Canada's
biggest banks accepted tens of billions in government funds during the
recession, according to a report released today by the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives.
Canada's
banking system is often lauded for being one of the world's safest. But an
analysis by CCPA senior economist David Macdonald concluded that Canada's major
lenders were in a far worse position during the downturn than previously
believed.
Macdonald
examined data provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the big banks
themselves for his report published Monday.
It
says support for Canadian banks from various agencies reached $114 billion at
its peak. That works out to $3,400 for every man, woman and child in Canada,
and also to seven per cent of Canada's gross domestic product in 2009.
The
figure is also 10 times the amount Canadian taxpayers spent on the auto
industry in 2009.
"At
some point during the crisis, three of Canada's banks — CIBC, BMO, and
Scotiabank — were completely under water, with government support exceeding the
market value of the company," Macdonald said.
"Without
government supports to fall back on, Canadian banks would have been in serious
trouble."
During
October 2008 and June 2010, the banks combined to report $27 billion in profits
on their balance sheets.
CMHC
mortgage program aided banks
One
of the most well-known ways in which policymakers helped the banks during the
crisis is through a $69-billion CMHC program whereby the housing agency took
mortgages off the balance sheets of big Canadian banks. In contrast with other
support facilities, all of the funds granted by the CMHC were through selling
assets (in this case mortgages) to the housing agency. They were not funds that
had to be paid back.
The
CMHC has provided the aggregate total of how much was given out, but has yet to
release specifics on which banks sold how much to them, and when, the CCPA
says.
When
asked for comment in reaction to the CCPA report, the Canadian Bankers
Association noted that the $69 billion that Canada's big banks sold into the
CMHC program is in fact only 55 per cent of what was allocated for the program.
"Many
of the mortgages were already insured and therefore, created no additional risk
for the government," the CBA noted in an email to CBC News. The CMHC
estimates that by the time the program is wound up, it will have generated $2.5
billion in profit as those mortgages are paid off, the bankers' group noted.
Calling
the CCPA report "completely baseless," Department of Finance
spokesperson Chisholm Pothier noted that the mortgage program has already
generated more than $1.2 billion in net revenues for the CMHC's coffers.
But
Canadian lenders also dipped into a program set up by the U.S. Federal Reserve
aimed at providing cash to keep American banks afloat. CIBC and BMO took almost
$3 billion each out of the fund, RBC and TD took out $8 billion and Scotiabank
drew down almost $12 billion, the CCPA report found.
'These
funding measures were not put in place because banks were in financial
difficulty.'—Canadian Bankers' Association
That
data came from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which released it publicly. But
Macdonald's analysis found that Canadian banks got a comparable amount — $41
billion — from Bank of Canada facilities, an agency that has been far less
transparent in sharing information.
"Despite
Access to Information requests for the data, the Bank of Canada refuses to
release it," the CCPA report states.
"The
federal government claims it was offering the banks 'liquidity support,' but it
looks an awful lot like a bailout to me," says Macdonald. "Whatever
you call it, Canadian government aid for the country's biggest banks was far
more indispensable than the official line would suggest.
"The
support for Canadian banks was much more substantial than Canadians were led to
believe," Macdonald said.
The
Canadian Bankers Association disputes the notion that the funds in question
were any sort of bailout, arguing they were routine transactions aimed at
keeping the financial system liquid.
"These
funding measures were put in place to ensure that credit was available to lend
to businesses and consumers to help the economy through the recession,"
the CBA said. "These funding measures were not put in place because banks
were in financial difficulty."
Since
the start of the recession, the CBA notes 436 U.S. banks have failed. No
Canadian financial institution went under, but Canada's banking sector was hit
by an overall crisis of confidence in the banking sector that caused some of
the banks' normal lending sources to dry up, the CBA says.
Canadian
banks get about two-thirds of their funding from consumer and business
deposits, but the other third comes from credit markets.
"It
was these markets that were seizing up. Funding was less available," the
CBA says. "Canadian banks continued to lend and increased their lending
after some non-bank lenders pulled out of the Canadian market."
While
some of the funding came from government sources such as the Bank of Canada,
the bankers' association points out that the central bank itself says Canadian
banks needed less official central bank liquidity support than their foreign
counterparts.
"The
credit was extended at competitive interest rates to protect taxpayers,"
Pothier said. "Financial institutions accepting this credit paid interest
on the loans."
To
show the scale of the funding, the CCPA report contrasted the total value of
the support Canadian banks took against the bank's total value at the time.
Under that comparison, CIBC received $21 billion in support — almost 1.5 times
the value of the company at the time. BMO maxed out at $17 billion or 118 per
cent, Scotiabank peaked at $25 billion or 100 per cent of its value, while TD
and RBC maxed out at $26 billion and $25 billion — good enough for 69 and 63
per cent, respectively, of the total value of those companies at the time.
"It
would have been cheaper to buy every single share in these companies,"
Macdonald said.
But
the CBA disputes those numbers too, saying comparing a bank's value to the
level with which it participated in a liquidity program aimed at boosting
confidence in the market is "an apples to oranges comparison as the two
factors are not at all related."
"The
Oxford dictionary defines bailout as 'financial assistance to a failing
business or economy to save it from collapse," the Canadian Bankers
Association noted.
"That
definitely was not the case here: not one bank in Canada was in danger of going
bankrupt or required the government to buy an equity stake under
taxpayer-funded bailouts."
No comments. Again. Why are we so passive or trusting or whatever it is that we didn't become outraged?
ReplyDelete