PDA

View Full Version : Economics Why is Canada's banking system intact while most others are in chaos?


banyon
05-25-2009, 07:37 PM
Canada's Financial System: How Is It Still Stable in This Crisis?
by: David Hunkar May 25, 2009 | about stocks: BMO / BNS / CM / RY / TD
David Hunkar

http://seekingalpha.com/article/139442-canada-s-financial-system-how-is-it-still-stable-in-this-crisis?source=article_lb_articles

The IMF Country Report for Canada published Friday offers some unique perspectives on the reasons for the stability of Canada’s financial system since the credit crunch began. There have no been no failures of financial institutions, no large scale bailout of banks and the financial system did not undergo severe systemic pressures like it did in the U.S. and UK. In this post, let's review some of the key points from this report.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/5/25/saupload_canada_bank_writedowns_2008.JPG

1. Sound Supervision and Regulation: Regulators follow some of the best practices with respect to supervision of institutions including the new Basel principles for banking supervision. As a result writedowns by Canadian banks have been much smaller when compared to major-peer countries as shown in the chart below.


2. Strict Capital Requirements: Canadian banks’ Tier 1 Capital Ratio exceeds 7% which is higher than the 4% that required by the Basel Accord.

As of February, 2009 the Tier Ratios of the six large banks are as follows:

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/5/25/saupload_canada_banks_tier_ratio.JPG

3. Leverage ratio: This is limited to just 5% of total capital or up to 20% maximum. U.S. banks on the other hand are allowed up to 33% based on their strength and sophistication.

4. Conservative lending policies: Canadian banks like their customers exhibit low risk tolerance and have very conservative lending policies. Also their domestic retail market is profitable and stable unlike in the US.

5.Conservative Residential Mortgage Markets: In the US, 25% of all mortgages are non-prime and 60% of mortgages are securitized. In Canada these numbers are just 5% and 25% respectively. In addition most of the mortgages in Canada have Loan-To-Value [LTV] ratios of below 80%.

6. Periodic Regulatory Reviews: Since the financial sector is ever-changing with innovations and globalization, the federal authorities in Canada review the financial regulations every 5 years. It is not clear if a similar process exists in the U.S.

7. Cooperation among regulatory agencies: Officials of the various government agencies such as the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions [OSFI], Finance
Canada, Bank of Canada [BoC], Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation [CDIC], and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada meet regularly as part of the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee [FISC] to discuss and exchange regulatory information. In the U.S., agencies such as the Office of Thrift Supervision [OTS], FDIC, Federal Reserve, etc. usually operate independently of one another. Inter-agency cooperation is non-existent for the most part.

8. Proactive response to financial strains: Federal authorities are proactive when it comes to dealing with financial strains to the system. The 2009 budget contains many provisions to support stability in the financial system.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/5/25/saupload_canada_banks_market_cap_arril_1_2009.JPG

As a result of the above reasons, all the top five Canadian banks have become strong and powerful among the banks in North America.

For example, the above table shows that Royal Bank of Canada (RY) had a market cap larger than Bank of America (BAC) on April 1, 2009. And all five banks were well ahead of Citibank (C). Citibank used to have a market above $200B only a few years ago. Now if not for the government bailout, the bank would have failed. Some experts like Mark Patterson have said that many large U.S. financial giants are technically insolvent.

Overall despite being very close to the U.S. in terms of financial and economic linkages, Canadian banks have so far shown remarkable resilience during this crisis.

Source: Canada: 2009 Article IV Consultation—Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion, May 2009, IMF
Disclosure: Long all five Canadian Banks listed in the US markets


:hmmm: and it wasn't because they left it all open to the oracle of the market?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2009, 07:57 PM
There was no lack of regulation in the US since new regs replaced older ones. The regulators aka govt did not do it's job regulating. You can't hang your hat on the regulation canard when we have the system we have because some of them make sense for this system. Those wouldn't make sense in a free system without fractional reserve banking.

