afg2001
New Member
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007 Do you think it's true? Why hasn't this been in the news?
Last edited:
|
|
|
Just In Case You Didn't Hear About Canada's 75 Billion Bank Bailout
- Thread starter afg2001
- Start date
afransen
Senior Member
Please don't just post links. This is a discussion forum.
afg2001
New Member
I was hoping to start a discussion by doing that.
afransen
Senior Member
It's a pretty bad way to do it. Use your own words.
Observer Walt
Senior Member
Well it doesn't seem to be turning into a hot topic (predictably).
The article is from ten months ago, when the picture looked a bit different. But I think the use of the word "bailout" is very unfortunate and almost irresponsible. Banks in Canada were not bailed out, as they were in several other countries. They were never in danger of failure, as was the case in the U.S. and elsewhere. The mortgage purchases were to improve liquidity at a point where liquidity was cramped.
It's not just a picky technical point. Confidence in financial institutions was at an all-time low a year ago. It's important not to feed the rumour mill in those circumstances.
As a side point, this program cost the Canadian taxpayer nothing. The government actually made some money on it. They booked a profit from the mortgage interest, which exceeded their cost of funds.
The article is from ten months ago, when the picture looked a bit different. But I think the use of the word "bailout" is very unfortunate and almost irresponsible. Banks in Canada were not bailed out, as they were in several other countries. They were never in danger of failure, as was the case in the U.S. and elsewhere. The mortgage purchases were to improve liquidity at a point where liquidity was cramped.
It's not just a picky technical point. Confidence in financial institutions was at an all-time low a year ago. It's important not to feed the rumour mill in those circumstances.
As a side point, this program cost the Canadian taxpayer nothing. The government actually made some money on it. They booked a profit from the mortgage interest, which exceeded their cost of funds.
Therion
Senior Member
Actually they're still making money off of it, as far as I know. This was definitely not a bailout. It was a way to take some loans off bank balance sheets so that they can keep lending. I don't know how effective it was, but I'm sure it didn't hurt.
afg2001
New Member
My main goal was to share the link without tainting it with my personal opinion. Since none of this is in the mainstream media I was also curious to know if anyone even knew.
afg2001
New Member
Last edited:
Dilla
Senior Member
I read some of the article, and watched about 5 minutes of the movie.
The article comes off as though it was written by a 19 year old who's just beginning to learn about both finance and writing. It's hopelessly repetitive, unstructured, and woefully edited.
This sentence for example:
"While the operation is casually described as a transfer of assets from the banks to the CMHC, what we dealing with is a cash injection equivalent to 4.6% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is financed through a massive public debt operation."
What we dealing with? Did anyone read this more than once?
Or how about:
"While the Canadian bailout procedures differ from those of the US Treasury under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), they essentially serve the same purpose. Both programs contribute to bank centralization and the concentration of financial wealth."
Any proof for that? Or is just stating it proof enough?
There is no persuasive argument made that this is a bailout. The government bought mortgages with this money, and there's a good chance they can make a return on this. The bailouts came when toxic assets to which US banks had major exposure were bought, with little hope of ever seeing a return (a high percentage of the loans were going to end in default). This is not the case here.
Don't even get me started on the movie you posted. It's as though I'm supposed to be shocked to learn how finance works. I'm not. For all the griping, this system is the largest creator of wealth the world has ever seen, by a long shot. Decry it all you want, but doubt we'd be debating it on Core 2 Duo computers, over 100mbs connections from climate controlled offices without it.
What's going on around here? Every day now, people are posting items on here saying "look at this evidence" and then link to a site which also sells the requisite books on the coming "New World Order", and assorted garbage. Give your head a shake, people.
The article comes off as though it was written by a 19 year old who's just beginning to learn about both finance and writing. It's hopelessly repetitive, unstructured, and woefully edited.
This sentence for example:
"While the operation is casually described as a transfer of assets from the banks to the CMHC, what we dealing with is a cash injection equivalent to 4.6% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is financed through a massive public debt operation."
