Canada's Bank Bailout
On this blog on 17 August 2010, a posting by Benjamin Donato
( http://greenparty.ca/blogs/16756/2010-08-17/canada-had-had-bank-bail-out ) started a discussion on whether Canada had actually had a bank bailout, contrary to statements by Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty that no bailout occurred. In that discussion thread, the following questions arose: How much money was spent, was it really a bailout, and who benefited? These questions can now be answered.
The cost was $69 billion:
“Through the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program, the federal government purchased $69.35 billion of insured mortgage pools from financial institutions. The program was allowed to sunset on March 31, 2010, as market conditions had improved markedly since its introduction in October 2008.” Quoted from the official government Economic Action Plan website ( http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/initiatives/eng/index.asp?initiativeID=39&mode=7 )
Under the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) purchased securities comprised of pools of insured residential mortgages from Canadian financial institutions to provide long-term stable funding to lenders and help them continue lending to Canadian consumers and businesses.
Yes, it was a bailout:
“It (IMPP) supported the banks at a critical juncture in the global financial crisis, and played a big role in keeping mortgage rates from flaring higher late last year, when many global borrowing costs were surging.” Douglas Porter, Deputy Chief Economist, Bank of Montreal quoted in the 2009 CMHC Annual Report, page 69.
So who benefited?
Arguably all Canadians, especially those with mortgages, did reap some benefit by avoiding financial instability; they also assumed risk and debt load in the process. The prime beneficiaries were the financial institutions: banks and mortgage insurers. We are used to thinking of CMHC as the only mortgage insurer in the land, which it was until 2001. That year Genworth Canada (then part of the General Electric conglomerate) entered the Canadian mortgage insurance market. Then in 2006, AIG United Guaranty Canada started offering mortgage insurance even on mortgages with 0% down payment – something unheard of in Canada up to that time. They did so with the approval of the Conservative government. From that point, Canada was headed down the same housing bubble road that would drive American financial markets over the brink. On September 16, 2008, Guaranty's US parent company AIG received the largest government bailout (initally $85 billion) for a private company in U.S. history. This put the whole mortgage industry in Canada in some danger of a meltdown.
So Canada's bailout was of a scale comparable to that south of the border. This is all history, but we're not out of the woods yet!
- Chris Aikman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Take Action
- Platform
- Leader
- Party
- News
- Donate
Recent Comments
- Kris Krajewski | 18-May-2013
- David Kempton | 09-May-2013
- Kris Krajewski | 19-Apr-2013
- Anne Marie Benoit | 17-Apr-2013
- Anne Marie Benoit | 17-Apr-2013
- 1 of 2207
- ››
Recent Blogs
- Elizabeth May | 23-May-2013
- David Price | 22-May-2013
- Richard Belshaw | 22-May-2013
- Elizabeth May | 22-May-2013
- Elizabeth May | 19-May-2013
- 1 of 877
- ››




Comments
bailout
As previously discussed. The actions of the government did not constitute a bailout as people understand the term, and the cost is not the value of all mortgages. Simply repeating it again does not make it true.
Further, the assumption of the mortgages was quivalent to taking on BBB debt, and we already were on the hook for them anyway. So the actions of the Canadian government do not in any way resemble TARP.
We're on the hook now
As I tried to clarify above, taxpayers were not on the hook to insure all those mortgages - the two private mortgage insurers were the ones responsible for the highest-risk mortgages. We are on the hook now for the high risks that they undertook.
And having been saved, Genworth Canada and Canadian Guaranty are re-emerging, and doing very well, thank you. See:
http://www.canadianmortgagetrends.com/canadian_mortgage_trends/2010/07/c...
When Henry Paulson gave the American financial sector $700 billion, it was stated "it's not a bailout, it's an investment". Seems that voters in the U.S. did not entirely agree.
Chris Aikman Vancouver Island North
Semantics
It doesn’t matter what you call it. Insurance companies do not have the funds for large-scale catastrophic wide-spread failures so in the end only the Government can provide the money to stop banks and/or insurance companies from going bankrupt as the last resort. Obviously the scale of the problem was orders of magnitude less in Canada than in the U.S. and Europe.
The problem is that it’s the working citizens who have to make up the money by increased taxes and giving up the social benefits they’ve worked their whole lives for and paid into. Banks and traders should be taxed on every sale and trade; just like we are - every time we buy or sell something.
Semantics II
I concur, this may be a matter of semantics. The essence of what happened is far more important.
For perspective on this, here's the view from when the mortgage rescue plan was adopted in October 2008: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip101550
For consequences, here's where we were earlier this year in total debt load: right up there with Ireland and Portugal:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0YOsyi5WbLY/S_WpgdC2dVI/AAAAAAAAAdU/flaf1_x28Y...
Chris Aikman Vancouver Island North
Difficult to read between the lines - Questions
1) The CTV emission refers to the govt. selling bonds, to raise money to buy up 'mortgage backed securities' as they are difficult for the institutions to sell. BUT he doesn't say whether they are of the 'toxic'/worthless American and U.K. variety, OR if they are decent securities backed by OK Canadian mortgages that have simply been painted with the same brush as the global toxic ones and thus can't be moved in the market right now?
Compare: The majority of home owners in Canada have well over 50% equity in their homes. Whereas because Americans can write-off mortgage & loan interest against their taxes (and we can't) - they bought the biggest homes (plus additional properties on speculation) with the largest debt possible and had almost no equity even before the bubble burst. We do not have the enormous inventory of empty and foreclosure homes that the U.S. does., which has put their real estate in a downward spiral.
2) Comparing 'debt' size. Again, household debt must be compared to household equity. Due to the plunge in real estate in both Europe and U.S., as well as stock market fall, families there have negative equity.
Business debt is normally good, because ideally, business only borrows to invest and make a profit (unless we have a deflation spiral). So its 'Sovereign' debt that should be the major concern. If I am reading the chart correctly. (I am assuming that business debt and household debt on the chart is Not debt that Canada owes to individuals and companies, but is separate from govt. debt.)
2 b) But Federal debt alone is misleading. Its the PROVINCES that deliver almost all services; medical, education, roads, and under them, the Municipalities for local services. And the Provinces are carrying horrendous debt which will endanger these essential services. Our Federal govt. does precious little for us; National Parks, Airports, RCMP misdeeds.