I doubt it. If anything the payout shows that BMO was prudent enough to hedge on its risky investments. Had AIG gone under BMO would have had nothing for some of its failed investments. Instead, they get 1.1 billion to cover their losses. Moreover, their exposure estimated at $25 billion is hardly 5% of total assets and equal to one year's revenue in the worst case scenario of a total (100%) write-down (which hasn't even happened to any US institution yet, including the ones which went under).
Now, how about focusing on the positive things in the Canadian banking sector? BMO is buying out AIG's Canadian insurance busines. Manulife is picking up AIG's Chinese and Japanese units. The Canadian banks have now reached the ranks of the top 10 in North America and are still growing and profitable despite the recession at home and downturn abroad. And now they are starting to decline federal aid as their liquidity picks up again. You may see doom and gloom, but I am proud that Canada and it's financial institutions have done fairly well in all around poor environment.
http://www.canada.com/business/fp/story.html?id=1351288
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/03/16/f-aig.html
http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1395511
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wrbanks17/BNStory/Business/home
It depends on interpretation. There's no doubt that some Canadian banks (TD was the exception I believe) had some exposure to the US sub-prime lending markets. However, does that mean that our banks are going to collapse tommorrow? I doubt it. If anything the payout shows that BMO was prudent enough to hedge on its risky investments. Had AIG gone under BMO would have had nothing for some of its failed investments. Instead, they get 1.1 billion to cover their losses. Moreover, their exposure estimated at $25 billion is hardly 5% of total assets and equal to one year's revenue in the worst case scenario of a total (100%) write-down (which hasn't even happened to any US institution yet, including the ones which went under).
Now, how about focusing on the positive things in the Canadian banking sector? BMO is buying out AIG's Canadian insurance busines. Manulife is picking up AIG's Chinese and Japanese units. The Canadian banks have now reached the ranks of the top 10 in North America and are still growing and profitable despite the recession at home and downturn abroad. And now they are starting to decline federal aid as their liquidity picks up again. You may see doom and gloom, but I am proud that Canada and it's financial institutions have done fairly well in all around poor environment.
http://www.canada.com/business/fp/story.html?id=1351288
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/03/16/f-aig.html
http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1395511
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wrbanks17/BNStory/Business/home
lordmandeep
Banned
Sure the Canadian banks sort of scammed us with high interest rates and charges compared to American banks but I would take that over them being in the same position.
You know how badly Toronto would have hurt???
You know how badly Toronto would have hurt???
jade_lee
Active Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/business/06norris.html?emc=eta1
Slowly the information of criminal behaviour of AIG is being exposed and prosecuted. It's no surprise to me that our banks want to distant themselves. But I bet there is much more to come. Too bad that we have to rely on our RCMP here in Canada because we kinda know now how incompetent they are in going after the "big fish in little ponds" here in Canada. (ie Conrad Black, Brian Malroney)
Slowly the information of criminal behaviour of AIG is being exposed and prosecuted. It's no surprise to me that our banks want to distant themselves. But I bet there is much more to come. Too bad that we have to rely on our RCMP here in Canada because we kinda know now how incompetent they are in going after the "big fish in little ponds" here in Canada. (ie Conrad Black, Brian Malroney)
kEiThZ
Superstar
^Got anything more recent than an article from 2005?
jade_lee
Active Member
"Canada is one of the few countries that backstop mortgages insured by private companies.
Backstopping all of the loans could pose a major political headache for the government. It was Finance Minister Jim Flaherty who opened the door to U.S. private insurers in his inaugural budget in 2006, agreeing to extend the guarantee to new competitors such as AIG. The initiative sparked a flurry of riskier lending that resulted in a proliferation of 40-year, zero-down home loans - so much so that the government barred the loans this summer.
In the first half of 2008, $56-billion of new mortgages, or more than half, had 40-year amortizations. Sources estimate that about 10 per cent of those were zero-down loans.
The most vocal proponent of expanding the guarantee has been Genworth, which for years held an estimated market share of about 30 per cent. The federal lobbyist registry shows that Ron McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to former Ontario premier Mike Harris and a hired consultant for Genworth, held a series of meetings with numerous officials from the Finance Department - starting at the very top. In August, the lobbyist met with Mr. Flaherty and his chief of staff, Derek Vanstone, about the guarantee, the registry shows. Two months later he met with a number of bureaucrats, including Jeremy Rudin, the assistant deputy minister in charge of the government's guarantee. The lobbyist also met with a finance policy adviser in late November." globe and mail jan 09
So convictions in 2005 against AIG and 2006 our government found them credible? Recent history suggested otherwise.
Backstopping all of the loans could pose a major political headache for the government. It was Finance Minister Jim Flaherty who opened the door to U.S. private insurers in his inaugural budget in 2006, agreeing to extend the guarantee to new competitors such as AIG. The initiative sparked a flurry of riskier lending that resulted in a proliferation of 40-year, zero-down home loans - so much so that the government barred the loans this summer.
In the first half of 2008, $56-billion of new mortgages, or more than half, had 40-year amortizations. Sources estimate that about 10 per cent of those were zero-down loans.
The most vocal proponent of expanding the guarantee has been Genworth, which for years held an estimated market share of about 30 per cent. The federal lobbyist registry shows that Ron McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to former Ontario premier Mike Harris and a hired consultant for Genworth, held a series of meetings with numerous officials from the Finance Department - starting at the very top. In August, the lobbyist met with Mr. Flaherty and his chief of staff, Derek Vanstone, about the guarantee, the registry shows. Two months later he met with a number of bureaucrats, including Jeremy Rudin, the assistant deputy minister in charge of the government's guarantee. The lobbyist also met with a finance policy adviser in late November." globe and mail jan 09
So convictions in 2005 against AIG and 2006 our government found them credible? Recent history suggested otherwise.
Last edited:
jade_lee
Active Member
http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show?id=17627
AIG, the bad guys? Apparently not to Harper/Harris types.
AIG, the bad guys? Apparently not to Harper/Harris types.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
AIG troubles cause troubles for American transit systems
From a PBS video on Transit in Trouble
Video: Financial Meltdown Adds to Fiscal Woes for Some Public Transit Agencies
From a PBS video on Transit in Trouble
Video: Financial Meltdown Adds to Fiscal Woes for Some Public Transit Agencies
kEiThZ
Superstar
^ It's been discussed before. All of Obama's efforts to build transit infrastructure will be for naught if they are no agencies left to run the services. Perhaps, he'll come up with a transit bailout!
afransen
Senior Member
One has the wonder whether after all the bailouts, the US government may itself need a bailout. Who knows if the world will deliver.
jade_lee
Active Member
The American plan appears to be geared towards taking control over troubled companies, finding out the mess these companies have created, figuring out what is still profitable, getting rid of the toxic waste and then offering up all the viable assets for sale.......the world still thinks America is a good investment.