*promote coz i love my banking playlist

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, June 26th, 2010 10:51pm PDT - promote requested by marinara.

*money *talks

Adding video to channels (Money, Talks) - requested by ant.

About ten years ago the Canadian banks did everything they could to change the system here to an American/British style. The politicians dragged their feet on changing regulations because the average Canadian had a very low opinion of the banks. People hated the banks because of account service charges so politicians could gain easy votes by saying no to the banks' demands. Canada wasn't smart instead we were lucky.

Airdate is 25/06/2010. @acesulfameable speaks the truth. THe banks wanted to do what they could to make a quick buck. And people here still hate the service fees the banks charge.

A leverage ratio of 40:1 or 50:1 is for pansies. One of our state owned banks (LBBW) ran a ratio of 73.2 to 1. How's that for lax regulation ...

>> ^radx:

A leverage ratio of 40:1 or 50:1 is for pansies. One of our state owned banks (LBBW) ran a ratio of 73.2 to 1. How's that for lax regulation ...


I will beat you where you stand.

Shut up. and live.

good vid, straight to the point

I liked the video and basically tend to agree with the message. I'm no expert about banking or financial systems, but one thing that came to mind is that the best time to criticize risk is immediately after a fall. Lower risk mitigates that, which makes the Canadian system look great comparatively.

But for me to be 100% persuaded, I would want to see growth rates, profits, etc. during the healthy years as well as the lean. Did the riskier US system allow for stronger growth while it was working well than a more regulated system? I think that even if it did, there would still be arguments towards a less risky, regulated system -- it may be better to have long term generations of citizens enjoy measured but steady success, rather than having some years of fat cats and some facing the situations we're in now.

But again, to be completely sure, I'd like to see arguments from proponents of both systems just to prevent "the grass is always greener" talk.

I like Cenk, normally he knows what he'd talking about.

but not this time.

Yes, Canadian banks survived PARTLY because they're better regulated. Our real estate didn't collapse, but not because it's in better shape than US real estate, dollar for dollar we're in deeper on mortgages than the US was during it's peak.

The reason the US collapsed and it didn't up here is that mortgage insurance in the US collapsed. They stopped giving out easy mortgage insurance right left and centre because the appetite for it on the markets dried up.

In Canada he's quite right, mortgage insurance doesn't get passed on to the markets.

Who supports mortgage insurance in Canada?

The taxpayer.

That's right, the government of Canada is footing the bill, right now and the amount of paper they're holding is several times Canada's GDP. The maximum the CMHC (the entity that does the insuring) can insure in a year has quadrupled over the past few years.

Sound like a good plan?

In essence it hasn't collapsed here yet because the government threw more money at the problem in the supply stage, before a meltdown could happen. All that does is delay the inevitable.

If you're Canadian get yourself informed, then contact your MP and tell them what you think about a government body who's mandate is to help get Canadians into affordable housing gambling with billions of YOUR dollars and artificially inflating the cost of real estate making it LESS affordable.