Oh and the Chinese Communist have a so-far sound financial system too. And Canada doesn't have an empire of bases to support which necessitates our govt borrowing excessively.

banyon
05-25-2009, 08:06 PM
There was no lack of regulation in the US since new regs replaced older ones. The regulators aka govt did not do it's job regulating. You can't hang your hat on the regulation canard when we have the system we have because some of them make sense for this system. Those wouldn't make sense in a free system without fractional reserve banking.

Oh and the Chinese Communist have a so-far financial system too. And Canada doesn't have an empire of bases to support which necessitates our govt borrowing excessively.

Of course there was a lack of regulation. Did you not follow the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill and its repeal of Glass-Stegall and the subsequent creation of the Mortgage backed securites and Credit Default swaps in the primary financial industry? Not to mention that while Bush was in office, antitrust and securities regulators were practically asleep at the switch.

You had people like Madoff and Stanford on the inside of Wall Street cozy with the regulators bilking people out of billions.

Also, our debt isn't to finance an "empire of bases". I would like to trim some excesses in military contracting as well, but that's a relatively small fraction of the overall debt in this discussion.

Lastly, I note that you didn't comment on the stability of the Canadian banking system and its relatively higher level of regulation, shouldn't, by all that you hold holy, that mean they should have superimploded into a Stalinist prison camp years ago?

jAZ
05-25-2009, 10:41 PM
Because they are communists.

FD
05-25-2009, 10:54 PM
from http://blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/?p=1150


Why Have Canada's Banks Done Well?
...

But it doesn’t seem to be as simple as “Canadian banks are more tightly-regulated”.

1. We never had restrictions on interstate banking, so Canadian banks spread their assets and liabilities across Canada. (So it doesn’t matter if a local housing market goes bust).

2. We don’t have Glass-Steagal. The investment banks joined the retail banks some years ago.

3. We don’t have mortgage interest deductibility from taxes. So paying down your mortgage is a tax-free investment. So most people want to pay down their mortgages.

4. (Except in Alberta), mortgages are fully recourse. You can’t just walk away from a negative equity home and hand the keys to the bank; the bank will come after you for the difference.

I wouldn’t describe those differences as “Canada is more regulated”.


Not to mention the obvious fact that any Canadian investors seeking high risk just invested in Wall Street.

FD
05-25-2009, 11:05 PM
I'll add to my previous post that not everything is about Socialism vs Free Markets, there are a lot of technical issues involved in these things that don't fall on that spectrum. Taking a pre-formed ideology and trying to force a new issue into it serves no good.

KC native
05-25-2009, 11:27 PM
Of course there was a lack of regulation. Did you not follow the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill and its repeal of Glass-Stegall and the subsequent creation of the Mortgage backed securites and Credit Default swaps in the primary financial industry? Not to mention that while Bush was in office, antitrust and securities regulators were practically asleep at the switch.

You had people like Madoff and Stanford on the inside of Wall Street cozy with the regulators bilking people out of billions.

Also, our debt isn't to finance an "empire of bases". I would like to trim some excesses in military contracting as well, but that's a relatively small fraction of the overall debt in this discussion.

Lastly, I note that you didn't comment on the stability of the Canadian banking system and its relatively higher level of regulation, shouldn't, by all that you hold holy, that mean they should have superimploded into a Stalinist prison camp years ago?

One small quibble. CDS and Mortgage Backed Securities have been around for a long time. There was quite a discussion at the time as to whether they should have been regulated by the CFTC or stay unregulated.

The repeal of Glass Steagall allowed banks to do things they had not been allowed to do since they got into trouble last time (Great Depression) and then the subsequent relaxation of leverage limits are what ran these securities into the ground.

SBK
05-26-2009, 01:17 AM
Did the Canadian government tell it's banks to lend to people that couldn't afford to pay back the loans?

