Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice September 19, 2018
    The CCPA is pleased to announce the creation of the Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice.This Fellowship is created to honour the legacy of senior researcher Kate McInturff who passed away in July 2018. Kate was a feminist trailblazer in public policy and gender-based research and achieved national acclaim for researching, writing, and producing CCPA’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The buck-a-beer challenge Ontario deserves September 6, 2018
    Ricardo Tranjan proposes an alternate plan to Doug Ford's buck-a-beer challenge in the Toronto Star.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Growing number of professionals face job insecurity, study finds September 6, 2018
    The Toronto Star's Sara Mojtehedzadeh discusses the findings of the CCPA Ontario's report, No Safe Harbour and gathers firsthand accounts from precariously employed professionals who live and work in Ontario.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Our Schools/Our Selves: The view from West Virginia September 4, 2018
    Our latests publication, Lesson Here, digs in to the West Viriginia teachers' strike.  Read the firsthand accounts of the work stoppage here.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • What do the two largest mining disasters in Canada's and Brazil's history have in common? August 20, 2018
    Tailings dam spills at Mount Polley and Mariana: Chronicles of disasters foretold  explores the many parallels between the tailings dam spills at the Mount Polley mine in British Columbia, Canada, and the Samarco mine in Mariana, Minas Gerais, Brazil. The Mount Polley disaster took place in August 2014, when the dam holding toxic waste from […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Complete details of 2008-09 Bank Support

Readers of this blog will have hopefully read my report “The big banks big secret” which examines the $114 billion that Canada’s banks received during the 2008-09 financial crisis.  Its major finding was that at some point three of Canada’s five big banks had received support worth more than their market capitalization, or the value of all the stock, at around $20-25 billion per bank.

As I noted in the report both the Bank of Canada and CMHC have refused to release the secret details of their support programs including how much each bank got, when they got it and what they put as collateral.  Canadians are still not allowed to know how much each bank got.

Some researchers have requested the full dataset that stood behind the report.  I also wanted to make it publicly available here so others could freely use it in their own research on bank supports during the crisis.  Hopefully it can lead to determining why some banks needed so much more relative support than others and how we might improve the banking system in the future.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Roy McPhail
Time: June 8, 2012, 2:10 pm

Next time I hope we listen to Steve Keen and deleverage the borrowers rather than pander to the lenders.

Comment from Darwin O’Connor
Time: June 8, 2012, 3:29 pm

At the time, Canadian borrowers wheren’t in any particular difficulty, so there was no one to deleverage. The Canadian bank’s problems where largely due to irrational fear and problems that they didn’t cause.

Comment from John W. Warnock
Time: June 9, 2012, 10:40 am

About a year ago I asked my banker how many no money down 40 year mortgages they had issued. I know him, and we get along well. He laughed. “It does not matter,” he proclaimed, “because CMHC guarantees all such mortgages.”

Comment from Michael Boudreau
Time: June 12, 2012, 6:21 am

David: This is a paper that appears to study the same stuff in the USA (Felkerson 2011).They got a lot of pushback, just as you did with your initial report.
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf

As for the data, unfortunately these says, facts seem to have very little sway on opinions.

I’ve heard it argued that the banks “could not” get money so we had to provide liquidity. Is that really true, or is it a matter of “could not get at a rate which allowed us to make profit”?

At a high level, it seems to me that, as you have said, we should be concerned about a banking system that needs so much help and as JWW says above, one that relies so heavily on a public risk backstop to generate their profits.

Write a comment





Related articles