Canadian banks 'earn' $6.55 billion

[Captain Awesome]

removed - Jennylives

[GrooveTunes]

The banks in the USA were bailed out. So were ours. Same, same no matter how you want to spin it. Taxpayers money either way.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/24/the-real-canadian-bank-bailout/

[threadbear]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Green Barbarian]

The banks in the USA were bailed out. So were ours. Same, same no matter how you want to spin it. Taxpayers money either way.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/24/the-real-canadian-bank-bailout/

No the Canadian banks weren't bailed out. This was a complete falsehood, and more garbage from the fools at the CCPA. This poll is a joke too. I have friends who work at banks here in Canada, and they definitely deserve their wages, whatever that means, especially the ones on the front lines who have to deal with idiots all day crying and complaining. Shame on you who voted "no" - you really have no clue what you are talking about.

[Urbane]

No the Canadian banks weren't bailed out. This was a complete falsehood, and more garbage from the fools at the CCPA. This poll is a joke too. I have friends who work at banks here in Canada, and they definitely deserve their wages, whatever that means, especially the ones on the front lines who have to deal with idiots all day crying and complaining. Shame on you who voted "no" - you really have no clue what you are talking about.

No the Canadian banks weren't bailed out but some people keep posting the same old bogus stuff that's already been refuted on another thread. Since Harper's "hidden agenda" didn't pan out some people have turned to just making things up to see that works.

[threadbear]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Green Barbarian]

Sorry, I got into this late. And I worked the front line at Toronto-Dominion Bank way back then the hyphen was still in, and I would agree that the front line deserves their wage now if they have my same work ethic, but maybe not the top guys and the investors, and I was rather hasty with my post, and I don’t what to get yelled at, but in my quest for knowledge, could someone please tell we what this means considering the source seems to be the CMHC?

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2008/2008-10-10-1700.cfm

Thanks.

I would bet good money that most of the posters here have no clue what the "top guys" at Canadian banks make. I still don't understand what this infatuation is with what the "top guys" at companies make. Who cares? If you don't like it, then go out and do the job and put in the effort to become one yourself. Otherwise, you just sound like whiny babies.

Also - why would anyone on earth be against the investors of Canadian banks making money? That is just so ridiculous, especially since almost every Canadian is an investor in Canadian banks, either via mutual funds or via the Canada Pension Plan. The ignorance being displayed in this thread is just beyond the pale. Clearly a few of you have swallowed the giant mass of noice and craziness from the US, and are now incapable of separating this from the Canadian banking system, such that you make these gross generalizations under false assumptions, such that you all look incredibly foolish.

[threadbear]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GrooveTunes]

removed personal attack - Jennylives

[GrooveTunes]

Okay, so I really appreciate your attention, and since you put it the way you did I agree that the top guys and inverstors in companies should be paid, because my wife was the top guy in her company and I was her main ivestor, we worked hard and we got 'educated,' and we serviced our clients efficeintly, made money and paid staff and our employer's portion of CPP and EI and our taxes and our line of credit all on time and then she sold her business at profit as a viable business.

But, again, in terms of how this discusion seems to have taken a turn, could you please tell me what this means?
I tested the link at it works for me.

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2008/2008-10-10-1700.cfm

Thanks, agqain.

It means the taxpayer bought all those mortgages off the banks therefore giving them taxpayer money to continue doing business. As well as the taxpayer insuring those mortgages through CMHC, we now own them. IN SHORT......bailout! The banks were over their heads when the credit crunch hit.

[Urbane]

It sounds like a wonderful conspiracy theory: Banks get secret bailout worth $114 billion during the 2008 recession!

Bailout discovered by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

In fact, this is all hooey. There was no bailout of our banks. The government did, in 2008, set aside $200 billion to help all Canadian businesses and households hit by the global credit crunch and banks were the tool the government used to help us all out.

Taxpayer money was never at risk of being lost and, in fact, taxpayers are making a tidy profit with the credit crunch assistance program.

And secret? Well, it was announced in the glare of the 2008 federal election campaign and Parliament has since voted on these deals in at least two federal budgets — all of which was widely reported in our largest-circulation newspapers.

So why float this conspiracy theory now? On that question, it is very hard to ignore the links between the CCPA, the political left in Canada and the May Day Occupy protests which were to get going Tuesday.

A secret conspiracy to give bankers billions, you say?

Perfect propaganda for the Occupy crowd but lousy research from a think tank which has, in the past, done very credible work analyzing, for example, Canadian and provincial budgets from a progressive perspective.

As Laval University economist Stephen Gordon noted on Twitter, the CCPA “took a low-grade Internet conspiracy, worked it up to a 25-page ‘study’ and managed to get the media to report it as news.”

In fact, what happened in 2008 was, businesses large and small across Canada could not get the cash from their banks they needed to carry on everyday activities. The banks were literally cash-stripped as their own lines of credit froze up.

The federal government’s response to this problem was to find ways to get cash into the hands of banks so banks could do what they are supposed to do and lend it to businesses and households.

One way this happened was in exchange for Ottawa’s cash, the banks would sign over a pile of mortgages held by those banks.

The mortgages, virtually all of which were already insured by the federal taxpayer through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., would go on the government’s books and act as collateral for the billions lent to the banks.

On top of these virtually risk-free loans, the government charged the banks “commercial rates” for the privilege.

The banks paid up, got the cash and lent it to businesses to meet their payrolls and carry on doing the work they were doing.

This is not, by any definition of the word, a bailout. A bailout implies Canada’s banks, like banks in Europe, the U.S., or like GM and Chrysler, were about to go under without federal cash. Not true.

None of Canada’s banks were ever, at any time, at risk of going under.

Banks in the U.S. and in Europe needed governments there to bail them out by actually buying risky ownership stakes in those banks with public funds.

But our banks would have survived without the federal government’s actions in 2008.

What might not have survived, on the other hand, is hundreds or even thousands of Canadian businesses which were literally running out of money they needed to carry on.

Perhaps that’s something for the Occupy crowd to consider this week — how small businesses depend on a healthy, functioning banking system.
http://m.torontosun.com/2012/05/01/bank ... propaganda

[The Green Barbarian]

It means the taxpayer bought all those mortgages off the banks .

No they didn't. This just plain isn't true.

[Homeownertoo]

The banks in the USA were bailed out. So were ours. Same, same no matter how you want to spin it. Taxpayers money either way.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/24/the-real-canadian-bank-bailout/

If you actually read the piece, you'd have seen there was no bailout, just a temporary assumption of financial risk transferred to the federal government and on which it made a profit. It would have been derelict for the government not do so under the circumstances (risk of entire financial system collapse/new Great Depression), though in the end it was not needed. Repeat after me: There was no bank bailout in Canada.

[Homeownertoo]

It means the taxpayer bought all those mortgages off the banks therefore giving them taxpayer money to continue doing business. As well as the taxpayer insuring those mortgages through CMHC, we now own them. IN SHORT......bailout! The banks were over their heads when the credit crunch hit.

It means nothing of the sort. Canadian banks were not in any way over their heads. Stop spreading such uninformed garbage.

[Homeownertoo]

I long ago learned, when I was still a working journalist, not to trust a word out of the Canadian Centre for Unworkable Policies. But it is to the Canadian media's deep shame that it keeps treating it as a credible source and regurgitating their garbage as if it were credible news. Some people only need to hear what they want believe to credit it with the truth. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.