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 04:52 AM
Barney Frank is not Canadian.

acesn8s
05-26-2009, 06:35 AM
They don't weaken their own dollar just to get a vote.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 06:41 AM
Canadian Banks were not forced into sub prime by regulation...ours were regulated, just told to do dumb stuff.

banyon
05-26-2009, 08:07 AM
Did the Canadian government tell it's banks to lend to people that couldn't afford to pay back the loans?

Did ours?

KC native
05-26-2009, 09:01 AM
Did ours?

No, but the wingers like to keep throwing it out there like they did.

banyon
05-26-2009, 09:31 AM
from http://blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/?p=1150




Not to mention the obvious fact that any Canadian investors seeking high risk just invested in Wall Street.

1. I'm not sure why this matters since the banks at issue here are also large, national banks and the locality of mortgages requirement went away quite a while ago.

2. Probably unlike our investment banks, it sounds like the Canadian ones are heavvily regulated.

3. Fair enough.

4. Banks can seek deficiency juddgments here as well, I don't see that there's a difference here.

A solid counterpoint as always Mr. Forward Dante, but you haven't really shown anything to counter the fact that the Canadian banks are significantly more regulated and they're not having issues.

banyon
05-26-2009, 09:31 AM
Canadian Banks were not forced into sub prime by regulation...ours were regulated, just told to do dumb stuff.

Proof?

LOCOChief
05-26-2009, 10:43 AM
No, but the wingers like to keep throwing it out there like they did.

Our GSE's were the first to offer these loans before any portfolio lenders even considered such a thing, but Barney wanted no oversight?

KC native
05-26-2009, 10:45 AM
Our GSE's were the first to offer these loans before any portfolio lenders even considered such a thing, but Barney wanted no oversight?

...Subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA and the GSE's are a drop in the bucket in relation to the overall problem.

Stewie
05-26-2009, 10:51 AM
Yeah, Canadian banks are AWESOME!!! :rolleyes:

Look at their stock markets to get a good idea of how they view fiscal responsibility. Their markets are the most abused, rotten, regulated pieces of shit on the planet. I could write paragraphs about their ineptness but I don't have hours.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 11:06 AM
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

A great but long read on the projected impact of the Clinto Admin changes to the CRA. Pretty amazing how accurate this was.

KC native
05-26-2009, 11:15 AM
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

A great but long read on the projected impact of the Clinto Admin changes to the CRA. Pretty amazing how accurate this was.

It's far from accurate and it's from 2000. Check this out first (actual testimony from a fed director regarding CRA)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/federal-reserve-director-on-the-cra/

Federal Reserve Director on the CRA
Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - October 4th, 2008, 2:00PM

From the Federal Reserve:

"Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution’s individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner." (emphasis added)

What about mergers or acquisitions — did the CRA get in the way of that?

"Since 1988, there have been more than 13,500 applications for the formation, acquisition, or merger of bank holding companies or state-member banks reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board. Over this time, twenty-five applications have been denied, with eight of those failing to obtain Board approval involving unsatisfactory consumer protection or community reinvestment issues."

Wow, just 8 out of 13,500. That’s less than one tenth of 1%.

What about the methods of forcing compliance?

"The CRA is one of several laws enacted to ensure that consumers and communities have access to financial services and products regardless of location or demographics. Congress sought to achieve that goal not by imposing rigid, prescriptive rules but by charging regulators to use flexible standards that could change, as needed, over time."

Gee, this doesn’t sound too onerous; What was all the brouhaha about?

"The debate surrounding the passage of the CRA was contentious, with critics charging that the law would distort credit markets, create unnecessary regulatory burden, lead to unsound lending, and cause the governmental agencies charged with implementing the law to allocate credit. Partly in response to these concerns, the act adopted by Congress included little prescriptive detail."

What are the requirements of the CRA?

The CRA simply requires the Federal Reserve and the other federal financial supervisory agencies:

• to encourage federally insured depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, consistent with safe and sound operations;
• to assess their records of performance under the CRA during examinations; and
• to take those CRA records into account when evaluating proposals for expansion.

