Discussions

Home
Discussions
Finances and Investing
Trudeau to allow Bank to take your money if the bank gets in trouble?

Trudeau to allow Bank to take your money if the bank gets in trouble?

eph2-8
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 175

eph2-8
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 175

Trudeau to allow Bank to take your money if the bank gets in trouble?
3/28/2016 at 4:59 PM

http://www.therebel.media/handsoffmymoney?recruiter_id=16564
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf

Here are the two links you should look at. I have a fundamental objections to just going into debt for no reason. The oldest baby boomer turned 70 this year. Long term care and home care are not covered in the health act. So when this generation gets to need that care, starting in about 10 years where is the money coming from? If we are going into debt that means we have to pay it back. When and where does that money come from other than more taxes. The baby boomers will not have that money as they are spenders not savers. (always exceptions to everything)

I like to plan ahead. For those with a 300k mortgage in Brandon if interest rates go up 1% how much will your payments go up? 3000/yr. Plan for it and start building that into your lifestyle and save now. Or work up to saving that now. If you don't and many others don't, how much trouble with the bank be in with default mortgages. Oh ya, not an issue, as they don't need to be responsible they can take depositor's investments to keep them afloat.

Debt is only good on things that will appreciate over time. Banks will take care of themselves first.
thanks
I just needed to rant.....
Edited by admin, 2016-04-04 14:16:45. Reason: Title
fefman
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 583

fefman
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 583

Settle Down
3/28/2016 at 5:24 PM

This was in the making years ago. Read:

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2016/03/25/merchants-of-fear/
tafeel
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 223

tafeel
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 223

....
3/28/2016 at 5:33 PM

Sunny ways and isn't everyone who railed against conservative omnibus budgets protesting in the streets with a liberal omnibus budget. Sunny ways
WestWind
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 76

WestWind
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 76

Old news
3/28/2016 at 5:43 PM

This was discussed as early as 2013 by the Conservative government and Mark Carney. Here is an article to check out.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/common-shareholders-of-banks-will-pay-biggest-price-for-bail-in-report
Cee Jay 55
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 4151

Cee Jay 55
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 4151

lol
3/28/2016 at 7:49 PM

The Rebel.... such a reliable source. /sarcasm

From the Budget link:"INTRODUCING A BANK RECAPITALIZATION
“BAIL-IN” REGIME
To protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the
Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce
that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not
taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a
failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the
bank and allow it to remain open and operating. Such a measure is in line with
international efforts to address the potential risks to the financial system and
broader economy of institutions perceived as “too-big-to-fail”.
The Government is proposing to introduce framework legislation for the
regime along with accompanying enhancements to Canada’s bank resolution
toolkit. Regulations and guidelines setting out further features of the regime
will follow. This will provide stakeholders with an additional opportunity to
comment on elements of the proposed regime.

Are you a shareholder or a creditor if you have an account? Just wondering.... I don't think so but I could be wrong.

Edited by Cee Jay 55, 2016-03-28 19:50:17
PJC
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 314

PJC
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 314

not new
3/28/2016 at 9:07 PM

yeah, this has been in the works for years under both governments. What I haven't heard explained is if that means they are somehow removing the CDIC insurance we have on deposits up to 100k, which would cover most people...

Edited by PJC, 2016-03-28 21:08:16
Happy Trails
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1015

Happy Trails
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1015

Holy Cow
3/28/2016 at 9:31 PM

people are so quick to jump to conclusions about things they don't care to research & understand.

"The Finance Department issued a clarification Tuesday explaining how a Canadian-style bail-in of the banks would work, should it be needed. The statement emphasized that depositors’ money would not be used to help stabilize a shaky bank. Instead, Canadian banks must rely on their own capital, which they must set aside for a rainy day.

While that point was widely known within banking circles when regulators began drawing up the proposed new rules over the past few years, the situation in Cyprus sparked public scrutiny of this arcane issue. Over the weekend, news reports, blogs and Internet discussions began erroneously speculating that Canada’s bail-in plan, which was mentioned in the recent federal budget, could target deposits here."

Full article for people who don't understand here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-clears-up-confusion-over-bank-bail-in/article10697667/
K-S
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 30

K-S
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 30

.
3/28/2016 at 9:37 PM

The Rebel is not a reliable news source. They are "anti-anything not conservative" and write articles based on fear-mongering. I don't even need to read that article to know that it is based on false truths in order to make conservatives blue blood boil.

jdjt
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 61

jdjt

Joined: Feb 2011

Posts: 61

The Globe &; Mail article you linked is

3/29/2016 at 2:00 PM

Happy Trails said "people are so quick to jump to conclusions about things they don't care to research & understand.

"The Finance Department issued a clarification Tuesday explaining how a Canadian-style bail-in of the banks would work, should it be needed. The statement emphasized that depositors’ money would not be used to help stabilize a shaky bank. Instead, Canadian banks must rely on their own capital, which they must set aside for a rainy day.

While that point was widely known within banking circles when regulators began drawing up the proposed new rules over the past few years, the situation in Cyprus sparked public scrutiny of this arcane issue. Over the weekend, news reports, blogs and Internet discussions began erroneously speculating that Canada’s bail-in plan, which was mentioned in the recent federal budget, could target deposits here."

Full article for people who don't understand here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-clears-up-confusion-over-bank-bail-in/article10697667/ "

From April 2013. It explains there was no problems with the Conservative bail in plan. The problem as pointed out by Rebel is the wording of the paragraph on page 223 of the Liberal's budget. After reading it, I'm going to be making some more enquiries once the budget is passed.

JR
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1886

JR
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1886

...
3/29/2016 at 2:20 PM

What a load of right-wing, fear-mongering BS. Nowhere does it say that CDIC coverage is terminated, or that ordinary depositors are classified as "creditors" in the budget. In fact, as pointed out earlier, previous discussions about this change specified that depositors would NOT be considered creditors for a "bail-in" type regulation. Canadian banks are the safest in the world, and, in fact, many US investment gurus recommend to their clients that they invest in our banks.

As for Trudeau as a socialist being equated to a communist, give your head a shake. Canada is now, and always has been, a socialist country - under liberal or conservative governments. Russia and Cuba are communist countries. Do you see any similarities? Educate yourself before you try make such ignorant statements. That kind of attitude and political knowledge is why someone like Trump can be so popular in the US.
goshdarn
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 394

goshdarn
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 394

bunch of fear mongering in that article
3/29/2016 at 5:13 PM

they are referring to shareholders and creditors, not depositors, different that what happened in Cypress.

deposits are protected up to $60,000 and CMHC protects banks that have high ratio mortgage loans.

any mass movement to remove your money from the banks would result in the collapse of the country such as in greece and and cypress and others I imagine.
Rug
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 95

Rug
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 95

Was concerned at first
4/3/2016 at 9:19 AM

When I first started reading about this, but if the bank went bankrupt all that money would be gone anyways. None of which would happen, government would just bail them out long before that happened.
1950sVintage
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 108

1950sVintage
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 108

Deposit Insurance
4/3/2016 at 11:10 AM

Shareholders, i.e. people who bought stock in the bank could loose their money. Depositors are covered by the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation for up to $100,000. If you are an avaerage depositor, you will not loose your savings. See:

http://www.cdic.ca/en/about-di/what-we-cover/Pages/default.aspx