What we dealing with? Did anyone read this more than once?
Or how about:
"While the Canadian bailout procedures differ from those of the US Treasury under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), they essentially serve the same purpose. Both programs contribute to bank centralization and the concentration of financial wealth."
Any proof for that? Or is just stating it proof enough?
There is no persuasive argument made that this is a bailout. The government bought mortgages with this money, and there's a good chance they can make a return on this. The bailouts came when toxic assets to which US banks had major exposure were bought, with little hope of ever seeing a return (a high percentage of the loans were going to end in default). This is not the case here.
Don't even get me started on the movie you posted. It's as though I'm supposed to be shocked to learn how finance works. I'm not. For all the griping, this system is the largest creator of wealth the world has ever seen, by a long shot. Decry it all you want, but doubt we'd be debating it on Core 2 Duo computers, over 100mbs connections from climate controlled offices without it.
What's going on around here? Every day now, people are posting items on here saying "look at this evidence" and then link to a site which also sells the requisite books on the coming "New World Order", and assorted garbage. Give your head a shake, people.
cacruden
Senior Member
Actually, I was surprised to find out that CMHC insured mortgages are 100% insured - not the 20% insured (houses bought when you don't have the 20% downpayment at time of purchase). (assuming what I was told is correct). This means that non-performing loans that are CMHC insured sitting on the banks books are of no financial risk to the bank - it is just reducing the liquidity of the bank - and if this is the case transferring these non-performing mortgages off of the books makes perfect sense.
Basically, a friend of a friend was trying to negotiate a lower rate because they had more than 20% down and the bank was saying no - because they were more of a risk to the bank in a bubble - than those that are CMHC insured.
Now of course I have not double checked it.....
Basically, a friend of a friend was trying to negotiate a lower rate because they had more than 20% down and the bank was saying no - because they were more of a risk to the bank in a bubble - than those that are CMHC insured.
Now of course I have not double checked it.....
Observer Walt
Senior Member
Cacruden, yes CMHC mortgages are insured to 100% of their value.
Again, not to be picky, but you made a comment (perhaps inadvertently) that the mortgages transferred off the bank's books to the government were "non-performing". In finance jargon, that would mean that the mortgages were delinquent and not generating a return. But these mortgages actually are generating a return, hence the earlier comment that the government was making a profit on them by collecting mortgage interest.
I have no idea what point afg2001 is trying to make. The government doesn't finance itself by borrowing money from private banks; governments borrow by issuing bonds, which pay a relatively low interest rate because they carry the lowest level of risk. I haven't seen the movie he refers to but I'll take Dilla's word that it is perhaps not the most solid source of information.
Again, not to be picky, but you made a comment (perhaps inadvertently) that the mortgages transferred off the bank's books to the government were "non-performing". In finance jargon, that would mean that the mortgages were delinquent and not generating a return. But these mortgages actually are generating a return, hence the earlier comment that the government was making a profit on them by collecting mortgage interest.
I have no idea what point afg2001 is trying to make. The government doesn't finance itself by borrowing money from private banks; governments borrow by issuing bonds, which pay a relatively low interest rate because they carry the lowest level of risk. I haven't seen the movie he refers to but I'll take Dilla's word that it is perhaps not the most solid source of information.
Observer Walt
Senior Member
Hoo boy! Out of idle curiosity I googled "Oh Canada the movie", and my first hit was a "truther" site, which apparently also wants to tell me the truths that I didn't already know about the H1N1 vaccine. I don't think I'll pursue that much further, but Dilla makes a good point that we seem to be getting some off-the-wall discussion on the forum quite recently. Can't wait for the truth about the Illuminati.
cacruden
Senior Member
I would have to say it was not inadvertently, just an assumption that mortgages they would transfer would be non-performing.... if they are performing.... then it is even less of an issue since it is no different than buying performing mortgages (or securities) on the open market
(an equal exchange, not a subsidy).