Hey, that sounds pretty flexible. What sort of discretion exists in applying the CRA:

The law gives the agencies considerable discretion and flexibility to fashion programs and procedures to carry out the purposes of the law, to issue implementing regulations that include measures of performance, and to modify those regulations in response to changing markets. This flexibility has contributed to CRA’s relevance and adaptability through times of rapid economic and financial change, and widely differing economic circumstances among neighborhoods.

Wow, this stuff makes the wingnuts and gasbags look pretty foolish. What’s your source for all this?

All quotes are come from the testimony of Sandra F. Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, before the Committee on Financial Services, or from the Federal Reserve website.


>

Source:
The Community Reinvestment Act
Sandra F. Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs
Before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives
February 13, 2008
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/braunstein20080213a.htm

See also:
The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Community Affairs Research Conference, Washington, D.C. March 30, 2007
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20070330a.htm

Community Reinvestment Act
http://www.federalreserve.gov/DCCA/CRA/default.htm

The Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending
Robert B. Avery, Raphael W. Bostic, and Glenn B. Canner
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, November, 2000
Economic Commentary
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2000/1100.htm (http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2000/1100.htm)

And now a follow up on Husock (who was still trying to claim this nonsense as recently as December)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/more-cra-idiocy/

More CRA Idiocy
Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - December 11th, 2008, 11:05AM

Howard Husock has an exercise in cognitive dissonance in today’s NYT Op-Ed pages titled Housing Goals We Can’t Afford, and it begins:

“The national wave of home foreclosures, many concentrated in lower-income and minority neighborhoods, has created a strong temptation to find the villains responsible.”

What can you say about an Op-Ed whose very first sentence is a giant pile of steaming bullshit? That statement is demonstrably false. As the prior post on foreclosures shows, the concentration is mostly middle class and upper middle class white suburban neighborhoods.

California leads the nation in foreclosures. The state’s foreclosure activity was up 51% from a year ago. These are not CRA communities, they are what were hoped to be surburban bedroom communities east of the major cities (San Diego and L.A.)

Next up is Florida; The state’s foreclosure activity was still up 68 percent from November 2007. The enormous overbuilding of Condos, and not CRA, is to blame. These weren’t inner city loans to minorities, as Dan Gross pointed out, they were “WCI Communities — builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there)” WCI filed for bankruptcy in August. “Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities.”

~~~

Let’s put some context around what the CRA is and isn’t.

In the 1960s and 70s, banks would redline neighborhoods. They would literally put a map on a wall, and with a red magic marker, draw a redline enveloping certain neighborhoods. If you lived within the redlined areas, regardless of your income, credit score, assets, debt servicing ability, if you were in the redlined area you could not qualify for a mortgage.

Although Redlining was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the practice still surreptitiously continued. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was the next attempt to stop redlining. There were two main aspects of the CRA: First, it required banks to apply the same lending criteria in all communities. Credit Score, Loan-to-value, percentage of monthly take home, etc. had to be the same across different areas.

Second, the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make good faith attempts to loan the money back to its own depositors. If you open up a branch in Harlem, you cannot suck up all the local business and residents’ cash, and then turn around and only lend it out to Tribeca condo buyers. You must make a fair attempt to loan the money locally. Banks have no obligation to open branches in Harlem, but if they did, they are required to at least try to lend the locals back their own money.

Note that there are no quotas, minimums or mandates. This is a very soft rating system.

~~~

The rest of Husock’s article is filled with the usual dissembling and half-truths. He mentions “in 1995 the Clinton administration added tough new regulations,” but omits any mentions that the Bush administration substantially watering down the act in 2004.

The only testimony adduced from the banking industry in the Op-Ed was“a compliance officer for a New Jersey bank wrote in a letter last month to American Banker.” That’s your inside proof? Meanwhile, since Bear Stearns collapsed in March, there has been a veritable parade of bankers, mortgage originators, lenders, fund managers, and investment banks CEOs all testifying in Washington D.C. about the causes of the crisis. By some strange coincidence, not a single one blamed the CRA (Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers was even asked about it). Not a one.

And of course, vast numbers of sub-prime mortgages were written by non-CRA banks. Indeed, none of the 300+ mortgage originators that imploded were depository banks covered by the CRA.

This is a an intellectually silly argument from other perspectives also. Why was there no credit/housing meltdown from 1977 to 2005? Why did 30 other countries, none of which have are covered by the CRA, have a remarkably similar housing boom and bust to the USA? Husock’s arguments not only fail legally and factually, they also fail in terms of time and space . . .

>

Source:
Housing Goals We Can’t Afford
HOWARD HUSOCK
NYT, December 10, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/opinion/11husock.html

Subprime Suspects
Daniel Gross
Slate, Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008, at 2:08 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 11:22 AM
when the critic starts with calling the work a "steaming pile of bullshit", somhow I lose faith that the depth and credibilty from that point forward is not going to be real strong.

Having seen the same reaction by Banyon in the past, there really is not much hope that he, and now you, would read or care to understand the influences of the CRA beyond your denouncemments of any or all points to the contrary of your positions.

I can respect that, you certainly have a right to your opinions. However others here may have interest in the effects of Bad regulation as opposed to good regulation or in some cases no regulation. This will stand as an example of bad regulation that in fact fed bad decisions and in time drove businesses to make decisions that they knew were wrong but were forced to to live up to the standards and goals of the CRA

KC native
05-26-2009, 11:28 AM
when the critic starts with calling the work a "steaming pile of bullshit", somhow I lose faith that the depth and credibilty from that point forward is not going to be real strong.

Having seen the same reaction by Banyon in the past, there really is not much hope that he, and now you, would read or care to understand the influences of the CRA beyond your denouncemments of any or all points to the contrary of your positions.

I can respect that, you certainly have a right to your opinions. However others here may have interest in the effects of Bad regulation as opposed to good regulation or in some cases no regulation. This will stand as an example of bad regulation that in fact fed bad decisions and in time drove businesses to make decisions that they knew were wrong but were forced to to live up to the standards and goals of the CRA

The hard evidence is right there in the posts. You can ignore it if you choose but it doesn't make you any less wrong. Look at the numbers and where the foreclosures are and it's clear that poor people and the CRA had no role in this crisis.

Beyond that did you even read the first article? Apparently not because you have no idea of what the CRA does or it's requirements on banks.

Stewie
05-26-2009, 11:34 AM
Are you a crook?

Do you want to make a ton of money?

Do you live in Canada?

Are you a Canadian regulator?

It's EASY!

List your publicly traded company on a Canadian market and another market outside of Canada.

Start counting your money, with a wink of an eye from the bankers, gov't, and everyone else who profits from absolute, unmitigated fraud.

Oh yeah, these "pristine" bankers are in the middle of the fraud.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 11:34 AM
Im no more prone to look at the evidence you insist is correct any more than you will examine what those who see CRA as a major part of the problem present. You have a stake in the ground and no amount of fact or explaination will move you. Thats ok with me.

This issue was and has been deeply argued over far far far before you showed up and no one will need to renew the debates that were terminated then. I have no problem with your assumption that on most any subject you have greater understanding than anyone else.

KC native
05-26-2009, 11:38 AM
Im no more prone to look at the evidence you insist is correct any more than you will examine what those who see CRA as a major part of the problem present. You have a stake in the ground and no amount of fact or explaination will move you. Thats ok with me.

This issue was and has been deeply argued over far far far before you showed up and no one will need to renew the debates that were terminated then. I have no problem with your assumption that on most any subject you have greater understanding than anyone else.

So, now you're ducking the evidence? Ritholz uses actual numbers and testimony from the regulator in charge of this area as opposed to the tripe of Husock. I guess you don't have any problems with what I posted but you're going to let your biases override what is right in front of your face.

Run away now dishonest because the facts are staring you in the face.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 11:40 AM
No, I just choose not to argue with you. Im trying to be polite.

KC native
05-26-2009, 11:41 AM
No, I just choose not to argue with you. Im trying to be polite.

ROFL Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You're choosing not to argue because you are wrong.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 11:48 AM
Indeed I am. And you are right. See thats easy.

banyon
05-26-2009, 12:29 PM
Yeah, Canadian banks are AWESOME!!! :rolleyes:

Look at their stock markets to get a good idea of how they view fiscal responsibility. Their markets are the most abused, rotten, regulated pieces of shit on the planet. I could write paragraphs about their ineptness but I don't have hours.

Would you rather own BMO, RY, CM, and TD, or C, BAC, WFC, and JPM?

BucEyedPea
05-26-2009, 01:07 PM
I'll add to my previous post that not everything is about Socialism vs Free Markets, there are a lot of technical issues involved in these things that don't fall on that spectrum. Taking a pre-formed ideology and trying to force a new issue into it serves no good.

Yeah, there's mercantilism too. Yeah know Hamiltonism who favored the same set up.

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 01:18 PM
Did the Canadian government tell it's banks to lend to people that couldn't afford to pay back the loans?

Who said that? Don't twist words into something that was never said.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 02:08 PM
Barney Frank is not Canadian.

:)

LOCOChief
05-26-2009, 02:30 PM
...Subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA and the GSE's are a drop in the bucket in relation to the overall problem.


The GSE's Fannie and Freddie are the bucket, the Community reinvestment act filled the bucket, and Barney said just the mention of oversight would needlessly cause fear in the credit markets.

The larger problem looming for the consumer are the banks that will not have to report their "gain on sale" and those "subprime lenders" that you refer to will no longer be competition, this means you and I as consumers will get raped form some of the largest recipients of TARP.

KC native
05-26-2009, 02:34 PM
The GSE's Fannie and Freddie are the bucket, the Community reinvestment act filled the bucket, and Barney said just the mention of oversight would needlessly cause fear in the credit markets.

The larger problem looming for the consumer are the banks that will not have to report their "gain on sale" and those "subprime lenders" that you refer to will no longer be competition, this means you and I as consumers will get raped form some of the largest recipients of TARP.

You have no clue of what you're talking about. Just stop. The CRA and poor people didn't cause this. Go back and read the two articles I posted and then talk to me if you have any disagreements.

LOCOChief
05-26-2009, 02:49 PM
You have no clue of what you're talking about. Just stop. The CRA and poor people didn't cause this. Go back and read the two articles I posted and then talk to me if you have any disagreements.


I didn't say poor people caused this and I don't care to read the posts of an unemployed socialist who makes no contributions to society. I've been an Exec officer in banking for going on 19yrs and I can promise you I've forgotten more about this industry than you'll ever know.

The credit markets are strained as a result of the greed of a few politicians who let the fox in the hen house.

KC native
05-26-2009, 02:55 PM
I didn't say poor people caused this and I don't care to read the posts of an unemployed socialist who makes no contributions to society. I've been an Exec officer in banking for going on 19yrs and I can promise you I've forgotten more about this industry than you'll ever know.

The credit markets are strained as a result of the greed of a few politicians who let the fox in the hen house.

ROFL Unemployed? I get paid to manage investments.

Executive officer? In what area of banking? Executive teller? ROFL The credit markets were strained because of the leverage out there and banks being concerned that anyone could go under at any time. It has nothing to do with the greed of a few politicians and everything to do with the greed of wall street, lax regulation, and leverage.

Stewie
05-26-2009, 03:01 PM
Would you rather own BMO, RY, CM, and TD, or C, BAC, WFC, and JPM?

None of the above. They're all crooks who will be found out. Ride it for what it's worth, but the markets in Canada are abused. Especially those stocks with a dual listing.

LOCOChief
05-26-2009, 03:05 PM
ROFL Unemployed? I get paid to manage investments.

Executive officer? In what area of banking? Executive teller? ROFL The credit markets were strained because of the leverage out there and banks being concerned that anyone could go under at any time. It has nothing to do with the greed of a few politicians and everything to do with the greed of wall street, lax regulation, and leverage.


The greed of wall street could have been curtailed with proper oversight and who was opposed to that?

And just who's investments are you managing when you spend the better part of each day running your mouth on this message board.

You're not telling the truth and I see through you.

Stewie
05-26-2009, 03:06 PM
ROFL Unemployed? I get paid to manage investments.

Executive officer? In what area of banking? Executive teller? ROFL The credit markets were strained because of the leverage out there and banks being concerned that anyone could go under at any time. It has nothing to do with the greed of a few politicians and everything to do with the greed of wall street, lax regulation, and leverage.

This is spot on. Watch the dollar go down like a whore for $20. It will be spectacular.

Stewie
05-26-2009, 03:10 PM
The greed of wall street could have been curtailed with proper oversight and who was opposed to that?

And just who's investments are you managing when you spend the better part of each day running your mouth on this message board.

You're not telling the truth and I see through you.

Rubin, Greenspan, Clinton said there's should be no oversight. Derivatives and hedge funds spread risk, they said.

It sure did... to the taxpayer.

KC native
05-26-2009, 04:12 PM
The greed of wall street could have been curtailed with proper oversight and who was opposed to that?

And just who's investments are you managing when you spend the better part of each day running your mouth on this message board.

You're not telling the truth and I see through you.

It's called tabbed browsing and an ability to multitask. Nice attempt to deflect though. What area of banking do you work in? I can tell you specifically what I do once you answer that executive teller.

As far as the greed of wall street not being overseen, that falls somewhat on Clinton and mostly on Bush. Clinton allowed the Gramm-Beach-Lilly act as well as the commoddities/futures modernization law. Then you put an administration in who was hostile to oversight and who allowed these banks to lever up (read up on Chris Cox and his 2004 SEC decision to relax the limits on leverage) and you can see how we get to here.

banyon
05-26-2009, 08:21 PM
Yeah, there's mercantilism too. Yeah know Hamiltonism who favored the same set up.

You should really just stop using the word "mercantilism".

The_Doctor10
05-30-2009, 11:19 AM
Did the Canadian government tell it's banks to lend to people that couldn't afford to pay back the loans?

In general, we try to avoid that up here. Frankly, why anyone thought it was a good idea is mystifying. If you know they can't afford to pay back their loans, what's the point of giving them money in the first place? Just so you can foreclose on them in three years?

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2009, 11:39 AM
In general, we try to avoid that up here. Frankly, why anyone thought it was a good idea is mystifying. If you know they can't afford to pay back their loans, what's the point of giving them money in the first place? Just so you can foreclose on them in three years?

The point is....life has dealt some people a shitty hand, and because they are poor (if often by their own choosing--because they lack the motivation, or smarts, or "luck" to succeed--is that their fault?)

...or just because they would rather smoke crack or guzzle Forties or Boone's Farm on Friday, Saturday, and every other night they damn well please....and then their silly-assed bosses be expecting them to come to work, on-time even....ssshhhhhhiiiiiitttttt, man.

I mean, is it really asking too much to let people drop outta school, have a little fun and freedom in their lives, and not have to work their asses off for a whole 40-45 hours a week (damn, that be seriously cutting into their gaming, internet, NBA/WWF/MMA/UFC prime-time watching, man....besides their rich-ass highway robbery cable companies don't be carrying Spike, man.)

Is that really asking too much, Holmes? :spock:

I mean, you be depriving them of the GD AMERICAN DREAM--to "own" they's own crib....mofo. What next, you want us to call you "Massa" too??? Sheeeesh.

Just another rich boy wanting to keep us po folk, down. ....ssshhhhhhiiiiiitttttt, man. :cuss:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTsW75KJXO4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTsW75KJXO4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

googlegoogle
06-05-2009, 02:25 AM
How many banks are in the USA?

This may surprise some of you but banks are businesses. They should be allowed to fail.

These WallStreet risky investment banks should have failed.

We have thousands of banks in the USA.